(October 27, 2014 at 7:09 pm)trmof Wrote: I have a non-sarcastic question: If perfect bionic eyes existed or full eye transplants were possible, and a person you never met contacted you out of the blue and said God told them to purchase you a new eye, would you consider this evidence of the existence of God?

No, that would be silly. It would only be evidence of the existence of people who think God tells them to do things.

(October 27, 2014 at 6:19 pm)trmof Wrote: For which claim did I provide no evidence?

I think probably the notion that 'hard atheism' somehow motivates people to commit genocide. You don't even have reasonable evidence that any of the 'genociders' you're talking about were 'hard atheists'. Anti-theists might be a fair cop, but a 'soft atheist' can be an anti-theist too. Atheism isn't an ideology, it's not accepting the proposition that gods are real. No matter how sure you are that you're right about that, 'kill the believers' is not connected to it. Stalin was a power-mad paranoid dictator with greater access to means of murdering millions than any previous power-mad paranoid dictator. It's a great argument against any form of totalitarian government, a poor argument against atheism. It would be a poor argument against theism had Stalin been a theist. However, it might be a good argument against the form of religion that Stalin practiced, just as it's a good argument against the form of political ideology that Stalin practiced.

(October 27, 2014 at 6:19 pm)trmof Wrote: Fair enough, if you are able to provide me with evidence of my own motivations, I will provide you with evidence of their motivations.

Your motivation is to troll. The evidence is the posts you have made here clearly intended to incite anger among people who identify with a certain demographic that you're villifying. And that really is the most charitable interpretation.

(October 27, 2014 at 7:28 pm)trmof Wrote: I believe you will find you are in the minority among atheists on this issue.

Odd. I often find myself in the company of atheists, and my experience is that he is in the vast majority of atheists on this issue.

---

(October 27, 2014 at 7:36 pm)trmof Wrote:

(October 27, 2014 at 7:32 pm)Alex K Wrote: That we ourselves would qualify from the perspective of people a mere 150 years ago. It is a ridiculously weak definition. Noone would deny it, and it is not a useful definition of gods.

Yes, if we invented time travel and traveled 150 years into the past, we would rightfully be seen as gods and could probably convince people to worship us. How is that not useful definition?

Considered as gods, sure, but rightfully considered as gods? So time-travellers, advanced aliens, people who invent a new futuristic gadget...all actual gods? If a technician at a particle physics lab triggers a new universe, she would actually be God (at least of that universe)?

No, I don't think it's a useful definition. It's too inclusive. I suggest that the powers of a god should be supernatural as well as amazing. Else there's no difference between a real god and a pretender. It could all be showmanship.

The problem with defining any sort of atheism is that the definition of god differs depending not only the religion, but the person in that religion you talk to.

Against claims of omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolant gods it is easy to show it's not logically possible. So I would take the stance of hard atheism there, I have no problem saying I know that something that is impossible isn't possible. The idea that if a being created something as complex as the universe it must also be able to do anything is bizarre. The other claims are just as silly.

Against some wishy washy kind of creator thing, no one can know for sure if there is one. And since it appears to have no effect on our universe after it created it, its existence is kind of irrelevant.

The crap that is done in the name of religion is what is relevant.

(October 28, 2014 at 7:48 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Trmof, I believe I have heard of your kind of proof before, and let me make you aware of this. Preachers, especially evangelical preachers have been using hypnotic techniques on congregations for years, both knowingly and unknowingly. And when you have a audience that already has such a high suspension of disbelief, combined with your position of trust and authority, you can basically make them believe/feel anything. How do you think they get people to drink gasoline thinking its pineapple juice? You can also use hypnosis to self induce visions and all sorts of crazy shit. I did it once, had a vision of a bird of prey flying at me through my closed eyelids.
I'm not trying to demean your experience, as you have not shared the personal detials. However if I can induce a girl to orgasm through hypnosis then I would find it hard to explain why it would not be able to account for Christian spiritual experiences. That would make for some fascinating experimentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyhKMo15apI

(October 27, 2014 at 7:44 pm)trmof Wrote: Well in that case, it is possible that God simply sees it as useless to try communicating with you.

If the man told you Allah commanded him to provide you with that eye, and that Allah is the true creator, would you believe him? Because it seems to me you have no more grounds to reject his claim than we do.

---

(October 27, 2014 at 7:49 pm)trmof Wrote: What if the man told you he Was God. What else would he have to do?

I would invite him to convince me. Surely convincing me is not beyond the means of someone as wise as God? Surely God would know exactly what to do to convince me and could not fail to do so, right? He would even be welcome to compel my belief. I know that's setting the bar awfully low, since there could be some sort of mind control technology involved, but if he can make me believe, that's that.

Is there anything unfair to God in that response?

---

(October 27, 2014 at 8:01 pm)trmof Wrote: On a related note, I have so far posted three topics on this forum, none of which were about me or my religion. Every single one of them was derailed into a debate about me and my religion almost immediately. I would posit that this does not happen nearly as often on Christian forums when atheists show up.

You would posit it, but you woudn't do anything to prove it, would you?

(October 27, 2014 at 4:14 pm)trmof Wrote: I would like to get your general opinions on the validity of hard atheism. Specifically, I would like to get the views of the agnostic atheists. The reason being, just as confrontational and irrational Christians are much more likely to seek out a bitter debate with atheists than those who follow the example of Christ, hard atheists are also more likely to seek out a bitter debate than agnostic atheists.

The problem of Christians behaving in an a manner which besmirches Christianity is often discussed, both on the internet and in the real world. However, I think the issue of hard atheists painting agnostic atheists in a bad light is hardly ever addressed, and as a consequence agnostic atheists are less likely to correct hard atheists on their rational errors than Christians are to correct their fellow Christians on theological ones.

And so a poll: Do you think that hard atheism is irrational considering that man can not know what he doesn't know?

"hard atheism" what does that mean? Is that like pale 3% beer vs dark 5% beer?

I think when using the term agnostic atheist what is lacking is the issue of time, in past, present and future.

I have no doubt all past and present claims of god/s are bullshit. I am only strictly semantically "agnostic" about the future in that I have not lived the future, but even in this case, I find it highly unlikely to a great degree that science will ever find a god in a gap at all.

With all the evidence of dead myths and dead gods, and scientific proof of flawed perceptions like seeing the butterfly in the ink blot not being a real butterfly, I see no point clinging to the naked assertion of a invisible sky hero which in reality is nothing more than humans projecting their own desires on the world around them.

For sure. The real world has enough to be concerned about without considering absurdities as well.

(October 27, 2014 at 8:11 pm)trmof Wrote:

(October 27, 2014 at 8:01 pm)Chas Wrote: You are joking, correct? You made a claim that they were motivated by atheism, you must support it or we will dismiss it.

I made no such claim, I merely pointed out that they were atheists. I made no comment on their motivations.

You said this on page 2: "We can agree on all of that. However, hard atheists are just as likely to conflate peaceful Christians with extreme ones and blindly attack them as extremist Christians are to do the same. I think we should have just as much condemnation for the intolerance of hard atheists as we do for violent Christians."

You skipped the step of showing that 'hard atheism' is the relevant characteristic of the people you're complaining about...or even that they have a tendency to be 'hard atheists'. And if you don't regard 'hard atheism' as being the motivator, you may as well have not said that all, as you could as easily have complained about Caucasian men with moustaches oppressing minorities when they're in charge. You're at least making claims about their behavior, which is also unsubstantiated.

---

(October 27, 2014 at 8:28 pm)trmof Wrote: No, the fact that they had no objective reason to value human life made it easier for them to kill people. That is not a motivation, it is just of fact of their ideology. If I had to guess I would say their motivations were personal power, wealth, and land, but since I am not a mind reader I am unable to comment on anyone's motivations but my own.

Atheism is not an ideology, it's an opinon. Their ideology was communism...and you KNOW that.

---

(October 27, 2014 at 8:33 pm)trmof Wrote: They probably couldn't feel remorse because they were sociopaths. I myself am a sociopath, so remorse does nothing to keep me from killing people. Religion does that.

I didn't want to come out and say it, but that explains a lot. You really can't figure out why you shouldn't murder people if you don't think God says not to. But being religious demonstrably does not stop some sociopaths from becoming murderers and not being religious demonstrably does not always lead to other sociopaths being murderers. The threat of far-off punishment doesn't deter sociopaths (that's part of what it means to be a sociopath), it's just that most of them are not actually homicidal...for practical reasons in this life that have to do with the immediate repercussions, and the fact that they do need some kind of reason to trouble themselves to go to the effort. Sociopaths mimic moral behavior to 'blend in'. Sociopaths want to win, and murdering folks can get in the way of that. You may be telling yourself that it's religion that's stopping you from murdering, but it isn't. It's the consequences in this life. If you wanted to kill someone and knew you could get away with it, you would. Just 'repent' later. God forgives, right?

And if you're right, you're going to roast anyway. You can't honestly repent of your sins. You can't really feel bad about them, or honestly regret the harm you've done. And that's a necessary part of the salvation recipe in most versions of Christianity.

It's good that you're a high-functioning sociopath (it could be much worse), but I'd much rather you be aware of the legal and personal consequences that will fuck up your life royally if you commit murder than count on your adherence to commands you think came from your deity, especially if it's the one that's so forgiving.

The contact you believe you've had with God is more interesting to me now, though. Are you schizophrenic as well?

In either (or both) case, I hope you've been diagnosed by a professional. It would be a shame for you to think you're sociopathic if you're really not. It's a spectrum, maybe you're only a little sociopathic. Or maybe you're high-functioning enough to actually want to manage your sociopathy. Good luck with your mental health, I wish you the best on that.

I think there are no gods. I think people who believe gods act within them or the world are mistaken. I think my beliefs are rational.

(October 27, 2014 at 9:23 pm)trmof Wrote: I think I'd rather leave it at you admitting that I was right.

Theism has no bearing on behavior, either. It's just an opinion. You've been avoiding talking about what actually motivates people: the things they DO believe. If I were a Stalinist, I might believe Stalin made the right call. But I'm not a Stalinist. Get it?

---

(October 27, 2014 at 10:58 pm)trmof Wrote: I doubt whether anybodies beliefs have anything to do with their treatment of anybody. Except for mine, of course. I'm much more polite than the vast majority of other commenters.

Especially those really polite bits where you say we don't have a problem with genocide, right? You're such a gentleman, and advancing the cause of civilized dialogue in a truly informed and nonjudgmental manner.

(October 27, 2014 at 4:14 pm)trmof Wrote: And so a poll: Do you think that hard atheism is irrational considering that man can not know what he doesn't know?

Not if the said atheist gives valid reasons for that belief and ofcourse a man can know what he doesn't know.

---

(October 27, 2014 at 5:10 pm)trmof Wrote: Without proof that they can show you, you mean.

Without proof that can be regarded as a rational justification of the belief.

(October 27, 2014 at 5:10 pm)trmof Wrote: That does not mean God has not provided sufficient proof to them. I would fall into that category. God has proven his existence to me in a way which I can not adequately describe to another person, a way which is metaphysical, transcendent, and glorious beyond words, and it should be no surprise that I wish others to experience the same thing. If you choose not to believe me then that is fine, but I would hope that you would believe my intentions are pure.

This bullshit is the definition of insufficient proof.

(October 27, 2014 at 5:10 pm)trmof Wrote: If you are willing to concede that a god or gods could possibly exist, then you are an agnostic atheist.

Wrong. Conceding possibility of existence is not the same as acknowledging an absence of knowledge regarding existence. For example, I concede the possibility that there could be an elephant in my room, but since my room is in full view, I know there isn't an elephant here.

(October 27, 2014 at 5:10 pm)trmof Wrote: If you consider it a fact that no such thing does or can exist, then you are a hard atheist or gnostic atheist.

Saying it doesn't exist and saying it can't exist are two different things. Some versions of god are illogical and therefore can't exist. Others can, but don't.

---

(October 27, 2014 at 5:18 pm)trmof Wrote: We can agree on all of that. However, hard atheists are just as likely to conflate peaceful Christians with extreme ones and blindly attack them as extremist Christians are to do the same. I think we should have just as much condemnation for the intolerance of hard atheists as we do for violent Christians.

The only problem is, we don't see many "intolerant" or "violent" atheists around here.

(October 27, 2014 at 5:18 pm)trmof Wrote: Yes, contrary to popular belief, many if not most Christians believe in the existence of many gods. They simply believe that the creator God made them and that they rebelled. I believe Allah exists, I just think he's a prick.

I agree. Oh, and Allah is your god.

---

(October 27, 2014 at 5:24 pm)trmof Wrote: Yes, I do know that God exists. Whether or not you believe me and whether or not I can share that knowledge with you has no bearing on that knowledge. I am a gnostic Christian. I know God exists.

If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

(October 27, 2014 at 5:24 pm)trmof Wrote: There is a small yet very vocal contingent of hard atheists who advocate for the genocide of all religious people. From your statements I'm sure you would agree these people are fucking nuts. I think it's high time for a more civilized dialogue between atheists and the religious, and while violent Christians are constantly condemned, there is much less acknowledgement of the danger of hard atheism. For example, if the subject of Stalin or Mao and the millions of people they killed is brought up, it often leads to a "no true atheist" argument.

Ah, the old standby. Except, no one is denying they were atheists. What is being denied is that they killed in the name of atheism.