Are you really an atheist?

[xSilverPhinx]

Do you mind if I ask, Egor, have you seen the comments about de-humanizing in one of your other threads?  I was personally so troubled by it, that I started a topic in another area of the forum to explore the terminology.  Would you mind commenting on your own perspective; are you familiar with this concept of dehumanization and what it leads to?  Can you comment on this with regard to your statements above?  I'm wanting to get an understanding as to why you talk about violence, killing, and highly destructive weaponry in a seemingly casual way.

Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.

I'm guessing you weren't a higher official?

[Tank]

Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<

Well that thing is that nobody kills without a reason. That reason might be insanity but it would still be a reason. Theists of course can cite the 'voice in their head' as a reason. It may well be the reason but it's never an excuse.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<

I've seen enough of Egor's posts to convince me that he's an angry, violent person who has no interest in expanding his views. It's unfortunate, but I don't think we're going to convince him otherwise. I'm choosing to ignore most of what he says unless I feel like there's a point to be made that could be useful or helpful to other people here.

Just my take.

[Asmodean]

Asmo. For all we know Edward was a filing clerk who never even picked up a gun in anger! That sort of comment doesn't help reasoned discussion.

I contest this one, Tank.

Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.

My comment to the above was not meant to be taken literally, but I stand by its intent.

[Jose AR]

Hello Edward,
Nice to see you respond, not so nice to see you just repeat your position with no new evidence or arguments.

You define god as the creator of the universe and move thor and zeus down the hierarchy of gods, calling them revelations of god. That is not logical, calling something a revelation is not saying anything. It is a circular argument that can never be wrong. And yet you say it with the feeling that you are right. Of course you are right, becuase you defined it so. Now go back in a time machine to 500bc in say, sweden, and tell them that Zeus is not god! They will say that Zeus is master of the universe, all other gods bow before him! You claim a creator of the universe but offer no evidence other than than revelation. 

How can you say god is probable? seriously? you confuse two issues. We do not know how the universe began or exactly how the first cells were organized. But that doesn't mean they are unknowable or will never be know. Science is proud to say it doesn't know stuff! Over time new things are discovered and the tree of knowledge grows. I do stand with my mouth wide open staring at the universe. Its called 'awe', and I am filled with it when I think of the wonder of the sun, or of the size of space, or the beauty of an orchid or beetle. But there is no creator, or logical need of one, or material evidence of one.

god is extremely improbable! My only option is to say that and say, nothing is supernatural, all is natural, just the way it should be, without a creator or god. My information for the improbable comes from the twin pillars of math and logic. A man in the sky who is both all powerful and all knowing. If he is all knowing there must be something he knows he can't do, and if he is all powerful then he lacks the power of not existing. A man in the sky! just thinking about it makes me laugh. Of course there could be a god, or leperchaun, or tooth fairy, or jesus, or santa. I don't say impossible. But probably (by definition) is measured in numbers, and the probability of a god is a tiny number indeed.

I have some sad news for you: my (and your) thoughts are material. Thoughts are not possible without a working brain, well supplied by blood. There is a simple experiment you can do to prove this: think about something, then temporarily stop the flow of blood to your brain, and see if you continue to have thoughts. Soon after passing out you will slowly start to have thoughts again, as the flow of blood slowly returns to your physical thought making brain.

Finally, when you say it is impossible for god to not exist, what you are really saying is "na nana na nana!" I don't go to your creationist forum and that it is impossible for god to exist, so why do you? are you cementing your place in heaven? Don't pray for me, take the log out of your eye before worrying about the needle in mine.

yours in there is no god

Jose AR

[history_geek]

Currently there is no evidence that any "gods" would exist, no matter what defenition is used. Again, this doesn't mean that there couldn't be beings fitting some defenition, but if you are waiting for "gods" of human religions, I'm afraid you will be dissapointed.

You say "no evidence" because that's the standard atheist line. The fact is evidence is all around us, you just won't look at it. You think God should be detectable in a proton accelerator, but He isn't. It doesn't work that way.

And how do you know that the God of a human religion like Christianity doesn't exist? What do you think the typical Christian idea of God is?

I do not say that ther is no evidence because it is "a standard atheist line" but because there is no evidecne to indicate the existance of anything that would fit any of the current defentions of "god(s)", whether one is using a religious one or not. And I do not care if "god(s)" isn't detectable in a proton accelerator, even if I understood how one works to make such a claim, unless that is the new given defenition for "god(s)". And I agree, trying to prove something that cannot even be properly defined is simply not working.

Also, as for ingnored evidence, I am yet to see a single piece of our natural world that requires a "designer" or "god(s)". Even the creation and expansion of the universe might not require a "creator", and as far no, we have no evidence for such possible being(s), and I see no reason to believe that even should such a presence be discovered it would be a "god" from man made fairytales.

I know that they do not exist because I know that they are creations of human imagination, and we can see the progress of human religions and the concepts of "god(s)" throught the ages. For example, the first monotheistic "god" was Ra, who was to be worshiped as the only deity by the order of the Pharaoh Akhenaten. Further more, we can trace back many of the myths adobted by the Abrahamic religions to earlier Summerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Cananite and Egyptian mythologies.

But you know, you're last question gives me a pause. Simply because I am honestly yet to find a "typical christian idea of "god"". It varries from sect to sect, pastor to pastor, and even individual person to person. For some "god" is an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnisentient, Immaterial and eternal or non-caused being that is also timeless. To others it is the Jesus of the New Testament, others the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. To some "god" is a personal (as I think Escrub demonstrated when he said "For the record, my God....", post #86 in this thread). So really, what is a "typical Christian idea of "god"? I really have no clue.

But then there's the bible that gives the most twisted look of this paticular version of the Abrahamic "god"; based on the OT I would call this "god" a nihilistic, bloodlusting, megalomanic teenager with severe ego and emotional problems, who does have moments of almost compasion  but they are overshadowed by hissifists about the slightest of infragment of his rules that he never ones even pretends to follow (now that I think about it, wasn't Mary married to Josef before the "virgin birth" news was revealed? Adultery was mentoned in the Commandment's, wasn't it....?, that all result in a death penalty. And this is before his "better-half" spread the word of eternal damnation for those who do not believe that the YHWH of the OT is his dad....other then that, Jesus did a pretty good job using philosphical ideologies such as the golden rule that had exised for centuries before his times, and living a mostly non-violent-hippie life, discounting the olive tree and the hissifit in the Temple of course (which i suppose would work as evidence to prove that he really had some connetion to the YHWH....). Now, these of course aren't "typical christian idea of "god", but my own interpitaions accoardind to the bible accounts as I have understood them....And of course YHWH is the urivaled boss who can do what ever he wants and let's everyone do almsot whatever they want in his name, as long as they remember to avoid those things in the commandments.....

Lastly, @xSilverPhinx: i think they are called "officers"

[Happy_Is_Good]

Because I'm a fighter and I'm ex-military and I know how the world and nature works. And frankly, I like to fight. Sorry, but that's the ABCs of me, baby.

So, you are a Christian and Ex-military, and a Fighter.  You say you know how the world works.

I don't think so - I don't think you really see how the world works.

I think you are nothing but an angry Chicken - a Fighting Rooster.

As one fits spurs to a fighting rooster, you have been armed with Intellectual Spurs and made to relish fighting so that your Intellectual Owners can profit from your struggle.  And you think you are free because you fight - for this is what you Owners want you believe.  But you can't see it for your fury has blinded you.  

There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

Goethe  

[Sweetdeath]

Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<

I've seen enough of Egor's posts to convince me that he's an angry, violent person who has no interest in expanding his views. It's unfortunate, but I don't think we're going to convince him otherwise. I'm choosing to ignore most of what he says unless I feel like there's a point to be made that could be useful or helpful to other people here.

Just my take.

You convinced me ^___^

Ciao, Egor.

[xSilverPhinx]

Lastly, @xSilverPhinx: i think they are called "officers"

Whoops, I think I may be experiencing what they say about what happens to your IQ when you stay around dumb people for too long (IRL)...I find the antidote here.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.

For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders.  If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message.  Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.

So, you'd be a Christian who is not in the "nuke all of the Muslims" camp?

As angry as Islam makes me at times, there is simply no way to reconcile Jesus' message of loving others, including enemies, and nuking any particular group.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.

For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders.  If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message.  Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.

But what would you do IF you were 100% sure that your God did want you to kill. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Would you do what you felt your God wanted you to do? Would you, in the final analysis, with all other options and avenues explored kill because your God wanted you to?

Your hypothetical makes no sense to me - it's like saying "assume that 2+2 really did equal 5". But, to play along, no, I'm just not the killin kind - there would have to be a very good reason - like somebody messin with my grandkids.  God would have to ask someone else if he wanted a hit job. But since that is 100% contrary to my concept of God, I can't imagine that ever happening.  If I thought I heard that message, I would assume that I was wrong.

[The Magic Pudding]

Yea Tank, yet his enjoyment of violence seriously scares me. I don't like anyone who wants to pick up a gun and kill without reason. It really freaks me out.
Though I find it ironic that I am atheist and choose a more peaceful path. I honestly do want humanity to stop the useless battles.
Anyone who is okay with war and needless ciolence is a sociopath. :<

Well that thing is that nobody kills without a reason. That reason might be insanity but it would still be a reason. Theists of course can cite the 'voice in their head' as a reason. It may well be the reason but it's never an excuse.

Religious extremists do carry out violent acts, bombing abortion clinics, murdering social progressives.  Before they do this it wouldn't surprise me if they haunt atheist forums in a manner we are familiar with.  I may be acting a bit extreme myself but I think it wouldn't hurt for the mods who can be physically reached to avoid these people.  If it's an American nutter let Tank deal with them, I don't like the idea of them fixating on some one they can reach.

[Sandra Craft]

That is in fact what a large number of atheists I know, including me, say, altho we generally leave out the supernatural as being in the same improbable category as god.  And I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say most of us do stare in awe at the universe.  It's hard to believe you've never noticed this since a quick review of this one board would have shown you that.

My point is that for someone to say it's unreasonable to believe in God, is itself unreasonable.

A few points:

1.  you'll have to explain why it's unreasonable to believe in something without concrete, verifiable evidence, and it would need to be a better reason than "because I believe without evidence".

2.  since you've admitted that concrete, verifiable evidence isn't the sort that proves god's existence, you'll need to explain why any other type of "evidence", aka faith, is reasonable and it will also need to be a better reason than "because that's the "evidence" I accept".

3.  I, and some others, said your version of god is improbable.  I may be picking nits here but that's a different thing from a belief in that god being unreasonable.  I can think of good reasons for believing in a personal god, the comfort factor being the top one, followed closely by easing the fear of death -- those don't work for me but that doesn't rule them out for others or make them unreasonable things.

[MadBomr101]

I think you are nothing but an angry Chicken - a Fighting Rooster.

Or one might say a Contentious Cock.



Hey, it's in the bible too.

[unholy1971]

From a christian perspective I am 100% atheist.