12 of 13
12
The Delusional Atheist
Posted: 28 July 2011 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 166 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6174
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 27 July 2011 08:25 AM
Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] - 26 July 2011 03:37 PM

Where mountains of evidence should exist and none exists,as Victor Stenger notes and in line with Charles Moore’s auto-epistemic rule, then perforce , absence means no evidence. When the putative being has no referents as Prime Mover , Grand Miracle Monger and so forth and has contradictory,incoherent attributes, He cannot possibly exist; thus, we naturalists need not traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience ourselves as analysis reveals!

That is not proof of nonexistence it is only proof that most believers don’t know what they are talking about.

If 100 people make contradictory statements then at least 99 of them must be wrong.  But that does not prove there is not one that is correct.If you don’t know then you don’t know.

If you don’t care that is fine too.  But the rational atheists are delusional.

psik

I disagree with that statement. If 100 people make contradictory statements, but 99 assume (without evidence) the existence of a god and 1 has a coherent and logical conclusion (based on available evidence) that god cannot exist, there is no uncertainty.
I’ll pick the 1 with the most rational argument backed by sufficient evidence that the creation of the universe did not require intelligence, which is the single feature that separates god from all other interpretations of creation.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 02:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 167 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2008-11-10
ExMachina - 19 December 2010 04:47 PM

The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist. Do Delusional Atheists really think that their points on their beliefs are more valid due to the fact that they refuse to accept the remote possibility that a Deity could exist? Because regardless of what people think, it in no way changes what the truth really is.

Now on the flip side, I think that Weak Atheist should be changed to Rational Atheism. I’m not really sure who coined the terms weak Atheist. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be derogatory, but it certain reeks to make their pov sound less valid.

God might exist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 02:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 168 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
john76 - 06 August 2011 02:38 PM
ExMachina - 19 December 2010 04:47 PM

The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist. Do Delusional Atheists really think that their points on their beliefs are more valid due to the fact that they refuse to accept the remote possibility that a Deity could exist? Because regardless of what people think, it in no way changes what the truth really is.

Now on the flip side, I think that Weak Atheist should be changed to Rational Atheism. I’m not really sure who coined the terms weak Atheist. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be derogatory, but it certain reeks to make their pov sound less valid.

God might exist.

Which god??? There are thousands, could you be more specific?  smile

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 02:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 169 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2008-11-10
traveler - 06 August 2011 02:44 PM
john76 - 06 August 2011 02:38 PM
ExMachina - 19 December 2010 04:47 PM

The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist. Do Delusional Atheists really think that their points on their beliefs are more valid due to the fact that they refuse to accept the remote possibility that a Deity could exist? Because regardless of what people think, it in no way changes what the truth really is.

Now on the flip side, I think that Weak Atheist should be changed to Rational Atheism. I’m not really sure who coined the terms weak Atheist. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be derogatory, but it certain reeks to make their pov sound less valid.

God might exist.

Which god??? There are thousands, could you be more specific?  smile

A God or even gods are possible.  lmao

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 03:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 170 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
john76 - 06 August 2011 02:47 PM
traveler - 06 August 2011 02:44 PM
john76 - 06 August 2011 02:38 PM
ExMachina - 19 December 2010 04:47 PM

The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist. Do Delusional Atheists really think that their points on their beliefs are more valid due to the fact that they refuse to accept the remote possibility that a Deity could exist? Because regardless of what people think, it in no way changes what the truth really is.

Now on the flip side, I think that Weak Atheist should be changed to Rational Atheism. I’m not really sure who coined the terms weak Atheist. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be derogatory, but it certain reeks to make their pov sound less valid.

God might exist.

Which god??? There are thousands, could you be more specific?  smile

A God or even gods are possible.  lmao

But at what odds? Earlier, you said, “Odds are still even Steven that you’ll be standing there with Bertrand Russel in front of God complaining about a lack of evidence for Him.” Really? Even Steven? I guess that’s the primary difference. I give it 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 : 1 (approx.)

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 03:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 171 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2008-11-10
traveler - 06 August 2011 03:10 PM
john76 - 06 August 2011 02:47 PM
traveler - 06 August 2011 02:44 PM
john76 - 06 August 2011 02:38 PM
ExMachina - 19 December 2010 04:47 PM

The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist. Do Delusional Atheists really think that their points on their beliefs are more valid due to the fact that they refuse to accept the remote possibility that a Deity could exist? Because regardless of what people think, it in no way changes what the truth really is.

Now on the flip side, I think that Weak Atheist should be changed to Rational Atheism. I’m not really sure who coined the terms weak Atheist. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be derogatory, but it certain reeks to make their pov sound less valid.

God might exist.

Which god??? There are thousands, could you be more specific?  smile

A God or even gods are possible.  lmao

But at what odds? Earlier, you said, “Odds are still even Steven that you’ll be standing there with Bertrand Russel in front of God complaining about a lack of evidence for Him.” Really? Even Steven? I guess that’s the primary difference. I give it 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 : 1 (approx.)

I can give you my opinion.  It’s just one person’s opinion, so take it for what it’s worth:  I think God(s) may or may not exist.  Who knows?  I think due to the problem of theodicy, a particular kind of God is unlikely.  But other than that, God(s) may or may not exist.  That’s just my opinion, but that’s the one that makes sense to me.  If you are going to start bringing in numbers, that’s a little too fancy for my taste.  I prefer to say “may” or “may not.”  I guess if I was better at probability and numbers I could assign a number value.  I’m not sure what the numerical equvalent of “unlikely” is, but like I say Math is tough for me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 03:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 172 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
john76 - 06 August 2011 03:22 PM
traveler - 06 August 2011 03:10 PM
john76 - 06 August 2011 02:47 PM
traveler - 06 August 2011 02:44 PM
john76 - 06 August 2011 02:38 PM
ExMachina - 19 December 2010 04:47 PM

The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist. Do Delusional Atheists really think that their points on their beliefs are more valid due to the fact that they refuse to accept the remote possibility that a Deity could exist? Because regardless of what people think, it in no way changes what the truth really is.

Now on the flip side, I think that Weak Atheist should be changed to Rational Atheism. I’m not really sure who coined the terms weak Atheist. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be derogatory, but it certain reeks to make their pov sound less valid.

God might exist.

Which god??? There are thousands, could you be more specific?  smile

A God or even gods are possible.  lmao

But at what odds? Earlier, you said, “Odds are still even Steven that you’ll be standing there with Bertrand Russel in front of God complaining about a lack of evidence for Him.” Really? Even Steven? I guess that’s the primary difference. I give it 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 : 1 (approx.)

I can give you my opinion.  It’s just one person’s opinion, so take it for what it’s worth:  I think God(s) may or may not exist.  Who knows?  I think due to the problem of theodicy, a particular kind of God is unlikely.  But other than that, God(s) may or may not exist.  That’s just my opinion, but that’s the one that makes sense to me.  If you are going to start bringing in numbers, that’s a little too fancy for my taste.  I prefer to say “may” or “may not.”  I guess if I was better at probability and numbers I could assign a number value.  I’m not sure what the numerical equvalent of “unlikely” is, but like I say Math is tough for me.

No problem. I like to be non-combative as well. Peace!  smile

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 173 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6174
Joined  2009-02-26

It all depends on your definition of god.

If a god is a phylosophical symbolism to describe a natural phenomena, i.e the god of the sun, the god of love, the god of war, the god of E=Mc^2,  the god of creation, one might accept that as a recognition of certain Natural Laws and universal physical relationships. The word command appears frequently in scripture. However in religion this symbolic god has been assigned powers well beyond what is required from a natural condition.
To me, the introduction of intelligence begs the question how this god became to be intelligent. Is a god endowed with intelligence by his Maker? A supreme imperial but metaphysical god who reigns over the entire universe, who sends out angels and demons is just a little too much speculation to me.
However if there is a pseudo scientific common spiritual language which addresses our subjection and observance to natural law for every-day living and which makes us obey those laws, I see no great danger.
It is the personification and assumption of sentient intelligence which requires worship, that invalidates any societal benefits as it inevitabley leads “I understand My God is Better than you understand Your God”, therefore I am Holy and you are wrong!

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2011 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 174 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2011-08-11

I am new to this but find it bizarre to have different labels for atheists.  It seems to me to be beside the point.  The burden has always been on the atheist to disprove god.  I think the conversation should start without god.  Let us look at the world and look at science and look at empiric evidence.  There is not only no evidence to support the existence of god, there is strong evidence as to why humans would make up the idea of god and religion to fill in gaps in knowledge.  Beyond that, the concept of god is illogical, it creates more questions than it answers, ie who created god?.  So I am very, very comfortable saying that the concept of god is completely irrational and invented by humans.  I don’t need to prove god doesn’t exist.  But I can disprove every theory that he does exist.  Why should the theists decide where this argument starts?  Just because there are gaps in knowledge does not mean it is intellectually honest to fill the gaps with fantasy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2011 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 175 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Right, GC.  It is logically impossible to prove a negative.  And, it’s the responsibility of the person who declares something to prove it.  When a theist demands that a non-theist prove that there is no god, s/he’s being irrational. It’s up to him/her to prove that there is one (or more).  As I see it atheists can be divided into a number of groups.

1.  The dogmatic, “There is no god, period.”

2.  The crypto-agostic, “I strongly doubt that there is any god.”

3.  The Karl Popper disciple, “Since there’s no evidence pro or con, it’s a waste of time to even discuss it.”

4.  The Ockhamite, “Since there’s is no evidence that my like is influenced in any way by a god, the concept is of no value and is rejected.”

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2011 06:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 176 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2011-08-11

That is very interesting.  Actually, I do think the discussion needs to move beyond the existence of god.  It is more important to discuss life and how to live it.  I guess that is my point.  Now that I have decided that there is no credible evidence for god’s existence, what is next.  How do we decide what is right and wrong?  How do we prioritize what our own lives should be about?  Do I exist just to survive and reproduce?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2011 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 177 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

OK, your last sentence could be translated into “what is the meaning of my life?”  My view is that there is no intrinsic meaning, but we build our own meaning of our lives by our actions. 

We are a communal species, and basic to that is each of us helping the others.  Once we accept that, we can define our moral basis as - help others when I can and avoid hurting them if possible.  It seems to me that once one accepts this, the answers to your last three questions can be developed.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2011 05:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 178 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2009-10-04

Looks like a lot of people here could benefit greatly by reading Thomson’s ‘why we believe in god(s)’ 
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Believe-God-Concise/dp/0984493212/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_pp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313151066&sr=1-1 
and follow up with Wiseman’s ‘Paranormality: Why We See What Isn’t There’
http://www.amazon.com/Paranormality-Why-What-Isnt-There/dp/0230752985/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313151334&sr=1-2
And when you grade atheism it becomes stupid in that it should be of little concern as to the degree one doesn’t consider something not to be the case. Cfr. non-stamp collectors.
Atheism and theism are dichotomies; you believe in the supernatural, or you don’t. So-called fence-sitting (Pascal’s wager) means that you believe.
And yes, I know there are no gods as defined by any religion.

 Signature 

Jonn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2011 04:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 179 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  438
Joined  2009-01-28
john76 - 06 August 2011 02:38 PM
ExMachina - 19 December 2010 04:47 PM

The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist. Do Delusional Atheists really think that their points on their beliefs are more valid due to the fact that they refuse to accept the remote possibility that a Deity could exist? Because regardless of what people think, it in no way changes what the truth really is.

Now on the flip side, I think that Weak Atheist should be changed to Rational Atheism. I’m not really sure who coined the terms weak Atheist. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be derogatory, but it certain reeks to make their pov sound less valid.

God might exist.

So might bigfoot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2011 04:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 180 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2011-08-11

Honestly, I think the issue of the existence of god is one of the most absurd discussions I can imagine.  If I say there is zero evidence to support the existence of god, why is there a need to have any further discussion?  What I am saying is that I am as sure as I can possibly be that there is no god.  And let us assume that the one in a zillion chance comes true and there really is a god.  What evidence is there that he wants me to acknowledge him, praise him and basically “kiss his ass”?  Why would this wonderful and all powerful being take on the human characteristic of vanity? or the need to be recognized and lauded?  We should having a friggin’ HBO award show for god to tell him how great and wonderful and all powerful he is.  What a ridiculous joke.  Come on folks.  Really?

Profile
 
 
   
12 of 13
12