'True lies of new Atheism'.

I actually watched William Craig debate an atheist and he was very very good. Atheism is a very elusive term that has not been clearly defined. In one sense atheism means the belief in no God, just as monotheism is the belief in one God, and polytheism is the belief in multiple God, and this is the definition that I have decided to adhere to. Atheism can also mean the lack of belief in God.

Atheism might mean a passive lack of belief or an active lack of belief. For example, Tom may have never heard of God which is why he doesn't believe in God. This is passive lack of belief. An active lack of belief is when Tom hears of God but decides for some reason to lack a belief in him. It is probably more realistic for atheism to mean either mean believing in no God, or an active lack of belief in God.

I believe that the Christian God or any God from mythology does not exist. However, I am not so sure about a general creator of the universe. I simply lack a belief in that being. I also lack a belief in the supernatural. So I consider myself an atheist agnostic.

So when it comes to the debate, do you want atheists to disprove deism only or disprove Christianity specifically?

Taking a look at a dictionary, I find these two definitions over what atheism is.
Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

 

Not all claims require empirical evidence. Since the claim 'God exists' is a metaphysical proposition, not necessarily an empirical one, certain logical forms of reasoning can be adduced in favor of the proposition.

Further, some propositions are liable of logical disproof. Such propositions include metaphysical claims. Per a conditional proof, it is possible to disprove a metaphysical claim (like 'God exists') by taking the truth of the proposition as assumed, and then deducing contradictions from that claim.

I think that it is possible to produce reductio proofs against the existence of the classic monotheist conception of God; both on the grounds of what it means to be an intelligent mind, and on the grounds of what it means to be 'good.' Per the classic conception, and the accepted meanings of the terms, it is impossible that God be either good or an intelligence. If a person's beliefs require them to think of God as having either of those attributes, that God cannot exist anywhere but in their own mind.

 

I think it's more correct to say there are multiple definitions. As I mentioned, all that's necessary is agree beforehand (or as the case may be) which atheism we're talking about. Same with theism. The desitic God and the theistic God are almost the same God, but the differences are crucial in order to mount a persuasive attack or defense. For example, the Problem of Evil argument is irrelevant in Deism, since the Deistic God is assumed from the beginning to be impersonal.

 

If christians want to deny peoples rights, such as gay marraige, then we are no londer in the metaphysical proposition.

 

I think the idea of an rhetorical KO on the internet is a bit silly. I've probably debated hundreds of atheists on the net, and my debating skills are excellent; yet that, coupled with the disadvantage atheists labor under by virtue of the absurdity of their position, has not, to the best of my recollection, yielded more "KOs" (defined as every participant and witness knowing I mopped up the floor with my adversary) than I can count on both hands. That's because denial is always an option - and not one I would wish to remove if I could.

 

It's a question of tolerance. I do not care if the atheist thinks the Christian world view
is ignorant, void of evidence and just plain wrong.

I'm not Hindu, for example...hypothetically a Hindu moves next door to me and decides to display
their faith...

Should I be motivated to then confront this person that the Hindu world view is
ignorant, void of evidence and just plain wrong?

The Constitution is very clear...there is protection for the right to freely worship and practice a religious belief...but there is no protection from the right to freely
worship and practice a religious belief. What is stipulated is that Congress shall make
no laws recognizing a "State" religion...which by the way I agree with. Governance and religion should be separated.

New atheism shows a remarkable intolerance and elitism..."we're right, y'all are wrong" that borders on fascism. It's not the American way, for sure.

Move to China, where religion is openly persecuted by the State..if indeed that's what you want...but stop espousing such intolerant views regarding religion...while at the same time
claiming that religion is intolerant...

*end of comment*

 

What, exactly, gives this arrogant twit the idea that he knows what I believe better than I do?

Only after you built up this straw man of atheists declaring there is no god, rather than declaring a lack of belief in gods. The rest is not worth commenting on, because it builds from this flawed argument.

 

That seems reasonable. I don't understand why RevAnarchist is trying to arbitrarily narrow down atheism into a version that is easy to attack. I guess if you cannot defeat someone's arguments, redefine the definition of his position and attack it.

 

If you care about sharing the Gospel, yes.

Which every major religion also teaches.

Believing you are right and others are wrong borders on fascism?

Name one atheist here that wants religion to be openly persecuted by the State.

 

Nonsense, don't be daft. One implies the other, which has even been upheld by the courts.

And how is that any different than how theists handle things and conduct themselves? It's natural for everyone to start off believing that their view is correct. The problem is when one continues to hold on to that view in spite of conflicting logic and reason.

 

I worked in and around the church for about a dozen years and I never once confronted anyone.

Oh I did like to pose uncomfortable questions, like "What the heck was Jesus talking about when he said "My God, why have you forsaken me?'"

It's funny how you fall back on the clairty of the constitution when argument fails you. I would call this the very heart of fundamentalism: when the mind fails, quote a text.

Therefore I will SENSIBLY argue that freedom OF religion is meaningless unless it includes freedom FROM religion, as allowing the declaration to exclude atheism RESTRICTS freedom, and especially if it's true that atheism is a religion...as Christians keep telling me.

 

An Atheist....Never encountered one, that I never enjoyed more punch'in in the mouth.
And a bunch were hard punched.

Till today, I have small scares on my right hand knuckes.

Those where the good old days....

 

Supreme Couirt decisions interpret the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment...
for example prayer in public schools is considered the establishment of a State religion...
therefore the Court upholds the schools right to ban it on school property.

There is no freedom from religion in the Constitution beyond the establishment clause, at least
on a Federal level.

This isn't about "evidence" or anything else...this is about the United States Constitution.

The freely expressing clause and the establishment clause have been argued in the Courts for decades...
interpretations have varied depending on the politics of the Court...

that's all that matters in this discussion...human rights as they relate to the Law...

State sponsored religion infringes on human rights not to participate...and State sponsored squashing of religion
infringes on human rights to participate...

That's the battleground.

The argument has nothing to with supporting evidence for a belief system, or the lack thereof...the argument has everything to do with the U.S. Constitution...and if you don't like it?

Take a slow boat to China, where persecution of Buddhists is ongoing.

 

I use that very idea in several scenarios to show that atheists should believe in God. Especially those that believe that advanced races are possible. To answer your question Yes he could become God. And if he created this universe he would be God of this universe, but limited kind of due to his limited mortality. However he could design us to have lifetimes measured in seconds but program us to think we had years to live etc. Here is a better thought story; What if an advanced race say a several billion years more advanced than we existed? What if they overcome aging and having to lug a physical body around? What if they could create universes? Would they be God if they had the attributes of God, you betcha! Theist 1 atheist ZERO! You see Kmisho pride gets in your way! IF THE BEING HAS THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD IT IS GOD. Is that heresy? Probably to 98% of church goers, and its understandable that most church people would throw me out of church on my head, still it’s truthful. To avoid heresy the creator of the universe would have to mirror God and he would have to existed before the fact of this universe etc.

I am horrified you do not know me better than that. I think you read a few words of my threads and replies and like an prejudicial inquisitor. You think you know what I am going to say in the rest of my thread or post and make incorrect assumptions. Your doing yourself a disservice. I answered all or most your claims, challenges, and rants of your first reply in my thread. I answered a lot of Freeware too but I think he misunderstood rather than did not read my thread.

Ha ha there is no dishonesty on my part. That is another of your assumptions. I have spoken with many , MANY atheists, many more sensible and educated than you and most assume the Christian God is the God I reference. There is nearly always something like this; “There is no evidence that God doesn’t exist“. THEN THIS ; “And to say the Christian a God has to be a Christian God”. That does not reflect badly on them. It just means that since I am a Christian I must be referencing a Christian God. Lastly I did a thread here where I claimed all gods were one God. What I meant was that God is God however religions are what is different and varied. All religion is an attempt to define God. I also feel that no religion perfectly describes God. See now you know a bit more about my beliefs.

reva

 

The argument is wholly semantic. If you define God as my left nostril, I believe in God because I believe I have a left nostril.

So congratulations, you have made me agree that there is a certain kind of God. But what you have failed to do is make me agree that the kind of God you WANT me to believe in exists.

 

Are you not advocating the persecution of atheists?

This is where your argument breaks down. You are using a declaration of freedom to bludgeon a restriction on freedom. It's pure nonsense no matter what the Constitution says. But worse than this is the hypocrisy of it.

And the Supreme Court ruled that atheism can be considered a religion for the express purpose of guaranteeing equal protection under the first amendment. Now you want to deny equal protection.

 

See Herkdriver, for every atheists that is intolerant, we Christians have a equally intolerant counterpart.

I'm honestly not sure why everyone seems so hell bent on trying to convince everyone to believe what we believe. What a boring world that would be...

 

I should not have said you raped me. I should have said you violated me. You are affront to integrity. Good bye.

 

I appreciate the sentiment, but if you'll allow me to play "troll" for a minute...

Are you actually arguing that some people should believe falsehoods because it makes for a more interesting world?

 

You wouldn't have scars if you stopped dragging them.

 

Haha, not exactly, that was slightly in jest, but I do think if we were all the same it would be boring. Though, I'm certain it was not necessary for me to point that out.

 

Yes, it probably would be boring. But I think we can agree that we should maintain a commitment to seeking truth.

It's like a soldier saying, "I wish I didn't have a job." It's not that he's hoping for unemployment. It's that if there was universal peace, his job would be unnecessary. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't need soldiers?

Wouldn't it be great if we all knew what was true? Being bored would be worth it.

 

I agree with that, there may not be anything I wish for more than not needing soldiers.

I think that the quest for truth was why many religions were started. I can't remember the name of this book I read, you probably know it, but it was about how humans first believed in primative magic, then moved to religion, and now science. I'm going to have to look that up now, it was an interesting read.

 

Referencing the boldface, I agree to the point of proving the negative. The honest answer is "we don't know." So, both the traditional atheist and the traditional theist are wrong in their positions, as both are taken strictly on faith, not evidence. That said, I do believe that the burden of proof does rest with the party of the affirmative. IE: until believers can unequivocally prove the existence of a god or gods or a god named God, I believe it is, at best, intellectually imprecise to claim knowledge of something with no evidence. IOW, to not believe in something based on lack of evidence is a more reasonable position than to believe in it, IMHO. UFOs, for example, have been spotted by millions of people around the globe, yet we still have no actual evidence as to what they are. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to dismiss the multifarious wide-ranging theories of their origins until there is some conclusive evidence.

 

That is certainly my view. I have even described the book of Genesis as an early attempt at science. In it are numerous stories that (attempt to) explain various observed phenomena. Why do people wear clothes but no other animal does? Where do rainbows come from? Why are there so many languages? etc.

In virtually every instance, their answers were wrong, but I am not going to hold an ancient people to a modern standard. In some ways, the attempt was in itself admirable. What bothers me is MODERN people who accept these ancient stories as true.