Atheism Discussion Thread

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I think I've seen four or five atheism threads since the Christian thread started, and none of them lasted very long.

Turns out that when the thing people have in common is not believing in any god or gods, that doesn't give them a lot to talk about.

The closest thing I've seen to a "successful" atheist discussion thread was the "If God exists why is there evil" one, and it was a mess to read (got plenty of zealots from both sides). I guess this comment applies to it:

Sort of agree, sort of like ‘discuss not being a hamster, how has not being a hamster affected your life and views’.. and then it just devolves into a hamster bashing thread.

Well, there are many verses in the Bible invalidating God's omnibenevolence

[Auze]

The closest thing I've seen to a "successful" atheist discussion thread was the "If God exists why is there evil" one, and it was a mess to read (got plenty of zealots from both sides). I guess this comment applies to it:

Well, there are many verses in the Bible invalidating God's omnibenevolence

What is your definition of omnibenevolent, and please pick out a verse.

[The New California Republic]

Well, there are many verses in the Bible invalidating God's omnibenevolence

What is your definition of omnibenevolent, and please pick out a verse.

I mean, there are plenty of instances of God killing people in the Bible, let's not kid ourselves.

Genesis 6:7, 7:4, 7:21-23, 17, 19:24, 19:26, 35:5, 38:7, 38:8-10, 41:25-32, 54. And that is just the Book of Genesis...

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Well, there are many verses in the Bible invalidating God's omnibenevolence

What is your definition of omnibenevolent, and please pick out a verse.

Omnibenevolent - infinitely good

The Bible suggests God:
. condones rape
. encourages racism
. is blatantly homophobic (even though God would know homosexuality IS NOT a choice)
. calls for killing of innocent people
. has serious anger management issues and commits genocides (if God is evil, that makes a lot of sense given what I do in sandbox video games)

[Annihitor the Incred]

What is your definition of omnibenevolent, and please pick out a verse.

Omnibenevolent - infinitely good

The Bible suggests God:
. condones rape
. encourages racism
. is blatantly homophobic (even though God would know homosexuality IS NOT a choice)
. calls for killing of innocent people
. has serious anger management issues and commits genocides (if God is evil, that makes a lot of sense given what I do in sandbox video games)

. a being of universal scale and infinite intelligence would not care what appendages what types of semi-aware apes shove into each other

[Pope Joan]

How much "God" is too much, as far as atheism is concerned?

Buddhists do not worship a deity, and their practice is founded upon skepticism. Yet they "look like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck", which is to say that they SEEM a lot like theistic religions in their behavior and ritual.

Paul Tillich talked about a "Ground of Being", which appeals to me intellectually. This is hardly a personal god, not some white bearded figure on a giant throne in the sky; would that be acceptable?

[Te Wat-Hao]

How much "God" is too much, as far as atheism is concerned?

Buddhists do not worship a deity, and their practice is founded upon skepticism. Yet they "look like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck", which is to say that they SEEM a lot like theistic religions in their behavior and ritual.

Paul Tillich talked about a "Ground of Being", which appeals to me intellectually. This is hardly a personal god, not some white bearded figure on a giant throne in the sky; would that be acceptable?

Is there evidence for this impersonal god? If not, it has no more reality than Lord of the Rings.

[Neutraligon]

How much "God" is too much, as far as atheism is concerned?

Buddhists do not worship a deity, and their practice is founded upon skepticism. Yet they "look like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck", which is to say that they SEEM a lot like theistic religions in their behavior and ritual.

Paul Tillich talked about a "Ground of Being", which appeals to me intellectually. This is hardly a personal god, not some white bearded figure on a giant throne in the sky; would that be acceptable?

So long as they do not believe in a god they are atheist, no matter what other beliefs they hold.

[Switzo-Polish Republic]

How much "God" is too much, as far as atheism is concerned?

Buddhists do not worship a deity, and their practice is founded upon skepticism. Yet they "look like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck", which is to say that they SEEM a lot like theistic religions in their behavior and ritual.

Paul Tillich talked about a "Ground of Being", which appeals to me intellectually. This is hardly a personal god, not some white bearded figure on a giant throne in the sky; would that be acceptable?

So long as they do not believe in a god they are atheist, no matter what other beliefs they hold.

I actually saw this article in Scientfic American that said that despite the number of athiests increasng over time, belief in things like the afterlife remain.

[Pope Joan]

How much "God" is too much, as far as atheism is concerned?

Buddhists do not worship a deity, and their practice is founded upon skepticism. Yet they "look like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck", which is to say that they SEEM a lot like theistic religions in their behavior and ritual.

Paul Tillich talked about a "Ground of Being", which appeals to me intellectually. This is hardly a personal god, not some white bearded figure on a giant throne in the sky; would that be acceptable?

Is there evidence for this impersonal god? If not, it has no more reality than Lord of the Rings.

Philosophy asks such questions as "what is true? What is beautiful?" and debate on these topics is ongoing with no final resolution in sight. Nevertheless, we speak to each other of such things even though we cannot agree on their definition.

[The New California Republic]

I actually saw this article in Scientfic American that said that despite the number of athiests increasng over time, belief in things like the afterlife remain.

Nietzsche called these kinds of things the "shadow of God", i.e. things that will remain behind for a while, regardless of the fact that belief in the God that may have justified said beliefs has disappeared.

“God is dead, but considering the state the species man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown.”

[Te Wat-Hao]

Is there evidence for this impersonal god? If not, it has no more reality than Lord of the Rings.

Philosophy asks such questions as "what is true? What is beautiful?" and debate on these topics is ongoing with no final resolution in sight. Nevertheless, we speak to each other of such things even though we cannot agree on their definition.

Truth is objective, beauty is subjective. Truth is a question not of philosophy, but of scientific evidence or lack thereof.

[The New California Republic]

Philosophy asks such questions as "what is true? What is beautiful?" and debate on these topics is ongoing with no final resolution in sight. Nevertheless, we speak to each other of such things even though we cannot agree on their definition.

Truth is objective, beauty is subjective. Truth is a question not of philosophy, but of scientific evidence or lack thereof.

The nature of truth has been debated in Western Philosophy for thousands of years. Somebody better tell them that they were wrong to debate it, as clearly it is only the domain of the sciences(!)

[Cekoviu]

What is your definition of omnibenevolent, and please pick out a verse.

Omnibenevolent - infinitely good

The Bible suggests God:
. condones rape
. encourages racism
. is blatantly homophobic (even though God would know homosexuality IS NOT a choice)
. calls for killing of innocent people
. has serious anger management issues and commits genocides (if God is evil, that makes a lot of sense given what I do in sandbox video games)

How do we know those things are bad, though?
Checkmate, liberals.

[Human Sacred Theocracy]

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
2 Cor 6:14

[Neutraligon]

Omnibenevolent - infinitely good

The Bible suggests God:
. condones rape
. encourages racism
. is blatantly homophobic (even though God would know homosexuality IS NOT a choice)
. calls for killing of innocent people
. has serious anger management issues and commits genocides (if God is evil, that makes a lot of sense given what I do in sandbox video games)

How do we know those things are bad, though?
Checkmate, liberals.

How do certain theists know god is good?

[Neutraligon]

Omnibenevolent - infinitely good

The Bible suggests God:
. condones rape
. encourages racism
. is blatantly homophobic (even though God would know homosexuality IS NOT a choice)
. calls for killing of innocent people
. has serious anger management issues and commits genocides (if God is evil, that makes a lot of sense given what I do in sandbox video games)

How do we know those things are bad, though?
Checkmate, liberals.

How do certain theists know god is good?

[Te Wat-Hao]

Truth is objective, beauty is subjective. Truth is a question not of philosophy, but of scientific evidence or lack thereof.

The nature of truth has been debated in Western Philosophy for thousands of years. Somebody better tell them that they were wrong to debate it, as clearly it is only the domain of the sciences(!)

Truth is objective, beauty is subjective. Truth is a question not of philosophy, but of scientific evidence or lack thereof.

The nature of truth has been debated in Western Philosophy for thousands of years. Somebody better tell them that they were wrong to debate it, as clearly it is only the domain of the sciences(!)

Being a philosopher does not entitle you to special treatment. Truth as such is objective, perception and opinion is subjective.

I said TRUTH is the domain of the sciences, not THE NATURE OF IT.

[Eol Sha]

How much "God" is too much, as far as atheism is concerned?

Buddhists do not worship a deity, and their practice is founded upon skepticism. Yet they "look like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck", which is to say that they SEEM a lot like theistic religions in their behavior and ritual.

Paul Tillich talked about a "Ground of Being", which appeals to me intellectually. This is hardly a personal god, not some white bearded figure on a giant throne in the sky; would that be acceptable?

Well, there are Buddhist sects that do believe in the existence of supernatural entities akin to things like angels or spirits.

[New Neruda]

How much "God" is too much, as far as atheism is concerned?

Buddhists do not worship a deity, and their practice is founded upon skepticism. Yet they "look like a duck, quack like a duck, swim like a duck", which is to say that they SEEM a lot like theistic religions in their behavior and ritual.

Paul Tillich talked about a "Ground of Being", which appeals to me intellectually. This is hardly a personal god, not some white bearded figure on a giant throne in the sky; would that be acceptable?

As a nonreligious person I actually quite like Buddhism.

[The New California Republic]

The nature of truth has been debated in Western Philosophy for thousands of years. Somebody better tell them that they were wrong to debate it, as clearly it is only the domain of the sciences(!)

Being a philosopher does not entitle you to special treatment.

I didn't say that it does. Nice straw man.

Truth as such is objective, perception and opinion is subjective.

The objectivity of truth, the nature of truth, truth itself, has been debated by philosophers since time immemorial. Whether truth is objective or not has been the subject of fierce debate in the West since before the Greeks.

I said TRUTH is the domain of the sciences, not THE NATURE OF IT.

Raise that eyebrow all you like, but philosophy very much does have significant input into our understanding of truth and truth itself.

But this is all besides the point and entirely off-topic.

[Annihitor the Incred]

Being a philosopher does not entitle you to special treatment.

I didn't say that it does. Nice straw man.

Truth as such is objective, perception and opinion is subjective.

The objectivity of truth, the nature of truth, truth itself, has been debated by philosophers since time immemorial. Whether truth is objective or not has been the subject of fierce debate in the West since before the Greeks.

I said TRUTH is the domain of the sciences, not THE NATURE OF IT.

Raise that eyebrow all you like, but philosophy very much does have significant input into our understanding of truth and truth itself.

But this is all besides the point and entirely off-topic.

You imply something being debated entitles it to being debated forever. It does not. Truth is facts is objective, and that is the answer. How long it has been debated is entirely immaterial.

[The New California Republic]

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
2 Cor 6:14

Ezekiel 23:20. I'm sure that passage had divine influence(!)

[The New California Republic]

You imply something being debated entitles it to being debated forever.

Nope. Never said that or implied it. If you think that I implied it, then you are grossly misinterpreting what I am saying.

[Annihitor the Incred]

You imply something being debated entitles it to being debated forever.

Nope. Never said that or implied it. If you think that I implied it, then you are grossly misinterpreting what I am saying.

You are easy to misunderstand, bröther beär.