Feed on Posts or Comments 25 May 2018

Christianity Thomas on 13 Aug 2009 12:01 am

What do you think?

A pamphlet for atheism:

What is Atheism?


It’s OK to be…

What do you think?

14 Responses to “What do you think?”

  1. on 13 Aug 2009 at 6:10 pm 1.Delphine said …

    I love it. I think it’s great. It explains a lot of things about atheism without attacking any single religion.

    I’m judging it from an atheist point of view though. It appears Christians and Muslims are easily offended so I don’t know what they will think about it.

  2. on 13 Aug 2009 at 7:12 pm 2.Lou said …

    Um well I would like to see the “Massive evidence against God”. If any atheist would like to share this evidence that would be welcome. Before propagating this evidence please remember the fact you can’t see God is not evidence against. If the evidence is so massive and apparent, atheism would be the leading religion in America.

  3. on 16 Aug 2009 at 10:35 pm 3.Hermes said …

    While I like the pamphlet overall, the emphasis on atheists using science in the second paragraph is incorrect. Rational people can use science, and many people who describe themselves as atheists try to be rational and scientific, yet these are correlations not necessities.

    An atheist isn’t a theist. That’s it. Full stop.

    A person could be superstitious, illogical, gullible, and credulous — yet if they don’t think any gods exist, they are atheists. The Raliens, for example, are atheists yet I have no qualms about also calling them a bunch of irrational whack jobs.

    It is true that we currently enjoy a high ratio of rational and science literate atheists. Yet, that is not a prerequisite for atheism.

  4. on 16 Aug 2009 at 10:36 pm 4.Hermes said …

    Lou, most definitions of the Christian deity are self-refuting.

  5. on 17 Aug 2009 at 6:06 am 5.Denis Loubet said …

    Ugh! Sorry, the pamphlet is awful!

    It’s description of atheism piles on a load of extraneous and self-serving qualities that have nothing to do with atheism.

    Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That’s it. Period. A so-called strong atheist might additionally believe there are no gods, but that’s not a necessary requirement for atheism. The default position is lack of belief.

    And atheism says nothing about a scientific world view. Atheism says nothing about WHY one might be an atheist. You don’t have to agree with evolution to be an atheist, you don’t have to have an argument against gods, you don’t even have to be rational. If you don’t believe in any gods because you believe your toaster told you there weren’t any gods, you’re still an atheist.

  6. on 17 Aug 2009 at 10:13 am 6.DL said …

    Buddhist are atheist, I would look at a new pamphlet. It seems the atheist are as divided as the christians.

  7. on 18 Aug 2009 at 3:28 am 7.vivian said …


  8. on 18 Aug 2009 at 5:10 am 8.Maltheist said …

    Wow, this is one of the the biggest loads of crap that I have ever read, It’s just as bad as the bible. It’s a one-sided piece of propaganda that takes things out of context, uses incorrect phrasing and disputable logic.
    Atheism now a days relies much too heavily on science. As far as I’m concerned science is no better than religion. Unless you personally have proven every fact that is given to you in a presentation about evolution, you’re just blindly accepting whats thrust into your head no differently than a christian who blindly accepts their faith without ever questioning it. Many will argue that the people who wrote the bible just lied, I have news for ya: everyone lies, everyone cheats, everyone steals, and everyone manipulates others to accomplish their own ends and if you think that some educated professor or whoever is giving you all this information about evolution or whatever explanation you’d like is any different, you’re delusional. I’m a maltheist, someone who believes in god, but believes him to be evil, for those of you who don’t know what it is. So personally would I like it to be proven that there is no god, yes, I would, one less idiot(greater being or not) that I’d have to worry about then. But sadly Science is no better than religion, thus if I have to choose between the possibility of several thousand humans feeding me a load of crap or one omnipotent being, I find it more likely that people are full of crap, since everyone is a liar. Under that assumption that everyone lies, God is merely a more viable option in my mind.

  9. on 18 Aug 2009 at 2:34 pm 9.Burebista said …

    Maltheist you are sad individual. Everyone is evil and so is god? Not much to live for there is there fella. I hope that you can find some hope outside yourself. What a sad way to subsist.

  10. on 18 Aug 2009 at 3:52 pm 10.Burebista said …

    I would like to take the challenge of disproving Zeus First let it be noted again that there are different kinds of disproof. I have provided three: logical, beyond a reasonable doubt, and by a preponderance of the evidence.

    Shall I offer a logical proof for the non-existence of Zeus? Fine, here’s one:

    (1) If I exist then Zeus does not exist.

    (2) I exist.

    (3) Therefore, Zeus does not exist.

    Done. Now what else would you like me to disprove?

    Wait, you don’t find the first premise compelling? Well I’ll have another go at it. But before I do let me make another distinction. I could disprove the existence of Zeus simpliciter or I could disprove the claim that Zeus is that being than which none greater can be conceived. I take it that the latter task is of inestimably greater importance since the existence (or lack thereof) of a being than which none greater can be conceived is surely of the utmost importance. By contrast, the existence of a finite and imperfect spirit being, while important, is not a complete game changer. With that in mind, I’ll have a go at disproving the identity of Zeus as God so defined:

    (1) A being that owes its existence to other beings cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived.

    (2) Zeus owes his existence to other beings.

    (3) Therefore, Zeus cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived.

    Now in this case the premises are both logically compelling (unless you have good reason to challenge the intuition that motivates (1)), and the argument is valid. Thus, it provides a solid proof for the more important question.

    I cannot provide the strongest disproof for Zeus’ existence simpliciter. Nor did I ever say that I could.

  11. on 19 Aug 2009 at 8:38 am 11.Hermes said …

    Burebista, why would Zeus care about your sophistry about a “being than which none greater can be conceived”? He duked it out with some of the other real gods, and won. He’s Zeus. There is no other god leading the real gods.

    Your comments are appreciated.

  12. on 19 Aug 2009 at 5:12 pm 12.Burebista said …

    After the battle with the Titans, Zeus shared the world with his elder brothers, Poseidon and Hades, by drawing lots: Zeus got the sky and air, Poseidon the waters, and Hades the world of the dead (the underworld. He failed to duke it out successfully.

    He is also the offspring of Cronus & Rhea thus the truth as proposed…..

    (1) A being that owes its existence to other beings cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived.

  13. on 20 Aug 2009 at 8:46 pm 13.VeridicusX said …

    Burebista, I love that formulation.

    “That than which none greater can be conceived.” It generates lots of positive feelings within me.

    There’s a problem with it though.

    If you think that it refers to a being within reality, it’s equivalent to saying, “A number than which none greater can be conceived.” There isn’t one.

    For every being that you can conjecture within reality, a “greater” being can be conceived.

    You might say, “But God is infinite!”, this doesn’t help. Infinities have different sizes. [See Set Theory and Georg Cantor].

    If you believe in the Trinity, someone can conceive of an even greater “God” – the Quaternity.

    This problem can be resolved by recognizing that *nature* or *reality* itself is that than which none greater is conceivable, because even if there were infinite “gods” and infinite universes, they would all merely be elements of nature or reality. Nature or reality is greater.

    That than which none greater is conceivable is nature or reality.

  14. on 27 Aug 2009 at 5:19 am 14.Mon Garcia said …

    Why Won’t God Heal Amputees
    By Mon Garcia
    (a rebuttal to atheists)

    There is no disputing the fact that disputes between religion and atheism will be endless. Both have rationales behind their arguments. But I’d rather believe there is a God that exists than to believe that we humans have to fend for own selves.

    I’ve relied on my own capabilities before and truly my independence achieved some degree of success. But there are things in life that we mortals truly have no control of. When it came to the point I’m spiraling downwards, I cried for His help because no other humans can. Truly, it was God or call it a “higher force” that sustained me. And that force cannot be explained by our limited understanding of our world.

    “Why won’t God heal amputees?” It’s like a question why God can’t stop the earth from spinning though I asked him to do so. As appoint of argument, I’d like to cite the example given in the WWGHA why Jesus can’t appear to us now so we can believe him. Or that He should move mountains or uproot a building and put it in the middle of Central Park to demonstrate his divinity.

    I watched the movie Bruce Almighty and got the idea why God can’t give everything a man ask. It is because man by nature insatiable. He can never be satisfied. Just imagine if He will allow all who ask Him to win the lottery, what disorder this will create. Or if you ask Him to uproot a building and hundreds also want him to the same, would you think there will be order in the world? One request leads to another and this is endless chaos.

    God will no longer be God if He gives in to all our demands. He’ll be our bond servant, our slave!

    But then try removing man’s insatiability and free will, then that equates man to an animal. An animal limited to his basic instincts. And with a mind like that of an animal, can man ever develop his capabilities? Without an intelligent mind, can he have culture arts and the sciences? Can he discern what is right vs. wrong, moral vs. immoral conduct, justice vs. injustice?

    If that’s what we want for a God – a God that gives in to all our whims and wants in an instant, then we’ll come to a point that like animals we no longer can think of what we want other than beg God to serve our basic instincts. In time, we’ll be like animals that evolved to the lowest level we may even lost our capacity to ask and to beg.

    So why God won’t heal amputees? It’s like a question before by men in history on why God won’t find cure for tuberculosis, measles, polio and other diseases. On why God won’t find cure for blindness, heart,kidney or lung ailment. The question might not be why but when will the day amputees can grow legs. If we’ll be limited to God’s understanding based on what we want and not what He wants, we’ll never stop doubting His existence.

    Our lives should be likened to a movie reel tape. If one only looks at one frame and not the totality of the movie, he’ll never understand the whole story. It is here that we need to put our trust in God for in time each of our life stories will be revealed.


Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply