is the atheist stance too strong in some cases?

[Kodanshi]

^ Indeed, like molest little boys…

[Man-ofGod]

Well Atheism is purported to be based on current knowledge.  So the answer to your problem would be that you do not believe a God based on your current understanding of what God is.  Since there is no alternative knowledge that your willing to accept or not aware of any alternative knowledge, you cannot comment on what you do not know, since you do not know.  Or you could, but it wouldn't be based on facts.

[G.ENIGMA]

Well Atheism is purported to be based on current knowledge.  So the answer to your problem would be that you do not believe a God based on your current understanding of what God is.  Since there is no alternative knowledge that your willing to accept or not aware of any alternative knowledge, you cannot comment on what you do not know, since you do not know.  Or you could, but it wouldn't be based on facts.

I will repeat what you just said with a few subtle differences ...see if you can spot them :pop:

[AlP]

Well Atheism is purported to be based on current knowledge.

In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Technically, one can be an atheist without purporting it to be based on current knowledge.

So the answer to your problem would be that you do not believe a God based on your current understanding of what God is.

My answer today is that I will endeavor to believe nothing, holding only a minimal and continuously revised set of working beliefs necessary to function efficiently as a human. I have been working quite hard recently to destroy all my existing "deep rooted" beliefs like morality, personal possession and personal identity. With the loss of those and others, I no longer find it important to take an atheist position, though I suppose I still am an agnostic atheist. My position has changed since I wrote the OP. And I have just "come out" as a nihilist  .

Since there is no alternative knowledge that your willing to accept, you cannot comment on what you do not know, since you do not know. Or you could, but it wouldn't be based on facts.

Yeah I think you understand the point I was making at the time.

[curiosityandthecat]

that your willing to accept

that your willing to accept

Bravo, sir. You win three internets.

[Man-ofGod]

Well Atheism is purported to be based on current knowledge.  So the answer to your problem would be that you do not believe a God based on your current understanding of what God is.  Since there is no alternative knowledge that your willing to accept or not aware of any alternative knowledge, you cannot comment on what you do not know, since you do not know.  Or you could, but it wouldn't be based on facts.

I will repeat what you just said with a few subtle differences ...see if you can spot them :pop:

Agreed, however I accept all evidence, not all interpretations.

I believe in God based on what it is written in the Bible. However, I did not always believe what was written.  I had to go through great lengths to validate what was written in order to accept its contents.  I already had a good grasp of the alternative knowledge prior to my conversion.

So again, its like you said, it works both ways.

Final note: I would admit that I have filters on my eyes as everyone does.  I filter everything through scripture now.  But when I was an Atheist a few years ago, I also had filters on my eyes.  I filtered everything through my non-belief.  So I made a conscious decision to listen to the other side of the story.

In politics for example, I found you can often get to the truth by reading Bias views on both sides.  As a result, I often found middle ground that way. This is how I researched Christianity.  I guess this is my version of researching "Alternative Knowledge."

[Man-ofGod]

that your willing to accept

that your willing to accept

Bravo, sir. You win three internets.

Sorry I had to modify my post:)  People reply quick around here:)

[G.ENIGMA]

I think perhaps it would have been better to have simply left your original reply unmodified and then expanded on what you meant to say in a new post  :shock: because you had thought rationally again (at least for a few moments).

You then decided (IMHO) to modify your initial agreement/reaction to fit your need to be seen to actually be disagreeing .

[Man-ofGod]

I think perhaps it would have been better to have simply left your original reply unmodified and then expanded on what you meant to say in a new post  :shock: because you had thought rationally again (at least for a few moments).

You then decided (IMHO) to modify your initial agreement/reaction to fit your need to be seen to actually be disagreeing .

Absolutely right, ill be sure to do next time.

[rlrose328]

Final note: I would admit that I have filters on my eyes as everyone does.  I filter everything through scripture now.  But when I was an Atheist a few years ago, I also had filters on my eyes.  I filtered everything through my non-belief.  So I made a conscious decision to listen to the other side of the story.

I do admit that I have filters on my eyes as well... that is a great way of putting it.  One thing that bugs me about the paragraph above is that it implies that atheists don't listen to the other side of the story.  I may be reading into it, but I hear that ALL the time, here on these forums and in my real life.

I was raised Lutheran, did the whole baptism (as an infant), confirmation, teaching Sunday School thing.  I read with an open mind, I asked questions, I read, I bible-studied.  I prayed.  This was before I EVER considered myself to even be a doubter much less an atheist.  I listened... boy, did I listen.  To my mom, my pastor, my friends, my coworkers.  I discussed... with the same people.

There was no way to bend my brain around the stories contained in the bible, much less the "Truth" it preaches.  It all defies logic and reason and rational thought.  I don't NEED anyone to prove that god exists.  The god from the bible can't possibly exist and even if he did, he's not a being I'd worship (based on the acts portrayed in the bible).

It's wonderful that you and the majority of the people in this country believe in the god of the bible and are Christians.  It gives my mother great comfort to be a Christian.

But not everyone is a believer.  And that's wonderful too.

[Man-ofGod]

Final note: I would admit that I have filters on my eyes as everyone does.  I filter everything through scripture now.  But when I was an Atheist a few years ago, I also had filters on my eyes.  I filtered everything through my non-belief.  So I made a conscious decision to listen to the other side of the story.

I do admit that I have filters on my eyes as well... that is a great way of putting it.  One thing that bugs me about the paragraph above is that it implies that atheists don't listen to the other side of the story.  I may be reading into it, but I hear that ALL the time, here on these forums and in my real life.

I was raised Lutheran, did the whole baptism (as an infant), confirmation, teaching Sunday School thing.  I read with an open mind, I asked questions, I read, I bible-studied.  I prayed.  This was before I EVER considered myself to even be a doubter much less an atheist.  I listened... boy, did I listen.  To my mom, my pastor, my friends, my coworkers.  I discussed... with the same people.

There was no way to bend my brain around the stories contained in the bible, much less the "Truth" it preaches.  It all defies logic and reason and rational thought.  I don't NEED anyone to prove that god exists.  The god from the bible can't possibly exist and even if he did, he's not a being I'd worship (based on the acts portrayed in the bible).

It's wonderful that you and the majority of the people in this country believe in the god of the bible and are Christians.  It gives my mother great comfort to be a Christian.

But not everyone is a believer.  And that's wonderful too.

Well I can only speak for myself, but when I was an Atheist,  I did not know the whole story but I was willing to listen.  With that said, if you were given new information or a new  understanding, would you consider it?  And what I mean by that is consider it in such a way that you would investigate further to maybe correct previous misunderstandings? Or are you pretty much done and not willing to entertain Christianity any longer?  Thanks.

[rlrose328]

Well I can only speak for myself, but when I was an Atheist,  I did not know the whole story but I was willing to listen.  With that said, if you were given new information or a new  understanding, would you consider it?  And what I mean by that is consider it in such a way that you would investigate further to maybe correct previous misunderstandings? Or are you pretty much done and not willing to entertain Christianity any longer?  Thanks.

I would indeed listen and I would consider it, yes.  We are always learning here on this big blue marble of ours.  Life is never stagnant.  Ideas and understandings can and do change all the time.  That's what science is all about.  I don't know how willing I am to embrace Christianity, but I am willing to listen, investigate, and learn.

HOWEVER... I seriously doubt that any believer has anything to add to my already HUGE religion knowledge base.  

I've also found that believers, by and large, want me to consider their faith, their "truth," all the while discounting my nonfaith.  Fingers in ears and la-la-la-ing while I try to tell them my POV, yet insisting I listen to everything they have to say.

Not your fault... that's just my experience.  You probably have run into the same thing with atheists and other nonbelievers as well, I'm sure.

So at this point, I just want people to respect each others' respective beliefs and not force their "truth" on others in any manner, including preaching, passing laws based on their scriptures, and killing others who don't practice what they practice (from flying planes into buildings to blowing up abortion clinics).

Considerate discussion, however, is always welcome.

[Man-ofGod]

Sounds good to me.

[thirteen31]

If pressed to define what gods I don't believe in ( ) I guess I would say something along the lines of "Any and all things, persons or entities invented or chosen by  human beings to be worthy of worship as divine."

I really like that definition. To me, that explains it all.

[Recusant]

I really like that definition.

Thank you.  I tried to be as succinct and comprehensive as possible.  The wording is my own, but no doubt it would be possible to find something similar if one were to look.  

And may I say, 'Welcome back, thirteen31;"  I haven't seen you here in a while.