Athiest for Others

[Fraggle Rocker]

It's very difficult to get along with different people if one consistently denigrates their beliefs. I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?

You'd think so, but it doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter how tolerant people are of Christianity and Christians, or of Islam and Muslims. Every few generations they rise up with a unanimous evil motivation and try to kill us or at least destroy our own cultures and force us to join their religions. There is no point in being tolerant of communities that have consistently behaved this way for more than a thousand years. What we need to do is defend civilization against their ongoing threats.

 

[(Q)]

Q is making the claim that all the religious people are basing their beliefs on their imaginations.

He claims to know that their experiences - which he has no access to - are not being explained correctly by them.

Q leaps in and states that he knows WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. What a certain phenomenon is.

Nope. I never made those claims.

 

[greenberg]

Convenient, isn't it?

Yet, we are ALL gods children.

Yes. But God is never purported to be fair, loving, just, knowable simply on whomever's terms, but on his own terms - which might not be the same as mine or yours.

 

[Grantywanty]

Originally Posted by Grantywanty

Q is making the claim that all the religious people are basing their beliefs on their imaginations.

He claims to know that their experiences - which he has no access to - are not being explained correctly by them.

Q leaps in and states that he knows WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. What a certain phenomenon is.

Nope. I never made those claims.

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

I have asked and heard many explanations of those so-called experiences and they are little more than what their imaginations have conjured.

Theists make claims. Theists have never backed their claims, ever. They are deluded. Simple, really.

How have I misrepresented your position?

 

[greenberg]

What we need to do is defend civilization against their ongoing threats.

Some countries have this policy for dealing with terrorists:

We do not negotiate with terrorists.

That is something to take to heart.
Discussing and arguing with some theists means playing their game, by their rules - and anyone attempting that without having a God on his side will lose.

Discussion and debate mostly just put things off and buy time, but nothing more.

 

[(Q)]

How have I misrepresented your position?

By putting words in my mouth. How does what I said equate to what you claimed I said? I see substantial and noticeable differences, why can't you?

 

[(Q)]

Yes. But God is never purported to be fair, loving, just, knowable simply on whomever's terms, but on his own terms - which might not be the same as mine or yours.

I thought most theists did purport their gods to be fair, loving and just? :shrug:

 

[SnakeLord]

I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?

But honestly, must we?

If a gang of people, a whole town of people let's say, we're walking around claiming that a leprechaun had demanded that they worship said leprechaun and punish those that use the internet, how tolerant would you be?

Is this different? Why is it different? Because there's lots of them? Why does having a belief in an ancient superstition and trying to shove it on everyone else warrant tolerance? No really, I'm interested.

You're telling me that I have to be tolerant of the idiot that's going around professing that the world's flat and demanding that my children believe it. Why should I tolerate it?

 

[geeser]

Q is making the claim that all the religious people are basing their beliefs on their imaginations.

no he is not. what he is clearly stating is that nobody he has asked, has ever gave him a valid reason for their beliefs, and this is because there is no objective evidence to be found anywhere at the moment.

HE has now made a claim. One which he cannot back up. He claims to know that their experiences

no he has made no such claim he has merely stated the facts as they are, the religious people he has asked claim they have a direct experience but are most definitely unable to back up there claim, all Q has dont has shown this to be so, he hasn't claimed it to be so, it is so. they have no evidence for what they assert.

Oh, really, Q, one is justified in asking, how do you know for a fact, that they are misinterpreting or simply imagining these things?

because they can produce no evidence for their assertions.

I point out that his claim is not based on scientific research or testing. It is simply an untested hyposthesis.

no it's based on fact even the religious hierarchy know that religion can only be faith based, as they have no testable prove.

now you say I must prove something.

Nope. The onus is on him.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God here in this thread. Something I have made clear.

and neither is Q, but only one of you is basing his arguement on fact, and it most certainly isn't you.

Q leaps in and states that he knows WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. What a certain phenomenon is.

He needs to back that up.

why he has done nothing of the sort.

In fact there are a significant number who disagree and call themselves agnostics. So your statement is incorrect. ”
and now you.“
how so, elaborate, thank you.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Notice that 20% are under doubt or agnosticism, 7-8% under belief.

what has agnostism got to do with Qs statement what has this to do with agnostism

You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy

how does your quoting agnostics and listing scientist answer that statement, religion can not have a rational decision to believe, it has no way of backing it up with hard evidence as I said earlier religion is faith based, it can be nothing else thus it cannot be deemed rational.
and low and behold we come back to the delusional statement.

Please, just pause for a moment in all your assumptions about what this thread is about and do not lecture me now about how this does not prove that these scientists are rational or that there is a God. I know all that.

I have a suspicion that neither you nor Q is capable of really understanding what this thread is about and can only treat it as what you perceive to be a failed proof of God. And you both read my posts in those terms.

no, your just giving us strange replies, to the question asked, which obviously make us repeat ourselves, you then get irritated. because no one understands you.

Do you really believe that? That if people say they have experienced something but cannot prove it it must be false?

until they can prove it would be foolish to accept it on face value, especially if it contains extremely fantastic claims.
so I would say it would be unproven, not false. but to accept it I would need further qualify evidence.

 

[Grantywanty]

By putting words in my mouth. How does what I said equate to what you claimed I said? I see substantial and noticeable differences, why can't you?

No. But OK.
Q.

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.
”

This is a claim about a phenomenon. You are claiming you they have not experienced God. You are not simply claiming they have failed to prove God to you.

I doubt you can back up this claim and I know that whatever process you went through to decide your claim was correct was not a scientific one.

 

[Grantywanty]

no he is not. what he is clearly stating is that nobody he has asked, has ever gave him a valid reason for their beliefs, and this is because there is no objective evidence to be found anywhere at the moment.

Q

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

See. You are incorrect.

”no he has made no such claim he has merely stated the facts as they are, the religious people he has asked claim they have a direct experience but are most definitely unable to back up there claim, all Q has dont has shown this to be so, he hasn't claimed it to be so, it is so.

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

This is not a statement about their inability to prove; it is a statement about them. It is not a criticism of their attempts to back it up. It is a conclusion about them and what they have or have not experienced. He is making a claim, not simply criticising their proof or inability to pursuade.

they have no evidence for what they assert. because they can produce no evidence for their assertions. no it's based on fact even the religious hierarchy know that religion can only be faith based, as they have no testable prove

.

You clearly know very little about the variety of reasons people claim to base their beliefs in God. Most mystics, even from the monotheisms you are clearly assuming all theists are members of, talks about their direct experiences of the divine and God. (and again, I am not making the case that their accounts are proof of God. I am,however, saying that you do not know your subject matter.)

and neither is Q, but only one of you is basing his arguement on fact, and it most certainly isn't you. why he has done nothing of the sort.what has agnostism got to do with Qs statement what has this to do with agnostism how does your quoting agnostics and listing scientist answer that statement, religion can not have a rational decision to believe, it has no way of backing it up with hard evidence as I said earlier religion is faith based, it can be nothing else thus it cannot be deemed rational.

Now you are being thick. I said that there were scientists who were agnostic. He said he had no reason to accept my authoritative, meaning my authority, I suppose, was not enough proof that many scientists were agnostic.

Hello. Wake up. I went and got some back-up that there were in fact significant numbers of agnostic, and even believer scientists, BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME FOR A LINK. There is your link. I made it clear why I provided this. I am showing that despite his skepticism about there being agnostic scientists there are clearly many. He was wrong to be skeptical.

and low and behold we come back to the delusional statement. no, your just giving us strange replies, to the question asked, which obviously make us repeat ourselves, you then get irritated. because no one understands you. until they can prove it would be foolish to accept it on face value, especially if it contains extremely fantastic claims.

Nope. At no point am I trying to get you to accept anyone's claims about God as true. This is not the point at all. Why should you? I cannot see any reason why a person would believe a theist simply because the theist tells them about the theists experiences. I think it would be foolish to just assume the theist is right. Was that clear enough?

(I got irritated at you because, for example, in the agnostic issue you failed to get the context and assumed I was bringing in the agnostics for a reason I was not. And yet expecting me, expressed in irritation on your part, to unravel you own misunderstandings AND provide a link. Once the link is provided you just leap to rebutting a position I have not taken. Neither of you taking a breath to notice that I found a link and was right.)

so I would say it would be unproven, not false. but to accept it I would need further qualify evidence.

And here you have finally, unitentionally, agreed with me. What they have said is unproven.

You are taking a different stand than Q who has made it clear HE KNOWS they are delusional.

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

You, on the other hand, while severely doubting them, and not believing them, consider it unproven, but not necessarily false.

Thanks.

Since my option in the thread are you both who cannot seem to make a simple distinction and other people off-topic mulling over tolerance, I am done with the thread.

 

[Thoreau]

Whatever happened to Agnosticism? Seriously. People always think in terms of black and white.

 

[phlogistician]

Whatever happened to Agnosticism? Seriously. People always think in terms of black and white.

Agnostics are atheists, but apologetic about it.

It's simple, if you had a poll, 'Do You Believe in God'

1, Yes
2, No
3, Don't know.

To find the number of theists you count the people that took option one. Everyone who is not a theist, let's call them 'atheists' took the options other than option one. So agnostics, who ticked box three, are what? Not theists. They are atheists. There is no shade of grey, you are either a believer, or not. Believing in the possibility of a God is a different debate.

 

[greenberg]

I thought most theists did purport their gods to be fair, loving and just? :shrug:

Yes - but on their own terms.
That's my point.

 

[geeser]

no he is not. what he is clearly stating is that nobody he has asked, has ever gave him a valid reason for their beliefs, and this is because there is no objective evidence to be found anywhere at the moment.

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

See. You are incorrect.

no dont see it I see that I'm correct, what he is clearly stating is that nobody he has asked, has ever gave him a valid reason for their beliefs, thus the "experiencer" is delusional. lets put it another way, why do you think, he thinks the "experiencer" is delusional could it be that they cant prove there experiences are real. Delusion is a fixed belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact, so when some one says they have had experience with God especially when it defies reality, then delusional fits the bill, does it not.

no he has made no such claim he has merely stated the facts as they are, the religious people he has asked claim they have a direct experience but are most definitely unable to back up there claim, all Q has dont has shown this to be so, he hasn't claimed it to be so, it is so.

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

This is not a statement about their inability to prove; it is a statement about them. It is not a criticism of their attempts to back it up. It is a conclusion about them and what they have or have not experienced. He is making a claim, not simply criticising their proof or inability to pursuade.

how does it, if they cant produce verification, see previous response.

they have no evidence for what they assert. because they can produce no evidence for their assertions. no it's based on fact even the religious hierarchy know that religion can only be faith based, as they have no testable prove

You clearly know very little about the variety of reasons people claim to base their beliefs in God. Most mystics, even from the monotheisms you are clearly assuming all theists are members of, talks about their direct experiences of the divine and God. (and again, I am not making the case that their accounts are proof of God. I am,however, saying that you do not know your subject matter.)

all the church leader, all the imans, and clerics, are more learned than me in religious matters, yet they all know that you have to believe in deities through faith only, it's quite irrelevant whether you think I dont know the subject matter.
the plain and simple fact is, without any extraordinary evidence to back up their extraordinary claims, they can only be deemed delusional, Delusion is a fixed belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.

and neither is Q, but only one of you is basing his arguement on fact, and it most certainly isn't you. why he has done nothing of the sort.what has agnostism got to do with Qs statement what has this to do with agnostism

You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy

how does your quoting agnostics and listing scientist answer that statement, religion can not have a rational decision to believe, it has no way of backing it up with hard evidence as I said earlier religion is faith based, it can be nothing else thus it cannot be deemed rational.
and low and behold we come back to the delusional statement.

Now you are being thick.

am I.

I said that there were scientists who were agnostic. He said he had no reason to accept my authoritative, meaning my authority, I suppose, was not enough proof that many scientists were agnostic.

Hello. Wake up. I went and got some back-up that there were in fact significant numbers of agnostic, and even believer scientists, BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME FOR A LINK. There is your link. I made it clear why I provided this. I am showing that despite his skepticism about there being agnostic scientists there are clearly many. He was wrong to be skeptical.

yes I know that, but how please does that answer this You're fallacy of a 'rational decision to believe' is just that, a fallacy you dont need to bring in agnostics and scientists, dogs, cats, lemon trees, they just cant answer that, they are a total irrelevance, I've tried to explain with this "religion can not have a rational decision to believe, it has no way of backing it up with hard evidence as I said earlier religion is faith based, it can be nothing else thus it cannot be deemed rational.
and low and behold we come back to the delusional statement."

no, your just giving us strange replies, to the question asked, which obviously make us repeat ourselves, you then get irritated. because no one understands you. until they can prove it would be foolish to accept it on face value, especially if it contains extremely fantastic claims.

Nope. At no point am I trying to get you to accept anyone's claims about God as true. This is not the point at all. Why should you? I cannot see any reason why a person would believe a theist simply because the theist tells them about the theists experiences. I think it would be foolish to just assume the theist is right. Was that clear enough?

yes thats what Q said the theists are delusional, but why then did you insist on stating that Q was making a claim.

(I got irritated at you because, for example, in the agnostic issue you failed to get the context and assumed I was bringing in the agnostics for a reason I was not.

I gathered there wasn't a point. for them to be brought into the debate this is why I continuelly pressed you on it.

And yet expecting me, expressed in irritation on your part, to unravel you own misunderstandings AND provide a link. Once the link is provided you just leap to rebutting a position I have not taken. Neither of you taking a breath to notice that I found a link and was right.)

this is because if I could see no point to why agnostic/scientist were being brought in, the point must therefore be elsewhere, and when you provided a link that went nowhere, you can understand, my if you like irritation, and insistence you clarify it.

until they can prove it would be foolish to accept it on face value, especially if it contains extremely fantastic claims.
so I would say it would be unproven, not false. but to accept it I would need further qualify evidence.

And here you have finally, unitentionally, agreed with me. What they have said is unproven.

haven't unintentionally or intentionally agreed with anything, and I'm sure Q feels the same, I reposted my entire quote. if someone is making fantastic claims without any prove then they are delusional, but there still is that tiny 0.000000001% they could be right, and because of that it would foolish to say what they believe is wholly false, there are no absolutes.

You are taking a different stand than Q who has made it clear HE KNOWS they are delusional.

There is little confusion. The "experiencer" is delusional.

You, on the other hand, while severely doubting them, and not believing them, consider it unproven, but not necessarily false.

I'm sure Q is 99.99999999% sure they are delusional as am I, but neither of us can be absolutely sure can we.

 

[Thoreau]

Agnostics are not atheists.

Atheists down-right refuse that there is a god. They say "There is no god"

Agnostics believe that maybe theres a god. They say "Maybe there is or maybe there isn't a god, I need proof". And there are two types of agnostics, those who believe in God but accept that they may be wrong and those who have do not have a opinion on the existance of god.

 

[SkinWalker]

Agnostics are not atheists.

Atheists down-right refuse that there is a god. They say "There is no god"

Agnostics believe that maybe theres a god. They say "Maybe there is or maybe there isn't a god, I need proof". And there are two types of agnostics, those who believe in God but accept that they may be wrong and those who have do not have a opinion on the existance of god.

You are almost correct, and I can see where it might be intuitive to believe the definitions you provide are true, but I can tell you that this simply isn't the case.

An atheist is, simply put, one without gods. Not one who "down-right refuses that there is a god."

To use a definition as you have worded, the atheist must first assume the existence of at least one god to be true then choose not to believe this god exists.

Moreover, one *can* be both agnostic and atheist. While I consider myself a rationalist, this rationalism informs both my agnosticism and atheism. I'm agnostic in that I recognize that definitive knowledge of whether or not gods exist in the universe is beyond my ability to determine. I cannot examine even a modest portion of the universe, let alone the full universe, in order to make such claim of knowledge.

However, I'm also an atheist in that I have accepted the existence of no gods. The reason I haven't accepted the existence of any of the thousands of gods humanity has created and proposed throughout history is that not a single one has been shown to have more truth value over another. Nor has sufficient evidence been provided to for me to be willing to accept any of the current gods of humanity.

I can't say that gods do not exist; I cannot accept a god on the word of a god's believers; therefore, I do not accept the existence of gods. I'm an agnostic-atheist as a consequence of being a rationalist.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I thought most theists did purport their gods to be fair, loving and just?

I suppose they do, but their frame of discourse is irrational so this reassurance doesn't carry any weight. They believe that humans are so special that we transcend the natural laws of the universe which govern all other matter. They contend that we have a supernatural component to our existence called a "soul." This imaginary supernatural component is durable and continues to exist after our physical death: after the synapses in our brains are irreversibly degraded and therefore our consciousness, personality, memories, knowledge and even unconscious minds no longer exist. Even after our bodies have decomposed and their component molecules are no longer attached to each other.

The imaginary supernatural component in fact carries with it a sizeable portion of what was in that long-decayed brain tissue: enough to maintain our identity and our memories of the kind of life we lived.

Once this has happened, then and only then will their gods begin to treat us in a fair, loving and just way. They believe this is acceptable because this "afterlife" is infinite, so the "small amount" of suffering we undergo while in our material state is insignificant. It is fair for us to can feel excruciating pain, watch our children die, or even endure the enslavement of our entire nation, because these gods will reward us for being loyal after we are dead.

You have to admit, this is a well-crafted scam. No one can prove that they're wrong because the dead never come back to talk to us about their experience in the "afterlife." In fact the world abounds with charlatans who claim to be able to put us in communication with our dead loved ones. Desperate grieving people believe them if they put on a good enough performance, which only requires a good "cold reading" and various other common tricks of the trade of professional stage magicians.

Interestingly, the Jews have moved away from this irrational perspective, having had many more centuries to digest the teachings of Abraham than the Christians and Muslims have. The Jews believe that their god punishes them in this life, although he punishes them as a people rather than individually. BTW this is what the term "chosen people" is all about. Only American Christians believe that the Jews should expect more from their god. The Jews believe that their god expects more from them.

They believe that all of their suffering, from today's debacle in the Middle East, going back through the Holocaust, the Roman occupation, the destruction of the Temple eleventy-five times, all the way to the slavery in Egypt and beyond, was something they deserved because they did not live up to their god's expectations. They do not have to wait until they die to find out whether they've been good enough, so they can communicate with their children and grandchildren without having to work through a "medium" who talks to the dead. They can tell their descendants to be better people or they will suffer right here on earth.

In fact, Jews don't believe that they will go to heaven until sometime in the far distant future. In the meantime their corpses remain dead. Judaism is very much a religion of this world. This is why it is so difficult to establish dialog between Jews and Muslims, because the focus of Islam is on the afterlife.

 

[phlogistician]

Agnostics are not atheists.

Yes they are. You are either a theist, and believe in God, or you are one of the rest. It really is that simple.

Atheists down-right refuse that there is a god. They say "There is no god"

STRAW MAN ALERT! How many times no? Atheism is merely a lack of belief in your God. That simple. Some people go on to state that there is no God, and the term 'atheist' has been subdivided into 'Strong and Weak' atheism, and this is where your confusion arises. We should use the term 'Antitheist' for someone who says God cannot exist, then you would be less confused.

Agnostics believe that maybe theres a god.

Like I said, believing in the possibility of a god is not the same debate as believing in that god.

And there are two types of agnostics, those who believe in God but accept that they may be wrong

If you believe in God you are a theist. Believing in God due to Pascals wager or for some other flawed reason does not turn you into an agnostic!

and those who have do not have a opinion on the existance of god.

If you do not have an opinionm, you are not in the pro camp, and are not a theist. I have already covered the fact that there is a nice simple word for people who are not theists. It's atheist. Agnostics, are atheists. Please refer to the sample poll I posted if you don't understand. Theists check option '1'. Everybody apart from theists, 'atheists' check other boxes. That includes agnostics checking box three.