Author Topic: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist  (Read 941 times)

CrystalDragon, albeto and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3347
  • Darwins +77/-170
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #116 on: Yesterday at 08:58:33 AM »
No, they are the same thing. The only problem is that you don't understand that by adding the adjective "weak" before "faith" means you must change the adjective "complete" in it's definition. Having faith in someone means you have trust or confidence in them.

An adjective doesn't change the meaning of a noun. Anyway, faith and trust/confidence are not the same thing. Trust is earned. Confidence is derived from trust. Faith is given without just cause. You can equivocate the three if you wish, but that's not how the words are used, and you know it.

No, that is just redefining faith.  I never arbitrarly extend faith.  That would be just ridiculous. So who are you trying to convince?  Have you read my mind and determined my faith is without cause.  Your lack of cause for faith in God should not be projected onto everyone.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4710
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #117 on: Yesterday at 09:06:43 AM »
While I do not think I need to add adjectives to atheist, I do not believe God/gods exist.

P1- the claim that God/gods exist lacks objective and empirical evidence

P2- for a claim to be considered true it requires objective and/or empirical evidence

C1- God/gods do not exist.

Let's say BS and JST are accused of murdering JB. What kind of evidence is required to find them guilty in a court of law? Would the absence of evidence prove they are not guilty? There are fingerprints that do not match JST or BS fingerprints. JST and BS have verifiable allibis. There are 2 eye witnesses that say they saw JST and BS leave the seen of the crime.

What evidence is the most substantial? Should the prosecutor charge JST and BS based on the testimony of the 2 eyewitness accounts even though the objective evidence exonerated them?

The lack of evidence is evidence of absence.



If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 8741
  • Darwins +399/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #118 on: Yesterday at 09:11:46 AM »
Atheists say there is no evidence, but that doesn't make it so.  For example, because atheists say that the Bible is not evidence doesn't make it so.

And I know very well what I mean when I say I have faith in God.  It means I trust and have confidence in him.  This is based on knowledge I have acquired through experience.  I didn't just  wake up one morning and arbitrarily decide to have faith in God.  It just doesn't work that way.

The Bible is a set of writings jst, it is not the evidence. It is basically the claim. Think of it this way - is a science book about biology evidence of biology? It should contain written descriptions about the facts and evidence to support its claim, but the evidence itself is outside of the book - it is in the work done by the scientists in the field.

The Bible contains certain fact statements such as locations, names, and times. But those things must be corroborated outside and independent of the writings themselves. And yes, some of them are backed up by reality, such as some of the locations and cities.

Here is an example from the Bible itself: did a person named Jesus rise from the dead? This is stated in the Gospels as fact. Yet, we know that humans cannot "rise from the dead." So, within the pages of the Bible, where is there any sort of evidence or facts that can support such a claim? It is simply stated, then expected to be believed by certain people. That would be the same thing as some scientist writing in a book that the moon is made of pure water. No matter how many times he states it, he must provide hie method and facts/evidence, otherwise he is dismissed by everyone.


Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3347
  • Darwins +77/-170
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #119 on: Yesterday at 09:13:41 AM »
Wrong again. The bible is the claim, not the evidence

If I author a book that is evidence of my existence.  If God authored a book then that is evidence of his existence.

Quote
Yes, but what you fail to appreciate is that your trust and confidence could be erroneous, just like you view the trust and confidence that other people have in their false, imaginary gods or beliefs.

I agree that it can be by being based on inaccurate information.  But it is never based on nothing.

Quote
Wrong again. You are a victim of childhood indoctrination, and your investment level now in the cult of JW is so great, and the cost of shunning so high, that you don't have the courage to admit that it's all a huge, steaming pile of BS.

You are mistaken.  I do not come from a family of JWs.  In fact, apart from my household, none of my family shares my beliefs.  And I have no fear of shunning.  In fact, if I thought JWs were teaching ungodliness then I would avoid them.  They wouldn't even get a chance to shun me.

Quote
That is true (see above).

"There is no absurdity, however palpable, which cannot be firmly implanted in the minds of all, if only one begins to inculcate it before the early age of six by constantly repeating it to them with an air of great solemnity. For the training of man, like that of animals, is completely successful only at an early age."  (Arthur Schopenhaur)

I didn't come into contact with JWs until my early 20s.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3347
  • Darwins +77/-170
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #120 on: Yesterday at 09:18:12 AM »
P2- for a claim to be considered true it requires objective and/or empirical evidence

This is a self-refuting argument because it is not supported by objective and/or empirical evidence.  Since it's not then it cannot be considered true.

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Star Stuff

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6021
  • Darwins +195/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Carbon-based life form.
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #121 on: Yesterday at 09:28:16 AM »
If I author a book that is evidence of my existence.  If God authored a book then that is evidence of his existence.

But we know that the bible is 100% man-made. It's just a man-made selection of writings of primitive desert men, and you've been duped into thinking that it's something special.



Quote
You are mistaken.  I do not come from a family of JWs.  In fact, apart from my household, none of my family shares my beliefs.  I didn't come into contact with JWs until my early 20s

Thanks for clarifying that. I would suggest though that the reasons for you taking on the beliefs of this particular cult are terrible.



Quote
And I have no fear of shunning.  In fact, if I thought JWs were teaching ungodliness then I would avoid them.

I don't believe that for a second. Shunning is inherent within the JW cult.






God is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3347
  • Darwins +77/-170
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #122 on: Yesterday at 09:31:57 AM »
Atheists say there is no evidence, but that doesn't make it so.  For example, because atheists say that the Bible is not evidence doesn't make it so.

And I know very well what I mean when I say I have faith in God.  It means I trust and have confidence in him.  This is based on knowledge I have acquired through experience.  I didn't just  wake up one morning and arbitrarily decide to have faith in God.  It just doesn't work that way.

The Bible is a set of writings jst, it is not the evidence. It is basically the claim. Think of it this way - is a science book about biology evidence of biology? It should contain written descriptions about the facts and evidence to support its claim, but the evidence itself is outside of the book - it is in the work done by the scientists in the field.

The Bible contains certain fact statements such as locations, names, and times. But those things must be corroborated outside and independent of the writings themselves. And yes, some of them are backed up by reality, such as some of the locations and cities.

Here is an example from the Bible itself: did a person named Jesus rise from the dead? This is stated in the Gospels as fact. Yet, we know that humans cannot "rise from the dead." So, within the pages of the Bible, where is there any sort of evidence or facts that can support such a claim? It is simply stated, then expected to be believed by certain people. That would be the same thing as some scientist writing in a book that the moon is made of pure water. No matter how many times he states it, he must provide hie method and facts/evidence, otherwise he is dismissed by everyone.

Yes, I understand that.  But to me whether or not the Bible is evidence is dependent upon it's truthfulness.  If God authors scripture then that is evidence of his existence just like me posting on this form is evidence of my existence.

Now let's say we fast forward 2000 years.  My posts are still evidence of my existence but it could be challenged.  What if the originals weren't available, but only copies and the oldest copies only date back 1500 years?  Someone could claim that my posts weren't' written until 500 years after my death.  Someone would need evidence that my posts are actually evidence of my existence, but nevertheless my posts are still evidence whether they are perceived to be or not. 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3347
  • Darwins +77/-170
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #123 on: Yesterday at 09:53:17 AM »
But we know that the bible is 100% man-made. It's just a man-made selection of writings of primitive desert men, and you've been duped into thinking that it's something special.

That doesn't explain the complimentary nature of the books of the Bible, nor does it explain the modern day fulfillment of prophecy.

What is wrong with the "writings of primitive desert men"?  You must love your neighbor as yourself.  Is that wrong because it's primitive?  Has modern man come up with something better?  Modern man has come up with political correctness.  Is political correctness greater than what the primitive desert man taught?

Quote
Thanks for clarifying that. I would suggest though that the reasons for you taking on the beliefs of this particular cult are terrible.

One good reason was a lack of hypocrisy.

Quote
I don't believe that for a second. Shunning is inherent within the JW cult.

JWs do what the Bible teaches (1 Cor 5:11).  But nevertheless my love for God is greater than my love for any humans.  If I thought they were teaching ungodliness, I wouldn't hesitate to take my stand for God.  I did so against my own family.  You don't think I would toward others?  If they were doing ungodliness then I wouldn't want to associate with them.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Star Stuff

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6021
  • Darwins +195/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Carbon-based life form.
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 10:09:05 AM »
That doesn't explain the complimentary nature of the books of the Bible...

They are only complimentary when you want to see them that way. Notice how you ignore the uncomplimentary aspects.  Notice too how the Koran compliments itself.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html



Quote
....nor does it explain the modern day fulfillment of prophecy.

Oy. You've hung yourself with that one. Not enough time to get into all that.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies




Quote
What is wrong with the "writings of primitive desert men"?

Plenty. Their pre-scientific worldview was enormously stunted. They were able to have some good ideas, but I suggest that if I were to transport you back 3000 years, you'd be shocked by their level of ignorance in terms of their place in the cosmos.



Quote
You must love your neighbor as yourself.  Is that wrong because it's primitive?

Nope, but that concept is a human one which predates Christianity.

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html



Quote
Has modern man come up with something better?

Yes. Humanism.



Quote
One good reason was a lack of hypocrisy.

But a lack of hypocrisy says nothing about the truthiness of said beliefs. The Nazi's weren't hypocrites.



« Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:27:47 AM by Star Stuff »
God is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4710
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #125 on: Yesterday at 10:21:01 AM »
P2- for a claim to be considered true it requires objective and/or empirical evidence

This is a self-refuting argument because it is not supported by objective and/or empirical evidence.  Since it's not then it cannot be considered true.

Demonstrate it please. State any claim you know is true that is not supported with objective and/or empirical evidence.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 8741
  • Darwins +399/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #126 on: Yesterday at 10:38:55 AM »
Atheists say there is no evidence, but that doesn't make it so.  For example, because atheists say that the Bible is not evidence doesn't make it so.

And I know very well what I mean when I say I have faith in God.  It means I trust and have confidence in him.  This is based on knowledge I have acquired through experience.  I didn't just  wake up one morning and arbitrarily decide to have faith in God.  It just doesn't work that way.

The Bible is a set of writings jst, it is not the evidence. It is basically the claim. Think of it this way - is a science book about biology evidence of biology? It should contain written descriptions about the facts and evidence to support its claim, but the evidence itself is outside of the book - it is in the work done by the scientists in the field.

The Bible contains certain fact statements such as locations, names, and times. But those things must be corroborated outside and independent of the writings themselves. And yes, some of them are backed up by reality, such as some of the locations and cities.

Here is an example from the Bible itself: did a person named Jesus rise from the dead? This is stated in the Gospels as fact. Yet, we know that humans cannot "rise from the dead." So, within the pages of the Bible, where is there any sort of evidence or facts that can support such a claim? It is simply stated, then expected to be believed by certain people. That would be the same thing as some scientist writing in a book that the moon is made of pure water. No matter how many times he states it, he must provide hie method and facts/evidence, otherwise he is dismissed by everyone.

Yes, I understand that.  But to me whether or not the Bible is evidence is dependent upon it's truthfulness.  If God authors scripture then that is evidence of his existence just like me posting on this form is evidence of my existence.

Now let's say we fast forward 2000 years.  My posts are still evidence of my existence but it could be challenged.  What if the originals weren't available, but only copies and the oldest copies only date back 1500 years?  Someone could claim that my posts weren't' written until 500 years after my death.  Someone would need evidence that my posts are actually evidence of my existence, but nevertheless my posts are still evidence whether they are perceived to be or not.

Huge problem: God did not write the Bible. We all know this, you know this, everyone knows this. If humans were inspired to write the texts based on God, that is not at all the same thing.

Another problem: How do we know that you wrote these posts? We accept it because we have no reason not to. However, if you claimed to have supernatural powers within your posts, or if you were not consistent in your writing, we can certainly challenge whether it is always you writing.

I know what you are trying to say, but I think you need to reconsider. You would need to show clear evidence to support two things:

1. There is a god, a specific god as you believe it to be
2. That this particular god literally wrote "the Bible"

You would also have to falsify/refute what most historians agree are obvious human writings, from different authors over very long periods of time. Keep in mind that the Jewish people that likely compiled and utilized the Old Testament had no idea or were ever exposed to much later writings within the New Testament. Only people of the time had knowledge of those writings - whcih were eventually combined into the current canon.


Offline stuffin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1354
  • Darwins +88/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #127 on: Yesterday at 11:21:37 AM »

Huge problem: God did not write the Bible. We all know this, you know this, everyone knows this. If humans were inspired to write the texts based on God, that is not at all the same thing.

Another problem: How do we know that you wrote these posts? We accept it because we have no reason not to. However, if you claimed to have supernatural powers within your posts, or if you were not consistent in your writing, we can certainly challenge whether it is always you writing.

I know what you are trying to say, but I think you need to reconsider. You would need to show clear evidence to support two things:

1. There is a god, a specific god as you believe it to be
2. That this particular god literally wrote "the Bible"

You would also have to falsify/refute what most historians agree are obvious human writings, from different authors over very long periods of time. Keep in mind that the Jewish people that likely compiled and utilized the Old Testament had no idea or were ever exposed to much later writings within the New Testament. Only people of the time had knowledge of those writings - which were eventually combined into the current canon.

Reading the bolded statement made me think. I am not  a person who has read the bible and I know don't  all the quotes and words and stuff in it. So I ask the posters here who know the bible well; Is there any acknowledgement anywhere in the bible where god commands men to write a book about him?

I do understand gave god gave some "writings" to man, like the ten commandments, but other then things like that, did he ever direct man to write his, and his son's, Biography?
Maybe voting for someone just because he pretended to be pissed at the same people you’re pissed at wasn’t the best idea in the world.



The Greatest Story Ever Told Was So Wrong

Been Two thousand Years and He Ain't Shown Yet,

We Kept His Seat Warm and The Table Set.

The Greatest Story Ever Tol

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3347
  • Darwins +77/-170
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #128 on: Yesterday at 11:22:55 AM »
They are only complimentary when you want to see them that way. Notice how you ignore the uncomplimentary aspects.  Notice too how the Koran compliments itself.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

I don't ignore anything.  Uncomplimentary aspects do not prevent it from being overall consistent.

And the Koran wasn't written by many different people over thousands of years.

Quote
Oy. You've hung yourself with that one. Not enough time to get into all that.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

I have no reason to accept rationalwiki as an authority on Bible interpreation.  Plus I didn't say ancient prophecies.  I said the modern day fulfillment of prophecy.

Quote
Plenty. Their pre-scientific worldview was enormously stunted. They were able to have some good ideas, but I suggest that if I were to transport you back 3000 years, you'd be shocked by their level of ignorance in terms of their place in the cosmos.

Sure.  But that doesn't mean they lacked discernment and wisdom.

Quote
Nope, but that concept is a human one which predates Christianity.

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

Jesus didn't claim he was the orginator of it.  He claimed it's in the law and the prophets.

"Judaism
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
      Talmud, Shabbat 3id"

This is not the golden rule.  The golden rule states that you must actually take postive actions, not just refrain from negative actions.  But it is in the Law, just not there.

"‘You must not take vengeance nor hold a grudge against the sons of your people, and you must love your fellow man as yourself. I am Jehovah." (Lev 19:18)

All of the others on your list share the same thing as the one above.  They are not the golden rule.  The golden rule doesn't teach to refrain from doing bad.  It teaches to actively do good.  There is only one that comes close:

"Islam
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
      Sunnah"

But Jesus didn't say anything about desiring something for someone.  He said to get up and do something about it.  If you love someone you don't just refrain from doing them harm, you actively do them good.

Quote
Yes. Humanism.

Explain how Humanism is greater than love.

Quote
But a lack of hypocrisy says nothing about the truthiness of said beliefs. The Nazi's weren't hypocrites.

That's true, but it does mean they actually believe what Christ taught.  Let me give an example.  I know a man that is an ordained Baptist minister.  He has his own Church.  My brother attends that Church.  A few years back my brother was having marital problems and was thinking of divorce.  He asked this minister, in my presence, what he thought after explaining the situation.  His only reply was, "Well it can be tough but sometimes you have to do what you have to do." 

Does that man believe what Christ taught?  How is he going to teach me what he doesn't even believe?

But a lack of hypocrisy is not the only reason I chose them.  It was just an initial attraction and it is something I require of a true religion.  Another attractions was that at their Sunday meetings I learned something more than "Jesus died for my sins".  Church seems designed to convert sinners but not to actually feed the flock.  It's like it gets you to take the first step and then once you take that then nothing.  At least that was my experience.  It's like going to Church and receiving milk when they should be handing out solid food. 




Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3347
  • Darwins +77/-170
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #129 on: Yesterday at 11:30:56 AM »
P2- for a claim to be considered true it requires objective and/or empirical evidence

This is a self-refuting argument because it is not supported by objective and/or empirical evidence.  Since it's not then it cannot be considered true.

Demonstrate it please. State any claim you know is true that is not supported with objective and/or empirical evidence.

"For a claim to be considered true it requires objective and/or empirical evidence".  According to this claim, it can be dismissed due to a lack of empirical evidence.  This claim cannot be true ande false at the same time.  That's why I don't need to refute it.  It refutes itself. 

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4710
  • Darwins +320/-116
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #130 on: Yesterday at 06:47:27 PM »
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing link=topic=31037.msg7forgot 30314#msg730314 date=1524501056
P2- for a claim to be considered true it requires objective and/or empirical evidence

This is a self-refuting argument because it is not supported by objective and/or empirical evidence.  Since it's not then it cannot be considered true.

Demonstrate it please. State any claim you know is true that is not supported with objective and/or empirical evidence.

"For a claim to be considered true it requires objective and/or empirical evidence".  According to this claim, it can be dismissed due to a lack of empirical evidence.  This claim cannot be true ande false at the same time.  That's why I don't need to refute it.  It refutes itself.

I'm not asking you to refute the premise. I am asking you to demonstrate how you determine truth from false.

How do you know 1+1=2? There is objective and empirical evidence to support the claim.

If I say 1+1=32, how do you determine if it is true or false?
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
  • Darwins +19/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: Why I consider myself justifiably a "strong" atheist
« Reply #131 on: Yesterday at 10:28:50 PM »
For me it's not possible to liken a god to elves, unicorns, etc. because I can go observe where they are supposed to be and note their absence.  I think a better analogy is alien life.  It cannot be proven to not exist.  If we can't prove the nonexistence of aliens how could be possibly be equipped to prove the nonexistence of a God?

Thank you for what I consider a thoughtful reply, jst. For me I see no further point in a continued discussion.

Let me just answer your very last point here: I see what you mean and I actually can appreciate the "alien life" analogy. There are a couple reasons I personally see the metaphor as invalid in regard to a god. The first reason is the easy and straight forward definition of "alien life" as "life not originating on planet earth". I think that this definition can be reached without any knowledge additional to that life exists on this planet and that a universe outside of the planet exists. The word "alien" is a bit problematic and "extraterrestrial" might be better, but overall the definition in this context is clear. The same can simply not be asserted for god(s). The second thing is that I do know that none of those humanoid extraterrestrials exist that are said to have left traces on earth and in ancient cultures. And lastly I actually see no logical difference between god(s) and as of now unknown extraterrestrial forms of life. If I entertain the possibility of extraterrestrial life this - to me - includes forms of extraterrestrial life that others might upon their discovery worship as divine beings. Therefore I don't need to reserve judgment on a second type of potentially existing being subsumed under the un- or at best ill-defined word "god".
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer