RE: What is your favoured argument FOR atheism
February 26, 2011 at 1:22 pm
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2011 at 1:33 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
all of the choices are good choices, and I have used everyone of them. I voted "Religious confusion".
As an absurdist I use the fact of religious confusion the most. "Personal revelation" screams "personal intent". If any form of divinity actuall really did exist, then there would be no argument about it. People do not argue wether apples exist or not. People do not argue wether the moon exists or not. But each and every single believer not only argue their own personal deity as opposed to other deities, but their arguments ALWAYS reflect their personal loves and hatreds as coming out of the mouth of their own personal deity. Their personal god supports everything the believer hates and loves. Therefore guilty through INTENT. It all breaks down to arguments of authority, the authority reflects the arguers intent to manipulate those around them without the need to justify his or her commands.
Whenever the word "god" appears in the arguments of a believer, you can rest assured that what follows will be a list of do's and dont's that reflect the personal views and intents of the one invoking the word "god".
To me, when someone says "god", it usually really means "do what I tell you to do."
I care not if a deity exists or not. My position is if said deity is worth worshipping and following. I have yet to hear or read about a deity that did not scream the intents of the author. Therefore those deities are fictional. If evidence that a real, actual deity existed appeared before me, it would not change my view that said deity does not deserve worship and respect. Malevolent deities do not deserve praise or respect and further add proof to the absurdity of a divinity in general.
Also what apophenia said.
As an absurdist I use the fact of religious confusion the most. "Personal revelation" screams "personal intent". If any form of divinity actuall really did exist, then there would be no argument about it. People do not argue wether apples exist or not. People do not argue wether the moon exists or not. But each and every single believer not only argue their own personal deity as opposed to other deities, but their arguments ALWAYS reflect their personal loves and hatreds as coming out of the mouth of their own personal deity. Their personal god supports everything the believer hates and loves. Therefore guilty through INTENT. It all breaks down to arguments of authority, the authority reflects the arguers intent to manipulate those around them without the need to justify his or her commands.
Whenever the word "god" appears in the arguments of a believer, you can rest assured that what follows will be a list of do's and dont's that reflect the personal views and intents of the one invoking the word "god".
To me, when someone says "god", it usually really means "do what I tell you to do."
I care not if a deity exists or not. My position is if said deity is worth worshipping and following. I have yet to hear or read about a deity that did not scream the intents of the author. Therefore those deities are fictional. If evidence that a real, actual deity existed appeared before me, it would not change my view that said deity does not deserve worship and respect. Malevolent deities do not deserve praise or respect and further add proof to the absurdity of a divinity in general.
(February 25, 2011 at 6:14 pm)apophenia Wrote: This poll seems tragically flawed. Atheism needs no reason because it is not a belief -- it is beliefs other than atheism which need reasons.
Also what apophenia said.
