Atheism

The quotes of quotes is getting a little confusing, so I'm going to try and address all your points without reposting - let me know if I miss anything.

I'm still not really on board with the concept of "I'm an athiest because I don't believe in all gods", but I get the point you're trying to make and I'll conceed that point just as a matter of symantics. We're both saying the same thing, just putting different labels on it.

Please ellaborate on my "conflicting" opinions about Athiests. I don't have a problem with Atheists being Atheists. Just like you said about my Christianity, if it works for you (and I know it does), great. I don't feel the need to "convince" you to follow my religion. I know that's not true of all Christians, but you've got to conceed that there are Atheists trying to do the same thing.

I guess that leads to your next point about my friend (who's not trying to "recruit" - for lack of a better term). I guess our relationship is my vision of what the ideal relationship between an Athiest and a Christian should be. I'm generally an optimist, so I tend to project that vision (sometimes unjustly) on the whole. There are obviously some Atheist who DO seek out conflict with Deists. Mortimer and El Bastardo are 2 examples thusfar in this thread.

FWIW, I think this is a really healthy (and ideal) discussion about it. I don't feel like you're trying to convince me that there is no God, and I'm not trying to convince you that there is. We're just defining our standpoints - at least as best I can tell.

 

so why differentiate faith in gravity based on the "truth" that people stick to the planet earth? is it gravitational force that all physical bodies produce based on their mass and decreasing proportional to distance or is it the weight of the atmosphere holding us down? or is it just our natural place to be at ground level?

we all are here, just like the visual effect of gravity is that things fall. how we got here is the question, just like how gravity does what it does.

i guess.

 

I am, but you're correct. It is a constant change. Yet, whatever the changes be they external or internal, I simply am.

One thing I've certainly found to be true, is the older I get, the more like myself I become.

Tempted to revisit Christianity. In all honesty, no. Have I often thought that my life could be less complicated, and less complicated for my family, if I returned to it? Sure. That, however, would be out of convienence and not belief.

My journey into Christianity was something that started at birth. My mother was a good Baptist women. During my early teenage years, I left our family church and began to attend another church with my friends. I joined that church and was baptised but it never felt right, no matter how much I wanted it to. Looking back, I know now that I simply never believed. I wanted to. I was certainly socialized to. It just was false.

That's what makes you a bit different from the run of the mill.

 

I'm going to keep the weird quotes thing going just so I don't miss anything.

No, simply pointing out that you either passively or actively reject other beliefs with no doubts or worries. Atheists, at least in our Christian culture, simply don't believe in one thing that you do.

The conflict arose because your original post says that atheists do the same things as believers, defend their faith and try to convert others. Later you post that your image of an athiests is based on your friend who does try to convert. There's a bit of a disconnect between the two posts.

As I stated previously, there are many different philosophies among non-beleivers. Some are quite anti-religion. Others are fairly religion neutral. Don't confuse the two.

Also, don't confuse advocacy of the separation of church and state when it comes to school prayer, goverment sponsored religious events, etc. with being anti-religion. My kids certainly get enough of that in our local school system and it's a delicate balancing act for us. Protect my family rights, along with those of my Christian neighbors, but in doing so bring the wrath of those neighbors down on mine and my children's heads. I'm gonna ask for a Muslim reading at the Christmas concert.

I'm not going to try to convince you of anything except that making negative generalizations about atheism is no different than making them about any other group. Well, except for Duke fans. Then all the bad stuff is true.

 

Ah, i just picked up on something that I think we might have not had an understanding on (and was causing some confusion). I don't mean to project that I think Christianity is superior to Atheism. I believe Christianity is "right" the same way you believe Atheism is "right", but i don't think Christianity is "better". I see now what you were getting at now with your point of you only reject more thing than I do - but I dont that really matters. I don't see the purpose in "keeping score".

And, hey, I'm totally with you on the separation of church and state in regards to school prayer, etc. There's a time and place for everything, but that ain't it.

And I don't think I've really made any negative generalizations about Atheists that I haven't admitted Christians do as well. I've said from the beginning that exchanging ideas is great, but you've got to respect others' beliefs as well. I don't really think we've got opposing viewpoints on this.

 

this is a logical fallacy. The premise "god exists" needs to be followed by evidence to be rigorous. The premise "god does not exist" does NOT need to be followed by evidence in the same way any other infinite thought constructs do not need to be disproven. You cannot posit the nonexistence of something that was never shown to exist in the first place as having any meaning. Mathematically, it is null set rather than a zero. It is a category error.

The premise "god exists" is an assertion of grounding without evidence. It is not the default theoretical state. There is neither evidence of grounding nor not-grounding. And thus, you cannot use lack of evidence for one thought construct as evidence for the other.

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#affirm-consequent
​

 

Theoretically and rhetorically that correct, but practically, it's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, many Atheists and Diests feel the need to confront one another, and the fact that neither side can prove their viewpoint allows the confrontation to continue.

 

I agree with that. But I am not particularly concerned with the "feelings" of atheists nor their opponents. The fact is, there is no evidence for the idea of god. As such, there really is no logical argument. It is a political argument.

 

Prayer...the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-Lisa Simpson

 

Seems like many people become "atheists" by default. They have a bad experience with a particular religion and choose to not believe in any higher power.