Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[TromboneAtheist]

Ok, I'll try to be as willing as I can. Whenever you're ready

[Violet]

Ok, I'll try to be as willing as I can. Whenever you're ready

I'm always ready... all you've gotta do is read, then think, then consider, then ask, then read, then think, then consider, then ask

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U8pAM4VXvI

It is an exercise in sapience.

[TromboneAtheist]

I think it's silly to assume, based on a book written centuries ago that is full of crap, that a God is watching over us all, and simultaneously listening to, and answering our prayers, when there isn't any evidence at all for it. I believe that is irrational. No doubt we all have to have some faith in certain things in our life. For example, I must have faith that my parents are actually my biological parents. I don't know this. I just assume because all the evidence points towards it. On the other hand, there no evidence for a God(s), which Theists believe in. They are irrational, from my point of view, because they think, with absolute certainty(many of them anyways), that there is a God. With no real evidence.

---

My extrasensory perception is a little skewed, that is very true. I don't believe you can "return" them though.

[Violet]

I think it's silly to assume, based on a book written centuries ago that is full of crap, that a God is watching over us all, and simultaneously listening to, and answering our prayers, when there isn't any evidence at all for it.

I think it's silly to state that there is no evidence for a thing crammed full of evidence. It's a mistake to confuse 'scientific' evidence with evidence of all other sorts.

I believe that is irrational. No doubt we all have to have some faith in certain things in our life. For example, I must have faith that my parents are actually my biological parents. I don't know this. I just assume because all the evidence points towards it.

Note: an equivocal amount of evidence points to the Bible being true. Faith's an amazing thing, isn't it?

On the other hand, there no evidence for a God(s), which Theists believe in.

How could there be evidence produced by scientific method of a *metaphysical being*?

They are irrational, from my point of view, because they think, with absolute certainty(many of them anyways), that there is a God. With no real evidence.

NTS applied to evidence! OMG, I've never seen that before

My extrasensory perception is a little skewed, that is very true. I don't believe you can "return" them though.

Actually, I am overqualified for retuning of one's ESP.

[Golbez]

1. I think it's silly to state that there is no evidence for a thing crammed full of evidence. It's a mistake to confuse 'scientific' evidence with evidence of all other sorts.

2. Note: an equivocal amount of evidence points to the Bible being true. Faith's an amazing thing, isn't it?

3.How could there be evidence produced by scientific method of a *metaphysical being*?

1. Crammed full of evidence? There's loose historical evidence that some things in the Bible aren't completely made up. But it's hard to argue that's "crammed." What evidence is there for God's existence? And for his attention and interference? I'd like to point out that a lack of understanding about our world and the consequential amazement of it doesn't count as evidence.

2. No. The parental factor can be decidedly known. Unambiguously, unequivocally. In contrast, there are thousands of translational differences among a variety of Biblical transcriptions. There are a multitude of contradictions. There's an obvious dearth of physical evidence for the body of Christ. The evidence to support these two ideas are nothing alike.

3. "He" could easily perform any number of interfering miracles like he was claimed to have done through Jesus. Because you hesitate to suppose of ways an "all powerful creator" could produce evidence doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Violet]

1. Crammed full of evidence? There's loose historical evidence that some things in the Bible aren't completely made up. But it's hard to argue that's "crammed." What evidence is there for God's existence? And for his attention and interference? I'd like to point out that a lack of understanding about our world and the consequential amazement of it doesn't count as evidence.

Absolutely chock full of it, according to the claims of many a Christian. Everything is evidence for God's existence, attention, and interference... because he made them. That's why I noted *scientific* evidence as a *very specific* type of it... because any reason that adds to your certainty in the truth of something is by definition: evidential. Doesn't matter if it's a 'good' reason, or if it even makes sense... if it's a part (or entire reason) of why someone believes X: it's evidence.

Humans have an endless amount of understanding about their world... unfortunately they are wrong about (just about?) everything, and just come off as arrogant pricks. Arguments from incredulity are considered flawed... but arguments they remain nonetheless.

2. No. The parental factor can be decidedly known. Unambiguously, unequivocally. In contrast, there are thousands of translational differences among a variety of Biblical transcriptions. There are a multitude of contradictions. There's an obvious dearth of physical evidence for the body of Christ. The evidence to support these two ideas are nothing alike.

Everything can be decidedly known... the more concretely known, the more likely one is blind. That which leaves you doubtless makes for a simplistic life... and often a 'righteous' life.

Have you considered that its original form is the only one which was inspired directly by god (as many of them claim)? All of the ones based upon the first are inspired by a book inspired by God... then inspired by a book inspired by a book inspired by God. People make mistakes, and back in the day there wasn't exactly a printing press to assist with the tedious process of inscribing every single letter into a Bible

There would be no physical evidence for the body of Christ... you'll remember: he ascended into 'heaven'. Why would there be a physical body left on this planet to look for?

The evidence to support each of these things remains identical: presumptive, emotional, appearantial. None of it is scientific. Get a DNA positive, and maybe you're in the clear.

3. "He" could easily perform any number of interfering miracles like he was claimed to have done through Jesus. Because you hesitate to suppose of ways an "all powerful creator" could produce evidence doesn't mean it can't be done.

I don't hesitate to suppose of ways he might write in the sky 'oh hai, I exist!'... because that isn't the point. Have you read the bible? All about how you're supposed to come to finding him... *on your own*, through your own experience. If God actively desired you to know him: you would... but he seems to enjoy 'letting us figure it out' (behaving like the good machines we are and processing accordingly)

[paulpablo]

I dont reject atheism as a label, as a label i just see it as a way of saying "im not a cult member" but i reject the idea that atheists have an ideology.
Some atheists dont want to be associated with hitler or stalin also which im guessing is a reason why they would reject the label, but as i said i dont believe theres atheist ideals, we dont have priests and preachers, there werent atheist preachers saying to hitler "yeh go kill a load of jews theres no god so who cares" on the other hand there are christian and muslim preachers doing this, and additionally its also a stupid argument for a muslim to bring up that hitler was an atheist since a lot of muslims admired hitler for what he did and wished they had the power to do the same.

[Aardverk]

I dont reject atheism as a label, as a label i just see it as a way of saying "im not a cult member" but i reject the idea that atheists have an ideology.
Some atheists dont want to be associated with hitler or stalin also which im guessing is a reason why they would reject the label, but as i said i dont believe theres atheist ideals, we dont have priests and preachers, there werent atheist preachers saying to hitler "yeh go kill a load of jews theres no god so who cares" on the other hand there are christian and muslim preachers doing this, and additionally its also a stupid argument for a muslim to bring up that hitler was an atheist since a lot of muslims admired hitler for what he did and wished they had the power to do the same.

Where did you get the idea that Hitler was an atheist?

In Mein Kampf he says he is a Christian, from his speeches, he is a Christian, he formed the Reichskonkordat with the pope to ensure that priests were not harmed or hampered, his eulogy (from Franco) describes him as a good Catholic', many Catholics, even in England admired his 'good Christian works' and of course he tried to introduce 'true Christianity', i.e. a form of Christianity with an Aryan Jesus and without the OT and the Jews involved.

I think we will all agree that he was not a good Christian, but he certainly wasn't an atheist; that is fairly recent Christian propaganda. No one thought that when I was a child.

Sorry, off-topic but I just couldn't stop my fingers.

[Golbez]

Re:Violet Lilly Blossom

Unfortunately, the problem with this type of "evidence" is it doesn't point to a biblical god, or judeo or Islamic or any other specific type of god. It points to all of them, including Zeus, Poseidon and the 2700 other "dead" gods equally, as well as the flying spaghetti monster, and the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage. And in that regard, it's not really evidence at all. Otherwise, provide evidence that the world exists due to the Biblical god and let's see how that can be justified.

Also, your definition of evidence includes miracles, of which can only refer to people getting healthy when they're sick, or people who happen upon some sort of good fortune and blame luck or otherwise serendipitous events on a god. But no true miracles will ever be documented, verified and validated in this day and age. Nevertheless, that's enough to count as "evidence" for someone who doesn't understand what they've witnessed, or thought they've witnessed. That isn't, however, any supporting reason to show that a god exists. It's merely a circumstance which continues to delude those who wish it were so. I could find a penny in my couch cushion that I could use as "evidence" that a "couch cushion fairy" exists. If we want to lower the bar and debase the value and meaning of evidence, then I guess "everything" is fair game as evidence god exists. But that essentially acknowledges there is no credible evidence. There's only "evidence."

Regarding what can be decidedly known, you state some bold opinions. Not sure it's supported. How does knowing something make you blind? I guess of fake beliefs of that something. But otherwise, I don't see it. Surely it is better to know our universe than to pretend that a million different possibilities exist to explain how light works. Does it make us blind that we have the knowledge to understand and build technologies to assemble computers, or space craft? If the argument is somehow, the more we know, the blinder we are, then I'd rather not see.

How is it a more simple life? Because it removes the imagination of those million different "possibilities?" If so, again, who cares? Your arguments tend to support the idea that "ignorance is bliss." Maybe that's the life style you value. But that's certainly not for me. I have but one short life, filled with suffering, shared with others destined to also suffer. I want to alleviate as much of that suffering as I can, and enjoy it as much as possible with those I love. Knowledge is the way to remove such burdens. And that is about as righteous in life as it can get. So on that point, I agree.

And I've considered that god could have written the first translation. Doesn't make it any more plausible or credible. But certainly possible. Why anyone would want to bastardize a direct work of god, whom they claim to cherish, is beyond me (yet so many versions and discrepancies exist). Not that I care to entertain that hypothesis for any longer than it's worth.

"He ascended into heaven." You forget that Heaven, LIKE ALL THE REST OF RELIGION (OMG), is not a physical location in the universe and cannot be examined by science. His body would not literally rise up (would it even have been perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the earth on his side of the earth to go straight up +/- 30 degrees?) and go to heaven. It would be his alleged spirit/soul. If it was thought that Heaven was a physical location that bared some sort of universal coordinates that hosted physical bodies, it would be quite easy to test whether such a location receives any eternal guests, which would itself be a strong indication of its lack of existence.

Regarding evidence types of religion v. parents, yes, DNA is that critical, empirical link that can connect an offspring to its parents. Or we can simply witness one's birth. Either way, legitimate evidence contrasts the two comparisons.

Concerning my finding him, it is a rather convenient argument, although it's mere wishful thinking. Time and again we're told how mysterious he is and that we can't understand his will. But when we're curious as to why he can't use his all mighty power to reveal that he exists to anyone besides almost-cavemen of 2000 years ago, we have a solid grasp on his will: we need to find him. It's this random and arbitrary edict that he cannot forsake. How dare he create us in his image and make the entire universe for our blessing and focus all of existence around us, because oh how great we are, we are his pinnacle achievement, but, you know, never stop by and visit. Because what would the other galaxies think if we got special treatment, aside from all that other special treatment?

As an aside, why is it that god is assumed to be a "he?" Not sure he has personal procreation on the docket. But let's pretend he's got sex organs and hormones and masculinity. No, he couldn't have been a creation of a patriarchal society over thousands of years by otherwise fairly dim people. His alleged perfect text of generally bad morals, contradictions and inconsistencies is too sacredly divine to be an invention of man. And with the number one best seller of all time, he has retired from authoring. Not even god could do better than that, after all.

[Violet]

Re:Violet Lilly Blossom

Unfortunately, the problem with this type of "evidence" is it doesn't point to a biblical god, or judeo or Islamic or any other specific type of god. It points to all of them, including Zeus, Poseidon and the 2700 other "dead" gods equally, as well as the flying spaghetti monster, and the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage. And in that regard, it's not really evidence at all. Otherwise, provide evidence that the world exists due to the Biblical god and let's see how that can be justified.

And is there something wrong with that? I think it's rather an entertaining exercise to *find your god(s)* according to your interpretation of this incredibly varied world

I don't see a point to providing evidence that a Biblical god exists, as I don't necessarily believe in said gods I'd find it all a lot less ridiculous if people just admitted that angels and demons are *lesser deities*. They have quite a wide pantheon, yet claim there is only one... it's hard to change an originally polytheistic religion into a monotheistic one.

Also, your definition of evidence includes miracles, of which can only refer to people getting healthy when they're sick, or people who happen upon some sort of good fortune and blame luck or otherwise serendipitous events on a god. But no true miracles will ever be documented, verified and validated in this day and age. Nevertheless, that's enough to count as "evidence" for someone who doesn't understand what they've witnessed, or thought they've witnessed. That isn't, however, any supporting reason to show that a god exists. It's merely a circumstance which continues to delude those who wish it were so. I could find a penny in my couch cushion that I could use as "evidence" that a "couch cushion fairy" exists. If we want to lower the bar and debase the value and meaning of evidence, then I guess "everything" is fair game as evidence god exists. But that essentially acknowledges there is no credible evidence. There's only "evidence."

If miracles happen... then they are certainly evidence of various deities. Did you know: All scientific evidence *ever* has been an incredibly lucky fluke... or a joke by a jester god.

Miracles might well be documented, but again: how do you validate/verify a miracle past 'person X suddenly and quite unexpectedly got better'... or 'person Y solely survived an event which killed 459 people'? Just what is a miracle?

Faeries do exist. Every god ever surmised exists. The question is not whether a thing exists... it is *how* it exists which ultimately matters. If your god is a creator god: everything really does count as evidence for his existence... or against it (you'll notice many scientists reconvert from religions).

Evidence simply is... whether one removes value from it or not is up to them. If someone justifies their belief in ____ to themselves... can we really blame them for being convinced of that thing?

Regarding what can be decidedly known, you state some bold opinions. Not sure it's supported. How does knowing something make you blind? I guess of fake beliefs of that something. But otherwise, I don't see it. Surely it is better to know our universe than to pretend that a million different possibilities exist to explain how light works. Does it make us blind that we have the knowledge to understand and build technologies to assemble computers, or space craft? If the argument is somehow, the more we know, the blinder we are, then I'd rather not see.

Bold opinions? Knowledge is entirely rooted in faith, if you did not have faith in your knowledge... then it is become conjecture, hypothesis, surmisation, theorization. Infact... knowledge is the layman interpretation of that which the scientific process has come up with. These people are not recognizing that our place in this universe is limited and that we are not the gods of ultimate perception... and so they have blinded themselves believing their knowledge true, ne'er questioning that which might be right in front of their eyes... while they are looking: they are not seeing.

Yes, it absolutely makes you blind to believe there is *only one way* to build a computer, to be confident that computers can only be built out of certain parts, to believe that there only exist one set of fundamental functions a computer must contain. IS IT REALLY BETTER TO KNOW... and be wrong every time?

Don't you see the condition you have? It is faith, concrete and unshakable. Scientists have not sought knowledge by hypothesis: they conjectured, and by doing so have gleaned a great amount of technology and observational skills... those who aren't ready to say "this is what will always be" are the same people who will bring us the next thing that wasn't. The person who is certain has already decided what is, and is not, and has no interest in discovery or rewriting their theories as a result of new information they have stopped looking for.

Knowledge is blind, hypothesis is the best that a limited creature is capable of... a proposed explanation made on the basis of our limited evidence, with the direct goal of discovering more about such. In my humble opinion: the greatest moments in science come when we have found our previous explanations incorrect or lacking vital parts... and we don't fight that, we change with the new information.

How is it a more simple life? Because it removes the imagination of those million different "possibilities?" If so, again, who cares? Your arguments tend to support the idea that "ignorance is bliss." Maybe that's the life style you value. But that's certainly not for me. I have but one short life, filled with suffering, shared with others destined to also suffer. I want to alleviate as much of that suffering as I can, and enjoy it as much as possible with those I love. Knowledge is the way to remove such burdens. And that is about as righteous in life as it can get. So on that point, I agree.

Knowing is simple, it is an absolute faith that will never be questioned or further though about. I care about the removal of possibilities, because it's true: knowledge is bliss. The lifestyle I value is 'question everything, maybe learn something', and you're right: that isn't for you. I have this one life, filled with fun and cheerfulness and giving to others most of what I don't need... and I have a blast living. Knowledge is not the key to having a wonderful life: a good outlook, and some luck, is that.

Actually... I brought up righteousness as a result of stuff like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1EBh8jdg3k

Simply, righteousness looks like this. You'll notice he knows people are 'malfested'...

And he was wrong.

And I've considered that god could have written the first translation. Doesn't make it any more plausible or credible. But certainly possible. Why anyone would want to bastardize a direct work of god, whom they claim to cherish, is beyond me (yet so many versions and discrepancies exist). Not that I care to entertain that hypothesis for any longer than it's worth.

Sure it does, it makes the bible about ten million times more plausible to see that it didn't have say... virgin birth.

I highly doubt anyone *wanted* to make mistakes, but we're human, and we do that sometimes.

"He ascended into heaven." You forget that Heaven, LIKE ALL THE REST OF RELIGION (OMG), is not a physical location in the universe and cannot be examined by science. His body would not literally rise up (would it even have been perfectly perpendicular to the surface of the earth on his side of the earth to go straight up +/- 30 degrees?) and go to heaven. It would be his alleged spirit/soul. If it was thought that Heaven was a physical location that bared some sort of universal coordinates hosted physical bodies, it would be quite easy to test whether such a location receives any eternal guests, which would itself be a strong indication of its lack of existence.

Have you considered that Jesus might have been an alien? But under beliefs at the time, the sky was heaven. Certainly, we've gone beyond it and found only space... but if we're already discussing metaphysical events: it isn't hard to surmise that he did wind up in heaven.

It really wouldn't be that easy to find a physical location of 'heaven'. If I tell you to find me a specific small stone on the beach, you're likely to never find it. How I mean: space is vast, there are an absurd number of galaxies... it's possible we wouldn't have the technology to find heaven until we can survive passage into say... the heart of the universe.

Regarding evidence types of religion v. parents, yes, DNA is that critical, empirical link that can connect an offspring to its parents. Or we can simply witness one's birth. Either way, legitimate evidence contrasts the two comparisons.

He doesn't have a video of his birth, or he'd have mentioned it. Yes, there are possibilities to finding out who his parents are (if he has parents), but there are also scientific possibilities to finding out which religions are true, if the religion is based on entirely nonmetaphysical things

Concerning my finding him, it is a rather convenient argument, although it's mere wishful thinking. Time and again we're told how mysterious he is and that we can't understand his will. But when we're curious as to why he can't use his all mighty power to reveal that he exists to anyone besides almost-cavemen of 2000 years ago, we have a solid grasp on his will: we need to find him. It's this random and arbitrary edict that he cannot forsake. How dare he create us in his image and make the entire universe for our blessing and focus all of existence around us, because oh how great we are, we are his pinnacle achievement, but, you know, never stop by and visit. Because what would the other galaxies think if we got special treatment, aside from all that other special treatment?

I think that we rather can understand the will of various gods, but I'm also not party to the whole 'sunshine and roses' charade It's not that a powerful being can't use their mighty power: with great power comes great responsibility.

If I were a christian, I would consider genesis metaphorical (and infact most of the bible is). Have you been to other galaxies? Perhaps the laws of physics and chemistry and whatnot that we know become wholly inaccurate within them, we have next-to no information about other galaxies... we would be guessing. I'm not much a fan of doing that

As an aside, why is it that god is assumed to be a "he?" Not sure he has personal procreation on the docket. But let's pretend he's got sex organs and hormones and masculinity. No, he couldn't have been a creation of a patriarchal society over thousands of years by otherwise fairly dim people. His alleged perfect text of generally bad morals, contradictions and inconsistencies is too sacredly divine to be an invention of man. And with the number one best seller of all time, he has retired from authoring. Not even god could do better than that, after all.

Well, in my interpretations, gods are amorphous entities... but you started using "he" first, so I continued along your lines of thought. This is because I'm mature enough to drop my understanding of the universe to communicate with others instead of rattling off what would appear to be nonsense to them.

Understanding a god to be male or female or whatever really depends on the group of people surmising their existence. What is a bad moral? I've already told you that if any of the text is perfect, it is only the original

??? The last two sentences make no sense to me, since the bible almost certainly was not written for monetary gain... it really didn't gain much of a following until the gospels were written (look at the jews and their Torah... how cute... then suddenly Christ was in the story, and Christianity was born!)