Question for freethinkers

[Shell B]

Deny obvious what shell? The obvious conclusions they draw from experiences? To deny that would make me atheist, luckily I don't deny evidence or experience without justification.

I did generalize a little. My apologies. What I think is obvious is the unreliability of the bible and its sources.

[Minimalist]

Or is it that the god you worship is a bit of a twat?

I think you nailed it, Bozo.

[tackattack]

@Rhizo. Perhaps it would be good to explore this a little further. You held a belief true (please define). Something cause you to question that truth (please define). You found that truth to be false (we'll just all assume it was the defined belief previously defined). At no time did you perceive yourself crazy.

That about sum it up? Fill in the blanks and I'd get a much better picture.

@Shell- You don't ever need to apologize to me girl, just pokin' the holes where I see them. (All you perverts get your minds out of the gutter)

[Shell B]

@Shell- You don't ever need to apologize to me girl, just pokin' the holes where I see them. (All you perverts get your minds out of the gutter)

Ladies, hide your holes!

I wasn't so much apologizing for my position as it stands. I overgeneralized and failed to expound where it was necessary. I apologize for that, whether you like it or not.

[Rhizomorph13]

@Rhizo. Perhaps it would be good to explore this a little further. You held a belief true (please define). Something cause you to question that truth (please define). You found that truth to be false (we'll just all assume it was the defined belief previously defined). At no time did you perceive yourself crazy.

That about sum it up? Fill in the blanks and I'd get a much better picture.

@Shell- You don't ever need to apologize to me girl, just pokin' the holes where I see them. (All you perverts get your minds out of the gutter)

I was a Christian and it was no fight to maintain my belief and belief in God was so obvious to me. I thought more about it, read the bible more, and came to think that maybe God was imaginary so I rejected that belief. There is more to it, but I wouldn't want to bore you, or me by typing it out. I now find it impossible to believe in God. At all times I acted according to my beliefs which were artifacts of my epistemology and what I knew about the world. I feel I have sorted out my belief structure since I have been here on the forums, but can remember why I believed so strongly, so I don't rage at the "stupidity" theists. You see I was and still am intelligent and knew many who were like me. I am still friends with them.

The biggest contribution to my being an atheist was the reading of the bible from cover to cover.

[Anymouse]

Let's say someone proves to you there is God, but that proof doesn't tell you anything about him. How would you describe him by looking at the existence. I am asking you to pretend. It's same as if you asked me what would be the reasons for you to say maybe there is no God. Like things that have tested my faith. I understand this is a hard task. Thanks

Nor does it tell you anything about her. (note your error about gender, since your proof tells you nothing, either.)

If the proof doesn't tell you anything about her (or him, or them), then it doesn't tell you anything about her. Therefore, it is not a proof, since a proof actually tells you something about what is proven.

And your anecdotal story about how your faith was tested is not a proof, either. It could also be a misinterpretation. You have not proved that faith can be tested, or that she would even want to test your faith. You assume it is and can be, and that is not a proof, nor evidence.

Given that, it doesn't disprove to you your he is really a she and a he, and are really Goddess and God. (Christians can't see the reality of this dualism though, they seem to be stuck on their -proof-, er Bible that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Satan are all male, and therefore possibly gay.) Nor does the non-proof say anything else, such as a crucifixion myth or Biblical inerrancy or any other nonsense which comes from people imagining what their particular god might be like, then imposing that with a penalty of death on unbelievers, or for being gay. (Don't do as I do, do as I say. Or else.)

Actually, it is not hard at all.

Such imaginings are dangerous when the dreamers get real political power.

Hail Eris. Fnord. (Why isn't "fnord" in the speller?)

[Epimethean]

This is a question for atheists, deists and such. If you were to be asked what is God like and why in case he existed what would you say? The answer should be based on your observation and reflection of everything that has surounded you. Also try to look into your emotions. Thanks

To even answer that question would remove me from the atheist camp and place me squarely amongst the agnostics.

[Anymouse]

This is a question for atheists, deists and such. If you were to be asked what is God like and why in case he existed what would you say? The answer should be based on your observation and reflection of everything that has surounded you. Also try to look into your emotions. Thanks

To even answer that question would remove me from the atheist camp and place me squarely amongst the agnostics.

Agnostics are merely atheists who won't admit it. Agnostics do not believe: that is the definition of atheism. A reason why (such as I don't know or I can't know) is not required to complete the definition. Agnostic, therefore, is a null set.

[Epimethean]

This is a question for atheists, deists and such. If you were to be asked what is God like and why in case he existed what would you say? The answer should be based on your observation and reflection of everything that has surounded you. Also try to look into your emotions. Thanks

To even answer that question would remove me from the atheist camp and place me squarely amongst the agnostics.

Agnostics are merely atheists who won't admit it. Agnostics do not believe: that is the definition of atheism. A reason why (such as I don't know or I can't know) is not required to complete the definition. Agnostic, therefore, is a null set.

I think you are applying your own value set to that group. Agnostics are empiricists who have not finished collecting data.

[Anymouse]

I think you are applying your own value set to that group. Agnostics are empiricists who have not finished collecting data.

But they still don't believe. Not my value. "a-" (not) "theist" (believer in one or more deities.) And many self-defined agnostics are not empiricists at all. They just say, "I dunno."

One does not need to be an evangelical atheist (there's an interesting juxtaposition of words) (that is, one who does not believe and goes out to convince others that their beliefs are wrong, unfounded, or whatever) to be an atheist. You can be an atheist and just sit at home and never once mention religion.

If atheism is not defined as "non-belief in deities," what is it? Doesn't seem to me there can be middle ground on belief. You either do, or you don't. Why is irrelevant.