If God exists, is God good?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

I'm not insisting that you adopt any particular label. You are, by your own description and by the definition of the term, an atheist. It is a severe misunderstanding of a simple, unambiguous term for you to deny it. Or maybe you're lying.

ETA: I noticed you changed my quote. So you are a liar.

Ahhh... projection to go with the pretzel. How unoriginal.

You've built the irrational insistence that I can't be an agnostic, based on *your* cherry picked definitions and sophomism. You've excluded the middle that the words cover a wide range of beliefs, and are not monolithic.

Faced with the fact that you've altered my words to mean what you want them to mean, and an object lesson of how that looks when people do it to you, all you've got is the ad hom that your words were altered. But of course when you did the same thing, you aren't a liar..

If it makes you feel better to pile up the fallacies to debate your way to proving that those realities simply don't exist because you've willed them away, award yourself the win, and level up.

I won't be playing your online game.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Committing as in crime or something else?

"perhaps" was the word I used..."Then again, perhaps..."

Now the mind is an interesting thing...so my statement was "If Evolution had a mind, it would be this god" and have since extended this to include all god-concepts as well as every other imagination which humans have and will come up with.

Am I saying evolution has a mind? Well I am not saying it doesn't.

Committing a logical fallacy could be considered a crime against a clear understanding and description of the situation, at the very least.

I will say that evolution simply does not have a mind, given its nature, for any reasonable use of mind. I will not say that a mind (assuming that the supernatural does exist in some form, despite the lack of evidence) cannot have caused evolution or even guided evolution in one way or another, but evolution itself has no more mind than a super-ball bouncing off the floor.

I would simply disagree with any statement that says that adding a mind to evolution = the set of all god-concepts. God concepts are far, far too diverse for that to be in any way reasonable.

[Cantab]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Ahhh... projection to go with the pretzel. How unoriginal.

You've built the irrational insistence that I can't be an agnostic, based on *your* cherry picked definitions and sophomism. You've excluded the middle that the words cover a wide range of beliefs, and are not monolithic.

Faced with the fact that you've altered my words to mean what you want them to mean, and an object lesson of how that looks when people do it to you, all you've got is the ad hom that your words were altered. But of course when you did the same thing, you aren't a liar..

If it makes you feel better to pile up the fallacies to debate your way to proving that those realities simply don't exist because you've willed them away, award yourself the win, and level up.

I won't be playing your online game.

GeeMack didn't deny your agnosticism, he pointed out that you are ALSO an atheist.

Atheism doesn't mean "without god(s)"
It means "without belief in god(s)". By your own words, you fit this definition. I think this is why people are struggling to understand your position.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I do get a bit confused when human beings compare themselves to ants. Ants simply don't have the capabilities to create paradise. Humans do.
Your paradise might not include leeches but they are not really the issue.

Life gives me the opportunity to choose to be obligated. It is not delusion.

It's delusion to call it anything more than "I make crap up as I go along"

What you're discussing is a social philosophy and as such cannot be treated as fact. It can only be treated as how you've concluded the facts. Your conclusion that life gives you the opportunity to be obligated is fine; that's a subjective thing. Really yours is just sophistry.

A conclusion that this is god/mind is wrong.

I'm glad you've backed off that, and I hope you stop being so wrong from now on.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Cantab

GeeMack didn't deny your agnosticism, he pointed out that you are ALSO an atheist.

Atheism doesn't mean "without god(s)"
It means "without belief in god(s)". By your own words, you fit this definition. I think this is why people are struggling to understand your position.

Consider the term 'asexual'. Does that mean that sex doesn't exist? Or that sex exists, and the asexual person has abandoned it?
Amoral? Same question... morals don't exist, or they exist, and the amoral person has chosen to turn away from them?

I know people who use atheism as a belief that there is an evil god who must be abandoned/rejected... via criticism, arguing against, attacking, etc. And that gives it standing that it doesn't deserve.

The fact that there are other atheists who hold a disbelief, doesn't override the first examples, and the fact that I don't want to associate with the whole label.

So once again... for me I'm not going to cede the default position of being a valid reality to theism, and accept the label that I've merely chosen to do without it.

It would be like calling me an 'insurgent' because I want to see change in the government... I wouldn't accept that label either, because it conveys an implied validity that they don't deserve.

If I have to deal in such labels, I'll say that there is zero knowledge supporting any part of the god premise. The word agnostic *for my purposes* puts theism in the position being an illusion that abandons knowledge based rationality.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

It's delusion to call it anything more than "I make crap up as I go along"

Now I understand that people who chose to believe in science having pretty much disproved god-concepts as being real, there are still those who don’t use this for a reason not to have concern and a heart for the world and a desire to be part of the solution rather than the problem and that science offers them the best opportunities to do so.

It may not be motivated by a conscious feeling of obligation, or might stem from wanting to be a part of a great thing or many other type reasons, and will likely see science as being able to support a great thing.

Individuals who prefer being sceptical, or atheist are not necessarily sharing your particular beliefs.

One famous scientist had this to say.
http://www.treehugger.com/culture/qu...on-crisis.html

He certainly seems to agree that human beings need to – in this case – work towards ending poverty.

Obligation? It sounds like that is what Carl is saying.

Another Carl Sagan attitude…here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5dlbCh8lY

Excerpt: The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Is it human conceit to believe we have ‘no obligation’ because evolution shows us that this is so…or is it the conceit which has us thinking that this is what evolution is showing us?

I appreciate that you have your view – but it is not the only one, or the most sensible.

[chris sutton]

I have to conclude that God either -

Is not omnipotent

Does not give a s---

or does not exist

Which one is anyone's guess

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Committing a logical fallacy could be considered a crime against a clear understanding and description of the situation, at the very least.

At the very least.

Originally Posted by Aridas

I will say that evolution simply does not have a mind, given its nature, for any reasonable use of mind.

It has been noted that there is intelligence in the way finches evolved different beaks for different uses and that this process did not take much time to do.
Evolution has the mind of biological life forms for a start.

The mind itself it a mystery.

I mentioned so-called ‘unconsciousness’ in an earlier post and said in reply to an assertion that the scientific method rests on the fact that ALL assumptions are subject to rigorous scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Navigator

This is not always the case. Some scrutiny in some areas is more rigorous than in others.
The ‘unconscious’ is one such area.
This seems more a ‘place’ where things which are not regarded as necessary to scrutinise end up. Like “the source of that nonsense is the ‘unconscious’” as if this is an adequate and fair expression of science.

Yet the ‘unconscious’ is without doubt part of the real world.

It also has much to do with ‘the mind’.

Originally Posted by Aridas

I will not say that a mind (assuming that the supernatural does exist in some form, despite the lack of evidence) cannot have caused evolution or even guided evolution in one way or another, but evolution itself has no more mind than a super-ball bouncing off the floor.

I would simply disagree with any statement that says that adding a mind to evolution = the set of all god-concepts. God concepts are far, far too diverse for that to be in any way reasonable

I think evolution is far, far more complex than god-concepts.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

No, if you lack belief in God, you are choosing to identify as an atheist.
When I lack belief in God, I'm choosing to identify as an agnostic. When I reject the assertion that they are exactly the same thing, but agnostic is somehow 'wrong', I'm an iconoclast.

Agnostic isnt the same thing as atheist at all.

Words have meanings. You can just change them to suit your mood.

[Lowpro]

Alright Navigator you're just repeating how wrong you've been. If you have nothing new to add can you walk on somewhere else? The way you're throwing the term 'mind' about you'd think rock formations were intelligent.

[Cantab]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Consider the term 'asexual'. Does that mean that sex doesn't exist? Or that sex exists, and the asexual person has abandoned it?
Amoral? Same question... morals don't exist, or they exist, and the amoral person has chosen to turn away from them?

I know people who use atheism as a belief that there is an evil god who must be abandoned/rejected... via criticism, arguing against, attacking, etc. And that gives it standing that it doesn't deserve.

The fact that there are other atheists who hold a disbelief, doesn't override the first examples, and the fact that I don't want to associate with the whole label.

So once again... for me I'm not going to cede the default position of being a valid reality to theism, and accept the label that I've merely chosen to do without it.

It would be like calling me an 'insurgent' because I want to see change in the government... I wouldn't accept that label either, because it conveys an implied validity that they don't deserve.

If I have to deal in such labels, I'll say that there is zero knowledge supporting any part of the god premise. The word agnostic *for my purposes* puts theism in the position being an illusion that abandons knowledge based rationality.

The comparison with "asexual" / "amoral" and "atheism" is confused because "sexual" doesn't mean "belief in sex" and "moral" doesn't mean "belief in morals", but "theism" does mean "belief in god(s)".

To refer it back to your examples of "sexual" and "moral", it would then mean "I accept the existence of belief in god(s), but I do not believe."

By identifying as an atheist, I'm not saying "gods exist, but I have abandoned or turned away from them", I'm saying "I don't believe in god(s)" because that's what the word actually means. You may not choose to use the word that ways, but that's what it means.

Anyone who uses atheism as a belief that an evil god exists who must be rejected is horribly confused about the meaning of the word, since their belief in an evil god is theistic. Their misappropriation of the word shouldn't cause us to further misuse it or to abandon it.

Using "agnostic" in the place of "atheist" is also confusing. There are agnostic theists as well as agnostic atheists (as well as other flavours), so saying "I'm agnostic" doesn't tell anyone if you believe in god(s) or not - even though lack of belief is usually implied. Gnosticism / agnosticism pertain to knowledge, while theism / atheism pertain to belief

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

You've built the irrational insistence that I can't be an agnostic, based on *your* cherry picked definitions and sophomism. You've excluded the middle that the words cover a wide range of beliefs, and are not monolithic.

Perhaps you are unaware that you can be an agnostic and an atheist as well ?

Personally, I dislike that use of definitions but "theist" and "atheist" are rather clear so I'll ask you: do you believe in any god ?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Navigator

I think evolution is far, far more complex than god-concepts.

You think wrong. Evolution is a classic example of emergent behaviour, in which relatively complex behaviour is derived from a relatively simple ruleset. God is, by definition, more complex than the entire Universe, including any concept of evolution, because God is defined as omniscient and therefore holds all the information contained in the Universe as a minimum.

Dave

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Ahhh... projection to go with the pretzel. How unoriginal.

You've built the irrational insistence that I can't be an agnostic, based on *your* cherry picked definitions and sophomism. You've excluded the middle that the words cover a wide range of beliefs, and are not monolithic.

I have not insisted you can't be agnostic. I haven't even hinted at it. So once more your argument is fabricated, a falsehood.

Quote:

Faced with the fact that you've altered my words to mean what you want them to mean, and an object lesson of how that looks when people do it to you, all you've got is the ad hom that your words were altered. But of course when you did the same thing, you aren't a liar..

Actually I have the mod-box warning by Cuddles in your Post #354 to show you've altered my words. And I haven't altered your words in the slightest. I quoted them exactly. You've described your belief/non-belief status several times, in ways most of us would consider quite unambiguous. It's pretty obvious you don't believe in the existence of a god or gods...

Originally Posted by crimresearch

But it isn't a real thing... There is no god to argue with, to argue about, to win an argument with, to make angry, to spite, to hurt by turning away... all of which require acknowledgement.

There is simply no god. With no god, there can be no knowledge, and more to the point, no acknowledgment of gods.

Unless by the above comments you mean something other than you lack belief in the existence of a god or gods, you are an atheist. Maybe you take issue with the term "atheist", but I didn't invent it. It's not my fault that you describe yourself, to a T, as being one. How about, instead of falsely accusing me of an ad hominem fallacy, resorting to incivility, and calling me a liar without any justification, you familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word. It will likely save you from continuing to embarrass yourself the way you have been.

Quote:

If it makes you feel better to pile up the fallacies to debate your way to proving that those realities simply don't exist because you've willed them away, award yourself the win, and level up.

I won't be playing your online game.

Your persistence in holding me responsible for your misunderstanding of the word "atheist" is, well, bizarre to say the least. As far as I can tell I haven't offered a single logical fallacy or made a single false statement in this entire exchange. Atheist means lacking belief in the existence of a god or gods. It's really as simple as that. If you don't believe gods exist, or if you believe no gods exist, you are an atheist.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Of course not believing something exists, although it may sound similar, is an entirely different concept than believing something does not exist.

I think 'believing' is the same concept as 'believing'.

Whatever is believed.

Believing something does not exist = "I don't believe that it exists."
Not believing something exists = "I don't believe that it exists".

You are incorrect in your interpretation of the two phrases. The difference may be subtle, but it is certain. Believing something does not exist, and not believing something does exist, are not the same thing. Try it like this...

Believing something does not exist... "I believe it does not exist."
Not believing something exists... "I do not believe it exists".

ETA: Notice how one involves believing, "I believe...," and the other involves a lack of believing, "I do not believe...?" Believing and not believing are opposite concepts.

If you're not a native English speaker and you're having trouble with the use of those phrases, let us know. Someone will probably be glad to help you understand the distinction.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

You think wrong. Evolution is a classic example of emergent behaviour, in which relatively complex behaviour is derived from a relatively simple ruleset. God is, by definition, more complex than the entire Universe, including any concept of evolution, because God is defined as omniscient and therefore holds all the information contained in the Universe as a minimum.

Dave

Hi Dave.

No I am not 'thinking wrong' I am thinking locally and logically.

Your argument stems from an insistence that there actually are gods and that the one who created the universe is all knowing, which of course is not the case with evolution because if it had a mind it would know a great deal but it wouldn't know everything...just local knowledge....which while involving a great deal of time and experience, is still limited to its local environment.


So it was the act of evolution which created god and gods and goddesses and pink unicorns - all through the device of human imagination.
These gods were refined through time and are still with us...some have greater profile than others and affect the unfolding reality. They are largely tools of control but the control has shifted as evolution no longer requires them and they were imperfect anyway.

GOD as an all knowing creator of the universe is a human definition.

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, I see. You're just anthropomorphising natural selection. Pointless and irrelevant, but suit yourself.

Dave

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Navigator

No I am not 'thinking wrong' I am thinking locally and logically.

Your argument stems from an insistence that there actually are gods and that the one who created the universe is all knowing, which of course is not the case with evolution because if it had a mind it would know a great deal but it wouldn't know everything...just local knowledge....which while involving a great deal of time and experience, is still limited to its local environment.

That's about as logical as speculating on what evolution might know if it wore green trousers.

Quote:

So it was the act of evolution which created god and gods and goddesses and pink unicorns - all through the device of human imagination.

That's pretty close to gibberish. Evolution is a process, not so much an act. ETA: Dave's comment is appropriate...

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Oh, I see. You're just anthropomorphising natural selection. Pointless and irrelevant, but suit yourself.

Onward...

Quote:

These gods were refined through time and are still with us...some have greater profile than others and affect the unfolding reality. They are largely tools of control but the control has shifted as evolution no longer requires them and they were imperfect anyway.

That's pretty close to gibberish, too. But it could be argued that the concept of gods has been a great influence on the way humans have progressed. Evolution, however, is a process which doesn't require anything really, other than the components of its definition, things like random change and selection.

Quote:

GOD as an all knowing creator of the universe is a human definition.

Yes. All objective evidence suggests gods are a human construct and all the characteristics which they are supposedly endowed with are defined by humans.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

You are incorrect in your interpretation of the two phrases. The difference may be subtle, but it is certain. Believing something does not exist, and not believing something does exist, are not the same thing. Try it like this...

Believing something does not exist... "I believe it does not exist."
Not believing something exists... "I do not believe it exists".

ETA: Notice how one involves believing, "I believe...," and the other involves a lack of believing, "I do not believe...?" Believing and not believing are opposite concepts.

If you're not a native English speaker and you're having trouble with the use of those phrases, let us know. Someone will probably be glad to help you understand the distinction.

Hi GeeMack

I chuckled at your comments about the English language. While I enjoy its peculiarities I also understand that its nature is flawed through how it is used – sometimes as a tool of limitation.

When it comes to ‘opposites’ I am reminded of the Garden of Eden story. How human beings think in terms of opposing elementals and this thinking extends into behaviour when interacting with the environment.

Belief is belief. Non-belief well what is that?

From what I can tell, someone believes in a god-concept and another does not. Very often the non belief is supported by something called fact.

Fact is limited to the 5 main sensors and so everything which cannot be measured and evidenced is wooism to use the derogative.

The belief is that it is woo, because there is no physical evidence.

Belief is not the greatest tool for the job because it traps an individual into a mind set which affects the world view and closes the mind to all possibility.

To know or to not know is the wiser option because it does not suppress the mind, and it avoids the derogatory.

[truethat]

No you're not getting it Navigator.

As an aggressive atheist I very much will say

I know that God does not exist.

There is a distinction between saying "I don't believe in God" because to me that sounds almost agnostic, as if God could exist but I just don't think so.

God doesn't exist.

So I believe there is no God. But in my opinion this isn't something that's about belief. I don't say "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist" or "I believe that a giant toad is not sitting on my head"

I say "I know that Santa doesn't exist" and "I know that a giant toad is not sitting on my head."

The nuance is important.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Oh, I see. You're just anthropomorphising natural selection. Pointless and irrelevant, but suit yourself.

Dave

Not really. I think you are being derogatory yes?

I mentioned finches and how evolution can be observed working through them. This is an intelligent process, not just because we can use our intelligence to explain it but also because we can use our intelligence to recognise intelligence at work when we see it.

I am not humanising the finch. I am saying that evolution is provably intelligent just by observing it. Does this signify that I am humanizing evolution?
Evolution is what gave humans intelligence….not the other way around.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

I have not insisted you can't be agnostic. I haven't even hinted at it. So once more your argument is fabricated, a falsehood.




Actually I have the mod-box warning by Cuddles in your Post #354 to show you've altered my words. And I haven't altered your words in the slightest. I quoted them exactly. You've described your belief/non-belief status several times, in ways most of us would consider quite unambiguous. It's pretty obvious you don't believe in the existence of a god or gods...
Unless by the above comments you mean something other than you lack belief in the existence of a god or gods, you are an atheist. Maybe you take issue with the term "atheist", but I didn't invent it. It's not my fault that you describe yourself, to a T, as being one. How about, instead of falsely accusing me of an ad hominem fallacy, resorting to incivility, and calling me a liar without any justification, you familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word. It will likely save you from continuing to embarrass yourself the way you have been.




Your persistence in holding me responsible for your misunderstanding of the word "atheist" is, well, bizarre to say the least. As far as I can tell I haven't offered a single logical fallacy or made a single false statement in this entire exchange. Atheist means lacking belief in the existence of a god or gods. It's really as simple as that. If you don't believe gods exist, or if you believe no gods exist, you are an atheist.

Denial on your part is still denial of reality, no matter what excluded middle and strawman fallacies you put on it.


And the reality is that the word atheist is used to cover beliefs that do not describe my beliefs, as I've pointed out quite clearly.

Your game of telling me I'm something I'm not, and then using the mods to help you score points is still a game. You are hiding behind a keyboard, I'm living my own very real life.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

QED.

.
Jeezuz man!
You quoted the whole *********** thing!
What is wrong with you?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Hi GeeMack

I chuckled at your comments about the English language. While I enjoy its peculiarities I also understand that its nature is flawed through how it is used - sometimes as a tool of limitation.

When it comes to ‘opposites’ I am reminded of the Garden of Eden story. How human beings think in terms of opposing elementals and this thinking extends into behaviour when interacting with the environment.

Belief is belief. Non-belief well what is that?

Non-belief is a lack of belief. A pile of bananas is a pile of bananas. A place where there is no pile of bananas is what? It is a void. There are no bananas there. It's an empty space. It has absolutely nothing to do with bananas. To point at that empty space and try to define it by all the things that aren't there would be a fool's errand.

Quote:

From what I can tell, someone believes in a god-concept and another does not. Very often the non belief is supported by something called fact.

Fact is limited to the 5 main sensors and so everything which cannot be measured and evidenced is wooism to use the derogative.

The belief is that it is woo, because there is no physical evidence.

Belief is not the greatest tool for the job because it traps an individual into a mind set which affects the world view and closes the mind to all possibility.

To know or to not know is the wiser option because it does not suppress the mind, and it avoids the derogatory.

None of which makes this any less wrong...

Originally Posted by Navigator

Believing something does not exist = "I don't believe that it exists."
Not believing something exists = "I don't believe that it exists".

To believe something does not exist and to not believe something does exist are conceptually different. One is belief. The other is lack of belief. They cannot reasonably be considered the same thing.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Evolution is obligated to that. It has shown that obligation. You are correct that human beings need not have the obligation even that we are best equipped.

....

.
Evolution has no obligation to do anything.
It has no purpose, no direction, it operates randomly making things that work, and that will fail at working, willy nilly.
Humanity can interfere with the operation of evolution, as we have with domesticated animals.
Interfering with human evolution also, with our health cares.
But interfering with a specific goal... a super-human as it were.. that's a fraught laden path with many directions, most of them bad.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Navigator

...

Life gives me the opportunity to choose to be obligated. It is not delusion.

.
Yah. Ve haf seen dat verk in zee past zo well.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Denial on your part is still denial of reality, no matter what excluded middle and strawman fallacies you put on it.

Again with the falsehoods in describing my position. I'm beginning to think that either you have serious difficulty understanding simple English words and phrases, or you're bing intentionally disingenuous.

Quote:

And the reality is that the word atheist is used to cover beliefs that do not describe my beliefs, as I've pointed out quite clearly.

No. The reality is you don't seem to know what the word "atheist" means, and you're being uncivilly and dishonestly insistent that it's other people who don't know. Try this...

If you don't believe in the existence of a god or gods, you are an atheist.

Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods? That's a yes/no question, the answer to which defines the status of your theism/atheism.

Quote:

Your game of telling me I'm something I'm not, and then using the mods to help you score points is still a game. You are hiding behind a keyboard, I'm living my own very real life.

Again, your persistent incivility and dishonesty doesn't change the simple definition of the term "atheist". If you do not believe in the existence of a god or gods, you are an atheist. Period. And before you come back with more inane, irrelevant, and dishonest retorts, please go look up the word. You are embarrassing yourself here in the extreme.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by truethat

No you're not getting it Navigator.

As an aggressive atheist I very much will say

I know that God does not exist.

There is a distinction between saying "I don't believe in God" because to me that sounds almost agnostic, as if God could exist but I just don't think so.

God doesn't exist.

So I believe there is no God. But in my opinion this isn't something that's about belief. I don't say "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist" or "I believe that a giant toad is not sitting on my head"

I say "I know that Santa doesn't exist" and "I know that a giant toad is not sitting on my head."

The nuance is important.

Yes truethat you can say you know that god doesn’t exist…

I am a human Being and I know this too.

You are an ‘aggressive atheist’ – because you wear the label and agree with its tenets.

So while we know the same thing, that god does not exist, the information is processed differently because of how we chose to identify ourselves….remembering that you also know that it is the brain that is doing the self identification.

So which one of the identities is more useful for the collective purpose?

The aggressive atheist or the human being?


This question is asked with evolution in mind. It is a singular process involving everything from the Galaxy to the Solar System and Earth.

That is the identity I as a Human Being concur with. Other identities seem to separate evolution as if its parts are the thing to focus on as if those parts were the whole, or somehow more important.

[truethat]

Now this is a false dichotomy! LOL

Gee Mack, some atheists do not believe in Gods or God but would logically change their position if God was proven to exist. We've seen this happen many times.

Others believe in "some unknown mystery" but don't call it God but are open to the possibility. They can vary between agnostics and atheists.

One of the reasons I shifted my explanation is that I got tired of getting pushed into the first category. As if I would change my position if evidence came along.

I resist this completely. If evidence comes along with a grand creator involved, that is not God as God has been defined. I resent the suggestion. I call this "sweeping it into the God pile"

There are vagaries on how atheists view lack of belief. Just saying yes or no isn't quite accurate.

[crimresearch]

If I started telling other people - atheists, or Muslims, Buddhists, etc. that they were 'aChristians', they would be pointing out the very same facts that I am, no matter how many times I said 'but according to the dictionary, you've described yourself as holding a non-belief in Christ, so that makes you an 'aChristian'.

And that falls into the category of correct but not useful.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Yah. Ve haf seen dat verk in zee past zo well.

Not on a world wide scale. Sorry...Verld Vide...

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Yes truethat you can say you know that god doesn’t exist…

I am a human Being and I know this too.

You are an ‘aggressive atheist’ – because you wear the label and agree with its tenets.

So while we know the same thing, that god does not exist, the information is processed differently because of how we chose to identify ourselves….remembering that you also know that it is the brain that is doing the self identification.

So which one of the identities is more useful for the collective purpose?

The aggressive atheist or the human being?


This question is asked with evolution in mind. It is a singular process involving everything from the Galaxy to the Solar System and Earth.

That is the identity I as a Human Being concur with. Other identities seem to separate evolution as if its parts are the thing to focus on as if those parts were the whole, or somehow more important.

The aggressive atheist. Truth is truth. There is no God. And the sooner we accept this reality the more people will be able to relax and stop creating stress in the world. Instead of doing moral things out of obligation to a non entity, people will come to realize that they are doing it out of choice themselves.


I am not a fan of enabling behavior which seems to be the crux of your idea. I would no more enable a child to believe that Santa Claus was real than I would enable them to believe in God.

I have not stopped others in their beliefs however the truth is the truth.

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by truethat

Now this is a false dichotomy! LOL

Gee Mack, some atheists do not believe in Gods or God but would logically change their position if God was proven to exist. We've seen this happen many times.

Oxymoron?

[truethat]

Look up hierophany sweetness.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgo...s/collins.html


For example in this case Collins witnessed "faith" but thought it was evidence of God. And so he became a Christian. He used to be an atheist. I on the other hand could witness faith or miracles or some bonkers wooish type unexplained phenomenon and I would never ascribe it to God. Years ago I would have. But now, no way. But there are plenty of atheists out there that have done this already.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_from_atheism

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by truethat

The aggressive atheist. Truth is truth. There is no God. And the sooner we accept this reality the more people will be able to relax and stop creating stress in the world. Instead of doing moral things out of obligation to a non entity, people will come to realize that they are doing it out of choice themselves.


I am not a fan of enabling behavior which seems to be the crux of your idea. I would no more enable a child to believe that Santa Claus was real than I would enable them to believe in God.

I have not stopped others in their beliefs however the truth is the truth.

That is your description of what it is to be an 'Aggressive Atheist'?

In what way does aggression work to reduce stress in the world?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Navigator

Yes truethat you can say you know that god doesn’t exist…

I am a human Being and I know this too.

You are an ‘aggressive atheist’ – because you wear the label and agree with its tenets.

So while we know the same thing, that god does not exist, the information is processed differently because of how we chose to identify ourselves….remembering that you also know that it is the brain that is doing the self identification.

So which one of the identities is more useful for the collective purpose?

The aggressive atheist or the human being?


This question is asked with evolution in mind. It is a singular process involving everything from the Galaxy to the Solar System and Earth.

That is the identity I as a Human Being concur with. Other identities seem to separate evolution as if its parts are the thing to focus on as if those parts were the whole, or somehow more important.

An aggressive atheist is not a human being? Think a bit more before you type.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by truethat

Now this is a false dichotomy! LOL

Gee Mack, some atheists do not believe in Gods or God but would logically change their position if God was proven to exist. We've seen this happen many times.

And as long as they do not believe in the existence of a god or gods, they fall under the definition of the term "atheist".

Quote:

Others believe in "some unknown mystery" but don't call it God but are open to the possibility. They can vary between agnostics and atheists.

One of the reasons I shifted my explanation is that I got tired of getting pushed into the first category. As if I would change my position if evidence came along.

I resist this completely. If evidence comes along with a grand creator involved, that is not God as God has been defined. I resent the suggestion. I call this "sweeping it into the God pile"

There are vagaries on how atheists view lack of belief. Just saying yes or no isn't quite accurate.

Sure there may be many ways to consider one's lack of belief, or belief for that matter, but as long as someone does not believe in the existence of a god or gods, they fall under the definition of the term "atheist". The current issue of contention here is crimresearch's very adamant declaration that he/she doesn't believe in the existence of a god or gods. That, as much as he/she seems to despise the word, makes him/her definitively an atheist. I have suggested several times now that he/she look up the word. My suggestion appears to have been met with willful ignorance.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Again with the falsehoods in describing my position. I'm beginning to think that either you have serious difficulty understanding simple English words and phrases, or you're bing intentionally disingenuous.




No. The reality is you don't seem to know what the word "atheist" means, and you're being uncivilly and dishonestly insistent that it's other people who don't know. Try this...

If you don't believe in the existence of a god or gods, you are an atheist.

Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods? That's a yes/no question, the answer to which defines the status of your theism/atheism.




Again, your persistent incivility and dishonesty doesn't change the simple definition of the term "atheist". If you do not believe in the existence of a god or gods, you are an atheist. Period. And before you come back with more inane, irrelevant, and dishonest retorts, please go look up the word. You are embarrassing yourself here in the extreme.

String all the personal attacks together that you want, you are still offering up a false dichotomy, and excluding the middle.

Atheist applies to those who want it, just like Christian.
I refuse to identify as either, and I've given a very clear explanation as to why... which given the games you are playing, is more courtesy than you deserve.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

And as long as they do not believe in the existence of a god or gods, they fall under the definition of the term "atheist".




Sure there may be many ways to consider one's lack of belief, or belief for that matter, but as long as someone does not believe in the existence of a god or gods, they fall under the definition of the term "atheist". The current issue of contention here is crimresearch's very adamant declaration that he/she doesn't believe in the existence of a god or gods. That, as much as he/she seems to despise the word, makes him/her definitively an atheist. I have suggested several times now that he/she look up the word. My suggestion appears to have been met with willful ignorance.

Where do you see that? I see you not understanding what they are saying.

Btw he/she labels are binary gender and insulting to non binary gender people. Ex Gender Queer. The proper way to identify an unknown gender is at the least using the plural and non binary "they"

[truethat]

Originally Posted by dafydd

An aggressive atheist is not a human being? Think a bit more before you type.

Speak for yourself! I resent labels being shoved on me. I am not a human being!


In the theme of the thread!