Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?

[yrreg]

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.


Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.


Yrreg

Which commandments, specifically?

[Hokulele]

Atheism is a lack of belief in god. It doesn't necessarily have any more to do with opposition to the 10 commandments than it does with opposition to the Kumulipo.

Why do you make an assumption regarding the Old Testament and atheism?

[Wolfman]

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.

Yrreg
I guess that could, possibly, be one reason.

I don't know any atheists who actually use that reason, but I can't say that it is entirely impossible.

[yrreg]

Here are The Ten Commandments:


http://www.marianland.com/tencommandments/ten_commandments.html


The Ten Commandments
Catholic Version

I.
I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

II.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain!

III.
Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day!

IV.
Honor your father and your mother!

V.
You shall not kill!

VI.
You shall not commit adultery!

VII.
You shall not steal!

VIII.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor!

IX.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife!

X.
You shall not covet your neighbor's goods!





Yrreg

[AkuManiMani]

Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.


Yrreg

Or religion touched them in a bad place when they were little.... >_>

[Elizabeth I]

What?

[Tricky]

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.

Many of the Ten Commandments (all twenty of them) are really stupid. Honor thy Father and Mother? Even if they're child abusers? I have a friend who was raped by her father. Is she still supposed to honor him?

Don't worship any graven idols? I don't think I've ever been in a church without a crucifix. Some of them depict particularly gooey deaths. What the heck distinguishes them from graven idols?

Don't covet your neighbor's wife (or their ass)? Get serious? What is wrong with coveting? Stealing, sure. Homewrecking, sure, but simply admiring and wishing? When I see a Christian who doesn't covet anything I'll take that commandment seriously.

Remember the holy day? Which day is that? Depends on who you ask. And there aren't many Christians who actually refuse to do any work or buy things from somebody who is working on "The Sabbath", whatever day they have arbitrarily decided that is. So this is another case of Christians who openly flout the Ten Commandments.

No other Gods before Him? Shoot, the Christians can't even decide what God wants, so essentially, even Christians are worshipping different Gods. And what the heck is wrong with having other religions. This is the command of a paranoid God and should be totally disregarded.

Adultry? The language on this is extremely iffy. Adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife. So premarital sex is okay. Sex between a married man an an unmarried woman (or several of them) is okay. And forcing a woman into marriage and then essentially raping them is also okay. No, I don't have much respect for this "commandment'.

Don't take the Lord's name in vain? What does this even mean? Does it mean you can't even say "God"? That's the way some have interpreted it, though it makes discussion of religion difficult. And which name is it talking about? And what does "in vain" mean? Praying for something silly, like, oh say, winning a football game is taking the Lord's name in vain, is it not? Yet I see teams doing it all the time.

So that leaves three reasonable commandments.
Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't lie (i.e. bear false witness).

These are pretty much part of every major moral system, though their definitions vary widely.
***
But in answer to the question in your thread title, some people (not me) have become atheists because they were abused by Christians. You can hardly blame them if that makes them combatitive toward religion. Maybe if most religious people did a better job of following their own rules, these abused and combatitive people wouldn't regard them as hypocrites.

[Foster Zygote]

I guess that could, possibly, be one reason.

I don't know any atheists who actually use that reason, but I can't say that it is entirely impossible.

There is another possibility, which I have already pointed out to him, involving the fact that atheists also happen to be humans, and that humans tend to have a wide range of behaviors. Some atheists might be combative and rude, but then again, so are some theists. The same goes for any large group: Some gardeners are rude, some chess players are rude, some futbol fans are rude, some Canadians are rude. Gerry, however, seems determined to make this behavior a quality of atheism.

[Hokulele]

After giving this some thought, I really can't see any of the standard Decalogue as being incompatible with atheism. For ease of reference, I will use the New Revised Standard version from Deuteronomy.

You shall have no other gods before me.


Easy peasey. I have no gods at all, so there certainly cannot be any before YHWH.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.


Since the term "idol" implies worship, again, not a problem for the average atheist. If they mean "American Idol", that could be a problem.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.


Honestly, I am not really sure what this means. Technically, god doesn't have a name, if you take the OT literally. I can't say YHWH in public? I can't use the word "god"?

Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.


Well, I doubt any of my ancestors were held as slaves in the land of Egypt, but I am all about days off and not working. Yay for the weekend!

Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.


Since it doesn't say "love", "respect", or any of the other difficult emotions, this shouldn't be a problem. As a side question, what are adoptees meant to do?

(Incidentally, I do love and respect my parents, but I understand that not everyone is in a position to do so.)

You shall not murder.
Neither shall you commit adultery.
Neither shall you steal.
Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.


Check.
Check.
Check.
Check.

Although, I certainly won't hold it against someone else if they break any of these for good reason. I would be a bit upset if they broke these against me personally, but I can understand mitigating circumstances, and in certain situations (particularly the "do not steal"), I have been willing in the past to forgive and forget (long story, and rather boring).

Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife.


I am not a lesbian, so no problem there.

Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house

Boy, have you never been to my neighborhood!

or field


Ditto.

or male or female slave


Hello! What century are we in?

or ox, or donkey


Ditto.

or anything that belongs to your neighbour.


I may not want to have his exact surfboard, but I can aspire towards owning one of the same type, no?

Yrreg, which commandment am I supposed to be opposed to?


ETA: Poop. Gerry posted his own version in the time it took me to write all this.

ETA2: Oooh, he left out the "idol" commandment. Odd.

[Foster Zygote]

Here are The Ten Commandments:


http://www.marianland.com/tencommandments/ten_commandments.html


The Ten Commandments
Catholic Version

I.
I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

II.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain!

III.
Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day!

IV.
Honor your father and your mother!

V.
You shall not kill!

VI.
You shall not commit adultery!

VII.
You shall not steal!

VIII.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor!

IX.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife!

X.
You shall not covet your neighbor's goods!





Yrreg

Yes, I know the Ten Commandments. I even know the other ten, do you?

I asked you which of the Ten Commandments you felt led some atheists to be combative. So again: Which of the Ten Commandments do you feel lead atheists to become combative out of opposition to them and, most importantly, why?

[Silentknight]

Hey yrreg. Psst. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101757)

Piggy's post in that thread is also worth paying attention to.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes, I know the Ten Commandments. I even know the other ten, do you?

I asked you which of the Ten Commandments you felt led some atheists to be combative. So again: Which of the Ten Commandments do you feel lead atheists to become combative out of opposition to them and, most importantly, why?

Yes, I much prefer the second set in Exodus 34:14 to 34:26. The one's God wrote because he had forgotten what he had written previously.

I really like cream of lamb soup. :drool:

[fromdownunder]

It's not the Ten Commandments that made me an atheist, it is some of the other 600 plus laws in the Pentateuch that I would not comply with.

I decided that I did not want my children stoned to death at the village gates if they annoyed me enough.

I decided that I liked oysters, and pork, and even rabbit (baked).

I just love clothes of mixed cloth.

I do not feel that somebody picking up sticks to make a fire between dusk on Friday and dusk on Saturday should be stoned to death.

Poisoning someone just do decide if they commited adultery or not strikes me as a bit extreme.

Nor does making a young woman who gets raped being forced to marry the rapist.


There are more, but these, off the top of my head, will do for now...

Norm

[fromdownunder]

Here are The Ten Commandments:

http://www.marianland.com/tencommandments/ten_commandments.html


The Ten Commandments
Catholic Version

I.
I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

II.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain!

III.
Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day!

IV.
Honor your father and your mother!

V.
You shall not kill!

VI.
You shall not commit adultery!

VII.
You shall not steal!

VIII.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor!

IX.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife!

X.
You shall not covet your neighbor's goods!




Yrreg

So why have these been edited from the Bible rather than quoted verbatim. Are the 10 commandments as given by God to Moses in Exodus (either version, and BTW, ONLY the ones in Exodus 32 are actually called the 10 Commandments) or again in Deuteronomy (close to Exodus 20 but no cigar) too confusing for Cathilics? Too many words to understand? Too confusing when one talks about coveting an ox, or a manservent? Why only the readers Digest version?

Norm

[Hokulele]

So why have these been edited from the Bible rather than quoted verbatim. Are the 10 commandments as given by God to Moses in Exodus (either version, and BTW, ONLY the ones in Exodus 32 are actually called the 10 Commandments) or again in Deuteronomy (close to Exodus 20 but no cigar) too confusing for Cathilics? Too many words to understand? Too confusing when one talks about coveting an ox, or a manservent? Why only the readers Digest version?

Norm


And why are they missing the bit about idolatry? It wouldn't be due to the fact that Catholicism is all about the icons, would it?

[Elizabeth I]

And why are they missing the bit about idolatry? It wouldn't be due to the fact that Catholicism is all about the icons, would it?

Not to mention the various Christian Orthodoxies (Greek, Russian, etc.)

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, I much prefer the second set in Exodus 34:14 to 34:26. The one's God wrote because he had forgotten what he had written previously.

I really like cream of lamb soup. :drool:

Exodus 34 also has some verses that are rarely mentioned by most beleivers:
6
Thus the LORD passed before him and cried out, "The LORD, the LORD, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity,
7
continuing his kindness for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness and crime and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless, but punishing children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for their fathers' wickedness!"

[yrreg]

The topic is:

Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?

And I proffered that:

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.

No need to get combative, okay?

And thanks for the Biblical erudition you guys show.


Now, don't get combative again...

If you guys already oppose the First Commandment, then there is no need to get combative about the rest of the remaining nine commandments.

However, it could be that -- and I am not specifying anyone here in particular -- a Christian could find any of the nine commandments unacceptable to himself, so as not to be troubled by it, just deny the First Commandment requiring him to take seriously the Author of the nine following ones.



Yrreg

[Wolfman]

...
If you guys already oppose the First Commandment, then there is no need to get combative about the rest of the remaining nine commandments.
...
Yrreg
You seem to be making a fundamental mistake here.

"I disagree with the First Commandment because I'm an atheist" is hugely different from "I am an atheist because I disagree with the First Commandment".

To illustrate, take Rael, who leads a cult that believes aliens have contacted him and given him rules for living. I do not accept Rael, or his beliefs, or the existence of his aliens. I also do not agree with many of his "rules".

Now, it would be reasonable to say that "I don't believe in Rael's rules because I don't believe in the aliens". But it would not be valid to say that, "I don't believe in the aliens because I disagree with their rules".

[godless dave]

Yrreg, why do you refuse to worship the true gods of the Northmen? Is it because you are afraid to die in combat as Odin requires to enter Valhalla?

[yrreg]

You seem to be making a fundamental mistake here.

"I disagree with the First Commandment because I'm an atheist" is hugely different from "I am an atheist because I disagree with the First Commandment".

To illustrate, take Rael, who leads a cult that believes aliens have contacted him and given him rules for living. I do not accept Rael, or his beliefs, or the existence of his aliens. I also do not agree with many of his "rules".

Now, it would be reasonable to say that "I don't believe in Rael's rules because I don't believe in the aliens". But it would not be valid to say that, "I don't believe in the aliens because I disagree with their rules".

The First Commandment given by God has God saying that He is the Lord, your God, meaning you have got to believe in God as your Lord.

Rael and aliens never say they the gods your lords.


Yrreg

[quixotecoyote]

The First Commandment given by God has God saying that He is the Lord, your God, meaning you have got to believe in God as your Lord.

Rael and aliens never say they the gods your lords.


Yrreg

QUICK! DUCK!

Thank god, a few inches lower and that one might not have gone over your head.


IOW: irrelevant.

I disagree with you because I think you're wrong =/= I think you're wrong because I disagree with you.

The subject of the disagreement is irrelevant.

[Hokulele]

Yrreg, what is your response to the fact that the commandments you list aren't agreed upon as being the words written upon the stone tablets?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_Decalogue

[paximperium]

The First Commandment given by God has God saying that He is the Lord, your God, meaning you have got to believe in God as your Lord.

So? Why should I care what was claimed by a bronze age tribe?

[yrreg]

Yrreg, why do you refuse to worship the true gods of the Northmen? Is it because you are afraid to die in combat as Odin requires to enter Valhalla?


Please rewrite your thoughts so that I can understand them better.



Yrreg

[Dunstan]

What makes an atheist "combative"? Disagreeing with a theist's apologetics?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know it's less popular for skeptics to be confrontational with god believers. The idea is mostly that you would drive people away rather than convince them to think more rationally. Personally, however, I find that position too hypocritical. God beliefs are not rational beliefs. Period. So I prefer confrontation when it is reasonable such as here on the forum, and silence when it is not reasonable such as at work.

There are however, many times when it is appropriate to 'combat' god believers. That would be those times when their beliefs are used as a reason to infringe upon the rights of others.

[yrreg]

I know it's less popular for skeptics to be confrontational with god believers. The idea is mostly that you would drive people away rather than convince them to think more rationally. Personally, however, I find that position too hypocritical. God beliefs are not rational beliefs. Period. So I prefer confrontation when it is reasonable such as here on the forum, and silence when it is not reasonable such as at work.

There are however, many times when it is appropriate to 'combat' god believers. That would be those times when their beliefs are used as a reason to infringe upon the rights of others.


There are however, many times when it is appropriate to 'combat' god believers. That would be those times when their beliefs are used as a reason to infringe upon the rights of others.

I am not American and don't live in America.


Tell me about discriminations against atheists in US society.


Yrreg

[Third Eye Open]

There are however, many times when it is appropriate to 'combat' god believers. That would be those times when their beliefs are used as a reason to infringe upon the rights of others.

I am not American and don't live in America.


Tell me about discriminations against atheists in US society.


Yrreg

Just off the top of my head, former president George Bush (sr) said that he didn't think atheists should be able to vote, or even be considered citizens. One nation 'under god' and all.

[zooterkin]

Please rewrite your thoughts so that I can understand them better.

That's rich, coming from the person who wrote the topic we're discussing, "Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?".

What exactly do you mean by "take up with atheism", and what by "a combative posture"?

If you don't believe god (any god) exists, why would you care what one particular god is supposed to have said?

[catbasket]

What makes an atheist "combative"? Disagreeing with a theist's apologetics?

When a theist knocks on my door trying to "save" me.

[Mashuna]

What exactly do you mean by "take up with atheism", and what by "a combative posture"?


Ninja Atheists.

[godless dave]

Please rewrite your thoughts so that I can understand them better.



Odin is quite clear on who can go to Valhalla when they die - only brave warriors who die in battle. Do you reject Odin?

[jj]

Ok, let's sort this out.

First, please tell me WHICH decalog you're planning to have atheists dislike.

It would be much easier to follow god's law if we knew which branch of what writing after the fact actually was the right ones...

[Correa Neto]

I. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!
If you guys already oppose the First Commandment, then there is no need to get combative about the rest of the remaining nine commandments.
No combat here. I have absolutely no gods thus I am not "opposing" to it.

Next question, please.












Oh! What if at some point in History someone selected what was considered to be the ten essential items of a code of behavior which allowed a tribe to work propperly and said some warrior/mountain deity wrote them on stone?

[Sunstealer]

XI.

You shall not post on the internets using silly fonts!

[Freethinker]

I'd say the most likely reason is the stupidity of those who believe in gods. It's frustrating to have to deal with these morons and their rigid belief in The Great Pumpkin.

[godless dave]

Ok, let's sort this out.

First, please tell me WHICH decalog you're planning to have atheists dislike.

It would be much easier to follow god's law if we knew which branch of what writing after the fact actually was the right ones...

And which god. Lots of gods have been posited and worshipped by humans throughough history. Several of those gods have laws ascribed to them.

[KarlG]

And which god. Lots of gods have been posited and worshipped by humans throughough history. Several of those gods have laws ascribed to them.

Yeah, i've always wondered this too. Why do the religious think that because you're an atheist, that you are specifically against their religion? They don't seem to be worried about all the other religions we don't believe in, i suppose because they are "false" religions. I just don't just look at christianity and say "i don't believe in christianity, therefore i am an atheist", it's because i don't believe in any of the unevidenced bullstuff that blights the world.

We are all atheists to someone.

I always loved this quote (apologies to whoever has it in their sig):

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” Stephen Roberts

[Cavemonster]

There are however, many times when it is appropriate to 'combat' god believers. That would be those times when their beliefs are used as a reason to infringe upon the rights of others.

I am not American and don't live in America.


Tell me about discriminations against atheists in US society.


Yrreg

How about the many campaigns in which "atheist" has been used as a scare word to attack politicians running for office?

http://friendlyatheist.com/5219/national-republican-senatorial-committee-puts-out-anti-atheist-political-ad/

How about the folks who want to invalidate the marriage of my good friends who happen to both be women, just because of something their fictional god said?

How about the Us vs Them stance that Bush has taken in regards to Islam, informed by his sense of the superiority of his religion and the exact same stance taken by Ahmedinajad in Iran for the same reasons?

Belief in your God is used as a reason to threaten the freedoms and safety of me and those I love on a daily basis, on a wide scale.

That is why I actively combat irrational beliefs.

[Foster Zygote]

What makes an atheist "combative"? Disagreeing with a theist's apologetics?

Oddly enough, that also seems to be Gerry's definition of "hate speech".

[Ichneumonwasp]

I am not a lesbian, so no problem there.




Damn. There goes another fantasy ....................

[Foster Zygote]

Damn. There goes another fantasy ....................

I don't think she should dismiss it until she's tried it.

[Ladewig]

There are however, many times when it is appropriate to 'combat' god believers. That would be those times when their beliefs are used as a reason to infringe upon the rights of others.

I am not American and don't live in America.

Tell me about discriminations against atheists in US society.

Yrreg

There's the problem. Let's talk about America.

Foreigners often don't understand how the American school system works. There are no national standards. Each state sets its own requirements for what may be taught in each grade. Then each school district (a region defined at a city or township level) decides what may be added. There are over 13,000 school districts in the United States. For the past 20 or 30 years, people who believe that evolution is false have been trying to elect people to certain school district boards with the goal of adding intelligent design or some other form of creationism. Often, these attempts to add God to science classes ended up in court and were ruled unconstitutional (see McLean v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard). Despite the court system clearly stating that these attempts are not legal, certain creationists continue to attempt to elect candidates to school boards with the goal of adding God to science classes.

So some atheists in America are combative because they know that limited educational funds are being wasted on lawyers and lawsuits arising from some people's attempt to introduce God and the Bible into grade school classrooms.

Other atheists are combative because of the bigotry they face. Forty-five percent of adult Americans said no when asked if they would vote for a well-qualified candidate was an atheist.

Some atheists are combative because of the efforts of Christians to limit the civil rights of others. For instance, some states have voted to limit the rights of gay people to marry each other. Such measures were widely supported and sometimes initiated by outspoken Christians (or is it more accurate to say combative Christians?).

Lastly, some atheists are combative because despite their very clearly and repeatedly saying that they don't hate God, that they are not angry at God, and that they are not "in opposition" to any of the Ten Commandments, they still encounter people who believe that those three things are the only possible motivations for becoming an atheist.

[jimmygun]

There is another possibility, which I have already pointed out to him, involving the fact that atheists also happen to be humans, and that humans tend to have a wide range of behaviors. Some atheists might be combative and rude, but then again, so are some theists. The same goes for any large group: Some gardeners are rude, some chess players are rude, some futbol fans are rude, some Canadians are rude. Gerry, however, seems determined to make this behavior a quality of atheism.

Dear Mr. Zygote,

I am not sure what part of Canada you have visited and were spoken to rudely but I assure you that if the name of the person who was being rude was forthcoming he or she would get a sever reprimand from our constabulatory and would be made to issue a personal apology to you and anyone else that the rudeness affected.

If however you have thoughtlessly made up this character assassination, I can also assure you that we here in Canada know several persons in the United States that, with a simple long distance call, would set them on your trail and would result in a sound boxing of your ears.

Thank you for your attention,

Jamesgun

[Safe-Keeper]

Disregarding the obvious strawman of the troll in the OP, any sane person today who have read Exodus would pretty easily be appalled by the trash found therein. Let's go through a handful of the commandments, shall we?

Exodus 20:1-3, 23:13, 22:20
Then Yahweh spoke all these words. He said, 'I am Yahweh your God. You shall have no other gods before me. Do not mention the name of any other god -- let none ever be heard from your lips. Anyone who sacrifices to other gods must be destroyed.'Doesn't make sense. If you believe in other gods, naturally you'll want to pray to them, too. If I subscribe to Taoism, I should be able to burn ghost money to Mazu before going kayaking without deserving stoning. You may have heard of 2008's concept of "freedom of religion"? It's this belief us godless heathens have that if someone wants to have a different belief than you, he should be able to without fear of persecution. Or destruction.

We'll get back to the highlighted part.

Exodus 20:4
'You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in the heavens above, or on earth beneath, or in the waters below the earth.'I would refute this one, but judging by the number of crucifixes carried by Christians and all the dead Jesuses on crosses throughout oh so many churches, I'd waste my breath if I bothered as it's obvious that this part of the all-important ten commandments for some reason needs not be followed.

Exodus 20:7
'You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name.'Flies in the face of freedom of speech.

Exodus 20:8, 31:15
'Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. You shall do no work that day, neither your son nor your daughter, nor your slaves, men or women, nor your animals. Anyone who works on the Sabbath day must be put to death.'Death sentence for not honoring one of the religion's ordained holidays. How would you feel if your country implemented death sentence for working on National Day?

Again, there's a highlighted part. We'll get back to them:).

Exodus 20:12, 21:15,17
'Honour your father and your mother. Anyone who strikes father or mother will be put to death. Anyone who curses father or mother will be put to death.'Having just returned from watching The Kite Runner and its stoning scene, I'm glad the Ten Commandments have been recognized for what they are and watered down in the 3000 years of Judaic-Christian rule. No doubt owing to the godless liberals, and I'm sure it's made plumjam, DOC and Yrreg very upset, but hey, them's the grapes or whatever they say in English-speaking countries.

Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 20:10
'You shall not commit adultery. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife,
both the man and the woman must be put to death.'There are so many reasons for unfaithfulness and 'adultery' that it's ridiculous. What if you're in practice divorced and haven't seen your spouse for years and the only reason why you're still registered as married is that you're afraid of what your family and/or society will say? Is it still sin to have sex with someone else? What if your spouse is abusive?

I dislike petty unfaithfulness as much as the next guy, but this is too black and white.

Oh, and you know the drill on the highlighted part.

Exodus 20:15, 21:16
'You shall not steal. Anyone who steals another man must be put to death.

Exodus 20:16
'You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.'
'Every human society regards stealing and lying to various degrees as wrong. The Old Testament might as well say 'you shall eat' and claim that the practice of eating and drinking originated with Exodus. Decent commandments to be sure, but nothing that lifts the OT out of its status as a revolting book of horrific atrocities and a long-discarded moral system which we look at with revulsion when variations of it are actually practiced (read: sharia law).

Exodus 20:17
'You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not set your heart on your neighbor's wife, or slave, man or woman, or ox, or donkey, or any of your neighbor's posessions.'We couldn't have a free market society if this commandment was to be taken to its logical conclusion. The economic crisis is bad enough as it is if people aren't going to stop buying new stuff, too.

Oh, and I love how 'wife' is put in context with a man's house, slaves, livestock and material possessions (his bed, hammer, camel saddle, etc.). People were really champions of women's rights in those days, treating them like the property of men like that. It's sad that those evil God-hating liberals want to take away traditional family values, with time-honoured forced marriage, spousal rape, divorce ban, and the wife's status as an object with no rights:rolleyes:.

Oh, and I forgot the best part. The jewel of the 10 commandments. The part that puts all those beautiful highlighted parts in context. Wait for it...

Exodus 20:13, 21:12
'You shall not murder.'http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=12244&stc=1&d=1226509353

OK, having recovered some, let's look at the penalty for Anyone who strikes a man and kills him must be put to death.The reason there's actually text here is that another 'stunned silence' motivator-for-actual-writing-when-SK's-brain-can't-process-a-really-absurd-statement image in one post would be aesthetically unsound. It's bad enough with the Attached Thumbnails image the boards display below.

[Safe-Keeper]

What?Read his other threads. He's a pathetically obvious troll.


Well, I doubt any of my ancestors were held as slaves in the land of EgyptI know, it's pathetic. They faithfully follow the ten commandments which were never intended for anyone but the Isrealites, but when faced with scripture they don't like, they rave about how "God was speaking to the Phariseans/[insert irrelevant people here] when he said that!".

It's so transparent I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Yeah, i've always wondered this too. Why do the religious think that because you're an atheist, that you are specifically against their religion? They don't seem to be worried about all the other religions we don't believe in, i suppose because they are "false" religions. I just don't just look at christianity and say "i don't believe in christianity, therefore i am an atheist", it's because i don't believe in any of the unevidenced bullstuff that blights the world."The followers of the Abrahamic faiths are like scousers, they're always convinced that [Liverpool accent] they have it harder than anyone else". --Brickstocke (http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg).

[Dancing David]

Yrreg, why do you refuse to worship the true gods of the Northmen? Is it because you are afraid to die in combat as Odin requires to enter Valhalla?


Hey, Freya gets half and they get to hang out in Sessrumnir/Folkvanger, which is much cooler than Valhalla!

[Hokulele]

I don't think she should dismiss it until she's tried it.


Good point.

I am not currently a lesbian, so no problem there.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Schwiiiiiiiiinnnnnnngggg

There's hope. You are a goddess.

[Dancing David]

The First Commandment given by God has God saying that He is the Lord, your God, meaning you have got to believe in God as your Lord.

Rael and aliens never say they the gods your lords.


Yrreg

Um Yrreg, what is the difference between
the Crown, the Ultimate, the Superlative reffered to as AL
and the Demiurgos, the blood soaked sinai dust devil reffered to as YHVH,
shouldn't you put AL first and ignore the rest?


Which does Adonai refer to? So do you put the Ca'annanite hebrai battle god first, or the creator of the universe.

Hmmm.

[Safe-Keeper]

So why have these been edited from the Bible rather than quoted verbatim. Are the 10 commandments as given by God to Moses in Exodus (either version, and BTW, ONLY the ones in Exodus 32 are actually called the 10 Commandments) or again in Deuteronomy (close to Exodus 20 but no cigar) too confusing for Cathilics? Too many words to understand? Too confusing when one talks about coveting an ox, or a manservent? Why only the readers Digest version?Because they, like us, have discovered that the Old Testament is a revolting piece of trash when it comes to teaching young children morals, so they go for the censorship/lying by omission approach.

It makes sense in a way, though it strikes me as odd to hold up a book as the source of good morality when you have to discard most of its contents in order for it to be even possible to follow without ending up in jail for breaking most human rights:boggled:.

[yrreg]

There's the problem. Let's talk about America.

Foreigners often don't understand how the American school system works. There are no national standards. Each state sets its own requirements for what may be taught in each grade. Then each school district (a region defined at a city or township level) decides what may be added. There are over 13,000 school districts in the United States. For the past 20 or 30 years, people who believe that evolution is false have been trying to elect people to certain school district boards with the goal of adding intelligent design or some other form of creationism. Often, these attempts to add God to science classes ended up in court and were ruled unconstitutional (see McLean v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard). Despite the court system clearly stating that these attempts are not legal, certain creationists continue to attempt to elect candidates to school boards with the goal of adding God to science classes.

So some atheists in America are combative because they know that limited educational funds are being wasted on lawyers and lawsuits arising from some people's attempt to introduce God and the Bible into grade school classrooms.

Other atheists are combative because of the bigotry they face. Forty-five percent of adult Americans said no when asked if they would vote for a well-qualified candidate was an atheist.

Some atheists are combative because of the efforts of Christians to limit the civil rights of others. For instance, some states have voted to limit the rights of gay people to marry each other. Such measures were widely supported and sometimes initiated by outspoken Christians (or is it more accurate to say combative Christians?).

Lastly, some atheists are combative because despite their very clearly and repeatedly saying that they don't hate God, that they are not angry at God, and that they are not "in opposition" to any of the Ten Commandments, they still encounter people who believe that those three things are the only possible motivations for becoming an atheist.



Thanks, Ladewig, for a serious intelligent contribution to this thread.


Your country is a popular democracy.

It so happens that a great majority are believers in the Christian God.

In a sociological context atheists will just have to bear with the social discriminations of the majority God believers against atheists.

You can enlighten the majority to abstain from all manifestations and expressions of discriminations, bring them to courts if possible legally.

That is the common tough luck of minorities in a popular democracy where the vast majority do not like some minorities, and atheists according to polls in the US are the most unliked minority.

Put your heads together and figure out a way whereby you can live and enjoy life among yourselves.

Can you learn something from modern history starting with the French agitations against the monarchy to the Russian Revolution which installed an atheistic communistic government, and successfully brought half of the world to live under atheistic communism?

In your country there are communities like that of the Amish who enjoy all the legal and political rights of Americans, but can live among themselves and enjoy their own version of life under the Christian God.

See if atheists can unite and put their money together to buy a huge tract of land to set up their own community, or obtain a land grant from the government.

I guess you would not care to think about moving to another country to live without any discriminations as atheists, or to imitate American blacks who set up their own country in Liberia with the assistance of some fellow Americans.

Atheists can also work hard to excel in service to fellow Americans and mankind at large, become eminent artists, scientists, businessmen, educators, and also best for your own interests, get to be judges, senators, congressmen, and yes, cabinet secretaries, president even of the USA, then you would not care or give any heck to the social discriminations from Christians.



Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

In a sociological context atheists will just have to bear with the social discriminations of the majority God believers against atheists.

Just like Americans of African descent had to bear with the social discriminations of the majority white racists in the old South. If only they had pooled their money and purchased some cheap land out west to live among themselves.

[Foster Zygote]

I guess you would not care to think about moving to another country to live without any discriminations as atheists, or to imitate American blacks who set up their own country in Liberia with the assistance of some fellow Americans.

That's an appealing idea Gerry. What country do you live in?

[godless dave]

Thanks, Ladewig, for a serious intelligent contribution to this thread.


Your country is a popular democracy.

No, it's a democratic republic. Our entire system of law is based on citizens having certain freedoms which the government can't take away, one of which is freedom of religion.

[Elizabeth I]

XI.

You shall not post on the internets using silly fonts!

Maybe he works for the Ministry of Silly Fonts.

[Silentknight]

The topic is:

Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?
What, do you expect that people are going to fork over their babies willingly?

[Dancing David]

Um, there are just as many people who do not care for religion in the US, the problem is when they mess with the text boooks, they can hold all sorts of silly beliefs that they want. just keep it out of the science curriculum...

[Ladewig]

Thank you for your response


Can you learn something from modern history starting with the French agitations against the monarchy to the Russian Revolution which installed an atheistic communistic government, and successfully brought half of the world to live under atheistic communism?

Yes. We can learn from that. In my entire life, I have never met anyone who wanted to install an atheistic government. Every atheist I have ever met (including the combative ones) like the first amendment to the Constitution and believe that every U.S. resident has the right to freedom of religion. We are not trying to install a new government. We simply want the government (at the national, state, and local level) to follow the rules already in place.

[godless dave]

Can you learn something from modern history starting with the French agitations against the monarchy to the Russian Revolution which installed an atheistic communistic government, and successfully brought half of the world to live under atheistic communism?

One thing we can learn is that oppressive tyrants often get their asses handed to them by their own people, but not always.

[Safe-Keeper]

Thanks, Ladewig, for a serious intelligent contribution to this thread.

{more trolling snipped}I am again amazed by the level of discourse from both atheists and theists on this forum, even when confronted by trolls such as you.

Rock on, guys:)!

[westprog]

In my entire life, I have never met anyone who wanted to install an atheistic government.


I'm sure that's true. However, such governments have been established, and they have, among other things, repressed religion, even with a constitution that guarantees religious freedom.

[Ladewig]

I'm sure that's true. However, such governments have been established, and they have, among other things, repressed religion, even with a constitution that guarantees religious freedom.

The country we were discussing is the United States.

1) Consider all Americans that you have ever encountered. What percent have wanted to install an atheistic government?

2) What do you consider the likelihood of a repressive, atheistic government being installed in the United States in the next 10 years?

[yrreg]

Thank you for your response

Posted by yrreg
Can you learn something from modern history starting with the French agitations against the monarchy to the Russian Revolution which installed an atheistic communistic government, and successfully brought half of the world to live under atheistic communism?

Yes. We can learn from that. In my entire life, I have never met anyone who wanted to install an atheistic government. Every atheist I have ever met (including the combative ones) like the first amendment to the Constitution and believe that every U.S. resident has the right to freedom of religion. We are not trying to install a new government. We simply want the government (at the national, state, and local level) to follow the rules already in place.


Thanks also and again for your serious, intelligent, and civil response.


The topic is:

"Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?"

And I proffered the answer that:

"One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God." [ See post #1 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4194664&postcount=1).]


The difference between man and non-human living things is that for example with non-human living things like ants and monkeys, they might have psychology in their existence, but they don't have our capability and skill and use of logic, among other peculiarly human assets exclusive to humans.

The psychology of man as atheist seems at this point of the thread to consist in opposition to The Ten Commandments, owing to which man the atheist then invokes logic to assemble his worldview of atheism.

Or man the atheist first opposes God from his logic and then he is in psychology free of The Ten Commandments; so, no more commandments from God, man the atheist just has to observe the laws installed by fellowmen of the land he happens to be in.

I tend to believe that man the atheist is first moved by his psychology to not observe one or another of The Ten Commandments, and then invokes his logic to produce a rationale for embracing atheism which is also the offshoot of his logic subservient his to psychology.


You say, "We simply want the government (at the national, state, and local level) to follow the rules already in place."

It so happens as I said earlier that the vast majority of Americans are the ones, from the principle of majority rule in your democracy, ultimately making up the government, and in the final analysis the ones to decide what rules govern in the land.

And they happen to be theists of the Christian kind which hold to The Ten Commandments of God.


So, man the atheist must if he wants to bring about a society that is majority-wise atheistic, do as the Christian theists are doing, proselytize, preach to theists to turn to atheism.


Is that an impossible task?

What do you say?



By the way, for people asking, I am writing from the Philippines.



Yrreg

[Ladewig]

You say, "We simply want the government (at the national, state, and local level) to follow the rules already in place."

It so happens as I said earlier that the vast majority of Americans are the ones, from the principle of majority rule in your democracy, ultimately making up the government, and in the final analysis the ones to decide what rules govern in the land.

And they happen to be theists of the Christian kind which hold to The Ten Commandments of God.

What do you say?

I say that you have misunderstood both my posts and how the United States government works. The people are not "in the final analysis the ones to decide what rules govern in the land." There are certain laws already embodied in the Constitution such as a guarantee of freedom of religion (found in the first amendment). Right now, the majority of Americans favor school prayer, more more precisely, the majority of a Americans favor Christian prayers in schools.

But America is not simply a place of majority rules. In order to legalize school prayer, we would have to pass a new amendment to the Constitution. Such an amendment would require either three-quarters of all state legislatures to approve it or three-quarters of all state populations to approve it.

So the current rules in place (not requiring elected officials to be Christians, not have Christians lead prayers in public schools, not having public land used solely for Christian services or displays) will have to stand. Those are the rules that I was referring to when I said "We simply want the government (at the national, state, and local level) to follow the rules already in place."



So, man the atheist must if he wants to bring about a society that is majority-wise atheistic, do as the Christian theists are doing, proselytize, preach to theists to turn to atheism.

I have never said that I want to bring about a society that is "majority-wise atheistic." I thought I made that point abundantly clear in post #61.


The psychology of man as atheist seems at this point of the thread to consist in opposition to The Ten Commandments, owing to which man the atheist then invokes logic to assemble his worldview of atheism.

What unabashed arrogance to assume that the only way to become an atheist is to read, understand, and then reject a very specific part of Christian scriptures.

[Foster Zygote]

I say that you have misunderstood both my posts and how the United States government works. The people are not "in the final analysis the ones to decide what rules govern in the land." There are certain laws already embodied in the Constitution such as a guarantee of freedom of religion (found in the first amendment). Right now, the majority of Americans favor school prayer, more more precisely, the majority of a Americans favor Christian prayers in schools.

As I've already explained to Gerry, the civil rights movement in the southern U.S. took place against the wishes of the majority of the southern populace. I agree with your assessment that he's operating with an overly simplistic impression of U.S. government.

[Foster Zygote]

By the way, for people asking, I am writing from the Philippines.

Then I propose that atheists make the Philippines the atheist Liberia.

[godless dave]

I'm sure that's true. However, such governments have been established, and they have, among other things, repressed religion, even with a constitution that guarantees religious freedom.

Most authoritarian governments repress religion. Tzarist Russia repressed any religion but Russian Orthodox. Communist Russia repressed all religions including Russian Orthodox. Really only a slight difference between the two.

[yrreg]

I want to see the biggest picture man can perceive in any issue.


Now with the Cold War over and the other half of mankind no longer in the control of atheistic communist regimes, we should see the biggest picture in regard to atheism and theism.

The way I see it, in the biggest picture: some very determined people wanted to install atheism in mankind, and they did succeed for half of mankind.

In effect we can say now that, that half of mankind in one way or another decided to see for itself how atheists could do, a better job?

After some decades of seeing whether atheists had been doing a better job, they judged that atheists were not doing a better job, so they abandoned the atheists-communists who took control willy-nilly of their lands.

That is why atheistic regimes fell so fast when the end came, which end is the realization by half of the world under atheistic regimes, i.e., the conviction that atheism is no solution, no answer to whatever problems plaguing mankind or whatever aspirations stirring in the heart and mind of mankind.



Yrreg

[PixyMisa]

I want to see the biggest picture man can perceive in any issue.
Here you go. (http://www.gigapxl.org/)

Now with the Cold War over and the other half of mankind no longer in the control of atheistic communist regimes, we should see the biggest picture in regard to atheism and theism.

The way I see it, in the biggest picture: some very determined people wanted to install atheism in mankind, and they did succeed for half of mankind.

In effect we can say now that, that half of mankind in one way or another decided to see for itself how atheists could do, a better job?

After some decades of seeing whether atheists had been doing a better job, they judged that atheists were not doing a better job, so they abandoned the atheists-communists who took control willy-nilly of their lands.

That is why atheistic regimes fell so fast when the end came, which end is the realization by half of the world under atheistic regimes, i.e., the conviction that atheism is no solution, no answer to whatever problems plaguing mankind or whatever aspirations stirring in the heart and mind of mankind.Wrong.

These weren't atheist regimes, they were communist regimes. Communism, as J. B. S. Haldane noted in 1928, doesn't work; it suffers from fundamentally intractable scaling problems. Atheism is irrelevant; there are theistic communist regimes, and they don't work either.

[godless dave]

There are and have been plenty of theistic repressive regimes. People rejected those too. As a citizen of the Philippines you should know that. Marcos was a Catholic dictator (supported by the US) who got overthrown.

[yrreg]

There is one big essential advantage with repressive regimes if the people running the regime take up atheism for a worldview than theism.

Namely, in embracing atheism they don't have to convince their subjects that their dictates are in accordance with God, they just have to use force, violence, and in brief repression, to instill submission in their subjects, on the ground that they the ruling personalities know better, and anyway they have the physical might to make you either submit otherwise they kill you.

With any regimes that are not into atheism as the worldview of the ruling personalities, they always have to work out with their subjects on what is accordance with God.


Now, in regard to individual atheists in any society or political regime, they do have one big advantage which theists don't enjoy, they atheists can do anything they want or desire, if they can get away with it, because for them there is no God to answer to, and absolutley they don't have to reckon at all, with what theists think about their (atheists') acts not being in accordance with God.



Yrreg

[Safe-Keeper]

...

[Hokulele]

Now, in regard to individual atheists in any society or political regime, they do have one big advantage which theists don't enjoy, they atheists can do anything they want or desire, if they can get away with it, because for them there is no God to answer to, and absolutley they don't have to reckon at all, with what theists think about their (atheists') acts not being in accordance with God.


Do you have any evidence this actually happens?

You know, like in the real world, not the fantasy yrreg world?

[Safe-Keeper]

The Student version of Atheist Bashing for Dummies (CD, 1995) doesn't come with fabricated evidence. That's the Premium deal, released on DVD in 2007 by the Panzer Cardinal. It also comes with a stuffed parrot. Users of the 1995 version are advised to simply spout something about the Soviet Union.

[Foster Zygote]

Do you have any evidence this actually happens?

You know, like in the real world, not the fantasy yrreg world?

He studied history just after he studied U.S. government.

[Dunstan]

Now, in regard to individual atheists in any society or political regime, they do have one big advantage which theists don't enjoy, they atheists can do anything they want or desire, if they can get away with it, because for them there is no God to answer to, and absolutley they don't have to reckon at all, with what theists think about their (atheists') acts not being in accordance with God.

No more so than theists can. All the theist has to do is: (1) belong to one of many religions that don't believe in a deity who punishes people in the afterlife; (2) believe in a deity who will forgive whatever sin they wish to commit; or (3) "interpret" whatever they want to do anyway as being consistent with God's will.

[Foster Zygote]

There is one big essential advantage with repressive regimes if the people running the regime take up atheism for a worldview than theism.

Namely, in embracing atheism they don't have to convince their subjects that their dictates are in accordance with God, they just have to use force, violence, and in brief repression, to instill submission in their subjects, on the ground that they the ruling personalities know better, and anyway they have the physical might to make you either submit otherwise they kill you.
But what about when the populace really does think that the regime represents the will of God? How much power does a mere mortal leader command in the hearts of his subjects compared to the Almighty Creator of the Universe? Are you familiar with Blaise Pascal? He wrote "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction". He was a Catholic, by the way.

With any regimes that are not into atheism as the worldview of the ruling personalities, they always have to work out with their subjects on what is accordance with God.
Only if they are theistic regimes. There are many secular governments in the world in which "what is in accordance with God" is left up to the individual citizen but is not considered a matter of government. These states are neither theistic or atheistic.


Now, in regard to individual atheists in any society or political regime, they do have one big advantage which theists don't enjoy, they atheists can do anything they want or desire, if they can get away with it, because for them there is no God to answer to, and absolutley they don't have to reckon at all, with what theists think about their (atheists') acts not being in accordance with God.
This is a complete crock. It is the same asinine strawman that people have been trying to substitute for actual atheists for centuries.

[godless dave]

There is one big essential advantage with repressive regimes if the people running the regime take up atheism for a worldview than theism.

Namely, in embracing atheism they don't have to convince their subjects that their dictates are in accordance with God, they just have to use force, violence, and in brief repression, to instill submission in their subjects, on the ground that they the ruling personalities know better, and anyway they have the physical might to make you either submit otherwise they kill you.

With any regimes that are not into atheism as the worldview of the ruling personalities, they always have to work out with their subjects on what is accordance with God.

No they don't, they just appoint people loyal to them to leadership positions in the established church, and use the power of the state to suppress dissenting views.


Now, in regard to individual atheists in any society or political regime, they do have one big advantage which theists don't enjoy, they atheists can do anything they want or desire, if they can get away with it, because for them there is no God to answer to, and absolutley they don't have to reckon at all, with what theists think about their (atheists') acts not being in accordance with God.

That's not an advantage of atheists; theists can do exactly the same thing, and many of them do.

[Elizabeth I]

Then I propose that atheists make the Philippines the atheist Liberia.

No, let's go for somewhere in the Caribbean. I know, think of the delicious irony if we took over the Virgin Islands (St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. John...)

[PixyMisa]

There is one big essential advantage with repressive regimes if the people running the regime take up atheism for a worldview than theism.

Namely, in embracing atheism they don't have to convince their subjects that their dictates are in accordance with God, they just have to use force, violence, and in brief repression, to instill submission in their subjects, on the ground that they the ruling personalities know better, and anyway they have the physical might to make you either submit otherwise they kill you.

With any regimes that are not into atheism as the worldview of the ruling personalities, they always have to work out with their subjects on what is accordance with God.
So they have to use force, violence, repression, and lies.

In other words, theistic oppressive regimes are even worse than atheistic ones... By your argument.

Now, in regard to individual atheists in any society or political regime, they do have one big advantage which theists don't enjoy, they atheists can do anything they want or desire, if they can get away with it, because for them there is no God to answer to, and absolutley they don't have to reckon at all, with what theists think about their (atheists') acts not being in accordance with God.No.

Or rather: Theists can and do behave exactly that way. Atheists are no different, except that they don't lie to themselves as much.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are however, many times when it is appropriate to 'combat' god believers. That would be those times when their beliefs are used as a reason to infringe upon the rights of others.

I am not American and don't live in America.


Tell me about discriminations against atheists in US society.


YrregYou don't need me to spoon feed this to you. Why don't you take 5 minutes and look into it yourself?

Here's a Google search page to start you off: discrimination against atheist usa (http://www.google.com/search?q=discrimination+against+atheist+usa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
There is one big essential advantage with repressive regimes if the people running the regime take up atheism for a worldview than theism.

Namely, in embracing atheism they don't have to convince their subjects that their dictates are in accordance with God, they just have to use force, violence, and in brief repression, to instill submission in their subjects, on the ground that they the ruling personalities know better, and anyway they have the physical might to make you either submit otherwise they kill you. But what about when the populace really does think that the regime represents the will of God? How much power does a mere mortal leader command in the hearts of his subjects compared to the Almighty Creator of the Universe? Are you familiar with Blaise Pascal? He wrote "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction". He was a Catholic, by the way.

[...]




I think you are taking too much liberty with that quote from Pascal, as also with some too freehanded translators.

Read this below:


From Wikiquote: on evil

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evil
Jamais on ne fait le mal si pleinement et si gaiement que quand on le fait par conscience.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it conscientiously.

Variant: Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction (trans. W.F. Trotter)

Blaise Pascal, Pensées (# 894 or 895, depending on differing editions)


From Wikiquote, discussion

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Evil

I just moved the Pascal quote from Unsourced to Sourced, adding the source.

As I note, the quote is misleading. Minor point, the translator suppressed one pensée, so the French (Brunschvicg) number is 895, not 894.(794 in Pléiade.) Important point, the last words are NOT "religious conviction" but simply "conscience": "Jamais on ne fait le mal si pleinement et si gaiement que quand on le fait par conscience."

Hence, the French original gets 12 Google hits, but the Trotter improvement 2690.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Evil"



Always display a quote in the original language it was first recorded in by the author, and let readers determine how they would understand it in their own language, or ask you to volunteer a translation in the common language you both are communicating among yourselves, as here in English.


As for for atheists who cannot believe that atheists can do whatever they want and desire if they can get away with it, don't believe it then, but that does not change the fact.

You want some examples from contemporary history?

But then you will insist that it's not because of atheism but because of free will which they abuse in perpetrating whatever wicked deeds they want or desire.


Very good, then tell me what is the bottom-most ground for morality with atheists?



Yrreg

[PixyMisa]

As for for atheists who cannot believe that atheists can do whatever they want and desire if they can get away with it, don't believe it then, but that does not change the fact.
You are talking to atheists. You are wrong.

You want some examples from contemporary history?
No. Even if you could provide examples, it would still prove nothing in the general case.

But then you will insist that it's not because of atheism but because of free will which they abuse in perpetrating whatever wicked deeds they want or desire.
Obviously it's not because of atheism. As I said before, you are talking to atheists here.

Very good, then tell me what is the bottom-most ground for morality with atheists?
Don't do bad stuff. Because it's, like, bad.

The difference is not in what we believe to be good and bad. The difference is not in our moral or ethical codes. The difference is that we can work all this out without reference to mythical beings.

[godless dave]

All humans can do whatever they want and desire if they can get away with it. Most choose not to.

[yrreg]

This thread is about the question:

"Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?"

And I proffered the answer right away in #1 post:

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.


I am dealing here with atheists who are denying the existence of the God author of The Ten Commandments, namely, the Christian God.


So, if atheists here are denying the existence of other gods but still have in mind the Christian God of The Ten Commandments, you are welcome to post in this thread; just don't bring in other gods.

More specifically I have in mind Christians who have gone over to the atheists' camp and now call themselves atheists.

So the question could be very well expressed thus:

Why would any Christian take up with atheism in a combative posture?


And the answer could be:


One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.



Wherefore the most fruitful way to go about this thread is to examine the life history of the living combative atheists who were Christians before.

What about those who claim never to have been a Christian before?

I would consider them to be also Christian in terms of living and maintaining a busy existence in a Christian society or one where the culture is Christian, perhaps I can use term, Christendom.

Combative atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Myers, Dennett might claim to never had been Christians, but they know about The Ten Commandments and know about Thanksgiving Day, and of course Christmas; in this respect I think they might be considered to have been well exposed to the Christian faith, unlike someone from the Far East like a Burmese Buddhist monk who also might claim to be an atheist because he believes in karma and dharmma and nirvana but not in Brahma.


Forgive my meandering introduction here at this point of the thread, because I have just come to the idea that the most fruitful way to go about this thread is to examine the lives of well-known combative atheists today in the West, in particular operating from the USA.

Why USA? Because they are the ones, the atheists in the USA, are the atheists I know more than atheists in other countries.

Dawkins is a British but I have the impression that he is operating very well in the USA scene, his books are selling I assume most rewardingly in the USA.


What do you atheists here think?

Perhaps you were a Christian before but now a combative atheist, would you be disposed to inform readers of this thread what were the turning points in your life which brought you to become a combative atheist?



Yrreg

[Hokulele]

<snip>

Always display a quote in the original language it was first recorded in by the author, and let readers determine how they would understand it in their own language, or ask you to volunteer a translation in the common language you both are communicating among yourselves, as here in English.

<snip>


Actually, Trotter's interpretation was more likely to be true to Pascal's original intent, in that he was decrying the oppression of the Jesuits towards the heretical sect to which he belonged. Hence the "evil" to which Pascal refers the is the evil wrought by one branch of Christians against another.

So yes, it is the religious convictions, not the simple "conscience" you are trying to promote.

And if you are going to scold people for relying on translations, I will scold you for taking phrases out of context.

Much like the poor translations of the Decalogue (not even the real 10 commandments) you tried to foist off on people earlier in this thread.

[yrreg]

Actually, Trotter's interpretation was more likely to be true to Pascal's original intent, in that he was decrying the oppression of the Jesuits towards the heretical sect to which he belonged. Hence the "evil" to which Pascal refers the is the evil wrought by one branch of Christians against another.

So yes, it is the religious convictions, not the simple "conscience" you are trying to promote.

And if you are going to scold people for relying on translations, I will scold you for taking phrases out of context.

Much like the poor translations of the Decalogue (not even the real 10 commandments) you tried to foist off on people earlier in this thread.


The thread is about atheists why they become atheists, not about one theistic religious group against another theistic religious group.


I really can't see any reason of substantial import in regard to this thread, why you keep harping about this or that version of The Ten Commandments.

Unless you are really not into the topic but after something else which is of no consequence to the development of the thread.

No need to harp on that string all the time, one mention is enough to inform people that there are several enumerations of the ten commandments of the Judaists and the Christians, and they are all essentially the same ten in terms of topical embrace.


The Catholic version or easy to remember list and phrasing is a most pithy summary, if you care you can bring up another version from some theist group among Judaists or Christians.




Tell me what are the turning points you met and took up with atheism if you were a theist of the Christian or Judaist camp.


Back to translation, a true translator is not an interpreter, just translate if you be true to the text, save the interpretation to the readers of the original text.

If you feel you have to interpret, then do it in a footnote because otherwise the translation does not make sense, at least to the translator.

Better, if you have to interpret, first make a very faithful translation, then do commentaries.

Anyway, that quote is really off the mark totally as the mark is intended by the writer who brought it up, Foster isn't it?



Sorry, guess I am getting a bit 'combative', no?


My apologies, okay?

Just that some people seem to not be capable of sticking to the topic, unlike Ludewig.

Hope I got Ludewig name correctly, because in another forum I met a moderator who spent post after post taking me to task for getting his precious forum name wrongly, but everyone knows I am referring to him.

And did I tell you about another ploy of Dancing David when he is at a loss, and wants to get at the guy who makes him feel lost, he would bring in the charge that he is dealing with a troll.




Yrreg

[zooterkin]

I proffered the answer that:

"One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God." [ See post #1 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4194664&postcount=1).]
Do you have any evidence at all that would back this up?


The psychology of man as atheist seems at this point of the thread to consist in opposition to The Ten Commandments, owing to which man the atheist then invokes logic to assemble his worldview of atheism.
What in this thread points to that, apart from your posts?

Or man the atheist first opposes God from his logic and then he is in psychology free of The Ten Commandments; so, no more commandments from God, man the atheist just has to observe the laws installed by fellowmen of the land he happens to be in.

You're demonstrating the blinkers common to many theists. You can't comprehend the atheist's position, because you can't imagine god not existing, or you're not trying hard enough. You think the atheist chooses not to believe in something which really exists, and therefore you can't see the consequences.

You're right in one way, that the atheist doesn't depend on commandments from god, and has to observe laws written by men. But what you're missing is that to the atheist, all the laws and commandments, from societies and religions through the ages, were written by men. There is no god; it's not that we choose to ignore him, he's not there.

ETA: To make it plain, the Ten Commandments (however many versions there are of them) were written by men. They therefore don't have any mystical significance, regardless of which language you write them in.

[zooterkin]

Just that some people seem to not be capable of sticking to the topic, unlike Ludewig.

Hope I got Ludewig name correctly, because in another forum I met a moderator who spent post after post taking me to task for getting his precious forum name wrongly, but everyone knows I am referring to him.

Well, here's a tip. Why don't you actually check it before getting it wrong twice? You can always use cut and paste to get it right if you can't type it correctly.

[godless dave]

I am dealing here with atheists who are denying the existence of the God author of The Ten Commandments, namely, the Christian God.

Approximately 4 billion people deny the existence of the Christian God. Only a small proportion of them are atheists. Atheists don't believe in any gods.

Do you deny the existence of Odin because you don't want to die in battle? Be honest.

[PixyMisa]

I am dealing here with atheists who are denying the existence of the God author of The Ten Commandments, namely, the Christian God.

So, if atheists here are denying the existence of other gods but still have in mind the Christian God of The Ten Commandments, you are welcome to post in this thread; just don't bring in other gods.
Sorry, your non-existent god has no special standing vis-a-vis other non-existent gods.

More specifically I have in mind Christians who have gone over to the atheists' camp and now call themselves atheists.
Okay, that's me.

So the question could be very well expressed thus:
Why would any Christian take up with atheism in a combative posture?

Because they find the smug certainty of unshakeable ignorance to be irritating?

And the answer could be:

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.
Nope.

Wherefore the most fruitful way to go about this thread is to examine the life history of the living combative atheists who were Christians before.
What are these "combative" atheists of which you speak? The ones who tell you that you are wrong when you are wrong?

What about those who claim never to have been a Christian before?
What about them?

I would consider them to be also Christian in terms of living and maintaining a busy existence in a Christian society or one where the culture is Christian, perhaps I can use term, Christendom.
Ah, the No False Scotsman argument.

Combative atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Myers, Dennett might claim to never had been Christians, but they know about The Ten Commandments and know about Thanksgiving Day, and of course Christmas; in this respect I think they might be considered to have been well exposed to the Christian faith, unlike someone from the Far East like a Burmese Buddhist monk who also might claim to be an atheist because he believes in karma and dharmma and nirvana but not in Brahma.
And he would be correct.

Forgive my meandering introduction here at this point of the thread, because I have just come to the idea that the most fruitful way to go about this thread is to examine the lives of well-known combative atheists today in the West, in particular operating from the USA.

Why USA? Because they are the ones, the atheists in the USA, are the atheists I know more than atheists in other countries.
Like Dawkins and Hitchens...

Dawkins is a British but I have the impression that he is operating very well in the USA scene, his books are selling I assume most rewardingly in the USA.
And Hitchens.

What do you atheists here think?
I think you're talking a load of pish is what I think... Since you asked.

Perhaps you were a Christian before but now a combative atheist, would you be disposed to inform readers of this thread what were the turning points in your life which brought you to become a combative atheist?
If you consider me a "combative" atheist, then here goes:

When I was 12, I realised that the only reason I believed in God was because adults told me to, and that adults were often demonstrably wrong about many things, and that the whole God thing made no sense whatsoever anyway.

This took me a couple of minutes. And I've been clean for 30 years now.

[Seismosaurus]

Thanks also and again for your serious, intelligent, and civil response.


The topic is:

"Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?"

And I proffered the answer that:

"One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God." [ See post #1 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4194664&postcount=1).]

I would assert that this is a fundamentally stupid reason to be an atheist of any kind.

If there is a god, and it is the one described in the bible, then he expects his commands to be followed and will punish if they are not. God doesn't care if you break the commandments because you are evil or because you are an unbeliever.

Therefore abandoning belief so that you can break the ten commandments is idiotic. You would just as well remain a believer and break them anyway, the end result would be identical.

The psychology of man as atheist seems at this point of the thread to consist in opposition to The Ten Commandments, owing to which man the atheist then invokes logic to assemble his worldview of atheism.

Why does this seem to be the case to you? It certainly isn't something I have encountered, ever, in twenty years or being an atheist and talking to other atheists.

[Foster Zygote]

I think you are taking too much liberty with that quote from Pascal, as also with some too freehanded translators.
Hokulele has already said what I have to say on the subject.

As for for atheists who cannot believe that atheists can do whatever they want and desire if they can get away with it, don't believe it then, but that does not change the fact.
It is not a fact, it is a groundless assertion. Why are atheists not overly represented as a percentage of the prison population compared to their percentage among those not incarcerated? In fact, the data seems to indicate the opposite.

You want some examples from contemporary history?
Yes. Plumjam failed to demonstrate that atheism was responsible for any of the modern horrors he tried to attribute to lack of belief in gods in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90829).

But then you will insist that it's not because of atheism but because of free will which they abuse in perpetrating whatever wicked deeds they want or desire.
You might also benefit from reading Wolfman's recent thread "This is what you believe" arguments. You have a very bad habit of trying to present other's arguments for them.

Free will would not be a part of my argument, history and politics would. The "atheist" regimes you mention committed their crimes in the name of a political doctrine that had come to occupy all the same societal roles occupied by religion in theistic states. Official declarations of atheism were used as a tool to suppress rival social systems that were seen as a threat by the state. These states were not based on atheism, they were based on a particular style of Communism. Crimes against humanity were committed in the name of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc., not atheism. It's worth noting that many atheist intellectuals were imprisoned or executed in these Communist regimes because they were viewed as a threat to the Party.

Very good, then tell me what is the bottom-most ground for morality with atheists?
It's the same as most anyone else: Family, community, culture.

You are slipping down an old slope if you claim that atheists feel no need to observe rules of moral conduct because they do not fear punishment in an afterlife. The flip-side of this argument is that theists desire to behave immorally, but only behave according to rules of moral conduct out of fear of eternal punishment. Can you not see how this argument is insulting to atheists and theists?

[Hokulele]

The thread is about atheists why they become atheists, not about one theistic religious group against another theistic religious group.


Ah, if that is the entire point of the thread, well, it is easy then.

I am an atheist because I have never seen any evidence there is one or more gods.

[Foster Zygote]

What are these "combative" atheists of which you speak? The ones who tell you that you are wrong when you are wrong?

Bingo!

[Foster Zygote]

Ah, if that is the entire point of the thread, well, it is easy then.

I am an atheist because I have never seen any evidence there is one or more gods.

Same here. Even when I was an evangelical Christian I saw no evidence for the existence of any gods, I just hadn't realized it.

But Gerry seems to be enamored of what I call the "Touched by an Angel fallacy". Namely, the idea that atheists are simply people who are angry at God. Of course, he seems equally fond of the ludicrous idea that atheists just want to live wild lives of sin by not smashing Buddhist altars and searing goats in their mother's milk.

[Hokulele]

Well, there is nothing wrong with wanting to live wild lives of sin.

Er, depending on which sins we are talking about here.


And judging by the vicarious salaciousness of many of yrreg's threads, I think the person posting in this thread who wants to live a life of sin the most isn't an atheist. ;)

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
The thread is about atheists why they become atheists, not about one theistic religious group against another theistic religious group.

Ah, if that is the entire point of the thread, well, it is easy then.

I am an atheist because I have never seen any evidence there is one or more gods.


Not to have seen any evidence means you have willfully blindfolded your reason and intelligence.

By the way, you have got to be a supreme court in a democracy to claim not to have seen any evidence for a fact or a law, and make it stick whatever the supreme court wants something to stick.

Since you are not a supreme court in a democracy but just any other mortal, you have got to open your mind and activate your reason and intelligence, then you will see all kinds of evidence for the God of the Christians and the Judaists as also of the Muslims.

What you are now exhibiting is more of a selective trend in a exiguous minority sector of your society, to proclaim oneself an atheist, for whatever advantages, first of course participation in the trend, that you seek to reap from the vocal affiliation to the atheist worldview.

Men more brilliant than you and of much greater achievements don't have to take up with atheism, they are happy to live with their inherited theistic worldview.

You want evidence? Open your mind to reason and intelligence first.

Otherwise, don't believe then that there are men more brilliant and of much greater achievements compared to you, and they live in their inherited theistic worldview.

Don't believe, and people will say you are something else than a person with his feet on solid ground.


Yrreg

[yrreg]

Same here. Even when I was an evangelical Christian I saw no evidence for the existence of any gods, I just hadn't realized it.

But Gerry seems to be enamored of what I call the "Touched by an Angel fallacy". Namely, the idea that atheists are simply people who are angry at God. Of course, he seems equally fond of the ludicrous idea that atheists just want to live wild lives of sin by not smashing Buddhist altars and searing goats in their mother's milk.

Of course, he seems equally fond of the ludicrous idea that atheists just want to live wild lives of sin by not smashing Buddhist altars and searing goats in their mother's milk.

Please leave Buddhism out of this conversation, you might offend fellow atheists who have also taken up with Buddhism after leaving their inherited Christian theism.

And these atheists and converts to Buddhism are happy for now being into a spirituality with no sex 'taboos'.

However, Buddhist leaders from the Far East are telling them time and again that they get it all wrong that Buddhism is bereft of sex 'taboos'.

Useless their clear enlightenment messages to Western converts to Buddhism, because these latters claim to know the more authentic Buddhism unlike the masters of Buddhism from the Far East.

So, what else is new with man's capacity to abuse logic in the service of his psychology of convenience?



Yrreg

[paximperium]

Not to have seen any evidence means you have willfully blindfolded your reason and intelligence.
Nope. You are the one who doesn't understand reason. One day you will actually share this "evidence" to your claims.

By the way, you have got to be a supreme court in a democracy to claim not to have seen any evidence for a fact or a law, and make it stick whatever the supreme court wants something to stick.You have zero idea what is evidence. Sad.


Since you are not a supreme court in a democracy but just any other mortal, you have got to open your mind and activate your reason and intelligence, then you will see all kinds of evidence for So for people to accept you "evidence", you have "open your mind"? Why? Isn't it suppose to be self evident?


the God of the Christians and the Judaists as also of the Muslims.Which god is this? The mad genocidal YHWH of the Old Testament, Jehovah the love god of the New Testament or the angry avenging Allah of the Koran?

What you are now exhibiting is more of a selective trend in a exiguous minority sector of your society, to proclaim oneself an atheist, for whatever advantages, first of course participation in the trend, that you seek to reap from the vocal affiliation to the atheist worldview.What a bigot. YOU don't get to tell other people what they believe and why they believe things. Talk about supreme arrogance.


Men more brilliant than you and of much greater achievements don't have to take up with atheism, they are happy to live with their inherited theistic worldview.So what?

You want evidence? Open your mind to reason and intelligence first.You have no idea what reason and intelligence is. Stop insulting people with your drivel.


Otherwise, don't believe then that there are men more brilliant and of much greater achievements compared to you, and they live in their inherited theistic worldview.Again, so what?
Would you stop believing in your "god" if even more intelligent people stopped believing?


Don't believe, and people will say you are something else than a person with his feet on solid ground.And I'd call them wrong.

[paximperium]

taken up with Buddhism after leaving their inherited Christian theism. You make that sound like a bad thing

And these atheists and converts to Buddhism are happy for now being into a spirituality with no sex 'taboos'.

However, Buddhist leaders from the Far East are telling them time and again that they get it all wrong that Buddhism is bereft of sex 'taboos'.You have no idea what Buddhism is about. Sad.

Useless their clear enlightenment messages to Western converts to Buddhism, because these latters claim to know the more authentic Buddhism unlike the masters of Buddhism from the Far East.
"Masters" of Buddhism? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.


So, what else is new with man's capacity to abuse logic in the service of his psychology of convenience?
The flip side is people like you who don't use logic for your own convenience.

[Silentknight]

yrreg, please keep the following suggestion in mind throughout the remainder of the thread:

Stop telling other people what they believe, and instead listen to what they actually believe for once.

That is all.

[yrreg]

Approximately 4 billion people deny the existence of the Christian God. Only a small proportion of them are atheists. Atheists don't believe in any gods.

Do you deny the existence of Odin because you don't want to die in battle? Be honest.

Tell me what is the relevance of Odin in today's talk about taking the Christian God seriously or denying Him.

Why bring in Odin? you should also bring in Zeus.


Please, in the name of relevancy, keep to the topic and be relevant.


Anyway, what is so tremendously important to the reinforcement to atheists to strengthen them in their atheist resolve of denial, with bringing in Odin?

And isn't it more than adequate that you accept each other's witness to the worth of atheism for a personal worldview and life philosophy, and have proven the case successfully to your mutual or communal satisfaction?

Now, if you feel that you are suffering social discriminations for being an exiguous minority in a society where the vast majority is theist, then take comfort and courage that to yourselves you are right, correct, and possess the truth.


You are the enlightened minority, that boast should be your reward for all the social discriminations you have to put up with owing to your bravery to face the truth, there is no God, everything including yourselves came from chance or by chance through evolution which is 50% chance and 50% selection done by chance, so still 100% chance.

Atheists who claim to be scientific have chance for a God and evolution for raison d'etre, but it's all chance if they would be logical.

But the original meaning of chance is "We don't know."

So, as in everything else, atheists belong to the school of thought of non-thinking which is know-nothing.

They know nothing except what they want.



Yrreg

[Upchurch]

Tell me what is the relevance of Odin in today's talk about taking the Christian God seriously or denying Him.

Why bring in Odin? you should also bring in Zeus.

Please, in the name of relevancy, keep to the topic and be relevant.
Because atheists don't believe in the existence of any god or gods. The Christian God is just another in a very long list. Odin and Zeus are relevant because those are two gods that you, presumably, also do not believe in the existence of.

It is a point of common ground between believers like yourself and atheists. We all share a disbelief in at least some god or gods. Correct?

[The_Animus]

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.


Yrreg

Like "thou shalt not kill/murder"? (depending on which translation you're using)

I'll provide you with a very brief statement concerning the history of Christianity, the Church, and killing.

They've done it lots. In the name of God of course... who told them not to...

[AWPrime]

In your country there are communities like that of the Amish who enjoy all the legal and political rights of Americans, but can live among themselves and enjoy their own version of life under the Christian God.
See if atheists can unite and put their money together to buy a huge tract of land to set up their own community, or obtain a land grant from the government.
This is a very bad idea, to put it gently. Segregation will only make relations between groups worse. Also people might change and have children with different opinions. So your idea is totally unworkable.

Atheists can also work hard to excel in service to fellow Americans and mankind at large, become eminent artists, scientists, businessmen, educators, and also best for your own interests, get to be judges, senators, congressmen, and yes, cabinet secretaries, president even of the USA, then you would not care or give any heck to the social discrimination from Christians.You might want to know that many of those are already atheists. Especially among higher educated there is a relative high % of atheists. Its just that political careers are nearly impossible on an atheist platform.
And as an atheist I am of the opinion that it (belief or no belief) should be meaningless in political leadership.



ps. "Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?" isn't good English. Can you rework it into something that actually provides a solid question?

[yrreg]

Back to my topic here.

It is now oriented specifically to Christians and also Judaists who have taken to atheism.

I have this thought that it must be opposition to any of The Ten Commandments that motivated them to take up with atheism, i.e., to deny that God exists.

Allow me to bring up again the precis of The Ten Commandments, courtesy of the Catholic Church.

Here are The Ten Commandments:
http://www.marianland.com/tencommand...mandments.html


The Ten Commandments
Catholic Version

I.
I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

II.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain!

III.
Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day!

IV.
Honor your father and your mother!

V.
You shall not kill!

VI.
You shall not commit adultery!

VII.
You shall not steal!

VIII.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor!

IX.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife!

[ Post #5 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4194736&highlight=catholic+version#post4194736) ]


Atheists have pointed out that there are much fewer atheists in jail than what? of course in their survey, theists.

That should prove that atheists are more moral, more ethically righteous than theists, and therefore atheism is a true worldview compared to theism.

That is certainly an abuse of logic to the convenience of one's personal psychology.

The reason why there are less atheists in jail is because they don't steal, don't kill, and don't lie not usually in court.

And why don't they kill, don't steal, and don't lie in court?

Because it's against the law which will put them behind the bars if they do.

Besides they still harbor enough residual theistic morality from The Ten Commandments during their Christian theistic days.


So, of transgressions against the commandments of God, they certainly are not after killing, stealing, and lying in court, no need then to deny God on those accounts.

That leaves honoring their parents, and not committing sexual transgressions.

Since ex-Christians now atheists are still civilized persons, they are presumably rendering to their parents the honor that is their parents’ due, and in the course of time can and will commit their parents in their old age to old folks homes.

That leaves sexual transgressions and all other acts which they might commit but for the commandment of God against collectively socalled adultery, and also the first three commandments: to believe in God, not to dishonor His name, and to keep holy His Sabbath day.

Now, in today’s Western society like the US, consensual sex is practically all right, but don’t do it with anyone below the age of consent or still in the charge of their parents or parental substitutes.

Am I forgetting it seems that ex-Christians atheists have rational grounds for taking up with atheism, meaning to them atheism is more rational than their erstwhile Christian theism?

That is an after the fact argument or what in psychology is called rationalization, exactly giving deodorizing reasons for a done act.

I am here after the what I might call raw motivations for eventually taking up wholesale with atheism, by jettisoning altogether the first three commandments of The Ten Commandments: believe in God, honor His name, keep holy His Sabbath day.

[ To be continued. ]


Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

Since you are not a supreme court in a democracy but just any other mortal, you have got to open your mind and activate your reason and intelligence, then you will see all kinds of evidence for the God of the Christians and the Judaists as also of the Muslims.

Would you mind presenting some of this evidence?

[AWPrime]

This thread is about the question:
"Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?"
And I proffered the answer right away in #1 post:
One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.
[snip]
So the question could be very well expressed thus:
Why would any Christian take up with atheism in a combative posture?
And the answer could be:
One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.Why are you moving the goal posts? Your original question can be seen as:

"Why become an atheist?"
Even this form is highly flawed for it assumes that all atheists became atheists and didn't just remain atheists from birth. Then it became:

"What about the ten commandments made you become an atheist?"
This is even worse, for there are many reasons to be an atheist. but you had to step it up:

"What about the ten commandments turned you away from christianity and made you become an atheist?"
Do you think that your question is honest?


Lets continue:

I would consider them to be also Christian in terms of living and maintaining a busy existence in a Christian society or one where the culture is Christian, perhaps I can use term, Christendom.Christianity formed a only a section of the roots of the modern western world. Many other cultures (Greek, Roman, Germanic) and European (and other) pagan religions helped form out roots and they even shaped christianity itself. Thus our laws and customs can't be called 'Christendom'.
In the end our laws are more based upon the golden rule then the ten commandments.



Perhaps you were a Christian before but now a combative atheist, would you be disposed to inform readers of this thread what were the turning points in your life which brought you to become a combative atheist?Please drop the term 'combative atheist' its meaningless, use vocal atheist instead. As for my story:
I was born a blank slate (like all people). When I went to Sunday school and church (as a small child) the installation of the meme called christianity never occurred. My mind's automatically quarantined it into the fable section, where it couldn't influence the core mind. And thus I have remained without belief in god(s).

An pagan meme might have had more luck when I was a child. But my current mind will just dismantle any religious meme and examine it ruthlessly, kinda like a virus scan.

[Foster Zygote]

Please leave Buddhism out of this conversation, you might offend fellow atheists who have also taken up with Buddhism after leaving their inherited Christian theism.
You keep telling me that things are not related to the subject being discussed. You did this in your "satisfied with sex" thread, claiming that God was not involved, when clearly God is involved because the subject is related to people who lack belief in gods.

In this case, Buddhist altars are very much related to the subject of the Ten Commandments. Exodus 34:13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. If you are confused it may be because the Ten Commandments you listed are not actually the Ten Commandment.

And these atheists and converts to Buddhism are happy for now being into a spirituality with no sex 'taboos'.
Do you just make this stuff up on the spot? The vast majority of atheists and Buddhists have strong taboos against things like pedophilia and rape.

However, Buddhist leaders from the Far East are telling them time and again that they get it all wrong that Buddhism is bereft of sex 'taboos'.
Who might "them" and "they" be? Is it you that they are informing gets it all wrong?

Useless their clear enlightenment messages to Western converts to Buddhism, because these latters claim to know the more authentic Buddhism unlike the masters of Buddhism from the Far East.
Hmmm... Sounds like pretty much every other major and minor religion to me.

So, what else is new with man's capacity to abuse logic in the service of his psychology of convenience?
I'm sure you will show us.

[Foster Zygote]

Back to my topic here.

It is now oriented specifically to Christians and also Judaists who have taken to atheism.

I have this thought that it must be opposition to any of The Ten Commandments that motivated them to take up with atheism, i.e., to deny that God exists.

Allow me to bring up again the precis of The Ten Commandments, courtesy of the Catholic Church.

Here are The Ten Commandments:
http://www.marianland.com/tencommand...mandments.html


The Ten Commandments
Catholic Version

I.
I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

II.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain!

III.
Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day!

IV.
Honor your father and your mother!

V.
You shall not kill!

VI.
You shall not commit adultery!

VII.
You shall not steal!

VIII.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor!

IX.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife!

[ Post #5 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4194736&highlight=catholic+version#post4194736) ]


Atheists have pointed out that there are much fewer atheists in jail than what? of course in their survey, theists.

That should prove that atheists are more moral, more ethically righteous than theists, and therefore atheism is a true worldview compared to theism.

That is certainly an abuse of logic to the convenience of one's personal psychology.

The reason why there are less atheists in jail is because they don't steal, don't kill, and don't lie not usually in court.

And why don't they kill, don't steal, and don't lie in court?

Because it's against the law which will put them behind the bars if they do.

Besides they still harbor enough residual theistic morality from The Ten Commandments during their Christian theistic days.


So, of transgressions against the commandments of God, they certainly are not after killing, stealing, and lying in court, no need then to deny God on those accounts.

That leaves honoring their parents, and not committing sexual transgressions.

Since ex-Christians now atheists are still civilized persons, they are presumably rendering to their parents the honor that is their parents’ due, and in the course of time can and will commit their parents in their old age to old folks homes.

That leaves sexual transgressions and all other acts which they might commit but for the commandment of God against collectively socalled adultery, and also the first three commandments: to believe in God, not to dishonor His name, and to keep holy His Sabbath day.

Now, in today’s Western society like the US, consensual sex is practically all right, but don’t do it with anyone below the age of consent or still in the charge of their parents or parental substitutes.

Am I forgetting it seems that ex-Christians atheists have rational grounds for taking up with atheism, meaning to them atheism is more rational than their erstwhile Christian theism?

That is an after the fact argument or what in psychology is called rationalization, exactly giving deodorizing reasons for a done act.

I am here after the what I might call raw motivations for eventually taking up wholesale with atheism, by jettisoning altogether the first three commandments of The Ten Commandments: believe in God, honor His name, keep holy His Sabbath day.

[ To be continued. ]


Yrreg

There's just one problem: Those are not the Ten Commandments.

[PixyMisa]

Tell me what is the relevance of Odin in today's talk about taking the Christian God seriously or denying Him.
The relevance is very simple, and very obvious:

You don't believe in Odin.

Why not?

Simple. Because he doesn't exist. He's obviously just a myth.

So, think about that for a second.

Why bring in Odin? you should also bring in Zeus.
Sure, if you like.

Please, in the name of relevancy, keep to the topic and be relevant.
The references to Odin go straight to the heart of the question - you just don't seem to like the answer.

Anyway, what is so tremendously important to the reinforcement to atheists to strengthen them in their atheist resolve of denial, with bringing in Odin?
Do you believe in Odin? Why or why not?

And isn't it more than adequate that you accept each other's witness to the worth of atheism for a personal worldview and life philosophy, and have proven the case successfully to your mutual or communal satisfaction?
No.

Now, if you feel that you are suffering social discriminations for being an exiguous minority in a society where the vast majority is theist, then take comfort and courage that to yourselves you are right, correct, and possess the truth.
That's exactly what we are doing.

Atheists who claim to be scientific have chance for a God and evolution for raison d'etre, but it's all chance if they would be logical.
No. Atheists do not believe in gods. Of any sort.

But the original meaning of chance is "We don't know."
No.

So, as in everything else, atheists belong to the school of thought of non-thinking which is know-nothing.
There's that smug certainty of unshakeable ignorance again!

They know nothing except what they want.
What?

[Seismosaurus]

Back to my topic here.

It is now oriented specifically to Christians and also Judaists who have taken to atheism.

I have this thought that it must be opposition to any of The Ten Commandments that motivated them to take up with atheism, i.e., to deny that God exists.

I've already pointed out why this is an illogical, nonsensical point of view.

And why don't they kill, don't steal, and don't lie in court?

Because it's against the law which will put them behind the bars if they do.

Besides they still harbor enough residual theistic morality from The Ten Commandments during their Christian theistic days.

Ummm... what residual christian theistic days are these that you speak of? I have never been a christian one day in my life.

[Mashuna]

[ To be continued. ]


Yrreg

You've got everything wrong so far, please don't feel the need to continue.

[Primus]

The relevance is very simple, and very obvious:

You don't believe in Odin.

Why not?

Simple. Because he doesn't exist. He's obviously just a myth.



Unlike Thor who is definitely very real.

[PixyMisa]

Unlike Thor is is definitely very real.
Well sure. He has his own comic book and everything.

[Primus]

I know. Thats what I never get about Christianity. All of the cool gods out there they could worship, and they pick the most petty, petulant and generally teenage sounding one out there.
It makes no sense whatsoever

[Akhenaten]

Yrreg, how would you explain the people who didn't believe in god and who lived in the time before Moses?

Likewise, many of us today are unaware of your commandment thingies, and are therefore unable to oppose them. Maybe there's some other motivator?

[Elizabeth I]

I know. Thats what I never get about Christianity. All of the cool gods out there they could worship, and they pick the most petty, petulant and generally teenage sounding one out there.
It makes no sense whatsoever

No, they're pretty much all emo kids.

[Hokulele]

No, they're pretty much all emo kids.


Not Kali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81l%C4%AB), she is awesome.

[Fiona]

Why would anyone take up with atheism in a combative posture?
One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.

If I am understanding this thread right then what you are trying to ask is why would anyone be or become a vocal atheist: and you are suggesting that one reason might be that the person who is or becomes a vocal atheist does so because he or she is strongly opposed to one or more of the 10 commandments.

If that is a correct statement of your position then I wonder that you have not noticed that many atheists have told you explicitly that this is not the reason they are or have become atheists. Obviously that could be a reason, but it so happens that it is not the reason for any atheist here, including myself.

Are you prepared to abandon your idea in the face of this direct evidence, and engage with the people who have explained their atheism in other terms? Or are you more comfortable tilting at windmills?

[Beerina]

One reason would be opposition to one or more of The Ten Commandments of God.


Yrreg


Nah, that's a straw man. Although God's concern with people having affairs is a little bit...odd...to say the least.

No, the history of religion is plenty to take a combative stance against it.


After all, yrreg, religion has been in a combative stance to other religions and atheism for tens of thousands of years. And I don't mean the figurative combative stance with words, but a literal one, with armies, slaughter, murder, torture and forced conversion, invasions, and so on.

It just seems peaceful in the West the past couple of hundred years because it lost the battle vs. the new religion of The People as God. But that's another problem some of us are working on...and for exactly the same reason. And I mean exactly.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
Tell me what is the relevance of Odin in today's talk about taking the Christian God seriously or denying Him.

The relevance is very simple, and very obvious:

You don't believe in Odin.

Why not?

Simple. Because he doesn't exist. He's obviously just a myth.

So, think about that for a second.

[..]





Please be cognizant of the fact that the best minds today in 2008 c.e. are talking about God, even they who don't believe He exists are writing about Him, and earning a celebrity status among their following, thereby making good money.

They would be deadend obscure academics if not for God to write in denial, and make oodles of money from you people who buy their books and learn to bring up Odin, but not to be cognizant that no one among the best minds of today now in 2008 c.e. are talking about Odin.

In another context you might as well talk about a slingshot when the best armament experts today in 2008 c.e. are talking about more sophisticated arms than self-guided transcontinental missiles with nuclear warheads.


Please be relevant to the times and the customs.


And read better minds than those who are shortchanging you with their hoary difficulties about the existence of God, but cannot face genuine thinkers, exploiting instead the naivete and gullibility of shallow readers who just want confirmation to reinforce themselves in their deviation from God owing to some grudge against Him but wrongly.



Yrreg

[AWPrime]

Smart people also make good money with Harry Potter.

The point is that people talk/read/discuss about various 'fictional concepts/people' because they can be interesting and thought provoking.

[yrreg]

I usually start a thread hoping to turn up something enlightening to my own mind in the process of exchanges with posters here.

As the thread proceeds I get to realize more in particular the scope of the topic, how it should be more fruitfully focused, and also the better ways and means of arriving at findings.

At this point of the thread, if you are not an ex-Christian now atheist or from a Judaist camp now atheist, please dispense yourself from involvement in this thread.

However, if you are knowledgeable about the Abrahamic God, and feel like sharing here your difficulties with that God, you are welcome to contribute your thoughts here.


Now I have the very strong suspicion that Christians (also Judaists) who turn to atheism are moved by something they love more than God, or they have a grudge against God.

What are the things people would love more than God?

And why do people have grudges against God?



I am thinking along those two directions.


You see with atheism as also with theism, we are not dealing with something outside of man, but something in his heart and mind.

When you study the moon you are not into your heart and mind, but when you study atheism or theism you are into your heart and mind.

Heart and mind of man, that is the realm of psychology.


So I will be examining the atheists who deviated from God, the Christian-Judeo God that is, to find out what are the motivations, things of their heart and mind which make atheism attractive to themselves and move them to be witnesses to atheism, like combatively testifying in favor of their conviction of no existence to God.



Yrreg

[Ichneumonwasp]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Gerry,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Elizabeth I]

Not Kali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81l%C4%AB), she is awesome.

Oh, well, Kali, sure.

But doesn't even she throw a tantrum every now and then?

[Ysidro]

Does ANYONE actually, honestly believe the "atheists deny God in order to sin" thing? Or is this just some stupid argument used to confuse the issue. It just doesn't make any sense! How can one just decide not to believe something? They either do or they don't. Sometimes their beliefs change. But is there one person on this Earth who ever woke up one day and said "well, I'm going to not believe in God/Fairies/Aliens/Bigfoot/Hera/Mictlantecuhtle today" and actually succeeded in it?

'cause really, this just seems like the laziest argument ever.

[PixyMisa]

Please be cognizant of the fact that the best minds today in 2008 c.e. are talking about God, even they who don't believe He exists are writing about Him, and earning a celebrity status among their following, thereby making good money.
And?

They would be deadend obscure academics if not for God to write in denial
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Dawkins is a biologist, and is famous for his writings on biology.
Dennett is a philosopher, and is famous for his writings on philosophy.
Hitchens is a journalist, and is famous for his work in journalism. He's not by any means an "academic".

and make oodles of money from you people who buy their books and learn to bring up Odin
No.

but not to be cognizant that no one among the best minds of today now in 2008 c.e. are talking about Odin.
What? You've left out part of the sentence there.

In another context you might as well talk about a slingshot when the best armament experts today in 2008 c.e. are talking about more sophisticated arms than self-guided transcontinental missiles with nuclear warheads.
Completely irrelevant.

Please be relevant to the times and the customs.
Please try to be a little less parochial.

And read better minds than those who are shortchanging you with their hoary difficulties about the existence of God
What better minds?

but cannot face genuine thinkers
What genuine thinkers?

exploiting instead the naivete and gullibility of shallow readers who just want confirmation to reinforce themselves in their deviation from God owing to some grudge against Him but wrongly.
We have no grudge against God. He's just imaginary... Like Odin.

We don't believe in God for exactly the reason you don't believe in Odin.

[Dancing David]

Not Kali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81l%C4%AB), she is awesome.

I agree, but that is more stolen cultural heritage, smirched by modern feminism. (According to silly traditionalists)

I find Kali/Durga a great diety.

[Dunstan]

However, if you are knowledgeable about the Abrahamic God, and feel like sharing here your difficulties with that God, you are welcome to contribute your thoughts here.

What people have been telling you over and over again is that the "difficulty" atheists have with the Abrahamic God is that they don't think he exists.

Now I have the very strong suspicion that Christians (also Judaists) who turn to atheism are moved by something they love more than God, or they have a grudge against God.

Yes, it's clear that you think that. But it should be pretty clear by this point in the thread that nobody is playing your game.

So I will be examining the atheists who deviated from God, the Christian-Judeo God that is, to find out what are the motivations, things of their heart and mind which make atheism attractive to themselves and move them to be witnesses to atheism, like combatively testifying in favor of their conviction of no existence to God.

Well, feel free to waste your time.

It's true that people's opinions can be influenced by their desires, that we may believe things in part because we want to believe them. But it's difficult, if not impossible, to apply that principle in any particular case. It also doesn't make for a very fruitful discussion.

Sure, it's possible that some people reach the conclusion that there is no God because subconsciously they prefer that as an outcome. It's also possible that some people reach the conclusion that there is a God because subconsciously they prefer that outcome.

But that kind of psychoanalytical speculation leads nowhere. You can spout all you want that I don't believe in God because I desperately want to be "free" to covet my neighbor's ox, and I could respond that you only believe in God because you're afraid of dying. But I can't prove what your motivations are any more than you can prove mine, so we'd just end up talking at each other instead of having a discussion. And of course, it sheds no light on the question of who's actually right, since people can reach the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.

[Dancing David]

Please be cognizant of the fact that the best minds today in 2008 c.e. are talking about God, even they who don't believe He exists are writing about Him, and earning a celebrity status among their following, thereby making good money.

They would be deadend obscure academics if not for God to write in denial, and make oodles of money from you people who buy their books and learn to bring up Odin, but not to be cognizant that no one among the best minds of today now in 2008 c.e. are talking about Odin.

In another context you might as well talk about a slingshot when the best armament experts today in 2008 c.e. are talking about more sophisticated arms than self-guided transcontinental missiles with nuclear warheads.


Please be relevant to the times and the customs.


And read better minds than those who are shortchanging you with their hoary difficulties about the existence of God, but cannot face genuine thinkers, exploiting instead the naivete and gullibility of shallow readers who just want confirmation to reinforce themselves in their deviation from God owing to some grudge against Him but wrongly.



Yrreg

I am saddened Yrreg, you are making even less sense than usual.

Maybe you should lay off the god for a while. :D

This is the worser of your writings so far.

Sigh.

[RoboTimbo]

I usually start a thread hoping to turn up something enlightening to my own mind in the process of exchanges with posters here.

As the thread proceeds I get to realize more in particular the scope of the topic, how it should be more fruitfully focused, and also the better ways and means of arriving at findings.

At this point of the thread, if you are not an ex-Christian now atheist or from a Judaist camp now atheist, please dispense yourself from involvement in this thread.

However, if you are knowledgeable about the Abrahamic God, and feel like sharing here your difficulties with that God, you are welcome to contribute your thoughts here.


Now I have the very strong suspicion that Christians (also Judaists) who turn to atheism are moved by something they love more than God, or they have a grudge against God.

What are the things people would love more than God?

And why do people have grudges against God?



I am thinking along those two directions.


You see with atheism as also with theism, we are not dealing with something outside of man, but something in his heart and mind.

When you study the moon you are not into your heart and mind, but when you study atheism or theism you are into your heart and mind.

Heart and mind of man, that is the realm of psychology.


So I will be examining the atheists who deviated from God, the Christian-Judeo God that is, to find out what are the motivations, things of their heart and mind which make atheism attractive to themselves and move them to be witnesses to atheism, like combatively testifying in favor of their conviction of no existence to God.



Yrreg


Would it help if nobody else participated and you just respond to your own questions with the answers you want to hear?

[Dancing David]

Oh, well, Kali, sure.

But doesn't even she throw a tantrum every now and then?


Like the one here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali
Slayer of Raktabija


Kali destroys Raktabija by sucking the blood from his body and putting the many Raktabija duplicates in her gaping mouth. Pleased with her victory, Kali then dances on the field of battle, stepping on the corpses of the slain. Her consort Shiva lies among the dead beneath her feet, a representation of Kali commonly seen in her iconography as Daksinakali'.[18]



I really like that picture. :D

[PixyMisa]

I usually start a thread hoping to turn up something enlightening to my own mind in the process of exchanges with posters here.
That's a good start, but seems to contradict the evidence of this thread.

As the thread proceeds I get to realize more in particular the scope of the topic, how it should be more fruitfully focused, and also the better ways and means of arriving at findings.That's a good start, but seems to, well, you know.

At this point of the thread, if you are not an ex-Christian now atheist or from a Judaist camp now atheist, please dispense yourself from involvement in this thread.I fit your entirely arbitrary and pointless restrictions based on a false premise, but if I didn't I would ignore them anyway.

However, if you are knowledgeable about the Abrahamic God, and feel like sharing here your difficulties with that God, you are welcome to contribute your thoughts here.We don't have "difficulties" with God. He just doesn't exist.

Now I have the very strong suspicion that Christians (also Judaists) who turn to atheism are moved by something they love more than God, or they have a grudge against God.You're wrong.

What are the things people would love more than God?While God is imaginary, people can still have emotions toward imaginary things, like Yurie Hitotsubashi and Haruhi Suzumiya, both of whom I love dearly. (And who also happen to be imaginary gods, but that's by the by.)

Add to that, chocolate, baby pygmy hippos, quad-core processors, lamb chops, sleeping in on Sunday mornings, a good book (not The Good Book, even if you skip the begattings), House, Mythbusters, the Python programming language, freshly ironed clothes, furniture made from recycled timber, carnations, fish and chips, Dungeons and Dragons, Lego, small children of most species, the ocean, long train rides, Tuscany, Norman architecture, ferry boats, the internet, King Island double-cream brie, going on a picnic with your family, Tetley's peach & orange iced tea, tuna, Kathmandu t-shirts with the lizard emblem, thunderstorms, sunshowers, and rainbows, inlaid wood, amethysts, working models, Final Fantasy X, Gilbert and Sullivan, and The Princess Bride.

And why do people have grudges against God?We don't have "grudges against God". He just doesn't exist.

Kind of like Odin.

I am thinking along those two directions.

You see with atheism as also with theism, we are not dealing with something outside of man, but something in his heart and mind.

When you study the moon you are not into your heart and mind, but when you study atheism or theism you are into your heart and mind.No. I treat the moon the same way as I treat theism and atheism. I weigh the evidence and address it with logic.

Heart and mind of man, that is the realm of psychology.Heart is the realm of cardiology.

So I will be examining the atheists who deviated from God, the Christian-Judeo God that is, to find out what are the motivations, things of their heart and mind which make atheism attractive to themselves and move them to be witnesses to atheism, like combatively testifying in favor of their conviction of no existence to God.Okay, that's simple: God doesn't exist.

My motivation for saying that God doesn't exist is that God doesn't exist.

Not sure how that is "combative". Is it combative for a believer to assert that God does exist?

There are no "witnesses" to atheism. There's nothing to witness.

There's no attraction to atheism.

There's no heart to atheism.

All there is to atheism is no gods.

[fromdownunder]

I usually start a thread hoping to turn up something enlightening to my own mind in the process of exchanges with posters here.

Translation: I don't know why I start the threads that I do start

As the thread proceeds I get to realize more in particular the scope of the topic, how it should be more fruitfully focused, and also the better ways and means of arriving at findings.

WAAAAHHHH!!! Mommy, they are not playing the way I want to play

At this point of the thread, if you are not an ex-Christian now atheist or from a Judaist camp now atheist, please dispense yourself from involvement in this thread.

My apologies. I did not realise that you owned the Boards. I will be humple, and cower before you now that I know the truth.

However, if you are knowledgeable about the Abrahamic God, and feel like sharing here your difficulties with that God, you are welcome to contribute your thoughts here.

I lack a belief in God. That is not a difficulty. Show me evidence and I will "believe".

Now I have the very strong suspicion that Christians (also Judaists) who turn to atheism are moved by something they love more than God, or they have a grudge against God.

*sigh* How many times does this word need to be explained *EVIDENCE* Your suspicion is completely unfounded. Putting it simply, you are just plain wrong. But just to assuage your ego, one of the reasons (among plenty of others - but that was the first step) that I became an atheist was that I actually read the Bible, and unlike so many Christians, discovered what was really in it.

What are the things people would love more than God?

Things that actually exist for starters.

And why do people have grudges against God?

Do you have a grudge against the FSM, or the IPU?

I am thinking along those two directions.

Thinking? I think not.

You see with atheism as also with theism, we are not dealing with something outside of man, but something in his heart and mind.

EVIDENCE please. My heart is a pump, and I do not think through it.

When you study the moon you are not into your heart and mind, but when you study atheism or theism you are into your heart and mind.

Huh, plus see above re: heart?

Heart and mind of man, that is the realm of psychology.

Huh, plus see above re: heart?

So I will be examining the atheists who deviated from God, the Christian-Judeo God that is, to find out what are the motivations, things of their heart and mind which make atheism attractive to themselves and move them to be witnesses to atheism, like combatively testifying in favor of their conviction of no existence to God.

Try studying and providing evidence instead. "Examining? You must be a legend in your own lunchtime. And stop putting your words into what other people have posted. Think, and learn to read and assimilate what others post. It's a lot easier than simply making stuff up and ignoring other responses. It would also make you look like you were interested in what you (don't) really want to discuss.

Norm

[MarkCorrigan]

Let me see if I can explain Yrreng. There is a lamp in my room that doesn't work. I can show you the lamp, if you need proof, but I assure you, there is one that doesn't work.

This lamp annoys me. I have issues with this lamp because it does not do what I think it should do, and thus I do not like it.

On the other hand, there is not an elephant in my room. indeed, one would not fit in my room, unless all the other stuff in here were removed, or it was a baby. I am therefore not mad at an elephant in my room.

You are arguing that atheists, such as myself, see god like the lamp. It doesn't do what we want it to do, so we get mad at it. This leads us to pretend it doesn't exist.

In actual fact, we see it as the elephant. It isn't there in the first place, and many of us think it would be very very improbable for it to be there, so we assume it doesn't exist.

[Fiona]

It is windmills all the way down :(

[Safe-Keeper]

Does ANYONE actually, honestly believe the "atheists deny God in order to sin" thing?Yes and no, I think. Sure, believing that "I'm going to pretend God doesn't exist so I don't have to follow His rules" is as dumb as somehow convincing yourself that disbelief in the police would let you get away with breaking the law, or that disregarding the law of gravity would keep you from falling when leaping off a lighthouse. Of course no one thinks that way. At least I really don't hope so.

The closest you'll get is people who, upon reading the Bible, find that it's a whole lot more unjust and brutal than they'd been brought up to believe, and find that they can't go on following the creature depicted in the OP - and lose faith in Him. Sure, this is irrational, and of course it's in a way the behaviour discussed in the first paragraph, but it's still a long, long way from "I don't want to be a good person, so I'll defect from God and think He thus won't have the power to judge me!". The problem of fundies who believe that there's no reason to be good and that without God everyone would be evil is that I've yet to meet a single atheist who thinks this way.

I understand the line of thinking - if you've been brought up to believe in God as some sort of Stasi-like police entity that keeps you in line... then I guess that the idea of disregarding Him would be like throwing the police and government out the window and estabilishing anarchy. I do understand the line of reasoning, even though it's very distant from how I myself think. But the fact remains that atheists don't abandon God in order to lie, steal, commit adultery and kill people.

I can't convince the OP of this as he has demonstrated through numerous threads that he's effectively a troll, seeing how he's totally unable to be convinced of anything, but I thought I'd throw it in anyhow.

[Foster Zygote]

I usually start a thread hoping to turn up something enlightening to my own mind in the process of exchanges with posters here.
Yet the appearance to present is of someone looking to prop up his prejudices with strawmen.

As the thread proceeds I get to realize more in particular the scope of the topic, how it should be more fruitfully focused, and also the better ways and means of arriving at findings.
This statement is not born out by the actual exchanges you have with the people you claim to be attempting to understand. Just look at your following statement.

Now I have the very strong suspicion that Christians (also Judaists) who turn to atheism are moved by something they love more than God, or they have a grudge against God.
It is transparently obvious that this is the real reason you started this thread. You have formed this prejudicial conclusion and nothing any atheist says will sway you from it. You need to believe that atheists are simply angry with your god because that is the conclusion that creates, in your mind, your superiority over them, yes? When many atheists answer that they are no more angry with God than they are angry with the Easter Bunny, and simply see no more reason to believe in God than you see to believe in Odin, this answer becomes an inconvenience regarding the true goal of your thread, so you simply ignore such answers and continue to assert that atheists are angry at God, or want to cook baby goats in their mother's milk, or whatever.


What are the things people would love more than God?
What could I possibly love more than something I see as imaginary? My wife, my son, my mother and father, my family, my friends, my pets, people I've never met, life, music, learning about the universe around me, a lovely sunrise, a good story, etc.

But you were implying something more base, yes?

And why do people have grudges against God?
You might want to ask people who have a grudge against God then. Keep in mind that one generally has to believe in an entity to hold a grudge against it.

I am thinking along those two directions.
Perhaps, but you are not inquiring along these two directions.

You see with atheism as also with theism, we are not dealing with something outside of man, but something in his heart and mind.

When you study the moon you are not into your heart and mind, but when you study atheism or theism you are into your heart and mind.

Heart and mind of man, that is the realm of psychology.
And?

So I will be examining the atheists who deviated from God, the Christian-Judeo God that is, to find out what are the motivations, things of their heart and mind which make atheism attractive to themselves and move them to be witnesses to atheism, like combatively testifying in favor of their conviction of no existence to God.
You've already been given answers as to why someone would conclude that the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god (or any god for that matter) does not actually exist. But you don't like those answers so you are going to ignore them.

Is this all about gathering material for some sermon in which you will tell your listeners that people become atheists because they simply want to improperly cook goats or covet their neighbors ass? I suppose you'll leave out the actual answers provided by the atheists you've sampled.

[Foster Zygote]

Let me see if I can explain Yrreng. There is a lamp in my room that doesn't work. I can show you the lamp, if you need proof, but I assure you, there is one that doesn't work.

This lamp annoys me. I have issues with this lamp because it does not do what I think it should do, and thus I do not like it.

On the other hand, there is not an elephant in my room. indeed, one would not fit in my room, unless all the other stuff in here were removed, or it was a baby. I am therefore not mad at an elephant in my room.

You are arguing that atheists, such as myself, see god like the lamp. It doesn't do what we want it to do, so we get mad at it. This leads us to pretend it doesn't exist.

In actual fact, we see it as the elephant. It isn't there in the first place, and many of us think it would be very very improbable for it to be there, so we assume it doesn't exist.

Nominated.

Mark wins the thread.

[MarkCorrigan]

Nominated.

Mark wins the thread.

Why thank you. :D

[Safe-Keeper]

You might want to ask people who have a grudge against God then. Keep in mind that one generally has to believe in an entity to hold a grudge against it.Not really, strictly speaking. The character Umbridge from the Harry Potter series is notorious for her ability to provoke anger in readers, children as well as adults. She's thoroughly unlikable and I remember developing a strong animosity towards her when playing. Same with Malfoy and Professor Snape. I don't know if I held a lasting grudge against any of them, but sometimes when reading fiction you actually do develop a long-lasting anger towards a character, even though you know they're fiction. 24 and the Norwegian movie Wolf Night (Ulvenatten) actually did - the characters were so unlikable that I simply ended up wishing I could go into their world and do them physical harm.

[Hokulele]

Oh, well, Kali, sure.

But doesn't even she throw a tantrum every now and then?


Heck, yeah! That is what makes her awesome.

ETA: You see, when an emo kid throws a tantrum, it is all whinging and noise, but no action. Even Yahweh needs locusts or frogs or Satan or Israelites in order to accomplish anything. Kali simply rolls up her multitude of sleeves, and starts kicking ass.

I agree, but that is more stolen cultural heritage, smirched by modern feminism. (According to silly traditionalists)

I find Kali/Durga a great diety.


Bleah, I don't like the namby-pamby mother figure nonsense. Give me the blood-smeared "Time and tide" version any day.

Like the one here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali
Slayer of Raktabija

I really like that picture. :D


Yep, that's my girl!

[Elizabeth I]

Let me see if I can explain Yrreng. There is a lamp in my room that doesn't work. I can show you the lamp, if you need proof, but I assure you, there is one that doesn't work.

This lamp annoys me. I have issues with this lamp because it does not do what I think it should do, and thus I do not like it.

On the other hand, there is not an elephant in my room. indeed, one would not fit in my room, unless all the other stuff in here were removed, or it was a baby. I am therefore not mad at an elephant in my room.

You are arguing that atheists, such as myself, see god like the lamp. It doesn't do what we want it to do, so we get mad at it. This leads us to pretend it doesn't exist.

In actual fact, we see it as the elephant. It isn't there in the first place, and many of us think it would be very very improbable for it to be there, so we assume it doesn't exist.

Well, I see somebody already beat me to it, but...I like this. It's the best short summary of atheism I've ever read.

[yrreg]

As the stomach is built to seek food and water, so the brain is built to seek God.

And all the history of man's conscious intelligence testifies to the quest and acceptance of God in mankind.

You see, atheism is unnatural.

What is normal with man is to know the existence of God, that is his instinct.

What is abnormal, unnatural is for man to deny the existence of God and to bring up so many difficulties against His existence, which are only so many rationalizations.

This is the expected reaction of people going into abnormal and unnatural behavior, abuse logic to cater to their personal psychology of self-convenience.

Read this post from an ex-Christian here:



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4189171&postcount=202

Posted by yrreg
Anything transcendental there and did you miss anything when you were a non-atheist?

...

I'd have to say that the only thing I missed as a theist was rational consistency within my world-view. And maybe guiltless masturbation.

[...]




What rational consistency, what guiltless masturbation, all manners of abuse of logic to cater to one's own psychology of personal convenience.


The only rational consistency that is open to man for being a conscious intelligent living entity is to know God.

As for guiltless masturbation, get married, then you can spare yourself the angst of masturbation.


Yrreg

[paximperium]

As the stomach is built to seek food and water, so the brain is built to seek God.
Says who?

And all the history of man's conscious intelligence testifies to the quest and acceptance of God in mankind.Which god?

You see, atheism is unnatural.Actually, it is perfectly natural. Babies are atheists.

What is normal with man is to know the existence of God, that is his instinct.Which god?

What is abnormal, unnatural is for man to deny the existence of God and to bring up so many difficulties against His existence, which are only so many rationalizations.What difficulties?

This is the expected reaction of people going into abnormal and unnatural behavior, abuse logic to cater to their personal psychology of self-convenience.Ahhh, bigotry at its best.

Read this post from an ex-Christian here:

What rational consistency, what guiltless masturbation, all manners of abuse of logic to cater to one's own psychology of personal convenience.
Your dishonesty is disgusting. "Lying for Christ" at its finest.


The only rational consistency that is open to man for being a conscious intelligent living entity is to know God.No

As for guiltless masturbation, get married, then you can spare yourself the angst of masturbation.
Why should anyone feel guilt for masturbation?

Your preaching is sad and useless.

[Foster Zygote]

As the stomach is built to seek food and water, so the brain is built to seek God.

And all the history of man's conscious intelligence testifies to the quest and acceptance of God in mankind.

You see, atheism is unnatural.

What is normal with man is to know the existence of God, that is his instinct.

What is abnormal, unnatural is for man to deny the existence of God and to bring up so many difficulties against His existence, which are only so many rationalizations.
Failing to address any of the many points that have been raised you resort to assertions that you refuse to back up with logic. I asked you to provide some evidence for the existence of your god. Why have you not done this? You claimed that this evidence was obvious, so let's see it.

This is the expected reaction of people going into abnormal and unnatural behavior, abuse logic to cater to their personal psychology of self-convenience.
Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

What rational consistency, what guiltless masturbation, all manners of abuse of logic to cater to one's own psychology of personal convenience.
You are focusing on my joke because you would like to distract us from the many points that have been raised that you do not wish to address. But there was a relevant point to my joke as well: It addresses the ridiculous notion of sex as sin that is all too common among many religions.

The only rational consistency that is open to man for being a conscious intelligent living entity is to know God.
Which god? Odin? Zeus? Hanuman? Kali? Huitzilopitchli? Melkor?

As for guiltless masturbation, get married, then you can spare yourself the angst of masturbation.
Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you have not been reading my posts in full. I have already mentioned my wife on a couple of occasions. It is clear that you are not being honest with us when you claim that you are asking questions in order to learn from us. You ask leading questions, make assertions based on your prejudices, then ignore all responses to the contrary. You then make the same groundless assertions again in order to reassure yourself of what you had already concluded in ignorance prior to your "inquiries". Talk about masturbation.

[yrreg]

Quote:
You see, atheism is unnatural. Actually, it is perfectly natural. Babies are atheists.

[...]




You are a baby, not yet in the age of reason.

Some babies take longer, much longer to reach the age of reason and thus competent to act intelligent, some never because of their psychology of self-convenience by which also they abuse the product of reason and intelligence, man's invention of logic.



If you are the only baby born and surviving in the world, in the course of your mental development you will reach the age of reason unless you were born abnormal, and think intelligent, coming thus to the knowledge of the existence of God.


So, the more fruitful study of atheism is to dwell on the atheist who deviated from his Christian theism, becoming wilfully abnormal, unnatural in his use of his reason or rather abuse of his inborn capacity for genuine reasoning.

The ex-Christian now atheist is a subject begging for an examination of his life history, to detect at what timelines he began to think against reason and intelligence, and to submit himself to his psychology of self-convenience.


An elderly couple in our circle of friends have a son who left home and never returned for twenty years now.

Their other kids have grown up and set up their own families and homes and return often to visit the parents; but that fugitive son, never, no news ever from him nor from anyone about him.

The elderly couple never explained the departure of this son; I told me wife, it must be some very unsavory deed done by the boy that for shame he fled home and could never muster the courage to return to the old folks.


In the context of atheism, that could be a probable explanation on analogy why some Christians abandon God.



Yrreg

[zooterkin]

The elderly couple never explained the departure of this son; I told me wife, it must be some very unsavory deed done by the boy that for shame he fled home and could never muster the courage to return to the old folks.

Or perhaps it could be many other reasons, but no, it must be shame.



In the context of atheism, that could be a probable explanation on analogy why some Christians abandon God.

How about you actually read some of the replies to your posts, rather than persisting with your completely baseless speculations?

[Third Eye Open]

Please explain how it is 'reasonable' to be a christian.

[MarkCorrigan]

Yrreng, why no response to my post?

I made mine before Pax, and it's substantially shorter, so....what gives?

[Mashuna]

If you are the only baby born and surviving in the world, in the course of your mental development you will reach the age of reason unless you were born abnormal, and think intelligent, coming thus to the knowledge of the existence of God.



How do you manage to condense so much wrong in so little prose?

[Silentknight]

Please be cognizant of the fact that the best minds today in 2008 c.e. are talking about God, even they who don't believe He exists are writing about Him, and earning a celebrity status among their following, thereby making good money.
Religion is still one of the largest influences in people's lives, has a huge impact on society, and unfortunately seeps its way into our politics. It's an important issue, therefore people are concerned about it and write about it, even if they don't believe in God themselves. I tried to put that in as simple terms as possible for you.

They would be deadend obscure academics if not for God to write in denial, and make oodles of money from you people who buy their books and learn to bring up Odin, but not to be cognizant that no one among the best minds of today now in 2008 c.e. are talking about Odin.
Last I checked, Odin believers are not the ones trying to impose their beliefs on others, get their religious laws written into the laws of the land, take away the rights of certain groups of people, or justify armed conflict in Odin's name. Replace Odin with God and it's a different story, hence the concern I mentioned above.

In another context you might as well talk about a slingshot when the best armament experts today in 2008 c.e. are talking about more sophisticated arms than self-guided transcontinental missiles with nuclear warheads.


Please be relevant to the times and the customs.
Please stop putting words in people's mouths, thoughts in people's heads, and strawmen over their stances.

And read better minds than those who are shortchanging you with their hoary difficulties about the existence of God, but cannot face genuine thinkers, exploiting instead the naivete and gullibility of shallow readers who just want confirmation to reinforce themselves in their deviation from God owing to some grudge against Him but wrongly.
Stop pretending you can read people's minds. It doesn't strengthen your arguments one bit. You are talking to atheists here. It would not kill you to listen to what they are actually saying for once. Nobody has ever cited rebellion against the Ten Commandments as a reason for abandoning Christianity for atheism.

[yrreg]

Let me see if I can explain Yrreng. There is a lamp in my room that doesn't work. I can show you the lamp, if you need proof, but I assure you, there is one that doesn't work.

This lamp annoys me. I have issues with this lamp because it does not do what I think it should do, and thus I do not like it.

On the other hand, there is not an elephant in my room. indeed, one would not fit in my room, unless all the other stuff in here were removed, or it was a baby. I am therefore not mad at an elephant in my room.

You are arguing that atheists, such as myself, see god like the lamp. It doesn't do what we want it to do, so we get mad at it. This leads us to pretend it doesn't exist.

In actual fact, we see it as the elephant. It isn't there in the first place, and many of us think it would be very very improbable for it to be there, so we assume it doesn't exist.


You see, our knowledge of God is analogical, for the simple reason that God is some entity totally unique and different from any existing entity.

You must compare God to beings which possess qualities God possesses, for example, man; but whereas God possesses these qualities in utmost grand measure and excellence, man possesses them in limited measure and imperfectly.

So comparing God to a light lamp or an elephant will not bring you the right kind of knowledge of God.

You must know God analogically to man and to no other existing entities except those beings which also possess qualities that God and man possess.

What is the foremost quality that man possesses which is unique to man among the living entities that are known to man?


When you come to that quality, then you can compare God to man and get to know God at least analogically.


That is why you have been shortchanged by your masters who write and make you pay to engorge on their swill, but laugh at you for being so naive and gullible, teaching you to bring up Odin and Flying Spaghetti Monster, and elephants and light lamps, and making you feel that you have proven to of course your own satisfaction, there is no God.


So, tell me what is that quality in man by which in an analogical manner man can know God?



Yrreg

[Hokulele]

You see, our knowledge of God is analogical, for the simple reason that God is some entity totally unique and different from any existing entity.


No, god can only be described by analogy because it doesn't exist.


Back to your OP, I have met many people who are atheists because they were turned off by what people have done and do in the name of their god, but none who were mad at god directly.

Mostly because it doesn't exist.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
You see, our knowledge of God is analogical, for the simple reason that God is some entity totally unique and different from any existing entity.

No, god can only be described by analogy because it doesn't exist.


Back to your OP, I have met many people who are atheists because they were turned off by what people have done and do in the name of their god, but none who were mad at god directly.

Mostly because it doesn't exist.


First, as I have mentioned before, you do not have the brilliance and achievements of people going all the way back to the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, and also today there are such people living and knowing God and still trying to fathom more and more about Him.


I have met many people who are atheists because they were turned off by what people have done and do in the name of their god, but none who were mad at god directly.

They are very deficient in intelligence and insight.


And I know many men and women who are turned off by what some women and men do to them, so they end up old bachelors and old maids, living lonely lives and dying lonely.

Such persons are also very deficient in intelligence and insight, they need help from more intelligent people and people richer in insight.

But combative atheists using or abusing logic to cater to their psychology of personal convenience, they are in risk of bad faith to themselves.



Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Why thank you. :D


I was going to nominate as well!

Thank you!

[Hokulele]

First, as I have mentioned before, you do not have the brilliance and achievements of people going all the way back to the dawn of man's conscious intelligence...


Likewise, I'm sure.

and also today there are such people living and knowing God and still trying to fathom more and more about Him.


And there are practicing Buddhists, and Odinists, and possibly Kali-ists. So?

I have met many people who are atheists because they were turned off by what people have done and do in the name of their god, but none who were mad at god directly.

They are very deficient in intelligence and insight.


Possibly, but at least they know how to use the Quote function.


And I know many men and women who are turned off by what some women and men do to them, so they end up old bachelors and old maids, living lonely lives and dying lonely.


Ah, but the key point here is they do not deny that people exist. You premise is that people are mad at god. You are wrong, people are mad at people. God doesn't exist.

Such persons are also very deficient in intelligence and insight, they need help from more intelligent people and people richer in insight.


Or, they have good reason to be bitter and it would be much better to leave them the heck alone. Messing with their heads would only make things worse.

But combative atheists using or abusing logic to cater to their psychology of personal convenience, they are in risk of bad faith to themselves.


Personal convenience? What an odd way to describe someone molested by a priest in their youth. (Not me, by the way. I am fortunate enough to have been spared the hypocrisy that is the Roman Catholic church.) Rather than abusing logic, those priests were abusing their authority, god did nothing to prevent such abuse, and those people are completely justified in thinking that chrisitianity is no guarantee of ethical behavior.

[PixyMisa]

You see, our knowledge of God is analogical, for the simple reason that God is some entity totally unique and different from any existing entity.
Okay, whatever. Where's the evidence that this God of yours exists at all.

You must compare God to beings which possess qualities God possesses, for example, man; but whereas God possesses these qualities in utmost grand measure and excellence, man possesses them in limited measure and imperfectly.
We need only do that once your present evidence that this God of yours exists at all.

So comparing God to a light lamp or an elephant will not bring you the right kind of knowledge of God.
But we have no evidence that this God of yours exists at all.

You must know God analogically to man and to no other existing entities except those beings which also possess qualities that God and man possess.
Uh... What?

What is the foremost quality that man possesses which is unique to man among the living entities that are known to man?
Cheese. No other living entity makes cheese.

When you come to that quality, then you can compare God to man and get to know God at least analogically.
God is cheese?

That is why you have been shortchanged by your masters who write and make you pay to engorge on their swill, but laugh at you for being so naive and gullible, teaching you to bring up Odin and Flying Spaghetti Monster, and elephants and light lamps, and making you feel that you have proven to of course your own satisfaction, there is no God.
Shopping at ad hominems 'r' us today, Yrreg?

We have no "masters".

They do not make us pay for anything.

We do not engorge on anything.

What they write is not swill.

They do not laugh at us.

We are not naive and gullible.

They did not teach us to bring up Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor elephants, nor lamps.

We haven't proven that there is no God. What we have proven is that there is no reason to believe in God, for no-one has ever presented any evidence for the existence of such a being.

Any more slurs you wish to get off your chest?

So, tell me what is that quality in man by which in an analogical manner man can know God?
No, you tell us. We don't believe in God.

[PixyMisa]

First, as I have mentioned before, you do not have the brilliance and achievements of people going all the way back to the dawn of man's conscious intelligence
Noted Catholics like Homer and Socrates and Plato and Aristotle and Euclid and Sophocles, you mean?

and also today there are such people living and knowing God and still trying to fathom more and more about Him.
Name one.


I have met many people who are atheists because they were turned off by what people have done and do in the name of their god, but none who were mad at god directly.They are very deficient in intelligence and insight.
And your mother wears army boots.

Do you have anything constructive to say, or are you just here to spray insults at everyone who disagrees with you?

And I know many men and women who are turned off by what some women and men do to them, so they end up old bachelors and old maids, living lonely lives and dying lonely.
Yes. We call them priests and nuns.

Such persons are also very deficient in intelligence and insight, they need help from more intelligent people and people richer in insight.
Well, if you say so. I would only say that they are perhaps misguided.

But combative atheists using or abusing logic to cater to their psychology of personal convenience, they are in risk of bad faith to themselves.
We don't have faith, so how can we have bad faith?

[fromdownunder]

Why is it that so many fundies are utterly innocent of humour?

Norm

[WaterBreather]

I always thought that God was just an old fashioned way of spelling Good.

[Third Eye Open]

This gerry fellow is a riot! Keep it coming!

[MarkCorrigan]

Wow....looks like you totally missed the point of my post and threw in a few personal attacks too.

I was telling you that the way you assume that we as atheists see god is NOT how we see him.

I wasn't "made" an atheist by anyoe Yrreng. I was an atheist before I knew who Dawkins, Hitchens or Denett were. I still haven't read ay books by the latter two. I was brought to atheism by the realisation that I had questioned everything I had believed or thought to be true except for god. The moment I began to look at god logically, I began to see that there was no evidence for his existance. Once I realised that I dismissed belief in magic and the like based upon this fact, I dismissed god also. I am willing to be shown evidence for god, but I imagine I will be waiting a long time.

I mentioned the elephant and the lamp in order to show you HOW people view god, not why.

[AWPrime]

You see, our knowledge of God is analogical, for the simple reason that God is some entity totally unique and different from any existing entity.

You must compare God to beings which possess qualities God possesses, for example, man; but whereas God possesses these qualities in utmost grand measure and excellence, man possesses them in limited measure and imperfectly.It is now clear to me that your god is a manifestation of your own desires.

There are many different types of gods. But you seem to pursue a very lowly variant, a mere uplifted self reflection. But this explains your inability to see through another person's eyes.



Edit: ps. Do you even realize that many of those brilliant people with grand achievements worship other gods?

[zooterkin]

First, as I have mentioned before, you do not have the brilliance and achievements of people going all the way back to the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, and also today there are such people living and knowing God and still trying to fathom more and more about Him.


You're still missing the point. Atheists do not pretend that your god does not exist. They arrive at the conclusion that no gods exist. Not yours, not Odin, not Shiva, not Mithras, not Zeus.

All those achievements you refer to are the achievements of men, whatever they happened to believe. Some of those achievements are all the greater because they were made in spite of the prevailing religious belief at the time.

Do you believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Shiva? If not, why not? In what way are they different from your god?

[Ysidro]

Yes and no, I think. Sure, believing that "I'm going to pretend God doesn't exist so I don't have to follow His rules" is as dumb as somehow convincing yourself that disbelief in the police would let you get away with breaking the law, or that disregarding the law of gravity would keep you from falling when leaping off a lighthouse. Of course no one thinks that way. At least I really don't hope so.



An excellently written post that I am ashamed to cut to make room. However, that wasn't what I was asking. I meant do some people, like yrreg, thing that others, like myself, are actively denying God in an attempt to do whatever it is he thinks we do without God?

In other words, is this always an intentional strawman or just an ignorant belief in a sea of ignorant beliefs about atheists?

[Ysidro]

Whelp, now I'm convinced yrreg doesn't actually read posts. I would surmise he just skims them for keywords so he can quote a post and pretend he's responding to it.

If he weren't so funny, I'd put him on ignore.

Now excuse me, I have to go actively disbelieve in God. It takes up a lot of time and energy but it's worth it for all the sinning I can get away with!

Note: I predict he'll take that last part seriously and ignore the rest of my post. Please prepare my million dollars.

[bobcarp]

I. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me!

I’m an Atheist, I have no gods before you, or Allah, or Zeus, etc.

II. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain!

Do it all the time, but I wouldn't purposly go out of my way to do it in front of someone I know would be offended by it.

III. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day!

Only difference is I don’t go to work on that day.

IV. Honor your father and your mother!

Always did, turns out they weren’t perfect though.

V. You shall not kill!

No shirt shitlock.

VI. You shall not commit adultery!

Never been married, but I’ve had sex with married women a few times. Also several divorced women. Does that count?

VII. You shall not steal!

He didn't think of this one until #VII?

VIII. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor!

I don’t make a habit of lying. Can’t say I’ve never done it in my life.

IX. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife!

Have you seen my neighbor’s wife? Yikes!

X. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods!

Never been a materialistic person. I'm sure most believers crave material things more than I do.

[Ausmerican]

Well I must say reading Gerrys well thought out and reasoned posts have done it for me. I am converting. Giving up my atheist ways. Thank you Gerry I have seen the light! Tomorrow morning first thing I am walking myself down the street.......


















to the local Buddhist temple. And give them a donation. From Gerry.

[Safe-Keeper]

VII. You shall not steal!

He didn't think of this one until #VII?If I did pith nominations, you'd be nominated:).

[yrreg]

What I am trying to achieve is to get the biggest picture about atheists.

And I think I am getting nearer and nearer and nearer.



You see, when one studies atheism, it must be directed to the atheists not to God, principally that is.


The atheist is a human which means he is unique and different thus from other living things that humans know.

Unique with man is his conscious intelligence and freedom by which he knows what he wants to do or to not do, and what he wants to know and to not know or to deny.

Now, when man wants to do something that he feels to be unacceptable to fellowmen, he has to rationalize either before doing the deed or even after having done the deed, in order to justify the deed, so as not to experience guilt for the deed.

This means that among things man does not want to know, one of them is guilt.

Guilt is something that to man is most inconvenient to say the least, but it is always there in his heart and mind; and no man for being a consciously intelligent and responsible agent can rid himself of the susceptibiity to guilt, no matter he has hardened himself to it's discomforting presence.

Except of course that kind of men, the what in psychology belongs to the sickness called sociopathology; but then such agents are not in thelr right mind and heart, they are sick agents.

So, generally the examination of the atheist must be centered on the things he wants to do, and the things he wants to not know consequential to the things he wants to do.

I am concerned with the ex-Christians now atheists; and it is safe to say that combative atheists in the West are ex-Christians or imbued with Christian morality and observances although not church going Christians; they live and operate in a Christian culture, civilization, ethical milieu.

For example, in the US even in their money bills there is the inscription, "In God we trust" -- that God is the Christian God of The Ten Commandments.

And when they take an oath, they add at the end, the invocation:

So help me God.

Of course atheists enjoy the option to just make an affirmation instead of taking the oath, in which case atheists are dispensed from the guilt of lying under oath, they can only lie against their own affriamtion -- so their words are thus more or less worthy of trust?. [ Good topic for a thread. ]


There are things the ex-Christian now atheist in their erstwhile Christian days wanted to do but for guilt, so in order that he would not know or experience guilt and also importantly since God is the source of guilt in a Christian, it is convenient to the Christian to become an ex-Christian by embracing or taking up with atheism.


I was asking the question earlier that since the atheist can do whatever he wants to do with sex, provided he does not get in trouble with the law, what else does he want with life or in life?

I am still asking that question because I have come across cases where owing to sex desires or what in the last analysis has to do with sex acts Christians turn away from God and take up with atheism.

You don't believe that, or you never come across such Christians now ex-Christians atheists?


That is why you are so naive, or by convenient choice keeping yourselves naive.


[ I do assure you all I do have a sense of humor. But as in wine there is truth so also in humor their is wit. ]



Yrreg

[The Man]

What I am trying to achieve is to get the biggest picture about atheists.

I find that unlikely as most of your inquiries focus only on attempts to confirm your perception of atheists.



And I think I am getting nearer and nearer and nearer.

Again unlikely as you only focus on your preconceived notions.


You see, when one studies atheism, it must be directed to the atheists not to God, principally that is. .

Just like when one studies wireless networking it is a good idea to direct ones self to such networks and not those other ones with wires, primarily that is


The atheist is a human which means he is unique and different thus from other living things that humans know.

Animals are theists?



Unique with man is his conscious intelligence and freedom by which he knows what he wants to do or to not do, and what he wants to know and to not know or to deny.

Perhaps even invent entities to pray to.


Now, when man wants to do something that he feels to be unacceptable to fellowmen, he has to rationalize either before doing the deed or even after having done the deed, in order to justify the deed, so as not to experience guilt for the deed.

Are you afraid of guilt? Why do you think others will or need to go to such extents to avoid guilt?.


This means that among things man does not want to know, one of them is guilt.

Guilt admonishes us of those things or actions we might not want to repeat, if that is something you do not want to know then speak for yourself.


Guilt is something that to man is most inconvenient to say the least, but it is always there in his heart and mind; and no man for being a consciously intelligent and responsible agent can rid himself of the susceptibiity to guilt, no matter he has hardened himself to it's discomforting presence.


Again speak for yourself, I am quite comfortable with my guilt, it shows me that I have grown and become more considerate as well as reminding me not hold others to some unrealistic standard. It would seem, however that you are not yet comfortable with your own guilt.



Except of course that kind of men, the what in psychology belongs to the sickness called sociopathology; but then such agents are not in thelr right mind and heart, they are sick agents.

So, unless one is racked with guilt, in your opinion, they are mentally ill?



So, generally the examination of the atheist must be centered on the things he wants to do, and the things he wants to not know consequential to the things he wants to do.

Again with your focus on your preconceived notions.



I am concerned with the ex-Christians now atheists; and it is safe to say that combative atheists in the West are ex-Christians or imbued with Christian morality and observances although not church going Christians; they live and operate in a Christian culture, civilization, ethical milieu.

Again not likely, but just your preconceived notions.



For example, in the US even in their money bills there is the inscription, "In God we trust" -- that God is the Christian God of The Ten Commandments.

And when they take an oath, they add at the end, the invocation:

So help me God.

Of course atheists enjoy the option to just make an affirmation instead of taking the oath, in which case atheists are dispensed from the guilt of lying under oath, they can only lie against their own affriamtion -- so their words are thus more or less worthy of trust?. [ Good topic for a thread. ]

What of the Catholic whom could swear that oath, then lie , only to go to confession or gain absolution in the last rights, how worthy of trust should that consideration be given.


There are things the ex-Christian now atheist in their erstwhile Christian days wanted to do but for guilt, so in order that he would not know or experience guilt and also importantly since God is the source of guilt in a Christian, it is convenient to the Christian to become an ex-Christian by embracing or taking up with atheism.

Why do you seem to profess (as some often do) that guilt is only a theistic consideration?


I was asking the question earlier that since the atheist can do whatever he wants to do with sex, provided he does not get in trouble with the law, what else does he want with life or in life?

More like begging the question, but only for your preconceived notions.


I am still asking that question because I have come across cases where owing to sex desires or what in the last analysis has to do with sex acts Christians turn away from God and take up with atheism.

Again begging the question to your own preconceived notions.



You don't believe that, or you never come across such Christians now ex-Christians atheists?

I do not believe you are honestly asking any questions, but just seeking some external affirmation of your preconceived notions to perhaps make you feel less guilty about them.



That is why you are so naive, or by convenient choice keeping yourselves naive.

Right back at you, Yrreg



[ I do assure you all I do have a sense of humor. But as in wine there is truth so also in humor their is wit. ]



Yrreg

Not always and you seem to go out of your way to exemplify that fact.

[Safe-Keeper]

Again with your focus on your preconceived notions.1. Form notion on minority group.
2. Engage confirmation bias - ignore contrary impressions.
3. Maintain confirmation bias - take to heart impressions that support notion from point 1.
4. Use minority group's anger, sorrow or fear caused by your provocations against them.
5. Obnoxious gestures towards minority group.
6. Opression and persecution (genocide optional).
7. ????
8. ????
9. Profit!1

Not very creative, are they?

I do not believe you are honestly asking any questions, but just seeking some external affirmation of your preconceived notions to perhaps make you feel less guilty about them.:yeahthat:

[WaterBreather]

To say that you are an atheist because you see no evidence of God is illogical. You would be an agnostic, as you are willing to be persuaded by evidence.

I have seen no evidence for UFO's. But I cannot conclude that UFO's do NOT exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of them.

[biomorph]

I'm with The Man & Safe-Keeper on this.

Anything else I feel I ought to say will be so so combatitive as to probably get me one of those "blah blah blah" warnings in my pm inbox.

Must be the time of the month or something....

[CurtC]

Ex-Christian American atheist checking in here...


For example, in the US even in their money bills there is the inscription, "In God we trust" -- that God is the Christian God of The Ten Commandments.Uhhh, no. First, the God of the Ten Commandments is not the Christian God, it's the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam.

Next, the motto "In God We Trust" does not really refer to God. It's a concept called "ceremonial deism." It's sometimes used as a flowery-language affectation to refer to "God" without really meaning it, such as your next example of "so help me God" or "in the year of our lord" in the Constitution.

This is an important distinction. If those really referred to the religious God, they would instantly be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Anyway, that's what the people who favor those phrases tell us they're for. I'd love for the court to view them as theistic, then we would quickly be rid of them.



I was asking the question earlier that since the atheist can do whatever he wants to do with sex, provided he does not get in trouble with the law, what else does he want with life or in life?I get the strong impression that you have a burnin' desire for some illicit sex, therefore you project your thoughts onto us here, and think that since we don't have your religious restraint, think we must be into all kinds of perversions.



I am still asking that question because I have come across cases where owing to sex desires or what in the last analysis has to do with sex acts Christians turn away from God and take up with atheism.

You don't believe that, or you never come across such Christians now ex-Christians atheists?No, I have never come across people who stopped believing in God because they wanted sex without guilt. That just doesn't make sense - if someone really believed the big guy exists, how would desire for guilt-free sex convince anyone that he doesn't?

And another thing, atheists can feel guilt as well. However, we would feel guilty about doing things that are actually harmful to those around us, not simply because it violates the rules of the imaginary magic man upstairs.



That is why you are so naive, or by convenient choice keeping yourselves naive.We're naive because we don't realize that the desire for perverted sex is what causes us to disbelieve in God? Oh-kaaaaay.

[Dunstan]

To say that you are an atheist because you see no evidence of God is illogical. You would be an agnostic, as you are willing to be persuaded by evidence.

I have seen no evidence for UFO's. But I cannot conclude that UFO's do NOT exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of them.

You're new here, so I suggest you use the search function to look for threads on atheism vs. agnosticism (or "strong atheism" vs. "weak atheism"). This has been discussed to death here. Not that you can't bring it up again, of course; we recycle topics regularly.

I'll give you the short version: a lot of people, including the vast majority of those who describe themselves as atheists, do not subscribe to your definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic." We are open to evidence, open to the possibility that we could be wrong, but in the absence of such evidence we're going to provisionally conclude that the claim "there is a god" is false.

You can dispute those definitions if you like -- many do -- but they are widely used. At a minimum, there's no point flailing around accusing people of not being open to evidence. You might find one or two posters here who will take the extreme position of being absolutely, 100% convinced, with no possibility of error and no willingness to consider new evidence, but the vast majority won't.

[Fiona]

What I am trying to achieve is to get the biggest picture about atheists.

I do not believe that is what you are trying to do

And I think I am getting nearer and nearer and nearer.

Since you have not changed your opinion at any point in this thread, what makes you think that?

You see, when one studies atheism

Have you ever tried that?

it must be directed to the atheists

Do you mean that you should focus on atheists if one wants to learn about them If you do I agree. I wonder why you are not doing that but rather focussing on yourself


The atheist is a human

So far, so good

which means he is unique and different thus from other living things that humans know.

If you mean a human is not another kind of animal or plant, I agree

Unique with man is his conscious intelligence and freedom by which he knows what he wants to do or to not do, and what he wants to know and to not know or to deny.

Ok

Now, when man wants to do something that he feels to be unacceptable to fellowmen, he has to rationalize either before doing the deed or even after having done the deed, in order to justify the deed, so as not to experience guilt for the deed.


No. There are many examples of people doing things that they do not just "feel" but "know" to be unacceptable to fellow men. I believe that Jesus is one such example, if you subscribe to the bible story. Perhaps you believe he was god and therefore exempt: in which case I will suggest the early christian martyrs: the people who ran the underground railway in the USA; the suffragettes who fought for the vote for women etc etc

I do not think any of them "rationalised" and I don't think any of them felt guilty. Do you have evidence that they did?
.

This means that among things man does not want to know, one of them is guilt.

No it doesn't mean that. If you have a logical argument which bridges the gap in these two statements please present it

Guilt is something that to man is most inconvenient to say the least,

It is not actually a bad thing in all circumstances, as The Man has pointed out. But let us say you are correct.

but it is always there in his heart and mind; and no man for being a consciously intelligent and responsible agent can rid himself of the susceptibiity to guilt, no matter he has hardened himself to it's discomforting presence.

I have very seldom felt any guilt. It has happened but it is very rare

Except of course that kind of men, the what in psychology belongs to the sickness called sociopathology; but then such agents are not in thelr right mind and heart, they are sick agents.

In light of my last sentence I can only assume you believe me to be mentally ill. I have no reason to agree with that

So, generally the examination of the atheist must be centered on the things he wants to do, and the things he wants to not know consequential to the things he wants to do.

I do not understand the function of the word "so" in that sentence. But for the sake of argument let me accept your proposition that the study of a person can include a study of the things s/he wants to do and the things s/he wants to know. I will not concede that it includes things s/he does not want to know because they would prevent him or her doing what s/he wants to do. I cannot see how one can know in advance what things one would not want to know, in those terms. We learn by accident as well as by design and I personally cannot say that I am in complete control of what I learn. Can you? I do not think you can.

I am concerned with the ex-Christians now atheists;

ok, that excludes me.

and it is safe to say that combative atheists in the West are ex-Christians or imbued with Christian morality and observances although not church going Christians; they live and operate in a Christian culture, civilization, ethical milieu.

Oh you let me back in again. Yes I grew up in a culture imbued with a judeo-christian ethic modified by many other influences.

<snip>


Of course atheists enjoy the option to just make an affirmation instead of taking the oath, in which case atheists are dispensed from the guilt of lying under oath, they can only lie against their own affriamtion -- so their words are thus more or less worthy of trust?. [ Good topic for a thread. ]

What a very curious idea. If I give my affirmation that I will tell the truth do you honestly believe I am more likely to lie because I did not start with the lie that I believe in God?


There are things the ex-Christian now atheist in their erstwhile Christian days wanted to do but for guilt,

Are there really? Would you like to name one or two? You see I have known a number of people who used to be religious and are no longer. I do not see much change in their way of life. Most of them seem to get up in the morning and go to work and cook dinner and pursue their interests and raise their children to be good citizens etc etc just like they did before

so

There it is again. You were quite good at joining up the dots when you were talking about the influence of judeo-christian culture and you gave examples and everything. What went wrong?

in order that he would not know or experience guilt

People feel guilt when they do something they believe to be wrong. Atheists believe things to be wrong. Atheists feel guilt. Just like the religious. In truth most people, religious or not, do not do things they believe to be wrong very much: so most do not experience guilt very much. I have heard that the instillation of "free floating guilt" is a feature of some christian sects and I must accept this because members of those sects have told me so: but I do not see any qualitative difference between them and atheists.

and also importantly since God is the source of guilt in a Christian,

No. That is just not logical. God is not the source of guilt in a christian: breaking the code which he believes to be ethical is the source of guilt in a christian; just like it is the source of guilt in an atheist.

it is convenient to the Christian to become an ex-Christian by embracing or taking up with atheism.

Since it does not achieve what you think it achieves this cannot be true. Any christian who did "take up" atheism for this reason would quickly find s/he was on the wrong track. So since s/he would not lose the guilt you see as the major reason for doing this, I imagine s/he would quickly lapse back into religion


I was asking the question earlier that since the atheist can do whatever he wants to do with sex,

Like many religious people you seem a little obsessed with this aspect. Why is that? Do you feel that you would be having a wonderful sex life if you were not religious? Are you aware you need a willing partner? That is often the biggest obstacle to doing "whatever he wants to do with sex". Atheists don't really find that any easier than theists in my experience

provided he does not get in trouble with the law, what else does he want with life or in life?

What an curious question. What do you think the answer might be? Are you celibate? I ask because if you think sex is all there is to life it is the only explanation I can think of

I am still asking that question because I have come across cases where owing to sex desires or what in the last analysis has to do with sex acts Christians turn away from God and take up with atheism.

I haven't. I have heard of catholic priests who have been forced out of the priesthood because they wished to marry: but I have not heard that they usually become atheists. What I have heard is that they campaign for the catholic church to drop celibacy as a requirement for priests. I have heard of people who have become fed up with the patently blasephemous notion that sex is somehow dirty and wrong. Some of those become atheists: many just defy their church, use contraception, and get on with their sex lives quietly while remaining devout in other ways. Our experiences obviously differ in this respect

You don't believe that, or you never come across such Christians now ex-Christians atheists?

It may happen to a few. Perhaps there are a few who become atheists so they can pursue a career in burglary. Not met those either, though it seems to be a part of your experience. I am beginning to wonder if people are entirely honest with you, however

[Foster Zygote]

What I am trying to achieve is to get the biggest picture about atheists.
By ignoring their responses to your questions and insisting on your already established conclusions.

And I think I am getting nearer and nearer and nearer.
To your chosen delusion, yes, but not to reality.

You see, when one studies atheism, it must be directed to the atheists not to God, principally that is.
How profound.

The atheist is a human which means he is unique and different thus from other living things that humans know.
The atheist is a human and only humans are human. How do you come up with this stuff?

Unique with man is his conscious intelligence and freedom by which he knows what he wants to do or to not do,...
Can you demonstrate that consciousness is only found in humans? My cats seem pretty damned determined that they do not want to get in the cat-carrier when it's time ti visit the vet for a checkup.

...and what he wants to know and to not know or to deny.
Like you choosing not to know what people have said in response to your questions because they didn't provide the answers that you sought.

Now, when man wants to do something that he feels to be unacceptable to fellowmen, he has to rationalize either before doing the deed or even after having done the deed, in order to justify the deed, so as not to experience guilt for the deed.
Do you experience guilt when you break one of the laws unique to Hinduism or Islam? No? Well now you understand how an atheist feels when he or she does not observe the Sabbath.

This means that among things man does not want to know, one of them is guilt.
Which is why you deny Islam, because you want to avoid the guilt of denying that Mohamed is the prophet of Allah.

Guilt is something that to man is most inconvenient to say the least, but it is always there in his heart and mind; and no man for being a consciously intelligent and responsible agent can rid himself of the susceptibiity to guilt, no matter he has hardened himself to it's discomforting presence.

Except of course that kind of men, the what in psychology belongs to the sickness called sociopathology; but then such agents are not in thelr right mind and heart, they are sick agents.

So, generally the examination of the atheist must be centered on the things he wants to do, and the things he wants to not know consequential to the things he wants to do.
Please read the following slowly and carefully: Athests feel no more guilt over the denial of the existence of your Christian god than you feel over the denial of mythological Norse gods.

I am concerned with the ex-Christians now atheists; and it is safe to say that combative atheists in the West are ex-Christians or imbued with Christian morality and observances although not church going Christians; they live and operate in a Christian culture, civilization, ethical milieu.
As you have never actually defined "combative" I may as well do it for you. You seem to feel that people are being "combative" when they point out that you are wrong and willfully ignorant.

In my experience, most atheists in the U.S. primarily object to attempts by certain religious parties to force their brand of Christianity on others. This objection is not unique to atheists and has been expressed by U.S. citizens who are members of other religions such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism etcetera, as well as by members of the Christian faith who view this sort of religious bullying as wrong. You can call this being "combative" if you like, but it is no more combative than the behavior of African Americans who wanted their rights recognized in the mid 20th century.

For example, in the US even in their money bills there is the inscription, "In God we trust" -- that God is the Christian God of The Ten Commandments.
You have pulled this from a dark place. I challenge you to prove that this is a specific reference to the Christian god.

And when they take an oath, they add at the end, the invocation:

So help me God.
Only if they wish to add it on at the end. "So help me God" is not an official part of any oath of legal office.

Of course atheists enjoy the option to just make an affirmation instead of taking the oath, in which case atheists are dispensed from the guilt of lying under oath, they can only lie against their own affriamtion -- so their words are thus more or less worthy of trust?. [ Good topic for a thread. ]
That's simply a dumb argument. Why would an atheist who chose to perjure himself feel guilty after invoking a being in which he has no belief?

There are things the ex-Christian now atheist in their erstwhile Christian days wanted to do but for guilt, so in order that he would not know or experience guilt and also importantly since God is the source of guilt in a Christian, it is convenient to the Christian to become an ex-Christian by embracing or taking up with atheism.
This is the main focus of this thread, yes? You need someone to belittle and feel superior to. First it was Buddhists, now it's atheists. Who will be next? You will simply ignore the testimony of the people you "study" because you really don't care to know the real reasons they differ from you. Like a true bigot, you are simply out to assure yourself that there are people who are inferior to yourself. Ironically, your arrogance and condescension are listed as sins in the Christian faith.

I was asking the question earlier that since the atheist can do whatever he wants to do with sex, provided he does not get in trouble with the law, what else does he want with life or in life?
Not only is this insulting to atheists, but it is insulting to your fellow Christians as well. As I said earlier, only to be ignored and probably still to be, you are implying that Christians such as yourself truly desire to engage in sexual conduct that falls into the category of violence and exploitation, but are stayed by your fear of punishment.

I was an atheist when I married my wife, and I am just as committed to my promise of fidelity to her as any Christian. You say atheists can commit any crime that they can get away with and feel no guilt. This is a moronically hateful thing for you to say. If I cheated on my wife I would suffer feelings of guilt for having betrayed the woman I love. If I were to hurt someone I would feel guilty about having caused suffering to another human being. I don't need to fear the punishment of an invisible being in the sky in order to feel shame for hurting others. If you do need that fear of punishment to refrain from harming others then I will leave it up to others to judge which of us is the better man.

I am still asking that question because I have come across cases where owing to sex desires or what in the last analysis has to do with sex acts Christians turn away from God and take up with atheism.
Care to provide evidence of these cases?

You don't believe that, or you never come across such Christians now ex-Christians atheists?
I believe that you may have come across cases that you have chosen to interpret as such, but I have never come across such a case myself.

That is why you are so naive, or by convenient choice keeping yourselves naive.
No, you are arrogant and condescending for attempting to tell others what they really think in your hearts in order that you might feel superior to them.

[ I do assure you all I do have a sense of humor. But as in wine there is truth so also in humor their is wit. ]
Are you saying that this thread is really just an elaborate joke?

[Silentknight]

VII. You shall not steal!

He didn't think of this one until #VII?If I did pith nominations, you'd be nominated:).
You said the same thing to me once and I'm still crestfallen. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/21903490cda41ad084.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14206)


By the way, I did some searching through the Bible for anywhere else a list of commandments might be found and I came across these passages in Mark 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2010&version=31), which must not be important because fundies love to pretend it doesn't exist.

The Rich Young Man

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"

20 "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
So there you have it from the J-Man himself. Notice that he had enough sense to put murder at the TOP of the list, unlike Moses. Notice as well that these commandments are secular in nature and do not call for the death penalty for breaking them, unlike Moses. There are actually seven commandments here, the seventh being, "Do not covet," which his admonition of the rich young man implied.

I can live with that.

[WaterBreather]

CurtC

No, I have never come across people who stopped believing in God because they wanted sex without guilt. That just doesn't make sense - if someone really believed the big guy exists, how would desire for guilt-free sex convince anyone that he doesn't?

There is a difference between believing in God, and knowing God.

Once you know God, you cannot unknow Him. But believing as a matter of probabilities, and is not the same.

Have you ever eaten or drunk something you believe is not good for you?

[Dancing David]

I am still asking that question because I have come across cases where owing to sex desires or what in the last analysis has to do with sex acts Christians turn away from God and take up with atheism.

Yrreg
I never came across an atheist like that, despite all the gay people I know, man, that must be some interesting person.

[Dunstan]

yrreg may claim to be studying us, but he's really giving us an opportunity to observe the thought process of a certain type of theist.

The idea of "taking up" atheism in order to violate certain commandments or other rules without guilt has a serious logical flaw. If god exists, and demands compliance with those rules, then simply declaring that you don't think he exists doesn't get you off the hook.

Some theists don't claim to have any logical, rational reasons for believing in god, they just "choose to believe" or "make a leap of faith," and hey, presto, there he is. yrreg seems to think that it must work the same way in reverse: that atheists just "choose not to believe" and hey, presto, there god isn't.

[PixyMisa]

To say that you are an atheist because you see no evidence of God is illogical. You would be an agnostic, as you are willing to be persuaded by evidence.
That's not correct.

An atheist is anyone lacking a belief in god(s).

An agnostic is someone who does no belief the truth of god(s) existence can be known.

I have seen no evidence for UFO's. But I cannot conclude that UFO's do NOT exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of them.If you don't believe in UFOs, you are an aUFOist.

[Darth Rotor]

There are and have been plenty of theistic repressive regimes. People rejected those too. As a citizen of the Philippines you should know that. Marcos was a Catholic dictator (supported by the US) who got overthrown.
A dictator who happened to be Catholic. He did not derive his authority from the Pope. Or do you want to ride the bronco of Joe Stalin the Atheist slaughterer of tens of millions of Russians, yet again?

Let's not get sloppy as we chat with yrreg here, eh?
The late 1960s and early 1970s saw economic development that was second in Asia, next to Japan. Ferdinand Marcos was, then, the elected president. Barred from seeking a third term, Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972, under the guise of increased political instability and resurgent Communist and Muslim insurgencies, and ruled the country by decree.
First, he was elected. Then, he got greedy. The cad.
In January 1986, Marcos allowed for a snap election, after large protests. The election was believed to be fraudulent, and resulted in a standoff between military mutineers and the military loyalists. Protesters supported the mutineers, and were accompanied by resignations of prominent cabinet officials. Corazon Aquino, the widow of Benigno Aquino, Jr., was the recognized winner of the election. She took over the government, and called for a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution, after the People Power Revolution. Marcos, his family and some of his allies fled to Hawaii. And all of Imeldas shoes, of course.

Overthrown?

Hoist upon his own petard, as I see it, but I suppose overthrown by populism is a good enough descriptive.
The People Power Revolution (also known as the EDSA Revolution and the Philippine Revolution of 1986) was a series of nonviolent and prayerful mass street demonstrations in the Philippines that occurred in 1986. It is sometimes referred to as the Yellow Revolution due to the presence of yellow ribbons during the arrival of Ninoy Aquino. These protests were the culmination of a long resistance by the people against the 20-year running authoritarian regime of then current president Ferdinand Marcos and made news headlines as "the revolution that surprised the world".
All quotes from Wikipedia, so a grain of salt.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

1. Form notion on minority group.
2. Engage confirmation bias - ignore contrary impressions.
3. Maintain confirmation bias - take to heart impressions that support notion from point 1.
4. Use minority group's anger, sorrow or fear caused by your provocations against them.
5. Obnoxious gestures towards minority group.
6. Opression and persecution (genocide optional).
7. ????
8. ????
9. Profit!1

About line 9: how much is the Fundie's fee?

DR

(Obscure joke on Finder's Fee . . . )

Sorry, I just had to. :blush:

[Darth Rotor]

You're new here, so I suggest you use the search function to look for threads on atheism vs. agnosticism (or "strong atheism" vs. "weak atheism"). This has been discussed to death here. Not that you can't bring it up again, of course; we recycle topics regularly.

I'll give you the short version: a lot of people, including the vast majority of those who describe themselves as atheists, do not subscribe to your definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic." We are open to evidence, open to the possibility that we could be wrong, but in the absence of such evidence we're going to provisionally conclude that the claim "there is a god" is false.

You can dispute those definitions if you like -- many do -- but they are widely used. At a minimum, there's no point flailing around accusing people of not being open to evidence. You might find one or two posters here who will take the extreme position of being absolutely, 100% convinced, with no possibility of error and no willingness to consider new evidence, but the vast majority won't.
Having spent the first three decades of my life as an agnostic, Dunstan, I'll thank anyone and everyone else not to try and tell me what I was, or wasn't, regarding this Angels Waltzing Upon the Head of A Needle regarding distinctions that a pile of Group Think has resulted in.

I've been in a few of those discussions, and find damned near none of them conclusive. "Widely used" I'll raise an eyebrow to, but that's all.

Two points:

1. Try not to ever tell an agnostic that he or she is Really an Atheist. Ya see, that Kilt won't fit.

2. I completely agree with your suggestion to our new friend not to try and tell an Atheist he or she is an Agnostic.

We can pick our own tribes, methinks, and thus our own color of kilt. :cool:

DR

[Hokulele]

A dictator who happened to be Catholic. He did not derive his authority from the Pope. Or do you want to ride the bronco of Joe Stalin the Atheist slaughterer of tens of millions of Russians, yet again?

Let's not get sloppy as we chat with yrreg here, eh?


I agree 100%, but would like to point out for yrreg's benefit, Marcos' Catholicism did not prevent him from committing atrocities any more than Stalin's atheism allowed it.

Religion and politics, although often intertwined, are no guarantee of behavior. Unfortunately.

[Darth Rotor]

I agree 100%, but would like to point out for yrreg's benefit, Marcos' Catholicism did not prevent him from committing atrocities any more than Stalin's atheism allowed it.
Indeed, I found calling him a Catholic dictator to be an extraneous reference. Dictator sufficed.
Religion and politics, although often intertwined, are no guarantee of behavior. Unfortunately.
Religion (or lack thereof, or any non religious philosophy) and politics, although often entertwined, are no guarantee of behavior.

Actually, they are a guarantee that someone will behave in some way, but they are no guarantee of virtuous behavior. Though I find it unlikely, I think someone could take even the Tao and find a way to use it as the underpinning of a bloodthirsty, exploitive autocracy. I'd hate them if they did, but it could happen.

DR

[Hokulele]

Indeed, I found calling him a Catholic dictator to be an extraneous reference. Dictator sufficed.


Hey now, I resemble that remark. (Hmm, I am going to have to see about changing the TLA title.)

Religion (or lack thereof, or any non religious philosophy) and politics, although often entertwined, are no guarantee of behavior.

Actually, they are a guarantee that someone will behave in some way, but they are no guarantee of virtuous behavior.

DR


Yep, which is why I can't stand the constant references to religious faith (or lack thereof) and any particular type of behavior. Good and bad people come in all flavors. *Sigh*

[Dunstan]

I've been in a few of those discussions, and find damned near none of them conclusive. "Widely used" I'll raise an eyebrow to, but that's all.


By "widely used" I meant "enough people that you can't dismiss them as 'wrong.'" I'm not implying that it's the only "correct" definition, or even a majority one.

So I agree with this:

1. Try not to ever tell an agnostic that he or she is Really an Atheist. Ya see, that Kilt won't fit.

2. I completely agree with your suggestion to our new friend not to try and tell an Atheist he or she is an Agnostic.


and I would add:

3. Don't rip into a self-described Atheist based on what you think that word means, unless you're sure that's what they agree that it means.

[biomorph]

CurtC



There is a difference between believing in God, and knowing God.

As in the following?

http://www.ronaldecker.com/andl.htm

and
And Adam Knew Eve (L)
LOVEMAKING: To Know in the Biblical Sense. Survival for the biblical Hebrews ... A husband is to love his wife (Col. 3:19, Eph. 5:26), and should have sex ...



Once you know God, you cannot unknow Him. But believing as a matter of probabilities, and is not the same.

Of course you can, because its not possible to know your god in any real sense of the word to start with, why? Cos he don't exist. You have heard of the word schizophrenia have you not?

As for probablities, god is off the scale so far as to be so improbible as to not be regarded as existing either. Look it up.



Have you ever eaten or drunk something you believe is not good for you?

Yup you mean like er, alcohol?

However what one believes is not that connected with whether it's actually good for you or not.

[PixyMisa]

Good and bad people come in all flavors.
Not in chocolate-hazelnut they don't. I checked.

[AWPrime]

There are things the ex-Christian now atheist in their erstwhile Christian days wanted to do but for guilt, so in order that he would not know or experience guilt and also importantly since God is the source of guilt in a Christian, it is convenient to the Christian to become an ex-Christian by embracing or taking up with atheism.
By this logic all Christians are sociopaths, for they don't have morality without the threat of god. Is this projection of your own mind?

[biomorph]

Not in chocolate-hazelnut they don't. I checked.

I thought the idea was to smear that on afterwards.................:p

[Hokulele]

Not in chocolate-hazelnut they don't. I checked.


Curse you PixyMisa, for shattering all of my illusions.

[Mister Agenda]

Snip
At this point of the thread, if you are not an ex-Christian now atheist or from a Judaist camp now atheist, please dispense yourself from involvement in this thread.

However, if you are knowledgeable about the Abrahamic God, and feel like sharing here your difficulties with that God, you are welcome to contribute your thoughts here.


Now I have the very strong suspicion that Christians (also Judaists) who turn to atheism are moved by something they love more than God, or they have a grudge against God.

What are the things people would love more than God?

And why do people have grudges against God?



I am thinking along those two directions.
Snip

So I will be examining the atheists who deviated from God, the Christian-Judeo God that is, to find out what are the motivations, things of their heart and mind which make atheism attractive to themselves and move them to be witnesses to atheism, like combatively testifying in favor of their conviction of no existence to God. Yrreg

OK, I'll bite. I was raised in a fundamentalist sect of Christianity. I was very devoted at a young age and determined to read the Bible cover-to-cover. I did so twice in one summer (KJV and Modern English) and in the context of comprehending it as a whole, saw how the concept of God changed according to the needs of the tribe and how the morality of the God portrayed therein was inferior and relativistic. Murdering babies was not inherently wrong, it was right if God commanded it. I determined that if there was a God, I hoped the Bible was an unreliable source of information about Him, as that God was clearly unworthy of worship.

As the years went by I came to doubt there that God existed at all. Eventually I had the interesting experience of taking a course on Comparative Religion with a professor keen to justify belief in religion at the same time I took a course in logic. Realizing for the first time how weak the arguments for the existence of God are, I realized that I no longer felt the need to actively maintain a consideration for the possibility of God: if there's no convincing evidence for something there's no reason believe in it.

I hope you find this testimony from someone familiar with the Abrahamic God useful.

[Safe-Keeper]

At this point of the thread, if you are not an ex-Christian now atheist or from a Judaist camp now atheist, please dispense yourself from involvement in this thread.
The rest of us didn't give you the right answers, eh?

[Ryokan]

Wow, Yrreg is back? And now he has started a crusade against atheism? I guess the question wether he was a Christian fundamentalist or not has been answered.

ETA: Ah, I see he's been back for a while. I should check out the JREF forum more often than I do these days....

[Safe-Keeper]

Wow, Yrreg is back? And now he has started a crusade against atheism?Yup, apparently the Buddhists have tired of him, so he's shifted his attention to us. With about as much insight and understanding as his earlier posts.

[Ryokan]

At least he's getting a broader audience now. Yrreg is fun to read.

[yrreg]

To say that you are an atheist because you see no evidence of God is illogical. You would be an agnostic, as you are willing to be persuaded by evidence.

I have seen no evidence for UFO's. But I cannot conclude that UFO's do NOT exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of them.



Well, as I said already, that kind of comparison does not carry any water, because God is not any UFO by any stretch of imagination.

However, on that line of thinking, you can also say that as with atheists in general who harp on evidence, you should also say that:

I have seen no evidence for God [vice, UFO's]. But I cannot conclude that God does not [vice, UFO's do NOT] exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of God [vice, them].

But knowing your kind of heart and mind, that just goes to show that you have not seen everything, or most probably even certainly you have a limited imperfect vision.



That is why the more I examine atheists and their contorted abuse of reason and intelligence, I come closer and closer to the ascertainment that atheists are not being rational and thus not being intelligent, but instead choose to be wilfully irrational and unintelligent owing to their psychology of self-convenience.


No offense intended, but if atheists don't want to use their reason and intelligently come to the knowledge of God, then they should be perfectly adapted to sign up with the phenomenon of life no different from the ants and the monkeys.

Because ants and monkeys are perfectly adapted living things though not endowed with reason, and thus do not exercise intellitgence, wherefore they don't exhibit any recognition of God.



See? If you be intelligent and reasonable as you for being human have been built to be intelligent owing to your reasoning faculty, you would conclude that it is more reasonable, more intelligent, to admit the existence of God, than to wilfully deny.



Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Wow, Yrreg is back? And now he has started a crusade against atheism? I guess the question wether he was a Christian fundamentalist or not has been answered.

ETA: Ah, I see he's been back for a while. I should check out the JREF forum more often than I do these days....


He still says he cured you of buddhism as well....


:D

Hiya Ryokan!

[Dancing David]

Well, as I said already, that kind of comparison does not carry any water, because Bigfoot is not any UFO by any stretch of imagination.

However, on that line of thinking, you can also say that as with doo doo heads in general who harp on evidence, you should also say that:

I have seen no evidence for Bigfoot [vice, UFO's]. But I cannot conclude that Bigfoot does not [vice, UFO's do NOT] exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of Bigfoot [vice, them].

But knowing your kind of heart and mind, that just goes to show that you have not seen everything, or most probably even certainly you have a limited imperfect vision.



That is why the more I examine doo doo heads and their contorted abuse of my thoughts and agree with me, I come closer and closer to the ascertainment that doo doo heads are not being think like me and thus not being intelligent, but instead choose to be wilfully irthink like me and unintelligent owing to their psychology of self-convenience.


No offense intended, but if doo doo heads don't want to use their my thoughts and intelligently come to the knowledge of Bigfoot, then they should be perfectly adapted to sign up with the phenomenon of life no different from the ants and the monkeys.

Because ants and monkeys are perfectly adapted living things though not endowed with my thoughts, and thus do not exercise intellitgence, wherefore they don't exhibit any recognition of Bigfoot.



See? If you be intelligent and my thoughtsable as you for being human have been built to be intelligent owing to your my thoughtsing faculty, you would conclude that it is more my thoughtsable, more intelligent, to admit the existence of Bigfoot, than to wilfully deny.



Dyrreg

For humor only!

[gumboot]

Don't worship any graven idols? I don't think I've ever been in a church without a crucifix. Some of them depict particularly gooey deaths. What the heck distinguishes them from graven idols?



An idol is a physical object within which a God is alleged to reside. Given that Christians do not believe their God actually resides inside the Crucifix, it is not an idol (by the way, all crucifixes depict a particularly gooey death as a crucifix bears the image of Christ upon the cross, as opposed to just a blank cross (also used by Christians) which is not a crucifix). On another note, I always understood the commandment to be "false idols", which would further indicate that worshiping actual idols is fine, merely that worshiping an object that is alleged to contain a deity but in fact does not, is wrong.

This all seems to be confirmed by "Worship no other Gods before me" which implies that A) Other Gods exist and B) Worshiping them is okay as long as you put Yahweh at the top of your list. Were this not true the commandment would simply read "I'm the only God, period".

I've often argued that the Ten Commandments are actually evidence that God is no the only God, and that worshiping other Gods is fine.

[PixyMisa]

Well, as I said already, that kind of comparison does not carry any water, because God is not any UFO by any stretch of imagination.
How do you know?

We have no evidence for God. We have no evidence for UFOs. They could be the same thing!

However, on that line of thinking, you can also say that as with atheists in general who harp on evidence, you should also say that:
I have seen no evidence for God [vice, UFO's]. But I cannot conclude that God does not [vice, UFO's do NOT] exist, merely because I have seen no evidence of God [vice, them].
An atheist is someone who lacks belief in god(s), which is the only sensible position given the lack of evidence.

I don't know that there is nothing that exists that couldn't aptly be described as a god. But I know that your God is a myth.

But knowing your kind of heart and mind, that just goes to show that you have not seen everything, or most probably even certainly you have a limited imperfect vision.
Sure. That goes without saying. But you still have, let's count it... Zero evidence for the existence of your God, and all sorts of evidence that it's a myth.

That is why the more I examine atheists and their contorted abuse of reason and intelligence
What abuse might that be?

I come closer and closer to the ascertainment that atheists are not being rational and thus not being intelligent, but instead choose to be wilfully irrational and unintelligent owing to their psychology of self-convenience.
You do like to believe in things contrary to all evidence, don't you?

No offense intended, but if atheists don't want to use their reason and intelligently come to the knowledge of God, then they should be perfectly adapted to sign up with the phenomenon of life no different from the ants and the monkeys.
If you want us to believe in your God, the process is very simple: Show us the evidence. Any evidence at all would be nice.

Because ants and monkeys are perfectly adapted living things though not endowed with reason, and thus do not exercise intellitgence, wherefore they don't exhibit any recognition of God.
Ants don't believe in fairies either.

See? If you be intelligent and reasonable as you for being human have been built to be intelligent owing to your reasoning faculty, you would conclude that it is more reasonable, more intelligent, to admit the existence of God, than to wilfully deny.
We would be happy to admit the existence of God - or Thor, or Kali, or whomever. We merely ask for evidence. We wouldn't admit the existence of sheep without evidence; why should we give any special consideration Amaterasu or Aphrodite?

[Safe-Keeper]

At least he's getting a broader audience now. Yrreg is fun to read.I still don't like to reply to him, seeing as to how he is, after all, a very obvious troll.

But then again, if it informs or entertains the readers, then who am I to complain.

We have no evidence for God. We have no evidence for UFOs. They could be the same thing!Fundamentalists tend to not judge analogies involving their God based on their validity, but on how much or little they make said God look bad.

He still says he cured you of buddhism as well....[former buddhist hat on]

Nonsense. All humans are born with the knowledge in their hearts that Buddhism is the right way to go. You cannot be 'cured' of this knowledge more than you can be 'cured' of knowing that 2+2=4:p!

[former buddhist hat off]

Ants don't believe in fairies either.Sigh. Come on, now, Misa, it's really, really simple. Surely I don't need to spell it out to you:p?

1. Ants are not intelligent.
2. Ants are, strictly speaking, atheists.
3. Hence, atheism is a sign of lack of intelligence.

Yrreg has taken this to its logical conclusion:
1. Ants are not intelligent.
2. Ants never troll message boards.
3. Profit!1

:D

[Foster Zygote]

I never really followed the whole "yrreg on Buddhism" bit, but I'm assuming that most of his threads run pretty much like this one, ending with him ignoring everything that is written in contradiction of his asinine assertions and simply preaching and grooving on the self-perceived cleverness of his own words.

[Safe-Keeper]

You can stop merely assuming. They do.

[yrreg]

Since atheists love to bring up the word evidence in order to not have to think at all, please then tell the readers of this thread what you know about evidence, how many kinds there are and of what strength they are for what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man, who else but man?

Okay, let's start off right away.

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.

-------------------------------

By the way I can't understand why I cannot anymore since two three days back, just highlight a line and click on the formatting link, I have now to type the code words character by character to produce the format I want to surround a line.

Anyone knowledgeable here, please enlighten me.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

OK, I'll bite. I was raised in a fundamentalist sect of Christianity. I was very devoted at a young age and determined to read the Bible cover-to-cover. I did so twice in one summer (KJV and Modern English) and in the context of comprehending it as a whole, saw how the concept of God changed according to the needs of the tribe and how the morality of the God portrayed therein was inferior and relativistic. Murdering babies was not inherently wrong, it was right if God commanded it. I determined that if there was a God, I hoped the Bible was an unreliable source of information about Him, as that God was clearly unworthy of worship.

As the years went by I came to doubt there that God existed at all. Eventually I had the interesting experience of taking a course on Comparative Religion with a professor keen to justify belief in religion at the same time I took a course in logic. Realizing for the first time how weak the arguments for the existence of God are, I realized that I no longer felt the need to actively maintain a consideration for the possibility of God: if there's no convincing evidence for something there's no reason believe in it.

I hope you find this testimony from someone familiar with the Abrahamic God useful.


Later, later please, I will do a thread on complaints of atheists against God.


In the meantime don't feel so aggrieved, unless you are suffering any kind of discriminations from God or from theists, in which case if the discriminations from theists are susceptible to judicial litigation, please proceed to your courts in America.

No, I am not any American citizen living in America; I am writing from the Philippines.



Yrreg

[Hokulele]

I never really followed the whole "yrreg on Buddhism" bit, but I'm assuming that most of his threads run pretty much like this one, ending with him ignoring everything that is written in contradiction of his asinine assertions and simply preaching and grooving on the self-perceived cleverness of his own words.


Some are funnier than others (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2930808#post2930808).

[yrreg]

Wow, Yrreg is back? And now he has started a crusade against atheism? I guess the question whether he was a Christian fundamentalist or not has been answered.

ETA: Ah, I see he's been back for a while. I should check out the JREF forum more often than I do these days....


Don't bring in that tack about dealing with a fundamentalist Christian, just keep to ideas.

I am or call myself a postgraduate Catholic, the only in the world of my own kind of theists of the Christian school.

Did I mention this already in my posts on critique of Buddhism?


Glad to see yo again, Ryokan, I was afraid that you had gone over to another round of rebirth.

You know if such was the case, you are lucky thanks to your karma, that you have come back in your new rebirth as a human, because only in human rebirth can a living thing get to work out his bad karma and earn good karma, to get finally to parinirvana then upon death to ultimate definitive nirvana, complete extinction from existence, no more suffering ever.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

[...]

I've often argued that the Ten Commandments are actually evidence that God is no the only God, and that worshiping other Gods is fine.


Of course the more the merrier.

And just in case you miss one, just put up an altar with the inscription, "To the Unknown God."


And the Bible also mentions that sons of men are gods and the husband is god to the wife.



what is that phrase about dumbing-down oneself?


But you are not as smart as some simple folks who have in their home altar both Jesus and Buddha, just to make sure that everyone is happy up there wherever.

By the way if you ask me, at this stage and state of mankind, man has discovered the most economical and convenient way of dealing with gods, just draw the the correct conclusion and keep to that practice that there is only one God.



Yrreg

[godless dave]

Tell me what is the relevance of Odin in today's talk about taking the Christian God seriously or denying Him.

They are both gods who some people believe in and others deny. You're trying to understand our reason for rejecting the Christian god, and I'm trying to understand your reason for rejecting Odin.

[The Man]

Since atheists love to bring up the word evidence in order to not have to think at all, please then tell the readers of this thread what you know about evidence, how many kinds there are and of what strength they are for what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man, who else but man?

Okay, let's start off right away.

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.

You are confused; evidence requires thinking both in its acquisition and analysis.

As for types of evidence there are basically two kinds, objective and subjective. Although some might say that subjective evidence is not really evidence, sometimes it is all that can be obtained, particularly when considering a subject like “what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man”.

Given your usually loaded questions, I will just focus on the definitions (in my own words) of those two types of evidence.

Subjective evidence – Dependent on the subject relating the evidence and the circumstances involved, although sometimes reproducible, generally not consistent in independently controlled experiments. The key word is subjective or dependent on the subject being tested.

Objective evidence- Preferably attained by calibrated measuring equipment (although not always possible) under strict controlled and double blind testing to reduce potential influences of subjects or testers. Also, it would be reproducible to a high degree of accuracy independently or in other words with different subjects, testers and equipment at some other location.

I do not know or care if those definitions (in my own words) were under your 50 word count requirement.






By the way I can't understand why I cannot anymore since two three days back, just highlight a line and click on the formatting link, I have now to type the code words character by character to produce the format I want to surround a line.

Anyone knowledgeable here, please enlighten me.



Yrreg

I can only surmise that perhaps you have used up all the available characters of that particular font.

[Silentknight]

Okay, let's start off right away.

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.

"In fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words."

Oh wait, you were being serious about that. Very well. Show me a picture of God, a recording of God in the act of designing things, or something he actually wrote himself (preferrably peer-reviewed).

There, now you owe me a cookie. Though I'd also settle for a baby. Preferably fresh, not frozen.

[Dancing David]

Don't bring in that tack about dealing with a fundamentalist Christian, just keep to ideas.

I am or call myself a postgraduate Catholic, the only in the world of my own kind of theists of the Christian school.

Did I mention this already in my posts on critique of Buddhism?


Glad to see yo again, Ryokan, I was afraid that you had gone over to another round of rebirth.

You know if such was the case, you are lucky thanks to your karma, that you have come back in your new rebirth as a human, because only in human rebirth can a living thing get to work out his bad karma and earn good karma, to get finally to parinirvana then upon death to ultimate definitive nirvana, complete extinction from existence, no more suffering ever.



Yrreg


Further proof you ignored the discussions or the possible alternate interpretations of rebirth, kamma and nibbana.

Shows you haven't read Thich Naht Hahn either.

Death is transformation, since there is no soul and no self, it is just that transformation. But the acts one chooses to make carry on even after the transformation.

[Dancing David]

They are both gods who some people believe in and others deny. You're trying to understand our reason for rejecting the Christian god, and I'm trying to understand your reason for rejecting Odin.


He only has one eye?

[PixyMisa]

Since atheists love to bring up the word evidence in order to not have to think at all
Could you please, just once, write something without throwing spurious insults at everyone who disagrees with you?

please then tell the readers of this thread what you know about evidence, how many kinds there are and of what strength they are for what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man, who else but man?

Okay, let's start off right away.

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.Here we are talking about reality, as in, whether God is real or imaginary, so I'll say: Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.

Got any?

By the way I can't understand why I cannot anymore since two three days back, just highlight a line and click on the formatting link, I have now to type the code words character by character to produce the format I want to surround a line.

Anyone knowledgeable here, please enlighten me.
Hmm. No, sorry, it's working for me.

[PixyMisa]

Later, later please, I will do a thread on complaints of atheists against God.

In the meantime don't feel so aggrieved
How do you come to the conclusion that he feels aggrieved at all? All he has said is that there is no evidence that God exists, and that a study of the Bible shows that the God described therein is capricious at best.

[PixyMisa]

By the way if you ask me, at this stage and state of mankind, man has discovered the most economical and convenient way of dealing with gods, just draw the the correct conclusion and keep to that practice that there is only one God.
Whereupon Raven and Inanna and Baal and Taranis all strike you with lightning, and Anubis and Quetzalcoatl squabble over your fricasseed remains.

Not so great, on the whole.

[yrreg]

They are both gods who some people believe in and others deny. You're trying to understand our reason for rejecting the Christian god, and I'm trying to understand your reason for rejecting Odin.


Tell me how many people today believe in Odin?

Did I say that I reject Odin?

I said that there is no relevancy to discussing Odin today in 2008 c.e.

It's like this. Odin was good enough for some people, Norsemen, in the distant past; it's the name of their God.

If I were to be transfered to their time and clime and I am a Norseman, I would also believe in Odin for a God.


Did you read my answer to someone here who also brought up Odin, that Odin was like a slingshot in the days of Odin's believers, but today's God is much more to the nth degree than a slingshot, today's God is in weapon context like a self-guided transcontinental missile with nuclear warhead.

That is why there is no relevancy to bring in Odin to argue against the existence of today's God, it is the same God but for men's acquaintance in two different periods of peoples' history.

If you were living in the time and clime of Odin's believers and you are one of them, you would also consider Odin to be more sophisticated than some god of some more primitive people like some illiterate tribe in black Africa.

Tell me, are there folks in Norway today who are taking Odin seriously, and how many of them if any.

By the way, where did you pick up that Odin business, from the same books by the people who got good business writing for atheists and getting you to buy their books?


Get some original reasons for denying God, from your own thinking and experiences in life.


Now, I am sure pretty soon after some more posts have appeared here, someone will bring up Odin again.




Yrreg

[yrreg]

How do you come to the conclusion that he feels aggrieved at all? All he has said is that there is no evidence that God exists, and that a study of the Bible shows that the God described therein is capricious at best.

Of course you will also deny that you are an angry atheist.



Yrreg

[Hokulele]

Tell me how many people today believe in Odin?

Did I say that I reject Odin?

I said that there is no relevancy to discussing Odin today in 2008 c.e.


And you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81satr%C3%BA

ETA: http://www.asatru.org/

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
Since atheists love to bring up the word evidence in order to not have to think at all, please then tell the readers of this thread what you know about evidence, how many kinds there are and of what strength they are for what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man, who else but man?

Okay, let's start off right away.

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.



You are confused; evidence requires thinking both in its acquisition and analysis.

As for types of evidence there are basically two kinds, objective and subjective. Although some might say that subjective evidence is not really evidence, sometimes it is all that can be obtained, particularly when considering a subject like “what kinds of ascertainment in what kinds of knowledge in man”.

Given your usually loaded questions, I will just focus on the definitions (in my own words) of those two types of evidence.

Subjective evidence – Dependent on the subject relating the evidence and the circumstances involved, although sometimes reproducible, generally not consistent in independently controlled experiments. The key word is subjective or dependent on the subject being tested.

Objective evidence- Preferably attained by calibrated measuring equipment (although not always possible) under strict controlled and double blind testing to reduce potential influences of subjects or testers. Also, it would be reproducible to a high degree of accuracy independently or in other words with different subjects, testers and equipment at some other location.

I do not know or care if those definitions (in my own words) were under your 50 word count requirement.

Posted by yrreg

By the way I can't understand why I cannot anymore since two three days back, just highlight a line and click on the formatting link, I have now to type the code words character by character to produce the format I want to surround a line.

Anyone knowledgeable here, please enlighten me.



Yrreg


I can only surmise that perhaps you have used up all the available characters of that particular font.



Haha, gotcha!

I read your post twice carefully and still cannot find what you can inform readers here to the question:

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.


Try again, but do some really serious and concentrated thinking first, and yes, limit what is evidence to fifty words or less.

What is evidence?



Yrreg

[ Please anyone here, technicians of this forum, why am I not able to highlight a line and then click on the format link like bold, italic, underline, but must spell out the format code character by character. ]

[ Thanks, The Man, for not resorting to angry language, let's continue to enjoy this exchange of ideas, whether there be God or not; best regards. ]

[PixyMisa]

Tell me how many people today believe in Odin?
Depending on the exact question asked, probably somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000.

Did I say that I reject Odin?
Well, do you?

I said that there is no relevancy to discussing Odin today in 2008 c.e.
Yes, you said that. We pointed out why you are wrong.

It's like this. Odin was good enough for some people, Norsemen, in the distant past; it's the name of their God.
No it isn't.

Odin was the chief of their gods, but they had many others - Thor and Loki and Freya and Sif and Idunn and Heimdall and Balder and a couple of dozen others.

If I were to be transfered to their time and clime and I am a Norseman, I would also believe in Odin for a God.
Why? What is the evidence that would convince you of Odin's existence?

And would you likewise believe in Thor and Loki and Freya and Sif and Idunn and Heimdall and Balder - and a couple of dozen others?

Did you read my answer to someone here who also brought up Odin, that Odin was like a slingshot in the days of Odin's believers, but today's God is much more to the nth degree than a slingshot, today's God is in weapon context like a self-guided transcontinental missile with nuclear warhead.
What's the difference? Really, what's the difference?

We see two beings out of myth. The only difference we see is that Norse myth is cooler than Judeo-Christian myth.

That is why there is no relevancy to bring in Odin to argue against the existence of today's God, it is the same God but for men's acquaintance in two different periods of peoples' history.
What you seem to be saying is that you will believe what everyone else believes, without bothering to question. That makes Odin very relevant to the discussion. If you would have believed in Odin as a Norseman, but not now, what's the difference?

If you were living in the time and clime of Odin's believers and you are one of them, you would also consider Odin to be more sophisticated than some god of some more primitive people like some illiterate tribe in black Africa.
No. We would have regarded both as myths.

Tell me, are there folks in Norway today who are taking Odin seriously, and how many of them if any.
Don't know about Norway specifically, but between 100,000 and one million worldwide.

By the way, where did you pick up that Odin business, from the same books by the people who got good business writing for atheists and getting you to buy their books?
From the 1st Edition Deities and Demigods. (I have the original version with the Elric and Cthulhu sections, which is apparently worth quite a bit of money on eBay.)

Get some original reasons for denying God, from your own thinking and experiences in life.
Why do we need "original" reasons? What's wrong with a complete lack of evidence?

Now, I am sure pretty soon after some more posts have appeared here, someone will bring up Odin again.
Osiris
Zeus
Marduk
Deva
Perun
Brahma
Inari
Sun Wukong

Yrreg
Nah.

[PixyMisa]

Of course you will also deny that you are an angry atheist.
Merely... irked.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

[PixyMisa]

Haha, gotcha!
No, you only got yourself.

I read your post twice carefully and still cannot find what you can inform readers here to the question
Then you have a problem with your reading comprehension, because he clearly and concisely answered your question.

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.
He did.

Try again, but do some really serious and concentrated thinking first, and yes, limit what is evidence to fifty words or less.
Try reading it again.

[godless dave]

Tell me how many people today believe in Odin?

I tried to search for some estimates of how many people follow the Asatru religion, but couldn't find any.


Did I say that I reject Odin?

I inferred from your posts that you strive to follow the Christian Ten Commandments. One of those commandments is "You shall have no other gods before me". I apologize if my assumption was incorrect.


I said that there is no relevancy to discussing Odin today in 2008 c.e.

What does the date have to do with whether a god exists or not?


It's like this. Odin was good enough for some people, Norsemen, in the distant past; it's the name of their God.

It's the name of one of their gods; they had several.


If I were to be transfered to their time and clime and I am a Norseman, I would also believe in Odin for a God.

So what gods exist depends on the time and place?


Did you read my answer to someone here who also brought up Odin, that Odin was like a slingshot in the days of Odin's believers, but today's God is much more to the nth degree than a slingshot, today's God is in weapon context like a self-guided transcontinental missile with nuclear warhead.

What do you mean by "today's God?" The Christian god is different today than he was 100 or 1000 years ago?


That is why there is no relevancy to bring in Odin to argue against the existence of today's God, it is the same God but for men's acquaintance in two different periods of peoples' history.

If it's the same god, why the commandment about not following other gods? And why was the Catholic church so adamant about getting Scandinavians to convert to Christianity?


Tell me, are there folks in Norway today who are taking Odin seriously, and how many of them if any.

As I said, I couldn't find a number estimate, but there are followers of the Norse gods in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and the United States.


By the way, where did you pick up that Odin business, from the same books by the people who got good business writing for atheists and getting you to buy their books?

I learned about various different religions when I was a child. I haven't bought any books about atheism. I came to atheism on my own by, among other things, learning about all the different gods people have believed in throughout history.


Get some original reasons for denying God, from your own thinking and experiences in life.

Done and done, a long time ago.


Now, I am sure pretty soon after some more posts have appeared here, someone will bring up Odin again.


It's called an "analogy". Think about why you don't believe in Odin, and you may start to understand why atheists don't believe in the Christian god.

[Mashuna]

[ Please anyone here, technicians of this forum, why am I not able to highlight a line and then click on the format link like bold, italic, underline, but must spell out the format code character by character. ]




It's because Odin is punishing you.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
Tell me how many people today believe in Odin?

Did I say that I reject Odin?

I said that there is no relevancy to discussing Odin today in 2008 c.e.



And you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81satr%C3%BA

ETA: http://www.asatru.org/


Well, that means that atheists now have more work to do to also point out to these exiguous adherents of restored non-Christian religions, that there is no God and no gods whatsoever, period.

And the traditional theists of the Abrahamic faiths can in some way gladden themselves for some relief, because atheists' combative concentration on monotheists and their God could be diverted somehow, atheists now having to also attend to the enlightenment of the exiguous adherents of these newly restored pagan religions, so that they will become atheists, thereby the world and mankind will experience more benefit from atheism as atheists win them over to their atheism camp.


Congratulations!


I think Hokulele you are really getting somewhere with this Odin business.



Yrreg

[Mashuna]

That is why the more I examine atheists and their contorted abuse of reason and intelligence, I come closer and closer to the ascertainment that atheists are not being rational and thus not being intelligent, but instead choose to be wilfully irrational and unintelligent owing to their psychology of self-convenience.

No offense intended, but if atheists don't want to use their reason and intelligently come to the knowledge of God, then they should be perfectly adapted to sign up with the phenomenon of life no different from the ants and the monkeys.

See? If you be intelligent and reasonable as you for being human have been built to be intelligent owing to your reasoning faculty, you would conclude that it is more reasonable, more intelligent, to admit the existence of God, than to wilfully deny.

Yrreg

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but both your premise and conclusion are Yrregian.

I hope I haven't violated the membership agreement with this post.

[PixyMisa]

Well, that means that atheists now have more work to do to also point out to these exiguous adherents of restored non-Christian religions, that there is no God and no gods whatsoever, period.
We already do that.

As we keep telling you, your God is not a special case. It's just one mythical deity out of many.

Just like Odin.

And the traditional theists of the Abrahamic faiths can in some way gladden themselves for some relief, because atheists' combative concentration on monotheists and their God could be diverted somehow, atheists now having to also attend to the enlightenment of the exiguous adherents of these newly restored pagan religions, so that they will become atheists, thereby the world and mankind will experience more benefit from atheism as atheists win them over to their atheism camp.
We have no "combative concentration on monotheists". We don't believe in anyone's gods.

[godless dave]

Well, that means that atheists now have more work to do to also point out to these exiguous adherents of restored non-Christian religions, that there is no God and no gods whatsoever, period.



When followers of Asatru start claiming their faith is the only true faith and try to get governments to give it special treatment, I'll do just that.

[yrreg]

If you guys want to bring back those obselete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege, and you can join their exiguous adherents for whatever cultural and or political or racist agenda you have in mind.

And worship them; just remember your atheism is directed most dominantly toward the Abrahamic God.

You don't accept that? Well, read your masters: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Myers, Dennett.



About someone here I asked to give his answer to the question, What is evidence, no he has not given the answer to that question; so try again and really know what is a what question and answer it instead of going about the kinds of evidence into objective and subjective.

Just give me the lines in your post where you tell readers here that evidence is ______________ etc., etc., etc., then you can allege next that there are two kinds, etc.

But first what it is.



Yrreg

[godless dave]

If you guys want to bring back those obselete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege

We don't. We're using them to demonstrate a point. Some people follow gods of ancient North Europe, you follow a god of the ancient Middle East. You have just as much evidence as the Asatrans do for the existence of the gods you worship.

[PixyMisa]

If you guys want to bring back those obselete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege, and you can join their exiguous adherents for whatever cultural and or political or racist agenda you have in mind.
We don't want to do anything of the sort. We don't believe in Odin any more than we believe in your God.

And worship them; just remember your atheism is directed most dominantly toward the Abrahamic God.
Nope.

We don't believe in anyone's gods equally.

You don't accept that? Well, read your masters
What "masters"?

Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Myers, Dennett.
I have. Have you? Have you actually read Hitchens?

Have you read the chapter in God is not Great describing how Hitchens himself came to be worshipped as a god?

About someone here I asked to give his answer to the question, What is evidence, no he has not given the answer to that question; so try again and really know what is a what question and answer it instead of going about the kinds of evidence into objective and subjective.
I've done it. Just read what I said.

Just give me the lines in your post where you tell readers here that evidence is ______________ etc., etc., etc., then you can allege next that there are two kinds, etc.

But first what it is.
Objective, independently testable data pointing toward a specific conclusion.

[The Man]

Haha, gotcha!

I read your post twice carefully and still cannot find what you can inform readers here to the question:

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.

Perhaps you should read it again the third time’s the charm.

Again you are confused; I was not trying to inform “readers here to the question:” most of them already know those definitions of evidence, although perhaps not in my own words. I was only trying to inform you of those definitions, in my own words as you requested, if you require something else then you need to be more specific but less leading in your questions.


Try again, but do some really serious and concentrated thinking first, and yes, limit what is evidence to fifty words or less.

What is evidence?

Sorry, but I can not accommodate you, unless you can specifically address what it is that I wrote before which you feel does not constitute the fundamental aspects of evidence. I should point out that I have worked in an engineering laboratory where collecting and presenting evidence was one of my (if not my only) functions.



Yrreg

[ Please anyone here, technicians of this forum, why am I not able to highlight a line and then click on the format link like bold, italic, underline, but must spell out the format code character by character. ]

[ Thanks, The Man, for not resorting to angry language, let's continue to enjoy this exchange of ideas, whether there be God or not; best regards. ]




No problem, although if I thought “angry language” would have helped you resolve your technical difficulty, I assure you that I would have had no problem resorting to it, as long as it accomplished the task at hand.

Oh, and by the way, “Haha, gotcha”, I am not an atheist, although I am not one for group affiliations (the decoder rings just don’t seem to fit and I can never remember the secret handshakes) I would have to describe myself as an agnostic. Certainly I have no personal belief in Gods (which might make some classify me as an atheist) but I do not say that I do not believe in the existence of Gods (which would not classify me as an atheist). Certainly for some, Gods do exist and as far as Gods are concerned (from my limited understanding of them) that is all that they require for their existence (plus some worship if I am not mistaken). All I say is that I am not, myself, concerned with the existence or non-existence of any Gods one might choose to believe in or worship. Much the same way that I am not concerned with the current fashion trend or what the top song on the billboard chart might be, certainly these things might be of concern to some people, but just not to me. I am more concerned with what people do then what concerns them or what they choose to believe, although the latter two do still interest me, as it affects what people do.

[Mojo]

If you guys want to bring back those obselete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege, and you can join their exiguous adherents for whatever cultural and or political or racist agenda you have in mind.We don't want to do anything of the sort. We don't believe in Odin any more than we believe in your God.


And yrreg doesn't believe in Odin any more than we do.

Which raises an interesting point, yrreg: why do you reject Odin?

[Fiona]

I think it is because of things he wants to do and does not want to feel guilty about: like staying sober .....

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
If you guys want to bring back those obsolete gods of antique North Europe, that is your privilege
We don't. We're using them to demonstrate a point. Some people follow gods of ancient North Europe, you follow a god of the ancient Middle East. You have just as much evidence as the Asatrans do for the existence of the gods you worship.


Well, if such a kind of irrelevant but comforting comparison subserves your self-reinforcement to continue to be blind to reason and intelligence, I will not begrudge you your consuelo de bobo.

You should now also go and preach to the adherents of the ancient restored Norsemen's gods, that their gods don't exist, and also to take their consolation from your notice to them that for you even the Christian God does not exist for you as also should be non-existent for them, even though your new president -- if you be American -- is going to swear to the Christian God that he is going to serve the US citizenry and keep sacrosanct the US Constitution, ending his oath of office with "So help me God."


No more, please, no more about Odin and associates, let's go to substantial stuffs.



Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Um, Yrreg, you are the one preaching not the atheists.

I like your my imaginary God is better than imaginary Odin, you do get the point so now you will wave your arms and avoid the discussion. One Imaginary God is just like a host of Imaginary Gods.

So why reject Odin and Kali but not the bloodsoaked sinai dust devil?

So are you a follower of the Ultimate reffered to by the misnomer AL or are you a follower of the demiurgos YHVH?

[Mojo]

No more, please, no more about Odin and associates, let's go to substantial stuffs.


Do you consider your god to be more "substantial" that Odin, or do you want to stop discussing him as well?

[Foster Zygote]

Say in fifty words or less what is evidence, in your own words.

We are asking for scientific evidence of the existence of your god. That means that the evidence must be empirical (dependent on evidence or consequences that can be observed with human senses) and repeatable.

Now, how about that evidence for the existence of your god?