A question for theists...
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Yo I'm in! Did i miss anything? :)
None of those are tenets of atheism.
I was not presenting them as tenets of atheism.
They were all quotes or summaries of what atheists have said on AR.
Tue, 07/30/2019 - 01:21
"Jo @ Nyarlathotep I was not presenting them as tenets of atheism. They were all quotes or summaries of what atheists have said on AR."
I find this claim extremely dubious and would appreciate you providing links to posts making any / all of these claims you have posted...However, what an individual atheists claims has nothing to do with atheism, which is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, unlike theism which as well as being a belief and therefor a claim, it comes with a vast amount of doctrine and dogma. Which atheism does not, and it is by definition not a belief.
As I stated previously , I am referencing what atheists have said to me on AR, not the definition of atheism.
The reference for #1 and #3 is that they both are from you. Do you not regularly ask for objective evidence?
Jo "@ Sheldon
As I stated previously , I am referencing what atheists have said to me on AR, not the definition of atheism."
Well that's pretty dishonest, and here's a quote to prove it..
Nothing in there to suggest this is the personal opinion of some posters who also happen to be atheists. Just a generic reference to atheists, sloppy at best, duplicitous at worst, and the latter seems more likely from your constant rehash of this dishonest polemic.
It's also very dishonest to address the question to me, since I've never made any of those claims, and they have nothing whatever to do with the thread OP? So this is rank dishonesty from you again Jo, deliberate?
You need to address those questions to the person who makes the claims, when they make them, instead of dishonestly pretending they are a rebuttal to the questions in my thread OP. Questions you ignored to peddle your usual dishonest misrepresentation of atheists.
So not a single link to a single atheist making a single claim you assigned to them, and yet you turn cry baby when I imply your posts are dishonest. Asking theists for objective evidence for their claim a deity exists is not a
claim, and has no relevance to the questions I asked in my thread OP, nor does it have any bearing on your lie about "what atheists believe without evidence," and for which you've failed to provide a single link when asked.
If you don't want to be decried as dishonest Jo, then you better start showing some integrity. You could start by honestly addressing my questions, and stop these woefully dishonest attempts to constantly reverse the burden of proof in every exchange. There is not one single claim in your list that I have ever made on here, so take them elsewhere please, and stop hijacking this thread.
@Jo: What atheists say on AR.
You need to look a little deeper. Atheists are held to the same standard as the theists around here. If an atheist makes a dip-shit claim, they are called on it in the same way your dip-shit claims are challenged. You don't know what you are talking about, once again.
"They were all quotes or summaries of what atheists have said on AR"
Which is a dishonest practice. One can pick up snippets in a conversation, yet they do not apply to any tenets. For example, a fellow atheist could claim to be a vegetarian, while I tell them that Bambi tastes good.
The one and only thing atheists share is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
This doesn't remotely answer the question does it Jo. List ten beliefs you hold other than your belief in a deity that don't require any objective evidence. If there are none why should we not infer an inherent bias that sets such a obvious double standard for that theistic belief?
You've listed none ffs.
Sadly, but perhaps predictably given it's your MO, you've not answered any part of either question, just made up a long list of subjective actions or behaviours you claim are moral. Reread both questions thoroughly please, and try again.
Your dishonest rehash of atheism as a set of beliefs is as stupidly contemptuous as it is mendacious. Read the dictionary definition of atheism please, and stop trying to hijack this thread op for that mendacious guff. I do not appreciate your dishonesty Jo, nor do I appreciate you ignoring the thread OP to lie about a simple dictionary definition. If you want to make yourself appear a dishonest clown start a thread entitled "Why I (Jo) disagree with the dictionary definition of atheism," and I'm sure they'll be queuing up to give you a back ally colonoscopy.
Alternatively try showing some integrity for once.
Alternatively try showing some integrity for once.
He hasn't demonstrated any integrity since his first post....
@ Old man shouts
This is your atheist version of "Jo is a wretched sinner and deserving of hell fire."
Don't make statements you cannot back up...oh wait...you have done that ever since you came here...
No Jo, it is not a statement I would make.
We have established that you are amoral.
We have established that you deceive yourself and others with your apologetics.
We have even established (to my satisfaction) that your mind is closed to any facts that contradict your biblical insanity.
You will not 'live in truth'. The worst I wish upon you, Jo, is that one day you realise what a pernicious, disgusting book can do to warp decent people like yourself and how it is only a small step from excusing racism, misogyny, infanticide, genocide, slavery etcetera to practising it without a conscience.
Every guard at Treblinka was a christian. Every guard at Auschwitz was a christian. Every one of them acted (outside the camps) as a decent person, caring for their families, shopping, playing music, reading the bible and going to church services. That was part of their defence at the War Crime Trials.
You have demonstrated on these forums the exact same mind set...if you excuse it, you condone it, if you do nothing to oppose it you are guilty.
That is where your path is leading Jo. " Only following orders"
@ Old man shouts
I was showing how similar your verbal assaults on me are to those that some theist do to atheists.
You would not call me a sinner, but feel justified in calling me amoral, deceptive, closed mind, equated with Nazi death camp guards, and condoning everything horrible. All because I don't agree with you. Maybe you are more like those you condemn than you would like to admit?
What you call truth is to take a few words or sayings out of the Bible. Misrepresent them, ignore the outcomes in the stories, ignore the themes in, and the purpose of the books. Then make your misrepresented words the whole story. You do the same thing with the historical Jesus. Take the worst possible conclusion, ignore the experts, then make grand conclusions based on your biased view. Than call it truth.
I will stick with with what the Bible actually says.
Did your name calling help you feel better?
Nothing to do with lack of agreement. All to do with your defence of racism, misogyny, infanticide, genocide and other things in your 'holy' book. That defence of the indefensible makes you complicit....and therefore, like your god utterly amoral.
So play the victim card all you like, the fact remains when you defend such actions as stoning children, genocide etc you are acting exactly as the example I gave.
No I presented you with the historical facts, and the complete lack of evidence for your claims.. You didn't like them and proceeded to misquote and cherry pick authors to try and represent them as having a different opinion to the truth.
Fact: There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of the jesus figure as described in the gospels. NONE.
Which is EXACTLY what I do...and you have to run to apologetics to defend its horror.
You are the one who came here claiming to want to "live in truth"
Not doing to well by my count....and no, calling something like you names does not "feel me better". I am sorry I have to call anyone out for any for defending what you have defended. It does make you a sorry excuse for a human, and, as such, you have my compassion as I cannot imagine defending such things and then cry "I am living in truth". It makes my charge of you being amoral all the more poignant.
You have my pity, and sincere hope you realise what you are doing to yourself.
You do know that they were all Christians don't you? Part of the requirement to join the German SS units was that you had to be a christian. By your rationale, implied solely from what you claim individual atheists have said, it's a more than reasonable inference to compare Christian's to Nazi concentration camp guards. What's sauce for the Goose after all...
The difference is Nazi antisemitism including Hitler's were the result of centuries of European christian doctrine and dogma. Whereas atheism has no dogma or doctrine, so what one atheist says has no direct relevance to what other atheists believe. The only legitimate prima facie comparison is that they all lack belief in any deity or deities.
"I will stick with with what the Bible actually says."
No, you are picking and choosing whatever makes you feel good, and ignoring the stuff that makes you uncomfortable.
For example, you would like to believe your god is a loving one. Yet the facts are plain, this god is very willing to make anyone spend an eternity in absolute torture just because they did not swallow the load.
@Jo Re: To Old Man - "This is your atheist version of "Jo is a wretched sinner and deserving of hell fire.""
Hmmmm.... Odd... Seems rather silly to me that an atheist would wish something on you that we do not believe exists.... *puzzled look on face*... You certainly do have a funny way of interpreting things you read. I'm guessing maybe Reading Comprehension was not your strong point in school? Of course, I suppose that DOES explain how you are able to "overlook" and excuse so many of the horrendous acts committed by your god in the bible.... *scratching head*...
Yes, I did answer your first question. "I should like all the theists in here to list ten beliefs they hold without any objective evidence, and that are nothing to do with their religion."
I was responding to what has been said on AR by atheists. I was addressing your first question in the OP and not the dictionary definition of atheism.
No you certainly did not, you made a list of claims associated with your religious beliefs, I asked theists for ten beliefs they hold without any objective evidence, and that are nothing to do with their religion.
Here's what you posted:
1. Humans can choose to be noble, good, self-sacrificing, benevolent, faithful, and humble.
Clearly this can be objectively evidenced. Strike 1.
2. Humans are more than just the sum of their parts.
What does that even fucking mean? Strike 2
3. Humans are more than just very complicated biological entities.
Humans have a soul, spirit, or something that cannot be explained solely through science.
Clearly part of your religious dogma. Strike 3.
4. Humans have minds and free will.
The first a demonstrably objective fact, the second again part of your religious dogma. Is English really your first language? Strike 4
5. The above are not just a product of electro-chemical actions developed through evolutionary happenstance.
The above what? And yet again the second part is clearly an attempt to peddle the BS of religious creationism. Strike 5.
Thats as far as you went. So not one answer to either question. Come on Jo, do you really think we're so dumb we won't see through the bullshit?
Too many inane assertions for me to address. Pass the popcorn! I'm just going to take a seat and watch. I think Jo has been studying to pass his interview with Hallmark.
I find myself with spare time on my day off (a visit cancelled and a need to rest a damaged leg - damn bungyjumping) so I offer the following as replies to your list of what you think atheists believe without objective evidence.
These are my answers and apply to no-one else on this site. No offense intended, they are just my ideas.
No. It's a trick statement. We ask theists to provide objective evidence because we already know there can be none. A waste of time really. All we know about god is subjective, which can be beyond proof.
Perhaps, I can only reasonably reject the claim there is a god. As above, the existence or non existence of a god cannot be proven.
Again, if a god cannot be proven to exist his existence cannot be disproved.
Yes. I cannot accept superstition or the supernatural. I have no experience, nor first hand knowledge of either. Its not a choice.
Yep, as above.
Yes. I dont need to go into detail, do I? Cali could provide you a far more comprehensive understandable explanation than I, if he hasn't already done so on these forums and others. You'd have to ask him nicely, I understand he tires of the repetition of the effort.
No. Really? Zero points for Jo House.
But then neither can religion or faith.
I have to say science has actually provided far more answers about things we originally did not know and has had a far greater impact on improving the lives we live today.
Absolutely correct for all the above, as far as I can determine. I think I cover more in the answers below.
Most likely not, if I dont think the claim of god's existence is true.
The universe is a thing, it has no self awareness, see below.
The universe is not a conscious entity, it is a place, an object, its dimensions notwithstanding, and it cannot percieve itself, nor own its own laws, nor can it create them.
In my own crude words, components of the universe react to the relatively constant constraints imposed by its internal physical and chemical activities, which we humans can observe and rationalise as laws, otherwise the universe follows reasonably consistent, if sometimes imcomprehensible paths. The universe's origins are beyond my comprehension, so about that I offer the honest claim, I have no idea.
As with the universe, Life with a capital "L" is a name given to singularly enormous, continuous organic activity over a mere 4.5 billion year period, severely limited, as far as we know to date, to this tiny planet. It is comprised of innumerable autonomous components and has no ability to conceptualise itself in order to bring itself into being. As sentinent beings we homo sapiens sapiens can define its existence for our own purposes, but we do not define its consciousness.
Its reasonably feasible for life to have begun as a result of trillions of huge complex physical and chemical reactions taking place at newtonian and quantum levels, over billions of years, across trillions of locations within the universe. The ability to self-replicate need only have to have happened once, over all that incomprehensible time and unfathomable space.
And if there is no creator god, then we can assume it did happen at least once.
This explanation of mine is less incredible than imaging the existence of a fully-formed self-determining, all powerful, omnipotent, eternal, universe-creating deity, who is obsessively concerned about my telling lies and white lies, rather than about my inability to hear. Yes I am being facetious.
Possibly, other than for those I have taken the time and responsibility for acknowledging and acting on, which I consider a purely personal and subjective concern and which only intensifies my appreciation for being alive at all.
As far as I know thats correct. I have no reason to accept that dead people, or any dead organisms, other than viruses but they don't really count, ever revive in this reality, or in any other imagined one.
I fully understand the comfort such an idea affords others who want to believe in an afterlife, because death is such an uncompromsingly unpleasant reality for those who fear the permanent loss of their sense of self.
No, both only have psychological reasons for whatever they believe. Atheists just have more validation for having formulated their own beliefs for rational reasons and not simply accepting the sometimes emotionally charged and sometimes irrational claims of theists.
One other thing as an atheist, I don't claim to know the absolute truth about anything. That's the provence of theists who claim that there is an immortal deity outside time and space etc et etc who has intervened in the affairs of men and can provide such information. I just try to make as much sense of this life as I can and believing in a god is an impossibility for me to achieve. Its not a choice.
Please note I am returning to work tomorrow after a two day sojourn and will have a lot of coalface jobs to catch up on, so I might not respond immediately to any questions you might have, thanks.
"Perhaps, I can only reasonably reject the claim there is a god. As above, the existence or non existence of a god cannot be proven."
Can one also reasonably reject the claim that there is no God?
" Neither can religion or faith (answer all questions)".
If science nor religion can answer the questions, what can?
"The universe's origins are beyond my comprehension, so about that I offer the honest claim, I have no idea."
Than how do you know there is only the natural world and no God?
"Atheists just have more validation for having formulated their own beliefs for rational reasons and not simply accepting the sometimes emotionally charged and sometimes irrational claims of theists".
Can't theists do the same thing?
"I just try to make as much sense of this life as I can and believing in a god is an impossibility for me to achieve. Its not a choice".
Is it a choice for me to beleive? Would it be rational if I said the same thing you did except achieving belief in God?
Well done to Grinseed for having the patience to walk Jo through that yet again, but I'm still waiting for a theist to remotely address the OP honestly? Two so far and both did what I specifically asked them not to, and simply listed subjective opinion on what they consider to be moral. I'm not interested in theists opinions or their circular arguments, this is your moment to impress the heathens here by showing us a list of just ten objectively moral actions or behaviours, with objective evidence as requested in the OP obviously. We hear them claim objective morality is only possible through theistic belief enough times on here, so lets please have just a small list of 10 of those objective morals then please?
Whatever is the hold up?
In my experience, the belief that humans are not members of the set of all animals (or perhaps rephrased: humans are fundamentally different than animals), seems to be universal among the world's major religions. While I can't remember hearing that from any of them, I think that would be an excellent summary of what Jo posted.
/e I have no doubt that religion serves many different purposes around the world; but making you believe you are special certainly seems to be popular. And that notion might be the root of my early skepticism towards it.
I remember once when I was in a grade school Life Sciences class, and a fellow student jumping out of their seat and vehemently stating that they "didn't come from no damn monkey", and accompanying it with some very funny posturing. Posturing which reminded me of the monkeys I'd seen in wild life documentaries. Just one of those weird moments in life that stick with you.
The irony of theists calling atheists arrogant, for not sharing their arrogant belief humans are special among all living things, is quite ironic you must admit.
You are partially correct in you summary of my post.
However, you misunderstand the "special" nature of humans and their differences with animals.
Cognostic said something once about monkeys being different than humans because monkeys don't paint pictures of bananas and then discuss which picture is best. (I think I have quoted him accurately and in context).
I would expand that monkeys are also not discussing God or wondering on the meaning of life.
Being "special" is not a position of arrogance or superiority. It is that we as humans have purpose, meaning and reasons for our existence. It also places us in a position of accountability. It is not the I am special but that we are all special. Not superior or privileged above others.
Humans evolved around 200k years ago, if we alone have purpose why did it take billions of years of evolution to get to us? Why did your deity spend 100's of millions of years tinkering with dinosaur evolution if none of them had any purpose? What the Hell was all that suffering of disease and predation about? It couldn't be the fictional "fall"of humans, as humans didn't evolve until hundreds of millions of years after dinosaurs existed.
Does your deity just enjoy torturing its pets with disease and predation? What's your rationale here Jo?
And let us not ignore that our planet Earth is circling an average star in an average galaxy. It has been estimated that there are over 200 billion stars in an average galaxy, and over 100 billion galaxies. Yet, we are so freaking special.
On the off chance that everybody except just pursued the 10 precepts, we wouldn't have a paradise after death, yet right now here on Earth.
What has that to do with thread OP? As the third theist to post in this thread, you're the third theist to completely ignore both questions in the thread OP.
As is always the case, one can only infer theists fear giving a candid answer to a direct question about their beliefs, and the claims they make about those beliefs.