Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God".
get it?, it implies more than one flavor.
No it doesn't. It implies an aspect of what atheism does. Is it rejection as part of or instead of disbelief? You still seem to be confusing different kinds of atheists ad what they do with different kinds of atheism and what it does.
And I'm still hoping for an answer to my question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
2 atheists decided to start a religion, they had to build 3 churches because they couldn't agree on anything.
Pure projection of theist thinking onto atheists. We may disagree on a lot, but not of disbelief in the God -claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yes and no. Atheism is a response to religious beliefs, we do not believe them. Belief is something a person has, but our belief gods do not exist is a consequence of not believing your claims. A belief requires only one person. Disbelief (usually) requires more than one. That is the difference.
The religious like to call atheism a belief so that they can simply dismiss it as a belief system without addressing why we do not believe. We do not need to address this, we have met the burden of proof. Just as you do not believe improbable or extraordinary claims, we do not believe yours.
Disbelieving improbable or extraordinary claims is normally the default position, but you want to pretend religion is a special case. That is disingenuous.
Mystic tinkering about with semantics and saying it's us doing it, and reversing logic. The usual.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-25-2020 at 03:40 PM..
I think it's more like saying there is a one simple definition of an atheist. Then of course there are quiet ones and the crusading types, but that doesn't change the definition of atheist.
My my how we can go off the rails in these threads let alone off-topic in so many of the most curious of ways...
Because, whatever the topic, the theists will have the usual repertoire of objections to and accusations of atheists that they will run thorough after ignoring that they were refuted the last several times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
Well, that is only partially true. Your "decision" to visit a forum or, do anything else, is predominantly shaped by your general concept of the world, society and you as a human, thinking being.
That poses a question.
What shaped all THAT? Surely, you were not born that way. You grew and learned. Learning process was arranged by (......) fill the blanks.
If you were to look at it from this perspective, that being - what shaped me into what I am - whatever was the force is the one, that shaped your "free will". As, after all, free will is choice and, choice is based in basic concepts about the world, one acquired. For example, I'd safely presume you will not go and eat human flesh as free will choice. Yet, for a cannibal somewhere else in the world, this is normal free will act. Radical example, yet, very obvious.
So those, who shape those concepts in humans, are the true masters.
Ultimately, the only person that is really free is the one who chooses not to exercise any will.
I think that Learnme is too smart to fall into that special pleading for God.
The unknowns about why we do this is not a gap for god. And is perhaps known more than you suggest. A mix of nature (like other animals) and nurture, inclluding local customs that (like religions) are invented, locally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
Point being - "free will" is conceptually shaped by factors, that shape one's concept of him as a human being and his concept of the world, he is in.
There are six "instruments" of mass control.
Lowest, the sixth one, is by force. Military, for example. Police. It is the most direct, the fastest to achieve goal and the least productive one as, it results in massive damages to both humans and environment.
At the top, are two indirect instruments - ideological and conceptual. They work slowly, may take very long times to achieve its goals but, they shape the rest of the pyramid of power. As, concept about "..." determines how person with that concept will act. Ultimately, what it will, say, eat, dress, what kind of job choose, his behavior in society and so on and so on.
Point being, free will is in most of its aspects pre determined by those, who shaped such concept in one.
I am not even going into egregarial influences, which add another aspects to one's behavioral pattern. As, what you call "free will", is simple behavioral pattern. But, those who have conceptual power, also have power of how to create egregores they need.
I don't want to self promote, you can read my blog on egregores, if you want to.
Point being, outside of reflexory behavior, most of "free will" is pre shaped in one by(....) those who know how to do it.
Btw, a religion is one of such instruments of behavioral pattern shaping. A religious person is shaped into specific behavioral pattern, which that person will clearly consider free willed one.
Internet, forums, etc, is component of media instrument of shaping.
Maybe I got you wrong. I was sure you were putting an Intelligent Designer in there as the creator of such mores.
But it seems that you are proposing social mouthpieces of various kinds as the primary educator.
But there's an awful lot of instinct in there, too, and not by any means all educated instinct.
So we may be in agreement here, after all.
Except about Egregores. I have my doubts.
Egregore (also egregor) is an occult concept representing a "thoughtform" or "collective group mind", an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-25-2020 at 03:17 PM..
An Evil God would rob you of your free will. Yet, God gets blamed for the free will of others. If everyone was loving and perfect, would we even need God?
We espouse American freedom as if it is a religion and look down about countries with dictatorships. We say, "Even though American has its problems, at least we are a free society."
But we can't draw the same conclusion with God. We want free will, but we also don't want evil in the world.
Would you truly be happy and free without free will? The free will to think for yourself, to make your own conclusions and opinions? Or would you rather be an automaton manipulated and controlled into what you may perceive as a world without Evil?
People are willingly Christian and willing follow its teachings just as people are willingly atheist and choose not to follow any religion.
People choose to do evil things just as people choose to do good things.
Would you give up freedom to live without evil? Freedom to choose? Freedom to live who you choose to love? Freedom to think? Or, would you choose freedom? The freedom to fight evil, to do good when others would do you harm?
Personally, I choose freedom. Even if it gives me the false sense of control in this world. I think the freedom to choose God is more valuable than God removing my will to choose Him.
After all, wouldn't a parent accept a child's free will to love them rather than that love being forced or controlled? Give me your true authentic genuine love and not a manufactured love. Any person would favor the authenticity of free will choices. Even God.
Nice post. But we have to ask, did Paul after being coerced into conversion lose his free will? Do those who become born again lose free will, simply because they cannot now reason critically without Faith that limited how far it can go? I'd say free will is still there, even though it has been limited in the area of Godfaith. And (as suggested in another thread) bornagain belief is what saves, not just reasoned acceptance of the godclaim
Wouldn't that suggest that Robots is what God prefers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
I'm not following how removing evil and suffering would have any impact on our free will or how it would make us automatons. Removing evil would in fact give us more freedom - freedom to get on with our lives and to live productively and happily instead of having to fight evil. Evil robs us of our free will.
I also don't see how removing evil would take away one's freedom to choose God. It would in fact make it easier to choose God. After all, if God is the author of all things then he created evil and if that's the case then why on earth would I want to have God in my life? The cause of all our hardships?
If anything, it's the religious regimentation that drives the flock towards a religious experience that gives them Real Faith. Choice is the last thing that comes into it.
We don't even need to mention abrogating Choice. 'Don't listen to them; they are speaking for Satan'. The method is faith- based controlling of thinking. Again, robots is what is wanted.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-25-2020 at 03:43 PM..
Nice post. But we have to ask, did Paul after being coerced into conversion lose his free will? Do those who become born again lose free will, simply because they cannot now reason critically without Faith that limited how far it can go? I'd say free will is still there, even though it has been limited in the area of Godfaith. And (as suggested in another thread) bornagain belief is what saves, not just reasoned acceptance of the godclaim
Wouldn't that suggest that Robots is what God prefers?
Of course NOT. What is wanted is mature, self-directed adults who automatically do the right things and avoid the wrong ones regardless of the consequences - as Jesus did.
Biblical Christianity, which emphasizes a relationship with Christ (personal creator God).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Of course NOT. What is wanted is mature, self-directed adults who automatically do the right things and avoid the wrong ones regardless of the consequences - as Jesus did.
One could force me into doing the wrong things by threat of consequences, even when I know my actions could be harmful to others. I am however, known for standing up and resisting when I feel the need. The only reason I haven't been fired is that they like me and know I do a good job.
No it doesn't. It implies an aspect of what atheism does. Is it rejection as part of or instead of disbelief? You still seem to be confusing different kinds of atheists ad what they do with different kinds of atheism and what it does.
And I'm still hoping for an answer to my question.
Pure projection of theist thinking onto atheists. We may disagree on a lot, but not of disbelief in the God -claim.
Mystic tinkering about with semantics and saying it's us doing it, and reversing logic. The usual.
no, the usual is you running away so that we can't compare what he is saying to what you are saying. whos claim has a mechanism and makes predictions. Using some basic science, engineering, and common sense.
You like just using hear-say so people can't get a toe hold on whats going on. And when the science doesn't fit your way ... run away.
One could force me into doing the wrong things by threat of consequences, even when I know my actions could be harmful to others. I am however, known for standing up and resisting when I feel the need. The only reason I haven't been fired is that they like me and know I do a good job.
yup. That holds up under most statements of belief about god.
The more condition a claim holds up under the more reliable it is. generally speaking of course.
I also don't see how removing evil would take away one's freedom to choose God. It would in fact make it easier to choose God. After all, if God is the author of all things then he created evil and if that's the case then why on earth would I want to have God in my life? The cause of all our hardships?
It wouldn't. As you have probably already surmised, Christians have this insatiable "itch" to get God off the hook for crap He's clearly responsible for having put in place. I think a far more rational and respectable excuse is, "Hey! He's God. He can do any damn thing He wants!" That at least is honest. The free will red herring stinks so bad it drove sensible people out of the building centuries ago.
Atheism can take many forms, from disbelief in God to the complete rejection of Him because they view Him as an evil entity by virtue of His unwillingness to stop evil. It was Edmond Burke who said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” We might be able to extend that to "A God who is able to stop evil from triumphing and does nothing must of necessity be evil Himself."
This idea is repugnant to theists naturally so they have invented all sorts of excuses for God. We've heard them a million times around here: "God's ways are mysterious" "God is honoring man's free will" "It's Adam's fault, not God's". They're all pretty silly and without merit. The only one that may be closest to the truth is that there must be a system of justice in the supernatural world that is completely unlike the one we have here. In God's world people suffering horribly is not bad or evil, just unfortunate. We down here who do the suffering cannot fathom such a system. It seems abhorrent to us.
It would be so easy for me to just stop believing there is a God were it not for this pesky detail:
"The 2010 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica contains 32 volumes, 50 million words and 300 million characters. It requires roughly 1 gigabyte (GB) of disk space to store. A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA base pairs. In order to represent the entire diploid human genome in terms of bytes, we can perform the following calculations: 6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes, about 2 CDs worth of space!"
I hope you got that. The human genome could hold the entire Encyclopedia Britannica and still have room left over for another half of the set. To my mind this kind of gigantic organization of coded information could not have come about by accident. The odds of something like that happening on its own are so infinitesimal as to render the number virtually incapable of being written out.
So I personally can accept there is a Higher Intelligence out there and I can even accept that this Intelligence operates on a morality totally different from ours, but I cannot accept that this Intelligence chooses to foist its warped sense of morality on we who have to suffer under its pernicious set of evil laws.
So I may believe in God but I am under no obligation morally, religiously or otherwise to acknowledge Him or to hold Him in anything other than complete and total indifference. I think by that definition it makes me an atheist who believes in an evil God, strange as that may sound.
It's an interesting post. Thanks for your honesty. I can imagine you were expecting some criticism from anti-theists for admitting belief in any God (or belief in anything supernatural) but you didn't let that deter you. I can respect that.
I'm confused why you still identify as an atheist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe I got you wrong. I was sure you were putting an Intelligent Designer in there as the creator of such mores.
To my mind this kind of gigantic organization of coded information could not have come about by accident. The odds of something like that happening on its own are so infinitesimal as to render the number virtually incapable of being written out. 
