Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is the mendacious Theistic accusation of Atheistic belief a facile attempt to validate their own irrational belief?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 3068 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 22:34:44 BDT
O.Binladen says:
You're quoting him out of context I think, as his post was a direct response to the assertion that Atheism was itself a belief.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 22:48:36 BDT
Archibald F says:
"You'll have to explain in that case what specifically you mean by having an issue with it"
I mean that your reaction to it is not an entirely rational response, but more based on emotion or prejudice or having in some way been injured by that group, eg I have an issue with whoever ran into my car and never left their details!

"my issue is that it's not supported by any evidence." But you've also admitted that your own rejection of religion is because of a lack of evidence. The problem I find with evidence is that whatever evidence is given is usually dismissed immediately, because it is not considered proof. And clearly, faith cannot be proven because it could then no longer be faith, but fact.

"I'm not sure what Atheists have suggested to you that theistic belief is the same as scientific theory - but they're utterly wrong. Scientific theory is based on an enormous amount of evidence and research."
No, you've misunderstood me. I'm saying that atheism often rejects faith because it cannot be proven, as though God were some kind of scientific theory. Yet at the same time, do not reject scientific theories, such as the Multiverse, even though there is no proof. But atheists who keep a genuinely open mind seem to me completely reasonable.

"I am an Atheist precisely because there is no evidence to support theism, and a great deal to refute it."
So there is empirical evidence to refute God?

"I've asked for evidence, if they have any, you're using semantics to suggest that I should offer evidence for Atheism or the claim is proved"
No, again you have completely misunderstood me.
1. Your thread is not asking for evidence. If that's what you think you've asked, you really do struggle to express yourself. Try by starting a thread titled something like "What evidence for God do theists believe is available?"
2. No, inability to disprove God does not prove that God exists. I'm saying that, ultimately, each person has to make their own decision about faith. Nobody has to justify their faith to you or anybody else, but we each have to justify what we believe to ourselves.

"The question in the title poses the question, I have asked for empirical evidence to support the assertion it refers to from the very start. Are you on a wind up?"
Seriously? Try reading it again.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 22:49:13 BDT
Well it was a direct response to an earlier post of mine so I don't think I got the context wrong.

To be honest it does seem a question of semantics

Atheism - a disbelief in God

Atheism - a belief God doesn't exist

You say potato..........

Congrats by the by for bringing to and presiding over the first? mostly civilised debate on this forum.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 22:55:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 May 2013 22:56:07 BDT
Archibald F says:
I think your previous post was far more accurate, ie "as mere lack of belief leaves open the possibility that the proof is out there." I think we need some way of distinguishing the two definitions you give. I see it as:

Hard Atheism - a belief God doesn't exist - or Traditional Atheism

Soft Atheism - a disbelief in God - or new fangled soft woolly atheism.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 23:07:06 BDT
Oi!!! There's enough trouble on here between theists and atheists without you starting a ruckus between types of atheists as well. :@)

In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2013 23:15:03 BDT
Spin says:
Archibald: What you call "Hard Atheism" is, in fact, "Scientism"; an ideology even scientists reject, but which hard-line empiricists accept only because of their inability to question. "Soft Atheism" is "agnosticism" with a tendency to favour experience rather than intellectual speculation.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 00:05:00 BDT
AJ Murray says:
Hah. Spin isn't subnatural, he's just a contrarian with touch of histrionic personality disorder.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 00:08:30 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 20 May 2013 07:04:26 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 06:57:18 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2013 08:49:54 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"I'm saying that atheism often rejects faith because it cannot be proven, as though God were some kind of scientific theory."
God, detectable to theists and working in this world is a hypothesis amenable to testing or God is placed so far out of this dimension we are in as to be irrelevant; you pick you claim and take the consequences. God is not a scientific theory - you need to be careful with that term. The multiverse is not a theory, but a prediction. Even ideas that do make it to theories are not acted upon in such an irrational way as a religious belief is, there's no honest way to equate the two.

"So there is empirical evidence to refute God?"
No, that doesn't make sense and your claim hasn't even got that far. What there is is logical contradictions in many of the claims such that it doesn't even get off the ground. Logic refutes most gods.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 07:01:08 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2013 18:34:55 BDT
Drew Jones says:
Atheism doesn't just address God. This is a massive stumbling block for the entire conversation. The Abrahamic god is so burdened with logical contradictions and real world claims that have no evidence to the point that we can be far more certain of his non-existence than that of a deistic god that never bothered us at all. An atheist can and should be both hard and soft atheist depending on which of the varied god claims they are dealing with.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:37:26 BDT
Archibald F says:
Hi Peter - surely it's the 'trouble' that makes it interesting! Starting a ruckus between types of atheists as well will just add to the fun!!! Have a good day.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:39:40 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Archibald- to put it simply- You're wrong, and since it has been continually pointed out that atheism is simply a lack of a belief in any god or gods, your ignorance is wilfull.

Try to understand why you do not worship Odin. Got it yet? You do not have any belief he exists.

Try not to make this mistake again.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:42:00 BDT
C. A. Small says:
You mean like dead men walking? Virgin births? That sort of thing?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:42:26 BDT
C. A. Small says:
No it does not.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:47:08 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Since I would never be arrogant enough to claim all knowledge, I would say there is always a chance that new knowledge will come to light that will alter my viewpoint.

I also have to say the chances of there being a god are (imo) none.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:48:59 BDT
Archibald F says:
Hi Drew - not sure what your point is, but the context of my post is a discussion with OB where he had stated "But that's a scientific theory, religion or theism is not". And my question about empirical evidence was also in response to OB's post.

"Logic refutes most gods." Well if it leaves just one .....

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:50:37 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Maybe we will start to torture and murder each other in approved theistic fashion? No- we will not. Now try and understand why.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:52:56 BDT
Archibald F says:
CAS Try reading what other atheists on this forum are saying. There are clearly different views out there, not just yours. Try discussing it with them - you may learn from them and broaden your own understanding.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:54:21 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Oh the irony.

Now - do you believe in Odin?

If not why not?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:55:18 BDT
Archibald F says:
Goodness CAS lighten up! Anyway, time we all went to work!!!

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 08:58:00 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2013 09:14:39 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Hi Drew - not sure what your point is"
My point is that God isn't a scientific theory but it is the sort of idea that could be if it was good enough. The context of the discussion was misusing the term 'theory', misunderstanding what it is applied to (multiverse/God) and failing to acknowledge how tentatively scientific claims are handled when comparing them to religious claims.

God is a hypothesis amendable to evidence. It's also amenable to logic. God fails on both counts.

>>> Logic refutes most gods.
"Well if it leaves just one ....."
Comfort yourself with this delusion but *spoiler alert* it leaves more than one, any undefined or deistic god hasn't even made it to the part it can be understood by logic. It's personal, creator gods effected by logic. Being a Christian, your's falls well and truly into the logically refuted category.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 11:03:34 BDT
Pendragon says:
Contrarian or contagion? It's hard to decide.
Do you suppose he writes all his own material?

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 12:34:50 BDT
Last edited by the author on 20 May 2013 12:37:08 BDT
Hi OB. Apologies as I just kind of glossed over this post and rather rudely didn't give a response when one was perhaps being sought.

If the last bit that you didn't understand was the bit in brackets, it doesn't really mean anything other than me introducing a bit of silliness over one meaning of main, i.e. to be on the seas. Can't help myself throwing these things in, just the way I'm wired

I've met a lot of intelligent and educated theists, many of them taking a generally logical approach to life and some of them scientists I disagree with their view on the existence of God but do not think their conclusions irrational. I think that is an insulting way to refer to them but appreciate that you probably don't see it that way and are merely expressing a viewpoint.

I feel that limiting me to purely scientific evidence imprisons my mind in unreasonable constraints. Science has proved that many things attributed to God are actually natural occurrences but has not proved to me that God doesn't exist.

There is no one proof that leads me to believe that God, especially in the form theists teach us is any more than the myth the Norse, Roman and Greek, to name a few, Gods of old are.

My views are based on observation and experience of current, mixed with a bit od knowledge on past, existence on this planet. Put together it leads me to conclude that God is an impossibility. I cannot put my finger on any one thing and say there is the absolute proof. It is however what I believe and this is despite not because of science.

Science can be a useful tool though it is not the be all and end all for me but just one possible approach to life.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 12:38:45 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Peter I thought the main/seas quip was very witty.

In reply to an earlier post on 20 May 2013 12:55:38 BDT
AJ Murray says:
I can't imagine anyone else would want claim ownership of such profusion of flawed writings.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  67
Total posts:  3068
Initial post:  19 May 2013
Latest post:  15 Sep 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions