Why I am not an atheist (it's not what you think ;) )

[xSilverPhinx]

Woah, I could feel the heat coming from this thread from a long way off 

Might this be a good time to suggest that we have an official thread just for rants? 

Earthing, I'll respond to your post later, it's way more interesting than some of the freelance stuff I have to finish, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do. 

[Earthling]

Woah, I could feel the heat coming from this thread from a long way off 

Might this be a good time to suggest that we have an official thread just for rants? 

Earthing, I'll respond to your post later, it's way more interesting than some of the freelance stuff I have to finish, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do. 

I would enjoy that, Silver, but may not have the opportunity to do so in the foreseeable future.

[Tank]

Post deleted. Not rising to bait.
Sorry Tank.

I think your position is a great deal safer than mine. I'm just a pig who should fuck off in a rolling sea of rationality waiting for lively debate and discussion.

If you're not a troll all you have to is prove it through your behaviour. I have yet to ban an active member, only spammers and such.
You behave like fundimentalist theist. By deffinition there is utterly no point in attempting to debate with you, it's like talking to a brick wall, a brick wall you appear to value above all else. What possible motivations can a fundimentalist theist have coming to an atheist forum? I can't think of any but to preach and convert. Well this place is not here as a platform for you to preach and convert.

[Asmodean]

Do you think it possible to have a rational discussion on the history and existence of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny?

History of the myths, yes. The actual existene of actual bunnies and Clauses... Not so much.

What about the possible existence of extraterrestrial beings?

You can have rational speculations, and even that with usually widely varying degrees of rationality.

[Earthling]

If you're not a troll all you have to is prove it through your behaviour. I have yet to ban an active member, only spammers and such.
You behave like fundimentalist theist. By deffinition there is utterly no point in attempting to debate with you, it's like talking to a brick wall, a brick wall you appear to value above all else. What possible motivations can a fundimentalist theist have coming to an atheist forum? I can't think of any but to preach and convert. Well this place is not here as a platform for you to preach and convert.

My position isn't to convert, in fact, it is my chosen personal text. To me the attempt to convert or deconvert anyone is impossible and therefore futile.

All I want to do is learn from and teach you. I have already learned some good stuff in my short time here. What an apatheist and ingnostic is. The Dawkins scale. But honestly. I'm not here to be converted or convert anyone. Just to learn, teach, discuss and debate.

Please don't tarnish my opinion of you by dismissing me as a pig, unable to disagree. I'm not so intolerant as that and I hope you all wouldn't be as well.

My beliefs don't negate yours and there is no reason why we can't, in spite of our disagreements, get along and accept one another's differing beliefs.

[Earthling]

History of the myths, yes. The actual existene of actual bunnies and Clauses... Not so much.

If a parent tells his child about Santa Clause as a truth, and points to the existence of various examples on street corners ringing bell and at the mall every holiday season there is some explaining to do. It isn't necessary for you to have a lobotomy into believing that the guy in the sky exists for us to have a conversation.

What about Christian Easter? It comes from the alluvial plains of Babylon. There, the people celebrated the namesake of the pagan / Christian holiday, Astarte (aka Ishtar) the goddess of fertility, and her symbols the egg, the rabbit and the phallic symbol the cross. Thousand of years before Jesus.

Children, young virgins, were selected, bathed and given new clothes and sacrificed to fire. Their charred remains are commonly found in earns throughout the area with Astarte's symbols on the containers. Then they would have orgies and color eggs and make hot cross buns - bread in the shape of a cross.

Out of curiosity how many atheists teach their children Christmas and Easter?  

What about the possible existence of extraterrestrial beings?

You can have rational speculations, and even that with usually widely varying degrees of rationality.

Exactly. Mythological explorations of primitive peoples in the context of historical examination needn't either dismiss their reference to the supernatural any more than the extraterrestrial. The "rational" needn't don a loincloth and club to contemplate a hunting scene painted on a wall in an attempt to try and understand where they were coming from. . . what . . . are . . . you . . . afraid . . . of?

[Asmodean]

what . . . are . . . you . . . afraid . . . of?

That the state will want the taxes back.

Speculations should always be viewed as no more than that. In a rational debate, they have little to no place unless they can be backed up and turned into proper hypotheses. Of course, if theists differentiated at-best-semi-informed personal speculations from quality hypotheses and facts, then I suppose I'd be ok with far more of them.

[Earthling]

Speculations should always be viewed as no more than that. In a rational debate, they have little to no place unless they can be backed up and turned into proper hypotheses. Of course, if theists differentiated at-best-semi-informed personal speculations from quality hypotheses and facts, then I suppose I'd be ok with far more of them.

Uh-huh . . . here is the problem as I see it. Both sides tend to only speculate on their own side. They consider only the one.

So, if I asked an atheist what the Bible says the soul is they tend to dismiss it as some supernatural force that exits the body upon death. This comes from Greek philosophy, Socrates to be exact.

The Bible itself teaches that the soul is the blood, the life of any breathing creature. In fact the words translated into the English soul - admittedly an unhappy translation due to its very philosophical nature - means literally "breather."

The word spirit is translated from the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma. Pneuma is where we get the English pneumatic and pneumonia. It is any invisible active force. Something unseen but producing results. The Hebrew and Greek can be translated into breath, wind, breeze, mental inclination (the spirit of the horse was broken, or he was a mean spirited person, for example) or invisible spirit creatures. God is a spirit. Angels.

Likely your speculation which leads you to dismiss the Bible as bullshit is far from accurate. It isn't rational, it considers no evidence and tolerates no disagreement. You see the parallels with the dark ages religious mentality. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 

[Asmodean]

Uh-huh . . . here is the problem as I see it. Both sides tend to only speculate on their own side. They consider only the one.

With no reason to consider the possibility of the existence of gods and Santas, why would I do that? There is no need for gods in this day and age, at least in the more civilized parts of the world, so why invent them?

That said, a vast number of atheists did consider the possibility of gods, having once believed in such themselves... Was that not what you claimed to have done, except in reverse?

So, if I asked an atheist what the Bible says the soul is they tend to dismiss it as some supernatural force that exits the body upon death. This comes from Greek philosophy, Socrates to be exact.

Why insist on searching for wisdom and knowledge in times ruled by superstition and big men with beards? You can build on that, but the most newly verified facts tend to be the best in quality.

The concept of soul is as unnecessary as the concept of gods. What purpose does your soul serve that you know to be an actual purpose? You are a process of your brain unless you claim to have some verifiable attributes whih can not be explained by the presense of said organ. When you die, you do not know that your existence will continue, and have no reason to assume that it will. Where does that leave a soul? In the realm of weak supposition, that's where.

The Bible itself teaches that the soul is the blood, the life of any breathing creature. In fact the words translated into the English soul - admittedly an unhappy translation due to its very philosophical nature - means literally "breather."

In the days of modern medicine, the breathing thing is known to be done by your pulmenary system, the blood thing by your bone marrow, heart and the rest of the cardiovascular system and the thinking and managing the meat is done by the nervous system. What is it that the soul does then..?

The word spirit is translated from the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma. Pneuma is where we get the English pneumatic and pneumonia. It is any invisible active force. Something unseen but producing results. The Hebrew and Greek can be translated into breath, wind, breeze, mental inclination (the spirit of the horse was broken, or he was a mean spirited person, for example) or invisible spirit creatures. God is a spirit. Angels.

Producing results... Now that is interesting. What results does a soul verifiably produce, which can not be attributed to physical workings of the body? What results do gods verifiably produce, except of course for bringing misery to untold millions in the most indirect way I can imagine?

Likely your speculation which leads you to dismiss the Bible as bullshit is far from accurate. It isn't rational, it considers no evidence and tolerates no disagreement. You see the parallels with the dark ages religious mentality. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  

Yes. The bible as a factual book is bullshit for all the abovementioned reasons plus terrible reproduceability of the claims made within it and poorly verifiable historial statements.

[Recusant]

With no reason to consider the possibility of the existence of gods...

Fine post, Asmodean.

[Asmodean]

Fine post, Asmodean.

Why, thank you!  I was trying to be construtive.

[Earthling]

With no reason to consider the possibility of the existence of gods and Santas, why would I do that?

EXACTLY! Now we are getting somewhere. What is the "Atheist Agenda?" Why get together and, out of almost complete ignorance, mock and belittle someone's nonsensical beliefs? You don't see forums devoted to exposing Santa. The only thing I can come up with is political / social class struggle. Most atheists that I have encountered, I would say, about 90% of them, are political in nature.

Issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, prayer in school and of course, science being shoved down the children's throats as religion once was in school worked pretty good for establishing it as bullshit in the minds of most so I never could figure out why it was so important to atheists. History repeats itself.

Another thing I've noticed about atheists is they have this sort of scientific utopian idea of a world without religion which they seem to think will come in the form of political means without realizing that all of the harmful effect of religion was made possible by the exact same source. Religion and politics walking hand in hand. 

There is no need for gods in this day and age, at least in the more civilized parts of the world, so why invent them?

There never was. You think of primitive men as being stupid and superstitious because they didn't have Wikipedia and cell phones. But they used gods like we use holidays. Excuses for sex and appreciated but also ignored when it comes down to the nitty gritty.

That said, a vast number of atheists did consider the possibility of gods, having once believed in such themselves... Was that not what you claimed to have done, except in reverse?

Yes. But I had the sense to know very early on that all people are full of shit and none more so than the religious. Its a cultural thing more than anything. Religion.

[Attila]

Here it is, for your reading pleasure: the Earthling miracle or how to espouse a view ... and its contrary on the same thread! ??? ??? ??? Step right up.
Exhibit A: Reply #33 on: 27-10-2011, 20:51:08

Almost everyone I know is atheist, and they all have three things in common. They don't believe in evolution, they are apolitical, and they don't care to discuss or contemplate the existence of gods.

Exhibit B:  Reply #86 on: Today at 02:54:52

Most atheists that I have encountered, I would say, about 90% of them, are political in nature.

You couldn't make this up. As for the claim most atheists "don't believe in evolution". Does E-ling mean they do not accept (the theory of) evolution on faith? Then the statement is certainly true. If he means that most atheists deny that evolution by natural selection is a theory with considerable empirical support and, accordingly, worth studying until such time as a superior theory comes along and that they reject creationism or intelligent design as unscientific and having no empirical support then he is most certainly not an earthling. I couldn't possible conjecture on what planet Earthling inhabits.
But all this is neither here nor there except to support may claim that you cannot have a dialogue with a "person of faith".

[Earthling]

Here it is, for your reading pleasure: the Earthling miracle or how to espouse a view ... and its contrary on the same thread! ??? ??? ??? Step right up.
Exhibit A: Reply #33 on: 27-10-2011, 20:51:08

Almost everyone I know is atheist, and they all have three things in common. They don't believe in evolution, they are apolitical, and they don't care to discuss or contemplate the existence of gods.

Exhibit B:  Reply #86 on: Today at 02:54:52

Most atheists that I have encountered, I would say, about 90% of them, are political in nature.

You couldn't make this up. As for the claim most atheists "don't believe in evolution". Does E-ling mean they do not accept (the theory of) evolution on faith? Then the statement is certainly true. If he means that most atheists deny that evolution by natural selection is a theory with considerable empirical support and, accordingly, worth studying until such time as a superior theory comes along and that they reject creationism or intelligent design as unscientific and having no empirical support then he is most certainly not an earthling. I couldn't possible conjecture on what planet Earthling inhabits.
But all this is neither here nor there except to support may claim that you cannot have a dialogue with a "person of faith".

You old dog, you! Sheesh! Look who's paying attention . . . to me! Give me a hug?!

Okay. My mistake. I should have clarified. All of the people I know, except one, are "atheists." Meaning they don't care about, don't want to know about, don't want to talk about anything to do with god. They also don't believe in evolution, they see it as just more bullshit they were taught in school, and they are apolitical. You won't see anyone from my family or circle of friends on the internet expressing their disbelief in God. Not interested.

Those people, I believe, are the majority of atheists.

What I call the militant, meaning outspoken, vocal, actively participating in an expression of their disbelief in Gods, I consider the minority. Those are the people that you see in forums like this, or doing the talk show circuit selling their new books of profound ignorance on the subject of God which Attila has no interest in. Repeatedly.

Those people are, in my experience, in my opinion, usually very political.

[Asmodean]

You think of primitive men as being stupid and superstitious because they didn't have Wikipedia and cell phones.

Well... Yes. Also, because they didn't know what the sun was, nor how to make proper music.