whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Why Won't God Heal Amputees? => Topic started by: jaimehlers on July 31, 2011, 09:52:22 AM

Title: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 31, 2011, 09:52:22 AM
Jetson:  Just curious, but why do you think that atheism is the default position for humans?  I mean, assuming for the sake of argument that all varieties of theism are essentially "made up", for whatever reason, the implication is that theistic beliefs came about because of imagination, and practically every human ever born has an enormous capacity for imagination.  Couple that with charisma, the ability to convince not through reason but through force of personality, and it's easy to see how theistic beliefs could have come about without actual gods and spirits to inspire them.  However, that suggests that theism may be the default position for humans, albeit not any specific kind of theism (which does not necessarily mean anything; the default position for a car is in park, yet cars are not very useful if they aren't in motion).

Consular:  What makes you think that polytheism posits any infinite gods?  Even the all-father figure, whether Odin or Zeus/Jupiter or some other, cannot truly be described as infinite.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2011, 10:05:04 AM
@jaimehlers

Newborns don't "believe" in gods.  If newborn humans have the capacity to believe in anything, that does not make them believe, it simply allows them to perhaps consider.  It takes a different kind of pressure, in my opinion, for new humans to take on a true belief in something.  It starts with parents and family, and the society in which the new human is raised.

Many humans are defenseless against the insertion of religious crap into their heads.  Evidence: Santa Claus.

I just don't believe that the capacity to imagine or believe in something on pure faith can manifest in a newborn in a way that can be measured and determined as true belief in a god.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 31, 2011, 04:16:04 PM
@jaimehlers

Newborns don't "believe" in gods.  If newborn humans have the capacity to believe in anything, that does not make them believe, it simply allows them to perhaps consider.  It takes a different kind of pressure, in my opinion, for new humans to take on a true belief in something.  It starts with parents and family, and the society in which the new human is raised.

Many humans are defenseless against the insertion of religious crap into their heads.  Evidence: Santa Claus.

I just don't believe that the capacity to imagine or believe in something on pure faith can manifest in a newborn in a way that can be measured and determined as true belief in a god.
Okay, fair enough.  I don't agree with the analogy, though, it reminds me of an argument I heard that the default sex of humans is female because fetuses don't sexually differentiate for a time (several weeks, I think), suggesting that if that differentiation were blocked, all fetuses would develop as female.  The problem is that one has to block sexual differentiation in order to do this, so it's not a very convincing example.

Still, I can see where you're coming from, at least.  However, that would be true regardless of family, community, or society; someone who grew up in an atheist household in an atheist community would be influenced in virtually the same way as someone who grew up in a religious household in a religious community, because they don't have the experience needed to make a considered and reasoned decision.  A newborn is neither atheist nor theist, as those terms both imply a conscious decision; they are instead credulous, because all they can go on is the evidence of their senses.

That's why I don't think one can say that the default position of humans is atheism based on the fact that newborns don't have a religious belief (note that this also means that it isn't theism of any stripe).  The default position of newborns is "more input required"; what kind of input they get shapes how they see the world.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on July 31, 2011, 06:12:50 PM
Jaimehlers:  If atheism is not the default state for a human to have, then which brand of theism is the default state for a human to have?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 31, 2011, 06:31:44 PM
Jaimehlers:  If atheism is not the default state for a human to have, then which brand of theism is the default state for a human to have?
Again it is people putting a religous position to athieism........makes you scratch your head.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2011, 06:45:32 PM
I'm traveling at the moment, but when I get home, I will split this topic.  I want to have the discussion about atheism being a default, and more to the point, that it would not be called atheism.  Just a lack of god beliefs. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 31, 2011, 07:13:48 PM
The point is that neither atheism nor 'theism' (whichever variety you want to point to, thus the quotes) is this default state.  Credulousness is - the willingness to believe something with scant or lacking evidence.  I mean, whether it's imaginary friends or monsters in the closet, children are quite capable of making up completely imaginary things that nobody else can see.  What's the difference between that and imagined supernatural entities?  Mainly the ability to get others to believe in them.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2011, 08:44:37 PM
The difference is quite distinct in my opinion. Parents and family plant the imaginary, as real.  The parents themselves believe it is real, and they plant this into the mind of the child.  Is there any way at all to claim that a child would imagine up a god, especially one with the attributes of the specific gods of history, all on their own?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Mod note:

These replies were removed from another thread because they were a different topic, and in my opinion, an interesting one.  Feel free to join this discussion.  There are already some good points made, so read through before you reply!

Jetson
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 31, 2011, 09:00:08 PM
The point is that neither atheism nor 'theism' (whichever variety you want to point to, thus the quotes) is this default state.  Credulousness is - the willingness to believe something with scant or lacking evidence.  I mean, whether it's imaginary friends or monsters in the closet, children are quite capable of making up completely imaginary things that nobody else can see.  What's the difference between that and imagined supernatural entities?  Mainly the ability to get others to believe in them.
most of the monster in the closet/under the bed stuff is started with a story. I never heard/thought there were monsters in my closet under my bed even though I probably heard stories of such creatures.......Santa,easter bunny and such were all plants......you believe until you either dont or in my case find ALL the wrapped presents in my parents closet.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2011, 09:12:17 PM
I think I should concede the point that the default is not truly "atheism", but rather it is simply a lack of belief in a deity, or in anything, really - and it certainly is not a conscious lack of belief.  When it comes to religion and gods, humans may have had a need for that back when we didn't know anything, but in these modern times, what does that type of belief offer us? 

Gods provided answers where none existed, and even if they still provide answers for humans today, those answers are sorely lacking in real substance, in my opinion.  Gods provided guides to living, laws to obey, ways to treat each other.  But it seems abundantly clear to me that those things are happening without gods, and they are even better without gods - i.e., they come with only human baggage.

If atheism is a conscious rejection of god assertions, then it cannot be the default.  If it is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, then all babies have that at birth.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 31, 2011, 09:17:04 PM
 The God of the OT told you to FUCK over everybody who wasn't a follower. How they can say these are words to live by is beyond me
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on July 31, 2011, 09:29:20 PM
The God of the OT told you to f**k over everybody who wasn't a follower. How they can say these are words to live by is beyond me

I think this belongs in the other thread that I split from?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on July 31, 2011, 09:38:13 PM
The point is that neither atheism nor 'theism' (whichever variety you want to point to, thus the quotes) is this default state.  Credulousness is - the willingness to believe something with scant or lacking evidence.  I mean, whether it's imaginary friends or monsters in the closet, children are quite capable of making up completely imaginary things that nobody else can see.  What's the difference between that and imagined supernatural entities?  Mainly the ability to get others to believe in them.

Credulousness is indeed a default state.  So is being a carbon-based life-form.  This discussion is about whether atheism or theism is the default state.

And there is no option that is not either theism or atheism.  They are "X" and "Not-X", respectively.  As long as X applies to the object in question (as beliefs in deities apply to human minds, for example), there is no condition that falls into neither X nor not-X.  If X is untrue, then not-X is automatically true.  This is a rule of logic.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 31, 2011, 09:40:56 PM
The God of the OT told you to f**k over everybody who wasn't a follower. How they can say these are words to live by is beyond me

I think this belongs in the other thread that I split from?
yes ... but you did mention the rules Sorry bout that,I was going off that part of what you said
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Karl on July 31, 2011, 10:05:51 PM
And there is no option that is not either theism or atheism.  They are "X" and "Not-X", respectively.  As long as X applies to the object in question (as beliefs in deities apply to human minds, for example), there is no condition that falls into neither X nor not-X.  If X is untrue, then not-X is automatically true.  This is a rule of logic.
I do not see it that way. Practically spoken your statement applies for daily life but what if there are a third or infinitely more possibilities?

I can say 2*2 is 5 or 2*2 is 3, both are wrong.

As far as the discussion is concerned and taking the 2 conditions as the only existing, then you are right.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ivellios on August 01, 2011, 08:17:48 AM
Children aren't born "with a God[1]," but develop complete and total faith in one very quickly. This person becomes thier "God." A God that loves them, feeds them, clothes them, cleans them, takes care of them when they're sick or hurt. The child will also believe anything this "God" tells them. This is instinctual. Typically this god or gods is the child's parent(s).

There is also a desire that some people have when they get older for "simpler times." I'll use Santa as an example of where I'm heading with this. There are billions of people on this planet with only one billion "Christians." This results in all the children that know of and believe in Santa Claus is at most is a few hundred million. However some parents feel as if thier Child NEEDS Santa Claus... that's it's impossible for them to function like a "normal human being[2]." For parents like that, I think it is the Parent's desire for a Santa Claus and they are projecting thier desire onto thier children (whom won't miss what they do not know) so they can have an excuse to believe in it themselves.

Irony is, Santa and God devalue the parents, just as Christianity trivialitizes suffering, sacrifice and death.
 1. which makes them not-theist
 2. What IS normal anyways?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 01, 2011, 02:24:04 PM
jetson:  Thanks for splitting the topic up.

----

I don't accept that either atheism or 'theism' (whichever variety) is the default position of a human being, as I said earlier.  The reason is that this strikes me as a false dichotomy, a consideration of only two options where more exist.

Note that this also means that I don't accept that any variety of theism is the default.  Azdgari asked earlier which variety of theism would be the correct one, and I think this is a point which can't be ignored.  If 'theism' were the default, newborns would already have a theistic belief in place, one they could elaborate on when they learned how to communicate.  That is never the case to my knowledge, since theistic beliefs are learned from others who already believe.

However, that being said, I also don't accept that atheism is the default.  Atheism is defined as disbelief in the existence of deities, but disbelief by its very nature is active, a rejection of something (as compared to a simple lack of belief, which is passive).  If children were naturally atheistic, I think it would be much harder to get them into a religion in the first place.

The fact that neither theism nor atheism can be the default state contradicts the idea that it has to be one or the other, regardless of what logic states.  Note that logic also supports a false dichotomy - if only two options are presented, A and B, and A is not true, then logic suggests that B must be true.  However, in this case, neither A nor B is true, thus there must be more than two options to choose from.  One of those options is a simple lack of belief, as jetson mentioned, which is completely passive.  I would almost call it ignorance of belief, in fact, and that clarifies the situation, because someone who is ignorant of something has no basis to judge it by.

Hm, if theism is the belief in deities, and atheism is the rejection of deities, what would ignorance of deities be called?[1]
 1. I'm serious here.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on August 01, 2011, 02:26:09 PM
Ignorance of deities would be agnosticism, considering the origin of the term.[1]
 1. A+Gnosticism
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 01, 2011, 02:36:06 PM
I thought about it, but even agnosticism comes across as a deliberate choice rather than a default state.

Slight aside:  According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, 'agnosticism' is the 43rd most popular English word and is in the top 1% of looked-up words.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: wright on August 01, 2011, 02:47:37 PM
I think I should concede the point that the default is not truly "atheism", but rather it is simply a lack of belief in a deity, or in anything, really - and it certainly is not a conscious lack of belief. 
(snip)
If atheism is a conscious rejection of god assertions, then it cannot be the default.  If it is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, then all babies have that at birth.

I'd call it atheism, or at least agnosticism. Jaimelehrs has a point in that it's not the consciously accepted / articulated atheism of an older child or adult, but it still fits the definition.


Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 01, 2011, 03:12:02 PM
In an effort to not be excessively pedantic about terminology, I can accept agnosticism as a default state for humans[1].  The reason I quibble is that even agnosticism suggests someone made a deliberate decision, but that goes past the point where it's worth holding up a discussion for.
 1. At least until someone comes up with a better name.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: mram on August 01, 2011, 04:24:39 PM
Playing devils advocate here.. IF atheism is the default for all humans at birth then so is sucking on mommys tit, but if children are never taught anything then dying must be the default before being taught anything because if children are not taught anything, including how to fend for themselves, feed themselves, cloth themselves, run from wild animals, get out of bad weather and not stick their tongues in light sockets then eminent death in childhood is also the default..Childhood diseases and accidents are default.. You know..If mommy or someone doesn't pick baby up after birth and nurture it then it simply dies of starvation or exposure to the elements making death the default.. Luckily nature and its infinite wisdom designed our brains to not think this way so we're given parents to expose us to different ideas, nurturing and so on and without this nurturing death is the only alternative and therefore the default so atheism is meaningless as is theism.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: wright on August 01, 2011, 04:40:28 PM
In an effort to not be excessively pedantic about terminology, I can accept agnosticism as a default state for humans[1]The reason I quibble is that even agnosticism suggests someone made a deliberate decision, but that goes past the point where it's worth holding up a discussion for.
 1. At least until someone comes up with a better name.

Bolds mine. +1 to you, jaimehlers, for being both articulate and reasonable.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 01, 2011, 05:12:31 PM
I do not see it that way. Practically spoken your statement applies for daily life but what if there are a third or infinitely more possibilities?

If there are infinite non-X possibilities, then they fall into the broad category of "not-X".

I can say 2*2 is 5 or 2*2 is 3, both are wrong.

All answers are covered by "4 or not-4".

As far as the discussion is concerned and taking the 2 conditions as the only existing, then you are right.

When one of them is only defined as the negation of the other (as atheism is defined with respect to theism), there are no alternatives.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 01, 2011, 05:31:16 PM
Azdgari:  I don't agree with your statement that there are no alternatives to theism or atheism.  Theism is an active belief in a deity or deities, and atheism is an active disbelief in deities, but neither properly explain non-belief (that is, a lack of belief as opposed to disbelief).
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 01, 2011, 05:38:10 PM
Azdgari:  I don't agree with your statement that there are no alternatives to theism or atheism.  Theism is an active belief in a deity or deities, and atheism is an active disbelief in deities, but neither properly explain non-belief (that is, a lack of belief as opposed to disbelief).
Exactly,
Just like my neighbor Sam.
He is non-believer.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: mram on August 01, 2011, 05:38:32 PM
One might argue a new born is none of the above because newborns don't think about gods, but neither do they think of theism nor the possibility in either direction..They also don't think about science or electricity or what color puppy they want or what's for supper tomorrow or what color the door is on the other side.. I would think a newborn is plain with or without until informed otherwise at a later date..
I don't know about the rest of you, but I have no memories of my birth..NONE whatsoever.. I had no clue of god(s) and didn't even have a clue what an atheism was until around 9 or so when I was exposed to those "atheist soviets" and how they wanted to burn all our churches down and turn us all against god!  :o OH MY! Well, it turns out they have had churches there all along, but we weren't told.. In fact we were told they're evil atheists.. As a kid I was exposed to god through the miracle of Santa Clause and Xmas presents and who those old looking people dressed funny was a complete mystery to me. Other than that..complete blank until a bit later in life and it was never really pushed on me inside my parents house.. I had some vague idea from neighborhood kids who went to the Payptest Teimpoll (Baptists) and got to ride the Sunday "fun bus"..
You need to know what atheist means to become one just like you have to become the Democrats stand for to become a Democrat..otherwise you're pissing in the dark peeing on your own shoes.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 01, 2011, 06:02:52 PM
Well that may or may not be the default position for everybody.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/12/religious-belief-is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 01, 2011, 06:05:49 PM
I think I should concede the point that the default is not truly "atheism", but rather it is simply a lack of belief in a deity, or in anything, really - and it certainly is not a conscious lack of belief.
The point is that neither atheism nor 'theism' (whichever variety you want to point to, thus the quotes) is this default state.  Credulousness is - the willingness to believe something with scant or lacking evidence.  I mean, whether it's imaginary friends or monsters in the closet, children are quite capable of making up completely imaginary things that nobody else can see.  What's the difference between that and imagined supernatural entities?  Mainly the ability to get others to believe in them.

Credulousness is indeed a default state.  So is being a carbon-based life-form.  This discussion is about whether atheism or theism is the default state.

And there is no option that is not either theism or atheism.

There is the possibility in all things that
(i) The concept is accepted
(ii) The concept is denied
(iii) The concept is non-existent

The concept of a god is alien to a neonate. A neonate is in state (iii) about everything but hurries to make sense of the world into which it has arrived. A brain that will not stop thinking is its only tool.

Some are content with the world as it is without explanation, others require varying levels of explanation, and the remaining few know that the final explanation will probably never be reached.

Deities are the province of those who stop thinking sooner rather than later. We are all guilty of stopping thinking to some extent.

Azdgari says, "Credulousness is indeed a default state." I would say, Credulousness is indeed a the state and this is not atheism."
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 01, 2011, 06:15:43 PM
Azdgari:  I don't agree with your statement that there are no alternatives to theism or atheism.  Theism is an active belief in a deity or deities, and atheism is an active disbelief in deities, but neither properly explain non-belief (that is, a lack of belief as opposed to disbelief).
Exactly,
Just like my neighbor Sam.
He is non-believer.
You seem to be confusing various terms, John, what would you call a person brought up in a society without gods and without the knowledge of gods?

It is likely that you have never seen a representation of the molecular structure of Methyldicyclopentadienyl 2-manganese tricarbonyl. How would you describe yourself with respect to your belief in this apparent chemical. Are you a believer, a non-believer or are you simply void of the concept?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 01, 2011, 07:28:45 PM
...of the molecular structure of Methyldicyclopentadienyl 2-manganese tricarbonyl. How would you describe yourself with respect to your belief in this apparent chemical. Are you a believer, a non-believer or are you simply void of the concept?

Good one Graybeard!  Cuz' no one really knows what's in coffee!   ;D
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 01, 2011, 07:34:47 PM
Well that may or may not be the default position for everybody.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/12/religious-belief-is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/

Meh, that wasn't a particularly well written article.  I'm not convinced of it's arguments.

Perhaps it is biased in choosing the words "religion" and "gods" in connection with some "basic human need".  I think we are just too stupid as a species to escape irrational thinking.  Maybe stupid isn't the right word, but we're certainly not advanced enough in the brain to escape the trappings of delusional and or irrational thinking.  I think we all suffer from it in various ways.  Being an atheist is only one area where it is fairly easy for many of us to abandon the delusional thinking and beliefs.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: mram on August 01, 2011, 08:06:51 PM
The default position for new born humans is eat, shit and cuddle mommy.. That's about it and since atheism and theism don't fit any of the above eat shit and cuddle mommy are the default til taught otherwise or we make up the boogieman under out beds or whatever..Speaking of which..boogieman..god.. Hmmmmmm.. Credulousness seems to win out over the boogieman every time, but hey.. I never believed in the boogieman til my ugly sisters introduced me to him locking me in the closet for shits n giggles.. And who says little girls aren't born of Satan?  >:(
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 01, 2011, 09:02:17 PM
Azdgari:  I don't agree with your statement that there are no alternatives to theism or atheism.  Theism is an active belief in a deity or deities, and atheism is an active disbelief in deities, but neither properly explain non-belief (that is, a lack of belief as opposed to disbelief).

The bolded is not always how atheism is defined, and is certainly now how this self-described atheist defines the word.

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.  It is without theism: a-theism.  This lack of theism can exist for many reasons, but the common thread is a lack of belief in deities.

Do you have a better term to use for the negation of theism?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 01, 2011, 09:05:25 PM
There is the possibility in all things that
(i) The concept is accepted
(ii) The concept is denied
(iii) The concept is non-existent

The concept of a god is alien to a neonate. A neonate is in state (iii) about everything but hurries to make sense of the world into which it has arrived. A brain that will not stop thinking is its only tool.

State (iii) is no less the negation of state (i) than state (ii) is.  Since we have a term whose meaning is "the negation of (i)", what other possibility is there other than "(i)" and "the negation of (i)"?

Azdgari says, "Credulousness is indeed a default state." I would say, Credulousness is indeed a the state and this is not atheism."

If it is not atheism, then which god-belief does it represent, GB?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 02, 2011, 12:03:05 AM
Azdgari:  I don't agree with your statement that there are no alternatives to theism or atheism.  Theism is an active belief in a deity or deities, and atheism is an active disbelief in deities, but neither properly explain non-belief (that is, a lack of belief as opposed to disbelief).

The bolded is not always how atheism is defined, and is certainly now how this self-described atheist defines the word.

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.  It is without theism: a-theism.  This lack of theism can exist for many reasons, but the common thread is a lack of belief in deities.

Do you have a better term to use for the negation of theism?
How you, or other atheists, or even theists, define the word atheism, is not really at issue here.  We're talking about children too young to even understand the subject.  To say that newborn children are atheistic makes as much sense as saying that an animal is atheistic, which is to say it makes no sense at all.  Whether one refers to theism or atheism, both suggest an actual choice that someone made.  An entity (a newborn or very young child, for example) incapable of making that choice cannot properly be described in a way that suggests they have.

Bearing in mind that atheism is the negation of theism, as you said, how can someone incapable of understanding what a deity is agree or disagree with the concept?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Rare96ws6 on August 02, 2011, 12:43:33 AM
Jetson:  Just curious, but why do you think that atheism is the default position for humans?  I mean, assuming for the sake of argument that all varieties of theism are essentially "made up", for whatever reason, the implication is that theistic beliefs came about because of imagination, and practically every human ever born has an enormous capacity for imagination.  Couple that with charisma, the ability to convince not through reason but through force of personality, and it's easy to see how theistic beliefs could have come about without actual gods and spirits to inspire them.  However, that suggests that theism may be the default position for humans, albeit not any specific kind of theism (which does not necessarily mean anything; the default position for a car is in park, yet cars are not very useful if they aren't in motion).

Consular:  What makes you think that polytheism posits any infinite gods?  Even the all-father figure, whether Odin or Zeus/Jupiter or some other, cannot truly be described as infinite.

 Islam is the default human possition. The Koran tells us this. Duh! ;)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: mram on August 02, 2011, 02:23:42 AM
Azdgari:  I don't agree with your statement that there are no alternatives to theism or atheism.  Theism is an active belief in a deity or deities, and atheism is an active disbelief in deities, but neither properly explain non-belief (that is, a lack of belief as opposed to disbelief).

The bolded is not always how atheism is defined, and is certainly now how this self-described atheist defines the word.

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.  It is without theism: a-theism.  This lack of theism can exist for many reasons, but the common thread is a lack of belief in deities.

Do you have a better term to use for the negation of theism?
How you, or other atheists, or even theists, define the word atheism, is not really at issue here.  We're talking about children too young to even understand the subject.  To say that newborn children are atheistic makes as much sense as saying that an animal is atheistic, which is to say it makes no sense at all.  Whether one refers to theism or atheism, both suggest an actual choice that someone made.  An entity (a newborn or very young child, for example) incapable of making that choice cannot properly be described in a way that suggests they have.

Bearing in mind that atheism is the negation of theism, as you said, how can someone incapable of understanding what a deity is agree or disagree with the concept?
Exactly Jaim.. Let these fools play their textual mathematical games of if a baby in LA runs in a straight line at 600 miles an hour and another baby in NY runs 601 miles per hour in the opposite direction which one crashes into the atheist first and which one crashes into the theist first?
Babies DON'T know the difference.. THEY WANT THEIR BOTTLE AND THEIR DIAPER CHANGED! Jeeeeez Louise!  &)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 02, 2011, 06:08:15 AM
jaimehlers puts the idea very well in his post above. The neonate has nothing to deny. In order to be an atheist, you have to have the concept of deities.

Are amoeba atheists? Or are they simply devoid of the concepts of gods, theism and atheism

Quote
If it is not atheism, then which god-belief does it represent, GB?
Love him or loathe him, I think you have to go with Rumsfeld http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns. The relationship between a neonate and the concept of gods is an unknown unknown.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 06:09:34 AM
How you, or other atheists, or even theists, define the word atheism, is not really at issue here.  We're talking about children too young to even understand the subject.  To say that newborn children are atheistic makes as much sense as saying that an animal is atheistic, which is to say it makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense.  It just happens to be trivial.

Whether one refers to theism or atheism, both suggest an actual choice that someone made.

When do children make that choice?  I would put it to you that a choice is rarely made.  Characterizing atheism as a deliberate choice, perhaps one that deserves negative consequences, is a tool frequently used by the religious to promote bigotry.  I know that's not how you are intending to use it, but you are accepting the language of those who do.

An entity (a newborn or very young child, for example) incapable of making that choice cannot properly be described in a way that suggests they have.

See both of the above.

Bearing in mind that atheism is the negation of theism, as you said, how can someone incapable of understanding what a deity is agree or disagree with the concept?

Disagreement is irrelevant.  Theism is agreement.  Atheism is the lack of agreement.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 06:13:13 AM
jaimehlers puts the idea very well in his post above. The neonate has nothing to deny. In order to be an atheist, you have to have the concept of deities.

I guess it's better to define atheism as some sort of religious club, eh GB?  I mean, words can be defined in any manner one likes, but I see little use in defining atheism in the way you and jaimehlers do.

Are amoeba atheists? Or are they simply devoid of the concepts of gods, theism and atheism

To which mind do you refer when you ask if an amoeba is an atheist?

If it has a mind, then sure, the mind is atheistic.  It lacks god-beliefs.  I suspect it does not, in which case there is no meaningful object to which your question refers.  It parses as "do the minds of amoebas not hold beliefs in deities" which is meaningless since the object of the question - the minds of amoebas - do not exist.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 02, 2011, 06:50:15 AM
How you, or other atheists, or even theists, define the word atheism, is not really at issue here.  We're talking about children too young to even understand the subject.  To say that newborn children are atheistic makes as much sense as saying that an animal is atheistic, which is to say it makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense.  It just happens to be trivial.
On the contrary, jaimehlers is making a very valid point. A point upon which the question of atheism in babies hangs. As I have asked a similar question, I will address it below.

Quote
When do children make that choice?  I would put it to you that a choice is rarely made.  Characterizing atheism as a deliberate choice, perhaps one that deserves negative consequences, is a tool frequently used by the religious to promote bigotry.  I know that's not how you are intending to use it, but you are accepting the language of those who do.
I am sure that byre-reading your paragraph, you will see that the fault is that you are attacking the method of argument rather than the argument itself. Many arguments  are used by lunatics and unpleasant people as tools to advance their agenda. However, that does not make the style of argument wrong in itself.

FYI, a choice is made when there is an alternative to a proposition. Here the choice only arises when a concept of gods arises. Prior to that point, the neonate is neutral by virtue of ignorance and it cannot be described as either atheist or theist.

Bearing in mind that atheism is the negation of theism, as you said, how can someone incapable of understanding what a deity is agree or disagree with the concept?

Quote
Disagreement is irrelevant.  Theism is agreement.  Atheism is the lack of agreement.
Can you tell me the difference between ‘Disagreement’ and ‘lack of agreement’? If you can, I think you can understand the lack of concept of gods.


jaimehlers puts the idea very well in his post above. The neonate has nothing to deny. In order to be an atheist, you have to have the concept of deities.

I guess it's better to define atheism as some sort of religious club, eh GB?  I mean, words can be defined in any manner one likes, but I see little use in defining atheism in the way you and jaimehlers do.
I think it would be most unhelpful if words could be defined in ‘any manner one likes’. It is much more useful to consult a dictionary and see what others believe the word to mean.

From Dictionary.com: atheist
Noun: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Alice Through The Looking Glass: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Let us go for the dictionary definition.

May I suggest that denying and disbelieving both require an initial concept that can be denied or disbelieved? Absent that condition, and in this case, atheism cannot arise.

Quote
Are amoeba atheists? Or are they simply devoid of the concepts of gods, theism and atheism

To which mind do you refer when you ask if an amoeba is an atheist?
Precisely. And to which mind do you refer when asserting that neonates are atheists?

Quote
If it has a mind, then sure, the mind is atheistic.  It lacks god-beliefs.
See the definition above.  How can it deny or disbelieve in gods, when it does not know what a god is?

Quote
I suspect it does not, in which case there is no meaningful object to which your question refers.  It parses as "do the minds of amoebas not hold beliefs in deities" which is meaningless since the object of the question - the minds of amoebas - do not exist.
No. The parsing is in the positive. “Does an amoeba have a concept of gods, such that it could deny or disbelieve in them? If so, it may be atheist, if not, its position is neutral.”

The nonexistence of the mind of an amoeba precludes it from having a concept of any sort. The absence of the idea of gods in the mind of a neonate equally precludes it from having a concept of any sort. Absent that concept, I think jaimehlers and I wonder how it is possible to disbelieve or deny the concept (that does not exist.)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 07:29:06 AM
I understand your points, Graybeard.  This is not a new topic to me.  Though I do feel this needs to be addressed before moving forward:

Quote
I am sure that byre-reading your paragraph, you will see that the fault is that you are attacking the method of argument rather than the argument itself. Many arguments  are used by lunatics and unpleasant people as tools to advance their agenda. However, that does not make the style of argument wrong in itself.

When the outcome of an argument rests on whether we should decide to define a term in X or Y manner, and whether we should characterize that definition in A or B ways, the consequences of that definition and characterization are very pertinent to the argument.

Quote
I think it would be most unhelpful if words could be defined in ‘any manner one likes’.

This is disingenuous.  It should be clear in context that I was acknowledging the subjectivity of word-definitions.  If you disagree, then please cite the objective standard that languages follow in determining what their words should mean.  It cannot be a human-created standard.

Quote
It is much more useful to consult a dictionary and see what others believe the word to mean.

Which others?  Why is the definition you cite better than something to the effect of "a non-belief in deities"?

I've seen some atheists define the word as (to paraphrase) "a reasoned rejection of all supernatural claims".  How do you feel about that definition?

Quote
May I suggest that denying and disbelieving both require an initial concept that can be denied or disbelieved? Absent that condition, and in this case, atheism cannot arise.

I agree with your first sentence.  The second is only applicable if you use the restricted, burdened definition of "atheism".

Quote
Can you tell me the difference between ‘Disagreement’ and ‘lack of agreement’? If you can, I think you can understand the lack of concept of gods.

Yes, disagreement and lack of agreement are different.  The former is a subset of the latter.  Neither are agreement.  Lacking the concept of a thing automatically entails a lack of agreement that the thing exists.  The cause of that lack of agreement differs, but so what?

Quote
Precisely. And to which mind do you refer when asserting that neonates are atheists?

To their developing minds.  Or do you contend that infants are literally mindless?

Quote
See the definition above.  How can it deny or disbelieve in gods, when it does not know what a god is?

As your preferred definition of "atheism" does not even arise etymologically from the make-up of the word, and since it is a definition that is more useful to bigots, I reject its usage in the first place.  Since I had made it clear that I reject that usage, arguments to me (such as those you've made) that first depend on its acceptance are useless.

Quote
No. The parsing is in the positive. “Does an amoeba have a concept of gods, such that it could deny or disbelieve in them? If so, it may be atheist, if not, its position is neutral.”

Obviously it parses differently if one uses the more religious definition of "atheist".

Quote
The nonexistence of the mind of an amoeba precludes it from having a concept of any sort. The absence of the idea of gods in the mind of a neonate equally precludes it from having a concept of any sort. Absent that concept, I think jaimehlers and I wonder how it is possible to disbelieve or deny the concept (that does not exist.)

See above.  Your argument is based on a premise we do not share.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 02, 2011, 07:42:28 AM
Maybe I'm looking at this too simply......

I can agree with Greybeard that before one can be a theist or an a-theist, one must first understand the concept to be able to choose (or, perhaps, to be programmed one way or the other - which one it is is irrelevant to the point I'm making).  So perhaps we would more preoperly describe newborns as un-theist?  Or Blanks, perhaps - so we have Supers, Brights, and Blanks?

But - and I think it is crucial to the question about the default state - while "Blank" may indeed be the default state for everyone on everything, surely "no belief" is a far closer state to "Blank" than "belief" would be, and so it would be more correct to decsribe the natural state as a-theist (and a-unicornist, a-Australiaist, and a-communismist)?

Point being, by definition you CANNOT be a believer in something while still a Blank to that something - but I would suggest that while a Blank to something, you could quite correctly be described as having no belief in that something.

Hence, our natural state is far more accurately described as being a-theist that theist - and indeed "a-anythingist" that "anythingist".
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 07:50:30 AM
Anfauglir, I think the problem here lies not with whether or not a "blank slate" lacks belief.  Graybeard would agree to that - wouldn't you, GB?

The problem is that "lacks belief" is not how GB defines "atheism".  "Atheism" is a far more deliberate affiliation, in GB's mind.  And to be fair, he's not alone.  Then again, he wouldn't be alone if he defined "atheism" as "worship of Satan", either.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 02, 2011, 08:04:11 AM
Anfauglir, I think the problem here lies not with whether or not a "blank slate" lacks belief.  Graybeard would agree to that - wouldn't you, GB?

The problem is that "lacks belief" is not how GB defines "atheism".  "Atheism" is a far more deliberate affiliation, in GB's mind.  And to be fair, he's not alone. 

If pushed, I would agree with him too.  Or, perhaps, I would PREFER it if both sides - theist and atheist alike - were rather more deliberate in their taking of sides.  I'm sure that the number of people who profess themselves believers (of any stripe) is far greater than the number of believers who came to their position throught consideration and personal journeys, rather than "cultural Christians" who tick the box on census forms by habit.  And I think the same applies to atheists as well, although (perhaps by definition) the numbers are not as different.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 02, 2011, 09:05:31 AM
I think the idea now is to settle upon a definition of atheist. Also from dictionary.com
theism–noun
1. the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

I see neither this nor the definition of atheism (above) as biased or carrying baggage. If you are objecting to ‘disbelieve’ and ‘deny’, a good dictionary compiler, and Dictionary.com is reasonably sound, will also have definitions of the words within the definitions and thus looking at the word ‘belief’ would help here.

belief –noun
1. something believed;  an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

You will see that ‘belief’ looks to be a poor attribute to have; ‘disbelief’ is therefore a positive attribute.

Quote
I've seen some atheists define the word as (to paraphrase) "a reasoned rejection of all supernatural claims".  How do you feel about that definition?
I feel that it is broader than atheism, which refers solely to deities. I think you have given a paraphrase of

rationalism –noun
1.   the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct. (I do not include the 2nd and 3rd definitions in this case)

Were I to accept "a reasoned rejection of all supernatural claims". It would prevent a neonate from being an atheist as it has insufficient reasoning power to accept or reject anything.

There may be some help in [wiki]Ignosticism[/wiki] but I doubt it, and I would support Dictionary.com’s definition of atheism.

Anfauglir, I think the problem here lies not with whether or not a "blank slate" lacks belief.  Graybeard would agree to that - wouldn't you, GB?
As a blank lacks everything, the answer seems clear to me.

Quote
The problem is that "lacks belief" is not how GB defines "atheism".
Let me make it clear, ‘I’ am not defining atheism. I am letting a neutral dictionary do the job. Had it supported your stance, I would have been forced to concede. 
Quote
"Atheism" is a far more deliberate affiliation, in GB's mind.
I am grateful for that insight into my own mind. As deliberate comes from ‘deliberation’ I wonder why you said, “a reasoned rejection of all supernatural claims", which implies some deliberation via reasoning.
Quote
And to be fair, he's not alone.  Then again, he wouldn't be alone if he defined "atheism" as "worship of Satan", either.
This ad hominem  and strawman is not progressing anything; not only that, it is quite illogical.

Neonates are neither atheist or theist as a concept of gods is required for both positions. It is irrefutable that they are non-believers, but then again there is quite a lot in which they do not believe...
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 02, 2011, 09:11:39 AM
Couple of questions. to all of you above.
1) "newborns have the lack of concept of gods", I have to agree to that but how would you explain almost every culture in history of mankind, there is some sort of religious back ground.(theism) where did all these come from?
Is it just human nature? then are you acting against human nature?(atheism)
Example--- "Male is attracted to female", vice versa for the purpose of reproduction.(human nature)

2) When I was little I believed in both Santa Claus and god, as I grew older, I found out only one of them was real, how did I found out? First I was told, second I read the words of God (bible), lastly, I experience God. Just like what it says in the Bible.
By reading you guys' posts, I can tell there was no experience with God,
But how would you explain millions of believers' experience, healing, touching, comforting.

Example---"phantom Pain" for some amputees.
I know there are theories about it but, is there physical evidence?
Are you going to tell them those are delusional, fake, just because you didn't experienced it?
How are you so sure God doesn't exist? Is there evidence?
Are religions just delusions? Fakes?
Then that's one heck a lot of delusions.

Percentage of theist 88% world wide, and 95% in America (I just google it)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 09:46:18 AM
The problem is that "lacks belief" is not how GB defines "atheism".
Let me make it clear, ‘I’ am not defining atheism. I am letting a neutral dictionary do the job.[/quote]

You are defining it by deciding to appeal to that dictionary.  That is your choice and you are responsible for it.  Don't shift off that responsibility - you are the one who agrees with the dictionary.  Why is the dictionary authoritative on this topic?

Had it supported your stance, I would have been forced to concede.

What exactly would you have been forced to concede?  Dictionaries merely report on confirmed common usage.  Their definitions are still subjective.

I am grateful for that insight into my own mind. As deliberate comes from ‘deliberation’ I wonder why you said, “a reasoned rejection of all supernatural claims", which implies some deliberation via reasoning.

I was not using that definition, or appealing to it.  I was citing it as an example of the diversity of definitions applied to the term "atheism".

Quote
And to be fair, he's not alone.  Then again, he wouldn't be alone if he defined "atheism" as "worship of Satan", either.
This ad hominem  and strawman is not progressing anything; not only that, it is quite illogical.

This isn't an ad hominem or a strawman.  An ad hominem is when a personal characteristic of one's opponent as a premise to an argument where that personal characteristic is irrelevant.  I have not done this.

A strawman would be to present a false version of your argument as if it were your own, in order to pretend to dismantle yours.  I have not done this, either.

What I have done is express the diversity of definitions of "atheism" used by various groups today.  By appealing to Dictionary.com, you have - whether you did so intentionally or not - appealed to common usage.  Yet, common usage is not as homogenous as Dictionary.com might suggest.  Appealing to its definitions merely aligns you with the group of people who define "atheism" in that particular way.  Defining it as "worship or Satan" would align you with another group.  Defining it as "the absence of theism" would align you with another (all on this topic, by the way - not necessarily anything more).  Defining it as "reasoned rejection of supernatural claims" would put you in yet another group (that's not quite the same as rationalism, btw - though I suppose it depends on which souce you look to for the definition of "rationalism").

Neonates are neither atheist or theist as a concept of gods is required for both positions. It is irrefutable that they are non-believers, but then again there is quite a lot in which they do not believe...

That is your decision.  Apart from an affinity for the definitions offered by Dictionary.com, what arguments do you have in favor of using that definition?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 02, 2011, 09:46:44 AM
1) "newborns have the lack of concept of gods", I have to agree to that but how would you explain almost every culture in history of mankind, there is some sort of religious back ground.(theism) where did all these come from?

Newborns also have no concept of dragons - yet every culture in the history of mankind has some kind of dragon - therefore dragons MUST exist.  Is that your argument?

How would you explain millions of believers' experience, healing, touching, comforting.

Indeed, many millions of Hindus and Muslims have these experiences.  Therefore their god/s are real.  Is that your argument?

Are you going to tell them those are delusional, fake, just because you didn't experienced it?
Nope.  Their experience of pain as if coming from the missing limb is quite real.  Doesn't mean the limb is still there though.

Are religions just delusions? Fakes?
Then that's one heck a lot of delusions.
Percentage of theist 88% world wide, and 95% in America (I just google it)

I see.  So whatever a lot of people believe is therefore by definition true.  Is that your argument?

In the year 50BC, the vast majority of the world believed in either Roman gods, pagan gods, Norse gods, Aztec gods.....and so on, and so forth.  Barely 1% of the world believed in the god of the Bible - and NOBODY believed in Jesus.  99% of the world's population believed that Jayweh was a false god - if they even knew of him at all.

That's one heck of a lot of delusions, wouldn't you say?  Too many really - so they MUST have been right in their belief that Yahweh did not exist.

Is THAT your argument?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on August 02, 2011, 09:51:07 AM
I'm a little "rusty", but I'll give this one a try

Couple of questions. to all of you above.
1) "newborns have the lack of concept of gods", I have to agree to that but how would you explain almost every culture in history of mankind, there is some sort of religious back ground.(theism) where did all these come from?

Just because someone has an idea it doesn't mean that it's innate and it certainly does not mean that the idea is true. Religion came for two reasons:
1 - To explain previously unexplained phenomena
2 - To control the masses

Is it just human nature? then are you acting against human nature?(atheism)

It is human nature to want explanations. Theism presented an easy way to explain everything, but the curious ones searched further than what they were taught and came to other conclusions.

Example--- "Male is attracted to female", vice versa for the purpose of reproduction.(human nature)

Male is also attracted to male and female to female. It occurs in nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals). You're not saying that nature is unnatural, are you?

2) When I was little I believed in both Santa Claus and god, as I grew older, I found out only one of them was real, how did I found out? First I was told, second I read the words of God (bible), lastly, I experience God. Just like what it says in the Bible.

It's called a [wiki]placebo[/wiki]. And you didn't "find out only one of them was real", you found one one of them wasn't real and assumed the other one was.

By reading you guys' posts, I can tell there was no experience with God,

Yes, I wonder why that is...

But how would you explain millions of believers' experience, healing, touching, comforting.

Last three are related to the placebo thing. As for the rest, how do you explain it's all from completely different religions? And how do you explain that there is no scientific evidence for any of them?

Example---"phantom Pain" for some amputees.
I know there are theories about it but, is there physical evidence?
Are you going to tell them those are delusional, fake, just because you didn't experienced it?
How are you so sure God doesn't exist? Is there evidence?
Are religions just delusions? Fakes?
Then that's one heck a lot of delusions.

[wiki]Phantom_pain[/wiki]
Read that article and the completely natural scientific explanations for it.

Percentage of theist 88% world wide, and 95% in America (I just google it)

And we finish with an [wiki]ad populum[/wiki].
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 02, 2011, 10:44:04 AM
Azdgari:  Let me ask you this:  Is it meaningful to describe something as atheist if it cannot affirm that this is the case?  An animal cannot tell us whether it has a religious belief or not, so how can we describe it as definitely not having one, whether it is a lack of belief or actual disbelief?  Same thing with a newborn human.  For that matter, same thing with my desk, or my laptop, or my cell phone, or my keys.  For something to be atheist, not-theist, it must possess the ability to choose to be theist.  Newborns do not have that ability.

Couple of questions. to all of you above.
1) "newborns have the lack of concept of gods", I have to agree to that but how would you explain almost every culture in history of mankind, there is some sort of religious back ground.(theism) where did all these come from?
Is it just human nature? then are you acting against human nature?(atheism)
Example--- "Male is attracted to female", vice versa for the purpose of reproduction.(human nature)
Is not culture passed on from generation to generation?

The mere fact that cultures have a religious backgrounds does not prove whether it is or is not human nature to have one.  It just proves that those culture have religious backgrounds.

And as far as acting against human nature goes...most people are perfectly willing to kill and eat other animals for sustenance.  Does that mean that vegetarianism is against human nature?

2) When I was little I believed in both Santa Claus and god, as I grew older, I found out only one of them was real, how did I found out? First I was told, second I read the words of God (bible), lastly, I experience God. Just like what it says in the Bible.
By reading you guys' posts, I can tell there was no experience with God,
But how would you explain millions of believers' experience, healing, touching, comforting.
Most atheists do indeed have religious experience.  A large number were devout believers.  So it's flat-out wrong to say that they had no experience with God.

As for the rest of it, that's purely subjective.  You were primed by people who already believed, and that priming was supported by the words you read which were purported to be by God.  Your personal experiences with God are just that, personal, not something that can be objectively experienced by anyone.  It is the same with other believers; the personal, subjective experiences of a million or a billion people do not add up to anything more than the personal, subjective experiences of those people.  They certainly do not add up to something objective, unless it is something that can be demonstrated objectively.

Example---"phantom Pain" for some amputees.
I know there are theories about it but, is there physical evidence?
Are you going to tell them those are delusional, fake, just because you didn't experienced it?
A brain cell connection, once established, never truly goes away.  So the conduits that conveyed sensations (including pain) from a limb to the brain are not going to suddenly go away just because that limb is no longer attached, and occasionally the electrical impulses of the brain will fire off that set of nerves.  That's why amputees suffer phantom limb syndrome and phantom pain.

How are you so sure God doesn't exist? Is there evidence?
Are religions just delusions? Fakes?
Then that's one heck a lot of delusions.
When believers can objectively prove that God exists, then they'll have a case for demanding that atheists prove that God doesn't exist.

Doesn't matter how many people believe in something if it's wrong.  See below.

Percentage of theist 88% world wide, and 95% in America (I just google it)
Fallacy of the majority - just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it correct.

Most people, in 1490, believed the Earth was flat.  Yet it would be ridiculous to say that the Earth actually was flat before it was proved to be round.  It was always round regardless of what people believed.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 02, 2011, 10:53:36 AM
Anfaulir. Here are my answers
1) Just like Santa Claus.  No interaction with believers.
2) We were just debating on atheism vs theism. Remember
    I wouldn't even go further on this, because I know you won't believe.
3)Mine, and millions of others experience with god is quite real too.
   You just can't see it just like phantom pain.
4)I wasn't saying "you should believe, because millions of people believes"
   I was saying you should start considering when there is millions of people out there experiencing something that you are denying.
besides, how can one deny it or say it's fake when one has not experienced or has no knowledge of it?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 10:58:42 AM
Azdgari:  Let me ask you this:  Is it meaningful to describe something as atheist if it cannot affirm that this is the case?

Sure.  Just as a dog cannot affirm that it is a German Shepherd, we can describe it as one (or otherwise).

An animal cannot tell us whether it has a religious belief or not, so how can we describe it as definitely not having one, whether it is a lack of belief or actual disbelief?

Are you, then, abandoning the position that animals (and infants, below) are incapable of holding such beliefs?  It's not a point that I much care about, given my own position, but Graybeard has argued the opposite to what you are implying now.  Are you willing to debate him on the subject?

And as to your question, you also cannot know whether or not I am an atheist (whatever the definition you're using).  You can be reasonably certain in light of evidence, but you cannot rule out the idea that you may be wrong.  The same goes for the lack of religious beliefs of animals and infants.  I agree with Graybeard that they are, for the most part, incapable of coherent belief on the subject.  They certainly seem to be.

Same thing with a newborn human.  For that matter, same thing with my desk, or my laptop, or my cell phone, or my keys.  For something to be atheist, not-theist, it must possess the ability to choose to be theist.  Newborns do not have that ability.

This is a different point than the one you were making in the rest of your post.  Here you are using, as a standard, the ability to form belief in one's mind.  Earlier in the post, you were using, as a standard, the ability to communicate that belief to others (even if just to indicate its existence).  As you said:  "An animal cannot tell us whether it has a religious belief or not, so how can we describe it as definitely not having one..."

And to this point, I refer you to my post to Graybeard above.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 11:00:00 AM
4)I wasn't saying "you should believe, because millions of people believes"
   I was saying you should start considering when there is millions of people out there experiencing something that you are denying.
besides, how can one deny it or say it's fake when one has not experienced or has no knowledge of it?

Who was denying that the experience was real?

As far as I could tell, he just had a different interpretation of that experience.  A more reasonable one.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 02, 2011, 11:23:12 AM
4)I wasn't saying "you should believe, because millions of people believes"
   I was saying you should start considering when there is millions of people out there experiencing something that you are denying.
besides, how can one deny it or say it's fake when one has not experienced or has no knowledge of it?

Who was denying that the experience was real?

As far as I could tell, he just had a different interpretation of that experience.  A more reasonable one.
So you are taking people's experience "real" and still saying God is fake.
"People having REAL experience with FAKE God?"
I am a bit confused.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 02, 2011, 11:31:20 AM
Confusion comes with lack of education.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 02, 2011, 11:32:57 AM
Sure.  Just as a dog cannot affirm that it is a German Shepherd, we can describe it as one (or otherwise).
Which is not the same thing at all.  A dog's breed is a physical property that can be independently and objectively observed.  The comparison is invalid, because you cannot necessarily describe any given person as an atheist or theist just from looking at them, even though you can describe them by various physical attributes that you can see.

Are you, then, abandoning the position that animals (and infants, below) are incapable of holding such beliefs?
No, and this comes across as sophistry.  See below.

It's not a point that I much care about, given my own position, but Graybeard has argued the opposite to what you are implying now.  Are you willing to debate him on the subject?
I said nothing except that an animal cannot tell us what it thinks about the subject and that we thus cannot describe it as definitely not having one (which is required for something to be described as 'atheist').  If you are taking the inference that this means that animals are capable of holding such beliefs, then I do not know where you got it from.

And as to your question, you also cannot know whether or not I am an atheist (whatever the definition you're using).  You can be reasonably certain in light of evidence, but you cannot rule out the idea that you may be wrong.  The same goes for the lack of religious beliefs of animals and infants.  I agree with Graybeard that they are, for the most part, incapable of coherent belief on the subject.  They certainly seem to be.
Emphasis mine.  Something that is incapable of coherent belief on a subject cannot be described using a term that requires the capability of holding a coherent belief.  As atheism requires that capability, whether you refer to active disbelief or simple lack of belief, it cannot refer to an entity which does not hold a coherent belief to begin with.

This is a different point than the one you were making in the rest of your post.  Here you are using, as a standard, the ability to form belief in one's mind.  Earlier in the post, you were using, as a standard, the ability to communicate that belief to others (even if just to indicate its existence).  As you said:  "An animal cannot tell us whether it has a religious belief or not, so how can we describe it as definitely not having one..."

And to this point, I refer you to my post to Graybeard above.
An entity that cannot form a belief certainly cannot communicate that belief; an entity that cannot communicate a belief may or may not lack the ability to form a belief, but as far as we are concerned, it might as well not be able to.  So it may be technically different, but functionally it is the same, and that is the basis for my statement.

As to your latest reply to Graybeard, I cannot really tell what you are directing me to.  Please clarify what point or points you mean.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emergence on August 02, 2011, 11:37:05 AM
So you are taking people's experience "real" and still saying God is fake.
"People having REAL experience with FAKE God?"
I am a bit confused.

"reality of experience" != "reality of perceived content/cause of experience"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Karl on August 02, 2011, 11:57:02 AM
I do not see it that way. Practically spoken your statement applies for daily life but what if there are a third or infinitely more possibilities?

If there are infinite non-X possibilities, then they fall into the broad category of "not-X".

I can say 2*2 is 5 or 2*2 is 3, both are wrong.

All answers are covered by "4 or not-4".

As far as the discussion is concerned and taking the 2 conditions as the only existing, then you are right.

When one of them is only defined as the negation of the other (as atheism is defined with respect to theism), there are no alternatives.
Maybe I should have chosen a different approach. First of all, I do not believe in any god, never did.

I was more thinking of the number 4 being the result of the addition of 2+2. You are choosing one way in order to either decide true or untrue. Untrue excludes true and those are the only 2 possibilities. I was more thinking of 4 being the result of various possibilities. 8-4 is 4.

To explain myself, if you see a result then a correct operation that produces this result is not necessarily the only operation that does so. Transferring that thought to life we see the result, the present situation. We can safely say that evolution played its part in getting where we presently are. We can also claim that believing in god makes no sense at all and that the "good god" does not exist. Reality simply is different.

We also need to recognize that there are still gaps of knowledge to be filled. Theists immediately shout "miracle", "see, god did this" and so on. To me that is BS. Then again there are a lot of factors we don't know anything about, be it for lack of knowledge or simply caused by the fact that we can just understand what our make up (species) allows us to understand.

So what I am trying to say is that the result we see now can be the result of infinite possible processes we know nothing about. 4 = Square Root of 16, 4 = 36/9 and so on. Operations not (yet) understood can lead to the same result. So whilst we can explain vast segments of (human) evolution, we as atheists might also run into some surprises one day. Other important factors might show up, be investigated and proved to be plausible. Or they will not and we will never know.

So basically I was probably off topic or incorrectly answered to your post, sorry for that. If as per definition a condition is only defined as the negation of the other, then you are right with what you say.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 02, 2011, 11:57:43 AM
Confusion comes with lack of education.
"I think I can guess. I just think that it's honest to say I am guessing when I guess"
I can see someone was little confused ;)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 12:28:38 PM
Which is not the same thing at all.  A dog's breed is a physical property that can be independently and objectively observed.  The comparison is invalid, because you cannot necessarily describe any given person as an atheist or theist just from looking at them, even though you can describe them by various physical attributes that you can see.

I addressed this in a part of my post that you quoted further down, but ignored:

Quote from: Azdgari
And as to your question, you also cannot know whether or not I am an atheist (whatever the definition you're using).  You can be reasonably certain in light of evidence, but you cannot rule out the idea that you may be wrong.  The same goes for the lack of religious beliefs of animals and infants.

You cannot see into the mind of a dog.  By the same token, you cannot see into the mind of another human being.  In both cases, you must judge their mental state based on their behaviour - be that through their bodily movements, their language, or otherwise.

No, and this comes across as sophistry.  See below.

I 'saw below', but I still cannot see where it is that you supported this accusation.  Could you be more specific?

I said nothing except that an animal cannot tell us what it thinks about the subject and that we thus cannot describe it as definitely not having one ...

Indeed, we cannot rule out the idea that the animal has the capacity for belief.  This is where - as I see it - you contradicted Graybeard, whose position - as I understand it - is that such creatures are incapable of belief and can be described as such.  Though at the same time, his preferred definition of "atheist" is such that this doesn't qualify them as atheists.

You took a different tack, suggesting that we can't know that animals aren't atheists because they may really have theistic beliefs and we can't know they don't.  How does that jive with the idea that (a)theism is off-topic with respect to animals, etc.?

(which is required for something to be described as 'atheist').

Only if you accept that more restrictive, bigotry-enabling definition of the term.  Your choice.  It's neither true nor false, but the choice does reflect on one's possible motives.

If you are taking the inference that this means that animals are capable of holding such beliefs, then I do not know where you got it from.

See above.  I hope I explained my reasoning clearly enough.  Without the suggestion that animals may be capable of holding those beliefs, your point makes no sense.

Emphasis mine.  Something that is incapable of coherent belief on a subject cannot be described using a term that requires the capability of holding a coherent belief.

I agree.  Fortunately, not all senses of the word "atheist" require it.  Some are far more robust.

As atheism requires that capability, whether you refer to active disbelief or simple lack of belief, it cannot refer to an entity which does not hold a coherent belief to begin with.

As I said above, that is your choice.  As a believer, you don't really have much to lose from it.

An entity that cannot form a belief certainly cannot communicate that belief; an entity that cannot communicate a belief may or may not lack the ability to form a belief, but as far as we are concerned, it might as well not be able to.  So it may be technically different, but functionally it is the same, and that is the basis for my statement.

They are not functionally the same.  Linguistic communication is hardly the only way in which beliefs inform our actions.

As to your latest reply to Graybeard, I cannot really tell what you are directing me to.  Please clarify what point or points you mean.

Honestly, I don't know what was going through my mind when I said that.  I really don't.  I don't even know what point I was trying to refer to, whether it's actually there or not.  I think I'd addressed everything I wanted to at the time.  Meh, forget it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Karl on August 02, 2011, 12:30:02 PM
From Dictionary.com: atheist
Noun: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
That puts me in problems. I always considered myself an atheist. But I do not deny or disbelieve the existence of a supreme being or supreme beings. I have just not met them, nobody could prove their existence and I see nothing at all that can be attributed to their existence.

But that does not mean they do not exist. There are a lot of things I have never seen, yet they exist. I disbelieve all religious teachings. I disbelieve all about religion that they told me as a kid at school. I disagree on religiously motivated harmful actions. I could go on for hours but I guess I made myself clear.

I just do not consider the human race to be the highest possible state of evolution. So there might be higher beings that I am not aware of. How can I disbelieve something I cannot even grasp. Religion up to now brings a lot of lies, fairytales and other "unbelievable" stuff. So I disbelieve all present religions. But I have no clue about what else there might be.

Confusion comes with lack of education.
True, but sometimes it comes with a lot of education (confused professor as an example).
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 12:36:17 PM
To explain myself, if you see a result then a correct operation that produces this result is not necessarily the only operation that does so. Transferring that thought to life we see the result, the present situation. We can safely say that evolution played its part in getting where we presently are. We can also claim that believing in god makes no sense at all and that the "good god" does not exist. Reality simply is different.

Ahh, that makes sense.  I get it now, and I agree.

So basically I was probably off topic or incorrectly answered to your post, sorry for that. If as per definition a condition is only defined as the negation of the other, then you are right with what you say.

It's not entirely off-topic.  There have been other long, heated discussions of this thread's topic on this forum in the past, and your point would be more applicable to those.  This one's focused on a different point.

In the latest of those other threads, it was grudgingly accepted that infants lacked theism, and that they could be described as atheists on that basis.  However, they should be called "incapable atheists" or "ignorant atheists" for clarity (depending on their level of development).  There was a discussion of how atheism could result from many different paths, and that one's atheism for reason X may have nothing to do with another's atheism for reason Y.

In this thread, though, folks are rejecting that atheism can even be defined as a lack of theism.  It has to be an actual choice.  An adult with no concept of gods is someone I would define as an atheist.  Not so with some of the folks around here, apparently.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Karl on August 02, 2011, 12:42:38 PM
An adult with no concept of gods is someone I would define as an atheist.
Helps me with my last post.  That is exactly how I would describe myself. I have no concept of gods.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 12:48:38 PM
Well, you sort of do, in that you know of concepts of gods.  I was referring to an adult who had never been exposed to the concept in any way, shape or form.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 02, 2011, 01:15:38 PM
Confusion comes with lack of education.
"I think I can guess. I just think that it's honest to say I am guessing when I guess"
I can see someone was little confused ;)

There's nothing confusing about that quote beyond your lack of understanding of the language.

You're embarassing yourself, again.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: fishjie on August 02, 2011, 01:18:25 PM
Depends whether or not you believe in the whole concept of "tabula rasa".    Humans don't start with a completely blank slate, since they know how to do things such as cry for attention.

however, no baby understands the concept of "God", let alone believe in such a concept, let alone believe in any particular religion, so the default would be a lack of belief in "God", hence atheism.     
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 01:20:33 PM
Sounds pretty simple and reasonable, fishjie.  But it's premised on defining "atheism" as a lack of belief in gods.  I define it that way, but not everyone here does.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: relativetruth on August 02, 2011, 02:14:44 PM
I don't wish to get into a semantic war on the word 'atheist' and if animals could be called that.

However I would be interested in peoples views on when they think a human child posseses enough knowledge to have the concept of gods.

An entity would need to have a concept of 'self' before you even think about superior beings. I think that a human child gets to that stage at about two years old. I am not aware of any test which conclusively prove any animals to be 'self-aware' certainly not at an equivalent stage of development.

At the time a human child becomes self-aware it would already be able to distinguish many members of its immediate family and maybe the mother or father has already taken on the 'god' role of a superior being.
This 'god' provides for their every need and provides rules and gives rewards and punishments.

I submit that the concept of gods is just an extension of parental worship when you start to realise just how flawed they are and you can easily fool them.
If you use this model then maybe the default position is theist when you replace your 'demi-god' parents with imaginary ones.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 02, 2011, 02:22:13 PM
fishjie:  Being able to believe in a concept requires being able to understand it (i.e, have an understanding of it, even if not a perfect one).  If you don't have the latter, then the former is meaningless.  Both lack of belief and disbelief in something require at least some understanding of the something in question to be meaningful statements, otherwise it's more properly described as ignorance of belief.

I addressed this in a part of my post that you quoted further down, but ignored:
I certainly did not ignore it.  Your statement there was similar to mine, so I saw no point in addressing it.

You cannot see into the mind of a dog.  By the same token, you cannot see into the mind of another human being.  In both cases, you must judge their mental state based on their behaviour - be that through their bodily movements, their language, or otherwise.
It is true that I can't see into another's mind.  The difference is that a human can communicate complicated concepts in their mind to me using language.  An animal, or a newborn human, cannot, except for extremely simplistic concepts that do not require any common language at all.

I 'saw below', but I still cannot see where it is that you supported this accusation.  Could you be more specific?
Note that I said that it came across as sophistry, not that you were deliberately engaging in sophistry.  To wit, your statement that I was abandoning the position that animals are incapable of holding such beliefs because I said, "An animal cannot tell us whether it has a religious belief or not".  Whether it was sophistry or not depends on whether your misunderstanding of that sentence was deliberate or accidental - I decided it was probably accidental and thus said that it came across as sophistry, rather than that it was sophistry.

Indeed, we cannot rule out the idea that the animal has the capacity for belief.  This is where - as I see it - you contradicted Graybeard, whose position - as I understand it - is that such creatures are incapable of belief and can be described as such.  Though at the same time, his preferred definition of "atheist" is such that this doesn't qualify them as atheists.
And this was where the misunderstanding was.  You assumed that I was contradicting him because I stated that we couldn't communicate with them to find out for sure.  There is no contradiction there - we assume that animals are incapable of belief because we can't communicate effectively with them to know for sure, and what we observe of their behavior does not suggest religious beliefs.

You took a different tack, suggesting that we can't know that animals aren't atheists because they may really have theistic beliefs and we can't know they don't.  How does that jive with the idea that (a)theism is off-topic with respect to animals, etc.?
This is another assumption; I suggested no such thing.  The only thing my statement meant was that we can't ask them, so we can't conclude that they are definitely atheists (the same way we can by asking someone and having them say, "I don't believe in God").

(which is required for something to be described as 'atheist').
Only if you accept that more restrictive, bigotry-enabling definition of the term.  Your choice.  It's neither true nor false, but the choice does reflect on one's possible motives.
I said, "...definitely not having one[1] (which is required for something to be described as 'atheist')".  It's hardly bigoted to describe a lack of belief as "definitely not having a belief".

See above.  I hope I explained my reasoning clearly enough.  Without the suggestion that animals may be capable of holding those beliefs, your point makes no sense.
You explained your reasoning well enough for me to understand what you were talking about.  However, I have to point out yet again that it seems like you were (and are) proceeding from an unstated assumption.  My suggestion is that you set aside that assumption and take my comment at face value, without assuming that I must be saying that animals are capable of holding such beliefs, and see if it makes more sense.

I agree.  Fortunately, not all senses of the word "atheist" require it.  Some are far more robust.
Like how a scientific theory is much more robust than a layman's theory.  Except that doesn't stop people from misunderstanding which is which; if anything, it makes it easier for certain groups to confuse the issue.  If you're going to describe something that's "far more robust" than the common definition, then it would make sense to come up with a more precise term so as to avoid conflating the two definitions.

As I said above, that is your choice.  As a believer, you don't really have much to lose from it.
Except for clarity.  If we're going to discuss an issue like this, then it behooves us both to be clear about what we mean.  That includes not using a more general word to mean something that is "far more robust".  I got in an argument with my brother once because I used the word 'ossified' (as in, someone's brains were ossified), because he thought I should have used the more common word 'petrified'.  But that would have confused the issue.

They are not functionally the same.  Linguistic communication is hardly the only way in which beliefs inform our actions.
Nor did I suggest it was.  I was talking about communication in general, not just spoken words.  So yes, something that cannot communicate a belief might as well not be able to form a belief - they are functionally the same thing.
 1. a belief
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 03:02:29 PM
I am not sure that a word-definition and a scientific theory can be compared for "robustness", since one is a subjectively-selected tool to convey thoughts, and the other attempts to describe the objective universe.  I meant that the broader usage of the word is less dependent on knowing peoples' (and others') thoughts, and so is more useful as a label.  It means less.  That's not a bad thing.

The reason that definitions of atheism that mean more are better enablers of bigotry, is that they make atheism more important.[1]  Atheism isn't important, or at least, it shouldn't be.  Atheism does not define my identity except in relation to theism.  I would prefer it if atheism never came up at all in life.  It should not be an issue.  But it is, and those of us who are atheistic can become primarily identified as such to other people (mainly theists).

Jaimehlers, you're a heretic with respect to a lot of peoples' beliefs.  What if your primary identity in the eyes of the majority of the population was "Heretic"?  You might not mind all that much...or you might.  I don't know you, so I won't speculate there.  But being identified in that way is a dangerous potential precursor to discrimination based on that label.  A difference that's seen as significant is more likely to earn discrimination by "normal" people without that difference.

By the way, "definitely not having a belief" is not how Graybeard has been defining "atheism".  And definite to whom?  Is the state of being an atheist a subjective one?

Quote
fishjie:  Being able to believe in a concept requires being able to understand it (i.e, have an understanding of it, even if not a perfect one).  If you don't have the latter, then the former is meaningless.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here with "the former".  Do you mean the idea of "lack of belief"?  Because that's not meaningless - it's trivial.  I for one am okay with it having a trivial meaning in those cases.  Atheism should be trivial.

Regarding our 'misunderstanding' - if, as you say (and I agree), you can judge based on their behaviour that animals lack theistic religious beliefs, how is it then unreasonable in your eyes to conclude - albeit weakly - that they lack theistic religious beliefs?

If we can come to that conclusion for humans and call them atheistic, then it seems a strange double-standard to refrain from doing so for animals.  It is only the deliberate-communication thing?  Why is that so important?

Quote
Quote
... nothing to lose ...
Except for clarity.  If we're going to discuss an issue like this, then it behooves us both to be clear about what we mean.  That includes not using a more general word to mean something that is "far more robust".  I got in an argument with my brother once because I used the word 'ossified' (as in, someone's brains were ossified), because he thought I should have used the more common word 'petrified'.  But that would have confused the issue.
 1. Note that I wasn't calling you a bigot.  That also wasn't the content of my speculation re: your motives.  The speculation was that since you are not an atheist (by any of the mentioned definitions), you may be less sensitized or caring about the ramifications, to atheists, of your preferred definition.

I am all for using precise language.  There are modifiers that one can use to identify precisely what kind of atheist one is talking about.  Nowhere in this thread (or others, as far as I know) have I advocated the use of vague language.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 03:07:32 PM
I don't wish to get into a semantic war on the word 'atheist' and if animals could be called that.

However I would be interested in peoples views on when they think a human child posseses enough knowledge to have the concept of gods.

An entity would need to have a concept of 'self' before you even think about superior beings. I think that a human child gets to that stage at about two years old. I am not aware of any test which conclusively prove any animals to be 'self-aware' certainly not at an equivalent stage of development.

At the time a human child becomes self-aware it would already be able to distinguish many members of its immediate family and maybe the mother or father has already taken on the 'god' role of a superior being.
This 'god' provides for their every need and provides rules and gives rewards and punishments.

I submit that the concept of gods is just an extension of parental worship when you start to realise just how flawed they are and you can easily fool them.
If you use this model then maybe the default position is theist when you replace your 'demi-god' parents with imaginary ones.

Interesting point, RT.  What do we really mean when we say "god-belief"?  And does it have to do with the actual contents of the belief, or with the attitude that one holds toward the "god"?  If we go with the former, then kids start out as atheists.  But you make a good case for them being theists if we consider "god" to be an attitude rather than a concrete set of beliefs.

Thanks for the thought-food.  +1 to you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: fishjie on August 02, 2011, 03:23:35 PM
fishjie:  Being able to believe in a concept requires being able to understand it (i.e, have an understanding of it, even if not a perfect one).  If you don't have the latter, then the former is meaningless.  Both lack of belief and disbelief in something require at least some understanding of the something in question to be meaningful statements, otherwise it's more properly described as ignorance of belief.

its a semantics thing.   if you are a theist, you think that atheism as a belief in the nonexistence of god(s).     but the definition i go by is a lack of belief in a god.   it is not a belief in and of itself.    so, if a baby doesn't understand the concept of a god, of course the baby can't believe in it.   so it lacks belief in a god, thus is is atheist.

a baby does not believe 2+2 = 4 either, because it doesn't understand math.     

at the heart of the issue is the following conflict:   a christian wants to claim that atheism is an active belief in nonexistence of god, so they can claim atheism is a religion in and of itself (because it is impossible to prove a negative thus atheism requires faith), whereas an atheist do not feel they belong to a religion (because they feel religion is stupid), so they define atheism as a passive lack of belief.   
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 02, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
Confusion comes with lack of education.
"I think I can guess. I just think that it's honest to say I am guessing when I guess"
I can see someone was little confused ;)

There's nothing confusing about that quote beyond your lack of understanding of the language.

You're embarrassing yourself, again.
yah yah
Embarrassed pony, embezzled puny, ambassadory horny....
who cares man?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: gonegolfing on August 02, 2011, 03:35:47 PM
jaimehlers


Quote
fishjie:  Being able to believe in a concept requires being able to understand it (i.e, have an understanding of it, even if not a perfect one).  If you don't have the latter, then the former is meaningless.  Both lack of belief and disbelief in something require at least some understanding of the something in question to be meaningful statements, otherwise it's more properly described as ignorance of belief.

No no no !! Come on man, get thinking straight jaimeh !

Newborns are atheists. Period.

The second that Newborns come into this world they possess an utter lack of information with regards to the supernatural and gods. They have zero information of the concept of gods and therefore are without not only the information of the concept, but also the belief that could go along with it. A-Theist: Without-belief in gods. Newborns then are by default in the atheist position because of the total lack of information and beliefs about gods. All of them. Each and every newborn.

A newborn cannot form a mental image of an abstract idea as complex as a god, so please knock it off with the idea that a newborn's lack of belief would therefore require it to have an understanding of the abstract idea of a supernatural entity. Nonsense. Being able to believe in a concept and to understand it, is preceded by having the cognitive power to do so. Newborns have not yet developed that power at birth and must through the gathering of information and perceptions wait until that power is there to form opinions and make choices.

A newborn doesn't suffer from ignorance of belief, it merely lacks the information required, and has yet to develop the cognitive power, to form opinions and beliefs on abstract ideas or otherwise. Newborns cannot form opinions or make conscious choices on the abstract idea of gods as they have no information on them. It is through this lack that all newborns are atheists  ;)

Thankfully, nature gives all humans a preselected position at birth with regards to the idea of gods. Atheist.

Cheers

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 02, 2011, 03:39:49 PM
@Azdgari,
Your argument that I am responsible for choosing a definition when your definition comes from some nameless person that you once read or heard, is bit rich. The definition at Dictionary.com is backed by Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition.

Now, if you think you know better than a lexicographer, fine for you, but don’t expect others to agree or think your idea is better. If you can find a dictionary that has your definition, please go ahead.

Your claim that dictionaries are subjective (and here you have to show that this dictionary is subjective and that the particular definition is subjective too) is less than helpful as it is apparent that you, like Humpty-Dumpty think a word can mean what ever you want it to mean. I suppose you have some feeling that your definition is not subjective &)

I suggest you define atheist as a, “A neonate” that will solve all your logical problems.

It is clear that you are not reading what I write but what you think I am writing. Naturally, you have the advantage, expressed in your last post, that you know my mind.

I was not using that definition, or appealing to it.  I was citing it as an example of the diversity of definitions applied to the term "atheism".
O Really?? Well it was pretty diverse (although I didn't see any other definitions), lacking, as it did, any provenance.

Tell me, do you think there is any point at all in dictionaries?

Quote
Quote
And to be fair, he's not alone.  Then again, he wouldn't be alone if he defined "atheism" as "worship of Satan", either.
This ad hominem  and strawman is not progressing anything; not only that, it is quite illogical.

This isn't an ad hominem or a strawman.  An ad hominem is when a personal characteristic of one's opponent as a premise to an argument where that personal characteristic is irrelevant.  I have not done this.
You associate me with a ridiculous idea and it is not ad hominem?
You set up an argument about “not being surprised if I defined atheism as "worship of Satan"” and that is not strawman?

You explanations are as chaff before the wind. :)

You need that dictionary.

Quote
Neonates are neither atheist or theist as a concept of gods is required for both positions. It is irrefutable that they are non-believers, but then again there is quite a lot in which they do not believe...

That is your decision.
Well of course it is! Who else’s would it be? I have taken the view that what you write is your decision – am I right?
Quote
Apart from an affinity for the definitions offered by Dictionary.com, what arguments do you have in favor of using that definition?
“Apart from that Mr Lincoln, how did you enjoy the concert…” Is that a serious question?

Look, I’m not here to defend Collins Dictionary; it is simply a good dictionary.  Nor am I going to chose 10 other dictionaries only to have you say, “all dictionaries are subjective” (a generalisation that is not helpful.)

You don’t like it,? You can explain why Collins Dictionary is wrong, and can you give the authority for your statement, I've seen some atheists define the word as (to paraphrase) "a reasoned rejection of all supernatural claims". and why you think that the word “reasoned” is applicable to a neonate?

Whist you’re at it, give me your definition of atheist – remember you can’t use dictionaries. I will check them against several reputable dictionaries and ask you to explain why your definition differs.

In the meantime, can we progress with the Dictionary.com definition?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 02, 2011, 03:51:39 PM
From Dictionary.com: atheist
Noun: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
That puts me in problems. I always considered myself an atheist. But I do not deny or disbelieve the existence of a supreme being or supreme beings. I have just not met them, nobody could prove their existence and I see nothing at all that can be attributed to their existence.
Ah! then look at the definition for belief, and you will see that it concurs with your position.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: dloubet on August 02, 2011, 04:17:41 PM
If we don't change the definition of atheist to something we can agree on, the theists will happily continue to define it for us.

Rather than allow our enemies - or even lexicographers - to define what we are, I say atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Who's with me?

It's not like dictionaries are written on stone tablets. Definitions do change. Unless no one is interested in changing them. I say we frickin' define it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: naemhni on August 02, 2011, 04:28:20 PM
If we don't change the definition of atheist to something we can agree on, the theists will happily continue to define it for us.

That's right, and we absolutely have to not let them do that.
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/09/atheism-and-selfdefinition.html

Quote
Rather than allow our enemies - or even lexicographers - to define what we are, I say atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Who's with me?

I am.  Mainly because you're right.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: dloubet on August 02, 2011, 04:33:09 PM
Quote
That puts me in problems. I always considered myself an atheist. But I do not deny or disbelieve the existence of a supreme being or supreme beings. I have just not met them, nobody could prove their existence and I see nothing at all that can be attributed to their existence.

It boils down to the question Do You Believe In A Supreme Being? If you can't answer with a yes, then you are an atheist because you are without theism.

Screw Greybeards definition. I think he's putting the cart before the horse granting lexicographers the power to be prescriptive rather than descriptive.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 02, 2011, 05:08:09 PM
If we don't change the definition of atheist to something we can agree on, the theists will happily continue to define it for us.
That's a good point.  I also read over the blog post that pianodwarf linked, and it makes some cogent points on the subject.  I, personally, have no objections to atheists defining what the term atheism means for themselves, even if one atheist defines it one way and another atheist defines it a different way.  And nobody who is not an atheist has the right to tell an atheist that they don't know what the term means.

However, I don't accept that atheists have the right to declare that newborn humans are naturally atheistic anymore than I accept that theists have the right to declare that newborn humans are naturally theistic (in whatever variety of theism they happen to believe in, of course).  Especially when that declaration of atheism happens to rest on semantics and word-definitions (i.e., "they're atheists because atheism means lack of belief").

The simplest way I can put it is that someone has to be able to make a real choice about theism/atheism in order for either of those terms to have meaning.  Newborns cannot.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 05:28:59 PM
Your argument that I am responsible for choosing a definition when your definition comes from some nameless person that you once read or heard, is bit rich. The definition at Dictionary.com is backed by Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition.

Where did I say that I was not responsible for choosing the definition I use?

And why are lexographers authoritative on this subject?

I urge you not to give a flippant, dismissive answer to that second question.

Now, if you think you know better than a lexicographer, fine for you, but don’t expect others to agree or think your idea is better. If you can find a dictionary that has your definition, please go ahead.

See above.  Definitions are subjective.  There is no authority in their usage other than what humans grant.  So, which humans do you want to control what defines you?

Your claim that dictionaries are subjective (and here you have to show that this dictionary is subjective and that the particular definition is subjective too) is less than helpful as it is apparent that you, like Humpty-Dumpty think a word can mean what ever you want it to mean. I suppose you have some feeling that your definition is not subjective &)

If the definition is not shared, then I agree, communication can't yet take place using it.  And why would you suppose something as mind-crogglingly stupid as what I just underlined in the above quote?  Of course my definition is subjective.  Are you trolling, sir?

I suggest you define atheist as a, “A neonate” that will solve all your logical problems.

Okay.  Yeah, you're trolling.

It is clear that you are not reading what I write but what you think I am writing. Naturally, you have the advantage, expressed in your last post, that you know my mind.

I am looking for where I expressed this.  So far, I have been going on what you've written.  Looking over my last two posts, I cannot find any suggestion to the contrary.  It is possible I have misread you, of course, but I have been trying to ensure that when I talk about your position on something, it's clear that I am talking about my interpretation of your position.

Usually that sort of thing goes without saying, but you've turned it into some sort of tactical device for argumentation.  Blegh.

Tell me, do you think there is any point at all in dictionaries?

Of course.  They report on usage.  They are useful for telling us how other people are using words, for reporting on usage.  You are employing them in the opposite direction, for some reason:  Usage based on the unshakeable authority of the dictionary.

You associate me with a ridiculous idea and it is not ad hominem?
You set up an argument about “not being surprised if I defined atheism as "worship of Satan"” and that is not strawman?

Now you are bald-faced lying about what I said.  That is effectively trolling.

You explanations are as chaff before the wind. :)

You need that dictionary.

I am coming to agree with the bolded text.  I have come to doubt that any explanation I offer for anything would be treated fairly by you, no matter how it was worded or what its point was.

Well of course it is! Who else’s would it be? I have taken the view that what you write is your decision – am I right?

Uhh, yeah.  This needed to be stated...?

Quote
Apart from an affinity for the definitions offered by Dictionary.com, what arguments do you have in favor of using that definition?
“Apart from that Mr Lincoln, how did you enjoy the concert…” Is that a serious question?

Well, mine was.  Totally, dead-pan serious.

Look, I’m not here to defend Collins Dictionary; it is simply a good dictionary.  Nor am I going to chose 10 other dictionaries only to have you say, “all dictionaries are subjective” (a generalisation that is not helpful.)

It would be off-topic to which term is better, anyway.  Just as your citation of Collins is not relevant to that topic.

You don’t like it,? You can explain why Collins Dictionary is wrong,

Where have I indicated that they are wrong?  Wrong about what, the definition?  Calling a definition "right" or "wrong" is a category error.

and can you give the authority for your statement, I've seen some atheists define the word as (to paraphrase) "a reasoned rejection of all supernatural claims".

It's in one of Xphobe's old posts, from another thread on this topic.  Do you want me to dig it up?  He gave reasoning for it, too.

and why you think that the word “reasoned” is applicable to a neonate?

I never indicated that I thought this.  I made it clear that it wasn't my definition.  And you say I need to read your posts better?

Whist you’re at it, give me your definition of atheist – remember you can’t use dictionaries. I will check them against several reputable dictionaries and ask you to explain why your definition differs.

I've already given it.  I would do so here, if I felt I was dealing with an honest interlocutor.  But given all the trolling and inflamatory crap in your post so far, I'm not inclined to do your work for you.

As for why it differs from yours, I gave that reasoning in my last post to jaimehlers, who seems to be keeping a cooler head than I am, and a far cooler head than you are, based on all our posts.

In the meantime, can we progress with the Dictionary.com definition?

I see no reason to, given its flaws.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: gonegolfing on August 02, 2011, 05:52:01 PM
Quote
However, I don't accept that atheists have the right to declare that newborn humans are naturally atheistic anymore than I accept that theists have the right to declare that newborn humans are naturally theistic (in whatever variety of theism they happen to believe in, of course).  Especially when that declaration of atheism happens to rest on semantics and word-definitions (i.e., "they're atheists because atheism means lack of belief").

The simplest way I can put it is that someone has to be able to make a real choice about theism/atheism in order for either of those terms to have meaning.  Newborns cannot.
That's fine, you have the right to be wrong about your lack of acceptance.

No one here said that newborns are atheists simply because of lack of belief. If you would have read my post properly, you would have seen that it is indeed about choice, cognitive choice to be exact, and that a newborn cannot make that choice and so the default atheistic position is automatic. Some day the position, whether it be atheist or theist, will actually be a cogniitve choice, but until the power to do that is there, it's default ateist due to the lack of information and experience of the concept of gods.

Get over it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 02, 2011, 06:42:13 PM
No one here said that newborns are atheists simply because of lack of belief. If you would have read my post properly, you would have seen that it is indeed about choice, cognitive choice to be exact, and that a newborn cannot make that choice and so the default atheistic position is automatic. Some day the position, whether it be atheist or theist, will actually be a cogniitve choice, but until the power to do that is there, it's default ateist due to the lack of information and experience of the concept of gods.
No, it's a default blank slate, just like a newborn's language is a default blank slate.  Someone with no information on a subject cannot properly fall into either category, atheist or theist, until they have enough information for one of those categories to apply.

And I beg to differ, despite your statement about it not being about lack of belief, others in this thread have made that very argument, that newborns lack belief and thus are default atheists.  Just to pick one: 
but the definition i go by is a lack of belief in a god.   it is not a belief in and of itself.    so, if a baby doesn't understand the concept of a god, of course the baby can't believe in it.   so it lacks belief in a god, thus is is atheist.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 02, 2011, 06:51:05 PM
I don't like giving the benefit of doubt to the theistic assertion of gods.  That actually pisses me off.  There are no grounds for theistic claims at all, anywhere, ever.  Every single theistic claim since the dawn of time has been superstitious, ignorant, delusional, mythological and unsubstantiated.  Just because humans invented gods, does not mean that it has merit.

Atheism only exists because theism was asserted, and it has never had any evidence to back it up. In fact, it has been trounced by knowledge and science completely over the millennia.  All gods die when knowledge is gained.

Humans become theists by force, guilt, shame, fear, or just plain old social coercion.  The ones who claim to arrive at their "beliefs" by choice, are actually deluded. 

And before I get slammed for such bold claims, just remember, all gods are imaginary.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 02, 2011, 08:04:23 PM
Jetson
"Humans become theists by force, guilt, shame, fear, or just plain old social coercion.  The ones who claim to arrive at their "beliefs" by choice, are actually deluded." 
Do you have evidence to back that statement up?
Or are you just saying "Let's just uncritically believe stuff." wait, isn't that what Screwtape said?

And you said "all gods are imaginary", what difference does it make when I say "remember Jesus died for you"

Now it's your turn to prove your statement with evidence.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 02, 2011, 08:19:21 PM
Quote
There's nothing confusing about that quote beyond your lack of understanding of the language.

You're embarrassing yourself, again.
yah yah
Embarrassed pony, embezzled puny, ambassadory horny....
who cares man?

Perfect summation of your contribution here, and, seemingly, everywhere else.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 02, 2011, 08:30:04 PM
Pony
Like I said "who cares?"
Just get over it man.
Besides, somebody should plant your butt right into this forum's Emergency Room board for posting such empty drivel.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 02, 2011, 09:00:53 PM
Jetson
"Humans become theists by force, guilt, shame, fear, or just plain old social coercion.  The ones who claim to arrive at their "beliefs" by choice, are actually deluded." 
Do you have evidence to back that statement up?
Or are you just saying "Let's just uncritically believe stuff." wait, isn't that what Screwtape said?

And you said "all gods are imaginary", what difference does it make when I say "remember Jesus died for you"

Now it's your turn to prove your statement with evidence.

I don't really need any evidence.  The theist assertions have been made for centuries, with absolutely nothing to show for it, nothing.  There is no reason at all to believe that any god assertion is true.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Empty.

All I am actually doing is calling out the emptiness, and showing that it still lacks even the slightest hint of fact or evidence to support it.  Unless, of course, you are the one who will finally bring it?  Yes?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: wright on August 02, 2011, 09:47:39 PM
Now it's your turn to prove your statement with evidence.

On the contrary, it's up to theists to provide evidence for their position. If you actually have an argument to make, make it. Otherwise you're just trolling and wasting your time here.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 02, 2011, 09:52:23 PM
This is drifting a little off-topic...
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: wright on August 02, 2011, 10:00:18 PM
This is drifting a little off-topic...

Apologies for troll-feeding, all.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 02, 2011, 10:05:59 PM
^ me too.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on August 02, 2011, 10:19:46 PM
The problem with definitions of this sort is that none go so far as to define "why" any given person is or is not an atheist.  Definitions for such things are so frickin' generic that they barely apply. It's no wonder that even we atheists disagree about the specifics.

For me it's simple. Is there a god? Nope. I was told there was a god when I was little, and I decided otherwise when I was twelve.  Had I never been told of such things, and if I lived in a world where nobody else believed in gods either, then I would not be an atheist because the word would not be necessary. In this world, it is, and the specifics of why any given person says that they are or are not an atheist in itself defines how important the word is to them. I use it only to define my position for others.  I don't often think of myself as an atheist otherwise.  Being one has little effect on my day-to-day existence, and hence the definition is only important as a gross generalization.

Speaking of gross, who the f**k is this Toilet 3 16 guy and why does he think so highly of himself?  Are we the first providers of feedback for this guy or something?  I go away for a couple of months and come back to find that our ban on twerps has been lifted?  Disappointing.

Disbelieve on, my friends. Any way you want..

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 03, 2011, 05:26:13 AM
Anfaulir. Here are my answers

Thank you.  Would have been good if they had answered the questions, but still....I've QFT'd my questions back in - I was originally going to split it into four topics, but after drafting my response felt that really there is only one point at issue.  I've therefore added that at the base of this post, so feel free to just quote the summary when you respond, if you wish.

1) "newborns have the lack of concept of gods", I have to agree to that but how would you explain almost every culture in history of mankind, there is some sort of religious back ground.(theism) where did all these come from?
Newborns also have no concept of dragons - yet every culture in the history of mankind has some kind of dragon - therefore dragons MUST exist.  Is that your argument?
1) Just like Santa Claus.  No interaction with believers.

Ah - so your assertion is not so much that there are shared supernatural myths around the world, but that most (dragons, Santa, etc) can be discounted as unreal because there is no interaction with believers, unlike (you allege) religious beliefs.  Sorry, but if that is your argument, then you need to demonstrate a number of things.

Firstly, that any belief requires that there be interaction as a necessary component.

And secondly, that interaction can both be demonstrated to take place outside the believer's mind, and that such interaction does indeed come from the professed object of that belief.  Taking your use of Santa as an example, my four year-old has a firm belief that Santa brings him presents, and he can point to the physical evidence.  I'm sure you could easily disprove the physical aspects, but what if he claimed that the fairies in the garden "make him happy"?   


How would you explain millions of believers' experience, healing, touching, comforting.
Indeed, many millions of Hindus and Muslims have these experiences.  Therefore their god/s are real.  Is that your argument?
We were just debating on atheism vs theism. Remember I wouldn't even go further on this, because I know you won't believe.
Ah, but that's the point: if (particular god) really exists and is CAUSING those experiences, then believers of (other god) would simply not have those experiences.  The fact that they DO have them while worshipping (other god) suggests that those experiences are internally generated rather than coming from an external source - and hence there is no reason to suppose that the experiences of believers in (particular god) are not similarly generated.

Are you going to tell them those are delusional, fake, just because you didn't experienced it?
Nope.  Their experience of pain as if coming from the missing limb is quite real.  Doesn't mean the limb is still there though.
3)Mine, and millions of others experience with god is quite real too.  You just can't see it just like phantom pain.
And we are at the same point again.  Just because you have an internal experience does not automatically mean that there was an external source.  In the same way an amputee feels pain from a limb that is not there, you will need to demonstrate that the believers' experiences are not similarly internally generated.


Are religions just delusions? Fakes?  Then that's one heck a lot of delusions.  Percentage of theist 88% world wide, and 95% in America (I just google it)

I see.  So whatever a lot of people believe is therefore by definition true.  Is that your argument?

In the year 50BC, the vast majority of the world believed in either Roman gods, pagan gods, Norse gods, Aztec gods.....and so on, and so forth.  Barely 1% of the world believed in the god of the Bible - and NOBODY believed in Jesus.  99% of the world's population believed that Jayweh was a false god - if they even knew of him at all.

That's one heck of a lot of delusions, wouldn't you say?  Too many really - so they MUST have been right in their belief that Yahweh did not exist.

Is THAT your argument?
I wasn't saying "you should believe, because millions of people believes" I was saying you should start considering when there is millions of people out there experiencing something that you are denying.
besides, how can one deny it or say it's fake when one has not experienced or has no knowledge of it?

Millions of Americans believe there are aliens that abduct them.  Millions of people around the world believe - variously - in crystal healing, in chi, in ghosts, leprechauns, Bigfoot, ESP, poltergeists….I could go on, but I think you get the picture.  Point being, just because large numbers of people CLAIM that something exists, should that necessarily mean I should consider it?  Actually, to an extent, I should - or, rather, I should (and do) accept that they BELIEVE something is happening, and should enquire of them what evidence they actually have.

So….

(SUMMARY).  People believe all kinds of weird things - often in large numbers.  When what they believe is a subjective experience or feeling, there is no way of knowing whether the feeling is internally generated or externally induced - whether the effect is down to the actual existence of the object of their belief, or caused by their belief in the object (regardless of its actual existence).  If you have a suggestion as to how one can reliably tell the difference, I would be delighted to hear it.

We should also be generally open to looking at demonstrable evidence of any claim - and this is where I will pose my specific question.  You say I cannot judge because "how can one deny it or say it's fake when one has not experienced".  Okay, fair enough. 

So tell me John: specifically.  What do I need to do to have such an experience?  What will the experience feel like?  When will I have it?

You see, if these experiences ARE cause by an external force, then if I follow the same steps, I will have the same experience….will I not?  After all, " millions of people out there (are) experiencing something" so it must be pretty straightforward, n'est pas?

Over to you John.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 03, 2011, 06:02:25 AM
The problem with definitions of this sort is that none go so far as to define "why" any given person is or is not an atheist.  Definitions for such things are so frickin' generic that they barely apply. It's no wonder that even we atheists disagree about the specifics.
I see the present problem as the opposite. It is not possible to define, say, mathematician, by why people become mathematicians.

Azdgari explains one side of the discussion,
Quote
In the latest of those other threads [edit: earlier threads], it was grudgingly accepted that infants lacked theism, and that they could be described as atheists on that basis.  However, they should be called "incapable atheists" or "ignorant atheists" for clarity (depending on their level of development).  There was a discussion of how atheism could result from many different paths, and that one's atheism for reason X may have nothing to do with another's atheism for reason Y.

In this thread, though, folks are rejecting that atheism can be defined as a lack of theism.  It has to be an actual choice.  An adult with no concept of gods is someone I would define as an atheist.  Not so with some of the folks around here, apparently.

Screwtape jaimehlers, Anfauglir, and I, and may be others have varying degrees of sympathy for the view that there is a difference between a person who has no concept of gods and a person who has that concept but rejects gods for whatever reason; only the latter is an atheist. Anfauglir, introduced a useful concept of the “Blank” – the mind of the neonate – to cover those who never had a concept of gods. Azdgari, and posters in earlier threads, broadly say that all that is required to qualify as an atheist is that there is a lack of belief in gods.

Azdgari would be best to put his side, but I see his view as describing a flower-pot as an amputee because it has no limbs. At the same time, he cogently adds that all that is required to qualify as an atheist is that, regardless of having a concept of gods, gods are not accepted.

This then, to my mind at least, boils down to “Are theism and atheism conscious states that have been arrived at or are absence and rejection equal?”

Azdgari looks to the etymology

atheist 1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

But this was at a time when the belief was that we were all born as sons of god and all had a Christian soul

Others look to the present definition
Atheist: noun, a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. (It is useful to see the definition of belief: 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.)

I don’t think that anyone has suggested that neonates have a concept of god, therefore the default state is that gods are absent in the same way that limbs, in my earlier analogy with a flowerpot, are absent.

I see some merit in infants (as decided above) as, they should be called "incapable atheists" or "ignorant atheists" for clarity (depending on their level of development). but Anfauglir’s “Blanks” seems more appropriate.

Quote
Speaking of gross, who the f**k is this Toilet 3 16 guy and why does he think so highly of himself?
Ha! He is our resident godbotherer, who is needed to prevent WWGHA becoming a backslapping party where minor points take on a huge importance.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: gonegolfing on August 03, 2011, 07:51:05 AM
No one here said that newborns are atheists simply because of lack of belief. If you would have read my post properly, you would have seen that it is indeed about choice, cognitive choice to be exact, and that a newborn cannot make that choice and so the default atheistic position is automatic. Some day the position, whether it be atheist or theist, will actually be a cognitive choice, but until the power to do that is there, it's default atheist due to the lack of information and experience of the concept of gods.
No, it's a default blank slate, just like a newborn's language is a default blank slate.  Someone with no information on a subject cannot properly fall into either category, atheist or theist, until they have enough information for one of those categories to apply.

And I beg to differ, despite your statement about it not being about lack of belief, others in this thread have made that very argument, that newborns lack belief and thus are default atheists.  Just to pick one: 
but the definition i go by is a lack of belief in a god.   it is not a belief in and of itself.    so, if a baby doesn't understand the concept of a god, of course the baby can't believe in it.   so it lacks belief in a god, thus is is atheist.

For christ sakes !  :o  Did your mother drop you on your head as an infant ?  ;D

Look, I'm sorry you can't understand the argument going on here, but it is what it is. Play word games if you like to mask that, or to be willfully stubborn and dogmatic about your opinions, but the plain fact is that all newborns are "without beliefs in gods", thus atheists.

The term "lack of belief" actually doesn't apply here. Newborns are not lacking or deficient in god beliefs. They don't need them therefore do not lack them. They are simply without them... a-theist.

The prefix a- : meaning, without; not having: ....a-theist, a-causal, a-caulescent, a-cephalous, a-phasia, a-sexual ...et cetera...... all words describing something as not having or without.

All newborns do not have and are without belief in gods. Therefore are default atheists.

You may not have the guts or intelligence to assign newborns that label, but that's irrelevant anyways, as the biological processes of nature unkowingly and automatically assigns them to the position. No permission necessary, especially from you  ;)

Your wrong, so stop with the semantics, and being so god damned stubborn about it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 03, 2011, 09:11:26 AM
Just curious, but why do you think that atheism is the default position for humans?

Its a bit of a misnomer, but I agree with Jetson in principle.  Atheism is, as far as logic is concerned, a type of meaningless position defined by its lack of belief in another position.  We do not engage in any other kind of polemical discussion about any other type of subject, such as belief in unicorns vs a non-belief in unicorns.  We don't label those who don't believe in unicorns, yet everyone around is a true non-believer in unicorns like any atheist is a true non-believer in a god(s).  The burden of proof is instantly placed upon the person claiming there is a unicorn, nothing is expected of the one that doesn't believe and the same applies to atheism.

I'll never have to disprove what cannot be proven.  That being said, I can offer disproofs of anything that has a contradictory context, regardless if it is proven or not proven to exist.

Quote
However, that suggests that theism may be the default position for humans

Natural behavior isn't contiguous with 'default' logical positions., its natural behavior for humans to make things up to explain reality, but logically no amount of what is made up is the default position for anything.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 03, 2011, 09:17:06 AM
Jetson
"Humans become theists by force, guilt, shame, fear, or just plain old social coercion.  The ones who claim to arrive at their "beliefs" by choice, are actually deluded." 
Do you have evidence to back that statement up?

Of course, one only need to go as far as your own proselytizing on this forum, after avoiding discussions that require you to demonstrate the validity and authenticity of your claims .. you fall back on emotional rhetoric.  You use platitudes in place of arguing in the affirmative for your claims, trying to describe it as a 'choice' to believe in crap no one has reason to believe in the first place.

Most evangelical apologetics also function in the same manner; by trying to impose guilty or concentrating on fear as a reason to believe.  One only need to go as far as pascals wager or any christian platitude that invokes guilt,"Jesus died for you!"

Not to mention such condemnation as science, education, and the concentration on preying upon children.  Surely you've heard,"Get them while they're young!", that is before they go to college and realize that much of their emotional dependencies tied to religion are meaningless.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: relativetruth on August 03, 2011, 10:15:01 AM
Assigning a default position on a newborn regarding theism is totally meaningless.

At best the theistic state of the little human is undefined, not even blank because it is possible that the genes of the infant may predetermine a tendency towards theism or whatever.

Only after the toddler becomes more aware of its environment can it make up its own mind.

If you wish to use the word 'default' it only makes sense when you consider the child's environment.
A child brought up with a theist background is likely to be theist.
The thinking of a child brought up by wolves is undefined until the child meets humanity.
Having said that I do understand the sentiments of Richard Dawkins when he reacts to people talking of the 'Catholic child' or the 'Muslim child'.

I try not to get too hung up about the semantics of words because I believe that ALL human languages evolve and individual words taken on slightly different meanings as time goes on. So there never can be any overall authority for any word. It just takes one stand-up comedian and youTube, Twitter, Facebook to add a new meaning.

Even if the word 'atheist' came about by just adding the 'a' to mean the opposite it is the way the word has been used by the majority of English speakers which counts for its most common meaning. So that if your meaning is in the minority you should be qualifying the context when you use it depending on your company at the time.   



Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Karl on August 03, 2011, 11:49:56 AM
Well, you sort of do, in that you know of concepts of gods.  I was referring to an adult who had never been exposed to the concept in any way, shape or form.
You're right. I should have said that I do not accept any concept of god. I goes beyond that. I understand that people are looking for a holdfast in order to get a grip on their lives. However I have no idea why they believe this god thing in so many different ways, all of them delusional. I simply don't understand that. Especially as there are no results, never have been and never will be. That's for a different thread I guess.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 03, 2011, 12:24:25 PM
I am not sure that a word-definition and a scientific theory can be compared for "robustness", since one is a subjectively-selected tool to convey thoughts, and the other attempts to describe the objective universe.  I meant that the broader usage of the word is less dependent on knowing peoples' (and others') thoughts, and so is more useful as a label.  It means less.  That's not a bad thing.
What I was referring to was the tendency of certain kinds of people to generalize the meaning of the word 'theory' to the more common layman's definition of it, even when the scientific meaning is what's intended (a favorite tactic of many creationists, and one I loathe).  I agree that a broader meaning is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's possible for it to be too broad - for people with a vested interest in one meaning to emphasize that meaning and pretend the others don't exist.

The reason that definitions of atheism that mean more are better enablers of bigotry, is that they make atheism more important.[1]  Atheism isn't important, or at least, it shouldn't be.  Atheism does not define my identity except in relation to theism.  I would prefer it if atheism never came up at all in life.  It should not be an issue.  But it is, and those of us who are atheistic can become primarily identified as such to other people (mainly theists).
 1. Note that I wasn't calling you a bigot.  That also wasn't the content of my speculation re: your motives.  The speculation was that since you are not an atheist (by any of the mentioned definitions), you may be less sensitized or caring about the ramifications, to atheists, of your preferred definition.
I don't disagree with the gist of this statement.  What I'm unclear on is how giving something a broader meaning makes the word mean less.

Jaimehlers, you're a heretic with respect to a lot of peoples' beliefs.  What if your primary identity in the eyes of the majority of the population was "Heretic"?  You might not mind all that much...or you might.  I don't know you, so I won't speculate there.  But being identified in that way is a dangerous potential precursor to discrimination based on that label.  A difference that's seen as significant is more likely to earn discrimination by "normal" people without that difference.
Well, I can see what you mean, at least.  In another country, in another time, being called a heretic would be actively dangerous.  It's a lot harder to justify that kind of accusation here and now, though, but I suspect it's not far dissimilar from the way atheists are treated by too many Americans today.

By the way, "definitely not having a belief" is not how Graybeard has been defining "atheism".  And definite to whom?  Is the state of being an atheist a subjective one?
All I meant by that was someone who doesn't have a religious belief - i.e., a belief in a god or gods, whether it was a simple lack of belief or an active disbelief.  Though...come to think of it, I lack belief in the Hindu gods, but that's not the same as saying I actively disbelieve in them.  Their existence, or lack thereof, is unimportant to me and doesn't matter at all to me, but I don't go and tell Hindus that their gods don't exist, either.  So maybe lack of belief and disbelief aren't the same and shouldn't be defined as such, as I was doing.

Quote
fishjie:  Being able to believe in a concept requires being able to understand it (i.e, have an understanding of it, even if not a perfect one).  If you don't have the latter, then the former is meaningless.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here with "the former".  Do you mean the idea of "lack of belief"?  Because that's not meaningless - it's trivial.  I for one am okay with it having a trivial meaning in those cases.  Atheism should be trivial.
"The latter" is the ability to understand a concept, "the former" is the ability to believe in a concept.  Does that explain it better.

Regarding our 'misunderstanding' - if, as you say (and I agree), you can judge based on their behaviour that animals lack theistic religious beliefs, how is it then unreasonable in your eyes to conclude - albeit weakly - that they lack theistic religious beliefs?

If we can come to that conclusion for humans and call them atheistic, then it seems a strange double-standard to refrain from doing so for animals.  It is only the deliberate-communication thing?  Why is that so important?
Animals do not act in a way that is consistent with what we recognize as theistic behavior, so we have to conclude that they don't have theistic beliefs - and probably don't understand what theistic beliefs are.  So it isn't that it's unreasonable to conclude that they lack religious beliefs, it's that I don't think it's appropriate to use the same terminology for something that doesn't understand what religious beliefs are as for someone who does but doesn't accept them.

I am all for using precise language.  There are modifiers that one can use to identify precisely what kind of atheist one is talking about.  Nowhere in this thread (or others, as far as I know) have I advocated the use of vague language.
I wasn't trying to suggest that you were advocating vague language.  My problem is as I stated in my previous paragraph, that I don't think the terminology 'atheist' should apply to something that has no understanding of what a religious belief is.

For christ sakes !  :o  Did your mother drop you on your head as an infant ?  ;D

Look, I'm sorry you can't understand the argument going on here, but it is what it is. Play word games if you like to mask that, or to be willfully stubborn and dogmatic about your opinions, but the plain fact is that all newborns are "without beliefs in gods", thus atheists.
What purpose does it serve to suggest that I got dropped on my head as an infant, or that I can't understand the argument, or that I'm playing word games to 'mask' it, as you put it?  If it was intended jokingly, it was in poor taste.

As for your "plain fact", I explained my reasoning above.  I don't think it's appropriate to use the same terminology for something that doesn't understand what religious beliefs are as for someone who does but doesn't accept them.

The term "lack of belief" actually doesn't apply here. Newborns are not lacking or deficient in god beliefs. They don't need them therefore do not lack them. They are simply without them... a-theist.
Indeed, they don't understand what religious beliefs are.  However, your statement that "they don't need them" is immaterial to the discussion[2].  They do not know what they are, therefore 'need' and 'not-need' are both beside the point.  There is also a distinct difference between someone who can knowingly choose to not have a belief, and someone (such as a newborn) who doesn't even understand the concept of a belief.  I do not think the same term should be used to refer to both.

The prefix a- : meaning, without; not having: ....a-theist, a-causal, a-caulescent, a-cephalous, a-phasia, a-sexual ...et cetera...... all words describing something as not having or without.

All newborns do not have and are without belief in gods. Therefore are default atheists.
You accused me of playing word games earlier, yet you are doing exactly the same thing in order to prove your point.  So why is it okay for you to play word games, despite your criticism earlier?

You may not have the guts or intelligence to assign newborns that label,
Ad hominem/personal attack.  As such, inappropriate to the discussion.

but that's irrelevant anyways, as the biological processes of nature unkowingly and automatically assigns them to the position. No permission necessary, especially from you  ;)

Your wrong, so stop with the semantics, and being so god damned stubborn about it.
You're arguing just as much based on semantics, yet it's wrong for me to argue my point based on semantics?  Since when do you get to arbitrate what is and isn't appropriate about semantics?
 2. By the same token, stating that "they need them" would also be immaterial.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: gonegolfing on August 03, 2011, 01:43:32 PM


Quote
Quote
For christ sakes !  :o  Did your mother drop you on your head as an infant ?  ;D

Look, I'm sorry you can't understand the argument going on here, but it is what it is. Play word games if you like to mask that, or to be willfully stubborn and dogmatic about your opinions, but the plain fact is that all newborns are "without beliefs in gods", thus atheists.
Quote
What purpose does it serve to suggest that I got dropped on my head as an infant, or that I can't understand the argument, or that I'm playing word games to 'mask' it, as you put it?  If it was intended jokingly, it was in poor taste.

As for your "plain fact", I explained my reasoning above.  I don't think it's appropriate to use the same terminology for something that doesn't understand what religious beliefs are as for someone who does but doesn't accept them.

Only a person who has been dropped on their head numerous times would think I was being serious about that question  ;)

Yes, and your reasoning is wrong. Appropriate to you or not, means nothing to the fact. There's no offence to the newborn in calling it what it is.... a-theist.

Quote
The term "lack of belief" actually doesn't apply here. Newborns are not lacking or deficient in god beliefs. They don't need them therefore do not lack them. They are simply without them... a-theist.
Indeed, they don't understand what religious beliefs are.  However, your statement that "they don't need them" is immaterial to the discussion[1].  They do not know what they are, therefore 'need' and 'not-need' are both beside the point.  There is also a distinct difference between someone who can knowingly choose to not have a belief, and someone (such as a newborn) who doesn't even understand the concept of a belief.  I do not think the same term should be used to refer to both.
 1. By the same token, stating that "they need them" would also be immaterial.

You're hopelessly lost in the abyss that is your argument. Start over again.

Quote
The prefix a- : meaning, without; not having: ....a-theist, a-causal, a-caulescent, a-cephalous, a-phasia, a-sexual ...et cetera...... all words describing something as not having or without.

All newborns do not have and are without belief in gods. Therefore are default atheists.
You accused me of playing word games earlier, yet you are doing exactly the same thing in order to prove your point.  So why is it okay for you to play word games, despite your criticism earlier?

Stop whining ! I'm explaining word structure to disprove your point, not prove mine. Get serious would you please ?

Quote
You may not have the guts or intelligence to assign newborns that label,
Ad hominem/personal attack.  As such, inappropriate to the discussion.

I said may not. I did not say do not. A tad speculative maybe, but I am still curious. Regardless, your still whining. If you keep that up you'll lose credibility fast around here. Toughen up.

Quote
but that's irrelevant anyways, as the biological processes of nature unknowingly and automatically assigns them to the position. No permission necessary, especially from you  ;)

Your wrong, so stop with the semantics, and being so god damned stubborn about it.
You're arguing just as much based on semantics, yet it's wrong for me to argue my point based on semantics?  Since when do you get to arbitrate what is and isn't appropriate about semantics?

Your hopeless. There's only one meaning for the word a-theist. Without belief in gods. No mental and semantical acrobatics needed. Yes it is wrong for you, as you're the one trying to disprove a truth by using lexical word games and petty rubbish arguments. You can do better...No ?

Remember your original question ?
Quote
Is atheism the default position?

Taken at face value, the answer is unequivocally, Yes. And you have no argument to refute that.

Cheers
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: relativetruth on August 03, 2011, 02:02:32 PM


 There's only one meaning for the word a-theist. Without belief in gods. No mental and semantical acrobatics needed.
Remember the original question ?
Quote
Is atheism the default position?

Taken at face value, the answer is unequivocally, Yes. And you have no argument to refute that.

Cheers

Gonegolfing ,

could you address the points I raised in my last post?
can you be assured that your definition of 'atheist' is that of the majority in the English speaking world?
Assigning a default position on a newborn regarding theism is totally meaningless.

At best the theistic state of the little human is undefined, not even blank because it is possible that the genes of the infant may predetermine a tendency towards theism or whatever.

Only after the toddler becomes more aware of its environment can it make up its own mind.

If you wish to use the word 'default' it only makes sense when you consider the child's environment.
A child brought up with a theist background is likely to be theist.
The thinking of a child brought up by wolves is undefined until the child meets humanity.
Having said that I do understand the sentiments of Richard Dawkins when he reacts to people talking of the 'Catholic child' or the 'Muslim child'.

I try not to get too hung up about the semantics of words because I believe that ALL human languages evolve and individual words taken on slightly different meanings as time goes on. So there never can be any overall authority for any word. It just takes one stand-up comedian and youTube, Twitter, Facebook to add a new meaning.

Even if the word 'atheist' came about by just adding the 'a' to mean the opposite it is the way the word has been used by the majority of English speakers which counts for its most common meaning. So that if your meaning is in the minority you should be qualifying the context when you use it depending on your company at the time.   




Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: fishjie on August 03, 2011, 03:13:00 PM
While the semantic argument is interesting, I think the relevant point here is what position a child eventually chooses is based entirely upon their religious upbringing.   They've got a blank slate, and whatever ideas they get filled with, no matter how flawed, will tend to stick.

In my case, my parents were atheist, but a christian church did outreach and got me while i was young, and not old enough to reason critically.    My dad, who survived the Cultural Revolution in China, had remarked that the whole concept of Jesus reminded him of the whole cult of personality of Mao.   People who believed in Mao did not think critically and just accepted Mao's authority on faith.   They practically deified the chairman.    My dad was old enough to know better than to buy into christianity; I was not.    He figured it'd be a good way for me to make friends, so he encouraged me to go to church anyway.

If a child grows up without religious influences in their life, there is little reason for them to choose religion.   True adult conversions typically come about because of some emotional trauma or suffering.   Example a drug addict frustrated with life turns to God and gains comfort as a result.    Otherwise, the only other reason would be because of social pressure.   For example, lots of people in the South go to church, because you are looked down upon if you don't.   Most don't believe in the stuff in the Bible though, so they don't really count as conversions per se.    I've been considering paying a visit to my first church, just because I have many fond memories there, and care about all the members there, and its a laid back environment, more like a social club.   Do I believe any of that shit?   Hell no.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 03, 2011, 03:15:36 PM
fishjie:  Good points in your most recent post.  I think I can agree that many people, though not all, make the decision based on their upbringing as a child.

Only a person who has been dropped on their head numerous times would think I was being serious about that question  ;)

Yes, and your reasoning is wrong. Appropriate to you or not, means nothing to the fact. There's no offence to the newborn in calling it what it is.... a-theist.
As I said, insinuating that someone got dropped on their head is in poor taste.

And who cares about offense?  This isn't about whether the newborn is offended by such a term, this is about whether the term is accurate.  If it is not accurate, it is not appropriate to use, and that is my point.  And I still do not accept that it is appropriate to use; whether you talk about an atheist or a theist, both suggest that the person has an understanding of what theism is.

Quote
The term "lack of belief" actually doesn't apply here. Newborns are not lacking or deficient in god beliefs. They don't need them therefore do not lack them. They are simply without them... a-theist.
Indeed, they don't understand what religious beliefs are.  However, your statement that "they don't need them" is immaterial to the discussion.  They do not know what they are, therefore 'need' and 'not-need' are both beside the point.  There is also a distinct difference between someone who can knowingly choose to not have a belief, and someone (such as a newborn) who doesn't even understand the concept of a belief.  I do not think the same term should be used to refer to both.

You're hopelessly lost in the abyss that is your argument. Start over again.
Kindly illustrate how I am "lost in the abyss", then.  If I truly am, then it should not be difficult to actually show this, rather than just saying it.

Stop whining ! I'm explaining word structure to disprove your point, not prove mine. Get serious would you please ?
I'm completely serious.  Also, it's 'whining' for me to ask why it's appropriate for you to use semantics in your argument (to prove I'm wrong), but it's not appropriate for me to use semantics in my argument (to prove my point)?  It doesn't work that way.  You don't have the right to tell me that I should stop with the semantics, in any case.

Quote
You may not have the guts or intelligence to assign newborns that label,
Ad hominem/personal attack.  As such, inappropriate to the discussion.
I said may not. I did not say do not. A tad speculative maybe, but I am still curious. Regardless, your still whining. If you keep that up you'll lose credibility fast around here. Toughen up.
There is not enough difference between calling someone's guts and intelligence into question and saying that they don't have enough guts or intelligence for this to not be a personal attack.

Second, to put it bluntly, I am not willing to blithely ignore personal attacks directed at me.  I can and will call people on them, because they are logical fallacies and should not be used in arguments.  It has nothing to do with whining, nor does it have anything to do with "toughening up".

Your hopeless. There's only one meaning for the word a-theist. Without belief in gods. No mental and semantical acrobatics needed. Yes it is wrong for you, as you're the one trying to disprove a truth by using lexical word games and petty rubbish arguments. You can do better...No ?
I don't accept that there is only one meaning.  For one thing, there is a difference between having a lack of belief in a deity or deities and actively disbelieving in them.  For another, having or lacking belief presupposes the ability to believe in the first place.  Stating that something which cannot believe in a deity (due to lacking the capability for belief) is an atheist (as the decision not to believe in a deity, for whatever reason, is an actual choice that requires the capacity to believe) makes no sense.

Also:  So it's right for you to use semantics to prove your case, but it's wrong for me to use semantics to prove my case (or as you say, "trying to disprove a truth").  Just making sure I know where you stand.

Remember your original question ?
Quote
Is atheism the default position?

Taken at face value, the answer is unequivocally, Yes. And you have no argument to refute that.

Cheers
The person who I asked that question of (jetson) later conceded that the default position was not 'atheism', described as a conscious lack of belief.  That is, in large part, the basis of my argument - that the state of newborns differs significantly enough from a conscious lack of belief that it cannot accurately be described with the same term.  Disagreeing with me is your prerogative, but don't claim that I have no argument at all.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 03, 2011, 03:27:02 PM
Screwtape jaimehlers, Anfauglir, and I, and may be others have varying degrees of sympathy for the view that there is a difference between a person who has no concept of gods and a person who has that concept but rejects gods for whatever reason; only the latter is an atheist. Anfauglir, introduced a useful concept of the “Blank” – the mind of the neonate – to cover those who never had a concept of gods. Azdgari, and posters in earlier threads, broadly say that all that is required to qualify as an atheist is that there is a lack of belief in gods.

Can you name any other claim/position that is treated in the exact same way as 'god' belief?

Meaning a label for non-belief in that position vs a label for belief in that position.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emergence on August 03, 2011, 04:05:41 PM
`scuse my following rant, but after having read and even participated in more than one such threads and or discussions (see examples of July 2009 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,7742.0.html) and July 2010 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,14836.0.html)[1]) I have come to a very simple conclusion: The whole discussion is a large steaming heap of bullshit.  8)

And here is why: Language is a tool for communication and not an end in itself. When someone says that babies are "atheists" it is of course clear that this is an instance of the broadest possible use of the word. Same would go for babies are "non-theists", "non-believers", "without beliefs", "a-religious" or what ever term you may want to use. All this indicate one simple thing: babies hold no beliefs whatsoever, because they have not developed a concept of beliefs yet. Why? Simply because babies are without knowledge or simply 'ignorant' in the broadest sense of the word.

The word "atheism" is neither needed, nor the only possible word to be used to indicate that babies have no concept of and thus no belief in god(s). It also is possibly not the best word. The best word to describe this fact might be - brace yourself - "BABY"!!!

But why is this simple fact even worth discussing? I plead guilty finding it worth of discussion myself, in the past. But really what for? Trivial fact is: Babies do not hold any kind of "god belief" just as they do not speak a particular language. That means that the potential for belief is innate, but content belief isn't. And that is - in my opinion - the only point worth noting here.

Whether or not babies can or should be called "atheists" is a non issue as no side of the "clash of worldviews" is any the wiser from it. Considering that the original human developmental default is 'ignorance' (not in the sense of "blank slate" but in the sense of "lacking reasoned opinion") why would i as "atheist by reasoning" want to have a large cohort of "default ignoramusses" backing up "our ranks"?

I don't care whether or not babies can legitimately be called "atheists" as long as it is universally conceded that they are surely not "theists". Period. :police:
 1. These discussions seem to have a periodicity of 1/a. Cool.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 03, 2011, 04:16:34 PM
I have to say that after Emergence's post...

/thread
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: gonegolfing on August 04, 2011, 08:33:54 AM
We're you addressing me with that post ? Sorry for the delay if so ;)

Quote
Assigning a default position on a newborn regarding theism is totally meaningless.

Regarding theism, yes it is meaningless, as newborns have no awareness of god concepts yet. Regarding a-theism no it is not, as all newborns have default positions at birth, not just the "without belief in gods" position. However the issue at hand is the atheist position and as I've said all along, technically speaking we are fully right to apply that label to a newborn as it is in the atheist position by the most widely accepted logical definition of the word.

Quote
At best the theistic state of the little human is undefined, not even blank because it is possible that the genes of the infant may predetermine a tendency towards theism or whatever.

Oooops, that an assumption mate. Not applicable to the discussion

Quote
Only after the toddler becomes more aware of its environment can it make up its own mind.

No question there. Absolutely true.

Quote
If you wish to use the word 'default' it only makes sense when you consider the child's environment.
A child brought up with a theist background is likely to be theist.
The thinking of a child brought up by wolves is undefined until the child meets humanity.
Having said that I do understand the sentiments of Richard Dawkins when he reacts to people talking of the 'Catholic child' or the 'Muslim child'.

Just like a computer gets shipped to you with certain default positions, so does a newborn. Without belief in gods is one of them, and remember, technically speaking, that puts them into the atheistic position.  ;)

Quote
I try not to get too hung up about the semantics of words because I believe that ALL human languages evolve and individual words taken on slightly different meanings as time goes on. So there never can be any overall authority for any word. It just takes one stand-up comedian and youTube, Twitter, Facebook to add a new meaning.

I don't either. But the word atheist, which I broke down in a previous post, has no wiggle room for multiple meanings and definitions. Athiest, is a word you can trust to have a clear meaning. The application of a word is of course a different matter, but that doesn't change its general meaning. So it is with the word atheist, as it has a very specific unalterable meaning which can be applied in a technical sense to the topic at hand...newborns.

Quote
Even if the word 'atheist' came about by just adding the 'a' to mean the opposite it is the way the word has been used by the majority of English speakers which counts for its most common meaning. So that if your meaning is in the minority you should be qualifying the context when you use it depending on your company at the time.
The definition I use is irrefutable as it is. It's not my definition. It's the combination of a prefix with a specific unalterable meaning and a noun with a specific unalterable meaning.

The difference of opinion in this thread is a result of those who are choosing to use logical semantics on the meaning of the word atheist, making it an action or belief word , and those of us who are properly, for this instance, using lexical semantics on the meaning of the word atheist to prove that it is definitely a word about position, which in the case of a newborn, is by default.

jaimehlers, still has his knickers in a knot(as you can see in his latest respone to me) based on his personal feelings about the topic and has failed to accept the exact meaning of the word atheist and how it is to be applied from a technical standpoint. His objection that "You can't do that to a newborn!! It's inappropriate !!" doesn't change the facts about the meaning of the word and how it is, and can be, applied.

As a matter of fact, all newborns are in the agnostic position as well. Not only are they without god beliefs, but they are also without the knowledge of god concepts, and therefore could be said to be in the agnostic/atheist position at birth as well.


jaimehlers was, by default, born a male with a penis. He had no choice in the matter. He doesn't know at that point he's a male with a penis. As a matter of fact he has no idea of what he is and what that thing is between his legs. But it doesn't matter, as he has been assigned a definition of what he is with a word that matches and best describes that fact that he has a penis and is definitely.."without a vagina", which of course makes him a male. We can't change that fact and try to avoid labeling him what, by default, he truly is. We can't say "Hold on now !! we can't call him a male until he decides to call himself a male first!!" It doesn't work that way, but that about sums up what jaimehlers is trying to do here.

Cheers mate





Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: gonegolfing on August 04, 2011, 08:52:19 AM

Quote
I don't care whether or not babies can legitimately be called "atheists" as long as it is universally conceded that they are surely not "theists". Period. :police:

Nor do I  ;)

I'm not about to walk into a birthing room and say "My what a lovely baby! And isn't it fabulous that it's an atheist to boot !!"...That's not my style  ;)

However, jaimehlers OP not only deserved addressing, but needed addressing, as I could see the direction that he was more than likely to take it in. Which of course he did, and that direction needed to be challenged.

Cheers mate
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 04, 2011, 10:00:51 AM
I have to say Gonegolfing is RIGHT this time.
Even biblically correct.

I don't know if you guys count enemy's vote though ;)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 04, 2011, 10:52:51 AM
I don't know if you guys count enemy's vote though ;)

I do not have an ideological belief system that defines people who do not believe as I do the enemy.

That would be your ideology, that defines everyone who doesn't believe as the enemy and predictably condemns them using every hateful accusation feasible.  Fools, liars, beasts, dogs, swine, and none shall do good.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 04, 2011, 11:35:02 AM
I am glad you don't have THAT ideological belief system.

believe or not, neither do I, and if any of my actions in my posts appeared offensive to you.
I apologize.

I am no longer in my emotional stage, I just read Jetson's comment "Humans become theists by force, guilt, shame, fear, or just plain old social coercion.  The ones who claim to arrive at their "beliefs" by choice, are actually deluded."
To me it sounded like bunch of personal opinion without any evidence. that's all. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 04, 2011, 11:51:57 AM
I am no longer in my emotional stage, I just read Jetson's comment "Humans become theists by force, guilt, shame, fear, or just plain old social coercion.  The ones who claim to arrive at their "beliefs" by choice, are actually deluded."
To me it sounded like bunch of personal opinion without any evidence. that's all.

Actually, we can examine this claim by easily examining the reasons you claim to believe.  We can also examine the apologia surrounding religious belief and quite conclusively say that barely any of it is devoted to actually arguing in the affirmative of belief and is instead concentrated on rationalizing towards preconceived notions of what is presumed true rather than what can be shown to be true.  Which begs the question of how one ever arrived to the belief in the first place as well as the nature of dependencies surrounding why one would do so.

I suspect you don't want to discuss why you believe, because we might actually find what Jetson has concluded upon after examining the religious claims of thousands of individuals.  You're not maintaining plausible deniability by refusing to talk about it nor are you preventing your own premises from being questioned as deluded or arrived to for entirely emotional irrational reasons.  Regardless, summarizing it as someone elses 'opinion' is not a rebuttal and it is disingenuous considering your already evasive behavior with regards to affirming your own claims on this forum.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 04, 2011, 12:09:53 PM
jaimehlers, still has his knickers in a knot(as you can see in his latest respone to me) based on his personal feelings about the topic and has failed to accept the exact meaning of the word atheist and how it is to be applied from a technical standpoint. His objection that "You can't do that to a newborn!! It's inappropriate !!" doesn't change the facts about the meaning of the word and how it is, and can be, applied.
Maybe you should check to make sure your own personal feelings aren't getting in the way before you start trying to attribute them to me.  So far, in order of posting, you've:

There's more than a dozen items on this list, all of which are comments about me personally.  So kindly examine your own motives for posting, instead of continuing to deride my arguments and position based on personal comments about me.  I didn't even mention the way you've completely blown off my argument each and every time I posted, without bothering to address the points I actually made so that you could instead address the points you wanted to claim I made.

As a matter of fact, all newborns are in the agnostic position as well. Not only are they without god beliefs, but they are also without the knowledge of god concepts, and therefore could be said to be in the agnostic/atheist position at birth as well.
As I mentioned two pages ago, I'm willing to accept the argument that newborns are agnostic because they lack the knowledge needed in order to understand the concept at all.  But Emergence's post is a better rebuttal to your entire position than any I have made:  "When someone says that babies are "atheists" it is of course clear that this is an instance of the broadest possible use of the word.  [snip]  The word "atheism" is neither needed, nor the only possible word to be used to indicate that babies have no concept of and thus no belief in god(s)."  In fact, my comments have largely been directed at the point that 'atheism' is not a particularly correct term to use to describe a newborn, with no conception whatsoever of the concept of deities.  You have persistently ignored this so that you could use semantics to 'prove' your point, while criticizing me for using semantics to prove my point.

jaimehlers was, by default, born a male with a penis. He had no choice in the matter. He doesn't know at that point he's a male with a penis. As a matter of fact he has no idea of what he is and what that thing is between his legs. But it doesn't matter, as he has been assigned a definition of what he is with a word that matches and best describes that fact that he has a penis and is definitely.."without a vagina", which of course makes him a male. We can't change that fact and try to avoid labeling him what, by default, he truly is. We can't say "Hold on now !! we can't call him a male until he decides to call himself a male first!!" It doesn't work that way, but that about sums up what jaimehlers is trying to do here.
The biological sex of a newborn can be independently determined by an observer without any input at all from the newborn.  For that matter, it can be determined before birth via ultrasound or something similar, and one can take a cell sample and do a chromosomal analysis if one is so inclined.  The point is, a newborn's sex is a purely biological trait, subject to a simple physical observation of a newborn.  I do not think you, or anyone, can legitimately claim that atheism or theism (both of which are fundamentally mental in nature) is a purely biological trait that can be determined by a simple physical examination of the newborn.  Yet by trying to use the analogy of the biological sex of a newborn to prove your point, you are effectively arguing precisely that.

I'm not about to walk into a birthing room and say "My what a lovely baby! And isn't it fabulous that it's an atheist to boot !!"...That's not my style  ;)

However, jaimehlers OP not only deserved addressing, but needed addressing, as I could see the direction that he was more than likely to take it in. Which of course he did, and that direction needed to be challenged.
Challenged...by using pure semantics, deriding the person you are arguing with, and using a completely inappropriate analogy?

I can see why you might have thought I was trying to argue that newborns were theists ("However, that suggests that theism may be the default position for humans, albeit not any specific kind of theism") based on the original post, but I was using this to make a rhetorical point.  My very next post acknowledged that this position was flawed ("A newborn is neither atheist nor theist, as those terms both imply a conscious decision; they are instead credulous, because all they can go on is the evidence of their senses." and "That's why I don't think one can say that the default position of humans is atheism based on the fact that newborns don't have a religious belief (note that this also means that it isn't theism of any stripe).").

I hope this illuminates things for you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 04, 2011, 12:18:59 PM
So all that just came from your "examination"
Or perhaps "imagination"
because when I examine your mumbo jumbos, it just leads me to one conclusion.

You are saying "I examine the world, because the world revolves around me"
When are you going to learn anything?
You gotta stop examining, and start listening.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 04, 2011, 12:26:24 PM
You gotta stop examining, and start listening.

This is a blatant contradiction delivered as a platitude.

I can't stop analysis and observation of reality, this is the mechanism I use to exist and interact with reality.  Telling me to stop this while at the same time implying that I should do something that requires me to do exactly what you just said stop doing, is a contradiction.

1. Do X.
2. Don't do X.

Again, I'm at a loss as to the information you're trying to convey, because you offer no explanation and again make no argument for anything to be understood.  It is more likely that this is an exercise of tit for tat emotional exchanges with people you perceive in an antagonistic polemical manner.

If you want to engage in others about the examination and analysis of your own claims, as well as the potential irrational attributes of your claims please return here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18209.msg436015.html#msg436015

or here

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18209.msg434731.html#msg434731
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 04, 2011, 01:08:55 PM
OK never mind on my advice "Do's and don'ts"

But after examining your posts "You have become atheists by force, guilt, shame, fear, or just plain old social coercion. Your belief is actually deluded."
How's that sound?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 04, 2011, 01:11:59 PM
But after examining your posts "You have become atheists by force, guilt, shame, fear, or just plain old social coercion. Your belief is actually deluded."
How's that sound?

Perfect, which posts?

How did you reach this conclusion?

See, its as easy as just asking the question that is begged.  The problem is that we are very forthcoming on our reasons to not believe, you are not forthcoming on your reasons you claim to believe.  I don't have to beg or plead a qualification about your post in order to dismiss your post out of hand, I can simply ask you to explain and we can go together on a trip to wonderland to examine how you arrived to your claim.

I even gave you links to a post doing exactly that as part of claims you've already made:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18209.msg436015.html#msg436015

or here

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18209.msg434731.html#msg434731

All it takes is you to be involved, openly and honestly.  Instead of this, you're trying to dismiss everything any atheist says or claims, based on how nebulous or misleading you can make them appear to be or imagine them to be.  Often without regards to the subject matter of the thread or anything to do with the discussion going on.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 04, 2011, 02:56:57 PM
jaimehlers, still has his knickers in a knot(as you can see in his latest respone to me)
doesn't change the facts about the meaning of the word and how it is, and can be, applied.
Maybe you should check to make sure your own personal feelings aren't getting in the way before you start trying to attribute them to me.  So far, in order of posting, you've:
  • Told me to get thinking straight.
  • Told me to get over it.
  • Made a facetious reference to my mother dropping me on my head.
  • Suggested that I couldn't understand the argument going on here.
  • Accused me of playing word games, and of being willfully stubborn and dogmatic about my opinions.
  • Suggested that I may not have the guts or intelligence to assign newborns the label of 'atheist'.
  • Made another facetious reference suggesting that I might have been dropped on my head many times.
  • Stated that I was "hopelessly lost in the abyss that is my argument" without supporting your statement.
  • Told me to stop whining and to get serious.
  • Told me to "toughen up" because I criticized you for using an ad hominem/personal attack.
  • Told me that I was 'hopeless'.
  • Accused me of using "petty rubbish arguments" without supporting your accusation.
  • Suggested that I have my "knickers in a knot" because of my personal feelings about the topic.

I hope this illuminates things for you.
If it helps you at all jaimehlers, I for one appreciated your argument, your line of thought and the way you address questions.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emergence on August 04, 2011, 04:00:39 PM
However, jaimehlers OP not only deserved addressing, but needed addressing, as I could see the direction that he was more than likely to take it in. Which of course he did, and that direction needed to be challenged.

I don't disagree with this. Still it could easily have been addressed by stating that "default position" in this case simply means "natural developmental starting point" nothing more nothing less. "Non-belief" in basically everything is just a universally human initial point, while all "belief" is acquired later. But what can anybody possibly learn from that, regarding the validity or invalidity of a certain worldview?

To me it is the same thing as arguments about "natural" and "artificial". It boils down to an argument from emotion. "Natural" is by no means in every case superior to "artificial", still many people equate "natural" with "good". So when an atheist brings the argument that "atheism is the default" to the table, it is - consciously or not - in order to point out that it is ok, because - Hey! - babies are in the default state, and there can't possibly be anything wrong with what babies are or represent, can it? The theist who argues against that on the other hand falls for just this emotional argumentation bs and tries to turn the tables somehow or simply deny what in reality is a trivial fact. Again this happens not necessarily conscious. It is possibly just the vague but nagging feeling in the back of ones head that a human default can only be justifiably assumed for newborns or babies, and that it somehow would be "wrong" to attribute a default that one rejects as an adult to a baby. Babies can't be atheists, because that would make baby Jesus cry (and an atheist). ;)

So the debate, discussion and exchange of arguments goes round and round in circles while every party basically accepts that - yes - babies do not have beliefs, and that therefore a lack of belief (and knowledge and reasoning) is indeed a universal human default.  :)

So why drag this out? One question and one answer does suffice to end all debating, in my opinion:

Q: Is belief a universal default for newborns and thus all humans?
A: No, without any ifs and buts.

Thank you very much for your attention.

A point i do think warrants further discussion is the following though:

My very next post acknowledged that this position was flawed ("A newborn is neither atheist nor theist, as those terms both imply a conscious decision;

[snip...]

My atheism doesn't involve a conscious decision and my young age theism didn't either. Both were and are simply the result of experience and perception. I do not have any ability to decide on or choose my beliefs or non-beliefs. Decision and choice only work in the realm of "action" not in the realm of "belief". To use a modified version of a Schopenhauer quote[1]: "Man can choose according to his beliefs but he can not choose his belief."
 1. Original:"Der Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." translated:  "Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants."
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 04, 2011, 05:57:54 PM
jaimehlers was, by default, born a male with a penis. He had no choice in the matter. He doesn't know at that point he's a male with a penis. As a matter of fact he has no idea of what he is and what that thing is between his legs. But it doesn't matter, as he has been assigned a definition of what he is with a word that matches and best describes that fact that he has a penis and is definitely.."without a vagina", which of course makes him a male. We can't change that fact and try to avoid labeling him what, by default, he truly is. We can't say "Hold on now !! we can't call him a male until he decides to call himself a male first!!" It doesn't work that way, but that about sums up what jaimehlers is trying to do here.

Well that all depends on how progressive you are  ;)

When Kathy and David had there third child they decided not to share Storm's sex for now--a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/parents-keep-child-gender-under-wraps-170824245.html)

Quote
At best the theistic state of the little human is undefined, not even blank because it is possible that the genes of the infant may predetermine a tendency towards theism or whatever.

Oooops, that an assumption mate. Not applicable to the discussion

Not really that big of an assumption according to Roger Trigg who says "We tend to see purpose in the world, We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can't see it. ... All this tends to build up to a religious way of thinking." (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/12/religious-belief-is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/) Now, I realize Jetson didn't much like this article...it is poorly written but the what the research suggests makes perfect sense. Especially when you take into consideration other studies like this one from sciencedaily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm) which states that
Quote
Believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress, according to new University of Toronto research that shows distinct brain differences between believers and non-believers.

In two studies led by Assistant Psychology Professor Michael Inzlicht, participants performed a Stroop task – a well-known test of cognitive control – while hooked up to electrodes that measured their brain activity.

Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made.

It may seem sacrilegious and presumptuous to reduce God to a few ornery synapses, but modern neuroscience isn't shy about defining our most sacred notions - love, joy, altruism, pity - as nothing more than static from our impressively large cerebrums. Persinger goes one step further. His work practically constitutes a Grand Unified Theory of the Otherworldly: He believes cerebral fritzing is responsible for almost anything one might describe as paranormal - aliens, heavenly apparitions, past-life sensations, near-death experiences, awareness of the soul, you name it. (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html)

There have been numerous studies of the human brain[1][2]. Apple products[3], for example, seem to trigger the same areas of the brain in their brand loyalists as religious images do for the faithful[4]

So, the growing consensus is that there is a fundamental difference not only in brain structure and function but also our subjective perceptions of how we individually interpret what our brains tell us. Is the default position for newborns atheism? That depends on their genetic inheritance. The only thing we can say with any certainty about what babies think is that they don't have the vocabulary to tell us. But I just bet that using some of the techniques of brain mapping available we would discover that their tiny little walnuts fire off in much the same way our adult brains do to the same stimulus. Who knows what babies believe?



 1. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/god-brain-tumor-surgery-points-brains-religious-center/story?id=9796634
 2. http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/behavior/brain-religion.htm
 3. and other superbrands
 4. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20064577-71.html
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Historicity on August 04, 2011, 06:33:50 PM
This is a blatant contradiction delivered as a platitude.

The fallacy of the Argumentum ad Captandum Vulgus is the use of a sound bite or slogan to replace actual thinking.

Most are clichés.  I compliment John 3:16 on making a new one.  It sounds good but

     "You gotta stop examining, and start listening." 

means the same as

      Who are you going to believe?  Me or your lying eyes?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 04, 2011, 07:53:15 PM
Emergence - I can see where you are coming from, and it does make sense.  In my concession regarding a decision to be atheist, I was thinking about my own very conscious decision to call myself atheist.  I like the word, I like what it stands for, and I truly like how it makes many people feel these days.  It conjures emotions from some people that are ripe for discussion.  It causes others to get angry.

In my case, if I examine my life carefully, it is easy to see that I was never a believer.  I always had heavy doubts and skepticism when I was young.  I even remember learning about the Greek and Roman gods, and realizing that I was attending Catholic masses where all of the adults were dutifully worshiping a mythological god.  I concluded that it was something you just don't question (especially in the Roman Catholic ritualistic ceremonies.) 

Anyway, I believe we each have to consider what we believe, and decide to believe it, if we want to be truly honest.  But I can see that it is highly likely that most people don't get to choose their beliefs.  I'm reminded of many atheists, including myself, who would not hesitate to say that they could never "decide" to believe.  At least not without suspending the more rational approach to understanding something. 

The distinctions in this discussion are: is a newborn technically atheist, or does a newborn have to consciously call itself atheist.

To the newborn, it is pointless.  To me, it is more technically correct to state that newborns default to being non-religious, and unaware of any gods, thus - not theists.  Jaimehlers is trying to argue that one must decide to be atheist.  Well, I decided to call myself atheist, but I have never actually been a theist.  So I have always been atheist, but I only recently decided to label myself that way.

I think it is important to note that using the label atheist is similar to using the label homosexual (the label that carries baggage that is difficult for many to handle, be they homophobic, or homosexual.)  It is not easy to live in a society with either label - so most people keep it to themselves.  It took me over 40 years to discover who I really am, and to stand firmly behind it, with no apologies. 

John 3 16 - I don't want to deny people their personal beliefs.  But I will not give those beliefs credibility when they are patently and conclusively wrong.  There are no real gods, anywhere, nor at any time in human history.  All gods are imaginary, it really is that simple.  I am an atheist that knows that there are no absolutes, so I am aware that I can never prove that there are no gods.  But in the end, every single made up god - and you know that most are made up - has died over time.  The one you currently believe is real, is also made up.  That's why there are atheists.  I have said many times that if there was a real god, there would be no atheists.  There might be people who do not worship that god, and there might be a fringe group who deny it's existence - just like people today who still deny that the earth is not flat (google it).  But none of that would dictate the realness of the god - any more than denying the existence of a mountain, or the pacific ocean.

Apparently, it is harmless for children to be lied to about the existence of Santa, because everyone knows that Santa is not real, and that he does not hold the key to eternal salvation.  But God, well, as the story goes, he MUST be real because he DOES hold the key to eternal salvation.  And how do we know God is real?  We read it in a book!  So, there you go.  God is real, because people wrote it down a very long time ago, and they mentioned that your eternal salvation is dependent on your faith and belief in God.  I cannot imagine why people are afraid to grow up and drop their delusion.  Scared shitless.

Jetson


Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ivellios on August 04, 2011, 08:04:41 PM
But after examining your posts "You have become atheists by force, guilt, shame, fear, or just plain old social coercion. Your belief is actually deluded."
How's that sound?

Perfect, which posts?

How did you reach this conclusion?

Considering he already admitted the only reason he believes in God... because his parents told him to.

Beings that have no evidence that parents tell their kids to believe in, with Blind Faith:
1) Santa Claus: You can sit on his lap and get presents every year. Stories, Songs, Tracked on Radar! Everone knows you cannot track something imaginary on Radar!
2) Easter Bunny: You get 1 basket of Goodies per year.
3) Tooth Fairy: You loose a tooth, money appears! Through pain/suffering/annoyance, you get Rewarded!
4) God/Jesus/Allah/Vishnu/etc. : After you pay 10% of your income for your life, be PR person/recruiter for your church, do all kinds of stuff for the glory of your Church ... err God, blah blah.. and when you die you might get to go to the happy land[1] up above the Sky Dome[2].

You grow up and find these are imaginary: Tooth Fairy, no big loss, Easter Bunny, talking rabbit[3] and basket of candy, Santa Claus... but but but BUT!1! You sat on his lap, heard stories and sang songs about his home, his reindeer, his family and his love for children... tracked on Radar! There's NO WAY Society would perpetuate something Imaginary upon an unsuspecting, ignorant, innocent, lacking critical thinking skills populace, would they? To control the child's hopes and fears so they can control the child, would they? WOULD THEY!?

In a flipping Heartbeat! And they feel Absolutely Justified in doing so as well.

Then there's God... the 'Ultimate Santa Claus' ....  nah... your parents have to be right about something, right? It's not like they're batting 0/3 up till this point, right? Realizing that your parents knowingly and willfully LIED to you, to CONTROL you. No one could do the same to them, right? They're Adults after all! No Adult has ever been fooled, right? The seeds of fantasies have been planted then forcibly removed, by the very people who planted them. It hurts, even if you're not conscious of it... of it's true origins... this "God shaped hole" in your heart.
 1. aka Heaven
 2. aka Firmament.
 3. yeah right
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 04, 2011, 08:17:16 PM
Omen.
You said "The problem is that we are very forthcoming on our reasons to not believe, you are not forthcoming on your reasons you claim to believe"
"Man can choose according to his beliefs but he can not choose his belief."
Schopenhauer said it first. and Emergence said it next. and then me?  I don't know ;D

I met Jesus Christ in spirit and his words.
Holy spirit lives in me and I live in the faith of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, my experience can not be described, I even tried, but I really could not.
Maybe I did not want to believe, but I could not stop believing because of my experience.
My everyday life, every moment, in the words and in the Spirit.

How was my experience? here is one of them.
"Trying to understand God" is...
to me counting stars in the universe, each and everyone of them with my own fingers, if I run out fingers, I have my toes, I can keep trying, analyzing it, discussing it, I am not there yet, but eventually, I will be done.  Wait! are you telling me there is another universe with infinite numbers of stars? and another one, and another one?

I think I am going to stop counting, and listen to God's words.

hopefully, that made sense, if not don't blame me you asked for it! :)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 04, 2011, 09:43:05 PM
I met Jesus Christ in spirit and his words.
Holy spirit lives in me and I live in the faith of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, my experience can not be described, I even tried, but I really could not.
Maybe I did not want to believe, but I could not stop believing because of my experience.
My everyday life, every moment, in the words and in the Spirit.

I copied this from a Muslim site..

Quote
Allah is the one and only Lord, whom the hearts and souls reverence and long for. All creation depends on Him at every moment. He is the Creator, the Sustainer upon which everything and everyone depends. All creatures, without exception, senses that Allah is the one who provides for them and for their needs, and from whom all blessings emanate. They all have a sense of his greatness, generosity, and beneficence. This is why it suits the human heart to glorify Him and extol His greatness.

If one stupid human says this stuff, and you say your stupid stuff, and neither of you are talking about the same God, then how do we decide which stupid person is right?  Couldn't it be that you're just both stupid for the same reasons? 


How was my experience? here is one of them.
"Trying to understand God" is...
to me counting stars in the universe, each and everyone of them with my own fingers, if I run out fingers, I have my toes, I can keep trying, analyzing it, discussing it, I am not there yet, but eventually, I will be done.  Wait! are you telling me there is another universe with infinite numbers of stars? and another one, and another one?

... Perhaps this is the thing you do not understand.  There are other people in this world who, upon coming up against a difficult question, continue to push forward and try to answer it.  The notion that you long ago gave up that process in favor of simply not knowing anything and just trusting in something for which you have ZERO evidence, is the cop out of all cop outs.  In other words, when things got hard for you to understand, you punted.  You didn't go the extra mile to understand the universe.  Other people have.  And the truth that comes out is that there is no reason to believe that the Christian God is real.  None.  Zero. 

I think I am going to stop counting, and listen to God's words.

That's right.  Stop trying to learn.  Take the easy route and bury your head in the sand when faced with the vast, VAST quantities of information that we actually do know about the universe.  Gah, man.  That's just so awful.  You don't belong in this world anymore.  Your kind holds the rest of us back. 

hopefully, that made sense, if not don't blame me you asked for it! :)

I have to wonder, with all your smiley faces and such...  Do you sit there after you hit the post button and feel proud of yourself for what you say?  Are you waiting to see the responses as if some of us are going to say... "Gee, maybe this guy has a point"?  I will give you some advice.  STOP doing that.  You're a fool.  Honestly, it's nothing more than sad comedy at this point.  All your mumbo jumbo about the holy spirit is nothing.  It's useless.  You're God is fiction.  There's no such thing as the holy spirit.  Keep counting your fingers and toes while the rest of bust our ass to do the work to progress humanity forward. 

The scariest thing in the world is that you probably teach your garbage to other people.  That's the thing about you religious people.  Anyone can get a black robe and a microphone and suddenly they have opinions that are to be respected.  It doesn't even matter if they're a complete idiot, the sheep will listen.   
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on August 04, 2011, 10:58:07 PM
Maybe I did not want to believe, but I could not stop believing because of my experience.
John, I'm going to say this as gently as possible.

I know many people who *did* want to believe, but stopped believing because of their experiences.  Yet you want us to uncritically accept your subjective experience, even as you push other peoples' contrary experiences aside and insist that they try again... And again...

I wish there was a way to explain or to show you what to do in order to show you God... There is a way to see God, but you have to set your foot on the flooded river first, then you will see.  Rather, God will show you the way.
Make a decision now, open your mind, accept Christ as your saviour, believe the word of God.

And if they still don't want to play, you are not averse to making threats:

Well astro. There is no condemnation in the grave. You got that right!
just wait until you wake up. surprise is waiting for you ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I agree with Jeff -- This is sad comedy.  You are doing more damage to your own faith than you could ever possibly imagine.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 04, 2011, 11:41:42 PM
Jeff and Astreja.

Are you still mad?
Omen said "I do not have an ideological belief system that defines people who do not believe as I do the enemy."
But you guys probably don't have same ideological belief system?
Whatever you say, I can stay here as long as I want.  (Pony said that? Do I remember it right?)
I am going to keep the forum rules as much as possible too.
If you don't like me, just don't read my forum. Why are you wasting your time on my post, you are wasting energy (when your face turn red because of anger).
I am just telling my story. No threat, no pushing.

Astreja, you are manipulating the orders of my comments just to make it look bad(see 2nd quote's date is later than the 3rd?)
Jeff, you just keep counting, maybe someday you will know.

irunssibballnomushikiduajookojapeenyaa?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 04, 2011, 11:46:17 PM
@ John 3 16

I was always told that we are all gods children but the verse of your screen name says otherwise "for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son". which is it? Also, did God have any begotten daughters? How would we know?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on August 05, 2011, 12:00:28 AM
Jeff and Astreja... Are you still mad?

Not so much 'mad' as 'not willing to tolerate unsubstantiated nonsense that tries to pretend it's Truth.'

Quote
If you don't like me, just don't read my forum. Why are you wasting your time on my post, you are wasting energy (when your face turn red because of anger).

John, I write rebuttals to posts such as yours because I sincerely believe that toxic mythology is egregious psychological abuse and a net detriment to the future of humanity.  If it prevents even one child from crying in the night because some thoughtless @sshole scared her with tales of hell, I will continue doing this to the very end of My days.

I shall not be silenced.

Quote
I am just telling my story. No threat, no pushing.

Too late for that now, John.  You have threatened and pushed.  You can't undo that.

Quote
Astreja, you are manipulating the orders of my comments just to make it look bad(see 2nd quote's date is later than the 3rd?)

Irrelevant.  You have indeed made threats, and I re-quoted that particular threat to illustrate two points:

A.  Your religious beliefs clearly include a belief in an evil torturer-god.
B.  You are not averse to using verbal terrorism against different-minded people.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 05, 2011, 12:07:25 AM
John, I know you are in the middle of a conversation with Astreja at the moment and I understand that you have a lot on your plate but would you take a moment to answer my question? I'm about to go to bed and would like to see a response before I do. Thanks.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emergence on August 05, 2011, 02:51:12 AM
Emergence - I can see where you are coming from, and it does make sense.  In my concession regarding a decision to be atheist, I was thinking about my own very conscious decision to call myself atheist.

Hey Jetson! I know what you are saying, and i can agree that the decision to call yourself an atheist is a conscious one. That is - in my view - an action based on your beliefs (or non-belief, respectively). The belief itself is the result of a lot of processing, some conscious, most involuntary. I think  - similar to what you wrote further - that most people tend to "kind of believe" without further examination.

However: If you'd like to talk about this further, i'd be glad to try and elaborate, but i from my side don't see that much disagreement worth discussing.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 05, 2011, 07:56:30 AM
@ John 3 16

I was always told that we are all gods children but the verse of your screen name says otherwise "for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son". which is it? Also, did God have any begotten daughters? How would we know?
I am sorry jaybwell32.
I went to bed early last night before I read your post.
His only son is Jesus Christ.  We were in fallen state (you know the original sin) no one was able to get out of God's wrath.

*preaching deleted*

Hopefully that answers your question.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 05, 2011, 08:03:15 AM
Unfortunately, my experience can not be described

So you've immediately discounted any possibility that you have a mental illness and concluded upon something that renders it impossible for you to convey to others, how did you ever possess the cognitive ability to identify it in the first place?

Quote
How was my experience? here is one of them.

You didn't describe anything, you made another platitude.

Quote
hopefully, that made sense, if not don't blame me you asked for it! :)

No, what I asked for was a honest response and accountability for your actions.  Not a rambling bit of sophistry that isn't honest nor accountable.  You chastised jetson for coming to the conclusion that individuals like you are deluded, while at the same time you make posts so incoherent that it leaves us with little recourse but to believe you to be deluded.  Even if you were given the benefit of the doubt, that a magical sky daddy 'gifted' you with knowledge of its existence, it apparently didn't gift you with the knowledge to correct contradictions regarding its existence.  So what is a more likely proposition here, you suffer from a mental illness along with a poor education or you were given special knowledge by an invisible supernatural being of its existence but not the knowledge to actually account for the many contradictions within that belief system.

Case in point:

I even gave you links to a post doing exactly that as part of claims you've already made:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18209.msg436015.html#msg436015

or here

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18209.msg434731.html#msg434731

All it takes is you to be involved, openly and honestly.  Instead of this, you're trying to dismiss everything any atheist says or claims, based on how nebulous or misleading you can make them appear to be or imagine them to be.  Often without regards to the subject matter of the thread or anything to do with the discussion going on.


I've posted this several times now, trying to get you to return to your posts in this thread.  The concerns in this thread pertain to the consistency ( or lack there of ) of your religious belief system.  A major contradiction is presented about the Judaic Messianic prophecy vs the christian claims of a messianic prophecy, a problem that highlights the arbitrary and seemingly random nature in which christian notions of messianic prophecy are literally created versus the actual Judaic messianic prophecy.

Now, why didn't your supernatural god give you the knowledge, education, and intellect to answer the contradiction?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 05, 2011, 08:34:28 AM
Astreja.

Sorry if my comments were scaring you. (It wasn't even mine it's in the bible.)
Like you said it's already done so I cannot undo it.
But at the same time I am wondering, if someone here tells me "You are going to hell if you believe God"
I wouldn't be scared, I would be scoffing.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
(Romans 1:20).

Take your palm up, try to cover the sky with it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 05, 2011, 08:43:37 AM
Astreja.

Sorry if my comments were scaring you. (It wasn't even mine it's in the bible.)

They were threats, more importantly they were a type of language used to dismiss other human beings by devaluing their existence against a facade of a superstitious belief system.  Your insinuation, as you say with a smiley face, is that you will get yours in the end and it will be what you deserve.

Its a conceited thing to do and say, delivered at a point where you don't want to respond to the criticism others are offering and instead want to dismiss them.  So with a complete lack of empathy, you made an underhanded insult tied to a dehumanizing portion of your belief system in order to not be accountable in a discussion.

Worse still, you try to use it as pandering to another part of your belief system, claiming that us being insulted by your clear insulting tone is somehow a tautological validation that we actually know and believe already.  No one is afraid john, they are hurt and angry, because you sought to cause that harm.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 05, 2011, 08:52:14 AM
Omen.
OK OK OK Just for you, I will lie for you.
"there is no hell, there is no heaven, there is no judgement, there is nothing"
"After we all die, there is nothing"

Are you happy now?
Live a long happy life, because there is nothing after that. :)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 05, 2011, 08:55:09 AM
OK OK OK Just for you, I will lie for you.
"there is ..

You don't possess the means to convey that you know this as true, before you can actually claim that you yourself are lying.  Nor would it be relevant to people who don't believe, but when its delivered in a way to dismiss people who don't believe you at face value because you're too stupid to argue in the affirmative of your claims.. it is exactly as it appears to be.. an arrogant hateful dehumanizing insult.  It is exactly what you meant it to be and people responded accordingly.

Why couldn't your magical sky daddy gift you with a better intellect and education, in order to logically answer for the contradictions of belief or to argue logically for the existence of that god?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 05, 2011, 09:01:43 AM
I think there is a whole wack of societal, psychological and cultural elements at play in such behaviour as John's.

An emotional bond to manufactured unassailable superiority might be expected in a life otherwise characterized by failure. If he doesn't have this belief, what does he have? It seems natural, to me, for an individual to hold steadfastly to an irrational belief, in the absence of any other possible perceived avenue for happiness or contentment. The flaunting of irrational behaviour, lashing out with threats and parroting of perceived mockery all reinforce the belief, give it a crucial element of reality.

It's good having folk like John around, for learning about delusion and providing some entertainment (for those who's thing that is), but he needs the paradoxical validation we provide much more.

I'd like to workshop some ideas for helping such a person, or even ideas concerning whether such a thing is possible or desired in the first place. In my view, at this point, it would be worth doing, but is not feasable in this context. It would involve effecting all sorts of tangible, timely changes to John's life. Counselling, economic support, family therapy, various educational interventions focused on character building, self-esteem, and possibly career training. Does the investment outweigh the possible benefits and/or probability of success?   
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 05, 2011, 09:10:19 AM
Cognitive behavioral therapy; address the emotional underpinnings of the destructive or negative behavior, but any therapy is going to be limited to the goals and desires of the patient.  I often like to go after the emotional dysfunction, such as john's reliance upon hateful dehumanizing characterizations, it at least forces him to have to deal with the real impact of his own behavior upon others in order to judge what little empathy he might possess if at all.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 05, 2011, 09:18:03 AM
Maybe it's your tradition here. (scratching each others @ss)
Your hands are not long enough?

Now feel better?

I didn't know you guys worry about me that much.
Send me some money so I can go help myself.

Go ahead you say what you want to say after all it's internet.
My feelings are COOOOL.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: gonegolfing on August 05, 2011, 09:19:00 AM

Emergence:

Quote
Quote
However, jaimehlers OP not only deserved addressing, but needed addressing, as I could see the direction that he was more than likely to take it in. Which of course he did, and that direction needed to be challenged.

I don't disagree with this. Still it could easily have been addressed by stating that "default position" in this case simply means "natural developmental starting point" nothing more nothing less. "Non-belief" in basically everything is just a universally human initial point, while all "belief" is acquired later. But what can anybody possibly learn from that, regarding the validity or invalidity of a certain worldview?

So given the OP question, it should be written as this then: "Is atheism the natural developmental starting point?" ...Is this what you're suggesting ?

If so, then I can agree with that, as it still allows the question to rightly be proved in the affirmative and true and stays somewhat in the context that it was originally intended.

What can  be learned ? The main thing being, that we are not born with predilections for gods. That's huge. 

Quote
To me it is the same thing as arguments about "natural" and "artificial". It boils down to an argument from emotion. "Natural" is by no means in every case superior to "artificial", still many people equate "natural" with "good". So when an atheist brings the argument that "atheism is the default" to the table, it is - consciously or not - in order to point out that it is ok, because - Hey! - babies are in the default state, and there can't possibly be anything wrong with what babies are or represent, can it? The theist who argues against that on the other hand falls for just this emotional argumentation bs and tries to turn the tables somehow or simply deny what in reality is a trivial fact. Again this happens not necessarily conscious. It is possibly just the vague but nagging feeling in the back of ones head that a human default can only be justifiably assumed for newborns or babies, and that it somehow would be "wrong" to attribute a default that one rejects as an adult to a baby. Babies can't be atheists, because that would make baby Jesus cry (and an atheist). ;)

Perhaps for you it would be an emotional bs argument, but it's not for me. For me, as always, it is a logical argument trying to establish which reasoning and points are valid. Whether its trivial or not should have been decided before hand by jaimehlers as he started the thread and took on the newborn aspect of it. I was simply participating and challenging his line of thought.

Quote
So the debate, discussion and exchange of arguments goes round and round in circles while every party basically accepts that - yes - babies do not have beliefs, and that therefore a lack of belief (and knowledge and reasoning) is indeed a universal human default.  :)

Indeed they are without beliefs, knowledge, and reasoning, which is a universal human default. Well put. But, please remember that the word atheism was used originally, and therefore it should not be eliminated from the discussion and relpaced with other words. The original question, and the way it was worded, must be addressed in the context that it was intended to be.

Quote
So why drag this out? One question and one answer does suffice to end all debating, in my opinion:

Q: Is belief a universal default for newborns and thus all humans?
A: No, without any ifs and buts.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Yes! and that was accomplished back 2 pages ago Here:
Question:
Quote
Is atheism the default position?

Answer:
jaimehlers

Quote
fishjie:  Being able to believe in a concept requires being able to understand it (i.e, have an understanding of it, even if not a perfect one).  If you don't have the latter, then the former is meaningless.  Both lack of belief and disbelief in something require at least some understanding of the something in question to be meaningful statements, otherwise it's more properly described as ignorance of belief.

No no no !! Come on man, get thinking straight jaimeh !

Newborns are atheists. Period.

The second that Newborns come into this world they possess an utter lack of information with regards to the supernatural and gods. They have zero information of the concept of gods and therefore are without not only the information of the concept, but also the belief that could go along with it. A-Theist: Without-belief in gods. Newborns then are by default in the atheist position because of the total lack of information and beliefs about gods. All of them. Each and every newborn.

A newborn cannot form a mental image of an abstract idea as complex as a god, so please knock it off with the idea that a newborn's lack of belief would therefore require it to have an understanding of the abstract idea of a supernatural entity. Nonsense. Being able to believe in a concept and to understand it, is preceded by having the cognitive power to do so. Newborns have not yet developed that power at birth and must through the gathering of information and perceptions wait until that power is there to form opinions and make choices.

A newborn doesn't suffer from ignorance of belief, it merely lacks the information required, and has yet to develop the cognitive power, to form opinions and beliefs on abstract ideas or otherwise. Newborns cannot form opinions or make conscious choices on the abstract idea of gods as they have no information on them. It is through this lack that all newborns are atheists  ;)

Thankfully, nature gives all humans a preselected position at birth with regards to the idea of gods. Atheist.

Cheers


It should have been over right there, but of course The Black Knight still wanted to do battle !  &)


Quote
A point i do think warrants further discussion is the following though:

My very next post acknowledged that this position was flawed ("A newborn is neither atheist nor theist, as those terms both imply a conscious decision;

[snip...]
My atheism doesn't involve a conscious decision and my young age theism didn't either. Both were and are simply the result of experience and perception. I do not have any ability to decide on or choose my beliefs or non-beliefs. Decision and choice only work in the realm of "action" not in the realm of "belief". To use a modified version of a Schopenhauer quote[1]: "Man can choose according to his beliefs but he can not choose his belief."
 1. Original:"Der Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." translated:  "Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants."

As I pointed out, jaimehlers reasoning is flawed if we're sticking to context.

But respectfully, Schopenhauer, brilliant as he may have been, and you if you agree, which appears you do, are out to lunch with that one.

We do indeed have the ability to choose whether to accept or reject beliefs formed by our perceptions or proposed by others. Belief is about acceptance and making a decision and choice that something is true. Beliefs are created by and based on perceptions and personal experience and then possibly accepted as true by conscious choice. When it comes to beliefs or non-beliefs it's all about choice, and making the decision of whether to believe then to be true or false.

We cannot be force fed beliefs. We have a very strict faculty that guards against that and sifts our beliefs for us. Reason. And a choice is then made out of that faculty.

However, as we've seen here at WWGHA, faulty reasoning produces choices to hold faulty beliefs as true.

To believe or not believe is itself an action.

Name me one potential belief that presents itself to us by perception, that cannot have the choice to perform the action of acceptance or rejection applied to it ?

Cheers mate  ;)

 


Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 05, 2011, 09:31:59 AM
Maybe it's your tradition here. (scratching each others @ss)
Your hands are not long enough?

Now feel better?

Your comments were meant to marginalize individuals talking to you sincerely and ignore the criticisms leveled against you.

Why do you think that would make anyone feel better?

Quote
My feelings are COOOOL.

So you're ok with making statements that dehumanize and dismiss others?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 05, 2011, 09:56:09 AM
Cognitive behavioral therapy; address the emotional underpinnings of the destructive or negative behavior, but any therapy is going to be limited to the goals and desires of the patient.  I often like to go after the emotional dysfunction, such as john's reliance upon hateful dehumanizing characterizations, it at least forces him to have to deal with the real impact of his own behavior upon others in order to judge what little empathy he might possess if at all.

I appreciate that. I'd say he's too self-concerned to register any such appeal at this stage. Life has dealt him shit, why should he give any credence to what you say when it characterizes his sole crutch as dishonest and immoral? I'd say there is a deep emotional need to maintain that crutch at all costs.

Do we agree that it is a psychological, socio-economic, cultural issue and has little to do with theology? 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 05, 2011, 09:58:31 AM
Do we agree that it is a psychological, socio-economic, cultural issue and has little to do with theology?

I'm not aware of his socio-economic status, but certainly emotionally derived psychological issue.  I don't consider 'theology' to be an informed 'subject' on anything.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 05, 2011, 09:58:56 AM
Quote
I didn't know you guys worry about me that much.
Send me some money so I can go help myself.

I am actually very interested in this! How would you describe your socio-economic status in relation to the community you live in?

 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 05, 2011, 10:06:31 AM
So you're ok with making statements that dehumanize and dismiss others?

I would say that obviously, yes, he is okay. People go to extreme measures to protect their ego. We call upon the tools we know best. In John's case[1] he antagonizes anyone who disagrees with his schema. When someone questions his faith and religion it is not, to him, a means to gain understanding...it is a vicious full frontal attack against him personally. Because his ego is delicate and fragile he lashes out aggressively[2]. However he is very comfortable with the way things are. He has compartmentalized everything into two very neat little boxes. Good vs. Evil. He is "good" and anyone who agrees with him is good because they help shore up his schema. Anyone who questions him is "evil" but they also help shore up his schema. John's comfort zone is extremely narrow. People like that don't want to be helped. They don't think they NEED help. To admit that he might be doing something "wrong" would be soul crushing and must be avoided at ALL costs.

He is very actively engaged in a battle for his soul. And it is more real to him than anything else in the universe. Nobody wants to loose their self identity.
 1. which is not unique
 2. It's like an allergic reaction
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 05, 2011, 10:10:50 AM
Do we agree that it is a psychological, socio-economic, cultural issue and has little to do with theology?

I'm not aware of his socio-economic status, but certainly emotionally derived psychological issue.  I don't consider 'theology' to be an informed 'subject' on anything.

I want to know what the deal is re: socio-economics. I think it is a more salient issue.

re: theology: agree. But, I mean as an approach to helping in some way. You could show logical inconcsistency after logical inconcsistency and it would be water on the ground, because that is not the issue. It is not tied to that at all.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 05, 2011, 01:57:44 PM
(snipped gonegolfing's initial post directed at me)

It should have been over right there, but of course The Black Knight still wanted to do battle !  &)
Two things.  First, it's obvious from this that you went into this discussion convinced that you had the right of it.  While everyone goes into an argument believing that they're right, don't you think you should have listened to what I was actually saying, instead of assuming you knew and lacing your posts with repeated personal insults because of that assumption?  Odd that you didn't deign to respond to the post where I detailed a number of examples of stuff that was clearly intended to be personally insulting (your "Black Knight" comment makes another one on top of the others); you certainly had no problems telling me that I was 'wrong' elsewhere in the discussion, even though this invariably consisted of telling me I was wrong, that you were right, and that I needed to stop arguing.

Second, I'm guessing you didn't read the last part of my most recent post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19687.msg436017.html#msg436017).  I'll quote it here for convenience:
I can see why you might have thought I was trying to argue that newborns were theists ("However, that suggests that theism may be the default position for humans, albeit not any specific kind of theism") based on the original post, but I was using this to make a rhetorical point.  My very next post acknowledged that this position was flawed ("A newborn is neither atheist nor theist, as those terms both imply a conscious decision; they are instead credulous, because all they can go on is the evidence of their senses." and "That's why I don't think one can say that the default position of humans is atheism based on the fact that newborns don't have a religious belief (note that this also means that it isn't theism of any stripe).").
I'm interested in seeing if you're willing to recant your statement about the direction I took this discussion in or if you're going to continue insisting on it despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on August 05, 2011, 09:30:52 PM
Astreja.

Sorry if my comments were scaring you. (It wasn't even mine it's in the bible.)

They did not scare Me, John.  They offended Me.  They were thoughtless, rude and bullying.  Via that one sentence, I learned that you are not what I would consider a moral person and that you are not someone whom I would trust with responsibility or care to befriend.  You are immature, incapable of dealing with criticism, and verbally and psychologically abusive.  Is that really the face that you want to present to the world?

It also doesn't matter if it came from the Bible, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or the Tucson, Arizona phone book.  You chose to say it; therefore, you bear full responsibility.

Quote
Like you said it's already done so I cannot undo it.

Neither did your imaginary friend counsel you not to do it.  Your faith doesn't appear to have made you into a better person.

Quote
But at the same time I am wondering, if someone here tells me "You are going to hell if you believe God"
I wouldn't be scared, I would be scoffing.

A person who would say such a thing to you would also be abusive.

Furthermore, consider that many people -- Particularly very young, impressionable people, and people  who are already emotionally fragile from negative experiences -- Would not be laughing off threats of eternal punishment.  They would be terrified, and that terror would have an immediate and direct fight-or-flight effect on the endocrine systems of their physical bodies.  By threatening people with hell, you are deliberately causing an adrenaline/cortisol cascade -- In effect, punching them in the adrenal glands and increasing the likelihood of chronic damage to their physical health.

Quote
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."(Romans 1:20).

Those are not facts.  Those are the words of some guy who fell off a horse, not evidence for a god.

Quote
Take your palm up, try to cover the sky with it.

(Springy G steps outside, takes off Her glasses, closes one eye, raises Her right hand to the other eye, and blots the entire Prairie sky from view) Done.  What's your point?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emergence on August 06, 2011, 08:00:31 AM
GG, actually i don't even see why of all participants here you are feeling the need to discuss with me. We seem not far apart. Similarly baffled am i by jaimehler's endorsement of my earlier post. My argument goes as much against his OP as it does against everyone thinking it warrants large discussions. I refuse to participate in this pinnacle of futility, and grant all your points except the very last one.

But respectfully, Schopenhauer, brilliant as he may have been, and you if you agree, which appears you do, are out to lunch with that one.

Somehow i find myself asking why i even took the pains to include Schopenhauer's original quote, when no one notices that he and i say different things. I do not only agree with Schopenhauer, i take his idea to something new. He's talking about will, i am about beliefs. There's a difference.

Quote
We do indeed have the ability to choose whether to accept or reject beliefs formed by our perceptions or proposed by others.

Probably. But there's a lot more to our mind than perceptions and propositions of others. And that "more" - closed to explicit conscious examinations - is where beliefs originate.

Quote
Belief is about acceptance and making a decision and choice that something is true.

And how - pray tell - do you decide that something is true? To me it is like this:  If any type of information (whatever form it takes) appears to be logically sound to me and i can't feel any immediate doubt about it (note the strong emotional aspect of doubt), i accept it as provisional truth. Any such truth is only accepted under reserve by me. It is always possible that either my logic was flawed, a piece of vital information is missing or the weighting of evidence was skewed by hidden biases buried deeply in the non-conscious parts of my mind (e.g. emotional memory, false memory, developmentally wrongly "tuned" associative systems. Regardles: If nothing in my mind causes me to doubt an info at similar strength as it appears logic to me, i have no choice but "believe" it. If the actual and immediate doubt is stronger than the logic and evidence (and unconscious biases) behind it, i do not believe in its truth.

The only choice is whether i accept the evidence and information i perceive to have to be sufficient and sufficiently reliable (again according to my inner processing) or wether i keep searching. But wether i believe or don't believe something is out of my conscious control. E.g.: I believe that you are a human being typing at me in an internet-forum. That believe is formed by many factors including past experience with human conversations. At the moment i have no choice but believing this. I could act as if i don't believe it to test the internal hypothesis that gonegolfing is an actual human, but internally i can not - by pure power of my conscious will - stop believing that you are a human. Not with all the information, perception, memory, experience and ingrained biased guiding my brain's processing. I, am sorry, but i am simply unable to not believe in you being a person on the "other side" of my internet connection. 

Quote
Beliefs are created by and based on perceptions and personal experience and then possibly accepted as true by conscious choice. When it comes to beliefs or non-beliefs it's all about choice, and making the decision of whether to believe then to be true or false.

What you say in the sentence i underlined does sound OK on first appearance, but then there's something very odd about it: You say that beliefs are formed prior to their acceptance. Isn't that just what i say? You can't help but form beliefs. Beliefs are one form of our internal models of reality. We ususally only test them against reality once we find (perceived) discrepancies between our beliefs and reality. That is the point where we can either accept or reject them. But this always has to do with a reprocessing due to new information. You need a "reason" to evaluate a belief and you need a very "strong" reason to reject it. Without any type of reason triggering you to focus on a certain belief, you are not even likely to identify it as such. It is just part of your model of reality, silently lingering in the background of your existence.

Quote
We cannot be force fed beliefs. We have a very strict faculty that guards against that and sifts our beliefs for us. Reason. And a choice is then made out of that faculty.

(Mostly) Correct. But the workings of that very faculty is what leads to beliefs in the first place and those are not negotiable without further triggers for (re)evaluation. See above.

Quote
However, as we've seen here at WWGHA, faulty reasoning produces choices to hold faulty beliefs as true.

The more often i read "holding (own) beliefs as true" the more the redundancy of that formulation jumps out at me. By the very nature of belief, i hold each and any my own beliefs as true - whether consciously perceived or subconsciously underlying my model of reality.

Quote
To believe or not believe is itself an action.

To me it is a fluctuating state of our mental system. Not a conscious action at all.

Quote
Name me one potential belief that presents itself to us by perception, that cannot have the choice to perform the action of acceptance or rejection applied to it ?

Please spontaneously form a deep non-belief of yourself being a human. ;)

Quote
Cheers mate  ;)

Back at you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 06, 2011, 01:06:11 PM
Astreja.
Sorry If my comments were offending you.
But I still don't understand why you are soooo offended.
Haven't you heard that one before? in your half century life?
Like I said, if someone here in this forum says "Santa Claus will not give you any present this Christmas, and his reindeer will bite your head off", I would not be offended at all.
Because I know Santa doesn't exist, and you think God doesn't exist.
So why are you offended what is bothering you?
To me someone calling me "stupid, ignorant, mental illness with poor education, ........" those do better job offending me than just a fairy tale. (you think god is a fairy tale don't you?)
My point is,  the term "Atheist"-- not believing god, lack of belief of supernatural being, believing in something that has been proven only, therefore no afterlife, no judgement, no heaven, no hell(sorry I said it again)?
I am not being sarcastic , I am asking you a question. I honestly don't know much about atheism.
So what is the asnwer?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 06, 2011, 01:07:27 PM
Similarly baffled am i by jaimehler's endorsement of my earlier post. My argument goes as much against his OP as it does against everyone thinking it warrants large discussions.
I have to ask if you looked at any of my subsequent posts, or if you made the same error he did of assuming that my original post must naturally reflect all of my subsequent posts.  I will quote a statement I made a couple of days ago (this is the second time I've done so, I hope that I will not have to do so a third) which should illuminate things for you as well as for gonegolfing.

I can see why you might have thought I was trying to argue that newborns were theists ("However, that suggests that theism may be the default position for humans, albeit not any specific kind of theism") based on the original post, but I was using this to make a rhetorical point.  My very next post acknowledged that this position was flawed ("A newborn is neither atheist nor theist, as those terms both imply a conscious decision; they are instead credulous, because all they can go on is the evidence of their senses." and "That's why I don't think one can say that the default position of humans is atheism based on the fact that newborns don't have a religious belief (note that this also means that it isn't theism of any stripe).").
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on August 07, 2011, 12:38:09 AM
But I still don't understand why you are soooo offended.

John, do you have so little empathy and so little insight into human nature that I actually have to explain this to you? 

There are two reasons, John.  The first is that you deliberately chose those words for their fear-inducing value.  The subtext is "Accept Jesus, or my god is gonna get you and make you suffer forever."  It's terrorism, pure and simple.

The second reason is that if you said it to us you have probably have said it to other people.  Perhaps you've said it to a child and the child believed you and is now terrified of hell.  This is completely unforgivable, because it damages the endocrine system of the body and causes lasting psychological damage.  If you haven't yet preached hell to a child, please don't start... Not now; not ever.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 07, 2011, 10:49:50 AM
If you haven't yet preached hell to a child, please don't start... Not now; not ever.

My wife takes my children to church every Sunday (partly because she works there, but also partly because she wants them to be "raised with the traditions of the church").  I let it slide.  And when I'm home with them, I blast them with critical thinking and make them use their brains to solve problems.  I feel that even if the church has it's time to indoctrinate them, I can un-indoctrinate them by making them think.  So far so good. 

All that being said (and I've told my wife the this), the second they start talking about hell, THAT'S when I will pull the plug on the whole thing.  It's a vicious, awful, terrible, fear inducing lie, and the minute they hear that their dear old dad is going to burn in hell for all eternity, I will never let them set foot in a church again.  Period. 

For now, I just treat it as silliness.  But it's all fun and games 'till somebody loses an eye. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 07, 2011, 11:43:22 AM
If you haven't yet preached hell to a child, please don't start... Not now; not ever.

My wife takes my children to church every Sunday (partly because she works there, but also partly because she wants them to be "raised with the traditions of the church").  I let it slide.  And when I'm home with them, I blast them with critical thinking and make them use their brains to solve problems.  I feel that even if the church has it's time to indoctrinate them, I can un-indoctrinate them by making them think.  So far so good. 

All that being said (and I've told my wife the this), the second they start talking about hell, THAT'S when I will pull the plug on the whole thing.  It's a vicious, awful, terrible, fear inducing lie, and the minute they hear that their dear old dad is going to burn in hell for all eternity, I will never let them set foot in a church again.  Period. 

For now, I just treat it as silliness.  But it's all fun and games 'till somebody loses an eye.
Are you sure that has never been mentioned? This would be the first thing I would tell the kids  if I were a preacher.....I am sure the subject of hell has come up by now
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 07, 2011, 11:54:29 PM
Astreja.
I will try to understand your concerns about children (eventhough I don't agree)
But I wasn't talking to a 12 year-old. I was talking to you.
How much value is there in your belief (atheism)
Basically, you were saying that "you were offended by something that you are denying, something that you do not even believe." (remember my Santa analogy?)
That goes to Omen, you, and Jeff.
What the hell are you thinking, what is in your mind?
Are you denying hell or accepting it? or do you believe it but just don't want to talk about it? or you don't believe it but offended by it?
Or maybe you don't believe god but believe hell?
WHY ARE YOU OFFENDED?
I believe your concern about children is just an excuse.
I will do my best for children in this world, and my children and my children's children.
You are not in a position to tell me what is best for them.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 08, 2011, 12:12:54 AM
Jeff.
You 2 inch pencil dick!!!!
Are you proud dad, proud husband.
I am not even going to tell you what is right or wrong (atheism vs theism)
Because to you, it doesn't matter anymore.
Like I asked Astreja "What value is there in your belief?"
Are you not man enough to stand straight for you belief?
You send your wife and kids to CHUCH?
Because of money, and some tradition?
It will be like me, sending my wife to satan worshiper for couple of hundred dollars a month.
It will be like me, sending my children to islam temple for tradition.
You are going to pull the plug when?
I can guarantee you, your kids already know heaven and hell story, they are just hiding from you.
Because they already know that you will stop them from going to church every week.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 08, 2011, 12:14:30 AM
I know you weren't talking to me but I would like to point out a couple of things

But I wasn't talking to a 12 year-old. I was talking to you.
You have no way of knowing for certain that she is not 12.
Quote
How much value is there in your belief (atheism)
atheism is not a belief system.
Quote
Basically, you were saying that "you were offended by something that you are denying, something that you do not even believe." (remember my Santa analogy?)
It's not what you say, it's the spirit in which you said it.
Quote
That goes to Omen, you, and Jeff.
So these three are worthy of damnation? Who are you to judge?
Quote
What the hell are you thinking, what is in your mind?
Are you denying hell or accepting it? or do you believe it but just don't want to talk about it? or you don't believe it but offended by it?
It does not matter what she believes or not. What matters is what you said. What matters is how you said it.
Quote
WHY ARE YOU OFFENDED?
Maybe because you put a bunch of smiley faces after your statement that she would wake up to a nice surprise(in HELL). I don't know, that just sounds like something a Disney Villain would say.
Quote
I believe your concern about children is just an excuse.
An excuse for what?
Quote
I will do my best for children in this world, and my children and my children's children.
You are not in a position to tell me what is best for them.

I'll let somebody else address this.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 08, 2011, 12:16:56 AM
Jeff.
You 2 inch pencil dick!!!!

Nice. Let me ask you a question...what would Jesus do?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 08, 2011, 12:19:41 AM
strange question from atheist.

I thought you don't belive Jesus.

what if I say "what would your atheist god do?"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 08, 2011, 12:24:58 AM
strange question from atheist.

I thought you don't belive Jesus.

what if I say "what would your atheist god do?"

I am not an atheist
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on August 08, 2011, 12:28:07 AM
But I wasn't talking to a 12 year-old. I was talking to you.

Irrelevant.  Your words were deliberately chosen in an attempt to hurt and frighten Me and other unbelievers.

(I turned 54 yesterday, BTW.)   ;D

Quote
How much value is there in your belief (atheism)

Compared to your sick beliefs, I think that atheism is considerably more valuable a worldview because it does not rely on ancient myths of a vicious-minded god.  Essentially, atheism is the glass of water that does not contain the deadly poison.

Quote
Are you denying hell or accepting it? or do you believe it but just don't want to talk about it? or you don't believe it but offended by it?
Or maybe you don't believe god but believe hell?

I deny hell and I deny your god, but I affirm the emotional harm that those beliefs cause.  The existence or nonexistence of your god and hell are not the issue.  Damage to the mental wellness of real people is the issue.

Quote
I believe your concern about children is just an excuse.

You're wrong, John.  Completely wrong.  For that slander against My character, may you lose your faith and never regain it.

Quote
I will do my best for children in this world, and my children and my children's children.
You are not in a position to tell me what is best for them.

I will tell you anyway, John.  It is My desire that if you do choose to frighten your own children and your children's children with tales of hell, they will eventually see through the myth and abandon Christianity.  Depending on how badly you abuse them with the hell myth, one or two of them might even join the secular community to work against people like you.

Ultimately, loss of belief *is* their fate, and yours as well.  All belief ends automatically at the moment of death, at the moment that the human brain stops functioning, and there is no credible evidence of life after death.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Add Homonym on August 08, 2011, 12:33:36 AM
Like I said, if someone here in this forum says "Santa Claus will not give you any present this Christmas, and his reindeer will bite your head off", I would not be offended at all.
Because I know Santa doesn't exist, and you think God doesn't exist.
So why are you offended what is bothering you?

It's because it's such a disgusting and infinite threat. Having a reindeer bite your head off is trivia, if you do in fact just go into oblivion. There is literally zero comparison.

Hell is "backed up" with 2300 years of Jewish/Christian superstition, lies and forgeries obscured by time; 1400 years of government and kingly decree, and perhaps 3000 years of Hindu superstition, 1400 years of Islam. People have believed it for thousands of years, so it's a difficult and nasty piece of crud to remove from the abused human psyche. Humans have no information about what happens after death, so, in come the exploiters of that.

How do you weigh an infinite threat of torture, against zero evidence of what really happens after death? All whilst being assured by thousands of Christian manipulators in positions of power and intellectual authority, telling you that it's true, and written in an infallible book ordained from God, who is of course real, and they have proof. Whenever you argue with them, they won't budge a millimeter. Any time you do score a point, they don't admit it; the same circular lies and arrogance perpetuates with no evidence. It wears you down, even if you do think it's 100% solid moron poop.

And when you do finally win the argument, and they become atheists, you do the same battle all over again, with the next cult member.

There are plenty of examples of beliefs which are perfectly fucking stupid, and yet they still make way into people's minds, via peer pressure; largely without infinite threats of torture, coming from people you are told deserve respect.



Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Add Homonym on August 08, 2011, 12:35:37 AM
Jeff.
You 2 inch pencil dick!!!!
Are you proud dad, proud husband.
I am not even going to tell you what is right or wrong (atheism vs theism)
Because to you, it doesn't matter anymore.
Like I asked Astreja "What value is there in your belief?"
Are you not man enough to stand straight for you belief?
You send your wife and kids to CHUCH?
Because of money, and some tradition?
It will be like me, sending my wife to satan worshiper for couple of hundred dollars a month.
It will be like me, sending my children to islam temple for tradition.
You are going to pull the plug when?
I can guarantee you, your kids already know heaven and hell story, they are just hiding from you.
Because they already know that you will stop them from going to church every week.

Oh, I see. I didn't realise that you wouldn't have the intellect to understand anything I said. It was a waste of time even replying to you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on August 08, 2011, 12:58:30 AM
Maybe because you put a bunch of smiley faces after your statement that she would wake up to a nice surprise (in HELL).

(Springy G wonders if She should've added 3 or 4 smiley faces to Her seiðr for John 3 16 and his descendants to lose their faith)

(Shakes Her head) Nah... That would make Me as much a jerk as him.

Jay, you hit the proverbial nail on the head:  It was indeed the way John said it that set Me off.  If he had put a single crying-eyes  :'( face after his post, it would have had a completely different emotional effect.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 08, 2011, 04:25:06 AM
Quote from: John 3 16
I will do my best for children in this world, and my children and my children's children.
You are not in a position to tell me what is best for them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you say that your son is essentially a failure who lives in your basement?

Is it that you take no responsibility for the outcome of your parenting, opting to blame your child, or do you define that as "mission accomplished"?

Very curious. I am also waiting for your response to my question about your socio-economics. Where are you in relation to others socio-economically?   
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 08, 2011, 06:27:50 AM
Happy Fucking Birthday Astreja!  :D

Carry on...
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 08, 2011, 08:10:54 AM
Jeff.
You 2 inch pencil dick!!!!

Certainly proof that god is cruel! 

BTW, your insults aren't useful.  I sift through them and move on as if you never said them.  It does nothing to your argument.

Are you proud dad, proud husband.

Damn right. 

I am not even going to tell you what is right or wrong (atheism vs theism)
Because to you, it doesn't matter anymore.

Why would you try to tell me what's right or wrong as if you had some sort of knowledge that I don't?  Do you really think I'm confused as to what's right and wrong?  I know it's wrong to tell children that they might possibly end up burning in hell for eternity.  That is as wrong as it gets. 

Like I asked Astreja "What value is there in your belief?"

If I wanted to hold a belief strictly for the value of it, I wouldn't go with Christianity.  I'd make up one of my own.

Unfortunately for you, a belief shouldn't be held because of what I can get out of it.  A belief should be held because it's the closest to the truth.  It takes a real man to admit that.  Obviously you don't agree.

Are you not man enough to stand straight for you belief?

My wife has her beliefs, I have mine.  I treat her as an equal to me.  It has nothing to do with being man enough to stand up to her, lol.  She wants them to go, I don't, someone has to give in, so I give in most of the time.  They don't go every Sunday, but probably 4 weeks out of every 6. 

As far as with you... I'll go toe to toe with you.  You're easy pickings.  All day baby.

You send your wife and kids to CHUCH?

Actually, she works there.  I don't send them anywhere.  Nor do I forbid them from going anywhere they wish... yet.  I'll be drawing the line where I said I would.   

Because of money, and some tradition?

Yes.  Tradition is why the vast majority of people go to church. 

It will be like me, sending my wife to satan worshiper for couple of hundred dollars a month.
It will be like me, sending my children to islam temple for tradition.
You are going to pull the plug when?

You should stop trying to use analogies.  You're terrible with them.

I don't think of the church as harmful to them, as long as I counter balance the fairy tales they learn there with reality at home.  The people who go to church are generally good people... despite the shitty, dumb, fucked up religion they practice.  They somehow manage to be good people in spite of it (definitely NOT because of it). 

I'm going to pull the plug when they mention the asinine notion that anyone who doesn't believe in God is going to burn in hell forever.  It's a vile, horrible, mean, disgusting and wretched belief.  Are you not listening? 

I can guarantee you, your kids already know heaven and hell story, they are just hiding from you.
Because they already know that you will stop them from going to church every week.

Every Saturday night, my children ask if they can "take a day off tomorrow".  Every single one.  Do you know what they mean when they say that?  It means they would rather (by leaps and bounds) stay home with daddy on Sundays.  Why?  Because I play with them.  We play Lego's. We read.  We ride bikes.  Go to the pool.  All that.  My wife has to work quite hard (with my help) to make sure they get themselves up and going to church on Sundays.  It's always a battle.  I help because it matters to her.  If I finally put my foot down and said no more church, at this point my children would celebrate it. 

After they reach a certain age, they will get to decide for themselves whether or not to go to church.  I won't have to stop them then.  If their current take on the whole thing is any judge, then they will choose for themselves never to set foot there again.  I'm pretty certain of that.  But if they decide to keep going that will also be their choice.  I believe they can be good people and still believe in God.  I think they'd be better without, but lots of people seem to be good and still believe.  You obviously can't, but I bet they can.  As long as I help teach them how to be good.   

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 08, 2011, 08:56:27 AM
okay.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emergence on August 08, 2011, 01:55:19 PM
I have to ask if you looked at any of my subsequent posts, or if you made the same error he did of assuming that my original post must naturally reflect all of my subsequent posts. 

Q: Do you or don't you think that it is important to discuss the validity of the use of the word "atheism" regarding the "default position" of the unknowing human mind?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 08, 2011, 02:34:23 PM
Q: Do you or don't you think that it is important to discuss the validity of the use of the word "atheism" regarding the "default position" of the unknowing human mind?
You know, I asked you at least one question before this.  A while back, I got told by someone else that it's bad form here to answer questions with questions.  Now, I don't care about that, but I do think it's fair to expect my question to be answered.

Besides, I already answered your question, though not in so many words.  I think that your statement about how using 'atheist' to describe newborns was the widest possible definition of the word was a good point, because the widest possible definition of something is also not particularly useful in a discussion.  That is what I was trying to get at through most of my posts.  I also did not want to get into a pedantic argument about precisely what terminology should be used.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emergence on August 08, 2011, 02:36:17 PM
Just because i am curious: What question did you ask me?

Edit: Oh, you mean the question about reading your posts wasn't rhetorical?  &)

Ok: I read your posts, in which you kept discussing.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on August 08, 2011, 05:36:09 PM
John 3 16,

Your last post was removed because it was completely useless and of no value at all.

Do not do that again.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 08, 2011, 05:43:36 PM
I am actually very interested in this! How would you describe your socio-economic status in relation to the community you live in?
you tell me yours, then I will tell you mine
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 08, 2011, 05:47:35 PM
I am actually very interested in this! How would you describe your socio-economic status in relation to the community you live in?
you tell me yours, then I will tell you mine

Middle class, university educated.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 08, 2011, 06:16:05 PM
slightly below middle class, university educated. (not in US)

What do you do for living?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 08, 2011, 06:50:42 PM
Career isn't relevant, really.

Do you have a history of psychological illness? 

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 08, 2011, 07:14:18 PM
No, no illness that I know of.
Physically in good shape too. for my age.

How about you? any problem? mentally, or socially?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 08, 2011, 07:56:54 PM
No.

If you did not have your belief system, would you think life was hell? Would you be happy?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 08, 2011, 08:46:52 PM
I wouldn't think my life was hell without my "belief system"(it's kinda funny to call my Christianity like that, but that's OK I think you deserve some answers.)
I would call my life "meaningless", I mean any life "meaningless"
I love my wife, my children to death, but you know.  People work all day to support family, make payments, some happy moments, some sad moments, some stressfull moments,,,etc.
in the end it's always same, "we all die at somepoint"
Good person, bad person, smart person, doesn't matter we all die and go to ashes.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 08, 2011, 08:55:19 PM
I think Omen has a point. 

A belief system is what it is.
Clicky (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=540&q=belief+system&rlz=1R2ADFA_enCA356&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 08, 2011, 10:14:41 PM
What about your belief system?
If you didn't have your belief system, would you be happy or terrified about your life.
how is your life? what makes you happy?
If something extraordinary happens in your life and you can not explain it.
would you accept it or deny it?

Everybody has to face death sooner or later,
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 08, 2011, 10:23:27 PM
Quote
If something extraordinary happens in your life and you can not explain it.
would you accept it or deny it?

What?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 08, 2011, 10:47:42 PM
John,

Since Ambassador horny isn't online at the moment and you are, I was wondering what you meant by your comment in reply to my question about what Jesus would do. You said;

what if I say "what would your atheist god do?"

This little knee jerk reaction of yours makes no sense. Please explain.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 07:50:21 AM
It actually wasn't a monosynaptic reflex
I just thought it was funny when you asked me "WWJD"
I often find people take the name of Jesus in vain.
because you were mentioning something you don't even believe (Jesus)
So I said basically same thing back to you "what would your atheist god do?"
.
.
.
I thought you were an atheist.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 09, 2011, 07:52:04 AM
That doesn't help, Jonny.  The problem isn't that your motivation is unclear - though thanks for clearing that up.

The problem is that the question is incoherent.  It's nonsensical.  Was that your intention?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 07:53:13 AM
I am not an atheist
Just curious.
Would you mind explaining to me what you are?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 07:57:00 AM
That doesn't help, Jonny.  The problem isn't that your motivation is unclear - though thanks for clearing that up.

The problem is that the question is incoherent.  It's nonsensical.  Was that your intention?
exactly, if someone asks me nonsense, I reply nonsense.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on August 09, 2011, 08:05:50 AM
That doesn't help, Jonny.  The problem isn't that your motivation is unclear - though thanks for clearing that up.

The problem is that the question is incoherent.  It's nonsensical.  Was that your intention?
exactly, if someone asks me nonsense, I reply nonsense.

It's nonsense to ask a believer what a character he/she believes in would do?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 09, 2011, 08:12:36 AM
exactly, if someone asks me nonsense, I reply nonsense.

Jaybwell was asking how you thought Jesus would conduct himself, compared to how you've conducted yourself.

How is that nonsense?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 09:05:29 AM
Maybe Jay was simply asking me a question, especially, he claims he is not an atheist.
then, I was overreacting ;)
Sorry Jay.

I would like to know Jay's belief system.
He claims he is not an atheist, but by looking at his posts he sure does not sound like a believer.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 09, 2011, 09:14:08 AM
Just curious.
Would you mind explaining to me what you are?

I am a six foot tall 230lb white heterosexual male of the species homo sapiens. in his mid 30's.  :P

As far as gods are concerned I am agnostic with deistic leanings. Or more specifically, agnostic pan-deist.
As far as religions are concerned, I have no use for them. Like any system man creates, the potential for abuse of power is present and has been exorcised with devastating results. I just don't trust any system that requires blind faith, obedience and my money coupled with the threat of eternal torment for non compliance.

P.S.
Not everyone on this forum is an atheist, not everyone who questions you or your convictions is an atheist, not every atheist is angry at you or your god. Please remember, you are not talking to atheism, you are talking to people.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 09:17:15 AM
Thank you for the advise.
Very good one too.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: caveat_imperator on August 09, 2011, 10:27:15 AM
Thank you for the advise.
Very good one too.

So is jaybwell32 gonna get an answer to his wwjd question?
I know if Jesus acted the way you've been acting here I wouldn't give him the time of day.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on August 09, 2011, 10:53:02 AM
not every atheist is angry at [...] your god.

To be honest, if someone told me they were angry at (any) god, I'd have a hard time believing them to be an atheist.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 09, 2011, 11:50:20 AM
To be honest, if someone told me they were angry at (any) god, I'd have a hard time believing them to be an atheist.

True, true...I have known one or two people in my life who were rebelling against authority i.e. their parents, school, church, etc. They chose to call themselves atheists and deny the existence of God in order to facilitate their rebellion and piss off the parents. They also admitted to me in private that they were in fact angry at God but also angry at the oppressive nature of religion and, as an extension, their parents. I think I did ask at the time how they could be angry at something they try to claim does not exist. I don't recall what the answer was. Their struggle for independence was the first stage of enlightenment for them. After they grew and matured they lost that rebelliousness and indignation and simply lived their life according to how they saw fit. No more anger.

I think many Christians base their understanding of atheism on something similar. For Christians who de-convert, there is sometimes a certain amount of righteous indignation as a result of becoming disillusioned. But I think I've prattled on long enough. My point is that their are some people out there who are angry at God and where the cloak of atheism to lash out. However, you wouldn't expect to hear many of them admit this because it would defeat the purpose.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 11:58:53 AM
Thank you for the advise.
Very good one too.

So is jaybwell32 gonna get an answer to his wwjd question?
I know if Jesus acted the way you've been acting here I wouldn't give him the time of day.
Jesus probably would say"Repent, all you sinners. I am here to save you, if anyone believes my word, you will have eternal life, of if not "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (John 12:48)



Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on August 09, 2011, 12:03:46 PM
@ John

Ahhh...but, would he insult the size of your penis?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 09, 2011, 01:08:11 PM
John 3 16, what about addiction? alcohol? drugs?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 09, 2011, 01:09:08 PM
Jesus probably would say"Repent, all you sinners. I am here to save you, if anyone believes my word, you will have eternal life, of if not "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (John 12:48)
Do you really believe that there is life after death? I mean, even you must admit that anyone could say it and, as dead people don't tend to be conversational, we never really know, do we?

If you do believe in an after-life and is it the same for everyone - i.e. same for all those who go up and the same for all those who go down?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 09, 2011, 02:30:11 PM
Although this is off-topic, I have to wonder why Christians need hell in the first place.  Think about it.  Why waste time threatening 'sinners' with eternal punishment when the simplest way to have it is that these 'sinners' simply stay dead?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on August 09, 2011, 02:44:16 PM
Although this is off-topic, I have to wonder why Christians need hell in the first place.  Think about it.  Why waste time threatening 'sinners' with eternal punishment when the simplest way to have it is that these 'sinners' simply stay dead?

But then what would they threaten us with? Getting exactly what we think we're getting anyway?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 09, 2011, 03:00:33 PM
But then what would they threaten us with? Getting exactly what we think we're getting anyway?
It's more like, why did Christians ever need hell at all?  It's a lot simpler to just offer eternal life in heaven as an inducement to becoming a Christian, without the threat of punishment for people who don't.  They just stay dead.  No need to have a complex theological explanation for good and evil if you don't need somewhere to punish sinners.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on August 09, 2011, 04:08:14 PM
That... that was supposed to be a joke...

:/
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 05:17:52 PM
@ John

Ahhh...but, would he insult the size of your penis?
Probably not.
Like I said to amb. pony "If it was my Lord, it would've been done way better"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 05:41:09 PM
John 3 16, what about addiction? alcohol? drugs?
No addiction.
Allergic to alcohol, never touched drugs in my life, used to smoke cigs, quit 30 years ago.

I could be wrong, but I get a feeling, that you are white male, not married, biligual, under 35 years old, independant  and  smart ;) man.
so what is your addiction?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 09, 2011, 07:49:05 PM
Although this is off-topic, I have to wonder why Christians need hell in the first place.  Think about it.  Why waste time threatening 'sinners' with eternal punishment when the simplest way to have it is that these 'sinners' simply stay dead?

I have asked theist friends about this, and not surprisingly, they have no answer.  When I point out the evil that is eternal torture, they simply cannot understand how much simpler it would be if you got a reward for believing, and nothing for not believing.  And the truth is, as someone already pointed out, it's more exciting to be a part of the group that not only gets the eternal reward, but gets to watch everyone else suffer.  It's actually quite disgusting, and I've noticed that the more liberal Christians can't speak to it directly.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 09, 2011, 07:54:21 PM
John 3 16, what about addiction? alcohol? drugs?
No addiction.
Allergic to alcohol, never touched drugs in my life, used to smoke cigs, quit 30 years ago.

I could be wrong, but I get a feeling, that you are white male, not married, biligual, under 35 years old, independant  and  smart ;) man.
so what is your addiction?

You are wrong. And, no addiction.

What was the religion of your parents, and, which religious beliefs were predominant in the place and time you were brought up in?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 08:03:48 PM
Although this is off-topic, I have to wonder why Christians need hell in the first place.  Think about it.  Why waste time threatening 'sinners' with eternal punishment when the simplest way to have it is that these 'sinners' simply stay dead?
I don't mean to be rude to you or threatening.
But according to my bible, we(Christians)don't need hell or in a position to condemn anybody.
And being a Christian doesn't mean we aren't sinners, we are more likely, "forgiven" from the fallen state (original sin), because we accepted god's salvation plan.
Everybody dies once and after that there is judgement.
And whoever believes, will go through the gate of heaven not because of their deeds or works, but because of their belief.
Being dead ---bible describes it as "sleeping" 
Remember! I am just telling you guys what I know in the bible (no threatening, no condemnation)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 09, 2011, 08:26:13 PM
Oooops! I was wrong.
anyway, to answer your question.
My parents were catholic and my grandparents were buddhist.
I remember going to catholic church every sunday.
I used to pray to maria(Jesus' mother), st. peter, and st.John
and used to call priests "father" and confess my sins to one of the priests.

When I was about 20, I got curious about my religion, and started reading and studying bible.
and found out those religious practices in catholicism were completely wrong, against bible, against god's will.

I was kinda lost, I was asking myself questions. "beyond religious rituals, practices, what is it that god really wants? how would I meet him? how would I ever know his will? what is the purpose of my life?"
As time went by I studied more and more about the bible.
and finally come to a conclusion "I am saved by the faith in jesus christ"
nothing more nothing less. to me everything else is not very important.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 09, 2011, 09:28:59 PM
Well, that accomodates the core configuration of your beliefs. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 09, 2011, 09:51:12 PM
found out those religious practices in catholicism were completely wrong, against bible, against god's will.

Can you point to any evidence of this?  What is your evidence that the practices of Catholicism are against God's will?  Have you spoken to God directly?  Did God tell you that Catholics are just a bunch of fucktards? 

I was kinda lost, I was asking myself questions. "beyond religious rituals, practices, what is it that god really wants?

Yeah, but it seems like that would have been a great time to ask if there was a God to begin with.  You see, by phrasing it the way you did, you can tell that you always believed in some sort of God.  You've taken that idea for granted, as if it's some sort of given.  Your mind was never given a chance to back out and ask itself the most important question.  Instead of asking to see the evidence of God, what you did was to seek out a version of God that most closely resembled the notion of God that you wished were true, based on what you wanted to see.  If the Catholic God had been that God, you'd still be a Catholic.

how would I meet him? how would I ever know his will? what is the purpose of my life?"

All of which presuppose that God exists.  Just look at the questions you ask here.  All of them presuppose there is a God... but what if that entire notion was WRONG?  Suddenly, all the questions you ask become super easy to answer.  "How would I meet him?" You wouldn't, because He isn't real (consequently, this would explain why you also hadn't met him up until the point where you started believing what you now do).  How will I know his will?  You wouldn't, because there isn't a "God's will".  What is the purpose of my life?  You have to answer that for yourself since there is no God.  These are the simplest, easiest to understand answers. 

As time went by I studied more and more about the bible.

And this is the critical piece. The only possible way you can read and study the bible and still come away a believer is if you FIRST believe in God.  Everything makes sense (even the stuff that really doesn't), when you first assume God is real.  Anything could happen if you postulate an omnimax God.  Literally anything. 

and finally come to a conclusion "I am saved by the faith in jesus christ"
nothing more nothing less. to me everything else is not very important.

That's not much of a stretch.  Just look what you're buying into?  "Oh, I'm such a bad person... but wait!  Over there, LOOK! It's Jesus!  He's on his white horse coming to save me from... from... myself!  Oh he loves everyone, and he loves me so much, and he is the best parent ever, and he's super powerful and he would do anything for me (except what I ask him for directly), and He is my light and my Lord"  It must be nice to believe you have that kind of thing backing you up...  if only it were remotely true. 

You have buried your head in the sand to avoid hearing what the truth is.  It's very sad, but you've been doing it your entire life.  Just think about how awful it is that you have put all your eggs in a basket with a giant empty hole in the bottom.  Your entire life... wasted on this nonsense.  Really.  This is the year 2011.  We don't need God to explain anything anymore.  Nothing.  Zip.  Nada.  It's over.  There are books out there written by people who were even more gung-ho about Jesus than you are, and they finally realized how dumb the whole thing is.  You should try reading them. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: caveat_imperator on August 09, 2011, 10:26:42 PM
and finally come to a conclusion "I am saved by the faith in jesus christ"
nothing more nothing less. to me everything else is not very important.

Doesn't the bible say you should think otherwise?
Quote
James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 09, 2011, 11:57:29 PM
But according to my bible, we(Christians)don't need hell or in a position to condemn anybody.
Excepting the places where hell is specifically mentioned in the Bible (any Bible, whether 'yours' or another version).  I'll grant that Christians aren't supposed to condemn or anything like that (technically, that's God's job), but that has never stopped far too many of them from so doing, or from believing that their detractors are destined for hell.  Unless and until enough people stand up to them, they'll have no reason to change.

And being a Christian doesn't mean we aren't sinners, we are more likely, "forgiven" from the fallen state (original sin), because we accepted god's salvation plan.
The concept of original sin, to put it mildly, is nonsensical.  Why was this forbidden tree made available - indeed, easily accessible - to Adam and Eve, if it was so wrong for them to eat from it?  This would be equivalent to leaving a loaded gun out where a child could get at it while giving a stern warning not to touch it, then blaming the child when curiosity overcame that warning, despite the fact that simply locking up the gun, and unloading it, would have been far more effective than the warning alone..

Everybody dies once and after that there is judgement.
And whoever believes, will go through the gate of heaven not because of their deeds or works, but because of their belief.
It is quite convenient for Christians to be safely dead before they can find out whether or not they actually get rewarded or not.  Leaving aside whether this particular system is just or not, it's not planned too well considering human nature.  One of the primary ways in which people learn is for things to have an immediate effect, so a person can realize whether it's beneficial or detrimental.  Yet, someone has to be dead in order to determine the result of their belief, which is so far from 'immediate' that it's useless for all practical purposes.

Being dead ---bible describes it as "sleeping" 
Remember! I am just telling you guys what I know in the bible (no threatening, no condemnation)
I would honestly suggest you spend more time reading the Bible, if you're going to quote it to other people.  If you missed the references to hell in the Bible, what else might you be missing?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: naemhni on August 10, 2011, 06:22:30 AM
And whoever believes, will go through the gate of heaven not because of their deeds or works, but because of their belief.

I've never understood how Christians can regard this as a just action taken by a loving god.

Down here on earth, if a government imprisons or executes its citizens based on their beliefs, we regard that as a human rights violation.  We strongly condemn it and take various actions in an attempt to get that government to cease engaging in a practice that we do not hesitate to call unjust -- indeed, it rarely ever even occurs to us to call it anything else.  Conversely, imprisoning someone for their deeds is generally presupposed to be perfectly proper.  (John Smith commits arson or rape or murder?  Lock him up.)

Yet Christianity teaches that ultimate salvation is premised on a completely inverted concept: absolutely nothing that you say or do makes any difference, the only thing that matters is what you believe.  Commit as many rapes and murders as you like.  As long as you have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you'll be fine in the afterlife, although, regrettably, if you have any dreams of meeting Gandhi when you're in heaven, you're going to be disappointed...
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 10, 2011, 07:20:13 AM
And whoever believes, will go through the gate of heaven not because of their deeds or works, but because of their belief.

I've never understood how Christians can regard this as a just action taken by a loving god.

[...]

Yet Christianity teaches that ultimate salvation is premised on a completely inverted concept: absolutely nothing that you say or do makes any difference, the only thing that matters is what you believe.
The theological view is that if you have genuine Faith in Jesus, this encompasses following His Teachings. His teachings include giving to the poor, obeying the 10 Commandments and his 11th. The theologian will then tell you that by having faith you naturally do good works.

The theological question is, "Which comes first?" The answer is, "To do everything to the glory of God." and you can only do that if you have Faith. i.e. first faith, by which you are saved.

This is the argument of "Once Saved, always Saved."

The Catholics, who, in my view also, are not Christians but a sect based loosely upon Christianity[1], believe that works are essential. However, there is a trap in the "works" doctrine:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Here Paul,[2] shows again that first and only requirement is that there be Faith - works will come with Faith and be of faith.

This gives rise to the often heard chant: "So Hitler can be in heaven if he repented, but a holy man, taken unawares, might be in hell." The answer is, "Yes, but there's a bit more to it than that." and the 'but' is too big to go into here.
 1. see also Mormons, JWs, and a host of others
 2. who invented Christianity and said many things Jesus did not
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 10, 2011, 07:16:52 PM
Jeff.
If you are asking me evidence outside the bible, I have nothing, zero, zipp, nada, young, cero, null.

bible is all I have, all I know.
I am not here to say "you should believe me" anymore.


It sounds like you are asking me "how I believed in the first place?"
"Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."(Romans 10:17)
--I heard the message in the bible.
before I heard the message I was a nonbeliever. (Just going to church every sunday with parents did not make me a believer)
"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"  (Galatians 3:2)
--I believed the message in the bible.
"For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith."(Hebrews 4:2)
--If you don't believe, gospel has no value.

I came here and found out I totally suck at debating, and I think its because I try to rely 100% on bible, nothing else.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 10, 2011, 11:09:33 PM
Jeff.
If you are asking me evidence outside the bible, I have nothing, zero, zipp, nada, young, cero, null.

Then I'm sorry, you've lost this battle. 

bible is all I have, all I know.

Then it's game, set, match. There are thousands of reasons to discount the authenticity of the bible, and if that's all you got, you're dead in the water.  Without any corroborating evidence for the stories in the bible, it's impossible to believe it holds factual information.  Just like every... other... religious... book... ever... written.

Do you honestly believe that it is an intelligent move to simply believe everything in the bible just because the bible says that the bible is true?   

I am not here to say "you should believe me" anymore.

If that's all you had to start with, you shouldn't have come in the first place. 

It sounds like you are asking me "how I believed in the first place?"
"Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."(Romans 10:17)
--I heard the message in the bible.

This could simply be wrong. Paul wrote Romans, and he never even met Jesus! 

before I heard the message I was a nonbeliever. (Just going to church every sunday with parents did not make me a believer)
"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"  (Galatians 3:2)

This could simply be wrong.  Paul wrote Galatians, and he never even met Jesus!

--I believed the message in the bible.
"For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith."(Hebrews 4:2)
--If you don't believe, gospel has no value.

From "Forged", by Bart Ehrman. 

Quote
The anonymous book of Hebrews was assigned to Paul, even though numbers of early Christian scholars realized that Paul did not write it, as scholars today agree....

... Scholars are highly unified in thinking that Paul did not write the book of Hebrews, even though it was included in the canon of the New Testament by church fathers who thought that it was.

We don't even know who wrote Hebrews.  Just words in a book. 

I came here and found out I totally suck at debating, and I think its because I try to rely 100% on bible, nothing else.

Alright, now I feel bad.  "2 inch pencil dick" thing aside, you DO suck at debating, but at least you're man enough to admit it.  As Snoop Dog said on Starsky and Hutch... "You just went up a notch in my book... that puts you at notch 1".  I offer you an alternative approach to understanding why you are not debating well.  Maybe it's because you're defending an untenable position?  In other words, it might not be you... it might be that you're on the losing side. 

Here is the problem with relying on the bible.  It might really be make-believe!  You see, any book you read is just words until it's backed up with evidence or with contemporary sources or something to give it credence.  Just because lots of people believe it, that doesn't even remotely make it true.  As an example, if you read a book like Orwell's Animal Farm, you will find talking animals inside.  Now, without corroborating evidence (something like several prominent historians all agreeing that animals were seen and heard talking, verifiable evidence such as recordings or something of the like) it would be completely nuts to believe any of it was true, correct?  Just answer that for yourself, PLEASE.  Is that correct? 

Once you've answered that, examine what the bible says with a critical eye.  Seriously.  Take a look at what it says.  The stuff is pretty unbelievable, right?  It would be amazing if it were true!  What evidence do we have to back up the stories in there?  Zero man.  Zero.  There's nothing.  There is just as much evidence for Orwell's talking animals as there is for any biblical miracle story.

As for faith... If you were writing a book that you really wanted people to believe was true, and you could produce NO evidence that it were true, would you not do exactly what the bible writers did and make FAITH a VIRTUOUS thing?  It's a trick, John.  A trick.  By making faith virtuous, you have eliminated any possibility that logic and reason would tear it down.  You've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.  It's not virtuous to believe in things that have no evidence.  No matter what the bible tells you; it's not.  It's gullibility at best... lunacy at worst.  You do it in no other part of your daily life, yet you do it with reckless abandon with your religion.  Try to see it for what it really is. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ivellios on August 11, 2011, 09:57:15 AM
As for faith... If you were writing a book that you really wanted people to believe was true, and you could produce NO evidence that it were true, would you not do exactly what the bible writers did and make FAITH a VIRTUOUS thing?  It's a trick, John.  A trick.  By making faith virtuous, you have eliminated any possibility that logic and reason would tear it down.  You've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.  It's not virtuous to believe in things that have no evidence.  No matter what the bible tells you; it's not.  It's gullibility at best... lunacy at worst.  You do it in no other part of your daily life, yet you do it with reckless abandon with your religion.  Try to see it for what it really is.

The perfect con. Buy thier 'product.' You cannot create a lawsuit until you first die, find out it's all a lie, come back and prove it's a lie, and prove they did it knowing it was a lie. You see, they could absolutely believe in thier 'product' themselves. So even if you could prove the rest, you're still S.O.L. You just have to 'believe' that that Nigerian Prince really will send you a lot of money to do a "cash transfer" when you send them your bank account and personal information. You can take them at thier word, because they said so! It just takes a bit of 'Faith.' Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority: Check! So, it MUST be True!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: fishjie on August 11, 2011, 03:29:27 PM
Jeff.
If you are asking me evidence outside the bible, I have nothing, zero, zipp, nada, young, cero, null.

bible is all I have, all I know.
I am not here to say "you should believe me" anymore.


It sounds like you are asking me "how I believed in the first place?"
"Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."(Romans 10:17)
--I heard the message in the bible.
before I heard the message I was a nonbeliever. (Just going to church every sunday with parents did not make me a believer)
"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"  (Galatians 3:2)
--I believed the message in the bible.
"For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith."(Hebrews 4:2)
--If you don't believe, gospel has no value.

I came here and found out I totally suck at debating, and I think its because I try to rely 100% on bible, nothing else.

ok that's nice.    so you believed the bible for no reason whatsoever, and just accepted that it is real, despite having "zip nada zero" evidence for it being true?    you realize that if you had been raised as any other religion, such as islam, you would have believed in their fairy tale magic story book instead?    those story books also have "zip nada zero" evidence as well, why not believe that crap instead?

sounds like you are a gullible person.  you should just give me all your money for safekeeping, don't worry, i'll manage it real well for you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 11, 2011, 05:36:44 PM
I came here and found out I totally suck at debating, and I think its because I try to rely 100% on bible, nothing else.
Cheer up, a man is only as good as his material. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Whateverman on August 11, 2011, 06:20:12 PM
I came here and found out I totally suck at debating, and I think its because I try to rely 100% on bible, nothing else.

I've long had a suspicion that if you can't explain your ideas coherently, those ideas should probably be re-examined (by you).

I concede that sites like this and others are generally for informal debating.  As such, if you come here and try to engage people without having had practice, you'll get clobbered pretty easily.  In that sense, not being able to defend your ideas is less about the ideas being faulty than it is about needing to play the game better.

But still, there's an element to discussions like these that's independent of debating skills, and it's called "honesty".  People who are dishonest about their ideas, or who express them dishonestly - they take it on the chin more often than not, and no amount of "practice" will help.

PS. I'm not labeling you as either of these types, John.  I don't know you well enough to.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 11, 2011, 06:37:49 PM
Quote
But according to my bible, we(Christians)don't need hell or in a position to condemn anybody.
Excepting the places where hell is specifically mentioned in the Bible (any Bible, whether 'yours' or another version).  I'll grant that Christians aren't supposed to condemn or anything like that (technically, that's God's job), but that has never stopped far too many of them from so doing, or from believing that their detractors are destined for hell. 
That's not quite so, Christians are supposed to judge:
Leviticus 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Psalm 37:30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.

Proverbs 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Jeremiah 10:25 Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thy name....

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

1st Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1st Corinthians 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

1st Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1st Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?.
1st Corinthians 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

Mal:3:18: Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

But no one can judge a Christian:

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 11, 2011, 07:02:09 PM
Well, according to the bible (not my words)
there is a big difference between my judging and God's JUDGEMENT.

with mine, I can identify what is right or wrong according to the bible, and... that's it.
however if God judges in judgement day, there is a consequence(I am not even going to say it)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 11, 2011, 07:11:41 PM
I've long had a suspicion that if you can't explain your ideas coherently, those ideas should probably be re-examined (by you).
"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."( John 3:8 )

not everything can be explain sometimes right?, even if it's your own.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on August 11, 2011, 07:20:25 PM
not everything can be explain sometimes right?, ...

Correct. We don't know the answers to many questions.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 11, 2011, 07:22:35 PM
Well, according to the bible (not my words)
there is a big difference between my judging and God's JUDGEMENT.

with mine, I can identify what is right or wrong according to the bible, and... that's it.
however if God judges in judgement day, there is a consequence(I am not even going to say it)
So what of child molesting priests? Do they not fear judgment of God because their good deeds outweigh the bad ones? Do they fail to fear judgment because they do not believe? Are they ok with the idea of hell because that little boy's ass is just to tempting?

 The Idea of this God is so ridiculous even child raping priests dont buy it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 11, 2011, 07:41:37 PM
Well, according to the bible (not my words) there is a big difference between my judging and God's JUDGEMENT.
So you will be up there judging angels and saints, yet here on earth, you do not judge? You refuse God’s command?
Quote
With mine, I can identify what is right or wrong according to the bible, and... that's it.
Really? Would you care to give me your opinion of the story of Jephthah’s  daughter?
Could you share with us your views on slavery?
I for one would like to hear your views on women’s rights.
I assume killing disobedient children is OK?
Mark 7:8-13 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God) then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Quote
however if God judges in judgement day, there is a consequence(I am not even going to say it)
Don’t worry – there isn’t a god.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 11, 2011, 08:18:26 PM
Greybeard.
Jesus Christ said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

all the laws in OT are like shadows of things to come.
JC came and completed what was old to new by his love and forgiveness of sins

He even said “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.(Matthew 5:38-39)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 11, 2011, 09:52:51 PM
So what you are saying here is he is a Jew who wants to save Jews and has NO interest in Christians or their theologies?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 11, 2011, 10:13:01 PM
Greybeard.
Jesus Christ said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

Yes, supposedly he did.  Now, there are 2 possible definitions of the word "fulfill" here John 3 16.  One, would be "to bring to completion" and that is the one that you consider heavily.  Another definition of the word fulfill is "follow or obey".  In your use of language, when talking about laws, does it make more sense to say you "follow or obey" a law, or that you "bring to completion" a law?  There is no contest.  You can't "bring to completion" a law.  You can bring lots of things to completion, but laws aren't one of them.  You can CHANGE them, but you can't complete them.  Saying you are going to bring a law to completion is like saying you want to "run" a "tree".  That verb just doesn't go with that noun. 

Fulfill in this case obviously means "follow or obey".  A good piece of evidence for this being the case is that Jesus was absolutely, positively, 100% JEW when he said those things.  The end result of "to bring to completion" the law would be the same as the end result of "abolishing" the law.  And Jesus specifically said he is NOT here to get rid of the law. 

If we take your translation, Jesus is basically saying "I didn't come to violently end the law, I came to softly end to the law.  The only difference between abolish and fulfill (in your definition of the word) is that abolish expresses a violent end to the law, whereas fulfill expresses a soft, casual ending.  Either way, the law is ending, and your version makes little sense.  Broken down to the lowest form, Jesus is saying "I'm not here to end it, I'm here to end it."

If we take my translation, while considering Jesus was 100% Jew, Jesus is basically saying "I didn't come to violently end the law, I came to follow it."  Exactly the opposite meaning, and entirely in context of who Jesus was, and the message he was bringing (in Matthew's eyes anyway). 

Which makes more sense to you? 

all the laws in OT are like shadows of things to come. JC came and completed what was old to new by his love and forgiveness of sins

Why?  Why would God make laws that were no good and had to be changed?  Wouldn't that mean God is not perfect?  Can God make an imperfect law? 

I never find it overly productive to get into a "yes it is", "no it isn't" argument with people, but no, JC did not come and complete what was old to new by his love and forgiveness of sins.  Just... no.  That's not true.  Again you are just spouting words here.  They are meaningless.  You simply believe it to be true because... well.... you believe it to be true.  Laughable.

He even said “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.(Matthew 5:38-39)

Do you really understand this?  I mean, do you really GET what Jesus is saying here?  He isn't saying "walk away from evil".  He is saying that if evil smacks you once, stand up and let it smack you again.  Read the rest of the passage and it backs up what I'm telling you.  The next line is basically saying if someone is suing your ass, don't fight back... give them everything they want and some stuff they don't.  What the fuck is that? 

Is this something you would teach your children on the playground?  Can you see a parent having this conversation on the first day of school?  "Alright son.  If you ever get in a fight with someone, and he punches you in the face, get back up and tell him to hit you again.  What? No, no, don't go and tell the teacher.  Don't walk away.  Jesus would want you to stand and take another shot to the mouth.  Yes, I'm sure.  Stop asking.  There you go.  Go run and play now."  What kind of parent would EVER do that?  It's HORRIBLE advice.  Jesus was an idiot with this one.  You all think by saying 'turn the other cheek' that he means to walk away, but that's totally not what Jesus is saying here. 

Do you have another penis joke for me now? 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 11, 2011, 11:33:39 PM
Jeff, if you read bible carefully, you will understand.
in this particular verse the word "fullfill", should be understood as"to complete"
the bible says there is no one without any sins, means no one is perfect in the eyes of God.
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin" (Romans 3:20)
no one has ability to follow the laws of moses 100% without any mistake.
therefore Jesus had to come down and sacrificed himself for our sins, so that whoever believes, shall have eternal life.
After Crucifixion of Jesus, we are freed from the laws of moses, we are considered righteous before God just by faith in Jesus Christ.
That's why Jesus said, "I have not come to demolish them but to complete them"
"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."(Matthew 19:26)

I have more to come to you Jeff, but I have to go to bed,
til tomorrow
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 12, 2011, 02:03:04 AM
After Crucifixion of Jesus, we are freed from the laws of moses, we are considered righteous before God just by faith in Jesus Christ.

Excellent news.  Here is some Mosaic laws that we are now freed from:

Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Ex 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind.
Lev 19:26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard
Lev 23:28 And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement

Just a smattering there.  You may now explain how, despite the fact that Jesus freed us from the laws of Moses, we still have to follow the laws of Moses.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 12, 2011, 07:50:17 AM
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus replied Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

"For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  (Galatians 5:14)

If you love your god with all your heart,
If you love your neighbor as yourself, none of those will happen.
no one need to worry about idol worship, adultery, lie, murder....

"But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (Galatians 5:18)

We (christians) are no longer bound by those laws, but by love of God and neighbors, We don't commit those crimes.
therefore laws were completed by love of Christ.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: naemhni on August 12, 2011, 08:28:59 AM
We (christians) are no longer bound by those laws, but by love of God and neighbors, We don't commit those crimes.

Umm, sorry, but yes, you do.  All that and more.

Quote
VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH "WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"

These are just a few of the atrocious events of bloodshed, death, and torture that were carried out on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity.  God is love, indeed....

Ancient Pagans

As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.

Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.

Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.

Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]

Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]

Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]

According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..." In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.

In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]

The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415

 
Missions

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]

Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223] =

Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]

15th century Poland: 1,019 churches and 17,987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]

16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irion command of pope Urban II.
 
Crusades (1095-1291)
 
First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
 
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23] •9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]

Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30] after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]

Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]

Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]

Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children).

"(In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")

The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]

Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]

Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224] All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

Full article, with far more examples (and supporting citations), here:

http://in-reason-i-trust.xanga.com/581896071/the-christian-holocaust/
 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 12, 2011, 09:18:10 AM
Jeff.
"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves." (Hebrews 10:1)
You asked God is not perfect?
my answer is clear YES HE IS.
"As it is written There is no one righteous, not even one" ( Romans 3:10 )
but we aren't

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:19-24)

Mosaic laws were needed for many reasons, one of them is to identify Israelites from gentiles, and most importantly,  "through the law we become conscious of our sin" we know we are sinners, not perfect before God. 
No man was able to become righteous by observing the law, so Christ came and .......
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 12, 2011, 09:25:15 AM
Piano dwarf.

by looking all those people and incidents you mentioned above.

let me ask you a quetion. Do you see "Love of Christ, and loving neighbor is yourself" in them?

If not, my answer is there.
If yes, well.......
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: naemhni on August 12, 2011, 09:47:36 AM
Piano dwarf.

It's "pianodwarf".  All one word.

Quote
by looking all those people and incidents you mentioned above.

let me ask you a quetion. Do you see "Love of Christ, and loving neighbor is yourself" in them?

Umm, yes...?  Luke 19:27: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Even if it weren't for that, though, it wouldn't make any difference.  All of those tortures and massacres and everything else were performed by Christians, motivated by their Christianity, and that's all there is to it.  You don't get to say that their behavior means that they weren't actually Christians -- that's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.  If you don't understand that, try turning it around: I don't get to claim that because Stalin massacred so many millions of people, it means that he was actually a Christian.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 12, 2011, 09:50:46 AM
So what you are saying here is he is a Jew who wants to save Jews and has NO interest in Christians or their theologies?
God is God of all mankind not God of Israel only.
"Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed  through him"(Genesis 18:18)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ivellios on August 12, 2011, 09:51:44 AM
Piano dwarf.

by looking all those people and incidents you mentioned above.

let me ask you a quetion. Do you see "Love of Christ, and loving neighbor is yourself" in them?

If not, my answer is there.
If yes, well.......

They were commited by people who THOUGHT they were "true" Christians.

"A Good person does good things. An Evil person does evil things. To get a Good person to do evil things, you need Religion."

If you were told that in order to get your unbelieving father who died to be allowed into Purgatory instead of Hell, you needed to: sell everything and give it to the Church, take a 4 month walk to a port in Italy, hop on a ship that only 33% make it to the destination, cleanse[1] those people who REFUSE to accept God's Love and Grace for a year, hop on another ship to that same port in Italy[2] , and take that 4 month journey back home and place that "Holy Item" you bought from that con-artist in Jerusalem upon your father's grave... would you do it?

If you were alive during that time, probably. You would probably also even send your children since they had the Pope's blessing! Look up "The Children's Crusade."
 1. genocide
 2. and hereby with same odds of survival
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 12, 2011, 10:13:32 AM
Trueseeker.
Jews thought they were servants of God and they try to follow all the laws of moses,
so what happened? they KILLED the Messiah.
God's words are perfect and forever, but people misunderstands and do wrongfull things.

mostly because they have little bits and pieces of knowledge of God's word (bible), but ironically, they think they know everything about the bible.

"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."  They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word."  (John 8:31-37)

truthseeker, listen for the truth, the truth will set you free.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on August 12, 2011, 10:25:53 AM
so what happened? they KILLED the Messiah.

Except he was nothing like the prophesied Messiah. They just killed a poser.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 12, 2011, 10:51:02 AM
We (christians) are no longer bound by those laws, but by love of God and neighbors, We don't commit those crimes.
therefore laws were completed by love of Christ.

So are they still crimes, or not?  As has been pointed out, many Christians DO commit those crimes - unless you are contending that every Chsirtian is perfect?

If those things are no longer crimes, why do they still matter to you?  Where is the problem in homosexuality, for example, if it is no longer a crime?  Conversely, if they ARE still crimes, in what way are we "freed" from those laws?

It seems you want it both ways - crimes that are not crimes, but that you still should not do.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 12, 2011, 11:15:15 AM
Crimes are crimes,
any Christian commits crime, they go to jail.
doesn't matter christian, any other religion.

If Christians commit crimes, it is even worse, because it's like "forgiven ones takes advantage of God's mercy"

Then freed from Laws means ----Jews thought they had to follow and obey Mosaic laws to be righteous and just before God.
to make a long story short, with 'LOVE' we don't have to follow all the Mosaic law to be saved and obtain eternal life, committing crime and going to jail has nothing to do with being saved.

You simply repent, accept the word and believe.
Then you are saved for eternity.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 12, 2011, 05:49:27 PM
If Christians commit crimes, it is even worse, because it's like "forgiven ones takes advantage of God's mercy"

How so?  They already believe in God, and that's what saves them.  So how is it worse for a Christian?  It's not.  It's way better for a Christian. They have a get out of trouble free card.  They can do whatever they want and still get into heaven just by saying they believe in God. 

What effect does committing a crime have in terms of God?  Will it not get you into heaven?  Nope.  You'll have no problem getting to heaven no matter what the crime.  Will it make God angry?  So what?  It's not like God punishes people in THIS life, and it's not like he's going to punish you in heaven.  So there's no problem for you.

The reason you don't commit crimes is the same reason we don't.  We know it's not right.  It's better to help than to hurt others. Altruism.

Then freed from Laws means ----Jews thought they had to follow and obey Mosaic laws to be righteous and just before God.
to make a long story short, with 'LOVE' we don't have to follow all the Mosaic law to be saved and obtain eternal life, committing crime and going to jail has nothing to do with being saved.

Exactly my point.  You can do whatever you want and God will forgive you as long as you believe in Jesus.  We don't have that luxury.  We have to live with out mistakes. 

You simply repent, accept the word and believe.
Then you are saved for eternity.

Mass murderers rejoice. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 12, 2011, 06:02:16 PM
(http://normalbobsmith.com/hatemail282_contestcloud.jpg)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 12, 2011, 06:03:25 PM
(http://normalbobsmith.com/hatemail282_contestblaze.jpg)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Asmoday on August 12, 2011, 07:04:34 PM
God's words are perfect and forever, but people misunderstands and do wrongfull things.
If God's words are perfect, how can they be misunderstood?

How can a perfect message be misunderstood and misinterpreted?

By definition a perfect message is impossible to misunderstand or to misinterpret. Otherwise it would not be a perfect message.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 12, 2011, 07:26:13 PM
God's words are perfect and forever, but people misunderstands and do wrongfull things.

Then why have they changed so much? If gods words are forever, why do some people pick and choose which parts of the bible they intend to follow? Why were certain books left out of the bible when the people putting it together didn't like what it said?

Why don't you follow everything the bible teaches, if it is perfect and forever?

Actually a better question would be, why then can you not prove the truth of these words when asked to? If the words were perfect, then the evidence of their truth should be perfect. In fact if they were so perfect, they should be impossible to deny. If the words were forever, then they should be applicable and relevant all throughout time and irregardless of culture. So why aren't they?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 12, 2011, 08:25:38 PM
so what happened? they KILLED the Messiah.

Except he was nothing like the prophesied Messiah. They just killed a poser.
you tell me where in the bible says Jesus was nothing like the prophesied Messiah.
Please.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 12, 2011, 09:12:42 PM
You can't be serious.  It's all over the place.  The Jews believed Jesus would not be some lowly peasant.  They thought he would be a great king.  A leader of men.  This is precisely why the vast, VAST majority of Jews REJECTED Jesus as the messiah!  He didn't even remotely fit the mold. 

Do you know anything about biblical history?  You just don't get this. The gospel stories weren't written for several decades after Jesus died.  During that time (between his death, and when they started writing the bullshit down), the cult of Christianity was very small.  It spread around, but remained small.  The Jews, by in large, did NOT believe Jesus was the messiah.  A few did, and they converted, but most of the converts they got were the pagans.  Why did most of the Jews say Jesus wasn't the messiah and convert on the spot?  The following is from a simple wiki reading. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism

Most of the scriptural requirements concerning the Messiah, what he will do, and what will be done during his reign are located in the Book of Isaiah, although requirements are mentioned by other prophets as well.

    Isaiah 1:26: "And I will restore your judges as at first and your counsellors as in the beginning; afterwards you shall be called City of Righteousness, Faithful City." Some Jews interpret this to mean that the Sanhedrin will be re-established. (Isaiah 1:26)   Nope.
    Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4)  Nope
    He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:8-10, 2 Chronicles 7:18)  Nope.  He was God's son, not Josephs.
    Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4) Wrong.
    He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10)   Nope.
    All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)    Nope.  It actually says he will gather them all to Israel.  Didn't happen.
    Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25)   Nope.
    There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25)    HAHA
    All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26)   Nope
    The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51)   Hardly
    He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)    Matthew 10:34. 
    Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)   Nope.
    The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)    Nope.
    The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)   Hardly.
    Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)   Nope.
    The people of Israel will have direct access to the Torah through their minds and Torah study will become the study of the wisdom of the heart (Jeremiah 31:33)[2]    Laughable.
    He will give you all the worthy desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)   Good one! Nope.
    He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9)   Nope.

He didn't do any of that stuff. 

Then, the gospels were written.  And when the gospel writers (whomever they were) wrote the gospels, they had, in their possession, the Old Testament writings!  When they wanted people to believe that Jesus was the messiah, guess what they did?  They saw some prophecies (I.E. the messiah will do X), and they wrote in that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies (Jesus did X).   See how easy that is?  Since they were written DECADES after Jesus died, who is going to say Jesus didn't do X?  And since at that time Christianity was a nothing religion, who would even CARE to say Jesus didn't do X?  Nobody.   
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 12, 2011, 10:15:57 PM
Nobody.

That sums up Jesus quite nicely, actually.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 12, 2011, 10:33:29 PM
Another case of lack of knowledge of bible, rather you guys call it "ignorance"?

Did you not hear about Jesus' 2nd coming?

"MARANATHA."

Please, I kind of get offended by people who only knows bits and pieces of bible, but they pretend they know alot.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 12, 2011, 10:54:49 PM
John 316, I have fulfilled the prophesy just as well as Jesus has.  My 2nd coming, to take place in the future, fulfills it all.

Not convinced?  Good.  See, in order to fulfill a prophesy, you actually have to, you know, do the deed.  Jesus didn't.  Hence, he never fulfilled those prophesies.  Just like I havn't.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Asmoday on August 12, 2011, 11:00:45 PM
That would all be nice and well if it wasn't for the fact that the original jewish messiah is not supposed to have a "second coming."

The jewish messiah is born and does all of the things on the above list in one sitting. Not to mention that the jewish messiah is not God / part of God / son of God. The jewish messiah is a normal human.


Edit:

Another interesting point is that upon bringing the era of peace and rebuilding the temple, the jewish messiah will foster a male heir to his kingdom. I'd be very interested in getting a a bible verse where it says that Jesus will marry, have a male child and then step down for his heir to take the throne of Israel.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 12, 2011, 11:33:52 PM
Another case of lack of knowledge of bible, rather you guys call it "ignorance"?

Did you not hear about Jesus' 2nd coming?

"MARANATHA."

I didn't know you spoke Aramaic.

Alright then.  What does the bible say about the second coming? Does it say the Jesus' second coming will fit the following description...

    Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4) 
    He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:8-10, 2 Chronicles 7:18)
    Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)
    He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) 
    All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)   
    Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25)   
    There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25)   
    All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26) 
    The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51)   
    He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)   
    Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)   
    The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)   
    The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55) 
    Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)   
    The people of Israel will have direct access to the Torah through their minds and Torah study will become the study of the wisdom of the heart (Jeremiah 31:33)[2]   
    He will give you all the worthy desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)   
    He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9) 

Remember now.  You asked where in the bible it said that Jesus was nothing like the messiah.  You responded with the second coming as if Jesus will, at some point, fulfill all the above prophecies that were for the messiah.  From what we know of "the second coming", does the description of it in the bible satisfy ALL of those prophecies?  None?  How many? 

Please, I kind of get offended by people who only knows bits and pieces of bible, but they pretend they know alot.

There is nothing more sad than seeing someone try to chastise other people for their lack of knowledge while at the exact same time exhibiting a serious lack of knowledge themselves.  I'll give you a little advice... Take your foot out of your mouth before you start typing again.

That would all be nice and well if it wasn't for the fact that the original jewish messiah is not supposed to have a "second coming."

The jewish messiah is born and does all of the things on the above list in one sitting. Not to mention that the jewish messiah is not God / part of God / son of God. The jewish messiah is a normal human.


Edit:

Another interesting point is that upon bringing the era of peace and rebuilding the temple, the jewish messiah will foster a male heir to his kingdom. I'd be very interested in getting a a bible verse where it says that Jesus will marry, have a male child and then step down for his heir to take the throne of Israel.

Nice one :)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 13, 2011, 01:04:55 AM
Then freed from Laws means ----Jews thought they had to follow and obey Mosaic laws to be righteous and just before God.
to make a long story short, with 'LOVE' we don't have to follow all the Mosaic law to be saved and obtain eternal life,

You simply repent, accept the word and believe.
Then you are saved for eternity.

Right.  So, like I said, all these laws listed below do NOT have to be followed.  You seem to be switching answers from post to post - one post we MUST still follow them, the next (as here) we do NOT.  You are all over the pace here Johnny.

Ex 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind.
Lev 19:26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard
Lev 23:28 And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 13, 2011, 10:59:35 AM
you tell me where in the bible says Jesus was nothing like the prophesied Messiah.
Please.

That conversation already occurred 9 days ago:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18209.msg436015.html#msg436015

Judaic Messianic Prophecy was listed:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18209.msg434357.html#msg434357

It was also pointed out that christian claims of prophecy are random citations that have nothing to do with Judaic Messianic Prophecy and are choosing what sounds good after the fact as they ignore the rest:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,18209.msg434731.html#msg434731

We are still waiting for your argument and citations of evidence.  Why did you abandon the discussion, yet later pretend like the discussion never occurred or that you had not cowardly abandoned it?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 13, 2011, 11:04:48 AM
Did you not hear about Jesus' 2nd coming?

No one has, because it has nothing to do with Judaic Messianic prophecy.  It is a qualification made up to sweep all the unfulfilled Judaic Messianic Prophecies under the rug.

See above: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19687.msg437484.html#msg437484

You abandoned the discussion about this very problem, which in effect destroys the biblical narrative.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 13, 2011, 11:23:21 AM
If you have a minute at some point, John. I'd still like to see your answer to at least this question about the perfection oand permanency of the bibles word.

Why don't you follow everything the bible teaches, if it is perfect and forever?

Actually a better question would be, why then can you not prove the truth of these words when asked to? If the words were perfect, then the evidence of their truth should be perfect. In fact if they were so perfect, they should be impossible to deny. If the words were forever, then they should be applicable and relevant all throughout time and irregardless of culture. So why aren't they?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 13, 2011, 11:31:29 AM
That would all be nice and well if it wasn't for the fact that the original jewish messiah is not supposed to have a "second coming."

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalms 110:1-4)

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

Jesus has risen after his resurrection lifted onto heaven. sits on the right hand of God. untill his second coming.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 13, 2011, 11:36:07 AM
Where in that nonsense is an answer.. walk us through it step by step.  Explain yourself.

All I can tell is that you've randomly selected scripture that doesn't answer anything being asked for and you don't even bother to explain.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 13, 2011, 11:39:30 AM
Asmoday.

Think about why Jesus called himself "son of man" numerous times.

We(believers) are heirs of his kingdom "Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory" (Romans 8:17)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 13, 2011, 11:41:20 AM
Omen.
I honestly don't have time to explain such simple verse.
A person has liitle bit of knowledge of bible will have no problem understanding.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 13, 2011, 11:45:57 AM
Omen.
I honestly don't have time to explain such simple verse.
A person has liitle bit of knowledge of bible will have no problem understanding.

John, your statement is not informative enough to even begin to convey that it explains anything. Your logic doesn't follow from what was asked for ( OT support for the Christian "second coming" ) to what you cited, no explanation is offered to even be understood.  It only supports the counter claim that christian messianic prophecy is randomly selected after the fact and in complete ignorance to Judaic messianic prophecy.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 13, 2011, 12:00:07 PM
If you have a minute at some point, John. I'd still like to see your answer to at least this question about the perfection oand permanency of the bibles word.

Why don't you follow everything the bible teaches, if it is perfect and forever?

Actually a better question would be, why then can you not prove the truth of these words when asked to? If the words were perfect, then the evidence of their truth should be perfect. In fact if they were so perfect, they should be impossible to deny. If the words were forever, then they should be applicable and relevant all throughout time and irregardless of culture. So why aren't they?
“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do."(Matthew 11:25-26)

People rely on their own intelligence too much, so there is no room for God's word(Perfect).
Jesus even said one who has an ear, "LISTEN"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 13, 2011, 12:24:23 PM
Alzael.

If there was a perfect woman, (rich, beutifull, sexy, everything) and she wants to marry you.

this woman everybody loves, but YOU don't like her
Your heart has no room for her.

you see? doesn't matter how perfect the words are if YOU don't accept it, it has no value to you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 13, 2011, 12:25:56 PM
That would all be nice and well if it wasn't for the fact that the original jewish messiah is not supposed to have a "second coming."

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalms 110:1-4)

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

Jesus has risen after his resurrection lifted onto heaven. sits on the right hand of God. untill his second coming.

None of this says anything about a second coming.

If you have a minute at some point, John. I'd still like to see your answer to at least this question about the perfection oand permanency of the bibles word.

Why don't you follow everything the bible teaches, if it is perfect and forever?

Actually a better question would be, why then can you not prove the truth of these words when asked to? If the words were perfect, then the evidence of their truth should be perfect. In fact if they were so perfect, they should be impossible to deny. If the words were forever, then they should be applicable and relevant all throughout time and irregardless of culture. So why aren't they?
“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do."(Matthew 11:25-26)

People rely on their own intelligence too much, so there is no room for God's word(Perfect).
Jesus even said one who has an ear, "LISTEN"

None of this actually responds to any of the questions. It also does not address the issue of perfection either. If gods words were perfect then the problem that you describe would not occur. The reason we rely on our intelligence is because godws words seem to fail at helping us deal with so much of the world.

For example, we can't count on god to heal people who are sick, so we do it ourselves using our own intelligence. So where is the perfection if we can't rely on anything that it says.

Feel free to actually make a real response to any of the issues raised when you feel like it. All of the dodging and misdirection is slightly amusing but some real conversation would actually be appreciated.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 13, 2011, 12:32:41 PM
Alzael.

If there was a perfect woman, (rich, beutifull, sexy, everything) and she wants to marry you.

this woman everybody loves, but YOU don't like her
Your heart has no room for her.

you see? doesn't matter how perfect the words are if YOU don't accept it, it has no value to you.

If I don't like her, then she's not perfect. If she were perfect, I would like her. That's what perfect would imply.

You're another one of those theists that tries to make words mean what they want them to mean and ignores the actual use of them. It's cute in a childish way, but it's really rather patently dishonest.

If gods words were perfect they would have value to everyone, it would be undeniable. It wouldn't matter whether I wanted to like them or not. Even if I wanted to hate them, I would not be able to deny their perfection.

Basically what you really mean is that the words are perfect only if you want them to be perfect. Like I said, it's cute in a way, but it's deluded and dishonest.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Whateverman on August 13, 2011, 12:40:55 PM
not everything can be explain sometimes right?, even if it's your own.
That's not what I meant.  We as individual human beings lack explanations for many things. 

Problems arise when there's something you THINK you understand, but in reality are not able to explain it coherently.  Being unable to explain your understanding of it is a sign that you don't understand it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 13, 2011, 01:05:12 PM
I don't think I understand God "I am just a worm in a jar" to Him.

there is a difference between knowing and understanding.

Example, If you had a son, with terrible accident, he dies and miracle happens in 3 day, he is alive.
he is risen from death!!.
people will ask you "what happened?"

what would you say?

I would say, "I don't understand, but all I know is he is alive!!!"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 13, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
That has no analogy to the questions and your nonsensical answers above.  We are trying to get you to explain yourself in a manner that is coherent enough not to question your sanity.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 13, 2011, 01:46:25 PM
I don't think I understand God "I am just a worm in a jar" to Him.

there is a difference between knowing and understanding.

Example, If you had a son, with terrible accident, he dies and miracle happens in 3 day, he is alive.
he is risen from death!!.
people will ask you "what happened?"

what would you say?

I would say, "I don't understand, but all I know is he is alive!!!"

You don't know anything though. Knowing would require evidence. Which is something that we've long-since established that you don't possess.

Furthermore, if you don't understand god then you can't make any claims about him, and what he wants, desires or does. Nor can you make any claims about any of his attributes. So basically you have just admitted that everything you have said up to this point is irrelevant at best and an outright lie at worst.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 13, 2011, 02:39:39 PM
If I don't like her, then she's not perfect. If she were perfect, I would like her. That's what perfect would imply.
What if you liked her but everybody else in the world hates her.

would you call her perfect?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 13, 2011, 02:48:39 PM
If I don't like her, then she's not perfect. If she were perfect, I would like her. That's what perfect would imply.
What if you liked her but everybody else in the world hates her.

would you call her perfect?

No, because then she would not be perfect.

At the very best I could say that she is perfect to me. But it does not make her perfect to anything but my own subjective mind. And calling her perfect without including such a qualifier would be dishonest of me.

More to the point,  if everybody else hated her there is likely a very good reason for this and I would certainly reevaluate why I thought she was perfect in the first place.

Now are you going to produce a meaningful response to the questions that were asked? Or are we going to continue with this demonstration of your inability to even understand the meanings of the words which you yourself have used to defend your position?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 13, 2011, 03:32:34 PM
you see? doesn't matter how perfect the words are if YOU don't accept it, it has no value to you.

People rely on their own intelligence too much, so there is no room for God's word(Perfect).
Jesus even said one who has an ear, "LISTEN"

One other thing to point out about this. This is you trying to shift the blame to a place where it doesn't belong.

You're trying to make the case that it's our fault for not understanding god, by calling into question the very cognitive abilities that god apparently gave us. If he gave us these abilities to understand the world then why doesn't he appeal to them in order to communicate with us?

If god gave us better brains than a monkey, why doesn't he give us information in a way that our brains will accept it? Why do we only understand him when we ignore the very intelligence that he gifted us with?

More to the point, how is it our fault that we don't understand him? He is, after all, the one who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect. So how is it our fault that even the most faithful don't understand him?

This is one of the ways that you can tell how truly broken the mind of a theist is. You want to claim a god that is omni-everything and perfect, but you ignore the responsibilities that comes with such a being. Whenever something comes along that you think is good, you give your omni-god the credit. However when the reverse comes about you blame everything and everyone else except him.

Just to make this clear. Your god is capable of doing anything, of knowing everything, is without flaw and perfect, yet it is our fault (the fault of the limited and flawed creations that he himself made) that things are not perfect. It is the fault of our limited minds (the minds that he gave us) that we can't understand him. Does this actually not register to you how utterly broken this line of thinking is?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on August 13, 2011, 03:34:54 PM
Why do we only understand him when we ignore the very intelligence that he gifted us with?

Small problem there: Remember Adam and Eve - God punished them for learning. God meant for us to be retards.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 13, 2011, 03:43:04 PM
Why do we only understand him when we ignore the very intelligence that he gifted us with?

Small problem there: Remember Adam and Eve - God punished them for learning. God meant for us to be retards.

Not necessarily. The punishment may not have been for learning. It may simply have just been because they disobeyed him by eating from the tree. The exact motivation is rather vague. Although you are right that god clearly meant for us to not be very smart, he didn't do anything about it either afterwards.

Besides, John probably would have disputed that position and I wanted to keep it simple. In deference to him.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 13, 2011, 04:44:04 PM
Just to make this clear. Your god is capable of doing anything, of knowing everything, is without flaw and perfect, yet it is our fault (the fault of the limited and flawed creations that he himself made) that things are not perfect. It is the fault of our limited minds (the minds that he gave us) that we can't understand him. Does this actually not register to you how utterly broken this line of thinking is?
Obedience and listening would be a good tool for limited minds to understand unlimited God.

if you were training a circus monkey, would you explain how marketing, tickeing, performing, financing works in a circus business or would you just train your monkey, even if your monkey doesn't understand why he should jump, flip, clapp....etc.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: naemhni on August 13, 2011, 05:32:29 PM
if you were training a circus monkey, would you explain how marketing, tickeing, performing, financing works in a circus business or would you just train your monkey, even if your monkey doesn't understand why he should jump, flip, clapp....etc.

Interesting analogy.  Can you explain to me why an omnipotent being would create a sentient species, order the members of that species to adhere to certain beliefs and obey certain commands, then refuse to give that species the capability of understanding why it should adhere to those beliefs and obey those commands, or even to be certain that the being issuing the orders existed and thus to be certain that its orders were valid?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 13, 2011, 05:32:59 PM
Just to make this clear. Your god is capable of doing anything, of knowing everything, is without flaw and perfect, yet it is our fault (the fault of the limited and flawed creations that he himself made) that things are not perfect. It is the fault of our limited minds (the minds that he gave us) that we can't understand him. Does this actually not register to you how utterly broken this line of thinking is?
Obedience and listening would be a good tool for limited minds to understand unlimited God.

if you were training a circus monkey, would you explain how marketing, tickeing, performing, financing works in a circus business or would you just train your monkey, even if your monkey doesn't understand why he should jump, flip, clapp....etc.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what was said. I take it that you listen to god, and that you try to be obedient to him? Yet you admit that you don't understand him in anyway. So this not only fails, but it fails stupidly. More so because you ignored the part about the all-powerful god. I have human limitations in what I can accomplish and make happen. A god doesn't. A god shouldn't have any problem teaching the monkey whatever he wanted to teach it.

If I was training a circus monkey, and he couldn't understand what I wanted him to do; I wouldn't blame the monkey for my inability to teach him. After all, it's a monkey, how is it his fault? Besides it's a pathetic excuse for a teacher that blames the student.

So are we ever going to get around to you actually addressing something like an adult? Or did you want to keep dodging in every direction? 

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on August 13, 2011, 05:36:24 PM
if you were training a circus monkey, would you explain how marketing, tickeing, performing, financing works in a circus business or would you just train your monkey, even if your monkey doesn't understand why he should jump, flip, clapp....etc.
That will have meaning when you can show that humans are unable to understand why they should do something if it is explained to them.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: caveat_imperator on August 13, 2011, 05:57:35 PM
if you were training a circus monkey, would you explain how marketing, tickeing, performing, financing works in a circus business or would you just train your monkey, even if your monkey doesn't understand why he should jump, flip, clapp....etc.

Interesting analogy.  Can you explain to me why an omnipotent being would create a sentient species, order the members of that species to adhere to certain beliefs and obey certain commands, then refuse to give that species the capability of understanding why it should adhere to those beliefs and obey those commands, or even to be certain that the being issuing the orders existed and thus to be certain that its orders were valid?

Maybe god does want robots?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: naemhni on August 13, 2011, 06:16:50 PM
Maybe god does want robots?

Even that doesn't work, not in this case.  To have robots, you would give the species proof that you exist and are omnipotent.  That would be the second most effective method of preventing them from exercising free will.  (The best, of course, being not to give it to them in the first place.)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 13, 2011, 06:17:40 PM
Obedience and listening would be a good tool for limited minds to understand unlimited God.

To further point out the idiocy of this. The issue you were meant to address was this:

Quote
Just to make this clear. Your god is capable of doing anything, of knowing everything, is without flaw and perfect, yet it is our fault (the fault of the limited and flawed creations that he himself made) that things are not perfect. It is the fault of our limited minds (the minds that he gave us) that we can't understand him. Does this actually not register to you how utterly broken this line of thinking is?

Nothing you said addresses this.

You say that obedience would help you understand. Yet the problem is that we don't understand what to be obedient too. The issue is that we don't understand what is being said. So obedience is not possible. The same goes for listening. Listening is not a difficulty, the issue is that the words are so convoluted that you can't get any useful information out of them. So that rules out listening.

So what we are still left with is that your god does a very poor job of communicating with us. So how is this our fault?

Feel free to actually address something at any point. I'm sure it'll be exactly the sort of deep and thoughtful insights that we've come to expect from you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on August 13, 2011, 06:21:04 PM
if you were training a circus monkey, would you explain how marketing, tickeing, performing, financing works in a circus business ..

Sure.

If they can't tune into me properly, or devote enough time to understanding me, it's not my fault. I'm only interested in the ones who manage to understand my revelations. If they truly want to hear and understand me, they will. The others can go to a zoo and stay there.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on August 13, 2011, 06:22:17 PM
When I was about 20, I got curious about my religion, and started reading and studying bible.
and found out those religious practices in catholicism were completely wrong, against bible, against god's will.

If the Roman Catholic Church is "completely wrong," then why do you make an idol of the "Bible" it created?  "The Bible" did not drop from Heaven to a soundtrack of choirs of angels.  The manuscripts of which it is composed ("Exodus" "1 Corinthians" etc.) were written by men, copied, re-copied, and re-re-copied by men, translated, re-translated, and re-re-translated by men.  The books of the Hebrew Scriptures were selected from among a larger body of Jewish manuscripts (e.g. "Sirach," the "Book of Enoch" "Tobit" etc.) by (non-Christian) Jewish religious leaders.  Then, in Church Councils (assemblies of Roman Catholic prelates) under the auspices of several Late Roman Emperors, "the New Testament" was compiled from a much larger collection of "Gospels" "Epistles" and "Apocalypses" and declared along with the aforementioned Hebrew Scriptures, by the authority of the Church and the Roman Empire, to be "canon."

And then...copied, re-copied, and re-re-copied by men, translated, re-translated, and re-re-translated by men (you don't think Paul and James wrote in King James English, do you?), the divergent manuscripts of Biblical "books" analyzed through a process of textual criticism to provide the best scholarly estimate of what the originals might have been[1]...by men (and maybe some women, in the case of modern translations).

That's an awful lot of men to have absolute unquestioning faith in and treat as perfect and infallible!  How do you even manage to swallow the blasphemous proposition that any human-made thing (a book crafted by human hands as surely as any statue of a god) can possess uniquely Divine attributes such as perfection and infallibility? 

One more thing: you will not find anything resembling modern Protestant Bible-worship in the Bible itself.  You will be hard-pressed to find evidence that there would ever be such a thing as a "New Testament canon" in addition to the Hebrew Scriptures and no hint as to what such a "New Testament" would contain.  You will find no mention of an infallible "Bible" consisting of Hebrew Scriptures plus newer Christian writings.[2]  It is not even clear that "the Word of God" is a book at all, rather than Jesus himself (see the opening verses of the Gospel of John).

Nutshell: Your entire style of argumentation is utterly and completely invalid.  Regurgitating "Bible" verses and repeatedly asserting that (your understanding of) "the Bible" is perfect cannot substantiate your case because "the Bible" is not the printed God you think it is.
 1. Example: the "long ending" of Mark, with the resurrection appearances of Jesus does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.  The story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery is another example of a late addition to the text.
 2. There's a verse or two I expect you to cite in defense of "Biblical infallibility," but in the interests of brevity in this post I'll wait until you cite them to explain why they don't mean what you think they mean.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Add Homonym on August 13, 2011, 08:25:11 PM
"I am saved by the faith in jesus christ"
nothing more nothing less.

You must be saved by Jesus Christ, because you are too lazy to do follow Jewish Law.

It's almost axiomatic.

Oh, wait. You must be save by Jesus Christ, because local government wont let you sacrifice goats to redeem your firstborn.

You must be saved by Jesus Christ, because Paul said so.

Oh, you must be save by Jesus Christ, because you can't read the Quran in original Arabic.

Most importantly, you must be save by Jesus Christ, because you have incontrovertible evidence, that you can show to people.

That's very exciting, really because you can show it to us, and we can have everlasting life and walk on streets of gold with you.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 15, 2011, 12:21:09 AM
So what we are still left with is that your god does a very poor job of communicating with us. So how is this our fault?
Alzael, sounds like you are mad at God or supreme being.
You kept saying "it's not my fault, it's not our fault"

If you read the bible, you will clearly see God paid for our transgression, even if it wasn't even God's fault He acted as if it were His fault.
Sure enough, even if you think it's God's fault, it is all paid, all paid for and all paid off.
God paid for it, showed us the way (through the bible, prophets, and he's servants) to His salvation.

It is YOU who is rejecting His way.
It is YOU telling the trainer, that trainer should learn monkey language.
It is YOU telling the trainer, that trainer's order isn't perfect, because you don't like it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on August 15, 2011, 12:33:30 AM
Alzael, sounds like you are mad at God or supreme being.
You kept saying "it's not my fault, it's not our fault"

1) You're reading anger where there is none.

2)  Atheists, by definition, do not believe in any gods.  So "being angry at god" would be like saying "you are angry at Darth Vader".

3)  You're sidestepping the points that Alzael brought up.

4) Even if Alzael were to say "yes, I AM angry at god", you still need to address the issues that were brought up.  Anger is not an excuse to sidestep a point.



Quote
If you read the bible, you will clearly see God paid for our transgression, even if it wasn't even God's fault He acted as if it were His fault.
Sure enough, even if you think it's God's fault, it is all paid, all paid for and all paid off.
God paid for it, showed us the way (through the bible, prophets, and he's servants) to His salvation.

Again, atheists do not believe in your god, or any others.  Until you prove that all that stuff actually happened, this is like saying "Darth Vader died for your sins"


Quote
It is YOU who is rejecting His way.
It is YOU telling the trainer, that trainer should learn monkey language.
It is YOU telling the trainer, that trainer's order isn't perfect, because you don't like it.

Do you actually think you're making a piercing argument?  Again, you need to prove that your god exists.  If someone rambled about how "you are rejecting Darth Vader", odds are, you're reject it as nonsense.  After all, Darth Vader is a fictional character.  God is also a fictional character, so your rambling is just nonsense.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 15, 2011, 12:34:58 AM
if you were training a circus monkey, would you explain how marketing, ticketing, performing, financing works in a circus business ..

Sure.

If they can't tune into me properly, or devote enough time to understanding me, it's not my fault. I'm only interested in the ones who manage to understand my revelations. If they truly want to hear and understand me, they will. The others can go to a zoo and stay there.
Are you sure?
You are going to have no monkeys left, you will have to end up bankrupt in monkey business.  :-\
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on August 15, 2011, 12:38:34 AM
Are you sure?
You are going to have no monkeys left, you will have to end up bankrupt in monkey business.  :-\

Now if only god would get that memo...
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 15, 2011, 12:48:02 AM
If you read the bible, you will clearly see God paid for our transgression, even if it wasn't even God's fault He acted as if it were His fault.

Who created the Tree?
Who created the serpent?
Who created Adam and Eve?
Who created the personalitites and characters of those three beings?
Who has foreknowledge of what actions will follow?

Who, indeed, according to you, created EVERYTHING - in the state EXACTLY he wanted?

Sorry John - unless you believe that humans act totally randomly - everything IS your god's fault.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ivellios on August 15, 2011, 12:48:19 AM
It is YOU who is rejecting His way.
It is YOU telling the trainer, that trainer should learn monkey language.

a) Except humans did not create monkeys. The reality according to the Bible states He intentionally created the Monkeys to Not understand him and then he gets mad at the monkeys for not understanding.
b) He created monkey language so if he cannot speak it, it's his own damn fault.

Quote
It is YOU telling the trainer, that trainer's order isn't perfect, because you don't like it.

Except the trainer, since he's all powerful and all knowing, if he's perfect can make it so that he's understood. Rather, if he was perfect, he would be understood.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 15, 2011, 01:20:37 AM

Alzael, sounds like you are mad at God or supreme being.


Leaving aside for a moment the fact that if I was mad at god it would be completely irrelevant to the points that I raised; no, I'm rather indifferent to god. For the simple reason that he doesn't exist. His drooling fanboys are a constant annoyance, however I have fairly good evidence that said drooling fanboys actually exist, so it's all right.

Getting to the next issue, this is just a painfully obvious attempt to avoid answering the questions.  Not only is it obvious, but it's typical of a theist and rather pathetic. As I mentioned earlier, my personal feelings about god bear no relevance to what is currently being discussed. Now will you respond like an adult, or run away from the issue again like a child. I'm waiting.

You kept saying "it's not my fault, it's not our fault"

You keep refusing to address why it is our fault. Hence I keep saying it. Funny how that works.

God is a being capable of doing anything, of knowing anything. He created us to be as we are. He created us knowing beforehand how we would turn out. He chose to hold us to a set of standards that our very nature (the nature he himself gave us, mind you) makes nearly impossible to live up to. He chose not to clearly define what those standards were and, knowing full well our very limited ability to understand, left us no means of determining objectively what those standards were or if he even existed.

Because he is an omni-god, there can be nothing that happens that he does not want to happen. Meaning that he has the power to stop any bad thing he wants, yet chooses not to. Being omni-god he created me knowing how I would turn out, and everything that would happen to me in my life (good or bad).

I could go on and on but I think I've made my point. Bottomline; if your version of reality is true, how can humans possibly be held to blame for anything?

If you read the bible, you will clearly see God paid for our transgression, even if it wasn't even God's fault He acted as if it were His fault.

God paid how? If you're referring to Jesus and the cross that wasn't payment, it was a bad weekend. It wasn't even that. He knew he would simply be resurrected anyways. So how exactly did he pay for anything? Especially since the debt was owed to him. Basically Jesus had a really shitty few days then got to ascend up to heaven and go back to being god. Consider me underwhelmed.

Seriously, there are children in africa who live in abject poverty and starve constantly for months on end as they feel their bodies get eaten by disease. They get to watch as their families are killed by soldiers or their mothers and sisters are raped. Sometimes even worse they get forced to join up as child soldiers and begin killing people by the age of ten. Spending their entire lives in an endless cycle of violence, brutality, and psychological torment.

Tell you what, go up to some of those kids, and tell them about how badly god suffered and paid the price.

Sure enough, even if you think it's God's fault, it is all paid, all paid for and all paid off.
God paid for it, showed us the way (through the bible, prophets, and he's servants) to His salvation.

First off, see above. Second off, none of this in anyway responds to what's being talked about. You're just making yourself seem more and more like one of those weirdos walking down the street that most people cross to the other side to avoid.

Third off, prove any of that. We're waiting, we've been waiting.

Fourth off, once again I bring up the point that you are trying so sadly to avoid. If god showed us the way, and his word is perfect; why can't we see it? Why can't even his own followers decide on what it is?

It is YOU who is rejecting His way.

Then he isn't perfect. His perfection should be still be undeniable and his existence self-evident.

And again, what is his way? How do you know that it actually is the way and not a figment of your imagination?

It is YOU telling the trainer, that trainer should learn monkey language.

He should. If I was trying to train a dog, I would certainly want to learn how to speak the language. It would make training the dog much more efficient. The only reason I would not want to learn a dogs language as a trainer would be if I had a serious jones to go about it in a way that is unnecessarily ineffecient and less effective. Since your gods word is perfect, it should be in a language that I can perfectly understand.

So why isn't it? Why does god pcik the worst way to train the monkey?

It is YOU telling the trainer, that trainer's order isn't perfect, because you don't like it.

No, I'm telling the trainer that his order isn't perfect because his order doesn't fit the definition of what perfection means. Because it doesn't, and we have an entire world full of evidence to support that position.

Might I also point out that you have yet to make any case for the order being perfect anyways. This is what you keep slinking around. So I'm still waiting for you to make some attempt at an honest level of dialogue. For you to even honestly try to address one thing that has been raised.

I think we're going to need a new theist soon. It seems this ones defective.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on August 15, 2011, 05:08:10 AM
It is YOU who is rejecting His way.

No.  We are not rejecting any god or any god's "way."  What we are "rejecting" (or more accurately, not believing in) is the claim, by humans such as yourself, that (your interpretation of) certain books--which themselves were written, copied, re-copied, re-re-copied, translated-re-translated, re-re-translated, and compiled into a single volume, by other humans and then passed down to us by still more humans--constitutes an infallible communication from an infallible god.  It is the fallible humanness of your divine pretensions we reject.  Your "Bible" is a human construct from stem to stern, and even those who profess to believe in its divine infallibility cannot agree among themselves about what it really says and means.  Just one example: do humans have the ability to choose "salvation" (Arminianism), or is "salvation" determined solely by the sovereign election of God, so that the fate of each human is predestined before the foundation of the world (Calvinism)?  The argument over this question has gone on for centuries, and shows no signs of being resolved.  This is only one such issue among many.

You have not even come close to providing evidence that any god has anything to do with any of your ideas.  The entire enterprise of "theology" is self-evidently nothing more than a bunch of domesticated primates thumping their chests, hooting, throwing feces at one another, and occasionally bashing each other over the head with clubs en masse, while claiming with unlimited confidence that their particular sets of grunts and scribbles are flawless expressions of an omni-intelligent divine supra-cosmological Being or Beings.

A major pillar of your belief, and reason for your inability to grasp the arguments posters here are presenting, is your radical underestimation of the intelligence, capabilities, and interests of a truly superhuman being.  Here.  Take a look at this illustration of the scale of the Cosmos (http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/) (hat tip to Star Stuff who provided the link on this thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19786.0.html)).  Since you are discussing a god-concept that is "omnimax" (possessing all of the "omni-" attributes, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.), we can use the entirety of the Cosmos as a frame of reference for the scope of a "god's" capabilities and interests.

If you go to the link above and start moving the slider to the right, it becomes immediately apparent that on the Cosmic scale, we're microorganisms.  Our entire world, our Sun, and most of our whole Solar System put together are small enough to be swallowed up by certain individual stars (if one of those stars was placed where the Sun is) without so much as a belch.  These mighty Solar System-swallowing suns are themselves mere pinpricks in a Galaxy of 400 billion stars, and our Galaxy is itself a microbe in the petri dish of the known Cosmos.  Virtually all of the Cosmos has nothing whatsoever to do with humans.  It would all[1] be instantaneously fatal to us, and it all represents "place" we can never go.  Our world is not even a rounding error.

Since form follows function, and the more skilled and masterful a designer or designers is/are, the more elegantly their artifacts will fulfill their intended purpose (i.e., a masterful design is not wasteful, etc.), we can say, with confidence, that if the Cosmos is an artifact designed by a god or gods, their reason for making it is Not About Us.  Imagine a little community of prion particles wriggling around in the protoplasm of a bacterium living on a doorknob of the Large Hadron Collider asserting with confident certainty that the LHC was designed so that they would have a place to live, and you can get a sense of the sheer absurdity of the claim by Christians that a divine omni-Creator of the Cosmos gets thrown into a seething fury of eternal wrath by the way members of a certain species of primates on Earth use their genitals, and gets even more angry if the primates fail to stroke "his" ego rather than their aforementioned genitals.

And this "way" that you've sketched out, with the primate scribblings on flattened and pressed-together reeds or tanned animal skins, compiled by "councils" of primates in fancy outfits, passed down through a 2,000 year-old game of Chinese Whispers, and interpreted by yet more primates who style themselves "priests" or "pastors" or "theologians"--centering on mimicry of institutions of monarchy ("King of Kings and Lord of Lords!") that the primates have since left behind as obsolete methods of governance, and an atavistic rite of blood sacrifice and symbolic cannibalism--is utterly ridiculous when imagined as the product of a truly superhuman intelligence.  It's like saying that the most divine possible musical composition is "Chopsticks," when we know that Mozart can do better.     
 1. Even other planets with oxygen-nitrogen atmospheres and life would be too dangerous for us to walk around on without spacesuits due to the alien biology of the lifeforms that make the free oxygen possible.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on August 15, 2011, 07:13:47 AM
Are you sure?
You are going to have no monkeys left, ...

So?

It's not how many monkeys are left, it's whether they hear, understand, and accept my teachings. My kingdom is only open to those monkeys that can understand me. Unfortunately, those monkeys who don't understand me must go to live in horrible zoos. But, I do love all the monkeys, even if few enter my kingdom.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 15, 2011, 07:46:47 AM
No Hal.
You still don't understand.
Think about it reall hard "explaining concept of business" to monkeys?.
Not a few of them will stay.
None of them will stay, you obviously will have no monkeys left. guarranteed. ;)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 15, 2011, 07:50:32 AM
Are you sure?
You are going to have no monkeys left, you will have to end up bankrupt in monkey business.  :-\

Now if only god would get that memo...
But you see that's not what is happening around the world.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on August 15, 2011, 08:03:57 AM
No Hal.
You still don't understand.
Think about it reall hard "explaining concept of business" to monkeys?.
Not a few of them will stay.
None of them will stay, you obviously will have no monkeys left. guarranteed. ;)

No John 3 16.
You still don't understand.
Think about it really hard "explaining the concept of Biblegod" to critical thinkers?.
Not a few of them will be convinced.
None of them will be, you obviously will have no critical thinkers left. guaranteed.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 15, 2011, 09:06:50 AM
Well correct me if I am wrong.

I think "all critical thinking monkeys are NOT created equal"
Just as "all Christians are NOT created equal"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 15, 2011, 09:42:34 AM
I find myself still in wait for you to give an actual valid response, John. So far it seems that you're trying to shift the conversation away again.

Do the honest thing John, either present a legitimate defense or simply admit that your claims fail.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: caveat_imperator on August 15, 2011, 11:03:45 AM
Well correct me if I am wrong.

You have been corrected. Repeatedly.

Do the honest thing John, either present a legitimate defense or simply admit that your claims fail.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: fishjie on August 15, 2011, 01:10:00 PM
i really really really hope on-the-fence-christians are reading this drivel from john 3:16 so they can see how utterly stupid and garbage the christian argument is.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on August 15, 2011, 09:39:17 PM
If you read the bible, you will clearly see God paid for our transgression, even if it wasn't even God's fault He acted as if it were His fault.

But why should we give the Bible more credence than, say, Dragonlance Legends?  (I find the latter to be much more inspiring, BTW.)

Your claim that "God paid for our transgression" is meaningless unless you can support it with evidence.  For starters, we have to answer these questions:
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Asmoday on August 15, 2011, 10:22:24 PM
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” (Psalms 110:1-4)

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

Jesus has risen after his resurrection lifted onto heaven. sits on the right hand of God. untill his second coming.
That's wonderful, John.

Since ages Psalms 110 has been used used to prove the divinity of Jesus, the trinity and that Jesus really is the messiah. This verse is even often quoted or alluded to in various places of the NT itself, saying that king David himself (who, according to Christians and the NT, is supposed to have been the author of Psalms 110) deferred to Jesus as the messiah, prophesizing his divinity and second coming.
Just like John is trying to use this passage here.

If one looks at this verse as it sits right there and looks at the NT, one might even be willing to say "Hey, that fits together." So I spent some time looking into this and, as much as I know this comes as a shock to all of us, I found that the bible can't be trusted in this case.
A little bit of research brings forth evidence that the original Hebrew version of Psalms 110 does in no way say what it says in the bible and what apologists would like it to mean.


What makes Psalms 110 so precious for Christian apologists sits right in the very first verse: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalms 110:1 KJV)

According to the NT and Christian apologists, this is said by king David to the Holy Ghost, prophesizing that God ("The LORD") speaks to Jesus ("the Lord") and says he will sit at his right side. There are severeal problems with this which are, of course, all cast aside by Christian apologists.

King David wrote Psalms 110

A big difference between the version of the Book of Psalms in bible and in the original Hebrew text is that the psalms in the Hebrew version all have superscriptions. The bible doesn't have those. They are simply left out.

In the original Hebrew the Psalm begins with the superscription "le David mizmor." The word mizmor means "a psalm" and "le" is a preposition that stands for in, into, for, to and by.
If you ask a Jew to read you the Hebrew text they will hear them say "For David a psalm."

Of course I know that the obvious counterargument by Christians is: "But "le" can also mean "by"! That means it's by king David!"

Well, no.
The usual meaning of "le" in the superscriptions is either "for" or "to" which means that this is not a prophesy by king David. It's a psalm written for or about David by someone else. A lot of rabbis interpret this psalm as tale about David's struggle against Saul.

And even if we say grant that "le" means "by" in this special case and David wrote the psalm, it doesn't help the christians much either as in other psalms written by king David, he speaks of himself in the third person in the psalm, meaning that it's not unlikely he wrote the psalm about himself (I'll explain that further down).

The important point is that unlike what the NT and Christian apologists want to make you believe, it is in no way absolutely sure that David said this. All things considered it is more likely this was written for and/or about him.

God speaks to Jesus in Psalm 110

According to the version in the bible, we have God speaking to Jesus here, saying tha he will sit at his right hand. But the original Hebrew version of the psalm doesn't say that.

Here's what the bible says again: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalms 110:1 KJV)

Here's a translation of the Hebrew version: "Of David a psalm.  The word of the L-rd to my master / lord: "Sit at/[Wait for] My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."

There's a little difference, isn't it?
In one case it's "the Lord" (Jesus) and in the other it's "master / lord" (an earthly title).

If we look at the original Hebrew text, first of all we have God, represented in the text by the Tetragrammaton (Y-H-V-H), which is written in such a way that it would read "A-donai". While both translation concur that this means God, they part after that.

In the Hebrew text God speaks "ladoni"; "le" - to  "adoni" - my master / lord.

The term "adoni" is never used to refer to God or as a divine title. It's solely reserved as an earthly title for a mortal ruler / superior. While the word "adon" is used for both God and mortals, the term "adoni", the very term used in Psalms 110:1, is not, neither in modern nor in biblical Hebrew.

Isn't it a bit suspicious that a common title, which is never used for God, suddenly turns into a title pointing specifically to Jesus for no reason other than that it's in a verse which, if read in a certain way, is useful for apologists to prove Christian dogma?

It gets even worse if one were to look at the OT as a whole and how the term was translated at other times. The term "ladoni" (as used in Psalms 110:1) appears 26 times in the OT and of those 26 times it appears 9 times in combination with the Tetragrammaton . In 25 cases of the the 26 (8 out of 9 respectively) "ladoni" was translated as "to/unto/for my lord/master."
The sole exception in which the translators of the bible changed the meaning of the term to "unto my Lord" is in Psalms 110:1.


As you might imagine, after I was done with my little research I was left rather underwhelmed, to say the least, by this "proof" for Jesus' divinity and messianic status.

Asmoday.

Think about why Jesus called himself "son of man" numerous times.

We(believers) are heirs of his kingdom "Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory" (Romans 8:17)
John, I know you are trying to square the circle but as much as you try, you can't.

Jesus is either the son of God (born of the virgin Mary) or he is a normal human (born of Josef and Mary having sex). Those two are mutually exclusive.

And that's just the start of a long long list of things that mark the Jesus of the bible as not human.


BTW, John: I noticed you said nothing about the children of the messiah. If Jesus is the jewish messiah, you can surely tell us something about his bride and the children he will have to inherit his throne.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 16, 2011, 04:09:07 AM
As you might imagine, after I was done with my little research I was left rather underwhelmed, to say the least, by this "proof" for Jesus' divinity and messianic status.

Thank you for the research, and the clear presentation.  Though I wouldn't expect John to even ackowledge that you've posted it.

My strong suspicion is that John's life has been a procession of people telling him that "the Bible is right", "the Bible is God's Word", "the Bible is Truth", and so on, until he has become utterly convinced of that "fact".  He has not attempted to examine the objectivity or truth behind the Bible, not examined how it was compiled, the differences to the Hebrew....probably not even investigated why different Bibles have different words or phrases used - or why some Bibles actually have whole extra books included.

And after all, why should he?  He has been led to believe all his life that the Bible is RIGHT - so it would not even occur to him to doubt it.  Probably he will look at your research and dismiss it as a trick of Satan designed to get him to lose his faith - he probably won't even read past the third paragraph for fear of being led astray.

It is this firm belief in the inerrancy of the Bible that results in John quoting scripture as the answer to every question asked of him - after all, if the Bible is inerrant, what BETTER way to answer?  If he tried to answer himself, at best he would simply re-hash the Words of God but in a diluted format - and at worst might get it wrong!  And so to quote scripture is - to John - the simple and most reasonable way of answering questions.....and never mind that most of the time the scripture he uses doesn't actually adress the question he was asked, or that it contradicts something he said the day before.

As Ned Flanders said "I've done everything the Bible said, even the parts that contradict the other parts".

Within John's mind, using the inerrancy of the Bible to make his case makes perfect sense - but because of this mindset, he can't grasp the fact that for someone for whom the Bible is NOT inerrant, the answers it contains simply do not stand up as "answers".  He has been asked before what he would think of a Hindu quoting THEIR holy books at him as "answers", but he hasn't deigned to respond.  I doubt he can even grasp the fact that other people believe other holy books just as sincerely as he believes his - and on no more evidence than he has.

Bottom line: John is simply unable to engage in any thought or argument that he cannot lift directly from scripture, and we should probably not expect it of him.  In many ways, he is no more "intelligent" than a computer, that is only as good as its programming. 

Sadly - since this site does not allow proselytising (which is essentially what he is doing buy only arguing with scripture and refusing to debate the implications of those scriptures), I suspect we will see a swift slide from watched, to moderated, to banned, because he will simply be unable to act otherwise because of the way he has been "programmed".
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 16, 2011, 08:11:55 AM
BTW, John: I noticed you said nothing about the children of the messiah. If Jesus is the jewish messiah, you can surely tell us something about his bride and the children he will have to inherit his throne.
Didn't I tell you about the "children of God" above?
Let me give you one more time "We(believers) are heirs of his kingdom "Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory" (Romans 8:17)

I am kind of glad I finally, met someone who has biblical knowledge.
someone actually at least KNOWS what I am talking about.
Honesly, I don't have time and effort to explain every time I quote a verse(this is not a sunday school isn't it?)

Amsmoday, if you are curious about the"children", look into the book of Revelation.
It will kindly explain about the "children" and the "bride"
If you don't have time to do it, here is an answer, the "children of God (Jesus) are the ones that are believers, and born of water and the Spirit, and the "bride" is "church of Christ"

And one more thing,  Amsoil day, having knowledge of bible is a good thing, but without faith (if you don't believe the contents of it), it is just information. (Pharisees).
Do you remember what Jesus said to Pharisees? "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?(Matthew 23:33)

Information won't get you saved, please don't be one of the (Pharisees)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 16, 2011, 08:52:43 AM
I am kind of glad I finally, met someone who has biblical knowledge.

Excellent, so you'll be able to answer the biblical contradictions regarding Jesus not fulfilling the judaic messianic prophecies clearly and honestly?

Remember?  Its twice now its come up in a discussion you abandoned?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 16, 2011, 09:18:46 AM
Judaic messianic prophecies will be fully fullfilled with Jesus' 2nd coming.
Again, look into the book of Revelation.

"The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone"(Psalm 118:22)

Jews rejecting Christ infact was prophesied in OT.
So gentiles will have a chance.

Jews thought God was their God only, but surely mis interpretation of the bible.
"Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed  through him."(Genesis 18:18)

God is God of all, not God of Israel only.

This is TWICE I answer the SAME question. you see what I mean?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: caveat_imperator on August 16, 2011, 09:40:12 AM
This is TWICE I answer avoided answering the SAME question. you see what I mean?

Corrected that for you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 16, 2011, 09:41:26 AM
I am kind of glad I finally, met someone who has biblical knowledge.

Excellent, so you'll be able to answer the biblical contradictions regarding Jesus not fulfilling the judaic messianic prophecies clearly and honestly?

Judaic messianic prophecies will be fully fullfilled with Jesus' 2nd coming.....

In other words, at the moment, the messianic prophecies have NOT been fulfilled - rather, you are insisting that what is essentially a further prophesy "proves" that other prophecies are going to have been fulfilled.....I see.

I am kind of glad I finally, met someone who has biblical knowledge.
Are you really?  Will you be addressing Asmoday's points about superscription and the original Hebrew?

Or when you say "biblical knowledge", were you referring to "knowledge of what my English translation of the Bible says", as opposed to knowledge of what the Biblical sources actually say?

I have no doubt that you have an inside-out knowledge of your personal copy of the Bible.  But if you have never bothered to consider its construction, or the veracity of the translation,  surely it is no more admirable or useful than if you had the same encyclopediac knowledge of the Koran, or the Iliad?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 16, 2011, 10:04:27 AM
what makes you think my bible is English version?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 16, 2011, 10:05:44 AM
This is TWICE I answer avoided answering the SAME question. you see what I mean?

Corrected that for you.
??????
Explanation please or a bible verse.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 16, 2011, 10:13:58 AM
Judaic messianic prophecies will be fully fullfilled with Jesus' 2nd coming.
Again, look into the book of Revelation.

That has nothing to do with Judaic messianic prophecy, at no point does it say there will be a 'pause', 'second coming', or anything beyond the absolute fullfillment of all prophetic material associated with the Judaic Messianic figure.  In fact, you're doing exactly what I predicted as my own conjecture:

All of it is ignored, random verses are attributed to Jesus throughout Isaiah and Palms, the rest is either swept under the rug or summed up in a 'second coming' which is in itself never prophesied nor has anything to do with Jewish Messianic Prophecy.  Its sort of a game amongst christian apologetic websites to come up with as many bizarre and tiny references that they can construe as prophetic, often claiming 'hundreds' of fulfilled prophecies which no more deserve to be believed than the next.  No intellectual criteria exists to establish that it is prophetic, other than its convenient at the time.

When you cite revelations, you've already abandoned the Judaic Messianic prophecy and "the rest is either swept under the rug or summed up in a 'second coming' which is in itself never prophesied nor has anything to do with Jewish Messianic Prophecy".

You're doing exactly what I claimed of you, in the exact manner I described.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 16, 2011, 10:15:38 AM
what makes you think my bible is English version?

You DO love your red herrings, don't you, John?  Anything but address the actual questions you are asked.  Do you honestly believe that whether your Bible is English or French or Italian is REALLY the most important part of what I was suggesting?

But go ahead John from Seattle, USA - tell us what language your Bible is written in, and why that is SO different from you having an English version that it was more important to address than any of the other questions asked of you.  Remember that your god will be sad if you lie to us.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 16, 2011, 11:24:58 AM
Anfauglir.
Read Zechariah 3, the whole chapter.
see if you can understand insights of the message.
"Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch"
this should partially, explain asmosday's question.
if you have any questions ask me.

BTW I have more than one version  (and language) of bibles.

Hints: high priest Joshua, symbolic of things to come, servant, the branch, stone, seven eyes.

PS. the book of Zechariah is original Hebrew isn't it?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 16, 2011, 12:05:17 PM
When you cite revelations, you've already abandoned the Judaic Messianic prophecy and "the rest is either swept under the rug
Omen
don't you know NT is hidden in OT and OT is revealed in NT?

Right now I know God is MAD at Jews and their forefathers.
"The LORD hath been sore displeased with your fathers" (Zechariah 1:2)
because of their hard hearted mind and stiff necks.
"I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9)


Do you think Jews are righteous before God? is that why you keep bringing up Judaic prophecies?

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one" (Romans 3:10)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 16, 2011, 12:12:00 PM
When you cite revelations, you've already abandoned the Judaic Messianic prophecy and "the rest is either swept under the rug
Omen
don't you know NT is hidden in OT and OT is revealed in NT?

Begging the question.

Quote
Do you think Jews are righteous before God?

This is irrelevant.

Quote
is that why you keep bringing up Judaic prophecies

I bring up the judaic messianic prophecies because jesus does not fulfill them.  We've been over this, I listed Judaic Messianic prophecy and demanded you list fulfilled christian prophecy.. you abandoned the discussion twice now.  Three times if we include your sophistry here.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ivellios on August 16, 2011, 12:39:53 PM
Wasn't there a website made explaing in the process of making a Chicken Dinner he fufilled 43 prophecies in the Bible? Prophecies assosiated to him in the same manner as those applied to Jesus? I tried to find it but i guess I'm making it too descrpitive or I'm just missing the best key words.

I've wondered how many "Prophecies" I would have fulfilled if I took the time to check it out...
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on August 16, 2011, 01:27:03 PM
John 316, I know you're getting tag-teamed a bit here, but I would be very interested to see your response to my posts on the previous page (#291 and #300).  Thanks!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 16, 2011, 06:52:22 PM
Answer to Kcrady's post#291
I believe you know what "worship" means.
I do not worship bible, it's just a book. but I take those words as God's speaking to me=(Gospel)

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
"Look in the scroll of the LORD and read: None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate.
For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together" (Isaiah 34:16) "His spirit will gather them together" I don't know how much biblical knowledge you have, but look at Moses, Noah, Elijah,.....
God works through His servants and is done by His spirit.
Do you know how many times the bible says "God says, God declares" in the bible?
So God speaks to His servants and His servants write them down. That's His scroll, the bible.

I have other things to say to you Kcrady, but I don't see it is even necessary, like I said earlier, bible is all I have, and you say 'how come"?.  conversation is over.

And don't get me wrong it is not your fault and I don't want to say it's my fault, but Christianity is not a knowledge or something you can prove. it is more like experience, experiencing God everyday of my life, every moment.
"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."( John 3:8 )
I am born of water and the Spirit. And I am not ashamed for not being able to explain my experience, because that's the way God wants.
Why? I don't know.

I am not going to act like I know everything about God. I only know as much as God wants me to know "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)
I do have some questions too, I am planning on asking Him when I get to see Him, if He lets me.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on August 16, 2011, 07:06:36 PM
Nice little dodge there, John. It's nothing new coming from you... Everything atheists raise against you you the bible to counter. To atheists you're not very convincing in your replies. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 16, 2011, 07:25:17 PM
John - it's nothing personal, but most of us believe you are delusional in your god beliefs.  It is difficult for many of us to imagine how you can stay trapped in such ancient mythologies, and seemingly ignore reality.  Contrary to what you seem to think, there are people on this forum that have a great level of knowledge and detail on the scripture that you hold as the divine word of your god.

The fact is, you are reading texts that have little in the way of knowledge or truth in a modern world.  They are ancient texts, written as a result of even more ancient oral tradition, that have since been translated and re-translated so many times, as to render them useless in today's world. 

We have learned so much, and made scripture sink further into the dark corners of obscurity.  We have figured out how our universe and planet came about, as well as how life evolves, and we learn more each day.  We operate on a principle of elimination, or falsification of theories, to get closer to a truth that can help us move forward, as opposed to holding us back.

I don't expect you to be impressed by any of this, but know that it is slowly but surely eliminating the need to cling to mythology as a world-view.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on August 16, 2011, 07:38:22 PM
I only know as much as God wants me to know.

Do atheists know only as much as God wants them to know?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 16, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
I only know as much as God wants me to know.

Do atheists know only as much as God wants them to know?
Unfortunately Hal you are right. "He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." (Matthew 13:11)

"This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." (Matthew 13:13-15)

Unfortunately, you are right about it. :-\
And I don't have an answer to "WHY?"

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on August 16, 2011, 08:11:09 PM
And I don't have an answer to "WHY?"

Well, at least that's an honest answer.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 17, 2011, 04:00:30 AM
Oh John - more red herrings and evasion. 

But go ahead John from Seattle, USA - tell us what language your Bible is written in, and why that is SO different from you having an English version that it was more important to address than any of the other questions asked of you.

I have more than one version  (and language) of bibles.

Why is it so hard for you to answer a direct question?  What languages ARE your Bibles written in?  Why did you feel that was the most important part of my question?

PS. the book of Zechariah is original Hebrew isn't it?

You tell me John.  Certainly what you quoted on this site was in English, not Hebrew.  Asmoday's point relates to the fact that original Hebrew Bibles say something that becomes changed in translation.  It appears that you can't see that is a problem, for some reason - probably because of the zero research you have done into the origins of the Bible, while concentrating on assuming that your Bible/s are exactly as god intended.

Question John - do your different Bibles all use exactly the same words and syntax, down to the last full stop?  Do the translations to different languages exactly match what is said in the others?  Might there be concepts - imporant concepts - that can be expressed in one language that are effectively untranslateable to another language?

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on August 17, 2011, 04:34:21 AM
Answer to Kcrady's post#291
I believe you know what "worship" means.
I do not worship bible, it's just a book. but I take those words as God's speaking to me=(Gospel)

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

This is one of the ones I was expecting (the other being one of the Gospel quotes of Jesus saying not one jot or tittle will disappear from the Law, or that "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will never pass away."  Notice however, that this passage from 2 Timothy doesn't say what you think it says.  It does not require that "Scripture" be factually inerrant at all.  Observe:

"The Chronicles of Narnia are God-breathed and are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

"Aesop's Fables are God-breathed and are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

The claim that Scripture is "God-breathed" has nothing to do with factual inerrancy.  Nothing can stop a god from breathing allegory or parables.  The "and are useful for..." part applies equally well to allegory and parable.  Notice that things like "knowing how Universe works" or "having an accurate understanding of history" are not included in the list of what "Scripture" is useful for.

Furthermore: There was no such thing as a "New Testament canon" when the author of 2 Timothy wrote, nor would such a thing have figured in the understanding of his audience.  Nor was there even a mechanism for defining one.  If you reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church (not to mention the authority of Late Roman Emperors, under whose auspices the various Church Councils were held!), on what basis can you claim that "the Bible" is equivalent to "Scripture" in the passage you cite here? 

"Look in the scroll of the LORD and read: None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate.
For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together" (Isaiah 34:16)

Whut?  Bible passages have mates?  Oh, wait, look at the context of what the author of Isaiah 34 is actually talking about:

Quote
11 The desert owl and screech owl will possess it;
   the great owl and the raven will nest there.
God will stretch out over Edom
   the measuring line of chaos
   and the plumb line of desolation.
12 Her nobles will have nothing there to be called a kingdom,
   all her princes will vanish away.
13 Thorns will overrun her citadels,
   nettles and brambles her strongholds.
She will become a haunt for jackals,
   a home for owls.
14 Desert creatures will meet with hyenas,
   and wild goats will bleat to each other;
there the night creatures will also lie down
   and find for themselves places of rest.
15 The owl will nest there and lay eggs,
   she will hatch them, and care for her young
   under the shadow of her wings;
there also the falcons will gather,
   each with its mate.

--Isaiah 34:11-15

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the infallibility of "the Bible."  It's not even talking about "Scripture," it's a proclamation of divine wrath against Edom.  Talk about comparing apples and dump trucks.  &)

I don't know how much biblical knowledge you have, but look at Moses, Noah, Elijah,.....
God works through His servants and is done by His spirit.
Do you know how many times the bible says "God says, God declares" in the bible?
So God speaks to His servants and His servants write them down. That's His scroll, the bible.

How can you tell, from this reference to "God's scroll" that "the Bible" should include any particular set of texts?  Where in Isaiah does it say that the Epistles of Peter are part of "God's Scroll" but not the Apocalypse of Peter?  Where does it say that the Book of Jeremiah goes in, but not the Book of Tobit?  The Gospel of Matthew, but not the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?  The Book of Hebrews, but not the Didache? 

How do you know that any of the authors of any Biblical book were really "His servants?"  All you've got is their word--the word of men--that they, and not other men, are uniquely the voiceboxes of God.  And you don't even actually have that!  What you've got is translations of translations of copies of copies of copies of copies of manuscripts, with all the translating and copying being done by men, which say, in the alleged words of ancient men, that they're taking dictation for God.

The Bible is true 'cause (you think) it says so in the Bible?  Really?  That's called "circular reasoning," and you'd never buy it for a minute when applied to the Quran, the Vedas, or anybody else's "holy" book.

I have other things to say to you Kcrady, but I don't see it is even necessary, like I said earlier, bible is all I have, and you say 'how come"?.  conversation is over.

Well, I gotta admit, you are coming awfully close to failing the Turing Test.  I guess if they could program a robot to win Jeopardy, they could program one to spit out Bible passages...

And don't get me wrong it is not your fault and I don't want to say it's my fault, but Christianity is not a knowledge or something you can prove. it is more like experience, experiencing God everyday of my life, every moment.

Then what about a Hindu Yogi's experiences, which validate his religion?  Or a Brazilian Shaman's experiences with Ayahuasca, which validate his?  Or an atheist's experiences of the absence of any supernatural activity whatsoever (backed up by every single thing we have ever discovered and validated about how reality works)?

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."( John 3:8 )

Actually, we can tell where the wind comes from and where it is going.  Have you never seen a weather report on TV? 

I am born of water and the Spirit. And I am not ashamed for not being able to explain my experience, because that's the way God wants.

Shouldn't you be?

Quote
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

--1 Peter 3:15
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 08:26:09 AM
Anfauglir.
the reason why I said I have more than one bible is I have studied more than one bible, that includes the ORIGINAL one too.

Some wording are different, but ultimately, God's core message of salvation, Messiah's coming, new Jerusalem on mt. Zion, new heaven and earth...... those messages are the same.
After studying numerous versions of bible, I think the MAIN purpose of the bible is "salvation" God's desire to save His people.

I was hoping you read the book of Zechariah and get the message, in there, the high priest Joshua is also a symbol of coming Messiah's work. "forgiveness of sins by God's grace not by deeds"
and the stone with seven eyes  is a symbol of Christ.

So, even if in the original bible, David was referring himself not Messiah, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what David was thinking what matters is the message, 
Do you think David knew what he was talking about when he said my Lord's Lord? (2 Lords).
David's songs were prophecies because he was in God's Spirit.
Not only David, Noah, Abel, Enoch, they all were real people, but also symbolic things to come .
Progessive revelation in OT. How marvelous!

but since proving bible with bible doesn't work for you, so what more can I say?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on August 17, 2011, 08:39:16 AM
Anfauglir.
the reason why I said I have more than one bible is I have studied more than one bible, that includes the ORIGINAL one too.

Wow, you've got the ORIGINAL Bible?  Really?!  Every Bible scholar on the planet is going to want to talk to you!  That's so awesome!  Be careful with those ancient parchment and papyrus scrolls though, they can be really fragile. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 08:46:43 AM
Kcrady.

reason why I am staying in this forum is when I see people misunderstand or misinterpretate the bible, I just can not let it go, can not stand.

you asked  "Bible passages have mates?"

"her mates" actually means prophecies fullfilled.

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”)  (Matthew 1:22-23)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 08:47:36 AM
Anfauglir.
the reason why I said I have more than one bible is I have studied more than one bible, that includes the ORIGINAL one too.

Wow, you've got the ORIGINAL Bible?  Really?!  Every Bible scholar on the planet is going to want to talk to you!  That's so awesome!  Be careful with those ancient parchment and papyrus scrolls though, they can be really fragile.
"Written in original language"
Are you kidding me?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Asmoday on August 17, 2011, 09:26:00 AM
So, even if in the original bible, David was referring himself not Messiah, it doesn't matter.
No. 

In one case you have the passage say what you want it to say, in the other case you don't. That does matter.

Besides, I can't help but notice that you say "David was referring." As it has been shown, the original passage in Psalms says no such thing. That it was written by David is, with all evidence considered, the most unlikely of all possibilities.

Quote
It doesn't matter what David was thinking what matters is the message,
The intent of the message matters. Even if you don't like that.

If the message is not a prophecy about the messiah, it's not a prophecy about the messiah. Easy as that and no amount of apologetic mind gymnastics will change it.

Quote
Do you think David knew what he was talking about when he said my Lord's Lord? (2 Lords).
Except that the original Hebrew version of Psalms 110 does not say that.

Quote
David's songs were prophecies because he was in God's Spirit.
Simply saying so does not make it so.

Quote
Not only David, Noah, Abel, Enoch, they all were real people, but also symbolic things to come .
Got any evidence for that?

Quote
Progessive revelation in OT. How marvelous!
How marvelous is it to write a story that picks up things said in previous stories, if all authors had access to the previous stories?

That's like wondering how marvelous it is that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" picks up all those little story threads and hints that have been placed in the previous books.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 09:44:03 AM
Except that the original Hebrew version of Psalms 110 does not say that.

?  ???????, ????????:
????? ??????, ????????--???? ?????????;    ???-??????? ?????????, ????? ???????????.  think twice.

besides, it seems you believe OT only is there reason?

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 09:45:32 AM
Hebrew letters won't show in this forum. :-\
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 10:17:07 AM
Just curious, Asmoday.
Are you a believer? or OT only believer? or non-believer?

Are you trying to disprove bible with bible?
If you don't believe bible how is it possible?

If you are atheist, it's probably easier to say "is there an evidence?"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 10:58:36 AM
Oh I forgot.
Just in case you want to know, according to the bible "Jesus is a man and God (son of man)&(son of God) 100%human and 100%God"

 I know it is logically impossible, but hey, not everything is logically possible in our world also, don't you agree?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on August 17, 2011, 11:01:59 AM
I know it is logically impossible, but hey, not everything is logically possible in our world also, don't you agree?

What isn't "logically possible in our world"?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: hypagoga on August 17, 2011, 11:14:52 AM
but since proving bible with bible doesn't work for you, so what more can I say?

Of course this doesn't work. Argumentation by circular reasoning relies on the topic's own definition to support itself.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on August 17, 2011, 11:51:06 AM
Unfortunately Hal you are right. "He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." (Matthew 13:11)

"This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." (Matthew 13:13-15)

Unfortunately, you are right about it. :-\
And I don't have an answer to "WHY?"


Interesting.

Doesn't that mean that it's not the atheist's fault for not believing?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on August 17, 2011, 12:00:21 PM
according to the bible "Jesus is a man and God (son of man)&(son of God) 100%human and 100%God"

 I know it is logically impossible, but hey, not everything is logically possible in our world also, don't you agree?

If it's logically impossible then even god can't do it. I think you'll find that knowledgeable theists will admit that god can only do the logically possible. So if you are claiming "Jesus is a man and God (son of man)&(son of God) 100%human and 100%God" and further state it's logically impossible, then it didn't happen, since god can only do the logically possible. Logic is logic - it's something even god has to follow.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 12:17:21 PM
Logic is logic - it's something even god has to follow.
I will ask Him that too.
but I a feeling He will say NO.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on August 17, 2011, 12:20:28 PM
Logic is logic - it's something even god has to follow.
I will ask Him that too.
but I a feeling He will say NO.

If your god does not follow the laws of logic then all discussions about it are meaningless, as its followers can say it would say something like: "Hey, I don't follow the laws of the universe. **** you."
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on August 17, 2011, 01:01:09 PM
Logic is logic - it's something even god has to follow.
I will ask Him that too.
but I a feeling He will say NO.

Then you'd be wrong -

Quote
Thomas Aquinas had a narrower conception of omnipotence. According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes thought that he could.

If Descartes’ conception of omnipotence is correct, then any attempt to disprove God’s existence using logic is hopeless. If God can do the logically impossible, then he can both create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and lift it, and so can do all things. Yes, there’s a contradiction in this, but so what? God can, on this understanding of omnipotence, make contradictions true.

Descartes’ understanding of omnipotence therefore doesn’t seem to be vulnerable to the paradox of the stone. Descartes can answer the question "Yes" without compromising divine omnipotence.

Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, which is more popular than that of Descartes, also survives the paradox of the stone. For if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/paradox-of-the-stone.html
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on August 17, 2011, 02:22:06 PM
Oh I forgot.
Just in case you want to know, according to the bible "Jesus is a man and God (son of man)&(son of God) 100%human and 100%God"

 I know it is logically impossible, but hey, not everything is logically possible in our world also, don't you agree?

What are these things in "our world" that are "logically [im]possible"?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on August 17, 2011, 04:02:55 PM
Kcrady.

reason why I am staying in this forum is when I see people misunderstand or misinterpretate the bible, I just can not let it go, can not stand.

Is English a second language for you?  No insult intended; I couldn't discuss theology in another language. 

you asked  "Bible passages have mates?"

"her mates" actually means prophecies fullfilled.

Where do you get that interpretation from?  What do the "owls" mean then?

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”)  (Matthew 1:22-23)

So after Jesus was born, but before he was old enough to choose the good and reject the evil, the Assyrian Empire had conquered Aram and Israel, destroying the enemies King Ahaz of Judah feared (Isaiah 7:15-17)?  Cool trick for an empire that had been non-existent for centuries before Jesus' time.  Nice of Herod to share his palace with old King Ahaz though.

Also: The word "virgin" does not appear in the Hebrew text.  The Hebrew word used is "almah," meaning, "young woman," without any connotations about virginity.  Hebrew has a different word for "virgin."  The word "virgin" comes into the picture because Matthew, writing in Greek, was quoting from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures created in Ptolmaic times, which uses the Greek word "parthenos" ("virgin").  This is a distortion of the original meaning of the Hebrew text.

Also: if "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel" is a reference to Mary, why did she call him...Jesus?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on August 17, 2011, 04:17:53 PM
Logic is logic - it's something even god has to follow.
I will ask Him that too.
but I a feeling He will say NO.

So god talks to you?  Just like that? 

BTW, if your god is immune to logic, how can anything it says have any meaning at all?  Jesus could say, "Yes, homosexual sex is a sin!" then go shag all 12 disciples in one grand night of debauchery, while still being "sinless" because mere logic does not apply to him.  He could issue a divine command that no woman should hold authority in the Church, then ordain Mary Magdalene as the first Pope in the same breath.  He could throw you into Hell while letting us unrepentant atheists into Heaven regardless of whatever "the Bible" says because, after all, he is not bound by logic not to contradict himself or arbitrarily define atheists as "the real, true believers" and faithful worshipers like you as "atheists."

Sounds like Heaven is going to be an eternal Mad Hatter's tea party.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 05:19:54 PM
Logic is logic - it's something even god has to follow.
I will ask Him that too.
but I a feeling He will say NO.

So god talks to you?  Just like that? 
Don't worry you will get to talk to Him someday. (at least once) guaranteed!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 17, 2011, 05:25:44 PM
According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything possible; he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic
As death is the total extinction of life, it does not seem logical that, given Aquinus's definition, raising the dead is possible for God. However, God is big on raising dead people. Perhaps he can do just a few impossible things - the sort of things he spent learning over the millions of years before there was mankind to worry him?

So god talks to you?  Just like that? 
Don't worry you will get to talk to Him someday. (at least once) guaranteed!
Guaranteed, eh? You have proof that the guarantee is worth anything?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 05:28:53 PM
That is Descartes’ understanding.

"Trinity" violate the laws of logic and mathematics.
Three but one. one God but three.

You are free to sue God for violating  Descartes’ understanding.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 17, 2011, 05:29:35 PM
Don't worry you will get to talk to Him someday. (at least once) guaranteed!

Considering your track record in not only being right, but in having any credibiliy at all. This could almost be considered definite proof that he won't.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on August 17, 2011, 05:47:09 PM
That is Descartes’ understanding.

"Trinity" violate the laws of logic and mathematics.
Three but one. one God but three.

You are free to sue God for violating  Descartes’ understanding.
It is not God that is illogical, it is mankind: they made it illogical by forgery. [wiki]Comma Johanneum[/wiki]
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 05:49:01 PM
Don't worry you will get to talk to Him someday. (at least once) guaranteed!

Considering your track record in not only being right, but in having any credibiliy at all. This could almost be considered definite proof that he won't.
Can you guarantee your statement "there is no god".
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on August 17, 2011, 05:53:10 PM
You bet your ass I can
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 17, 2011, 06:45:55 PM
Don't worry you will get to talk to Him someday. (at least once) guaranteed!

Considering your track record in not only being right, but in having any credibiliy at all. This could almost be considered definite proof that he won't.
Can you guarantee your statement "there is no god".

I never said I could. However I can supply a mountain more evidence than you can for your statements. Which isn't hard since you can't provide any evidence for what you say.

Unless you wanted to start now? I'm still waiting, John.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 17, 2011, 08:11:00 PM
Can you guarantee your statement "there is no god".

I can guarantee you that there is no Christian God with the same veracity that I can guarantee you there is no Santa Claus. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 08:26:42 PM
Can you guarantee your statement "there is no god".

I can guarantee you that there is no Christian God with the same veracity that I can guarantee you there is no Santa Claus.
You are dodging my question let me ask you again "Can you guarantee your statement there is no god?"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 17, 2011, 08:29:38 PM
Why don't you actually honestly respond to other people's questions and points before you start trying to accuse others of dodging.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 08:53:00 PM
Why don't you actually honestly respond to other people's questions and points before you start trying to accuse others of dodging.
because I am not somebody's answer-ing machine.
you are only used to asking believers to answer you question.
Now it's your turn to answer my question.
Let me ask you again "Can you guarantee your statement, there is no god".

come on! simple question, what are you afraid of?
Let me see who can HONESTLY answer first.


Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: DVZ3 on August 17, 2011, 09:17:05 PM
Let me ask you again "Can you guarantee your statement, there is no god".

Let me see who can HONESTLY answer first.

It's very easy to guarantee that there isn't a christian god based on the extreme lack of evidence for such.  However,  unless new evidence says otherwise (atheist change their view based on new evidence and new information you see), I can essentially rule out that there is any other sort of god.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 17, 2011, 09:17:49 PM
Let me ask you again "Can you guarantee your statement, there is no god".

come on! simple question, what are you afraid of?
Let me see who can HONESTLY answer first.

Look, John.  Nobody is going to fall for your stupid shit here.  You are trying to trap people who are a lot smarter than you.  It just isn't going to work. 

What I said is not a dodge of the question.  You received the same answer to your question as if you asked any such statement.  "Can you guarantee your statement that there is no X" is really the question to look at.   X could be literally anything in the universe, and there is no way to guarantee it... unless it is something like a square circle, or a married bachelor, which are contradictory statements, and thus impossible. 

You seem to think if we say "no, we can not guarantee you there is no god" that you can jump on us saying some stupid shit like "SEE, HAHA, I WIN! God is possible!" but that is just so childish.  Everyone knows a god is possible.  Very few people actually flat out deny it.  But the evidence is so overwhelmingly against you that we can deny the Christian God with the same veracity that we can deny Santa Claus. That's pretty fucking sure, don't you think?  It reminds me of this scene with you as the Jim Carrey character...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

Santa and God are equally very near impossible.  That is the simple truth of it.  You can not prove a negative in this case.  What do you Christians not understand about that?  I don't get it.  Is there some sort of mental block with you people? If I asked you, "John, can you guarantee that there is no Santa Claus", what answer would you give?  Can you guarantee me there is no Santa?  How about no Allah?  No Thor? 

Do you think we have not seen this stupid shit before?  Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you dude?  If you want to know how to defend your position with some integrity, look at some of Truth OT or Penman's posts.  You are the bottom of the barrel here.  Those two guys may be completely wrong about believing in God, but at least they are trying to say something useful.  It's more fun to talk to them.  You, on the other hand, are just... I don't even know man... Embarrassing yourself.  It was kinda funny at first, but damn dude. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Brakeman on August 17, 2011, 09:32:51 PM
"Can you guarantee your statement, there is no god".


Absolutely I guarantee that there is no god whatsoever. I have blasphemed and made fun of god for years. I have called his son a pathetic lying homo who caught syphilis from mangy dogs*. I have defied god in every way daring him to smite me. But nothing out of the ordinary has ever happened. When I was a believer, I prayed fervently for god to talk to me but he never did, it was just my imagination, my own thoughts alone. God NEVER shows up because he doesn't exist.


*Not to deride teh gays. but christards hate that label.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on August 17, 2011, 10:05:59 PM
"Can you guarantee your statement, there is no god".


Absolutely I guarantee that there is no god whatsoever. I have blasphemed and made fun of god for years. I have called his son a pathetic lying homo who caught syphilis from mangy dogs*. I have defied god in every way daring him to smite me. But nothing out of the ordinary has ever happened. When I was a believer, I prayed fervently for god to talk to me but he never did, it was just my imagination, my own thoughts alone. God NEVER shows up because he doesn't exist.


*Not to deride teh gays. but christards hate that label.

You are my kind of atheist!   ;D
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 10:12:08 PM
wo wo wo woh.
easy Jeff. It's just a question.

is your answer yes or no?

look at DVZ3 and brakeman's answer, all you have to do is answer my question with honesty.
In my point of view you are not even an atheist or even a man.
why can't you say what you believe.
you want to see me as an example?

I can guarantee there is no mother fucking Santa, see how easy it is?

come on man spit it out!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on August 17, 2011, 10:15:58 PM

I can guarantee there is no mother fucking Santa, see how easy it is?

Then who's at the fucking mall around christmas time. I've seen Santa, and I even touched his beard.


See how easy it is for people to bullshit and completely mistake fair tales for reality?!?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Brakeman on August 17, 2011, 10:20:14 PM
You are my kind of atheist!   ;D

Thanks George!

In one particular parley with christians on another site, I was calling god senile, and one of the theists couldn't help himself. He typed "GOD IS GOING TO SMITE YOU!!!  I goaded him on. If god had the balls of a gnat he would address the horrible way us "good Atheists" talk about him. If he existed he'd be somebody's little bitch, and not a god at all.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 17, 2011, 10:28:33 PM
I can guarantee there is no mother fucking Santa, see how easy it is?!

Alright, prove it. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 17, 2011, 10:31:41 PM
why can't you say what you believe.

OH! If all you were asking for is what I believe, then YES, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Christian God is fake. 

I thought you were asking for guarantees.  I'm not in the business of guarantees.  I prefer honesty. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on August 17, 2011, 10:34:43 PM

Let me ask you again "Can you guarantee your statement, there is no god".

come on! simple question, what are you afraid of?


You know, even if there is a god I don't give a shit about him and it doesn't care about us. I can guarantee you certain god's aren't real, but the deist god I'm up in the air with. YHWH isn't real. The only way we are able to understand him is by looking at his book, the bible, and understand how truly ridiculous it is when it comes to reality (and the lack of validity of it's claim).

I can't guarantee there is no god, but if there is then it doesn't really care about us sucking its dick off. It lets us live our lives without judgement. YHWH is a complete hypocrite - he judges us in his standards of right and wrong, yet when we judge him we either sends us to hell for disagreeing with his judgement, or he sends those to heaven for finding rational to support his judgement in the book that he himself supposedly inspired, scribbled by men with limited, yet still vivid, imaginations. The closest there is to a god that exists doesn't care if he is worshiped, and doesn't want our tithe, or to even answer our prayers.

I am not a deist, but I cannot guarantee the deist god doesn't exist, but all I know is if it does it doesn't want anyone to show it any kind of support. The closest we get to understanding what's beyond our non-supernatural minds are holybooks describing certain god's actions regarding either its intervention with the natural world, or it's actions regarding what happens to our souls, and comparing that holy book with what we know about reality. Some god's (YWHW) are so completely far fetched that it's amazing many people are still able to find way to  rationalize their belief in him.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 17, 2011, 10:36:11 PM
Absolutely I guarantee that there is no god whatsoever. I have blasphemed and made fun of god for years. I have called his son a pathetic lying homo who caught syphilis from mangy dogs*. I have defied god in every way daring him to smite me. But nothing out of the ordinary has ever happened. When I was a believer, I prayed fervently for god to talk to me but he never did, it was just my imagination, my own thoughts alone. God NEVER shows up because he doesn't exist.

The tests you mention mean nothing with regard to gods that don't care about blasphemy.  Did you mean to say that there is no Christian god whatsoever?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Brakeman on August 17, 2011, 10:44:00 PM
The tests you mention mean nothing with regard to gods that don't care about blasphemy.  Did you mean to say that there is no Christian god whatsoever?

Nope, I call out all "gods" as yellow tailed cowards, who aren't worth the shit of a sick slug. If they don't have the manly balls to face me, then they are not a god at all, just a pathetic curiosity.
Of course I say that even paranormal curiosities don't exist either.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 10:55:51 PM
why can't you say what you believe.

OH! If all you were asking for is what I believe, then YES, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Christian God is fake. 

I thought you were asking for guarantees.  I'm not in the business of guarantees.  I prefer honesty.
Jeff why are you keep saying christian god?
I was saying god in general. so what is your answer?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on August 17, 2011, 11:01:15 PM
Jeff why are you keep saying christian god?
I was saying god in general. so what is your answer?

Why bring up the question if you are referring to some generic god?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: caveat_imperator on August 17, 2011, 11:03:08 PM
...all you have to do is answer my question with honesty.

But you have a problem with doing that to questions directed at you; why should you get special treatment?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 11:03:57 PM
Jeff why are you keep saying christian god?
I was saying god in general. so what is your answer?

Why bring up the question if you are referring to some generic god?
a god , gods, any god, supreme being, ....etc.
what part of god don't you understand?
God damn it! &)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 11:06:18 PM
...all you have to do is answer my question with honesty.

But you have a problem with doing that to questions directed at you; why should you get special treatment?
so prove me if you are any better than me
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on August 17, 2011, 11:08:44 PM

a god , gods, any god, supreme being, ....etc.
what part of god don't you understand?

Maybe you should've been more specific. Jeff called out your intentions in asking your asking the question here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19687.msg438524.html#msg438524)[1]You're the one struggling to cover up your trails.
 1. look at the third paragraph
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 17, 2011, 11:14:21 PM

a god , gods, any god, supreme being, ....etc.
what part of god don't you understand?

Maybe you should've been more specific. Jeff called out your intentions in asking your asking the question here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19687.msg438524.html#msg438524)[1]You're the one struggling to cover up your trails.
 1. look at the third paragraph
"GOD"
how specific do you want me to be?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on August 17, 2011, 11:17:26 PM
"GOD"
how specific do you want me to be?

Because god means millions of things to millions of different people!

Your question;

Let me ask you again "Can you guarantee your statement, there is no god".


It's generic and meaningless without first defining god.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Omen on August 18, 2011, 12:01:52 AM
"GOD"
how specific do you want me to be?

The label "god" is not self evident and is meaningless without your input.  There never will be a logical requirement to assess the existence of a meaningless label, because it is by necessity inseparable from its non-existence.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: pingnak on August 18, 2011, 12:23:15 AM
Agnosticism is the default position.

Someone has to tell you about enough 'gods' for you to say 'bullshit' about, for you to write them all off and become an atheist.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: dloubet on August 18, 2011, 01:09:07 AM
Agnosticism? Really?

Is it the same for Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and Darth Vader?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 18, 2011, 01:11:54 AM
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”)  (Matthew 1:22-23)

So after Jesus was born, but before he was old enough to choose the good and reject the evil, the Assyrian Empire had conquered Aram and Israel, destroying the enemies King Ahaz of Judah feared (Isaiah 7:15-17)?  Cool trick for an empire that had been non-existent for centuries before Jesus' time.  Nice of Herod to share his palace with old King Ahaz though.

Also: The word "virgin" does not appear in the Hebrew text.  The Hebrew word used is "almah," meaning, "young woman," without any connotations about virginity.  Hebrew has a different word for "virgin."  The word "virgin" comes into the picture because Matthew, writing in Greek, was quoting from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures created in Ptolmaic times, which uses the Greek word "parthenos" ("virgin").  This is a distortion of the original meaning of the Hebrew text.

But Kcrady...John KNOWS all that, because he has a copy of the original Bible.  So he has read it, using his knowledge of ancient Hebrew, and so he KNOWS that all his more modern translations that say "virgin" are incorrect.  That's why every time he quotes a Bible verse, he makes sure to change the word "virgin" to "young maiden" to ensure he is correctly quoting the original Bible.

Doesn't he? 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 18, 2011, 01:19:36 AM
Let me ask you again "Can you guarantee your statement, there is no god".

I can guarantee there is no Santa, see how easy it is?

See John, there is a big difference between the statements "no god" and "no Santa".  The word god, as has been pointed out repeatedly, could mean all manner of things - depending on which pantheon you choose, it could include the trait "created universe", or it might not.  Thor, for example, is a god, but didn't create the universe - or life, or does anything much other than make lightning and drink.

And that's the point - when you get specific , you can very easily guarantee something.  Like you did with Santa, as opposed to guaranteeing there were "no supernatural creatures that reward the good".

So I doubt very many people here will say "I guarantee there is no (undefined term that could encompass a million different possibilities)".  But you will get very, very many who will say - as I do:

"I guarantee that there is no god as depicted in the Bible."  Good enough for you?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 18, 2011, 07:15:40 AM

See John, there is a big difference between the statements "no god" and "no Santa". 
See Jeff?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: screwtape on August 18, 2011, 07:24:02 AM
Can you guarantee your statement "there is no god".

Sure.  Anyone can say they guarantee anything.  You guaranteed we would all talk to god at least once.  But a guarantee is the stated consequence of a failed promise.  Midas guarantees my muffler.  So when the muffler shits the bed, they replace it for free.  That is the guarantee. 

You were the first one to throw out a guarantee, so what is the pay off?  What do I get if you are wrong?  In the event your promise fails, how will you even know?  It sounds to me like you are just some lout shooting off his big, fat mouth.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 18, 2011, 07:33:19 AM
"GOD"
how specific do you want me to be?
Because god means millions of things to millions of different people!
What is your definition of atheism then.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on August 18, 2011, 07:34:28 AM
Because god means millions of things to millions of different people!
What is your definition of atheism then.

Define what "GOD" means to you first instead of dodging
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 18, 2011, 07:59:04 AM
Because god means millions of things to millions of different people!
What is your definition of atheism then.

Define what "GOD" means to you first instead of dodging
What "GOD" means TO ME?
Are you kidding me? what's my name?
Do you want me to start my preaching?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 18, 2011, 07:59:14 AM
Nope, I call out all "gods" as yellow tailed cowards, who aren't worth the shit of a sick slug. If they don't have the manly balls to face me, then they are not a god at all, just a pathetic curiosity.
Of course I say that even paranormal curiosities don't exist either.

So you know the motives of a hypothetical god (whatever that is) that doesn't respond to your insults?  What did you do to acquire this knowledge?

You ignore the situation of a god who simply doesn't give a rat's ass about human blasphemy.  You test does not confirm or deny such a deity.

Are you seriously not going to acknowledge that?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on August 18, 2011, 08:02:02 AM
What "GOD" means TO ME?
Are you kidding me? what's my name?
Do you want me to start my preaching?

I see dodging.
I will ask once again before reporting you for dodging: Define what god means to you
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 18, 2011, 08:08:18 AM
What "GOD" means TO ME?
Are you kidding me? what's my name?
Do you want me to start my preaching?

I see dodging.
I will ask once again before reporting you for dodging: Define what god means to you
ok to me God means "Trinity, triune God" Father, Son, and the Spirit.
Creator of the universe, Hosanna, saviour, infinite mercy, love,,,,
do you want me to go on?
besides, what 'dodging' are you talking about?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 18, 2011, 08:19:17 AM
Nope, I call out all "gods" as yellow tailed cowards, who aren't worth the shit of a sick slug. If they don't have the manly balls to face me, then they are not a god at all, just a pathetic curiosity.
Of course I say that even paranormal curiosities don't exist either.

So you know the motives of a hypothetical god (whatever that is) that doesn't respond to your insults?  What did you do to acquire this knowledge?

You ignore the situation of a god who simply doesn't give a rat's ass about human blasphemy.  You test does not confirm or deny such a deity.

Are you seriously not going to acknowledge that?
my point exactly.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on August 18, 2011, 08:19:54 AM
ok to me God means "Trinity, triune God" Father, Son, and the Spirit.
Creator of the universe, Hosanna, saviour, infinite mercy, love,,,,
do you want me to go on?

No need

besides, what 'dodging' are you talking about?


I'm talking about the dodging where you avoid answering the question by trying to make it seem like it's pointless to do so
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on August 18, 2011, 08:20:21 AM
my point exactly.

Your point to whom?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 18, 2011, 09:21:16 AM
You ignore the situation of a god who simply doesn't give a rat's ass about human blasphemy.  You test does not confirm or deny such a deity.

Are you seriously not going to acknowledge that?
My point to brakeman.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 18, 2011, 09:25:59 AM
.....god means millions of things to millions of different people!
What is your definition of atheism then.

So far as I am concerned, atheism is lack of belief in god or gods - agnostic (to me) means open to the possibility - though in practice I behave as if I am atheistic towards all.  However, I am strongly atheist to any god that so far has been defined to the extent that I can examine and consider it.  Hence...

"I guarantee that there is no god as depicted in the Bible." 

So when you actually start to define your god...

to me God means "Trinity, triune God" Father, Son, and the Spirit.
Creator of the universe, Hosanna, saviour, infinite mercy, love,,,,

...I can happily say that I have no belief in that god - and further, I will guarantee that the god you have defined there does not exist.  (Though you may wish to define "hosanna", just to be sure.)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on August 18, 2011, 09:39:17 AM
Ok, in regards to your earlier request for a guarantee, I shall say...


I guarantee that this:
"Trinity, triune God" Father, Son, and the Spirit.
Creator of the universe, Hosanna, saviour, infinite mercy, love
does not exist.

And I will back it up with a similar amount of evidence that you can muster for your earlier claim that

I can guarantee there is no [...] Santa, see how easy it is?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Add Homonym on August 18, 2011, 09:43:11 AM
ok to me God means "Trinity, triune God" Father, Son, and the Spirit.
Creator of the universe, Hosanna, saviour, infinite mercy, love,,,,
do you want me to go on?
besides, what 'dodging' are you talking about?

If he has infinite mercy, then that would imply that you could be infinitely evil and still go to heaven. (Just a technical point.) And yet Christian doctrine depends on a God who is so disgusted by our sin, that he wont listen to us, until we learn to spell his name as Jesus.

I take it you don't believe in the Elohim who orders people to sacrifice their son, and then turns up as schizophrenic YWHY, and says it was a joke?
If he was merciful to any degree, then he would have had no hand in the xenophobic sexist crap in the OT, so I take it that all that was written by someone else.


Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ivellios on August 18, 2011, 09:51:01 AM
Not only David, Noah, Abel, Enoch, they all were real people, but also symbolic things to come .
Progessive revelation in OT. How marvelous!

but since proving bible with bible doesn't work for you, so what more can I say?

Since this was over-looked and I just could not help myself.  :P

Enoch: A man so close to god, a man so Righteous and good, God took him into Heaven directly. A man whom wrote a book... with a name so lacking in imagination it belies what's within. The Book of Enoch.

This book along with the Epic of Gilgamesh would be placed within the bibliography of the Bible if Moses used more modern writting methods but back then there was no Copyright office and plagerism was rampant. He takes the creation of earth from Enoch and later the writer of Job pulls even more out. My point? Enoch states quite plainly that the Earth is Flat. He walked so close to God and told us how God told him how he[God] made the Earth. In fact the Flat Earth Society uses the Bible to Prove the Earth is flat, discounting Science.

So God tells Enoch the Earth is Flat. Enoch writes this important information down, if it was fiction or imaginary (prior to Mark Twain there was no 'Fiction' right?) he would not have written it down, so therefore it must be true. Moses and the author of Job plagerize the Book of Enoch. Since the Bible and God are inerrant so therefore the Earth is flat right?

Seriously, how could any of these ****ing religions that say the Earth is flat cross the frikking Atlantic? The Earth is spherical! People are so delusional... hence the importance of child indoctination. If they waited till the child could USE thier brains, they wouldn't believe this crap.

Oh, and if you're one of the Ancient Aliens believers... remember there was no fiction back then, so the whole "hopping into a space ship" really happened, just like him going to the uttmost North, South, East (and saw the house the Sun sleeps in before he starts his daily walk) and the utmost West. Those Aliens showed Enoch a Flat Earth. It's Proof!  ...   &)

Is the Earth Flat or did this "Righteous Man" write a book of lies that was incorporated into the "inerrant" Bible?

Edit: added last line and spelling.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: JeffPT on August 18, 2011, 10:24:45 AM
Jeff why are you keep saying christian god?
I was saying god in general. so what is your answer?

I do NOT guarantee that there is no god whatsoever.  I do not believe there to be one, and I think the odds are extremely low (like a million to one), but I will not guarantee that there is no god. 

This is the standard stance of an agnostic atheist.  Are we done with this now?  Are you through asking this stupid question?  The reason I kept saying the Christian God is because when you capitalize the G in God, it takes on the meaning of the Christian God. 

ok to me God means "Trinity, triune God" Father, Son, and the Spirit.
Creator of the universe, Hosanna, saviour, infinite mercy, love,,,,
do you want me to go on?
besides, what 'dodging' are you talking about?
 

I agree with Avatar of Belial.  This, I can guarantee you, doesn't exist.  No question.  It's 100% false.  It's not a hundred to one chance.  Not a thousand to one chance.  Not a million to one.  It's zero chance. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 18, 2011, 10:47:47 AM
And I will back it up with a similar amount of evidence that you can muster for your earlier claim that

I can guarantee there is no [...] Santa, see how easy it is?

See John, there is a big difference between the statements "no god" and "no Santa". 
Should I be a referee between you and Anfauglir?

<<Mod: Fixed Quoting>>
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 18, 2011, 11:00:47 AM
Should I be a referee between you and Anfauglir?

I doubt it.  I would want a referee who can actually read and understand what people are saying.  Avatar was not referencing any old god when he made his claim, he was referencing your specific claim about a specific god.

While there is a difference between the statements "no (undefined) god" and "no Santa", the claims "no (specific) god" (which you made, and AoB challenged) and "no Santa" are similar, and hence Avatar was quite correct to compare them.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: John 3 16 on August 18, 2011, 12:01:10 PM
Fair enough.

so you are saying "specific god"(bible god is one of them), followers of bible god wasn't able to prove the existence of their god.
therefore,  you can guarantee there is no (bible god).

how about 4th dimension, outer universe, other supernatural phenomena....
can you guarantee those things don't exist just because no one has proof or was able to explain?

just curious.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on August 18, 2011, 12:45:33 PM
so you are saying "specific god"(bible god is one of them), followers of bible god wasn't able to prove the existence of their god.
therefore,  you can guarantee there is no (bible god).

No, I am saying that various claims made about "Bible God" contradict reality. Various claims about "Bible God" even contradict one another, in the same way a "Round Square" contradicts itself.

When X and reality do not agree, reality wins. When X and X disagree, X loses. In this case, X = "Bible God".

I have not provided examples, as I ealier made the challenge:
And I will back it up with a similar amount of evidence that you can muster for your earlier claim that
I can guarantee there is no [...] Santa, see how easy it is?

because I wish to match your claims against Santa with equivilent claims against "Bible God".
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Asmoday on August 18, 2011, 03:29:17 PM
?  ???????, ????????:
????? ??????, ????????--???? ?????????;    ???-??????? ?????????, ????? ???????????.  think twice.

besides, it seems you believe OT only is there reason?
Am I correct if I assume you tried to post the Hebrew version of Psalms 110:1?


Oh I forgot.
Just in case you want to know, according to the bible "Jesus is a man and God (son of man)&(son of God) 100%human and 100%God"
Which only crops up in the NT and none of the original Jewish messianic prophecies contain as much as a single word about it.

The Jewish messiah is not part of God itself. He is human. Not 100% God and 100% human. Just human.

Quote
I know it is logically impossible, but hey, not everything is logically possible in our world also, don't you agree?
As it has been said before: Please name something that exists in our world and is logically impossible.


Just curious, Asmoday.
Are you a believer? or OT only believer? or non-believer?
I'm a non-believer. To be exact, I'd say I am an agnostic atheist.

Quote
Are you trying to disprove bible with bible?
If you don't believe bible how is it possible?
One does not have to believe in what religious texts say to show that the religious texts are internally inconsistent, riddled with contradictions, plain errors and mistakes and that, more often than not, they have been tampered with.

In short, just by studying the "Holy Book" it is possible to show that "Holey Book" would be the more appropriate title.

Quote
If you are atheist, it's probably easier to say "is there an evidence?"
Asking for evidence is one thing but it's always nice to show that not only is the myth not grounded in reality but that the myth itself falls apart in textual analysis.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on August 18, 2011, 03:44:10 PM
because I am not somebody's answer-ing machine.
you are only used to asking believers to answer you question.

Perhaps not. However you are on a forum wherein dodging and evading questions and stonewalling violate the rules. Rules which you agreed to upon signing up here.

Since you dishonestly refuse to follow the rules, don't attempt to take a high-horse tone of voice with me when you're called on for behaving like a hypocrite. Both Jeff and myself directly answered your question. Which is far more than you've ever done here.

If you want to start demanding answers from people, start providing them yourself.

John, I'm still waiting for you to actually start to behave like an adult who is actually interested in a real discussion. As opposed to the rather laughable figure you seem intent on portraying yourself and your faith to be.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: pingnak on August 18, 2011, 05:52:56 PM
Agnosticism? Really?

Is it the same for Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and Darth Vader?

If you literally don't know anything about them, then yes, you're agnostic about them.

Of course, these are not ranked as 'gods', so you wouldn't be 'atheistic' about them.  You'd just know they're fairy tales.

I rank all gods as fairy tales, therefore I'm only an 'atheist', but only by the standards of other people who believe in 'gods', who get so angry that I dismiss them so casually.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: dloubet on August 19, 2011, 01:19:06 AM
But I would also be atheistic (or a-Santa Claustic, a-Tooth Fairyistic, and a-Darth Vaderistic) because I have no belief in them if I don't know anything about them.

Atheism and agnosticism are orthogonal to each other. One describes a state of belief, and the other describes a state of knowledge. Someone who knows nothing about gods, and thus has no belief in them, would be an agnostic atheist.

Knowledge offers a spectrum of states, where "I don't know" is a valid answer. Belief is binary, with a knife-edge threshold. You either believe or you don't, and "I don't know" is not a valid answer.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: pingnak on August 19, 2011, 01:52:10 AM
You'd have to believe that they're all GODS, and then not believe in them, to be atheistic about them.

I don't believe that gods are gods, so I just don't believe in babyish fairy tales.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Anfauglir on August 19, 2011, 04:03:59 AM
so you are saying "specific god"(bible god is one of them), followers of bible god wasn't able to prove the existence of their god.
therefore,  you can guarantee there is no (bible god).

Yes.  When you get specific about it, I can.  Like Avatar said, all I do is compare the specific claim made against reality, or against the other claims made by that person.  Claims that are contradicted by reality mean that specific god does not exist.  Claims about a specific god that contradict OTHER claims about that specific god likewise fail.

(Note: I will glaldy concede that the above does NOT necessarily mean that the god being referenced does not exist, only that the definition is wrong.  For example, you may be describing "Joan" to me, and happen to mention she is 5,000 feet tall and standing just behind me.  Does that necessarily mean "Joan" does not exist?  No - just that the "Joan" you are describing does not exist.
(The onus, of course, lies on the describer then to redefine his god: "did I say 3,000 feet? I meant 5 feet tall", at which point I can re-evaluate.  Of course, going down that road has two important implications.  Firstly, it requires the beliver to accept they were wrong in their definition, which rarely happens.  More usually, it means the believer, when constantly forced backwards in their definition, resorts to the ineffableness - the "I can't KNOW about my god".  At which point I can simply shrug and say "well, if YOU don't know, how do you expect ME to have an opinion?", as their god once again becomes a vague and shifting proposition that is impossible to consider.  The god (with small g) that we have been talking about.)

how about 4th dimension, outer universe, other supernatural phenomena....
can you guarantee those things don't exist just because no one has proof or was able to explain?

(Shrugs).  Again, John - you aren't being specific.  "Other supernatural phenomena" indeed.....like what?  Tooth fairy?  Loch Ness Monster?  Ghosts?  Be specific man - are you not listening to anything we've said?  You tell me exactly what you are claiming exists, and I will give you an answer one way or t'other.  But don't just throw a vague blanket term at me and expect an answer.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: pingnak on August 19, 2011, 04:39:01 AM
A fourth dimension?  That exists.

A 'dimension' is a mathematical description of space.  If 0 ~ 10 exist, dimensions 0 ~ 10 exist, too. 

As concepts. 

Infinity exists, and 'infinity' has its own symbol: ?.  Option+5 if you have a Mac.  Of course, the existence of anything infinite (besides human stupidity) is impossible.  There's always one more rock to look under for 'more' of something, and limited time to test 'infinity' before the whole universe of matter that we are made of decays into electromagnetic noise.

It's rather helpful to substitute time for a 'fourth dimension' to predict the paths of objects in 3D space over time, and do collision detection in games.  Similar to taking moving 2D points and using 'Z' for 'time'.  In other words, take the line a ball travels, project it to a cylinder, and check the distance between cylinders, and you will find the closest point they come to each other, which is basically 'when' they will be nearest.  So you can schedule a collision, rather than check every 'instant' of time.

This does not, in fact, mean that 'time' is a dimension as 'depth' is a dimension.  NO!  Only that it's easy to substitute it into a problem LIKE a 'dimension', to get useful, quick and dirty results.

Of course, the purveyors of fairy tales as 'indisputable facts that you need to have faith in' routinely confuse the unreality of numbers and mathematical concepts and descriptions of phenomena, with objective 'reality'.

This is why they make such hay about evolution as 'theory', when gravity and everything else in science is 'theory'.  "Gravity is only a 'theory', so I'll take a shortcut off this cliff and meet you for coffee in an hour when you get down here, the long way around."

So, you can IMAGINE an angry sky monster that casts people into a pit of hideous torment forever for the heinous crime of not believing in it?  That makes it TRUE?  Well, yes.  That's what they end up admitting.  Their concept of 'god' exists, therefore their 'god' exists.

I dreamed of flying T-Rexes with helicopter jetpacks on their backs.  I don't remember a tail rotor, or seeing them up-close, but they must have been pairs of counter-rotating propellers to keep them stable.  I can imagine a lot of stuff better and worse than the religious froot-loops do.  There's just no END to the unfalsifiable nonsense I can grind out without trying very hard.  All sort of plausible, if you don't bother to TEST ANY ASSUMPTIONS.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: ungod on October 28, 2011, 09:16:57 AM
Jetson:  Just curious, but why do you think that atheism is the default position for humans?
Well, DUH, if it isn't, why do religions need missionaries?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: maanihere on October 29, 2011, 12:13:02 PM
Hi there guys,

This product is a replacement for an amputated upper limb that will recover the lost functionality. The life of amputee is recovered physically as well as psychologically. By interpreting signals from the brain, this limb works just like the real one. The details can be found here:

http://www.technocrazed.com/brain-controlled-limb-prosthesis-for-disabled
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 29, 2011, 12:33:03 PM
Well, DUH, if it isn't, why do religions need missionaries?


To sell their product and try to create brand loyalty. DUH  :P
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on October 29, 2011, 12:34:07 PM
<snip>

I don't understand if you think this is related to the topic or if it's an attempt to say "God enabled our scientists to invent this despite the fact that amputees have existed since the dawn of mankind and although this isn't an actual cure".
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 29, 2011, 12:34:07 PM
Hi there guys,

This product is a replacement for an amputated upper limb that will recover the lost functionality. The life of amputee is recovered physically as well as psychologically. By interpreting signals from the brain, this limb works just like the real one. The details can be found here:

http://www.technocrazed.com/brain-controlled-limb-prosthesis-for-disabled (http://www.technocrazed.com/brain-controlled-limb-prosthesis-for-disabled)


That's great but you put it in the wrong thread. Plus, it has been discussed previously here.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 01, 2011, 09:18:16 PM
Only stupid people don't believe in God. But i stand to be corrected.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on December 01, 2011, 10:20:52 PM
Only stupid people don't believe in God. But i stand to be corrected.

Show me one god, and I will stop being stupid.  But don't fuck with me, I want to see a real god.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 01, 2011, 10:28:39 PM
Sorry Jet but God is not that easy like some physics experiment. If you want to know God you have to find a way to believe in Him first. and if you can't then like i said you're stupid.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 01, 2011, 10:36:15 PM
Sorry Jet but God is not that easy like some physics experiment.

Physics are not easy for me. I guess it's easy for you but do you think that makes me stupid too? I believe in the scientific method because I can see the results but if I found myself alone in the wild I would have no idea how to actually make anything.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 01, 2011, 10:41:06 PM
Physics is a replay of something that's already there. God created everything and he is the source so you cannot prove him with man-invented scienific methods. Only idiots do that like those scientist and guess what they're making everything even more complicated.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on December 01, 2011, 10:55:15 PM
Sorry Jet but God is not that easy like some physics experiment. If you want to know God you have to find a way to believe in Him first. and if you can't then like i said you're stupid.

I didn't ask for a physics experiment.  And please, tell me where you learned that you have to "find a way to believe in him first"?  If you continue to say things like "you're stupid if you don't believe in God", without having actual conversation, you won't get too far with the members here.  Not to mention it is considered trolling...against the rules. 

But don't let me sway you too much, I'm just a Global Moderator... :police:
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: wright on December 01, 2011, 11:00:40 PM
Physics is a replay of something that's already there. God created everything and he is the source so you cannot prove him with man-invented scienific methods. Only idiots do that like those scientist and guess what they're making everything even more complicated.

Nonsense. If a god did create all existence, then he did something literally material and there should be evidence of it. People who have looked have found zero so far. And what do we have to assess that (nonexistent) evidence with but "man-invented scienfic methods"?

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on December 01, 2011, 11:01:48 PM
Physics is a replay of something that's already there. God created everything and he is the source so you cannot prove him with man-invented scienific methods. Only idiots do that like those scientist and guess what they're making everything even more complicated.

Nonsense. If a god did create all existence, then he did something literally material and there should be evidence of it. People who have looked have found zero so far. And what do we have to assess that evidence with but "man-invented scienfic methods"?

Yeah, what he said.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 01, 2011, 11:07:55 PM
@ Jets. What do you want me to answer? Ask and I will give. thanks
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 01, 2011, 11:31:11 PM
@ Jets. What do you want me to answer? Ask and I will give. thanks

He asked where you learned that you have to "find a way to believe in him(God) first"?. You said that if you can't figure out a way to believe in God then that makes you stupid. Doesn't make any sense to me. I know some people who believe in God but don't even know how to read. Are you saying that their belief in God makes them smarter than some one like Jetson?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 01, 2011, 11:49:14 PM
my desire for the truth lead me to God. For those who believe in God but cannot read, blessed are they for there are those who knows how to read but does not believe.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 01, 2011, 11:55:57 PM
my desire for the truth lead me to God. For those who believe in God but cannot read, blessed are they for there are those who knows how to read but does not believe.

Well ok but I was asking about smarts. Is the person who believes in God but cannot read smarter than the person who does not believe in God but CAN read? Cause I want to be smart and if the only thing I need to do to be smart is to believe in God then I can save a bunch of money by not going to college.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 02, 2011, 12:10:02 AM
Pray to God the Almighty for Wisdom and you don't need to go to school to know anything. Make Him your Rock and you will outwitt every scientist on the face of the earth.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: wright on December 02, 2011, 12:26:38 AM
Pray to God the Almighty for Wisdom and you don't need to go to school to know anything. Make Him your Rock and you will outwitt every scientist on the face of the earth.

Laughable. If your god gave special dispensation to his faithful that freely, it would be overwhelmingly evident and there would be very, very few atheists.

If you have that kind of faith, did you just pray to know how to read? That's a skill that does not come easily to most people; I have taught adults basic literacy.

You need to stop making nonsensical claims and preaching, and start providing some evidence to back up your statements. That is actually a requirement here; read the forum rules.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 02, 2011, 12:28:18 AM
Pray to God the Almighty for Wisdom and you don't need to go to school to know anything. Make Him your Rock and you will outwitt every scientist on the face of the earth.

That doe not answer my question. you said that p eople who dont beleive in God are stupid. I think alot people here are smarter than me. And they dont believe? I don't want to outtwit scientist I just want to be smart. All I have to do is pray?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 02, 2011, 12:34:15 AM
Yes jaybwell. Pray for wisdom. But pray with your heart. Take a moment why you want to be smart and then pray.

@wright "laughable?" Why is that? The reason why there are so many unbelievers today is because of religion and technology. These two has corrupted and diluted our humanity thus pulling us further from God.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 02, 2011, 12:38:32 AM
Yes jaybwell. Pray for wisdom. But pray with your heart. Take a moment why you want to be smart and then pray.

If God gave me this life wouldn't i seem ungreatful if I asked for more from Him?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 02, 2011, 12:44:15 AM
more is nothing to God because He is more than more. We are extrodiarly to have Him treat us like His children and I am humbled to call Him Father as He would have all of us call Him. Don't be burden of how much should you ask but consider how would you ask and why? If God deems it necessary for you to have he will render them to you. No one on the face of the earth knows what you need than God the Father Himself. And no once cares of your needs more than Him.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 02, 2011, 12:56:04 AM
more is nothing to God because He is more than more. We are extrodiarly to have Him treat us like His children and I am humbled to call Him Father as He would have all of us call Him. Don't be burden of how much should you ask but consider how would you ask and why? If God deems it necessary for you to have he will render them to you. No one on the face of the earth knows what you need than God the Father Himself. And no once cares of your needs more than Him.

People prayed for Mr. Anfauglirs dad why do you think he needed to see his dad die and see his mother suffer? Why does God need to make his mother suffer from disease? Why did you need to say a mean thing to him? How do I ask God to not make people suffer i think that is better than asking for smarts or being outwit scienctis?

Good night.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 02, 2011, 01:02:25 AM
Before we begin to blame God let us look at what really happened in the first place. Every suffering has a cause in the beginning whether man-made or natural. Now in Anfauglirs situation, all he said is what he's going through but if are to factor God into His miseries I would want to know the history of his family first before I put the Blame on God. For Him to come here and Blame God is more offending than me saying what i've said.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 02, 2011, 01:03:53 AM
Before we begin to blame God let us look at what really happened in the first place.

Exactly, let's look at what really happened, per your beliefs.
Who created evil again?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 02, 2011, 01:05:55 AM
Before we begin to blame God let us look at what really happened in the first place. Every suffering has a cause in the beginning whether man-made or natural. Now in Anfauglirs situation, all he said is what he's going through but if are to factor God into His miseries I would want to know the history of his family first before I put the Blame on God. For Him to come here and Blame God is more offending than me saying what i've said.

Your grammar cleared up real quick didn't it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: wright on December 02, 2011, 01:06:39 AM
more is nothing to God because He is more than more. We are extrodiarly to have Him treat us like His children and I am humbled to call Him Father as He would have all of us call Him. Don't be burden of how much should you ask but consider how would you ask and why? If God deems it necessary for you to have he will render them to you. No one on the face of the earth knows what you need than God the Father Himself. And no once cares of your needs more than Him.

Lance, this forum is not a soapbox for you to preach to atheists. Most people here expect you to talk to them, not at them. Preaching is expressly prohibited in the forum rules; once more I encourage you to read them. You agreed to abide by them when you became a member of this forum.
 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 02, 2011, 01:15:07 AM
i'm not preaching i'm telling what i believe is the Truth.

@ Lucifer. God didn't create evil. He created Satan but Satan rebelled thus evil was born.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 02, 2011, 01:17:23 AM
i'm not preaching i'm telling what i believe is the Truth.

Without evidence to support it, that's called "preaching".

@ Lucifer. God didn't create evil. He created Satan but Satan rebelled thus evil was born.

EDIT:
Here's the full verse with a link:
Quote from: Isaiah 45:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45%3A7&version=KJV)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Post scriptum: I'd give you a +1 for not saying that Lucifer is Satan, but the rest of your post doesn't justify it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 02, 2011, 01:31:18 AM
@ Lucifer. That's not true. The KJV contridicts itself by using "evil" in that specific verse. If you read the Standard Version Bible, in that verse it says "calamity." In many parts of the Bible it states that God cannot stand evil, so how can he create them. Therefore the KJV is contricting a lot of chapters and verses in the Bible by that particular verse which is why in the ESV version it's "calamity." Now if you have the wisdom of God you would discern well which one is TRUE.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 02, 2011, 01:37:14 AM
@ Lucifer. That's not true.

Did you just call me a liar or are you flirting with me? ;)

The KJV contridicts itself by using "evil" in that specific verse.

If you'd read the rest of the Bible, you'd see that it really doesn't.
Adam and Eve: God created the snake, knowing full well what it would do and that humans would not be able to withstand temptation.
Adam and Eve: God lied to them about dying the very day they touched or ate from the tree.
Adam and Eve: God created the tree and put it in the middle of the garden, knowing full well that humans would eat from it.
Adam and Eve: God created humans imperfectly and demanded perfection from them.
Noah: God killed everyone, even newborn babies.
The Bible: God tells us to rip pregnant women open.

I could go on, but I won't.

If you read the Standard Version Bible, in that verse it says "calamity." In many parts of the Bible it states that God cannot stand evil, so how can he create them. Therefore the KJV is contricting a lot of chapters and verses in the Bible by that particular verse which is why in the ESV version it's "calamity."

Prove that the ESV is better than the KJV.

Now if you have the wisdom of God you would discern well which one is TRUE.

The wisdom of God is pointless. I have more wisdom than God, therefore I can discern which one is FALSE.
Hint: It's all of them.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 02, 2011, 01:43:45 AM
LOL@Lucifer Actually if you gonna go there to adam and eve you have to go way beyond that. The Devil was there way before adma and eve was created and God put Him there so he could prove to Satan that he cannot rebelled against Him. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve failed God but God didn't lose Hope from them.

think of it like this. Satan was a Son of God who went to Harvard earned a Master's Degree and came home to his Father and rebelled against Him because he thinks he's smarter. Now, God the father instead of smoking Satan into nothingness, he said to Himself I will prove to you through my Children he is the one and true ruler. God is playing Satan by his own game and Satan will lose in the end. Get it!

I'll see you all tomorow and good night and may God bless us ALL. Merry Christmas!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on December 02, 2011, 01:45:25 AM
Now if you have the wisdom of God you would discern well which one is TRUE.

How on earth could an actual god put together such a dog's breakfast as the Bible?  Moreover, if an actual god did write the Bible (but I so doubt it...), how could it possibly expect mere mortals to comprehend it?  Why are there 30,000+ different Christian sects and 3 major divisions of Judaism?

And how accurately do believers hear the small, still voice of their imaginary friends?  Who's to say the voice of the "Holy Spirit" doesn't actually belong to a cunning, soft-spoken demon or a telepathic trickster from Alpha Centauri?

Oh, and even if the correct translation from the original Hebrew in Isaiah 45:7 was calamity... WTF is a "loving" god doing creating "calamity" in the first place?  That's not performance...
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 02, 2011, 01:49:18 AM
LOL@Lucifer Actually if you gonna go there to adam and eve you have to go way beyond that. The Devil was there way before adma and eve was created and God put Him there so he could prove to Satan that he cannot rebelled against Him. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve failed God but God didn't lose Hope from them.

First of all, God is supposedly omniscient, so he already knew what would happens. He's also supposedly omnipotent[1], so that makes him directly responsible for everything that will ever happen.
Second, God created paradise and put the snake in there[2] to prove that he couldn't rebel?
You should practice your English a bit more.

think of it like this. Satan was a Son of God who went to Harvard earned a Master's Degree and came home to his Father and rebelled against Him because he thinks he's smarter. Now, God the father instead of smoking Satan into nothingness, he said to Himself I will prove to you through my Children he is the one and true ruler. God is playing Satan by his own game and Satan will lose in the end. Get it!

Or I can think of it this way:
Satan and God are imaginary, just like everything else in the Bible. It's a story written by ignorant goat herders who knew nothing about the world. It would make a good "Turns out the supposedly bad guy[3] is the good guy and vice-versa" movie, and maybe it would also give children nightmares, but that's all.

I'll see you all tomorow and good night and may God bless us ALL. Merry Christmas!

No thanks. I've taken the red pill a long time ago.
Also, I don't celebrate christmas.
 1. But is allergic to iron chariots for some reason.
 2. Note that the snake is not Satan. You should read up on that.
 3. Satan.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: caveat_imperator on December 02, 2011, 10:21:01 AM
You've really never thought about any of this thoroughly, have you Lance?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: screwtape on December 02, 2011, 01:41:42 PM
@ Lucifer. That's not true. The KJV contridicts itself by using "evil" in that specific verse. If you read the Standard Version Bible, in that verse it says "calamity."

It looks like there is a dispute over translation.  You know, the books that make up the bible were not originally written in english, so you would have to go back to the originals.  In the originals, hebrew, the word used there is ra'.   It is the same word that is used in Gen 2:9:
Quote
...and the tree of knowledge of good and evil

It makes no sense to say the tree of knowledge of good and calamity since it is talking about morality. 

It is also used in gen 2:17 with regards to the tree.  Again, same word in gen 3:5:
Quote
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil

again, since it is talking about morality, it makes no sense to talk about good and calamity. 

Again in gen 6:5:
Quote
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

same word.  again, calamity makes no sense.  How about gen 13:13:
Quote
But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly

Are you saying the men of Sodom were calamaties? 

There are at least 25 instances of this usage.

So, what do you think there, Sunny Jim?  Maybe your preferred translation of the bible is a little bit wishful thinking?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: velkyn on December 02, 2011, 01:51:15 PM
LOL@Lucifer Actually if you gonna go there to adam and eve you have to go way beyond that. The Devil was there way before adma and eve was created and God put Him there so he could prove to Satan that he cannot rebelled against Him. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve failed God but God didn't lose Hope from them.
My, my, yet more adding to the bible by a Christian.  How are those boils, lance? 
Quote
think of it like this. Satan was a Son of God who went to Harvard earned a Master's Degree and came home to his Father and rebelled against Him because he thinks he's smarter. Now, God the father instead of smoking Satan into nothingness, he said to Himself I will prove to you through my Children he is the one and true ruler. God is playing Satan by his own game and Satan will lose in the end. Get it!
Funny how God must work with Satan constantly.  We have him betting with Satan in Job  We have him required to release Satan after chaining him in the “pit” after killing all of the “evil” people and letting JC reign for a millennium.  I guess God isn’t so powerful after all.  Shame that you’ve evidently never read your bible, lance.  Your ignorance is fun, though.
Quote
I'll see you all tomorow and good night and may God bless us ALL. Merry Christmas!
I love how good Christians like this always try to use a supposed blessing as an attack.  Yet more evidence on how much they are just brats who get off on threatening others and ignoring their own supposed “holy” book.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on December 03, 2011, 12:22:00 PM
…  Unfortunately, Adam and Eve failed God but God didn't lose Hope from them.
So, God’s creation failed… how do we explain that? Did He make a mistake when He made them out of mud and meat?

Quote
think of it like this. Satan was a Son of God who went to Harvard earned a Master's Degree and came home to his Father and rebelled against Him because he thinks he's smarter. Now, God the father instead of smoking Satan into nothingness, he said to Himself …
“… Wait, I have a better plan!”

How many times have you heard that one?

Look, Yahweh had no difficulty killing the Midianites, Amalkelites, Moabites, Canaanites, Assyrians, Ethiopians, etc, ad nauseam, and all they did was worship other gods. Yet here is Satan who not only rebels but sets himself up as a false god… and what does Yahweh do? “Oh I know, I’ll let him walk the earth… that’ll teach him…”

And anyway, who created Satan?

Here’s a few clues:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

(With all those evil deeds, you wonder why Yahweh needed Satan alive.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Traveler on December 03, 2011, 01:36:05 PM
...In many parts of the Bible it states that God cannot stand evil, so how can he create them...

I LOL!!! I'm an artist. I cannot stand crappy art, but I sometimes create it. I cannot stand snot, but I sometimes create it when I have a cold. I cannot stand baked sweet potatoes but I create them for my loved ones who like them. If an all powerful god were to exist he most certainly could create anything at all.

I haven't read through all the pages of this topic, but has anyone cried POE yet? 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 03, 2011, 01:46:51 PM
I haven't read through all the pages of this topic, but has anyone cried POE yet? 

*Cries POE-shaped tears*

Is that good enough? :P
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: dloubet on December 03, 2011, 11:40:11 PM
Quote
@ Lucifer. God didn't create evil. He created Satan but Satan rebelled thus evil was born.

But the god character knew the Satan character would rebel and create evil when it created the Satan character. Thus by creating the Satan character, the god character created evil. Through that act, the god character put it's stamp of approval on evil.

The god character is ultimately responsible for everything its creations do because it created them with full knowledge of what they would do. If the god character desired a different state of affairs, it would have created a different state of affairs. This is an inescapable implication of an omniscient and omnipotent being creating things. Nothing can act outside the creators intent.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 04, 2011, 08:48:31 AM
Only stupid people don't believe in God. But i stand to be corrected.
How...original.  Calling people who disagree with you 'stupid'.  Maybe you'd better prove your point.

Sorry Jet but God is not that easy like some physics experiment. If you want to know God you have to find a way to believe in Him first. and if you can't then like i said you're stupid.
This is nothing more than the usual statement of "you have to believe first, and then it makes sense", which is exactly how scam artists work.  They 'convince' people by getting them emotionally invested first, 'believing' in the scam, at which point it's easy to sell them on whatever the scam artist wants.  You might say religion is different, but I say that if they use the same methods...

Physics is a replay of something that's already there. God created everything and he is the source so you cannot prove him with man-invented scienific methods. Only idiots do that like those scientist and guess what they're making everything even more complicated.
If God created everything, we'd be able to find proof of it using science.  So far, we haven't exactly; the closest we've come to a "source for everything" is the Big Bang, which almost certainly didn't create anything.  Also, I think I see where your gripe is; you're upset because science isn't simple.  Well, sorry, but tough.  Complaining that science makes things more complicated isn't the way to get people who agree with science to listen to you.

my desire for the truth lead me to God. For those who believe in God but cannot read, blessed are they for there are those who knows how to read but does not believe.
So, your desire for the truth led you to God.  Details?  And your attempt to give thanks that there are people who can't 'read' but believe because there are people who can 'read' but don't believe is both asinine and nonsensical.  You might as well say, "I'm thankful that there are those who believe in God but are not intelligent, blessed are they for there are those who are intelligent but do not believe."

Pray to God the Almighty for Wisdom and you don't need to go to school to know anything. Make Him your Rock and you will outwitt every scientist on the face of the earth.
Praying for wisdom is like praying for gold; you can want it however badly, but you're not going to find it by sitting on your butt.  Same with thinking you can outwit scientists by believing in God.  Most of the things that you rely on day to day were invented by the use of science; if you truly want to show that you can outwit scientists, then try to live without electric power, automobiles, grocery stores, etc.

Yes jaybwell. Pray for wisdom. But pray with your heart. Take a moment why you want to be smart and then pray.

@wright "laughable?" Why is that? The reason why there are so many unbelievers today is because of religion and technology. These two has corrupted and diluted our humanity thus pulling us further from God.
Praying for wisdom is useless.  Wisdom is gained from others, not from inside our own heads, and it certainly isn't 'beamed' from some 'almighty' source.  If it were so easy as simply praying, there would be things that could only be gained through prayer, yet there are none.  And as for there being so many unbelievers, were it not for religion, faith would have died long ago, and were it not for technology, humans would not be here.  Agriculture is a technology; stone points on a spear are technology.

more is nothing to God because He is more than more. We are extrodiarly to have Him treat us like His children and I am humbled to call Him Father as He would have all of us call Him. Don't be burden of how much should you ask but consider how would you ask and why? If God deems it necessary for you to have he will render them to you. No one on the face of the earth knows what you need than God the Father Himself. And no once cares of your needs more than Him.
The thing is, a father understands that his children will grow up.  Nobody remains a child forever, and God would necessarily know that.  In fact, parents expect their children to grow up in order to be able to care for themselves, instead of asking their parents for everything forever.  If you are saying that God expects us to ask him for everything for all our lives, then you are saying that he doesn't want to be a 'father'.

----

I think that's enough of a response for now.  I strongly suspect that you don't actually believe the things you're saying here, because they're too nonsensical even for believers.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 06:12:42 PM
@ jaimehler Thank you for ur long response but you're missing a lot of my points. I'll jus point one for now until ur back and then we roll into meaningful discussion. ok the one i'm gonna point now is ur last argument where you posit that God is not a father if he expects us to ask Him for help way into our old age. Well, the thing is u cannot take the things of these world ie parenting and compare them to God. Also parents are required to teach their children forever no matter the age. have u heard the saying "it never is too late to learn something."
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 04, 2011, 07:55:42 PM
@ jaimehler Thank you for ur long response but you're missing a lot of my points. I'll jus point one for now until ur back and then we roll into meaningful discussion. ok the one i'm gonna point now is ur last argument where you posit that God is not a father if he expects us to ask Him for help way into our old age. Well, the thing is u cannot take the things of these world ie parenting and compare them to God. Also parents are required to teach their children forever no matter the age. have u heard the saying "it never is too late to learn something."
A better question is, how do you know that God expects us to depend on him for the entirety of our lives?  And please do not answer "because the Bible says", because the Bible was written by people, with everything that implies.  They could have gotten it wrong too, and did in a number of areas (translation errors, scribal modifications, etc).  There's too much in the Bible that's just flat out wrong to take it for granted that it's the word of God.

The point is that if God is a metaphorical 'father' to everyone, that suggests that he wants people to grow up and not depend on him for everything.  For example, I can and do get help from my parents when I need it, but I also give them help when they need it.  It stops being a dependency relationship once I'm old enough to pull my own weight.  Yet according to many religious believers, God is here to see to our every need for the entirety of our lives, and we never give anything meaningful back.  You've made it quite clear that you think God is here to provide for people's needs; "pray to the Almighty for wisdom and you don't need to go to school" is one of the things you said, and I'm sure I could find several more examples of this attitude in your various posts.

To put it bluntly, I consider this belief to be selfish.  People who think their God is only there to give them everything they need and that they can pretend they don't have to learn anything from the real world do nothing to contribute even while they preach about how wise and beneficent their deity is for giving them what they need so they don't even have to exert themselves for it aside from asking God.  So, too, might a little baby preach (if it could) about how the parents are only there to see to the baby's needs.  Of course, we all know what ends up happening to the baby as it grows older.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 08:11:04 PM
BECAUSE GOD CREATED US FOR A REASON - HIS REASON - AND WE NEED HIS HELP IN ORDER TO SUCCEED! thank you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 04, 2011, 08:13:33 PM
BECAUSE GOD CREATED US FOR A REASON - HIS REASON - AND WE NEED HIS HELP IN ORDER TO SUCCEED! thank you.
All caps?  And that isn't an answer, it's an excuse.  Answer the point I raised or concede it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 08:15:12 PM
What's your point? State it and i will point it! 8)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 04, 2011, 08:17:23 PM
What's your point? State it and i will point it! 8)
I already stated it.  Can you not read my post to determine what it was?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 08:27:57 PM
BECAUSE GOD CREATED US FOR A REASON - HIS REASON - AND WE NEED HIS HELP IN ORDER TO SUCCEED! thank you.

God is an omnipotent being. He has no need for us to do anything. Furthermore, if we need his help to do whatever he wants done, then there was really no point in making us was there? After all if you can make food out of thin air at will, what good is an oven that can't function without your input?

Also, what is this reason that god created us? You do know right? Because you can't honestly say that god created us for a reason if you have idea of what that reason is. You're just assuming at that point.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 08:29:02 PM
God needs us to prove to Satan that he is nothing. Believe me!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 08:36:34 PM
God needs us to prove to Satan that he is nothing. Believe me!

That's not a reason though. God created everything and Satan as well. He has no need to prove that to Satan because if god exists it would be clearly obvious who was more powerful. In fact this in no way answers why god would create us or what he would need us for, since he's omnipotent and could smack Satan down anytime he wanted. A fact wich Satan as well would be well aware of. Furthermore it still raises the point of god having to help us. If god has to help us do this anyways, there was no point to making us, meaning that you're saying god is an idiot. So essentially what you really mean is that you have no real answer to the questions.

And since you have no answer you're going to just use a severely nonsensical one that still has a few stray hairs on it from having been pulled directly out of an ass.

Edit:Pssst hey, try forming answers made up of more than one or two sentences. It might fool some people into thinking you actually have something substantive to say.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 04, 2011, 08:39:41 PM
I'm still waiting for you to pick out the point of my post, Lance.  It's not like I made it hard to figure out.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 08:43:05 PM
I'm still waiting for you to pick out the point of my post, Lance.  It's not like I made it hard to figure out.

Jaime. I think his right and left shoe are hard for him to pick out.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 08:46:08 PM
no i won't write that long. i want to keep it pithy.

anyway, god created Satan but Satan rebelled now god could easily smoke Satan out but that would make him look like he made a mistake in the first place. so God created the earth and us and lured Satan in here in order to decieve and LET the game begins!

Our very sake and the reason why God loves us is because he is using us against Satan and in the END and i mean teh end of the kingdom of heaven is when Satan learns that he could never defeat God in anyway and therefore Satan would be the last of all BEING to repent thus making God's creation go back into perfection. Our purpose in a way is to convince Satan that God is GOD. So basically our reason is to redeem Satan himself.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on December 04, 2011, 08:54:43 PM
god created Satan but Satan rebelled now god could easily smoke Satan out but that would make him look like he made a mistake in the first place...

He already looks like He made a mistake, even without "smoking Satan". So, what has He got to lose by dong so?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 08:58:57 PM
Because God is LOVE and because Satan was His son which has been lost to evil. God won't jus ditch Satan he would use us to demonstrate to Satan that He is God and Satan should not never challange Him in anyway. See how much LOVE God is. Even Satan is in His plan for redemption but Satan is not entitled for salvation like us - Satan is gonna repent the hard way!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on December 04, 2011, 09:00:59 PM
Because God is LOVE and because Satan was His son ...

How was this son conceived; i.e., who was the mother?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 09:03:19 PM
God doensn't need another to create another. He is all-powerful and he can create anything. and he loves everythign that he creates including Satan himself.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 09:03:51 PM
no i won't write that long. i want to keep it pithy.

You're failing. Pithy requires that what you say be meaningful and expressive. Not short, uninformative, and obtuse.


anyway, god created Satan but Satan rebelled now god could easily smoke Satan out but that would make him look like he made a mistake in the first place. so God created the earth and us and lured Satan in here in order to decieve and LET the game begins!

So basically your belief is that god created earth and tens of millions of different species, because he didn't want to admit to being wrong. Which of course seems to have failed utterly since you just said he made a mistake. So you think god is not only arrogant and grotesquely stupid, he's also incompetent on a cosmic scale.

Our very sake and the reason why God loves us is because he is using us against Satan and in the END and i mean teh end of the kingdom of heaven is when Satan learns that he could never defeat God in anyway and therefore Satan would be the last of all BEING to repent thus making God's creation go back into perfection. Our purpose in a way is to convince Satan that God is GOD. So basically our reason is to redeem Satan himself.

This also in no way justifies why god needs us for anything. You failed to actually answer that part. You said that god needs us to help him redeem Satan, but you still have yet to answer why. Again I point out, Satan must already know that god is superior to him, that he is omnipotent. You, yourself just said that god created our planet and species just to prove a point. Satan clearly can't even come close to that. So how do we actually do this for god?

You also still fail to respond to the point of why god needs us if he has to help us do what he wants us to do.

For someone who came in talking about how he was going to answer questions you don't seem to have any actual, you know, answers. You just dodge the questions with a smokescreen of fluff that was never asked for. You also simply raise new questions that poke further holes into your insane ramblings.

Sucha s how can you say that god loves us, when you have outright admitted that he's using us as pawns in his game with Satan. Considering some of the things that Satan supposedly does to this world of ours, god is kind of throwing us under the bus, don't you think?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 09:04:58 PM
Because God is LOVE and because Satan was His son which has been lost to evil. God won't jus ditch Satan he would use us to demonstrate to Satan that He is God and Satan should not never challange Him in anyway. See how much LOVE God is. Even Satan is in His plan for redemption but Satan is not entitled for salvation like us - Satan is gonna repent the hard way!

So god won't ditch Satan, but he'll create an entirely new species and use them as bait to get Satan to do what he wants. Oh yeah. I can just feel the love.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 09:06:27 PM
God doensn't need another to create another. He is all-powerful and he can create anything. and he loves everythign that he creates including Satan himself.

So what about that hell place?  Does or does not god send people there to be tormented for all eternity?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on December 04, 2011, 09:07:38 PM
Quote
BECAUSE GOD CREATED US FOR A REASON - HIS REASON - AND WE NEED HIS HELP IN ORDER TO SUCCEED! thank you.
Quote
God needs us to prove to Satan that he is nothing. Believe me!
Quote
God doensn't need another to create another. He is all-powerful and he can create anything. and he loves everythign that he creates including Satan himself.

Lance seems to have a set of cards with various responses on them which he shuffles and then posts randomly.

Any resemblence to an actual conversation is purely coincidental.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 09:11:31 PM

Lance seems to have a set of cards with various responses on them which he shuffles and then posts randomly.

Any resemblence to an actual conversation is purely coincidental.

Gee really? I hadn't noticed. ;D

Seriously though, it is kind of like he's just sitting in front of a machine isn't it? And everytime something comes up he presses a button and just repeats whatever random answer comes out.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 09:13:25 PM
ok people slow down please give me time to answer each.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 09:18:39 PM
Something I forgot to ask earlier; what would happen if god was not all-loving?  What would a bad or evil god do instead?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on December 04, 2011, 09:20:21 PM
ok people slow down please give me time to answer each.

WWGHA members only have one speed - Max.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 09:20:34 PM
@ Aaron If god is not loving then nothing would come into existence since nothing is perfect except God himself.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 09:21:59 PM
LOL@ max speed. no wonder you don't know God you're driving too fast thus missing a lot LOL!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 09:24:35 PM
ok people slow down please give me time to answer each.

Does it matter? It's not like you're really answering them anyways.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on December 04, 2011, 09:26:14 PM
God doensn't need another to create another.

Well, why was Mary in the loop then?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 09:26:37 PM
@ Aaron If god is not loving then nothing would come into existence since nothing is perfect except God himself.

Your answer is vapid and meaningless.  Try again.

What is the action of an bad/evil god?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 09:29:55 PM
@ HAL Mary was human and thus in order for us to recieve God's salvation God Himself ie Jesus Christ has to go through what every human goes through and that is born inside a woman. this assures God is playing by the rules and also fullfilling the word in teh beginning when he TOLD satan tthat through a woman Satan would be defeated. of course God can jus fall down like some meteorite and start preaching but that would be un-natural thus untrue!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 09:31:36 PM
@ Aaron THERE'S NO EVIL BAD GOD! THERE'S ONLY ONE GOD AND HE IS PURE RIGHTOUSENESS! Geez what kind of stupid question is that!?! EVIL and Bad came from Satan and Satan is not a God but a Child of God created by God himself but failed God because of his pride and arrogance.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: HAL on December 04, 2011, 09:36:38 PM
@ HAL Mary was human and thus in order for us to recieve God's salvation God Himself ie Jesus Christ has to go through what every human goes through and that is born inside a woman. ...

God doensn't need another to create another.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 09:39:18 PM
@ Aaron THERE'S NO EVIL BAD GOD! THERE'S ONLY ONE GOD AND HE IS PURE RIGHTOUSENESS! Geez what kind of stupid question is that!?! EVIL and Bad came from Satan and Satan is not a God but a Child of God created by God himself but failed God because of his pride and arrogance.

So the god of pure righteousness created a being of evil.........riiiiight.

Ten quatloos says he doesn't pick up on the flaws in this.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 09:44:10 PM
@ Aaron THERE'S NO EVIL BAD GOD! THERE'S ONLY ONE GOD AND HE IS PURE RIGHTOUSENESS! Geez what kind of stupid question is that!?! EVIL and Bad came from Satan and Satan is not a God but a Child of God created by God himself but failed God because of his pride and arrogance.

I was asking a hypothetical question.  "Hypothetical" meaning, to speculate, to ask 'what if'.  I am asking WHAT IF, "If" being the key word.  What would happen IF god was bad?  You keep saying god is good, but the label "good" is only meaningful if there is a "bad" to compare it to.

Again; what is the difference between the actions of a good god, and the action of a bad god?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 10:06:00 PM
as crazy as your question sound to me by putting God into a hypothetical question, i will however, for the sake of making you understand, asnwer your question.

the actions between a good and bad god is by knowing the meaning of Good and Bad. when you know, it's their opposites that counters one another therefore all that is good is good and all that is bad is bad.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 10:07:11 PM
@ Alzeal for the millionth time God did not create evil he created Satan and Satan rebelled thus evil came to existence. technically, it was Satan who created evil.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 10:13:00 PM
as crazy as your question sound to me by putting God into a hypothetical question, i will however, for the sake of making you understand, asnwer your question.

the actions between a good and bad god is by knowing the meaning of Good and Bad. when you know, it's their opposites that counters one another therefore all that is good is good and all that is bad is bad.

What a pathetic, worthless, meaningless, disappointing, useless excuse of an answer.  I asked a question, and all you gave me in return was word salad.

Perhaps you didn't understand the question; what is the action of a bad god?  In other words; if god was bad, what types of actions would he commit?  How would a bad god react to Adam and Eve munching from the tree of knowledge?  Would a bad god order someone to kill his son?  Does a bad god have a prayer service?  If so, how would it work, as opposed to the service's of a good god?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 10:33:04 PM
@ Alzeal for the millionth time God did not create evil he created Satan and Satan rebelled thus evil came to existence. technically, it was Satan who created evil.

No, Satan created evil. But technically it was god who was responible for it. He created everything, including Satan. He created Satan with the ability to rebel and commit evil. He knew that Satan would turn bad and create evil ,because he is all-knowing. He allowed evil to exist because he could have simply willed it away. He allowed Satan to bring evil to us because he could have simply not allowed it to happen. He could have made us incapable of committing evil, but he didn't.

So yes, god did create evil. He chose not stop evil. He also allowed it to perpetuate.

You see that's the problem with an all-powerful god. Ultimately everything is his fault.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your answers from before as well. I'm sure they'll come easily to you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 10:41:37 PM
@ Alzeal lmao to "What a pathetic, worthless, meaningless, disappointing, useless excuse of an answer."

and for the trillionth time God did NOT create evil it was Satan. God created Satan as one of the TOP angels but because of he gave Satan immense power almost to that of God, Satan rebelled because He cannot handle the awesomeness of God's power. Ever wonder why the Jews keep failing God because they cannot handle it as well. God's power is ultimate and is prone to arrogance and pride if you don't know how to control it. Only God can handle his own powers with love and tenderness. The rest, well, they jus go FUNCT!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 10:48:12 PM
@ Alzeal lmao to "What a pathetic, worthless, meaningless, disappointing, useless excuse of an answer."

and for the trillionth time God did NOT create evil it was Satan. God created Satan as one of the TOP angels but because of he gave Satan immense power almost to that of God, Satan rebelled because He cannot handle the awesomeness of God's power. Ever wonder why the Jews keep failing God because they cannot handle it as well. God's power is ultimate and is prone to arrogance and pride if you don't know how to control it. Only God can handle his own powers with love and tenderness. The rest, well, they jus go FUNCT!

Does not address what was said. You in no way addressed the chain of logic that showed that god is responsible for evil. You just tossed out a series of claims that you didn't bother to support. I've still easily shown how god created evil. The question that remains is can you actually refute it with a logical argument.....or any argument.

Go back and give it one more go. You can make up something better than this, I'm sure of it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 10:51:30 PM
@ Alzeal do you even know what logic means? what you posit there are mere accusations. i jus explained who creaeted evil and you made a non-sense response.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 04, 2011, 11:00:31 PM
and for the trillionth time God did NOT create evil it was Satan. God created Satan as one of the TOP angels but because of he gave Satan immense power almost to that of God, Satan rebelled because He cannot handle the awesomeness of God's power. Ever wonder why the Jews keep failing God because they cannot handle it as well. God's power is ultimate and is prone to arrogance and pride if you don't know how to control it. Only God can handle his own powers with love and tenderness. The rest, well, they jus go FUNCT!

Thank you Lance. This was very informative. I love history and now I know exactly where evil came from. And I can see where being only semi-awesome could cause a guy to go FUNCT. Especially if one was an angel. And angels are necessary, because even though your god is omnipotent and a few other cool things, he still needs helpers, even some TOP helpers, and I guess the rest of them are handling being semi-awesome because I don't know any of their names, nor am I twice as evil like I would be if two TOP angels rebelled because they couldn't handle the awesomeness.

Being a christian must be real cool because you have all this inside info, and I'm guessing you know a lot more you aren't allowed to tell us. Of course I have to stay evil and stuff because I can't handle not being awesome very well, so, well, I hate to admit this, but sometimes, since I am so evil, I do things like not buy the beer in the beer commercials and once I didn't recycle two cans and yea, I can be pretty bad. But hey, I gotta admit I'm secretly proud of my evil streak, and you can hardly blame me. Being one of Satan's peeps is so cool. Of course I wish I was also jewish, because that would make me even cooler in the eyes of satan, but pray as I might, god apparently won't let me.

Or I'm full of shit.

Please tell me you don't work in the office of the Governor of Montana. I'd have to leave before morning just to get the taste out of my mouth and I'm too sleepy to drive.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 11:06:01 PM
@ Alzeal lmao to "What a pathetic, worthless, meaningless, disappointing, useless excuse of an answer."

From this, I know you've seen my post and the question restated in it.  I'm not going to let up on this until you finally answer it in a meaningful way.

What is the action of an bad/evil god?

Do not just say "good is good, bad is bad",  give examples.  You could start with something like "A bad god would do ________________" or "A bad god would not do _______________"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 11:14:35 PM
lol@ Aaron the action of an evil bad god is to do what is NOT good! Geez! i can't believe i have to make a respone

@ Parkingplaces Your point being?

I work at the Straushinburg Governor's Office - i'm the Chief of Staff. any questions?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on December 04, 2011, 11:16:21 PM
BECAUSE GOD CREATED US FOR A REASON - HIS REASON...
What would a god need with a spaceship bunch of humans?

And so much for that "free will" scheisse.  If our ultimate purpose for existence is to fulfill some god's plan, we are but pawns on a cosmic chessboard -- In a game where the god in question occasionally moves the pawns into harm's way or tosses them over its shoulder into the fireplace.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 04, 2011, 11:19:28 PM

@ Parkingplaces Your point being?

I work at the Straushinburg Governor's Office - i'm the Chief of Staff. any questions?

No point. You?

I love people who work places that can't be googled. It makes them so mysterious.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 11:21:00 PM
lol@ Aaron the action of an evil bad god is to do what is NOT good! Geez! i can't believe i have to make a respone

As I've said:

Give examples!

Don't just say "bad is to do what's not good", give examples of such things.  This is what I've been asking all along.  What would a bad god DO?  How would this be different than the action of a good god?

This should be an easy question to answer, but so far, all I've seen is obfuscation.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 11:21:25 PM
lol@google. you actually did tht. i was kidding. LOL!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 11:22:47 PM
a bad god would first smoke out satan thus proving to himself that he made a mistake by creating him in the first place. there you go! any more?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 11:24:48 PM
@ Astreja what's you point or question?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 04, 2011, 11:25:08 PM
the actions between a good and bad god is by knowing the meaning of Good and Bad. when you know, it's their opposites that counters one another therefore all that is good is good and all that is bad is bad.
This in no way answers the question that Aaron asked.  It's in essence saying, "once you know what good is, then you know what God is", and that's utterly useless for anything.  How do you define what is good?  If you believe God is a real entity, you cannot define good as being God, because concepts are not beings.  To put it another way, a being that really exists cannot be perfect.  Not even God.

You already admitted this, by saying that God didn't want anyone to know that he had made a mistake with Satan.  A being which makes mistakes is not perfect by definition.  Meaning, if he can make one mistake, he can make more than one.  And he cannot be perfectly good, because he is not perfect.  It is really that simple, and no amount of verbal or mental gymnastics can get around the fact that you, personally, believe God screwed up.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on December 04, 2011, 11:26:34 PM
a bad god would first smoke out satan thus proving to himself that he made a mistake by creating him in the first place. there you go! any more?

I think we need to use the direct approach here.

Would an evil god flood a planet?

Would an evil god insist that someone kill a child as a test of loyalty?

Would an evil god create a place of eternal punishment?

I say "Yes" to all three.  Lance, what do you have to say on these points?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on December 04, 2011, 11:28:03 PM
@ Astreja what's you point or question?

Simply this:  What possible "purpose" could your alleged god have such that it requires humans to fulfill it?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
an evil good won't flood the planet because people are doing evil which he likes.

an evil god won't test someones loyalty because he doesn't care about the truth

an evil god won't create punishment because he doesn't care whether his children learn or not.

anymore, Asteja?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 04, 2011, 11:33:58 PM
lol@google. you actually did tht. i was kidding. LOL!

Just a little word of advise. Jokes loose their effectiveness when everything you say is one.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on December 04, 2011, 11:37:30 PM
an evil good won't flood the planet because people are doing evil which he likes.

Flooding a planet would destroy a lot more than the people doing evil.  The flood story in Genesis reveals an incompetent god that couldn't think of a better way to deal with its problems.

Quote
an evil god won't test someones loyalty because he doesn't care about the truth.

Nonsense.  Absolute nonsense.  A good god simply would not put a child's life on the line as a loyalty test; in fact, it could undoubtedly come up with a myriad of better ways to do the test, such as sending the test candidate on a difficult quest.

Quote
an evil god won't create punishment because he doesn't care whether his children learn or not.

In Christian mythology, there is supposedly no escape from hell.  The "learning" appears to consist of infinite suffering.  This is an appallingly stupid way to "teach" anything, and any god that would create a hell is infinitely evil, even if only one being is condemned there for eternity.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 11:37:44 PM
a bad god would first smoke out satan thus proving to himself that he made a mistake by creating him in the first place. there you go! any more?

I believe the words I used before was "pathetic, worthless, meaningless, disappointing, useless excuse of an answer".  It was true back then, and it's true now.  Satan is suppose to be eeeeeeeeevil; so "smok[ing] out Satan" sounds like it would be A Good Thing.  Especially since the only 'bad thing' about this is that god would get his poor widdle ego bruised.  God's supposed to be a big boy, but you paint him as a big baby for not being able to accept one little mistake, let alone doing something about it.

Speaking of babies, it sounds like I need to take babies steps with you about my question.  Instead of asking what would a bad god do, maybe I need to help you by pointing out examples of your "good god" in action, and ask what "bad god" would do instead.

What would "bad god" do in reaction to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge?

"Good god" ordered a man to kill his son as a test of character.  Would "bad god" do such a thing?  Yes or no.  If yes, then how is it different?  If no, then why?

"Good god" ordered the slaughter of everyone already living in the promised land to make room for his chosen ones.  What would "bad god" have done instead?

"Good god" once killed a baby sired by King David.  Would "bad god" have done this?  Yes or no.  If yes, then how is it different?  If no, then why?


EDIT: I typed this up before seeing Astreja's posts.  I see she posted some of the same questions.  I'd still like to see the rest answered.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 11:39:45 PM
@ Alzeal do you even know what logic means? what you posit there are mere accusations. i jus explained who creaeted evil and you made a non-sense response.

No I did not. I made a series of logical statements which show that god must be held responsible for evil. Yes, you did explain who created evil. However your explanation did not in anyway refute my statements.

The point still remains that god is the one who holds all of the blame for evil and it's creation. Unless you can actually provide an argument that refutes it.

I'll repeat.

No, Satan created evil. But technically it was god who was responible for it. He created everything, including Satan. He created Satan with the ability to rebel and commit evil. He knew that Satan would turn bad and create evil ,because he is all-knowing. He allowed evil to exist because he could have simply willed it away. He allowed Satan to bring evil to us because he could have simply not allowed it to happen. He could have made us incapable of committing evil, but he didn't.

So yes, god did create evil. He chose not stop evil. He also allowed it to perpetuate.

You see that's the problem with an all-powerful god. Ultimately everything is his fault.

This is the part where you actuallly make an argument that refutes the points I made. Or admit that you can't and concede the points made.

Or you can keep dodging around every point that I make and provide me with more amusement as I laugh at how bad you are at forming any kind of coherent thought.

By the way, still waiting on the others as well. You will be getting to them eventually right? Surely you're not using this tangent as a lame excuse to get away from responding to them, right?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 11:41:14 PM
smoking out Satan thus proved God made a mistake which is why God didn't kill Satan in the first place. get it!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 11:43:38 PM
smoking out Satan thus proved God made a mistake which is why God didn't kill Satan in the first place. get it!

So god allowed evil to continue to exist. This would not seem to be the kind of thing that a good god would do, don't you think? A good god would want to stop evil. For that matter, why would god need to kill Satan? He could just snap his fingers and make Satan good again.

You should really actually think before you open type these things.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 11:43:51 PM
@ Alzeal God created Satan not evil. Satan created evil by rebelling agasinst God. It's like you raised a child to be good but because of peer pressure your child ends up drinking. are you to blame because of peer pressure! NO!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 11:49:39 PM
Let's see what we can glean from god-evil so far.

God-evil:

-Admits his mistakes and takes responsibilities for them.

-Will not order someone to kill his son as a test of character.

-Will not commit genocide by flooding.  Apparently, will not commit genocide as a first or last resort.

-Will not create a place of eternal torment.

...

Now why the fuck would I want to worship "good god"?  Thus far, God-evil seems like such a sweetheart.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 11:50:43 PM
@ Alzeal God created Satan not evil. Satan created evil by rebelling agasinst God. It's like you raised a child to be good but because of peer pressure your child ends up drinking. are you to blame because of peer pressure! NO!

Still does not actually address the argument. Also your analogy is flawed.

If I raised a child to be good, he would not have started drinking in the first place because of peer pressure. That's what it means to raise a child up right. It means that you have raised them and taught them to make the right choices. So clearly this theoretical child was not raised right.

Your analogy also fails pitifully because I am not a god. I cannot reshape reality with my very will, god can. God could have made Satan incapable of evil. God could have stopped him at anytime. God could have prevented him from spreading evil. God could have made humans incapable of giving in to evil. And, being an all-knowing being, god knew before he even created Satan that he would turn evil. As well as knowing that it would spread to his other creations.

God created Satan, knowing full well ahead of time that he was going to be a force for evil in the world, and created him anyways.

So yes, god is entirely responsible for evil, and you still have not made a single rational argument that shows otherwise. So far all you've done is shove your fingers up your nose and go "nu-uh" like a petulant child. But keep trying, it's highly amusing to watch you flail about if nothing else.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on December 04, 2011, 11:51:15 PM
smoking out Satan thus proved God made a mistake which is why God didn't kill Satan in the first place. get it!

So your alleged god is more worried about making a mistake than about alleviating the suffering of billions of thinking, feeling beings?

And you actually worship this god?

Dear, sweet uncle Loki... Why?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 04, 2011, 11:52:55 PM
smoking out Satan thus proved God made a mistake which is why God didn't kill Satan in the first place. get it!

So your alleged god is more worried about making a mistake than about alleviating the suffering of billions of thinking, feeling beings?

And you actually worship this god?

Dear, sweet uncle Loki... Why?

Actually not even. His god isn't worried about making a mistake. His god is worried about admitting that it made a mistake. Even though apparently Lance already knows that it made a mistake and is telling everyone who will listen.

How's that for a fucked up theology?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 11:54:58 PM
you people are so mind-neutered you can't actually think outside the "box."

@ Asreja God is perfect he cannot and will not make a mistake. Satan made a mistake by rebelling against God and God will instead of wiping satan off instantly will do the ardous work of proving him wrong through us. And Satan will learn to repent in the end and God is God.

@ Alzeal how in the world would you know that the child you raised soo right won't be corrupted by peer pressure and influences. You are out of this world dude
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 04, 2011, 11:56:09 PM
Again, God didn't create EVIl. Satan did!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 04, 2011, 11:59:41 PM
Lance, I'd still like you to answer my questions. 

What would "bad god" do in reaction to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge?

"Good god" ordered a man to kill his son as a test of character.  Would "bad god" do such a thing?  Yes or no.  If yes, then how is it different?  If no, then why?

"Good god" ordered the slaughter of everyone already living in the promised land to make room for his chosen ones.  What would "bad god" have done instead?

"Good god" once killed a baby sired by King David.  Would "bad god" have done this?  Yes or no.  If yes, then how is it different?  If no, then why?

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on December 05, 2011, 12:02:15 AM
you people are so mind-neutered you can't actually think outside the "box."

Lance, unless you happen to be telepathic you are simply not in a position to determine how or what we think.  Furthermore, a good many of us came from Christian backgrounds and once believed as you did.  Please give this serious consideration.

Quote
@ Asreja God is perfect he cannot and will not make a mistake.

On the contrary:  Read Genesis 6:6...

Quote
The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Sounds like a mistake to Me.

Quote
Satan made a mistake by rebelling against God and God will instead of wiping satan off instantly will do the ardous work of proving him wrong through us.

That's sick and immoral -- Allowing your worst enemy to run rampant across a populated planet?  Your god is a monster.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 05, 2011, 12:05:57 AM
you people are so mind-neutered you can't actually think outside the "box."

@ Asreja God is perfect he cannot and will not make a mistake. Satan made a mistake by rebelling against God and God will instead of wiping satan off instantly will do the ardous work of proving him wrong through us. And Satan will learn to repent in the end and God is God.

I don't know what your thinking is on hell, because we haven't yet covered that as far as I have seen (although I believe someone did ask you that on another thread, so I may have missed it).

But on the assumption that you do believe the doctrine wherein every human ever created is deserving of hell and only by repentance and belief in God can they be saved, how does this work in Satan's case? What happens when Satan learns to repent? If repentance and belief are cornerstones of salvation, will he be damned anyway? How is that consistent with the rest of the story?

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 12:09:32 AM
@ Alzeal how in the world would you know that the child you raised soo right won't be corrupted by peer pressure and influences. You are out of this world dude

Because if she was, then clearly I didn't raise her right. If I had raised her right, she would make the right choices. That's what it means to raise a child right. You do graps the basic concept of what certain words and terms mean, right?

Again, God didn't create EVIl. Satan did!

You can keep saying it over and over again all that you want. But saying it a million times still doesn't address the points that I made once. I just finished showing you that yes he did. Do you have a reasoned argument to go against it or not? Simply asserting something over and over again does not refute my points. It does make you look severely lacking in intelligence however.

So the point remains, god is clearly responsible for all of the evil in the world, correct? Because you seem unable to make a case otherwise.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 12:11:35 AM
you people are so mind-neutered you can't actually think outside the "box."

We think outside of the box all the time. It's just that we don't think in your particular box, and that's what's driving you nuts. Because we're a constant reminder of just how small and poorly taped together your little box is.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 12:17:30 AM
my box is not taped it's sealed with words of truth and you're ever non-ending pointless arguments is pointless without truth. again as I stated before God did not create evil Satan did. You're trying to link evil with through Satan because God created Satan. Are you telling me that if a person commits murder, we ought to through his parents in Jail? I think you're too stupid to answer. LOL!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Astreja on December 05, 2011, 12:22:38 AM
my box is not taped it's sealed with words of truth...

You have not yet demonstrated that you possess the truth.  You are merely asserting this, without supporting evidence.

Quote
again as I stated before God did not create evil Satan did.

Even if that were the case, your god has allegedly chosen to wait and let Satan rampage the length and breadth of the earth, causing death and destruction.

Quote
Are you telling me that if a person commits murder, we ought to through his parents in Jail?

Bad analogy.  It's more like a parent knowing that their child is a murderer and hindering the police's efforts to arrest him... Which is a crime (Accessory after the fact) in most jurisdictions that I am aware of.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 12:29:40 AM
my box is not taped it's sealed with words of truth and you're ever non-ending pointless arguments is pointless without truth. again as I stated before God did not create evil Satan did. You're trying to link evil with through Satan because God created Satan. Are you telling me that if a person commits murder, we ought to through his parents in Jail? I think you're too stupid to answer. LOL!

But I have answered. I've been waiting on your answer, remember? And here we go with the Ad Hominem attacks. Always the refuge of every theist when they're cornered and have nothing.

Again, your analogy is pitifully flawed.

If a parent knows before they have their child that he will commit murder, but have the child anyways. If the parents have the power to prevent the murder at will, at anytime, but don't. If the parents can literally wave their hands and make their child incapable of committing murder. If the parents know that their childs spree of murder is going to cause other murders, but do nothing to stop it, even thought they could do so at anytime.

How exactly are they not more guilty of murder than their child who committed the murder? This is the point that you keep hiding away from. You keep trying to assert over and over again that Satan was the one who created evil. However it doesn't work because you still have not explained away gods part in all of this. He knew it would happen. He created the one who caused it. He did not stop it, though he could have. He did not bother to make Satan incapable of it. He could get rid of it at any point. He could have stopped it from spreading, and everything else I pointed out. What you have still failed to answer is," How does this not make everything gods fault?" You can't blame Satan for evil because god created him knowing he was going to do it. He only did as his creator intended, which must have been gods intention because he did nothing to stop it from happening.

Like I said. I answered several times. I'm waiting for you to catch up to me. Apparently I'm going to be waiting a long time.

my box is not taped it's sealed with words of truth and you're ever non-ending pointless arguments is pointless without truth.

If you have truth then where is your evidence to support what you say? If you don't have evidence, then it's a lie to say that you have truth. So then this should be easy for you. Just show us the evidence you have and we can put this whole thing to rest.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 12:39:26 AM
going back to my original post, God didn't stop evil because like I said it was Satan who created it so technically Satan is the source of all evil therefore in order to expunge evil, Satan would be the answer and that is how the story begins with Adama and Eve. God knows everythign.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 05, 2011, 12:41:48 AM
Lance, once again, I'd still like you to answer my questions.  Don't ignore me.

What would "bad god" do in reaction to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge?

"Good god" ordered a man to kill his son as a test of character.  Would "bad god" do such a thing?  Yes or no.  If yes, then how is it different?  If no, then why?

"Good god" ordered the slaughter of everyone already living in the promised land to make room for his chosen ones.  What would "bad god" have done instead?

"Good god" once killed a baby sired by King David.  Would "bad god" have done this?  Yes or no.  If yes, then how is it different?  If no, then why?

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 12:54:56 AM
@ Aaron First of all, a bad god won't have to detemination to create adam and eve because he would have killed Satan in the first place thus rendering useless the purpose of creating adam and eve. in a way, a bad god would be to lazy to get things right on behalf of those who got it wrong initially.

a bad god won't ordered a man to test his faith because he doesn't give a fuck what man thinks!

bad god won't kill baby because he likes adultery. and good God didn't kill baby he cut his life short, maybe baby is in heaven with him but the point is to get David learn his mistakes.

anymore?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 12:59:32 AM
going back to my original post, God didn't stop evil because like I said it was Satan who created it so technically Satan is the source of all evil therefore in order to expunge evil, Satan would be the answer and that is how the story begins with Adama and Eve. God knows everythign.

This is nonsensical however. What you are saying is that god didn't stop Satan from creating evil. But god created all of this to do away with evil. So it still brings up the initial flaws that were pointed out before. God could have stopped all of this long before. Could have prevented all of this. Could in fact stop it instantly, with no need for this Adam and Eve, create humanity thing. If god wanted to expunge evil and redeem Satan as you claim, he could do it at anytime he wanted. Instead he doesn't and has created this whole round about way of doing things, for no reason that you have yet bothered to explain.

This is why you are an utter failure at this. Because even if we accept your constant claims that Satan is the source of evil, it still makes god the one who is mostly at fault.

He created Satan knowing that Satan would in turn create evil (as you yourself said, he knows everything). He did nothing to stop it, even though he could have at anytime. He does nothing to stop it, even though he can. Does nothing to fix Satan. Does nothing to prevent it from hurting humans. It still all lies at gods feet, ultimately, because he is the omnipotent being and nothing can happen that he does not allow to happen.

As I said, you can blame Satan all that you want, but you are still demonstrably and logically wrong. And you cannot manage make one single argument that shows otherwise, just mindless reassertions of the same illogical rhetoric over and over again. Are you ever going to actually address those points? I thought you were going to answer all of our questions here. If so then why do you run and hide whenever anyone asks anything tough?

On another note, you said that god didn't just fix Satan outright because he didn't want to admit that he made a mistake. Yet you have just admitted that god knows everything. So clearly god did not make a mistake when he made Satan and he turned evil. So if god did not make a mistake this can only lead to the logical conclusion that he made Satan with the intention of having him turn evil.

Wow, you can't even keep your own theology consistent and coherent. How were you going to answer other peoples questions again?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 05, 2011, 01:00:27 AM
Oooooooooooooh....so with bad god in charge, there would not be countless souls suffering an eternity of torture in hell. Gotcha.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 01:08:16 AM
for the love of God Alzeal you gotta read my posts before u posit any nonsense.

AGAIN! God did not create evil he created Satan and Satan rebelled thus evil was born and instead of God expunging evil and satan he sought Satan's redemption in order for him to Repent thus bringing back what he originally created - a perfect Satan!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 01:14:55 AM
for the love of God Alzeal you gotta read my posts before u posit any nonsense.

AGAIN! God did not create evil he created Satan and Satan rebelled thus evil was born and instead of God expunging evil and satan he sought Satan's redemption in order for him to Repent thus bringing back what he originally created - a perfect Satan!

I read your posts. As stupid as they were. Too bad you don't read mine, you might actually get around to responding to the issues that are raised. You're still wrong. You still haven't made any valid argument, and you'll be wrong until you actually address the post and manage to say something intelligent that actually shows how the blame can be laid on Satan, as opposed to the god who created him knowing full well what he would do, etc.

And while we're at it, here's yet another flower to add to your ever-increasing fail-bonnet. No, god did not originally create a perfect Satan. If Satan had been perfect he could not have commited evil. The fact that he committed evil means that he was imperfect.

You also fail to respond to the obvious questions that were asked again of why god came up with this whole round about plan instead of just fixing the whole thing in an instant like he could do at anytime. Unless, of course, your god is functionally retarded. Which would not only explain a lot about the world, but also about your inability to even make an effective defense.

It's ok though. It isn't like I'm expecting much out of you, by this point.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 05, 2011, 01:19:01 AM
Wow, you finally got around to answering my questions!  Too bad they're all such terrible answers.

@ Aaron First of all, a bad god won't have to detemination to create adam and eve because he would have killed Satan in the first place thus rendering useless the purpose of creating adam and eve.

There's nothing evil about not creating something.

You didn't answer the actual question.  The question was:

What would "bad god" do in reaction to Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge?

I did not ask about an act of creation, I asked about a reaction to something.  I still insist that you answer this one.


Quote
in a way, a bad god would be to lazy to get things right on behalf of those who got it wrong initially.

So wait, good god doesn't bother to fix his mistakes because his fragile ego couldn't take it, bad god is too lazy to fix his mistakes.  So far, I like bad god better.  Laziness isn't good, but there's something about the ego excuse that's just plain dickish.


Quote
a bad god won't ordered a man to test his faith because he doesn't give a fuck what man thinks!

Again; you fail to explain why this is bad.  There is nothing inherently bad about not giving "a fuck" about what someone thinks.  I do not give a fuck what 99% of everyone on this planet thinks about anything.  Does that makes me a bad person?  No, of course not, that's a silly idea. 

Beside which, apathy comes across as A Good Thing in this case.  There is nothing bad about not ordering someone to kill his child, even if the reason is that you don't care about that person.


Quote
bad god won't kill baby because he likes adultery.


Once again, bad god comes off as the better person.  He might have a strange hard-on for adultery, but at least he won't kill anyone over it.

Quote
and good God didn't kill baby he cut his life short,


Ah, is that what they call "killing" nowadays?   :angel:


Quote
maybe baby is in heaven with him but the point is to get David learn his mistakes.


God can't get someone to learn something without killing cutting short someone else's life.  What a pathetic excuse of a god.


Quote
anymore?

Actually, yes.  You forgot to answer one question.  "Good god" ordered the slaughter of everyone already living in the promised land to make room for his chosen ones.  What would "bad god" have done instead?

So now you need to answer that question, and give a proper answer to the Adam and Eve one.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 01:21:42 AM
@ Alzeal of course Satan is imperfect because only God is perfect but after all His grand master plan - Satan would be perfected! get it!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: albeto on December 05, 2011, 01:24:17 AM
 
Again, God didn't create EVIl. Satan did!

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 01:26:40 AM
albeto my sweet lady, we've already discussed that last week. that's from teh KJV and it meant "calamity."
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 01:27:05 AM
@ Alzeal of course Satan is imperfect because only God is perfect but after all His grand master plan - Satan would be perfected! get it!

Not what you said. You said that god created him to be perfect originally. So which is it?

Also god can't be perfect, if his creations are imperfect. So if god is perfect, Satan and we humans must be perfect. Also a perfect god couldn't have made a mistake. So again we get to god intentionally creating Satan to be evil. So you basically fail in every way and every direction.

Also none of this still does anything to take down my original argument about god being responsible for evil. So you still fail. But at least you amused me a little bit. So you should be proud of that, at least.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7

No fair using the bible against him. He's never even read it. Besides he's going off of his own made up whack-a-doo theology anyways.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 05, 2011, 01:28:29 AM
albeto my sweet lady, we've already discussed that last week. that's from teh KJV and it meant "calamity."

And we already covered that (which you clearly ignored) - your translation is wrong. Either that or A&E ate from the tree of good and calamity, which doesn't make any sense. And a god that creates calamity is still evil, regardless, because intentional calamity is evil. There's no getting around that.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: albeto on December 05, 2011, 01:28:49 AM
albeto my sweet lady, we've already discussed that last week. that's from teh KJV and it meant "calamity."

A day late and a dollar short.   Story of my life.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on December 05, 2011, 01:29:33 AM
albeto my sweet lady, we've already discussed that last week. that's from teh KJV and it meant "calamity."

Others went over that and showed that you were wrong.

Honest response:  Admitting you were wrong.
Dishonest response:  The one you are likely to make.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 01:29:51 AM
LOL! @ whack-a-doo! anyway people i gotta go it's almost 4:30pm over here but i'll be back tomorrow at 8 am. please keep it good and i'll see u all tomorow. God bless and Merry Christmas! ;D
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 05, 2011, 01:32:29 AM
Honest response:  Admitting you were wrong.
Dishonest response:  The one you are likely to make.

LOL! @ whack-a-doo! anyway people i gotta go it's almost 4:30pm over here but i'll be back tomorrow at 8 am. please keep it good and i'll see u all tomorow. God bless and Merry Christmas! ;D

Azdgari, can you see the future? D:
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 01:33:50 AM
^^^^ Wasn't hard to predict.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on December 05, 2011, 02:03:27 AM
Inductive inference.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 05, 2011, 02:04:19 AM
Inductive inference.

:O That must be science babble for "I can see the future"!
BURN THE WITCH!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Ivellios on December 05, 2011, 04:27:22 AM
He's a prophet! His words come from the one true God! I follow the one true God as well. We really needed rain, so on my Birthday it started raining, and been raining on and off since.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: relativetruth on December 05, 2011, 05:56:07 AM
Lance,

Why would a perfect god create something [ Satan , a human, etc ] that is imperfect?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 07:08:31 AM
^^^^ A more to the point question would be "how"?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on December 05, 2011, 07:27:09 AM
Damn...I made it to Disney World, but it appears all of the real magic is happening online! 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Historicity on December 05, 2011, 08:01:02 AM
He's a prophet! His words come from the one true God!

You got it.  I asked Lance initially if he had an independent inspiration, or had an opinion, or whether he was getting his opinions from othes (meaning favorite preacher/theologian or the Bible).  He seemed to say he was the direct recipient of wisdom.

The Bible says God prepared Hell for the Devil and that eventually he will chain him there for eternity.  Lance says the Devil will be eventually redeemed.

There is no God but God and Lance is his prophet!  Come to prayer!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: relativetruth on December 05, 2011, 08:17:26 AM
^^^^ A more to the point question would be "how"?

How would a perfect god create anything?

When one uses the word 'perfect' is that in terms of power, knowledge or 'goodness'.
And All-powerfull being would be able to create anything including 'imperfect' things.

The question is
can an 'All-Good' being create evil?

Or does it need to be All-powerfull in order to do that?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on December 05, 2011, 08:33:13 AM
Pray to God the Almighty for Wisdom and you don't need to go to school to know anything. Make Him your Rock and you will outwitt every scientist on the face of the earth.

This is a testable claim.  Since you presumably pray to Yahweh for wisdom, make him your rock, etc., you should be able to outwit every scientist on the face of the Earth.  So where's your Nobel Prize?  Cold fusion device that demonstrably works, with your name on the patent?  Published paper with the most elegant possible solution for Fermat's Last Theorem?  If Yahweh isn't able to take on the scientists, he ought to at least be able to outperform the Dow, right?  So where's your perfect record of profitable stock picks?  If Christians really have an omniscient, omnipotent best buddy, surely this would be obvious, wouldn't it?

Let's say Stephen Hawking was my roommate and best friend.  That would have results.  For one thing, just from the conversations we'd have over pints after work, I would know more physics than most people.  If somebody asked me a difficult question related to physics or cosmology, I could say, "I'll get back to you on that," then, the next day, return with an answer obviously more advanced than my own layman's grasp of the subject.

If I was adopted into the Rothschild family, that would have results.  For one thing, any money problems would disappear.  I would rather abruptly start wearing nicer, more expensive clothes, driving a newer car, visiting interesting places around the world, and so on.  I would start to receive training in the Family business(es) and general instruction in How To Be A Zillionaire Magnate.  My life would change.

Now let's say I should happen to befriend an alien, a member of an incredibly-advanced interstellar supercivilization.  Due to technological, genetic, etc. enhancements introduced into their species over the last few million years, this alien is a billion times more intelligent, artistically talented, etc. than the entire human species put together.  Isn't it pretty obvious that even if my new friend only helps me out once in awhile or gives me some minor (to her) bio-nanotech upgrade, that I would start to manifest a visible aura of formidability as the advantages conferred by my relationship became apparent?

Now, let's say that I had as my friend and mentor, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all that is.  How could this not result in me striding like a colossus through a world of people who, lacking that relationship, can only access merely human levels of intelligence and competence?  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

So where is the aura of formidability and practical advantage that access to flawless omniscient wisdom and the support of omnipotent power would inevitably provide for you, if your claims were valid?  Even if Yahweh honorably refused to help you cheat on your tests and job interviews, you would still inevitably learn things in the course of ordinary conversation that we mere mortals couldn't.  Like rooming with Stephen Hawking and Warren Buffet, only infinitely better.

And yet, we can see, laid out before us in your posts right here on this forum, that your imaginary friend is not any smarter than you are.  Likewise for the people who "channel" extraterrestrials or ancient Atlantean sages.  The demonstrable lack of access to superhuman levels of intelligence and knowledge for Biblical authors, people like you, or any other alleged contactee of the supernatural is powerful evidence for an atheistic, naturalist world view.  It fits exactly with the anticipated consequences we expect, and flatly contradicts the anticipated consequences of some humans having access to superhuman sources of knowledge.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 08:36:56 AM

How would a perfect god create anything?


That question too, actually.

A perfect being can't create something that is imperfect. Nor would it really need to create anything. A being of perfection has everything it could ever need or want. So it has no need to create, because it has everything that it needs already. Basically a perfect being would be one that takes no action and never changes. That's why trying to describe god as 'perfect' always fails.


When one uses the word 'perfect' is that in terms of power, knowledge or 'goodness'.

Religious people use the term in regards to everything. God is the most utterly perfect thing of all things. Any category you want to use, god is perfect at it.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on December 05, 2011, 08:43:40 AM
a bad god would first smoke out satan thus proving to himself that he made a mistake by creating him in the first place. there you go! any more?

So, since the Book of Revelation tells us that Yahweh will eventually pitch Satan into the Lake of Fire for eternity, then we know that Yahweh will turn into a bad god?  Interesting.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 05, 2011, 08:44:57 AM
A perfect being can't create something that is imperfect. Nor would it really need to create anything. A being of perfection has everything it could ever need or want. So it has no need to create, because it has everything that it needs already. Basically a perfect being would be one that takes no action and never changes. That's why trying to describe god as 'perfect' always fails.

Devil's advocate: Why assume that a perfect being wouldn't create something it didn't need?

Religious people use the term in regards to everything. God is the most utterly perfect thing of all things. Any category you want to use, god is perfect at it.

Perfectly evil? :P
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on December 05, 2011, 08:57:33 AM

How would a perfect god create anything?


That question too, actually.

A perfect being can't create something that is imperfect. Nor would it really need to create anything. A being of perfection has everything it could ever need or want. So it has no need to create, because it has everything that it needs already. Basically a perfect being would be one that takes no action and never changes. That's why trying to describe god as 'perfect' always fails.

The concept of metaphysical perfection is fractally self-contradictory.  A god can't be "perfect" unless it manifests its perfection somehow.  Otherwise it's only potentially perfect.  Like, if I say I'm a perfect chess player, that doesn't count for anything if I never play a game of chess.  So, it could be argued that a perfect god would have to create.  Now, the Greek word for "sin" in the New Tstament is hamartia, an archery term that means "to miss the mark."  What is the "mark?" 

Quote
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

--Romans 3:23

So, if Yahweh's metaphysical perfection is the standard, it is apparent that no created entity can meet it.  Why?  Because (per Anselm's Ontological Argument) maximal awesomeness can only be met by a single entity, God.  It's impossible to have two omnimaxes, because their omni-nesses could cancel each other if they disagreed on something, rendering neither truly omnipotent.  So, a created entity has to "fall short of the glory of God. 

Nutshell: "Sin" is inevitable.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 05, 2011, 09:17:21 AM
Interesting how Lance has no problems accusing God of making a mistake, and of trying to keep everyone else from knowing about it.  Guess Lance is able to discern what God wanted to keep hidden.  Or Lance is just guessing and hasn't thought this through very well.  Or he's just saying things that sound good to keep the conversation going for his own amusement.  I have my suspicions as to which, especially since he's now saying that an evil God wouldn't have done various evil things for Satan's education.  Personally, that last strikes me as teaching someone not to wrestle with pigs by jumping into the mud and tackling one.

Seriously, though, if Lance believes God is capable of making a mistake (regardless of whether he wants to hide it or not), then most of his 'theology' falls apart.  A being which makes mistakes is not perfect.  A non-perfect being cannot be used as the definition of good, because the concept of good as a whole can't be represented by something which isn't perfectly good.  So now his idea of "God represents good" starts to make sense, because since he knows he can't get away with claiming God is perfect if someone actually pays attention, he has to have a fallback position, specifically to claim that God represents the concept of goodness.  Except that his fallback position is already compromised, because God can't represent good due to God not being perfect.

I'll be interested to hear just what kind of rationale Lance comes up with to explain this away.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 09:29:36 AM

Devil's advocate: Why assume that a perfect being wouldn't create something it didn't need?


There'd be no reason to create something. There's nothing you want, nothing you need. You're completely whole as you are. The entire reason we do anything is to answer some sort of desire or need within us, even if it's just to serve a temporary whim. A perfect being does not have such things to respond to.

Also a perfect being can't change. Because it's already perfect, so any change would make it less perfect. Basically a truly perfect being would do nothing except exist.

The concept of metaphysical perfection is fractally self-contradictory.

Of course it is. But I'm not the one using, I'm just following the implications of it and pointing them out.


Interesting how Lance has no problems accusing God of making a mistake, and of trying to keep everyone else from knowing about it.  Guess Lance is able to discern what God wanted to keep hidden.  Or Lance is just guessing and hasn't thought this through very well.  Or he's just saying things that sound good to keep the conversation going for his own amusement.  I have my suspicions as to which, especially since he's now saying that an evil God wouldn't have done various evil things for Satan's education.  Personally, that last strikes me as teaching someone not to wrestle with pigs by jumping into the mud and tackling one.

Seriously, though, if Lance believes God is capable of making a mistake (regardless of whether he wants to hide it or not), then most of his 'theology' falls apart.  A being which makes mistakes is not perfect.  A non-perfect being cannot be used as the definition of good, because the concept of good as a whole can't be represented by something which isn't perfectly good.  So now his idea of "God represents good" starts to make sense, because since he knows he can't get away with claiming God is perfect if someone actually pays attention, he has to have a fallback position, specifically to claim that God represents the concept of goodness.  Except that his fallback position is already compromised, because God can't represent good due to God not being perfect.

I'll be interested to hear just what kind of rationale Lance comes up with to explain this away.

I'm guessing it'll be some variant of "Damnit, I've said it a million times!Satan created evil not god! Look at the pretty birdies,WHEEEE!"
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 05, 2011, 09:32:14 AM
There'd be no reason to create something. There's nothing you want, nothing you need. You're completely whole as you are. The entire reason we do anything is to answer some sort of desire or need within us, even if it's just to serve a temporary whim. A perfect being does not have such things to respond to.

That's the thing - Haven't you ever done anything for absolutely no reason?

Also a perfect being can't change. Because it's already perfect, so any change would make it less perfect. Basically a truly perfect being would do nothing except exist.

This is true. Anything other than perfect is imperfect, so perfect must be immutable.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jaimehlers on December 05, 2011, 09:40:51 AM
And yet, we can see, laid out before us in your posts right here on this forum, that your imaginary friend is not any smarter than you are.  Likewise for the people who "channel" extraterrestrials or ancient Atlantean sages.  The demonstrable lack of access to superhuman levels of intelligence and knowledge for Biblical authors, people like you, or any other alleged contactee of the supernatural is powerful evidence for an atheistic, naturalist world view.  It fits exactly with the anticipated consequences we expect, and flatly contradicts the anticipated consequences of some humans having access to superhuman sources of knowledge.
While I certainly do not disagree with you, there is one explanation that allows for some such people to have access to such a friend without obvious and public consequences.  Namely, the friend told them to keep it secret (say to protect themselves; even someone who's far more powerful and advanced than any human can still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers); they get to have some advantages, but they have to be quiet and subtle ones that are simply not bandied about.  However, anyone who talks about it would have to betray that trust from the get-go, so therefore they don't fall under this category to begin with.  In other words, if there were people out there with 'access' to stuff that goes beyond human knowledge, they'd have to be keeping it uncharacteristically quiet.

Besides that, religious people, who are obligated to share their special knowledge, definitely don't.  And their excuses that God wants everyone to have free will are nonsensical; I want people to have free will and to be able to make choices rather than simply obeying orders, but I also want to be able to convince them to make choices I support, and if that's so, it only makes sense to muster as powerful of arguments as I can, and to give similar methods of persuasiveness to people who agree with me.  If I were a being with divine powers, then I would want to give my adherents some share of those powers in order to help them demonstrate that they knew what they were talking about; it isn't a fallacy to argue from authority if one does actually have the authority.  The only way I wouldn't share those powers with them is if I didn't have them to begin with.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 05, 2011, 10:27:02 AM
There'd be no reason to create something. There's nothing you want, nothing you need. You're completely whole as you are. The entire reason we do anything is to answer some sort of desire or need within us, even if it's just to serve a temporary whim. A perfect being does not have such things to respond to.

That's the thing - Haven't you ever done anything for absolutely no reason?


But, to play devil's advocate a little bit again, wouldn't it depend on what the actual parameters of this perfection were? I mean, if God is only perfect at being absolutely perfect, that's a bit meaningless, so we have to throw something of a qualifier in there. Many Christians resort to the standard "perfect goodness and love" model, which kinda doesn't fly given some of the atrocities committed by Yahwe, but couldn't he be something else? Say, a "perfect creator", which wouldn't necessarily imply being able to create only perfection if his aim was more one of setting up a vast cosmic game of The Sims, leaving room for the randomness and  impulse of "free will". He'd be perfect at creating anything that he could imagine. Including stuff with inherent imperfection. Nothing in that definition, to my understanding, anyway, implies that he'd have no capacity for craving a bit of amusement.

Of course, in this case, his perfection (especially if coupled with omniscience) should have resulted in a game wherein things went his way, or, if he was set on creating something with the potential to spiral out of control (which he could, if he wanted, being an omnipowerful creator), he'd have no cause to throw the giant hissy-fits he did when things did, in fact, do just that.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: kcrady on December 05, 2011, 10:36:27 AM
While I certainly do not disagree with you, there is one explanation that allows for some such people to have access to such a friend without obvious and public consequences.  Namely, the friend told them to keep it secret (say to protect themselves; even someone who's far more powerful and advanced than any human can still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers); they get to have some advantages, but they have to be quiet and subtle ones that are simply not bandied about.  However, anyone who talks about it would have to betray that trust from the get-go, so therefore they don't fall under this category to begin with.  In other words, if there were people out there with 'access' to stuff that goes beyond human knowledge, they'd have to be keeping it uncharacteristically quiet.

This is the theist's classic dilemma.  On the one hand, they need to brag from the hilltops about how omni-awesomesauce their god is, and how they're his specialest little snowflakes.  This is what gives them a sense that their lives and persons have meaning and purpose and moral value.  On the other hand, they have to find ways to rig their theology so that it explains why reality (including the reality of their own lives) behaves exactly the way it would if their god is imaginary.[1]  And they have to keep these two sectors of thought apart in their minds, so they don't mutually annihilate like matter and antimatter.  Theism is hard work.
 1. They have entire branches of theology dedicated to this task: "theodicy" and "the hiddenness of God."
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: One Above All on December 05, 2011, 10:41:57 AM
Theism is hard work.

It sure is. When I have two conflicting thoughts in my head, both of which I consider true, I get a major headache and it doesn't go away until I resolve the issue. I wonder how theists do it... &)
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: velkyn on December 05, 2011, 11:18:42 AM
Pray to God the Almighty for Wisdom and you don't need to go to school to know anything. Make Him your Rock and you will outwitt every scientist on the face of the earth.
i guess we can see that fails right off the bat with Lance himself.   Oh my, what a hypocrite.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 05, 2011, 11:31:46 AM
going back to my original post, God didn't stop evil because like I said it was Satan who created it so technically Satan is the source of all evil therefore in order to expunge evil, Satan would be the answer and that is how the story begins with Adama and Eve. God knows everythign.

So, let me get this straight. Satan rebelled. God needed to prove to Satan that he was still top dog. In order to do this, god created Eden, and A&E, knowing full well that they would violate the tree of knowledge rule, so that Satan could corrupt them and henceforth all humans would be auto-sinners and require salvation to keep from burning in hell forever and then he got pissed at everyone except Noah and drowned all the evil humans he created to be evil in the first place then eventually he sent the kid to make it possible to actually be saved and now we atheists have to put up with you. Is that about right?

And you love this guy?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 05, 2011, 12:18:50 PM

So, let me get this straight. Satan rebelled. God needed to prove to Satan that he was still top dog. In order to do this, god created Eden, and A&E, knowing full well that they would violate the tree of knowledge rule, so that Satan could corrupt them and henceforth all humans would be auto-sinners and require salvation to keep from burning in hell forever and then he got pissed at everyone except Noah and drowned all the evil humans he created to be evil in the first place then eventually he sent the kid to make it possible to actually be saved and now we atheists have to put up with you. Is that about right?

Not to mention the fact that by setting up this whole farce just so he could save face with Satan, God condemned countless "unsaved" souls to eternal torture. Does he think that this collateral damage is justified by the fact that Satan will get to see who is boss? Wow.  How do you manage even to begin understanding this as loving behavior?

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on December 05, 2011, 12:29:51 PM
Not to mention the fact that by setting up this whole farce just so he could save face with Satan, God condemned countless "unsaved" souls to eternal torture. Does he think that this collateral damage is justified by the fact that Satan will get to see who is boss? Wow.  How do you manage even to begin understanding this as loving behavior?

Agreed. To burn me forever in hell to teach satan a lesson seems somewhat futile. If satan is really bad, he wouldn't care, and it's a lousy lesson, and if he was good, he would have succumbed to the guilt long ago.

If this is the best plan an omnipotent dude can come up with, we need to redefine omnipotent to mean "grossly incompetent on a huge scale".

Besides, we were told in eden that we would become as gods if we ate from the tree of life (I'm paraphrasing, but that's what christians do too), then we are now as gods and it doesn't seem to be much of an advantage. I still fart, for instance.

Lance's assumption that we have questions about his god (in another thread, I think) is erroneous. We only have questions as to why people believe this stuff. He's not helping.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:11:36 PM
Woooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!! Alzeal can't handle it! LOSER!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 05, 2011, 11:14:37 PM
Woooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!! Alzeal can't handle it! LOSER!

You are a dipshit. Now answer this question

Why did you feel it was necessary for YOU to blame Anfauglir's father's death and his mothers Alzheimer's on Anfaulglir being an atheist? Do you honestly think that bad things only happen to people who do not have faith? 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 11:15:47 PM
Woooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!! Alzeal can't handle it! LOSER!

Amazing.You actually formed a sentence.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:16:17 PM
I DIDN"T BLAME! I merely point a possiblity! Go back and reread it!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 05, 2011, 11:18:07 PM
I DIDN"T BLAME! I merely point a possiblity! Go back and reread it!

No...answer the question now.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:18:42 PM
"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick." What an idiotic statement. So dying is nothing so long you are resurrected. It's takes a whole lot of guts jus to know you're gonna die an awful death wehter you'll be resurrected is another question. What a cowardice quote!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 11:22:29 PM
"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick." What an idiotic statement. So dying is nothing so long you are resurrected. It's takes a whole lot of guts jus to know you're gonna die an awful death wehter you'll be resurrected is another question. What a cowardice quote!

You're dodging his question. Go ahead and answer it, like you keep saying you want to.

Also it might take guts to still die. However it's not a sacrifice, which is what the quote says. He "died" and was resurrected to go to eternal paradise. That is not a sacrifice by any definition of the word. You're just lying, yet again.

You're still a ver thoroughly pitiful and hollow little man.

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:25:58 PM
@ Alzeal of all the people in here you are the most idiotic and cowardice of them all. the fact that you are gonna block my thread shows how much courage you have. if you don't like my comments leave them as it's only in one thread and let others response. why can't you even do that? you can't because you are a control-freak. no wonder you're the moderator. I wish we are face to face buddy. you'll see more than stars in one glimpse.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 11:29:06 PM
@ Alzeal of all the people in here you are the most idiotic and cowardice of them all. the fact that you are gonna block my thread shows how much courage you have. if you don't like my comments leave them as it's only in one thread and let others response. why can't you even do that? you can't because you are a control-freak. no wonder you're the moderator. I wish we are face to face buddy. you'll see more than stars in one glimpse.

What can I say? This is too purely pathetic for words. All I can think of is............................. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on December 05, 2011, 11:29:33 PM
Lance buddy, you need to get laid. I'm sensing a lot of hostility. Relax, it'll be alright.

For the record: the thread that got locked was going down hill pretty fast, thanks to you...
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jynnan tonnix on December 05, 2011, 11:29:55 PM
@ Alzeal of all the people in here you are the most idiotic and cowardice of them all. the fact that you are gonna block my thread shows how much courage you have. if you don't like my comments leave them as it's only in one thread and let others response. why can't you even do that? you can't because you are a control-freak. no wonder you're the moderator. I wish we are face to face buddy. you'll see more than stars in one glimpse.
where's the love, Lance? What would Jesus do?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 11:30:33 PM
Ok, now that that's out of my system. Stop dodging his question. You said you wanted one. You berated us for not giving you one. Why don't you answer it now?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:32:58 PM
Jesus would have handle it pretty nicely unlike Alzeal.

I will create another thread and if you don't like it don't comment - that easy.

Emily - laid? Lady please. It's Alzeal who needs it since he can't even allow my thread to continue. Nah, ALzeal has fingerlina - LOSER!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Traveler on December 05, 2011, 11:33:05 PM
Lance, which version of the bible do you prefer?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on December 05, 2011, 11:33:21 PM
And Lance, you probably didn't read the rules.

But...

Quote
Staff decisions/warnings are either posted in-thread or sent via anonymous system messages. To protest an in-thread ruling by a Board Moderator, take it up with any Global Moderator via PM, expressing the nature of the appeal. To protest an in-thread ruling by a Global Moderator, take it up with a different Global Moderator. In the case of system warning messages, take up the grievance with any Global Moderator - the grievance will be forwarded to a neutral party. The outcome of an appeal is considered final.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,17005.0.html

Just throwing that out there for ya.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 11:36:05 PM
Jesus would have handle it pretty nicely unlike Alzeal.

I will create another thread and if you don't like it don't comment - that easy.

Emily - laid? Lady please. It's Alzeal who needs it since he can't even allow my thread to continue. Nah, ALzeal has fingerlina - LOSER!

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:36:20 PM
@ EMily What? That i'm gonna stoop to these fellas?! HA! Never. I will do as i please and if i get banned so what? I live as I live and no one can dictate me not even those who are lucky technology is around! man to man they are nothing!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 11:37:38 PM
@ EMily What? That i'm gonna stoop to these fellas?!

You've stooped lower than anyone I've ever seen on this forum. I almost feel that I should congratulate you.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:41:06 PM
Alzeal the cause of the stoop is the reaction from teh stoop and that is you! why then blcock my thread, becausee you're lower than stoop
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 05, 2011, 11:41:14 PM
@ EMily What? That i'm gonna stoop to these fellas?! HA! Never. I will do as i please and if i get banned so what? I live as I live and no one can dictate me not even those who are lucky technology is around! man to man they are nothing!

You know...I think banning might not be such a bad idea. I mean, his comments are humorous. After all, he advised me that the only thing I need to do in order to get an education is to pray. Horrible advise but funny non the less. I think he has outlived his usefulness. Just my opinion tho. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on December 05, 2011, 11:41:56 PM
@ EMily What? That i'm gonna stoop to these fellas?! HA! Never. I will do as i please and if i get banned so what? I live as I live and no one can dictate me not even those who are lucky technology is around! man to man they are nothing!

Whoa, sorry. Just giving you a possible suggestion on how to get your other thread unlockled. Not that your action would matter, but I was merely suggesting it.  I'm sorry for trying to help you.

And noone can dictate you. OK, one more way you are either a SPAG, a Poe, or an idiot. I thought you were a Poe/SPAG, but now you've proven to be a full-blown idiot.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 11:43:54 PM
Alzeal the cause of the stoop is the reaction from teh stoop and that is you! why then blcock my thread, becausee you're lower than stoop

You realize that makes almost no sense in anyway, right?

It's terrible when the mind goes. Or whatever he had.


You know...I think banning might not be such a bad idea. I mean, his comments are humorous. After all, he advised me that the only thing I need to do in order to get an education is to pray. Horrible advise but funny non the less. I think he has outlived his usefulness. Just my opinion tho. 

It would have to wait until one of the globals comes on. Then we'll see.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:44:26 PM
then by all means, with all due respect my sweet sweet friends - UNBLOCK!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:45:32 PM
@ Alzeal You mean "GLO-BALLS" no wonder you guys are one sided - all balls no heart. lol
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on December 05, 2011, 11:48:34 PM
then by all means, with all due respect my sweet sweet friends - UNBLOCK!

::acting like a little snot-nosed schoolgirl:: Not till you follow the rules.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:50:40 PM
@ Emily how can i abide by the rules when no one listens except accusing me of this or that. I asked them if they have a question, by all means, ask - but instead they are quick to accuse than observe.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: riley2112 on December 05, 2011, 11:51:07 PM
Lance; for the love of God Almighty. Shut up already. Your repeated replies of unintelligent babble is to much for even me, and I am on your side. I am a Christian , I do believe in God. I know He is there, and I also know I can't prove it . so why do I believe. Well , if you were to ask the people here , they would tell you I am stupid blind, letting my fear of life lead me down a fairy tale path of make belief. What really pisses me off is I can't prove they are wrong. But what pisses me off more is the way you try to bring honor to God. I just know God is up there laughing his ass off at you. You are ill perpared to debate this subject with people that can pick apart anything that can not be proven with hard evidence.
I do not agree with them, However that is not the point , the point is , have the respect to know what you are talking about , and if you don't know, just say so.  Take the time to look and check what you are about to say. They will. You make Christians into just what they believe us to be. So stop being an ass. And as for calling Alzeal a loser, Dude he may be a lot of things. But, he comes off as having beliefs based on what he has evidence of and stands by them with thought out reasons. Even if I disagree with him, anyone who uses their mind and thinks for them selves , well , in my book that is not loser by any means. Dude just stop you are embarrassing yourself. I have done that here and if you truly believe in God you are doing yourself and God a disservice. Read the posts for awhile , learn how they talk, learn what they will and will not listen to. Look at the things that they believe, look at the things they don't believe. Think about why they belief what they believe. Believe it or not most of the things they have shown me makes one stop and think. So STOP AND THINK. Don't just bust in and believe that you are going to change the minds of people with off the wall unthought out bull. Some of them were Christians at one time, Believe me when I tell you that they more than likely have heard the B.S. before. And as far as I can see by what you have been posting here. They damn sure know the Bible better than you , or me for that matter. Learn from my mistake and think before you open you mouth. They love to play with people that have no ideal what is going on. So stop. OK?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:52:40 PM
although i know i'm gonna be banned eventually when one of the glo-balls enters i will stay until the end!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:54:20 PM
@ Riley34234398 Stop? when the storm approaches you don't stop and look - you smile at it. already i know they won't listen so i'll play the storm!
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:55:26 PM
FINE..........I'll stop.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on December 05, 2011, 11:55:49 PM
@ Lance

I'll try this one more time.

Do you honestly think that bad things only happen to people who do not have faith? (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19687.msg461376.html#msg461376)

In a nutshell, this is THEE question you have been dodging all this time. Please, for the love of God answer this question. It's very simple "yes" or "no" will do.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: riley2112 on December 05, 2011, 11:57:51 PM
@ Riley34234398 Stop? when the storm approaches you don't stop and look - you smile at it. already i know they won't listen so i'll play the storm!
To what purpose , May I ask what you had in mind when you come upon this forum?
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Emily on December 05, 2011, 11:58:16 PM
@ Emily how can i abide by the rules when no one listens except accusing me of this or that. I asked them if they have a question, by all means, ask - but instead they are quick to accuse than observe.

Because you don't listen. Really, it's not that hard. Treat others how you want to be treated. I mean, read Matt 7:12. Here, I'll help you..

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

 Hey dude, you brought this on yourself. And calling them glo-balls isn't helping. Sorry, dude. Honestly, you don't deserve to be a part of this forum if you tread the members, the board mods, the global mods and the admins in such a way.

...you did provide a lot of humor, though. Thanks for that.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Alzael on December 05, 2011, 11:58:33 PM
although i know i'm gonna be banned eventually when one of the glo-balls enters i will stay until the end!

Perhaps, we'll see about that when the globals actually get here. As for right now I am giving you full notice that as of this point any post you make that is not either on the topic of the thread, or in direct response to the questions or points raised by other members will be removed.

Members, don't provoke him. Stick your comments to on topic issues as well.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Lance on December 05, 2011, 11:59:01 PM
save the best for last. unblock my thread and i will happily answer it with a yes or no answer
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Historicity on December 06, 2011, 05:33:16 AM
. I wish we are face to face buddy. you'll see more than stars in one glimpse.
where's the love, Lance? What would Jesus do?
Whips?  Joh 2:15, Heb 2:6, Luk 12:47.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: naemhni on December 06, 2011, 10:13:45 AM
Whips?  Joh 2:15, Heb 2:6, Luk 12:47.

Indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: velkyn on December 06, 2011, 11:16:02 AM
To what purpose , May I ask what you had in mind when you come upon this forum?

Well, Riley, you certainly got an eyeful of what some Christians are.  I'm kinda sorry that you had to see Lance, but hopefully you'll see him as an object lesson and another reason that I do wonder about a god that would allow this nonsense to occur if he did care about his followers like he supposedly used to in the bible. 
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: jetson on December 07, 2011, 10:08:04 PM
Another great example of how some people just can't seem to communicate well with others, despite their disagreements.  And stored on these pages for others to read and consider.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: caveat_imperator on December 08, 2011, 01:53:01 PM
then by all means, with all due respect my sweet sweet friends - UNBLOCK!

Why don't you pray to be unblocked?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Aaron123 on December 08, 2011, 02:01:14 PM
then by all means, with all due respect my sweet sweet friends - UNBLOCK!

Why don't you pray to be unblocked?  :laugh:

Now now, Caveat.  Remember:  Thou shall not TEST the lord![1]
 1. And by "test", we mean as in "requires god to exists in order for the results to occur".
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: fishjie on December 08, 2011, 03:35:20 PM
then by all means, with all due respect my sweet sweet friends - UNBLOCK!

Why don't you pray to be unblocked?  :laugh:

god can't even defeat iron chariots, i doubt he knows how to use the internets
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: parkpatrol on October 24, 2012, 10:49:48 AM
How anybody can deny that atheism is the default position is absolutely beyond me! I think there comes a time in people's lives when difficulties arise and they become conscious of their own mortality. The ego feels threatened, wishful thinking arises and man creates "God" in his own image. This skyhero is going to make everything okay, wipe all those tears from your eyes, heal you from your pain and torture your enemies. This childish mentality gets solidified in the minds of believers/dupes when in the company of other believers/dupes. I've done it myself but I had to admit I'd been hoodwinked
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Graybeard on October 27, 2012, 05:21:15 AM
How anybody can deny that atheism is the default position is absolutely beyond me!
Then you need to read this thread and follow the links: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24099.msg536817.html#msg536817
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: mhaberling on December 18, 2012, 03:15:36 AM
If atheism  is the default position, wouldn't the majority of the human species throughout history be atheist. What if the idea of a god is subconscious in nature. That until you teach yourself otherwise, a belief in a higher power makes allot of sense.
Title: Re: Is atheism the default position?
Post by: Azdgari on December 18, 2012, 06:05:33 AM
There is a difference between a philosophical default position, and a position to which we tend to adhere by default.  Atheism is the former, not the latter.