You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone 226 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  EdenOne

  Posting with a lot of difficulty as my pupils have been dilated due to an urgency medical procedure, but here goes, sorry for mistakes:

  [atheists] do not claim to know the absolute 'truth'

  I can't remember who posted this about two pages ago, but I must disagree. While this is true when atheists are talking about scientific knowledge - it's actually a premise that such knowledge is never complete - atheists often claim that God's inexistence is a definite and absolute truth. And they can be just as dogmatic and fundamentlst and proselyting about that notion just as any radical theist.

  Eden
• 

  cofty

  atheists often claim that God's inexistence is a definite and absolute truth.

  This is a straw-man.

  I have never in hundreds of online discussions, come across an atheist who has claimed " that God's inexistence [sic] is a definite and absolute truth". Not once!

  There is zero objective evidence for theism and an overwhelming amount of compelling evidence against it. Therefore atheists lack belief in god. That's it.

  Got to go - making and fitting new brake pipes to little miss Cofty's car.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Even Dawkins says he can't be certain a God does not exist.

  Atheism tends to assume materialism as its foundation. So while it may be internally consistent, how can it be proved to correspond to an external reality? Or for good?
• 

  The Scotsman

  Cofty - you are full of degenerate pish.

  If being an athiest means becoming like you - no thanks.
• 

  EdenOne

  If atheists would discuss things with theists in terms of "You believe in something for which there is no lab-tested empirical evidence of, therefore, your belief lacks scientific support ..." but they don't. Often the case is of "You're a poor deluded ignorant for believing in such a fabrication called [deity's name]". That's where the discussion derails. Many atheists (not all, sure) look down on believers, because they consider them intellectually challenged somehow and, having rationallity as their own criteria, judge the theists as little children with underdevelopted rational abilities who need to be saved from their delusions of God.

  Eden
• 

  slimboyfat

  Brainpower deteriorates with age, so Cofty was probably actually smarter when he believed in God than now that he is an atheist.
• 

  Phizzy

  I really don't care if people believe in things for which there is no proof ( you know the kind of proof I mean, proof that would satisfy Cofty LOL) if such belief does no harm.

  But, I do begin to care when the belief that people hold is used to justify Suicide bombing, War simply based on belief, murder of the innocent by denying Medical procedures, and when it stultifies the human spirit because they think something is "God's will" or they need to wait for Him to act, all harmful.

  I am afraid some of my Atheist friends do laugh at believers, thinking they are like the child not yet aware that there is no Santa Clause, this may in fact be true of the mental development of some, who belong to something like the Westboro' Baptist Church no doubt.

  But there are many believers in some form of Superior Being who are far from being the theological neanderthals that the Westboro' Baptists and their ilk are.

  We can surely co-exist in peace on here, as I do in life with Mrs Phizzy, I am a Non-theist, I do not "do" God, but she often says she believes in "something", she is well aware of the lack of Cofty-proof, but does not care. We get along. We can do so on here, can't we ?
• 

  caliber

  
  atheists often claim that God's inexistence is a definite and absolute truth. And they can be just as dogmatic and fundamentlst and proselyting about that notion just as any radical theist. ~~~EdenOne
  have never in hundreds of online discussions, come across an atheist who has claimed "that God's inexistence [sic] is a definite and absolute truth". Not once! ~~Cofty

  Does not very definition of Atheism says there is no God otherwise are you not agnostic ?

  What is the difference if you make a statement in words or not... it is a given

  a·the·ism1.
  the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
  2.
  disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

  The existence of God brings this "burden " into play....

  moral absolutism
  " Moral absolutism is the philosophy that mankind is subject to absolute standards of conduct that do not change with circumstances, the intent of the acting agent, or the result of the act. These standards are universal to all humanity despite culture or era, and they maintain their relevance whether or not an individual or a culture values them. It is never appropriate to break a law which is based on one of these absolutes. "

  To Christians this would appear to be a God-given conscience ( something embedded in the self-conscious )
• 

  Seraphim23

  It was wisely pointed out to me some years back that `it is people who define words for dictionaries not dictionaries that define words for people.` In a general sense this is very true and why I personally reject the definition of atheist as simply a lack of belief in a god. Agnostics often get bundled into the atheist label by atheists of course, using this definition. However two words to define the same thing is redundant and it also doesn’t track with how most people use these words, or with the people and their general attitude these terms are supposed to define. An agnostic can be said to lack a belief in God like an atheist but this is not how the terms are used in the world and obviously they are not the same things. Of course to be fair theists also often try to grasp the agnostics for themselves which is a dirty trick from the other side as it were.

  Anyhow atheists to my mind should be defined differently to agnostic for obvious reasons and that would be the denial of the possibility of God, which goes beyond a mere lack of belief. Agnostics are those who haven’t decided as yet if there is a God and therefor lack a belief in God at their present state.

  Supernatural things or woo woo, as it gets called by some also indicates a difference between atheists and agnostics, at least there is a trend in how atheists of this militant type and agnostics deal with it as a subject or possibility. An atheist is much more than a simple present lack of belief in God. I would argue that there are more self-labelled atheists that should really be defined as agnostic as opposed to agnostics being defined as atheist. I have yet to really hear a proper `rational` reason why I am in error with this view.
• 

  LisaRose

  What I don't get is that most here were at me time Jehovah's Witness, so most of us believed in God at one point. So I do not get why some Athiests treat believers with such contempt. I get using critical thinking skills to show the logical fallacies of belief in a diety, I don't get the attitude when others don't immediately accept it. I doubt if an Athiest had used these same arguments when they were believers they would have immediately seen the wisdom of it and left the religion. They had to get to Athiesm on their own, in their own time.

  So now they come here and condescension to every one who hasn't gotten to that point yet. Just because you are not openly abusive in your arguments does not mean than your disdain is not obvious. If your point is to convince others, you will probably fail, because no one wants to be insulted. If your point is to feel superior and make others feel stupid, well then, you have probably succeeded. So the question is, do you want to be right, or do you want to help others gain critical thinking skills?

  I feel this Athiest/believer discussions are very important, and the Athiests here have much to contribute. I just wish they would be a little more respectful of differing opinions. I also see some believers do the same thing (all Athiests are selfish, etc.), but it is not as common.

  Just my 2 cents.

  Lisa Rose