Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 438. (Read 901367 times)

Smarmy sycophancy will get you nowhere in your failed attempt to promote fallacious theism.


No, for a person to say, "There is no God" he would need to define the myriad variations of everybody's personal subjective claim towards their own personal God, which is not what this is about and would be a pointless exercise.

If a human being is told by another human being, "There is a God", yet the person making the assertion cannot provide a reasonable definition of what they actually mean in terms of tangible characteristics nor, for that matter, any evidence or reasoning to support their claim, requiring the employment of logical fallacy such as special pleading, then the person who is being told, "There is a God", is correct to reject that assertion on the basis that it is clearly groundless and utterly lacking in any objective substance.

This does not require the person being told, "There is a God" to have to derive anything themselves about this 'God' other than the fact the assertion being made towards the existence of said entity is grossly flawed.

Remember, I no more need to disprove your assertion, "There is a God" any more than I need to disprove somebody else's assertion, "There is an invisible pink unicorn flying around Saturn". You are the one making the claim towards something, that the basis for your claim is devoid of reason and substance means I can simply dismiss it.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"


So who created your 'Creator'? You will, no doubt, want to respond along the lines of how your 'Creator' didn't need to be created because, well, 'God'. Does it ever occur to you that your argument is absurd in that, on the one hand, you want to claim that everything has to have a creator except for the one thing you claim does not, a thing which you are applying arbitrary characteristics to because, as we know, that is all you can do when it comes to fictional characters.

Your 'logic' is grossly flawed.


Dude, you already had this claim torn apart in the 'Miracles of . . .' thread which was rapidly closed because the absurd notion that there are statements in that book concerning scientific facts which, allegedly, could not have been known at the time it was written, was exposed for being the absurdity it is.

There is nothing in that book which indicates it is anything other than a book written from the imagination of man.

Stop trying to kid yourself that it is, or at least limit yourself to claiming such only when you are in the company of equally intellectually dishonest people who are as desperate as yourself to believe such bollocks.


Fuck's sake, so what do you think is the process which serves to demonstrate the atheist lack of belief in the existence of a deity? Yes, that's right, it is the process of rejecting the theist assertion, "There is a God" on the basis it is intellectually dishonest and utterly unsound.

Most of the people I know who express a 'lack of belief in the existence of an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn', do so on the basis of what? Yes, that's right, through the process of rejecting the invisible-pink-unicornist assertion, "There is an invisible pink unicorn orbiting Saturn", on the basis of it being equally unsound an assertion to make!


I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.


Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Waaaaa!

Way to rebut my valid points there, real solid reasoning and counter-argument. Sure showed me.

Oh, one small thing, I guess you know nothing of the 'tone complaint' dishonest argument. Learn it. Avoid using it. Otherwise you simply look like you're doing the one thing you are doing, which is to avoid having to actually answer the content of what I am saying, by complaining about how I am saying it.

The christian's heaven is a joke.  I couldn't imagine sharing it with people like Osama Bin Laden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_JoE2GioXY

i think world people should read Dan Brown's books especially the lost symbol

GOD = EGO. Superstition is the enemy of reason and therefore the ally of violence. I love reason, loathe violence and dislike religion. I hate the way new yorkers drive.

"Modern" Satanists or those who ascribe to the philosophy that LaVey laid forth in the SB do not believe in a Devil or God, they feel they are their own "God" as they are the master of their own destiny - Traditional Satanists are the ones most think of when they hear the term "Satanist", they actually believe in the Christian God and Devil. Modern Satanism is basically an inversion of Christianity - one embraces man's desires instead of shunning them, so long as those indulgences do not bring harm to others and are within the laws of the land. Instead of the old "Golden rule", Satanists say "Do unto others as they do unto you". The main reason Satan is used is due to Lucifer being the "light bringer" and embracing true knowledge instead of adopting herd mentality - and also the fact Christianity is/was the predominate religion here when LaVey wrote the Satanic Bible.

...Go read up on what it is. Satanism is not the belief in god or any other deity. In fact they use the name "Satan"ism to make fun of religion, specifically Christianity.

So you would have to accept for God exisisting, AND to serve some another random fallen angel? Man that sucks twice! Thought Atheists get along without any of this.

Actually, this is not true.   Satanism is essentially atheism with a glorified name.   It is self worship.   At least Anton Lavey's satanism. 

Precisely. Those who believe in god and do good only because they want to go to heaven(Which is the vast majority of religious people), are going straight to hell.

A true god would want people to believe in it through logic by coming to the conclusion that such a god exists through logic(That would only be possible in some hypothetical universe as god cannot be proven to exist through logic either). And even then that would probably grant the believer something akin to Purgatory. A true god would only grant those "Heaven" if they through their lifetime, consistently do morally good deeds, not because they fear they'll go to hell if they don't, but because it's the right thing to do.

If I were God I would not really want followers who DO believe.  Actually I wouldn't really want any followers at all.  I would not respect them very much.  I'd judge people on their actions, and if their actions were influenced by some sort of a hope that 'we have a deal' for their future in the afterlife or whatever that seems a bit distasteful to me.

I read somewhere recently that Jefferson expressed some sentiment of a similar nature to his nephew before he died.  Of course I also read that Franklin warned against believing everything one reads on the internet, so who knows?

When I was a little thing I was taken into a church for a service. My first thought was who is the guy in the dress? My second thought was what the fuck is this junk he's talking about? I've never heard of any of these people and they've never touched my life in any way whatsoever.

That feeling has remained exactly the same ever since that day.

I admire the dedication it takes to be devoted to one's religion and in theory their teachings are often worthwhile. But their teachings are what any decent human should be doing anyway without believing in nice or scary people who live in the sky.

No. I don't believe in any God. I do like Islamic culture, but even if there were a God I don't think it would want a follower that does not believe.

this depends on where one comes by this definition, as there seem to be plenty of variations and debate on how exactly to define it.  Most of the ones I've come across state that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of deity, not this other definiton you've set out.  

I won't bother to post those definitions here, although apparently it's not theists only that struggle to understand these things, but websters, wiki, et al.

I did see it on atheists.org, so I guess that is the message that group is trying to spin out at the moment.

I don't know how many times I've seen atheists attack theists because they are dimwitted or afraid of death or some other jibber-jabber means of demeaning the opposing viewpoint.  now, apparently, Atheists can't even state an honest position of their own.  that's kind of absurd, IMO.  

Do they or don't they believe in deity.  This is an almost binary question, with the agnostics carving out a 'none of the above' I guess.  These are personal decisions each person must make for themselves, (or not I guess), but it doesn't make a lot of sense to attempt to pin the decision on someone else, for whatever reason.  

and you can stop with the poser "need to understand something *real* fucking important" and "learn it.  accept it" bullshit.  

Beyond the fact that you've set out a generally horseshit definition and seemed to think you were speaking from the mountaintop (pun intended), I treated you with respect and expect the same in return.  

Save that silly shit for someone who will eat it, as all you did there was prove my point that all of this is more about personal ego than anything else.  Those statements brought nothing, proved nothing and were completely superfluous, serving no other purpose than to give your ego a little self stroke.  

Yeah, they could.  They could say, "Hey, I'll cook some eggs for you atop my science."

You're right, they could say this.  And they would be horrible communicators.

Just because you can make a word mean something else doesn't mean you should.  Language is for communication.  Communication successfully occurs according to accurate translation.  All you do is spin, twist, and invent new meanings for things.  The results are that nobody understands your argument by common usage. And by specific usage, you just start contradicting yourself (because your invented definitions are usually the opposite of the common usage definitions, which you use whenever you're losing an argument). Clever trick -- whenever you're wrong, just say that words mean the exact opposite (or are so vague that it could mean *any*thing) and suddenly you're right (well, no...you're still wrong).

You said yourself that "common usage" is what's in the dictionary.  So quit making shit up and use words and language we all understand.  If you can't get your argument to work using the words and definitions we already have, then surely you must think it's insane that the solution is to start making shit up.  Agreed?

DOES ALLAH EXIST?

Please Do read this post (GIVE SOME OF YOUR PRECIOUS TIME TO THIS POST)

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST


Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.


LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD


My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)


QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE


The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?

That is an important distinction. I am not interested in disproving the existence of a God, I am interested in the truth. The reason I do not believe in any of the thousands of Gods out there is because none of them rises to the challenge of evidence.  If they did I would think differently.

And some claims are obviously provably wrong. For example some believe the Earth is 6000 years old. There are hundreds of experiments which can show this to be impossible. It is hard to believe in a super-claim like the existence of a omnipotent being when the supporting claims are so clearly incorrect.

You are finally getting my point. Science is described by many people in many ways. Some people call their electric range in their kitchen science.

This is true. The dictionary is updated according to what the general usage has become. Simply because the dictionary says one thing, doesn't mean that people DON'T mean something else by it. Communications can easily become vague.

Lol what?!

You realize that your selected definition totally discredits your point.

You're basically saying that atheists are religious in the same way that a baseball player is religious about team spirit.  Or that vegans are religious about the foods they eat.

You selected the definition that is as far away from dogmatic religion as possible while still being able to use the word 'religion.'

You really, truly suck at this.

For a while it seemed to be in vogue to call oneself an agnostic meaning variously 'don't know', 'don't care', 'don't want to offend you', 'am a passive chicken-shit and don't want to discuss it', etc.  I mostly always called myself an atheist and certainly that is the label I use these days.