I am an Atheist and always have been.

[VaughanJB]

I research everything posted when I can. I don't disrespect anyone in these conversations. I am not trying to convince anyone that my way is the right way. I express what I feel and believe. Don't like it.................then don't reply. Don't follow.
Now here is the telling point............if you do reply then you are not so sure of your own understanding or at least are open to the possibility of that, maybe I need to rethink. All well and good and in fact what you should do. If you are confirmed in what you believe then leave the topic. Otherwise I am going to continue. Don't have anything to hand out. Not going to convince you to change. Not going to offer reasons why you should. Don't know your life. Don't know what you are going thru. Only know that we are both the creation of one God. He has time for me and he has time for you. Extremely simple but so hard to understand.
All.....have a peaceful evening.

I might have missed an exchange in the thread, but whilst you and I ultimately disagree, you shouldn't feel you need to make excuses, or apologize for posting your point of view. In fact, that's the entire point of a discussion forum, to discuss. It's not to agree, to disagree, or even to find consensus. It's simply an exchange of ideas that requires we all act like adults, and not petulant children. You disagree with me? Great! You agree, great! I'm not offended by any of it.

Post more!

 

[VaughanJB]

Sorry if this has been mentioned previously. I just got here.
No one is an Atheist
Everyone believes in something.
Everyone worships something or someone.
It's a matter of who,what, and why.

I think this is a case of woolly thinking. Or rather, generalizing to make the pieces fit (an observation, not an attack of any kind).

Context is everything, and when one is discussing God, or a belief in a God, then use of the word Atheist is perfectly legitimate and accurate. IMO.

The same is true of "everyone believes something". Well yes, I believe that if I drop an apple, it will fall. I believe in life and death. But how does that relate to a discussion of a belief in a God? That's really the question.

I also don't worship anything or anyone. Worship is a term loaded with meaning, especially when it comes to this topic. I don't pray, I don't call upon an invisible being, I don't have a personal relationship with an ethereal being. I don't ask for guidance from thin air.

What I get from this topic (and I mean this topic in general, not simply in this thread or on this board), is that people come in with very strong views. No-one changes their mind. We can only exchange points of view.

The Bible has a lot of good things in it, but I think we're very selective when discussing it. We write off the Old Testament for the most part (and cherry pick what we accept, such as the Ten Commandments). This is telling. There's a lot of death in the OT, there is support for owning other people (slaves), and more. So I think a balanced view would be it's kind of half and half of good and bad overall.

 

[RambleTamble]

I think this is a case of woolly thinking. Or rather, generalizing to make the pieces fit (an observation, not an attack of any kind).

Context is everything, and when one is discussing God, or a belief in a God, then use of the word Atheist is perfectly legitimate and accurate. IMO.

The same is true of "everyone believes something". Well yes, I believe that if I drop an apple, it will fall. I believe in life and death. But how does that relate to a discussion of a belief in a God? That's really the question.

I also don't worship anything or anyone. Worship is a term loaded with meaning, especially when it comes to this topic. I don't pray, I don't call upon an invisible being, I don't have a personal relationship with an ethereal being. I don't ask for guidance from thin air.

What I get from this topic (and I mean this topic in general, not simply in this thread or on this board), is that people come in with very strong views. No-one changes their mind. We can only exchange points of view.

The Bible has a lot of good things in it, but I think we're very selective when discussing it. We write off the Old Testament for the most part (and cherry pick what we accept, such as the Ten Commandments). This is telling. There's a lot of death in the OT, there is support for owning other people (slaves), and more. So I think a balanced view would be it's kind of half and half of good and bad overall.

It could be described as "projection." People tend to believe that everybody else thinks like they do, so they project their beliefs onto other people.

 

[VaughanJB]

It could be described as "projection." People tend to believe that everybody else thinks like they do, so they project their beliefs onto other people.

Well,, if you live with people around you that think as you do, it might seem madness to have a contrary view. The US is an example where a belief is assumed (at least that's my take). For example, strangely there has never been an atheist President. I'd imagine any candidate proclaiming atheism would be out of the running pretty quickly.

 

[JustDave]

By the way, I looked up "worship," and it isn't necessarily or always restricted to religious context. Merriam-Webster offers 2 definitions for worship:

1 - to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power.
2 - to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion.*

Many words have different dictionary definitions that can be loosely interchanged. But forcing an equivalence on two different definitions of the same word or term is an equivocation.

Lara begins with "worship" using her definition in a religious context, and then switches to the secular worship to create a false equivalence when talking about others. It's entirely semantic, and doesn't work for me because she is describing something that does not exist in my reality. Yet, her response was still continuing denial; "Oh yes, everybody worships."

I sometimes hold nature in awe. But I don't worship it, and it would not bestow any favors on me if I did. I could use the same semantic slight of hand to claim Lara doesn't worship anything, but that wouldn't be fair.

 

[MACKTEXAS]

Many words have different dictionary definitions that can be loosely interchanged. But forcing an equivalence on two different definitions of the same word or term is an equivocation.

Lara begins with "worship" using her definition in a religious context, and then switches to the secular worship to create a false equivalence when talking about others. It's entirely semantic, and doesn't work for me because she is describing something that does not exist in my reality. Yet, her response was still continuing denial; "Oh yes, everybody worships."

I sometimes hold nature in awe. But I don't worship it, and it would not bestow any favors on me if I did. I could use the same semantic slight of hand to claim Lara doesn't worship anything, but that wouldn't be fair.

In her post 868, Lara wrote: "Yes, everyone worships something." I take exception to that, since we cannot know what "everyone" does.

But then she immediately followed up with giving (one) definition of worship, when she wrote:
"Broadly, it represents intense devotion, where someone dedicates significant time, talent, or wealth to something. It's the act of attributing worth or value to something."

She either copied that from a dictionary, or rephrased the #2 Merriam-Webster definition into her own words, but I do not see that as a false equivocation of the word worship, since she did not use the two definitions interchangeably.

Finally, In her post 874, she wrote, "I think most get my drift so I'll leave it at that. Thank you for reading my post."

I replied to let her know that I did get her drift and understood what she was trying to convey, and then I posted two definitions of worship I found in Merriam-Webster, since other posts going on around that time questioned or disputed the meaning of the word.

Lara wrote more than one post. I neither endorsed nor critized her content. I simply let her know I understood what she was trying to express to the group, and reiterated it to her to confirm the meaning I had attached to her thoughts. She gave me a "like" reaction, and then moved on with no further comment.

If any members take exception to Lara's posts, they should address those with her if they want further clarification.

 

[JustDave]

If any members take exception to Lara's posts, they should address those with her if they want further clarification.

I will and I did. She denied her position. I posted to you as I take exception to your denial of equivocation. So are we good?

 

[MACKTEXAS]

I will and I did. She denied her position. I posted to you as I take exception to your denial of equivocation. So are we good?

I hope we're always "good," Dave - even though it's curious that your post to me preceded my "denial of equivocation." I did not express that until my very last post to you, when I wrote, "she did not use the two definitions interchangeably." This thread is exhausting and over- analyzed.

 

[JustDave]

I hope we're always "good," Dave - even though it's curious that your post to me preceded my "denial of equivocation." I did not express that until my very last post to you, when I wrote, "she did not use the two definitions interchangeably." This thread is exhausting and over- analyzed.

I'm at a loss to understand this. I posted directly the the post I wanted to address. Poor wording? Misunderstanding? I don't know but now I'm going to get exhausted looking for the "error". As for the rest of the thread, it's a great thread and I'm enjoying it.

 

[CallMeKate]

I'm at a loss to understand this. I posted directly the the post I wanted to address. Poor wording? Misunderstanding? I don't know but now I'm going to get exhausted looking for the "error". As for the rest of the thread, it's a great thread and I'm enjoying it.

No, it wasn't poor wording. I understood you. Lara first said, and I quote: "No one is an Atheist. Everyone believes in something. Everyone worships something or someone." End quote.

When it was pointed out that atheist means without a deity or a god, it got flipped to make it sound like it was about heroes and chocolate and rock stars. That's where I got lost and still am. I won't pretend to understand, but the problem here is in declaring there are no atheists when there are many.

 

[JustDave]

No, it wasn't poor wording. I understood you. Lara first said, and I quote: "No one is an Atheist. Everyone believes in something. Everyone worships something or someone." End quote.

When it was pointed out that atheist means without a deity or a god, it got flipped to make it sound like it was about heroes and chocolate and rock stars. That's where I got lost and still am. I won't pretend to understand, but the problem here is in declaring there are no atheists when there are many.

Sayeth the Lord, "Whenever there be atheists and theists gathered together in my name, no one will knoweth the real Me."

 

[MACKTEXAS]

I'm at a loss to understand this. I posted directly the the post I wanted to address. Poor wording? Misunderstanding? I don't know but now I'm going to get exhausted looking for the "error". As for the rest of the thread, it's a great thread and I'm enjoying it.

Why?

In your post 880, you began by introducing the word equivocation, which I had never before mentioned.

I replied to you in my post 881, and for (my) first time ever, used the word equivocation (since you brought the word up).

Then you wrote back (your post 882) saying this:

I will and I did. She denied her position. I posted to you as I take exception to your denial of equivocation*

*At the time you posted to me (your post 880) I had not yet introduced the word equivocation anywhere. That did not happen until my post 881.

That's what I was explaining. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but reading posts consequtively clearly reveals it.

We need to step away from this since it's not contributing to the subject. I started not to reply but you said you didn't understand, so I explained it according to what I see on the board.

 

[MACKTEXAS]

No, it wasn't poor wording. I understood you. Lara first said, and I quote: "No one is an Atheist. Everyone believes in something. Everyone worships something or someone." End quote.

When it was pointed out that atheist means without a deity or a god, it got flipped to make it sound like it was about heroes and chocolate and rock stars. That's where I got lost and still am. I won't pretend to understand, but the problem here is in declaring there are no atheists when there are many.

There is a historical understanding of the big picture of members thoughts on the topic - who are atheists, who aren't - etc.

When Dave refers to an error, he wrote "I don't know but now I'm going to get exhausted looking for the "error" - that is in reference to my very first post containing the word "equivocation". He said he wrote me becuase of my denial of equivocation, but at the time he said that I had not even used the word. This was also explained to him (just now) in my post 887 above.

 

[January]

Well,, if you live with people around you that think as you do, it might seem madness to have a contrary view. The US is an example where a belief is assumed (at least that's my take). For example, strangely there has never been an atheist President. I'd imagine any candidate proclaiming atheism would be out of the running pretty quickly.

that's interesting - because not the case here in Australia - we generally dislike religion being mixed with politics and a prime minister making a big issue of their religious views would be out of running very quickly.

they can have religious views/practices but we don't want them brought into politics.

Current prime minister Anthony Albanese describes himself as a lapsed catholic

Julia Gillard, prime minister for 3 years, was openly atheist.

 

[Lara]

Firstly...I'm not trying to change anyones mind. That's an individual's choice. I'm simply making a distinction between how much faith it takes between believers and atheists. I'm not proslesizing...I don't even know how to spell it

It takes a lot more faith to believe in Atheism than it takes to believe in Christianity. To say “God does not exist” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything and of having been everywhere in the universe and having witnessed everything there is to be seen.

Christianity is based on faith of completely trusting God through His words in the Bible. Not just believing that God exists, but relying on His character and actions. And faith in Jesus' life teachings and His death and resurrection that provides salvation through forgiveness of sins.
It's not blind belief.

Christians believe their faith is grounded in historical events like eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life and the evidence of his resurrection as recorded in the Bible with the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. It shapes how a person lives, with true faith naturally resulting in actions, love, and obedience.

 

[January]

It takes a lot more faith to believe in Atheism than it takes to believe in Christianity

no it doesn't. that just doesnt make sense.

It shapes how a person lives, with true faith naturally resulting in actions, love, and obedience.

and yet the lives of so many christians would suggest otherwise.

Bit like Gandhi who is quoted as saying "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

yes I realise this quote is unproven but is widely attributed to him.

 

[Lara]

Bit like Gandhi who is quoted as saying "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Yes I've heard that quote before and I agree that Christians aren't perfect. That's the whole point. Jesus even agreed and therefore died on the cross to pay for our sins and left us with much wisdom in the New Testament Bible teaching us to love one another and treat others like we want to be treated etc.

By the way...Gandhi was NOT without sin himself...

• Early Racism: During his time in South Africa, Gandhi made derogatory statements and exhibited anti-African racism. He frequently used racial slurs against Black Africans and complained about being forced to share facilities with them, viewing Indians as superior.
• Creepy and Abusive Behaviors: In his later years, Gandhi engaged in controversial "celibacy experiments," where he had young female followers and his grand-nieces sleep naked in his bed to test his resistance to sexual urges. He also exerted strict control over his wife, Kasturba.

Caste System Tolerance: While Gandhi opposed untouchability, he supported the broader Hindu varna (caste) system, which alienate many lower-caste activists who sought the total eradication of caste segregation.

• Questionable Pacifist Tactics: Critics argue he held an overly idealistic worldview, famously advising Jews in Nazi Germany to use nonviolent resistance against the Holocaust and discouraging them from defending themselves.

 

[January]

one would still think people following Jesus words would stand out from people not doing so - and that is not so.

There are good and bad people in all religions and atheists and no group stands out as being more christ like i n their behaviour

the zealotry seems confined to the religious side though.

And of course Gandhi was not perfect - did anyone say he was?? That doesn't change his point though.

 

[rbtvgo]

I am not interested in debate. Proves nothing no matter who comes up on top. I am not interested nor concerned about all the details expressed. They mean nothing. I say again they mean nothing! If you feel the need to debate one issue over another then go ahead. Fight it out. Determine who wins.
Feel assured that your "right over another's wrong" comforts you?
Does it????
No it does not. You are still left trying to understand. You are still left with doubts. What did it all prove?
If God is not real in your life then why continue looking? Acceptant what you know and understand and move on.
Unless you still have doubts????????

 

[JustDave]

Firstly...I'm not trying to change anyones mind. That's an individual's choice. I'm simply making a distinction between how much faith it takes between believers and atheists. I'm not proslesizing...I don't even know how to spell it
It takes a lot more faith to believe in Atheism than it takes to believe in Christianity.

This is not true, although I think I understand why you believe it. Faith is big in Christianity. Get Christians together and some will shameless brag about the strength of their faith. Not all of course.

But there is no faith in atheism, and there doesn't need to be because certainty is not necessary to hold a belief space empty. Certainty plays a much bigger role in Christian thought. And since faith and certainty dominate theist philosophy so much, Christians can easily project such a necessity onto others, even those who have zero faith and require no certainty.

Now I will concede that some atheists, a very small minority in my experience, claim to have knowledge in the form of proof that no God exists, but they aren't even taken that seriously by most atheists. I've heard a couple of the so called proofs, and they don't meet the convincing standard I would require for certainty. But all philosophies come in different degrees, I guess.

Think of most atheists as just accepting lack of certainty and not knowing for sure one way or the other, and you will understand atheism much better that you currently do. Atheism isn't the opposite of firm belief in a god. It's an absence of belief.

To say “God does not exist” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything and of having been everywhere in the universe and having witnessed everything there is to be seen.

I think my above explanation corrects this perception. You may reject it of course, and I'm guessing you will.

Christianity is based on faith of completely trusting God through His words in the Bible. Not just believing that God exists, but relying on His character and actions. And faith in Jesus' life teachings and His death and resurrection that provides salvation through forgiveness of sins.
It's not blind belief.

Atheism requires no such faith. Try to visualize atheism as a big empty space that you might think should be filled with beliefs. but it's empty space, simply available for future use if necessary.

Christians believe their faith is grounded in historical events like eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life and the evidence of his resurrection as recorded in the Bible with the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. It shapes how a person lives, with true faith naturally resulting in actions, love, and obedience.

Notice how often you bring faith into your arguments. The opposite of that discovery process, atheism, does not require the use faith or even require certainty.

 

[LadyEmeraude]

I have been reading this topic and threads for a while now.
I will say the members posts have been very interesting to
me. Each person has something to say, and it is worth the
read. I've actually learned some things from this thread and
hearing how others think and why, is valuable.

 

[JustDave]

I've actually learned some things from this thread and
hearing how others think and why, is valuable.

Hearing how others think amounts to understanding, and that's about as good as it gets. And I think even that understates its value somewhat.

 

[January]

I am not interested in debate. Proves nothing no matter who comes up on top. I am not interested nor concerned about all the details expressed. They mean nothing. I say again they mean nothing! If you feel the need to debate one issue over another then go ahead. Fight it out. Determine who wins.
Feel assured that your "right over another's wrong" comforts you?
Does it????
No it does not. You are still left trying to understand. You are still left with doubts. What did it all prove?
If God is not real in your life then why continue looking? Acceptant what you know and understand and move on.
Unless you still have doubts????????

Nobody is fighting or trying to win.

And atheists are not 'continuing to look'

Why such a defensive and hostile post???

If you are not interested in the discussion just stop clicking into it??

 

[Vida May]

Vida May: The U.K.'s state religion is Christianity (Church of England) and the church and democracy have co-existed for hundreds of years. That's true of many other Western countries.

China, Cuba and North Korea are stridently anti-Christian (and other religions.) They don't have any problem with democracy because they don't bother with democracy. So, I don't really understand your statement.

Pepper, if you find those verses threatening, I suggest you stay away from the Old Testament (and the Koran) altogether. But you probably do anyway.

I am surprised an Irish person would say what you said. Not long ago, the British and Irish could not stop killing each other. What you said could lead to a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately, that would clearly be a political discussion.

In the US, some accounts of the American Revolution say fear of the Church of England was a major factor. Too bad we stopped teaching civics and forgot the importance of culture and history, because religion is causing a serious problem now. But considering the US adopted the British model for autocratic industry, that relationship has always been a problem. Britain has had a difficult democracy because so much of it based on a hierarchy of authority and power.

The American colonists feared the Church of England because it was deeply tied to the British monarchy and represented an oppressive state-sponsored religious hierarchy. Dissenting Protestants dreaded that Britain would force American bishops upon them, threatening both their local autonomy and religious freedom. [1, 2, 3, 4]

I also have books written in the US before the First World War, strongly objecting to taking Britain's side in the First World War. I wish that piece of history had gone differently. I wish we could have meaningful discussions. England resisted education for technology because it wanted to protect its class-ordered society, and economy, and education for technology levels the classes. A poor man can become a rich one by using technology.

 

[Vida May]

I am not interested in debate. Proves nothing no matter who comes up on top. I am not interested nor concerned about all the details expressed. They mean nothing. I say again they mean nothing! If you feel the need to debate one issue over another then go ahead. Fight it out. Determine who wins.
Feel assured that your "right over another's wrong" comforts you?
Does it????
No it does not. You are still left trying to understand. You are still left with doubts. What did it all prove?
If God is not real in your life then why continue looking? Acceptant what you know and understand and move on.
Unless you still have doubts????????

Yes, we know you don't want to think about what we are saying. Why did you think it was a good idea to tell us that?