Christians Please Stop Being Arrogant

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

Atheists do this because of their beliefs. Very simple. We all act based on our beliefs. It would be irrational not to do so.

 

Atheism is not a belief.  It is the non-acceptance of the claim that there are gods.

 

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed

Carl Sagan - 1981

 

Cats and dogs lack belief. Atheism is the position where a human mind establishes a belief that there is no God.

 

 

Sagan was an agnostic (by the way, agnostics are welcome here, not everyone is an atheist) so I prefer to get my definition of the label I identify with from people who also identify with that label. Anyway, did you notice in the third sentence of the quote that Sagan utterly dismisses theism?  You tend to find that sort of thing if you read things written by agnostics/athiests/skeptics.  Although you're lucky, you normally have to read their works and not just rip a quote straight from Wikipedia.

 

Sagan most likely was intellectually willing to admit that he did not know if God existed and therefore called himself an agnostic. In other words he lacked belief, but he was willing to admit that simply lacking belief was not adequate to call oneself an atheist. The word atheism means the positive acknowledgement that God does not exist. An Agnostic simply states they do not have enough evidence to make the call. Both don't believe.

 

Anthony Flew also admitted the word has changed meaning recently - he called himself an atheist. Atheists have played word games and tried to convert the meaning into something that babies, dogs and cats hold to. Dogs lack belief. Inanimate objects like chairs lack belief. So in essence saying an atheist simply lacks belief is the same intellectual position as saying atheism is not thinking. It seems to be an attempt to shirk their burden of proof responsibility when saying there is no God.

 

The human mind holds beliefs. If one simply does not believe in God then whether you call yourself an atheist or agnostic depends on the reasoning you used to reach that position.

 

 

Again, I call bullshit, and for the same reason.  Atheism makes no claim that there is no god; therefore there is no burden of proof for the atheist to prove anything.  Listen this time, Clay, and pay attention.  Atheism is simply the default position taken by a reasonable person in light of the lack of evidence to support the claim that a god or gods exist.  You want to argue concerning the English language?  It helps to learn it first.

[Guest afireinside]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of Sagan's statement this is false. Many atheists are soft atheists so that their views are not much different than agnostics. However I am a hard atheist. I would be happy to debate with you regarding the merits of my position that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that all gods are fiction. However you will have to agree to a condition that you must not mischaracterize this as "beyond all doubt". We send convicts to prison with "beyond a reasonable doubt" and this level of evidence can still be wrong. So I will not tolerate being mischaracterized as claiming that I cannot be wrong. If you want to debate with me then you must use objective evidence and logic to demonstrate there is reason to doubt all gods are fiction.

 

Then there appears to be no difference between "soft atheism" and agnosticism. Also, the term "soft atheism" is a phrase not a word. The discussion is about the word atheism not English language phrases.

 

I will only engage in debates that allow the true definition of evidence as defined by the English language. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t

What was the title of this thread again?

I don't know anymore, I'm lost

[sdelsolray]

 

Keep in mind that most of the Ten Commandments predate the Jewish religion, dating back to much earlier civilization.  No religion created them.  They were formed by societal consensus.

 

Really? Can you educate us all on the details?

 

I'm not your research assistant.  But I will educate you by providing you with relevant information and evidence, including citations, at the rate of $200 per hour (including research and writing required), with a $2,000 retainer to be paid in advance.

 

On the other hand, I've decided to retract this offer.  You are not worth my time, or effort.

[midniterider]

Programmers can prefer one language over another, but I doubt any C++ programmer will say to his Java coding mate: "Let go of your dependence of a virtual runtime environment, or else you're going to burn in robot hell for all eternity."

 

I doubt any C++ programmer will push for laws mandating the teaching of how Christ++ coded the world in 6 days and spent day 7 debugging it.

 

I doubt the C++ programmer will say to his son "stop dating that javascript whore! You're going to be unequally yoked!"

 

I doubt the C++ programmer will push for a .Net Coder + .Net Coder marriage ban

.Net is the one true Code. .Net coders dont believe in runtime packages but instead praise the Holy Framework.

 

Cross platform compatibility is the devil's work.

[midniterider]

True, I havent read about anyone murdering on behalf of their coding language, but I've seen some flamewars between scum of the earth VB coders and the C# elite. Ha.

[Roz]

10 print BASIC saves

20 goto 10

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

 

Atheists do this because of their beliefs. Very simple. We all act based on our beliefs. It would be irrational not to do so.

 

Atheism is not a belief.  It is the non-acceptance of the claim that there are gods.

 

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed

Carl Sagan - 1981

 

Cats and dogs lack belief. Atheism is the position where a human mind establishes a belief that there is no God.

 

 

Sagan was an agnostic (by the way, agnostics are welcome here, not everyone is an atheist) so I prefer to get my definition of the label I identify with from people who also identify with that label. Anyway, did you notice in the third sentence of the quote that Sagan utterly dismisses theism?  You tend to find that sort of thing if you read things written by agnostics/athiests/skeptics.  Although you're lucky, you normally have to read their works and not just rip a quote straight from Wikipedia.

 

Sagan most likely was intellectually willing to admit that he did not know if God existed and therefore called himself an agnostic. In other words he lacked belief, but he was willing to admit that simply lacking belief was not adequate to call oneself an atheist. The word atheism means the positive acknowledgement that God does not exist. An Agnostic simply states they do not have enough evidence to make the call. Both don't believe.

 

Anthony Flew also admitted the word has changed meaning recently - he called himself an atheist. Atheists have played word games and tried to convert the meaning into something that babies, dogs and cats hold to. Dogs lack belief. Inanimate objects like chairs lack belief. So in essence saying an atheist simply lacks belief is the same intellectual position as saying atheism is not thinking. It seems to be an attempt to shirk their burden of proof responsibility when saying there is no God.

 

The human mind holds beliefs. If one simply does not believe in God then whether you call yourself an atheist or agnostic depends on the reasoning you used to reach that position.

 

 

TRP has already answered on this.

 

You seem to be attempting to shift your burden of proof responsibility onto me, when I have none because I never claimed there are no gods.  I simply do not accept your claim that there is a god. 

 

 

[boftx]

 

.Net is the one true Code. .Net coders dont believe in runtime packages but instead praise the Holy Framework.

 

Cross platform compatibility is the devil's work.

 

 

Who gives a damn about the UI? Backend is where the real work gets done, by Perl!

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that a more practical request to make of Christians (or any other group) would be that they not impose their beliefs on others who disagree with them.

 

This is a strawman. Everyone in society attempts to influence the beliefs of others and this translates into the push and pull we see in the political process. Any atheist who is seeking to remove the ten commandments from a courthouse is seeking to impose their will and is displaying intolerance.

 

Really? you just pulled that out?   You know good and well that getting the 10 commandments removed from a courthouse has nothing to do with atheists spreading their beliefs.  It is them being responsible citizens and calling out the government when it fails to live up to the 1st amendment. 

 

Atheists do this because of their beliefs. Very simple. We all act based on our beliefs. It would be irrational not to do so.

 

Atheism is not a belief.  It is the non-acceptance of the claim that there are gods.

 

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed

Carl Sagan - 1981

 

Cats and dogs lack belief. Atheism is the position where a human mind establishes a belief that there is no God.

 

 

 

I've seen OC use this very argument, word-for-word, in other forums.  

 

It's flawed on two counts.

 

First, it's a logical fallacy known as an appeal to or argument from authority.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority  Sagan's areas of authority lay in the fields of astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology.  Outside of those fields, whatever he said about atheism should not be taken as either authoritative or representative.  

I never said it was true because Sagan said it. That's an argument from Authority which I did not engage in. My appeal is to the English language as we see here

 

 

To quote scripture... "What is truth?"

 

Define what you mean by 'true', Clay.  

 

Please feel free to appeal to any language you like.

 

I can dish up word salad too.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

Atheists do this because of their beliefs. Very simple. We all act based on our beliefs. It would be irrational not to do so.

 

Atheism is not a belief.  It is the non-acceptance of the claim that there are gods.

 

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed

Carl Sagan - 1981

 

Cats and dogs lack belief. Atheism is the position where a human mind establishes a belief that there is no God.

 

 

Sagan was an agnostic (by the way, agnostics are welcome here, not everyone is an atheist) so I prefer to get my definition of the label I identify with from people who also identify with that label. Anyway, did you notice in the third sentence of the quote that Sagan utterly dismisses theism?  You tend to find that sort of thing if you read things written by agnostics/athiests/skeptics.  Although you're lucky, you normally have to read their works and not just rip a quote straight from Wikipedia.

 

Sagan most likely was intellectually willing to admit that he did not know if God existed and therefore called himself an agnostic. In other words he lacked belief, but he was willing to admit that simply lacking belief was not adequate to call oneself an atheist. The word atheism means the positive acknowledgement that God does not exist. An Agnostic simply states they do not have enough evidence to make the call. Both don't believe.

 

Anthony Flew also admitted the word has changed meaning recently - he called himself an atheist. Atheists have played word games and tried to convert the meaning into something that babies, dogs and cats hold to. Dogs lack belief. Inanimate objects like chairs lack belief. So in essence saying an atheist simply lacks belief is the same intellectual position as saying atheism is not thinking. It seems to be an attempt to shirk their burden of proof responsibility when saying there is no God.

 

The human mind holds beliefs. If one simply does not believe in God then whether you call yourself an atheist or agnostic depends on the reasoning you used to reach that position.

 

 

 

Impressive!

 

Clay accuses atheists of playing word games AFTER he declares what Sagan 'most likely' thought about the existence of God.

 

That's impressive...even for you, Clay!  

[Ravenstar]

 

 

impose their will and intolerance?

when christian put 10 commandments it's makes them special

so for the sake of fairness, every religion need to have an equal opportunity to put their religion motto, symbol or part of their holy book too

for example, Islam should have the same opportunity to  put syahadah in government building or buddhist can have an equal opportunity to put small buddha statue in the court room and so any other religion

and atheist can put their FSM or goddes of eternal lolly 

The 10 Commandments are not of Christian origin.  They are of Jewish origin and are part of that religion's "The Law".  Indeed, most Christians claim the Jewish "The Law" was fulfilled by their new sky fairy Jesus and (further) claim that they are not bound by the Jewish "The Law".  Accordingly, these Christians are not bound by or subject to the original 10 Commandments.

 

Keep in mind that most of the Ten Commandments predate the Jewish religion, dating back to much earlier civilization.  No religion created them.  They were formed by societal consensus.

 

 

 

Yes that is their true origin.  However the Christians have hijacked the 10 Commandments just like how they hijacked Christmas, marriage and so much of our culture.

 

No… the 10 commandments are of Egyptian origin, much earlier. They were 'borrowed' from them.. there was originally more than 10. They are the truths of Ma'at.

[Ravenstar]

 

 

Bible quiz for those who understand the Bible. Does anyone know when the last tribal conquest ordered by God occurred in the Bible?

 

 

When the New Testament rolled around God gave up on mere tribal conquest.  Now God wanted to rule the entire world.  And so Christians spread around the world bringing plague and the point of a sword everywhere they went.  And where ever Christianity took hold the natural culture and society was destroyed in favor of the invading culture.

 

 

If that's your view, I suggest you read some books on history.

 

Please.. as an historian I am very interested in your alternative view of history, please, show me where this is not true.

 

Let's see, North America (plague blankets and muskets) Africa, South America, Central America, Europe, Polynesia, Australia… shall I go on?

 

My ancestors were Celts, Goths and North American aboriginals… christianity was most certainly forced upon us.

[mymistake]

 

 

I never said it was true because Sagan said it. That's an argument from Authority which I did not engage in. My appeal is to the English language as we see here

 

 

I have started a new thread to debate the merits of atheism itself.  I look forward to seeing your response in the thread "For OrdinaryClay: Atheism".  I hope you will have time soon.

 

The link you provide for the dictionary meaning had two entries.  The first one is in common practice by religious people who want to treat atheism as a religion.  Remember that Christianity controlled Western culture and ruled with an iron fist for thousands of years.  So Christianity still has much influence on our language.  The second entry is how atheist use the word atheist.  So even your source validates our belief about ourselves.

 

"Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

 

Because atheists use the word with this meaning we have need of the phrases "hard atheist" and "soft atheist" and similar descriptions to help denote the range of views held by those with disbelief in deities.

[thereisnoperfect]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that a more practical request to make of Christians (or any other group) would be that they not impose their beliefs on others who disagree with them.

 

This is a strawman. Everyone in society attempts to influence the beliefs of others and this translates into the push and pull we see in the political process. Any atheist who is seeking to remove the ten commandments from a courthouse is seeking to impose their will and is displaying intolerance.

 

Really? you just pulled that out?   You know good and well that getting the 10 commandments removed from a courthouse has nothing to do with atheists spreading their beliefs.  It is them being responsible citizens and calling out the government when it fails to live up to the 1st amendment. 

 

Atheists do this because of their beliefs. Very simple. We all act based on our beliefs. It would be irrational not to do so.

 

Atheism is not a belief.  It is the non-acceptance of the claim that there are gods.

 

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed

Carl Sagan - 1981

 

Cats and dogs lack belief. Atheism is the position where a human mind establishes a belief that there is no God.

 

 

 

I've seen OC use this very argument, word-for-word, in other forums.  

 

It's flawed on two counts.

 

First, it's a logical fallacy known as an appeal to or argument from authority.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority  Sagan's areas of authority lay in the fields of astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology.  Outside of those fields, whatever he said about atheism should not be taken as either authoritative or representative.  

I never said it was true because Sagan said it. That's an argument from Authority which I did not engage in. My appeal is to the English language as we see here

 

That is actually an appeal to Dictionary.com, not to the language. Words are slippery, and mean in relation to other things, and those meanings change over time and geography and culture. That's how language works. Perhaps you did not know that. Some people use atheist in the sense that dictionary.com gives. Other people use it to reflect a position of not honoring a god. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that a more practical request to make of Christians (or any other group) would be that they not impose their beliefs on others who disagree with them.

 

This is a strawman. Everyone in society attempts to influence the beliefs of others and this translates into the push and pull we see in the political process. Any atheist who is seeking to remove the ten commandments from a courthouse is seeking to impose their will and is displaying intolerance.

 

Really? you just pulled that out?   You know good and well that getting the 10 commandments removed from a courthouse has nothing to do with atheists spreading their beliefs.  It is them being responsible citizens and calling out the government when it fails to live up to the 1st amendment. 

 

Atheists do this because of their beliefs. Very simple. We all act based on our beliefs. It would be irrational not to do so.

 

Atheism is not a belief.  It is the non-acceptance of the claim that there are gods.

 

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed

Carl Sagan - 1981

 

Cats and dogs lack belief. Atheism is the position where a human mind establishes a belief that there is no God.

 

 

 

I've seen OC use this very argument, word-for-word, in other forums.  

 

It's flawed on two counts.

 

First, it's a logical fallacy known as an appeal to or argument from authority.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority  Sagan's areas of authority lay in the fields of astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology.  Outside of those fields, whatever he said about atheism should not be taken as either authoritative or representative.  

I never said it was true because Sagan said it. That's an argument from Authority which I did not engage in. My appeal is to the English language as we see here

 

That is actually an appeal to Dictionary.com, not to the language. Words are slippery, and mean in relation to other things, and those meanings change over time and geography and culture. That's how language works. Perhaps you did not know that. Some people use atheist in the sense that dictionary.com gives. Other people use it to reflect a position of not honoring a god. 

 

 

Oh... he knew it alright, TINP!  He knew it.

 

Clay's known for decades, but when it comes down to it, the only definitions or meanings of anything (not just words) he'll accept are his own or ones that serve his agenda.  In all my dealings with him and in all the forums I've seen him active in over the years, I've yet to see him waver one angstrom from this position.