Yes, I commented on that thread too, Cofty.
Peace,
tammy
A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian
by cofty 188 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Qcmbr
Tec - everyone is an atheist in some form or another (most would have cogent and rational reasons for not being convinced of the reality of Zeus) however, when it comes to dismissing and disproving gods it is, in my limited experience, those who wish to posit another supernatural cause that spend most time and effort fighting specific gods and proving their targeted atheism (ref JW pages of literature disproving Catholics etc.) whereas atheists (the broad term I'm applying to those who acknowledge no deity due to lack of convincing evidence) tend not to care very much about god x or god y but rather see all forms of religious faith as stemming from equally understandable (and logically wrong) reasons and arguments against gods being broadly equal (that which proves Jehovah could be said of Zeus and that which disproves Zeus would tend to be a problem also with Jehovah.) I am no longer particularly bothered by mormon Elohim for example but I also absolutely understand a JW's committment to Jehovah.
Atheism itself is a rather healthy starting point being the natural state of children and alone is a laudable position imo. Once a person has decided to be an atheist with the exception of one deity or pantheon of grouped deities then they have very much narrowed the field and will begin to have a very active mindset in finding , often small, differences between their 'real' god and the pretend ones and explaining how important that is in proving the veracity of their god and the impossibility of everyone else's. If all people could believe in their various god's with a very healthy dose of skepticism and doubt it would be a brilliant start to gleaning truth and value from various creeds but sadly most gods are jealous and like to future punish non-believers while preparing a really awful place for those half in and half out the faith (some actually 'spew them out').
-
cofty
I am certain beyond all reasonable doubt that this explains your voices.
It is a far more generous explanation than the one I accepted before Startingover proposed it.
Stop talking about or even thinking about him for a while and watch how he vanishes.
-
Laika
Hmmm... Looking forward to it then cofty, though if you think your average evangelical is akin to the taliban I'm honestly not sure why you were so perturbed by my satirical post on all religious people being idiots or moral monsters...
-
tec
Tec - everyone is an atheist in some form or another (most would have cogent and rational reasons for not being convinced of the reality of Zeus)
Q, I have been looking around, but there is no definition of atheism that I have found that supports your use of it above.
An atheist does not believe in any sort of deity.
A theist may reject some gods... whilst believing in one or some others... it does not make them an atheist "in some form of another."
Theists believe in a deity... atheists do not believe in a deity.
however, when it comes to dismissing and disproving gods it is, in my limited experience, those who wish to posit another supernatural cause that spend most time and effort fighting specific gods and proving their targeted atheism (ref JW pages of literature disproving Catholics etc.) whereas atheists (the broad term I'm applying to those who acknowledge no deity due to lack of convincing evidence) tend not to care very much about god x or god y but rather see all forms of religious faith as stemming from equally understandable (and logically wrong) reasons and arguments against gods being broadly equal (that which proves Jehovah could be said of Zeus and that which disproves Zeus would tend to be a problem also with Jehovah.) I am no longer particularly bothered by mormon Elohim for example but I also absolutely understand a JW's committment to Jehovah.
I think that any ex-anything turned atheist spends more time arguing against specific gods. I don't see too many ex-christians turned atheist arguing against Shiva. I do see them using the same arguments that they have heard from one another though... or from someone they look up to... like Dawkins/Hitchens/etc.
As for me, I do point out what is false about my God, the Father of Christ, when I hear or read it.
But I'm not sure what your point is?
Atheism itself is a rather healthy starting point being the natural state of children and alone is a laudable position imo.
I know this is your position.
I also know that it is not the natural state of children. Wasn't for me, and there are many others who would tell you the same.
Once a person has decided to be an atheist with the exception of one deity or pantheon of grouped deities
You are assuming someone has decided to be this... rather than simply following the evidence?
then they have very much narrowed the field and will begin to have a very active mindset in finding , often small, differences between their 'real' god and the pretend ones and explaining how important that is in proving the veracity of their god and the impossibility of everyone else's.
Maybe some people do this, Q. I don't think you have shown that most do this. I mean, I don't go around finding differences between my God... and other 'gods'. Unless it gets brought to me, I don't really think about it at all.
If all people could believe in their various god's with a very healthy dose of skepticism and doubt it would be a brilliant start to gleaning truth and value from various creeds but sadly most gods are jealous and like to future punish non-believers while preparing a really awful place for those half in and half out the faith (some actually 'spew them out').
Well that is too bad for those who believe in 'most gods'.
But it has nothing to do with the Father of Christ.
Peace,
tammy
-
Qcmbr
tec - I credit you with above average reading skills and excellent sophistication ( the ability to consciouslyand selectively corrupt meaning). I refuse to accept that you cannot understand what it means to be atheist with regards to everyone elses' god but your own. I do not accept that you needed to search for some definition to aid your understanding. Either you or admitting an out of character low level of comprehension or this is part of a strategy i have seen before which you were taught by another and simply involves repeating back a deliberately 'misunderstood' reading to show why you are utterly exempt from anything said.
Shrugs. That which I have posted is sufficiently concise and precise and Im happy it needs no further explanation.
PS Your summing up comment re your god not having a hell and not being responsible for spewing out those who are not hot or cold is an exclent example of you looking for some small point if difference to show why your god is superior to ' other gods' . Brilliant.
-
tec
I credit you with above average reading skills and excellent sophistication ( the ability to consciouslyand selectively corrupt meaning).
Yeah... these two things are not the same.
I refuse to accept that you cannot understand what it means to be atheist with regards to everyone elses' god but your own.
Oh, I understand what you meant. It is a popular argument among some atheists. But it is used to demean or belittle the position of faith (oh you just have one tiny little step more to take, since you've already rejected all of these)... and it does so dishonestly. Because atheism does not mean what you use it to mean. Nor is it one tiny little step to take, but a huge one...a complete reversal, in fact.
For instance, a person may seek out a creator... they may know or remember or feel or hear (down to their bones)... that there IS someone there (someone here). That person is at least someone thirsting and seeking... the truth that they recognize, but have not yet found. They may reject various ideas about that creator... but they are in no way an atheist if they believe in a creator of some sort.
An atheist denies the above and any idea of a deity. (unless evidence is shown to them that they can/will accept)
These two positions are opposite... God or no God (of any sort)... whether one rejects or pays no mind to an assortment of 'gods' or not.
I do not accept that you needed to search for some definition to aid your understanding. Either you or admitting an out of character low level of comprehension or this is part of a strategy i have seen before which you were taught by another and simply involves repeating back a deliberately 'misunderstood' reading to show why you are utterly exempt from anything said.
Wha...?
No strategy, Q. I just looked to see if I was wrong in the definition of atheism. I could have been. I didn't think so... but I could have missed something substantial that you and others like you are drawing upon, so I looked to be sure, before I responded.
Peace,
tammy
-
Mr Fool
I change it; People with an atheistic ideology can be very dominating and arrogant.
-
tec
PS Your summing up comment re your god not having a hell and not being responsible for spewing out those who are not hot or cold is an exclent example of you looking for some small point if difference to show why your god is superior to ' other gods' . Brilliant.
Did you read this comment of mine... or just skip it:
I mean, I don't go around finding differences between my God... and other 'gods'. Unless it gets brought to me, I don't really think about it at all.
Peace,
tammy
-
Qcmbr
Tec- it is your standard response just as it is with most who have faith. It matters not when you do it, before or after a statement, it is enough that you fit the pattern. As a missionary at the door people would make a statement about god to explain an aspect of this being they disliked and I would expend all kinds of sophistry to explain just why Mormon god was not what they disliked but was in some way different but was just perfect for them and if they had a few minutes I'd like to explain it to them.
Sometimes Tec you have to accept you cannot avoid the point by constantly rephrasing so it isn't applicable to you or your god or pretending you dont understand what has been said as a way to dismiss it. The confident thing is to square up to a criticism or an observation and embrace it and try and see if the evidence fits but faith is rarely about solid confidence ( after all it has nothing to show, no faith believer in all the years of this forum has ever managed to provide any substantial evidence or new / novel information or provide a divine sourced theory with any predictive or explanatory power ) and becomes instead a series of ill defined mantras ( god is x, y , z ) and always invisible events occurring solely within individuals cranial space which traduce to no more than the intellectual worth and effect of endless Facebook pictorial memes.
Invisible friends / guides / masters can give great comfort, I had mine for 35 years so I get it but, being internal constructs they never exceed the mental and intellectual capacity of the one experiencing them no matter how our mind paints them ( as you know we've had examples of dragons, disembodied voices, leprous Christ, light , impression giver, telepathic god, filler of body with energy christ, helped me with depression god, feels like love being, pushed me out of way invisible angel, made me feel bad about dark alleyway guide and so on) This pattern is repeated across all religions with invisible supernatural entities and is ascribed to all manner of religious beings, ancestors, guiding spirits or aliens. The net result is never an increase of real knowledge but lots of interesting stories and , when a religion gets involved, architecture.
The desire for people to put aside childish notions and to understand that when they thought that some being was helping them through a tough time that it was their own fragile but magnificent , very physical but beautifully complex mind all along is born of human morality not arrogance. A person devoted to a made up god like mormon elohim is constantly acting a role on a mental stage and when they allow themselves to be coaxed from the play, take of the pious make up and look at themselves in the mirror then they can begin to act in a more authentic and self empowered way. I would love to see my mother reach a decision based upon her own experiences and inner wisdom rather than retreating to prayer, scripture reading and fasting - while visiting a temple to take part in cult rituals - before she hesitatingly reaches conclusions. It breaks my heart to see her so insecure in her abilities and desperate to have a divine confirmation of each choice she must make. I get saddened when Allah is praised when a bomb blows up people or Jehovah is credited with healing the car crash victim or the Holy Spirit is accredited with someone overcoming an addiction. In another time and place it is Wotan, Zeus and Ra being invoked and it was wrong then and it's wrong now.
We need atheism to free people from wasting time and resources worshipping Krishna, Allah, Elohim, Jehovah, Christ, Xenu, Brahma, Ganesh and all the other flavours of divinity and to be free to learn about how the universe really works by experience, awe and discovery. Atheism alone is not enough, nor does it destroy spirituality ( heck there are atheist religions ) but it is a first step is making a community more culturally open, where children are not taught that their sex determines their role in a divine plan, where genital mutilation is not a spiritual directive, avoiding blood is a divine mandate, prayer is not an effective substitute for action, where a persons sexual behaviour is not criticised because of bronze age superstitions , where science can be taught without fighting absurd mythical stories long proven false , a community where central places of exclusivity and division ( churches) are replaced with public schools, community centres and restaurants. If this dream is arrogance then so be it, call me arrogant. It's wrong but if this is not also your hope and you'd rather cling to teaching children fear and superstition and privileging mythical fairytales then I realise how important it is to reach the rising generation, to give them the tools of self actualisation denied to you their parents. Give them the choice for goodness sake.