Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (hell, atheist, agnostics)
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.
Its like saying "You" bear responsibility for getting cancer.
Yeah, it’s not taking accountability for one’s life (or accepting ‘it is what it is’) sans a god, from my perspective - really no different than blaming an ex, friend, parent, boss, whatever.
This is atheist theology. Don't get me wrong, its good stuff if one needs this kind of thing.
The issue atheist bumping up against claims that are reliable but rejecting them because they are atheist or they have a stop religious agenda.
At least be open an honest. As soon as we have to wink at each other, we are religious atheist.
I have no idea what you are on about. Theology is the study of the nature of god and belief therein. Atheism is being without belief in any gods. So there can be no "atheist theology". If you just mean atheist beliefs without good reason, THAT is possible, but you would have to be more specific.
I am quite open, honest and specific about my thinking and my reasons for thinking it.
Yeah, it’s not taking accountability for one’s life (or accepting ‘it is what it is’) sans a god, from my perspective - really no different than blaming an ex, friend, parent, boss, whatever.
Thrill is a deconvert from Christianity but not an atheist. He's still disappointed in what he understands to be the promises of god.
Blaming god would actually be substantively different than blaming humans if the god is all knowing, all loving and all powerful, so that it could be held to a perfect standard. That would relieve a believer of having to temper their expectations with the humble acknowledgement that the person who has failed you is imperfect. It would be perfectly legitimate to hold such a god to what would, for any other actor, be an unrealistically high standard -- if still unwise for the same reasons that festering resentments, however justified, end up being toxic to the person holding onto them. If the deity is duplicitous or unreliable, and you believe them to be real, then kick them to the curb, as you would with any other feckless actor. Find a better god to interact with, if you can.
At any rate, when it comes to the vicissitudes of life, I went the "it is what it is" route long ago. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily responsible for any particular aspect of my personal suffering, it just means that I don't take it personally or feel some entitlement to the protection or support of some sort of all-powerful being.
but you saw "stufficient evidence" for your beliefs.
I question the process you use to evaluate claims ...
I am satisfied with my own personal beliefs, while acknowledging that they may be right, or they may be wrong. But I will point out that I have never suggested to anyone that they should believe in or adopt Buddhism, reincarnation/rebirth, or past lives as their belief system. I have always been very up front in saying that I cannot provide evidence for reincarnation/rebirth and past lives, and that is why each individual is free to judge those concepts independently.
Thrill is a deconvert from Christianity but not an atheist. He's still disappointed in what he understands to be the promises of god.
Blaming god would actually be substantively different than blaming humans if the god is all knowing, all loving and all powerful, so that it could be held to a perfect standard. That would relieve a believer of having to temper their expectations with the humble acknowledgement that the person who has failed you is imperfect. It would be perfectly legitimate to hold such a god to what would, for any other actor, be an unrealistically high standard -- if still unwise for the same reasons that festering resentments, however justified, end up being toxic to the person holding onto them. If the deity is duplicitous or unreliable, and you believe them to be real, then kick them to the curb, as you would with any other feckless actor. Find a better god to interact with, if you can.
At any rate, when it comes to the vicissitudes of life, I went the "it is what it is" route long ago. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily responsible for any particular aspect of my personal suffering, it just means that I don't take it personally or feel some entitlement to the protection or support of some sort of all-powerful being.
I would say this is on par, mordant a very good description of my problem with this higher power I call God for convenience. In the first paragraph there just one flaw: this higher power I think orchestrated life here and then abandoned us, it did not make any promises because it is a deist being; it started life and then left us to evolve on our own without any intention of helping us, much like a deadbeat dad who gets a girl pregnant and then skipped town leaving the girl all alone. I feel the way the girl and child would feel: "If you didn't intend to help us out through an anguished tragedy-filled, pain-filled existence then what was your purpose in creating this dunghole we call earth?" We come into this world, we're beset by disease, pain, suffering, the worst life has to offer and then we die. A fortunate few rise to the top 1% but the rest of us live in squalor of one form or another from the cradle to the grave--some of it of our own making but most of it by forces completely out of our control.
It's more complex of course but that is the basic foundation of my disgust with this being.
For example, love is one of the most selfish emptions I know. People will hurt an unlimited number of people to satisfy their "love". And think its beautiful.
You have this twisted as love is not selfish nor does one destroy unlimited people (particularly for the purpose of self-satisfaction, per above) for ‘love’. It (nonsensically) sounds as though you’re describing sadism i.e. deriving pleasure from inflicting pain or the suffering/humiliation of others - and calling it love/mutually beneficial sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Blaming god would actually be substantively different than blaming humans if the god is all knowing, all loving and all powerful, so that it could be held to a perfect standard.
I’m coming at it from an atheist perspective i.e. one’s life/situation is their own; there simply is no ‘perfect standard’. Hence, I see ‘blame’ only in terms of (a lack of) personal accountability (and the rule of law).
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 04-30-2022 at 09:31 PM..
I actually think that illogical hypotheses don't even need to be subjected to an evidentiary test. Logical consistency is the first hurdle, then evidence.
The problem with that is one can make a logical valid argument that is not logically sound. That is, one can use false premises in a coherent logical argument, but that just leads to GIGO.
I would say this is on par, mordant a very good description of my problem with this higher power I call God for convenience. In the first paragraph there just one flaw: this higher power I think orchestrated life here and then abandoned us, it did not make any promises because it is a deist being; it started life and then left us to evolve on our own without any intention of helping us, much like a deadbeat dad who gets a girl pregnant and then skipped town leaving the girl all alone. I feel the way the girl and child would feel: "If you didn't intend to help us out through an anguished tragedy-filled, pain-filled existence then what was your purpose in creating this dunghole we call earth?" We come into this world, we're beset by disease, pain, suffering, the worst life has to offer and then we die. A fortunate few rise to the top 1% but the rest of us live in squalor of one form or another from the cradle to the grave--some of it of our own making but most of it by forces completely out of our control.
It's more complex of course but that is the basic foundation of my disgust with this being.
Isn't it strange that you claim this "higher power you call God for convenience" has the exact same Omnimax Powers (All Powerful, All Knowing, All Present) as the Abrahamic God Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah?
You also declare this Higher Power--Extent Deist God you believe in is All Loving...just like the Abrahamic God.
But you declare in no uncertain terms that you are not referring to the Abrahamic God or getting any info from The Bible or other similar writings.
Could you please explain how you know that Higher Power--Extant Deist God has the exact same traits and attributes as the Abrahamic God...but is a different God from the Abrahamic Deity...and where you got this information about Higher Power-Extant Deist God.
Isn't it strange that you claim this "higher power you call God for convenience" has the exact same Omnimax Powers (All Powerful, All Knowing, All Present) as the Abrahamic God Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah?
You also declare this Higher Power--Extent Deist God you believe in is All Loving...just like the Abrahamic God.
But you declare in no uncertain terms that you are not referring to the Abrahamic God or getting any info from The Bible or other similar writings.
Could you please explain how you know that Higher Power--Extant Deist God has the exact same traits and attributes as the Abrahamic God...but is a different God from the Abrahamic Deity...and where you got this information about Higher Power-Extant Deist God.
I warned you about those psychotropics, Gldn. They cause otherwise incoherent people to start hallucinating all sorts of crazy stuff they think other people have said. You never heard me say I think Yahweh is all-loving when I think he doesn't even exist. The Bible portrays Yahweh as:
Yahweh possess not a single redeeming quality I can think of. Now the REAL being I believe might exist is to the center of everything Dawkins says above about Yahweh. He is cold, uncaring, unfeeling, non-committed, uncommunicative, reticent, couldn't-give-damn-about-anything-or-anyone.
I'm not saying there is a higher power. I'm saying this is why I BELIEVE there is likely a higher power. And I'm aware we've jousted on this a few times in the past. But I'm repeating it for the benefit of people who have not read our exchanges previously so they can understand where I'm coming from, and I'll probably repeat it a dozen more times as the occasion calls for it and you're free to offer your dissents again on all dozen times so people know your position, or not. To sum, all I'm saying is that if you don't believe there is a higher power of some sort, you just have to not question how the planet overcame odds that cannot even be written down as a number to get us to the advanced state we are if you have no rational explanation to offer in place of mine. All you're saying now is "Science not being able to explain how we got here doesn't automatically lead to accepting that a higher intelligence did it." I agree. I do, but obviously not everyone else does. I merely offer my theory as a possible explanation and I try to demonstrate how impossible odds would make my theory a little more palatable than "How did we get here? I don't know."
Hmmm...
Okay. You BELIEVE there is likely a higher power, and I've addressed the flaw in your logic that has you believing what you do. You never address that point. Apparently you are quite content to dismiss alternative logic and reason without consideration, without comment, and simply repeat what you believe as if the flaw leading to your conclusion has never even been presented to you.
That's like arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. I point out why 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Not necessarily anyway, and rather than consider the WHY 2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 5, you simply repeat that 2 + 2 = 5. Or that you believe 2 + 2 is likely to equal 5.
Again, what thrill does not know or understand does not automatically equal a higher power. Does not automatically equal the likelihood of a higher power.
It is NOT that we should not question how the planet overcame odds as you describe. Not at all. The opposite in fact. I/we all do. The difference is about drawing conclusion(s) about odds that we don't comprehend. In more simple terms, it's no different than we humans thought earthquakes, floods, disease and all that sort of thing once equally incomprehensible to us was attributed to a higher power and/or the likelihood of a higher power. Needless to say we were wrong then for the exact same reason you are likely to be wrong again. You are doing exactly the same thing in any case.
"Don't know or understand? Must be a higher power. That's very faulty logic and reason as our history along these lines has well proven time and time again.
Hard for me to understand how you don't see or understand this, let alone address this simple flaw in your reasoning...
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.
