I didn't assume materialism to begin with, because I was a small child who didn't know about gods. As I grew older, religious claims and god-fervor just seemed bewilderingly pointless. I never made a choice to be an atheist. Again, if you held a gun to my head and told me that I'd better believe or else, I would of course try mightily, but I'd fail, just as you would fail if you were asked to believe in Allah or Zeus. You and I are both in serious danger of Islamic hell if Muslims are right, but that idea worries neither of us.

What is it that you think atheists are missing in their lives that religion could give them?

And why are you so determined to believe that atheism is a choice?

Now tell me what I believe and think and that I'm not a real atheist.

(October 8, 2013 at 3:01 pm)Zazzy Wrote: I didn't assume materialism to begin with, because I was a small child who didn't know about gods. As I grew older, religious claims and god-fervor just seemed bewilderingly pointless. I never made a choice to be an atheist. Again, if you held a gun to my head and told me that I'd better believe or else, I would of course try mightily, but I'd fail, just as you would fail if you were asked to believe in Allah or Zeus. You and I are both in serious danger of Islamic hell if Muslims are right, but that idea worries neither of us.

If you're comparing God as in the eternal creator to Zeus a created being then you don't have a good understanding of what God is meant to be to begin with. Even if you want to be an atheist you need study your theology a bit first. But at least you're claiming that you choose atheism as a belief which is what it is, even if it was essentially a reaction against the fundies or whoever who are in a way determining what you believe.

Quote:What is it that you think atheists are missing in their lives that religion could give them?

A relationship with the living God? Well you already have that but an understanding/experience of it, that's the main thing you're lacking.

Quote:And why are you so determined to believe that atheism is a choice?

You said you made an active choice to be an atheist and explained why? It's a belief and you decided to adhere to it.

Quote:Now tell me what I believe and think and that I'm not a real atheist.

You seem real enough an atheist to me, I'm a good judge of these things. Though not a knowledgeable/convicted atheist if you're comparing God to Zeus.

(October 8, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: If you're comparing God as in the eternal creator to Zeus a created being then you don't have a good understanding of what God is meant to be to begin with.

Of course, this is your version of god I don't understand, right? The true version that nobody holds except you, right? From what I've read of your garbled theology in other threads, I doubt anyone but you understands your god- which is fine. Do you know how many theists who disagree with your version have said the same thing to people here? I could spend my entire life learning about everyone's version of god- and they would all be equally unbelievable.

Quote: Even if you want to be an atheist you need study your theology a bit first.

No, I wouldn't. I did, however, take 2 years of theology. But it's nice that you yet again are telling me what I know and don't know. You really have a bad habit with that.

Atheists don't believe. They are without god-belief. Studying your specific sect of Christian theology won't change that. Have YOU studied every other religion on Earth carefully before settling on yours? Because if not, that would seem to put you in the same position.

Quote: But at least you're claiming that you choose atheism as a belief which is what it is, even if it was essentially a reaction against the fundies or whoever who are in a way determining what you believe.

I did no such thing and you know it. Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF. That's what I said, and I know how badly you want to torture it into what you want, and I guess that's just to try to annoy me?

Quote:A relationship with the living God? Well you already have that but an understanding/experience of it, that's the main thing you're lacking.

Correct. I have no experience of it. I also have no experience of my relationship with Captain Picard, probably because I don't believe he really exists (unfortunately).

Quote:You said you made an active choice to be an atheist and explained why? It's a belief and you decided to adhere to it.

I said the EXACT opposite of that. Not one thing about the above quote is true. Does Jesus approve of liars, Sword?

Quote:You seem real enough an atheist to me, I'm a good judge of these things. Though not a knowledgeable/convicted atheist if you're comparing God to Zeus.

Yes- you clearly are good at judging other people- you do it in every post you make. You're just bad at doing it with any accuracy.

Last I checked, Zeus was a god. A different god than your god, but a god. I guess Allah is not a god, either?

(October 8, 2013 at 2:09 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Here is the most important reason anyone (well most) is a atheist. Our default stance is to disbelief in something until it meet the burden of proof

Burden of proof Wrote:Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

.

Now religion has a heavy burden because of the extraordinary claims made, and the reason we disbelief is because no evidence that is properly verifiable has been offered to to date.

Hold on there, cowboy. The fact that religion is widespread across time and cultures shows that it meets the evidential standard determined by convention or community. This definition goes against your position.

(October 8, 2013 at 11:08 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: What? You're not an atheist because you enjoy eating babies?

Got one in the pot right now.



Shit! It's still raw!

(October 8, 2013 at 3:57 pm)Zazzy Wrote: Of course, this is your version of god I don't understand, right? The true version that nobody holds except you, right?

No the version of God central to the Abrahamic faiths. That's the the one you're not understanding if you're comparing it to Zeus. Not the same thing even if Zeus was real, this should be stressed.

Quote:From what I've read of your garbled theology in other threads, I doubt anyone but you understands your god- which is fine.

It's not something necessarily confined to human understanding. But again if you're comparing it to Zeus or any created being you're completely off tangent. You may see Sam Harris or whoever do this but as far as this subject is concerned he is an ignoramus he doesn't know a lot about it.

Quote:Do you know how many theists who disagree with your version have said the same thing to people here? I could spend my entire life learning about everyone's version of god- and they would all be equally unbelievable.

It's not "my version" it is what God is meant to be in Abrahamic faiths. Yes there are disagreements about it but no-one agrees its the same thing as Zeus. We don't believe in created gods that's the very first thing the Bible throws out. You could say angels and what have you are kind of like created gods and that's a fair comparison. The difference is no-one worships angels but they did worship Zeus.

Quote:
No, I wouldn't. I did, however, take 2 years of theology. But it's nice that you yet again are telling me what I know and don't know. You really have a bad habit with that.

I don't know what kind of theology class you took. You don't compare Zeus to Yahweh you really ought to have known better than that.

(October 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm)John V Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 2:09 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Here is the most important reason anyone (well most) is a atheist. Our default stance is to disbelief in something until it meet the burden of proof

.

Now religion has a heavy burden because of the extraordinary claims made, and the reason we disbelief is because no evidence that is properly verifiable has been offered to to date.

Hold on there, cowboy. The fact that religion is widespread across time and cultures shows that it meets the evidential standard determined by convention or community. This definition goes against your position.

Either that, or...

That people are gullible across time and cultures... and there's always a conman taking advantage of that gullibility.

(October 8, 2013 at 4:49 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: No the version of God central to the Abrahamic faiths. That's the the one you're not understanding if you're comparing it to Zeus. Not the same thing even if Zeus was real, this should be stressed.

Yeah- I'm getting that you don't like that comparison. Why don't you say exactly what it is about that that is so offensive? And as I said before, you are upset that apparently no one shares your particular view of god, a fact that should not be astonishing to you since you cherry-picked it for yourself. And that's perfectly fine if it gets you through the day- I don't care what you believe, but getting pissy at others for not getting it is pretty narcissistic.

Quote:It's not something necessarily confined to human understanding.

Even yours, apparently. But that's a nice way to sign off of the conversation- humans can't understand it.

Quote:But again if you're comparing it to Zeus or any created being you're completely off tangent. You may see Sam Harris or whoever do this but as far as this subject is concerned he is an ignoramus he doesn't know a lot about it.

Hard to believe as this may be, I am actually not Sam Harris. But nice of you to assume that he is my intellectual master. You just keep going with those really bad judgments.

Quote:It's not "my version" it is what God is meant to be in Abrahamic faiths. Yes there are disagreements about it but no-one agrees its the same thing as Zeus.

Yeah, you're upset about Zeus. Either explain why it's so annoying or drop it. There are disagreements, all right- if you count everyone's personal understanding of god there are THOUSANDS of different sects of Christianity, and they clash over really, really significant things, and those clashes have real consequences in the world. Have you studied every version with great care, and of every other religion, too? Or are you avoiding that question? Since I know you haven't, how does that make you different from me?

Quote: We don't believe in created gods that's the very first thing the Bible throws out. You could say angels and what have you are kind of like created gods and that's a fair comparison. The difference is no-one worships angels but they did worship Zeus.

You are going to have to explain this a little further, since it doesn't do anything to address why this comparison upsets you so much.

Quote:I don't know what kind of theology class you took. You don't compare Zeus to Yahweh you really ought to have known better than that.

Standard Christian apologetics. I will grant that I was not the most attentive student in it, and it was years ago, but I did read the Bible with great enthusiasm. It's a zippy read. We did not discuss Zeus in those classes, but I know my Greek mythology pretty well- it's more interesting than Christian mythology.

So you are simply not going to address your erroneous judgments about atheism and presupposition, or explain to me about how your knowledge of all world religions/sects has convinced you that yours is right?

---

(October 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm)John V Wrote: Hold on there, cowboy. The fact that religion is widespread across time and cultures shows that it meets the evidential standard determined by convention or community. This definition goes against your position.

John- I know you're busy in this conversation and I don't wish to derail you, but religions across time and cultures are very, very different. What IS consistent is the notion of a deity as someone powerful and immortal.

Some reasons for this:
1.) Attempts to explain the natural world (thunder, disease, earthquakes, etc)
2.) Spiritual experiences (many of which I am convinced are very real neurological experiences, and which are not confined to theists).
3.) Brains wired to look for pattern and meaning
4.) Most significantly: indoctrination from birth by one's cultural/religious group.

These explanations are all you need to explain god-phenomenon, and the rising numbers of atheists and new sects show that these experiences are no longer as powerful as they once were. Of course, I know that you probably have had a personal experience I do not understand that proved god to you (#2), but since I can't share or understand it, all I can say is that the only person convinced by it is you.

I don't expect a reply- just throwing in my 2 cents.

Because it's just the right thing to do.

(October 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm)John V Wrote: Hold on there, cowboy. The fact that religion is widespread across time and cultures shows that it meets the evidential standard determined by convention or community. This definition goes against your position.

The number of people who believe in something doesn't make it true, nor does the length of time something's been believed.

---

(October 8, 2013 at 4:49 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: I don't know what kind of theology class you took. You don't compare Zeus to Yahweh you really ought to have known better than that.

When you understand why you don't believe in Zeus, you'll understand why we don't believe in Yahweh.