The religion of Athiesm - utterly illogical - utterly evil

[prodigalson12]

Just pointing out that an atheist’s grasp of reality is so limited that often intellectual and emotional growth stops quite quickly, IMHO. Without intellectual and emotional growth the atheist has a boring existance.

You forgot spiritual growth as well.

 

[abucs]

You forgot spiritual growth as well.

Very true.

 

[MrZetterlund]

First thing’s first. Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s more of a philosophy- and a poor one at that.
I can’t imagine why someone would want to label themselves by their non-beliefs. I’d never be an atheist for the simple fact that I’d have to call myself an atheist! Atheists will never resort to God because their hearts are hardened against Him. Granted, evidence that directly links to the Hebrew God is practically intangible. The closest we can get is the shroud of Turin. (the blood on the cloth remained red after hundreds of years.)
youtube.com/watch?v=dfDdbxMKZRw

 

[AntiTheist]

You ignore the evidence presented to you, why do you keep saying there is no evidence, there is, you just lack the faculties to recognize it.

There’s none. You have a bunch of internal warm and tingly feelings, a couple of stories written down by people who weren’t eyewitnesses decades after the events supposedly took place, and a bunch of bodies that decompose strangely – a phenomeon observed elsewhere (see below).

You have nothing in the way of evidence.

On being asked for evidence of creation:

Yes, look in the mirror, recognize existence, reality, the fact we even exist in the first place, we really should not.

So, just to be clear, your evidence that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is that the universe exists?

Let me ask you something very seriously: do you think that what you’re saying is remotely convincing to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you?

Those stats are based upon quotes unsupported polls based upon a “theory”

While it is certainly difficult to establish the exact percentage of atheists in a country, virtually all of the data available to us suggests that the number of nonbelievers in some European countries is very, very high compared to the United States.

This is no “tangent” – you have made the claim that atheism will inevitably lead to what you dub “evil.” It stands to reason that countries with a significant chunk of their population not believing in a personal god or not believing in any supernatural force at all should be absolute anarchy, with crime running rampant.

If your assumptions about atheism are true, these countries would have incredibly high crime rates or be dictatorships. I’m asking you: why are they not?

Just another thing to show a tidbit of proof that science cannot explain and it’s as real, and testable as you can imagine, even in your own limited world, yet science failed at explaining it and the Church has not…

Well, for starters, there’s this link:skepdic.com/incorrupt.html which points out that there are secular examples of bodies being “preserved” (Charles I’s head, for example) and similar claims from Hindus – this phenomenon probably has something to do with how the body is buried more than anything else.

What is not of the world is so much more valued, so limitless in all areas, so much more worthwhile, it’s eternal, why would I want anything from the fininte world

Well, there you go. I suppose that explains why you’re not interested in evidence. As long as you stay out of politics and don’t favor legislating on the basis of your “out of this world” beliefs, I wish you luck in enjoying your eternity.

 

[prodigalson12]

There’s none. You have a bunch of internal warm and tingly feelings, a couple of stories written down by people who weren’t eyewitnesses decades after the events supposedly took place, and a bunch of bodies that decompose strangely – a phenomeon observed elsewhere (see below).

You have nothing in the way of evidence.

I’m trying to give you instruments to actually analyze the data properly, it’s like, in your hand, you have a cheap plastic magnifying glass burning a piece of paper, refracting the suns rays and I drop a nuclear bomb that have had teams of advanced scientists to produce. Stuff like that, stark contrast in some degrees, but totally out of the picture of logic and totally being limited, or expanded upon context wise.

On being asked for evidence of creation: So, just to be clear, your evidence that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is that the universe exists?

Let me ask you something very seriously: do you think that what you’re saying is remotely convincing to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you?

I have a very dear friend of mine I grew up with, that accepted that argument and thought about it, when he died, it was clear I got through to him, he was avidly reading the bible, he was just getting it and that kind of gives me a good feeling about that statement.

While it is certainly difficult to establish the exact percentage of atheists in a country, virtually all of the data available to us suggests that the number of nonbelievers in some European countries is very, very high compared to the United States.

Provide references to that one to back yourself up, and please spare me the links to pages that form an opinion from some paper created back in the dark ages, lol.

This is no “tangent” – you have made the claim that atheism will inevitably lead to what you dub “evil.” It stands to reason that countries with a significant chunk of their population not believing in a personal god or not believing in any supernatural force at all should be absolute anarchy, with crime running rampant.

If your assumptions about atheism are true, these countries would have incredibly high crime rates or be dictatorships. I’m asking you: why are they not?

I’ll answer you again, they are held in check by the countries they do trade with who happen to be Christian based for the most part., the world thinks it knows best, case in point with the rise of those past horrible regeims that was not all that long ago at all, and yet nothing has changed against it outside of legation at best, what you propose is to repeat that same history because you are buying into man being able to not repeat his mistakes, he very much has proven he does, otherwise we would never have a need for war at all…

Well, for starters, there’s this link:skepdic.com/incorrupt.html which points out that there are secular examples of bodies being “preserved” (Charles I’s head, for example) and similar claims from Hindus – this phenomenon probably has something to do with how the body is buried more than anything else.

Wait, you are expecting me to have faith “probably”, rofl… next…

Well, there you go. I suppose that explains why you’re not interested in evidence. As long as you stay out of politics and don’t favor legislating on the basis of your “out of this world” beliefs, I wish you luck in enjoying your eternity.

I am very much in favor of evidence, not just part of it, ALL of it, this is where I am challenging you to expand your horizons. You don’t believe in God, great, no biggie, just picture within your model in all things, life, studies, etc. what if God was part of it somewhere, would not that make filling in so many gaps easier??? You assuming this model can explore a vast more then what you currently are at.

BTW, do you work day or evening shift??? lol

 

[LongJohnSilver]

LongJohnSilver:Hmm? The word “atheist” literally means “without gods.” A person who is without the belief in gods is called an atheist. The word doesn’t tell you anything else about what the person bases his worldview or moral choices on.

It tells us that the person is a anti-theist, which means that he does not believe in the God of the theists, a personal and immanent God. Of course, he believes in no God at all, but the word implies that his position is contrary to the theistic position. Since the theist bases his worldview and moral choices on God, the anti-theist must base his worldview and moral choices on another source, like humanism for instance. That means that his position is not simply ‘one believe less’, since his whole perspective is determined by his non-belief in a (theistic) God, just as the whole perspective of a theist is determined by his belief in a theistic God.

It seems to me that the argument ‘I have just one belief less’ can only be used by someone in the position of anti-deism, since a deus does not nessecarily influence the worldview and moral choices of a person, so that a deist could say ‘I have just one belief more’.

It’s not a very important matter, but I was just thinking about it.

 

[MrZetterlund]

There’s none. You have a bunch of internal warm and tingly feelings, a couple of stories written down by people who weren’t eyewitnesses decades after the events supposedly took place, and a bunch of bodies that decompose strangely – a phenomeon observed elsewhere (see below).

You have nothing in the way of evidence.

On being asked for evidence of creation: So, just to be clear, your evidence that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is that the universe exists?QUOTE]

Apperantly, you haven’t watched the video I’ve posted. Good luck explaining scientifically how that blood hasn’t decomposed after several centuries. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the human genome entertains somewhat of a signature from a creator of some sort. (Though he will never admit it’s God.) Why do you consider God supernatural but not yourself? What are the odds of YOUR existance?

 

[MrZetterlund]

There’s none. You have a bunch of internal warm and tingly feelings, a couple of stories written down by people who weren’t eyewitnesses decades after the events supposedly took place, and a bunch of bodies that decompose strangely – a phenomeon observed elsewhere (see below).

You have nothing in the way of evidence.

On being asked for evidence of creation: So, just to be clear, your evidence that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence is that the universe exists?

Apperantly, you haven’t watched the video I’ve posted. Good luck explaining scientifically how that blood hasn’t decomposed after several centuries. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the human genome entertains somewhat of a signature from a creator of some sort. (Though he will never admit it’s God.) Why do you consider God supernatural but not yourself? What are the odds of YOUR existance?

 

[prodigalson12]

AntiTheist, where did you go, running out of material?

 

[AntiTheist]

Ok, well, first of all, the argument, “The universe exists; therefore, the universe was created by my god” doesn’t work at all. In the first place, the existence of a thing, by itself, tells us nothing about the origin of the thing in question. In the second place, even if it did, the exact same argument could be used by Hindus, Zoroastrians, and ancient pagans.

Provide references to that one to back yourself up, and please spare me the links to pages that form an opinion from some paper created back in the dark ages, lol.

You do not consider the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, published by a university press, to be an accurate source?

I’ll answer you again, they are held in check by the countries they do trade with who happen to be Christian based for the most part

What exactly are you basing this answer on?

Wait, you are expecting me to have faith “probably”, rofl… next…

No, I’m not expecting you to have faith. I’m saying that the likelihood that this phenomenon is some natural process that we imperfectly understand is much (much, much) more likely than that the laws of nature are being suspended by a magical being. One reason to think that this is some natural phenomenon that we imperfectly understand is that we have secular examples of bodies not corrupting and examples from religions other than yours.

what if God was part of it somewhere, would not that make filling in so many gaps easier???

It would be much easier to “fill in gaps” if I could just make up a story that answered all of my questions without me having to actually look at the world. But my values are different than yours. I value the truth and what actually exists, not just a story that will answer all my questions and make me sleep easier at night.

What you’re describing is precisely the “god of the gaps,” in which you fill in gaps in human knowledge with your stories. Unfortunately for you, when humans don’t know the answer to something (such as the origin of the universe), it doesn’t make a supernatural explanation any more likely.

 

[prodigalson12]

Ok, well, first of all, the argument, “The universe exists; therefore, the universe was created by my god” doesn’t work at all. In the first place, the existence of a thing, by itself, tells us nothing about the origin of the thing in question. In the second place, even if it did, the exact same argument could be used by Hindus, Zoroastrians, and ancient pagans.

• I’m trying to dumb it down enough for you to handle, not even talking about the nuances or a creator/created existence and beings. You are like the droplet of paint put on the canvas that denies there is an artist that put you there in the first place.

You do not consider the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, published by a university press, to be an accurate source?

• No I do not, and it’s only ONE source you are referencing, upon, science never just uses one source, it uses many independent ones to eliminate personal bias with the results.

No, I’m not expecting you to have faith. I’m saying that the likelihood that this phenomenon is some natural process that we imperfectly understand is much (much, much) more likely than that the laws of nature are being suspended by a magical being. One reason to think that this is some natural phenomenon that we imperfectly understand is that we have secular examples of bodies not corrupting and examples from religions other than yours.

• imperfect understanding of any likelyhood = faith

Secular references, you must back them up with sources, and here you go again, spouting something with no substance to back it up. Also, just FYI, not all people deemed worthy to be held in esteem with God like this are going to be recognized or known by the church, so of course there will likely be some that slide through the cracks, yet my source specifically states, in all of these cases, they are Catholic and devout ones to boot. Why aren’t there any protestant ones, why aren’t there any athiest ones, not lumping the two together what so ever as examples? I highly suspect your sources are flawed with this one, so please, bring them on so I can shoot more holes through it, just as I did the other.

It would be much easier to “fill in gaps” if I could just make up a story that answered all of my questions without me having to actually look at the world. But my values are different than yours. I value the truth and what actually exists, not just a story that will answer all my questions and make me sleep easier at night.

• It’s like giving a complex geometry problem to a student that only knows basic math.

What you’re describing is precisely the “god of the gaps,” in which you fill in gaps in human knowledge with your stories. Unfortunately for you, when humans don’t know the answer to something (such as the origin of the universe), it doesn’t make a supernatural explanation any more likely.

• For someone that is so called using the scientific process, you seem to lack even the most basics of procedure…

 

[robsully]

Hello prodigalson 21. My quest on this forum is to understand Christianity not Athieism. But the title piqued my interest. Although “utterly illogical” poses for me a dilemma.
Are there not Christians that believe

1. A snake spoke to Eve
2. Eve was made from Adam’s ribs
3. The world is 6000 yrs. old
4. Noah packed all the worlds animals (in pairs or larger numbers) in a boat.
5. Moses saw a non consuming burning bush
6. A virgin birth
7. rising from the dead

" utterly evil" is unfair. I have Athiest friends that I have trusted everything including my life and will continue to do so. People, nations, and societies of faith have done very, very bad things both historically and recently. But I would never condemn someone for the actions of others.

 

[abucs]

Hi robsally,

i think many times people use ‘over the top’ headings so as to get inquiries and replies. I agree, it seems to be counter-productive very often. It is also sometimes the result of strong language being used in a separate thread somewhere.

‘Utterly illogical and utterly evil’ is probably a response to a similar accusation back the other way, and neither position help proper dialogue.

 

[AntiTheist]

• I’m trying to dumb it down enough for you to handle, not even talking about the nuances or a creator/created existence and beings. You are like the droplet of paint put on the canvas that denies there is an artist that put you there in the first place.

But I’m not a droplet of paint. I’m a living creature who arose through natural, biological means in a natural world.

What about this universe indicates that a god is responsible for it?

 

[october_ruler]

Hello everyone!

I have heard it said that if someone does not believe in God, the Father Almighty, then they are totally wrong because satan believes in God…very much so! He has seen God. It seems to me that these non-believers are even worse than the devil…

Something to think about.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Their form of worship does exist, illogical point 1.

By definition, an atheist is about non belief, about believing in nothing, there is no reason for them to tell others about their non belief and by doing so, they are in fact showing they believe in something, in most cases, they worship science, they worship mankind, they worship anything other then God, anything at all will do for them because we as human beings, have to believe in something, it’s hard wired into our being.

Their model still requires faith, point 2

Their entire system of thought is completely full of holes, and when you address them in these issues, we are supposed to go by their word and have “faith” that mankind will some day figure it out. Now the thing is, why are we supposed to have faith in an entirely man made belief and not have faith in a divinely inspired belief system?

There is no real moral base, point 3

Man left to his own devices unchecked is inherantly evil, since he cannot forsee the future, he cannot know what his actions will impact upon others, now and in the future. His standard of rightousness is based upon the status quo, no matter how twisted and warped it is, that is his guage.

The fruits of athiesm, total corrupt exploitation, point 4

China makes a good example here, look to the human rights issues they have there, look to how poorly the human element is addressed, people are literally expendable, taking a back seat to the all mighty buck, that country has been Godless for quite some time, look to the USSR, it crashed and burned for many reasons including the human rights issues. Look to Nazi germany, again, it was a country at the time that threw out God, and look where it led them to as well. These are examples of a world we would be living in, if we let the atheists have their way.

They want to blame all people, especially those with religion for their problems, point 5

They keep thinking, get rid of religion and the world would be at peace, they blame all of the evils of the world on our views of God and deny the nature of mankind. They come up with argument after argument about how this or that is bad because they don’t understand the motivation behind believers actions. They completely ignore all of the good we as believers do in this world.

They have very limited, ignorant perspectives along their God, science itself, point 6

Instead of having what is supposed to be an objective, analytical scientific reasoning, looking at “all” of the options, “all” of the probabilities, “all” angles, and “all” possiblities, they start out with a model that is complete in their minds, then try to fit the universe within it’s confines, completely ignoring anything that stands outside of those confines. When I have to listen to some speaker, teacher, etc. and find out they are athiest, my respect for the individual plummets, it’s like a college professor that has only taken one class to get his degree, his views are limited, quite limited and biased.

They have complete and total ignorance of Gods word, point 7

It is so very rare you will encounter one that has read the bible even once, they only pick apart bits and pieces and use them out of context. Yet, we are supposed to bow down to them as the ultimate authority, this is literally bowing down to ignorance.

Their agenda is the ultimate evil, point 8

Why on earth do they come here to debate, thinking in their minds that they are saving us and we are going, saving us from exactly what? Others, because they can’t stand people that have faith are entirely here to derrail them, to get them to slip up, and it makes them feel good if they can discourage people from having any kind of faith, any kind of belief that is not perfectly in line with their false religion.,

They are mindless beasts, point 9

Just as an animal only knows about the world around it, that it can observe, and to it, that is all there is, it’s exactly the same with them. If they cannot see it, test it, analyze it, then it’s not real. The animal may not understand photosynthesis, but it knows the plant it is eating is good for it and that is all it needs to know. The atheist reduced mankind to the level of the animals, being no better then them in any way because his, just as the animals world is self contained to it and there is nothing more to it then what they directly experience.

FYI:​

• Atheism is neither a religion nor a faith.
• As for being evil, Christians are in no position to throw stones
• It is an existential position. Religions & faiths (insofar as the two are distinct) are other examples of existential position; as were many past philosophies.
• Atheism is of many kinds - which is why the post is unlikely to make a favourable impression on any except the mpre ignorant Christians. Atheists & Christians alike deserve better than these shallow misrepresentations.

 

[MrZetterlund]

But I’m not a droplet of paint. I’m a living creature who arose through natural, biological means in a natural world.

What about this universe indicates that a god is responsible for it?

Human beings are very different from any other kind of animal. Human kind is the most destructive species on the face of the earth. One can say “God did it” that doesn’t explain “how God did it.” I’ve always understood God as someone who plays the roll of fate. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the genome supports somewhat of a creator’s signature. (though he’ll never admit it’s God.

 

[sans_Delilah]

I wonder about this. A lot of atheists claim that being atheist simply means not believing in a god, that this is all there is to it. It does not influence their worldview, their moral choices, etc.
But I wonder if they can call themselves atheists. A theist believes that God is personal and immanent and therefore influences his worldview, moral choices, etc. The atheist, being anti-theist, thus believes that there is no personal and immanent God. That means that he has to base his worldview, moral choices etc. on a different source. But that implies that there is more to being atheist than simply having one belief less.

It seems to me that the position of simply having one less belief is more contrary to deism than theism, since deism is the position that God is not personal and immanent.
The atheist who defends his position this way should therefore call himself anti-deist (or adeist?) instead of atheist. Am I right?

You’re equating the terms “atheist” and “antitheist,” words that have different meanings.

Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist. (God, Vishnu, Zeus, Anubis, none of 'em.)

Antitheism is the opposition to the belief in deities, believing that theism is a destructive influence, and sometimes that God is evil.

Antitheism can sometimes be construed as a form of atheism, but occasionally antitheists believe that God (or Zeus or Vishnu) is evil. Therefore, this is not atheism, as they believe the god exists, they just do not worship him.

So, while antitheism sometimes falls under atheism, they are not equatable terms. You need only look to their suffixes to see this. “a-” in this sense means “without,” or “not,” shortened from the suffix “an-,” which means the same.

“Anti-,” however, means “against,” or “opposite of.”

Therefore we see that “atheist” means “someone without belief in God,” while “antitheist” means “someone opposed to or against belief in God.”

Also, you equate the terms “theism” and “deism.”

Theism is the belief that there is some sort of higher power, in the form of at least one deity.

Deism, though, is the belief in at least on deity solely based on observation of the natural world, and rejecting faith, or supernatural revelation.

So again, while deism is a form of theism, the terms are not interchangeable.

Hello everyone!

I have heard it said that if someone does not believe in God, the Father Almighty, then they are totally wrong because satan believes in God…very much so! He has seen God. It seems to me that these non-believers are even worse than the devil…

Something to think about.

This would certainly make me quake if I believed in the Christian devil. As I do not, I put no credence into what he believes.

As such, this is not really an effective argument against atheists, as they will not care what the devil thinks. If they don’t believe in God, they’re certainly not going to believe in the devil.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

You’re equating the terms “atheist” and “antitheist,” words that have different meanings.

Thank you for the explanation, I didn’t know that.

Also, you equate the terms “theism” and “deism.”

I don’t think I am guilty of this mistake though. I made the distinction myself in my post to make my point clear.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

 

[prodigalson12]

But I’m not a droplet of paint. I’m a living creature who arose through natural, biological means in a natural world.

What about this universe indicates that a god is responsible for it?

You have reduced yourself to essentially being less then a droplet of paint, at least it will be around longer while your respect, or lack therein of the human equation and soul reduces you to only a pile of chemicals destined to become worm food.

I’m taking note, how you are responding less and less to my questions. I guess it’s easier to ignore them then deal with them…