Atheists Least Trusted

[Chairboy]

Lasz: I'll repeat it for you again.

Atheism = lack of religious belief.  It's not a faith, it's a lack of faith.

What part of that do you not understand?

[moot]

That's just semantics.. one dictionary will say it's the idea there's no god, another the absence of it.
How many types of atheism are there?  I always heard it used as the definitive belief of godlessness, but apparently it's a pretty ambiguous title.

[Mini D]

Atheism = "there is no god" which is actually a religious belief. Unless you have proof?

It's not indifference. It's not dismissive. And it's definately not proveable. It is 100% faith based.

[lazs2]

moot... apparently there are many forms of the athiest religion with many different beliefs.

It can be either faith based that it is impossible that there is a god all the way to....

"I don't know if there is one but I don't like the uniform of the agnostics so I call myself an athiest to get the snazzy uniform."

either way...  seems that it is a very important belief to each and every one of em..

lazs

[SaburoS]

********** Bear with me as I was up very late/early and am going on 4 hrs sleep.****************

Originally posted by lazs2
subaru... you are a smart guy... are you saying that calling yourself an athiest is not a statement of faith?lazs

Absolutely. I base my belief on the facts, not on faith.

I have admited that belief in god is a statement of faith.... there is no proof other than what is all around us...  

True, but some believing of religions also believe in an afterlife of sorts, others of reincarnation, ideas they cannot possibly prove. Faith....preach on.

An agnostic is more scientific... he says that he doesn't know and that "how could he"... If he sees proof either way he will probly go wit that.

Now you make a statement of ignorance. How can you possibly know what goes on in the minds of others? Are you clairvoyant?
I have drawn my conclusions as a result of 'studying' the various religions and conversing with believers their arguments for their beliefs in why there is a God and why they believe what they do.
From what I understand of Agnostics is that there isn't a strong enough proof base that a God/Supreme Being exists. They 'feel' that the possibility of a God exists, but doesn't have a direct influence on our daily lives.
This is a generalization as there is rarely a 100% concenscious on anything within any particular group.

An athiest is simply a wild eyed preacher of his agenda... that there is no god and no possibility of one.   How would they know that?

Simply wrong.
I have no agenda. I do not try to preach or to convert those that have faith.
I will out of respect answer questions as best I can though.
The origins of life. Evolution. Physics. .........
So far the "facts" put forth by those who do believe of the existance of God have yet to stand up to scrutiny to my satisfaction. Occam's Razor

What about aliens and bigfoot?  no proof so they must not exist right?  I say that there is no proof that god is impossible.

Careful of the differences. I don't believe in the existance of bigfoot. As to aleins, oh the probability of their existing is very high due to the many similar solar systems to ours out there. But "green men from Mars"? No.
And it would be wrong of me to tell you what you believe and not believe. I simply cannot and will not do that for those basing their beliefs on faith. It is not my place.

MT... I am afraid that seagoon is correct.... for good or bad all morales as we recognize them are the result of one religion or another.   The church of athiesm is a relatively new one that has not contributed to morality one way or the other.... they simply critique or applaud ones allready made by religion.

I am an Atheist. I do not go to a house of worship, I do not pray. I do not gather with other Atheists to further an agenda. I do not cheat. I do not victimize others. I do not drink, smoke, or do other drugs. I pay my taxes. I donate to charities (yes, even religious based ones). I help out my family, friends, employees the best I can if I can.

I believe good "moral" people as well as bad evil people have existed since the beginning of mankind before the advent of organized religions. Religions have taken the good "morals" and adopted it into their books of faith, as the cornerstone of how they are to behave.

This is how I see it in as condenced a version as I can put it.
I was born, I live, I will die. That is my life, I only have one chance at it and will do the best that I can.

Continue with your labeling, but you are wrong.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by moot
We're not understanding each other.  It's impressive how easy it is to misunderstand over these posts.
I've just had a long day of work and I'm going to argue at no more than one point at a time.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the following's at the base of your p.o.v., so that's the first point:

I'm saying that not seeing proof of something being true isn't a valid basis to conclude it's false.
I think it's called something like Proof by a negative.. so if you still don't see what i'm saying, you can look it up, I don't know how to boil it down any simpler than that.

Here you go: negative proof.

Actually I do understand your angle.
You do misunderstand me.
I was right as to "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy. See my post of a several hours ago.
The arguments I see most often of those that God exists has been proven false to my satisfaction.
The idea of a God/Supreme Being has been around for ages. Because of the many debates/arguments it has been discussed at length and with the logic we all base our conclusions on.
I say it boils down to this:
Those that believe do so on faith as the facts just aren't there yet to support it.
I don't believe as the facts don't support it. I just don't have the faith of the existence of a Supreme Being/God as the facts don't support it.

Do I believe there to be aliens (not to confse this with 'green men from Mars') even though I haven't seen them? Yes, I have faith  that they do exist
as they haven't been disproven to my satisfaction.

I hope my nuances in my thought processes are coming through.
There is a dfference.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by moot
That's just semantics.. one dictionary will say it's the idea there's no god, another the absence of it.
How many types of atheism are there?  I always heard it used as the definitive belief of godlessness, but apparently it's a pretty ambiguous title.

I cannot speak for other Atheists, only myself.
There is no God, no Supreme Being(s). Period.
It has nothing to do with morals, acting good or bad.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Mini D
Atheism = "there is no god" which is actually a religious belief. Unless you have proof?

It's not indifference. It's not dismissive. And it's definately not proveable. It is 100% faith based.

There is a difference.
"God does not exist."
It is not a religious view.
I do not pray or believe in a Supreme Being.
I do not attribute things as yet unexplained to those of a Supreme Being.
I do not go to a house of worship or a gathering of Atheists.
I do not have an agenda to eliminate religions as I actually believe them to be helpful to some.
Religion is 100% faith based, not the other way around.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lazs2
moot... apparently there are many forms of the athiest religion with many different beliefs.

It can be either faith based that it is impossible that there is a god all the way to....

"I don't know if there is one but I don't like the uniform of the agnostics so I call myself an athiest to get the snazzy uniform."

either way...  seems that it is a very important belief to each and every one of em..

lazs

What snazzy uniforms do I wear as an Atheist? Name badges? How would you ID me in a crowd?
Despite what you may think, Atheism doesn't consume me. Life is what it is, I just go about it the best way that I can. I do not bring harm to those that have different beliefs, nor do I mock those that have different beliefs than my own.
Those that have made the leap of faith, I understand and actually support their rights to do so.
Tolerance. Can you say the same?

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Mini D
Atheism = "there is no god" which is actually a religious belief. Unless you have proof?

It's not indifference. It's not dismissive. And it's definately not proveable. It is 100% faith based.

So there is no tooth fairy is also faith?

There is no easter bunny is also faith?

[crowMAW]

Greetings Seagoon...sorry for the long delay, but I'm on the last days of my vacation and needed to finish acheiving all the goals I'd set out to accomplish during my time off.

Also, since I go back to work tomorrow after having been off for some time, I may not have time for another reply.  So I will try to include only observations in this post rather than further questions.

Originally posted by Seagoon
Crow, that doesn't follow. If a someone really is a Christian, then they have accepted that there is a God and that He is not silent, and that they are now His children and desire to obey His will out of love and reverence for Him.

It goes back to the part that even true Christian sin.  And simply repenting does not undo the wrong committed.  From my point of view, it appears that being a struggling Christian does not make one inherently more or less trustworthy.  One's actions are the true sign of trustworthiness regardless of religion.

Originally posted by Seagoon
On the other hand, the Atheist declares there is no God, that all the values we have are positively, rather than objectively derived, that we must be pragmatic or even utilitarian when making decisions, that some things can be done without anyone in the universe other than ourselves and the person we do them with knowing, and that there is no final accounting. I don't believe I have to walk you through the ways that those concepts all tend to make one more rather than less likely to not keep a promise or the aforementioned wedding vow.

I think that is a generalization that cannot be construed to mean all atheists will break vows or commit other violations of morals of local meme anymore than a Christian (since even true Christians do commit sins).  The previously posted alliteration becomes cogent: I find the person who does good works out of respect for their fellow man more worthy of my respect  than the person who does good works due to accountability to a god.

If I recall my Biblical mythos correctly, even those arguably closest to Jesus were not trustworthy, right to the end of his life.  All 12 denied Him though they knew Him well.  Even Paul, who was probably most Christ-like.

Originally posted by Seagoon
No one other than God has the capacity to tell who is and who isn't a real Christian unerringly, but this doesn't mean that we don't have any clues that will help us in that process.

And that is my point.  Not even a true Christian can accurately determine another true Christian.  The best any of us have to go on is a pattern of behavior.  If a person has a pattern of being trustworthy, then again I say it does not matter the religion...they are trustworthy.

Originally posted by Seagoon
Yes I sometimes do see the effects of conscience in a young child, and this view actually militates against the idea of man born as a blank slate. This is because the image of God in fallen man is not entirely obscured. Even the unregenerate is not without a conscience. Christian theology teaches that in the unregenerate, that conscience will be a factor to the degree in which God exercises what is known as common grace.

LOL...I think this is where we part as I demythologize and you have faith the supernatural exists.

Originally posted by Seagoon
But if the biblical worldview represents the true nature of reality, then let me quote a Scottish theologian by the name of Robert Shaw:

"An action may be materially, and yet not formally, good. Prayer, reading and hearing the Word of God, distributing to the poor, are actions materially good; but unless these actions are done by persons who are "accepted in the Beloved," and "created anew in Christ Jesus"–unless they flow from a right principle, are performed in a right manner, and directed to a right end, they are not formally good. Now, unregenerate men may do many things that are good, for the matter of them, because they are things which God commands, and of good use to themselves and others; but, as performed by them, they are destitute of everything that can render an action "good and acceptable in the sight of God." Explicit is the declaration of the Apostle Paul: "They that are in the flesh cannot please God."–Rom. viii. 8.

I'm not sure I see that thought process in the Bible.  I will admit being a poor Bible scholar, but I recall Jesus telling the story of an apostate Samaritan doing good works.  Rhetorical question: if Jesus Himself says one thing and Robert Shaw says something contradictory, does that make Robert Shaw a true Christian and if he was not a true Christian should someone trying to follow the path of a true Christian be listening to him?

Beyond that, it seems contrary to the concept of absolute morals as most theists reference when citing the Bible.  Good is good.  I think this may be the source of some confusion on the part of Christians that believe non-theists are untrustworthy...if non-theists do not have the capability to do "formal" good, then all their actions must be evil.  I don't think I need to explain how harmful that confusion is and how likely it is that professing Christians might grow to hate non-theists as a result.

Originally posted by Seagoon
Don't think the Pharisees never did something nice for others, they did, but as Christ pointed out their motives were what made those works of no ultimate value.

I've heard this argument before...that atheists are purely motivated by selfish desires and even when they help others they are really motivated by feeling good about themselves when the deed is done.  My motives were to help a stranded motorist...nothing more.  My only thoughts after completing the task was to make a mental note to carry generic gasket material in the future should anyone else ever need it.  And maybe I am a freak of nature in that regard...when I took the Myers-Briggs some years ago my test evaluator was shocked to find that I was 100% 'T' and 0% 'F'.  But my point is that one cannot generalize motives...even as some might say that the Christian who stopped was only trying to bribe his way into God's good graces by pulling over to help (which is a selfish act as well).

Originally posted by Seagoon
So if you consider yourself "well", of course you will feel no need of Him and regard His comments about being "lost" as offensive. But in preaching the gospel as Christ and the Apostles did, one strives to first bring men to an awareness of their true condition (conviction) and then show them that there is one sure remedy for it (faith). In the sermon you referenced, I certainly wasn't aiming at those outside the church, but rather was aiming at convicting those before me of their need of Christ using his own words. You see the objective of the gospel is not to hate men and keep them out of the kingdom, but to invite all men everywhere in.

I've never really been offended by that rhetoric...it is the method all rulers use to solidify followers.  It is us against them...so don't listen to them or you may no longer be one of us.  Humans instinctually want to belong to a group.  There is safety in a group.  Being banished from a group was the equivalent to a death sentence in the early days of man.

So here are my observations in the form of rhetorical questions:  Do you invite those you want in your house by slapping them in the face and instilling fear of being outside?  For those who are already in your house, do you convince them to happily stay by deriding them and making them fear what is outside your house? What is your ultimate objective as a pastor...is it to bring more people closer to God?  Is there possibly a more successful approach other than using fear but still remain true to your desire not to tickle itching ears (it might be hard...but is being a witness for Jesus supposed to be an easy thing)?  And in the end, does your God want believers who choose to love Him because they are happy to do so, or believers who choose to love Him because they are afraid not to?

I admit I have a selfish motive behind these shell cracking questions.  If Christians can happily choose to be Christian, I believe they will be less likely to feel justified to use fear and force as a tactic against non-theists.

Originally posted by Seagoon
Pax,

And to you....

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Shuckins
They believe there is only one God...that there has been only one prophet, Moses...and only one Holy Book, the Pentateuch or Torah.

That was the origin of the Samaritans.

However, in the reign of Antioch about 150 years before Christ the Samaritans decided to capitulate to the Syrian ruler and convert to Hellanism.  They changed their temple to one for worshiping Zeus.  This was recorded by Josephus (historian who also recorded the existance of Jesus).  Jews considered Samaritans as apostate, ie turned from the one true God.  This is why the parable is relavent.

[lazs2]

subaru.... I think that you are now saying not so much that there is no god but that all the organized religions that you have studied (a monstrous undertaking I might add) that..... you can prove them all false..

forget organized religion.... we are talking about the possibility of a god... of a creator of the universe.   there is no way that you could know one way or the other if he exists or not.... to say yes or no is faith based.

vulcan... it is easy to prove or disprove tooth fairy along the lines of the whole tooth fairy story line.... probly a lot harder to say there are not fairies.   I am an agnostic on the subject.

crow... like it or not... all the morality we have today originated from religion.

lazs

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lazs2
subaru.... I think that you are now saying not so much that there is no god but that all the organized religions that you have studied (a monstrous undertaking I might add) that..... you can prove them all false..

forget organized religion.... we are talking about the possibility of a god... of a creator of the universe.   there is no way that you could know one way or the other if he exists or not.... to say yes or no is faith based.
lazs

How in the world is this a "monstrous undertaking"?
If something is puzzling to you, you do not investigate it further and study it? You draw your conclusions all on faith? Without investigating it?
There is a point that I will say that certain things exist, while others do not.

Now pay attention to these next lines as this whole argument is getting rather retarded:

1) I (that's me, no one else) believe that God/Supreme Being does not exist. I base on the facts as I see them. This is to my satisfaction. This is my belief for me only. You cannot tell me what I believe as I cannot tell you yours.

2) What you or others believe is your business. I am in no way going to tell you what you believe to be the truth for you. How can I possibly know what you truly think/believe?

3) To say "yes" to the possibility of anything that cannot be proven is to be based on faith.
To say "no" to the possibility of something is not necessarily so. It can be based on the facts as we see/interpret them.
That's a big distinction between saying yes and no.

4) I don't believe in a God/Supreme being. Fairies. Big Foot. Green men from Mars (do not confuse this with aliens). Cows flying. Etc.
This is my view, my beliefs. You will not disprove it to my satisfaction without bringing some facts to the table. It is arrogant of you or anyone else to tell me what I believe. You do not know how my mind works or what I think.

5) I believe that those that believe in a God/Supreme being, even though it is faith based, is very real for them. I will not, nor I doubt could change their viewpoints as we're talking faith here. It would be arrogant of me to tell them what they are to believe.

We all hold our truths as we see it based on the ideas and facts as we interpret them.

Originally posted by lazs2
crow... like it or not... all the morality we have today originated from religion.
lazs

That's rather vague.

I take it by "religion" you're basically meaning Christianity?
The "morality we have today" meaning as we have in modern, western, industrialised countries?

Are we talking generosity? Being nice to others? Not stealing? Not lying? Not murdering? (heck, pick the good attribute of choice)

I'd say those things were going on before religion was introduced to mankind. Evolution and all that.
Religion has adopted certain things based on human behavior and adapted it  for their "bylaws" on how to behave. Unfortunetly, mankind has used their own religion (as well as other causes) as justification for their own "unreligious" behavior/actions towards others.

People will do good and evil. Some under the cloak of their religion, others not.

*******************

lazs,

I am an Athiest. Now define me, my character, my actions.

[Gunthr]

Saburos, you are showing the classic signs of a soul that is struggling like a butterfly in a jar, afraid to believe, yet afraid to not believe, beating your delicate, powdered wings desperately against your glass prison, which contains a cotton ball in the bottom, saturated with starting fluid.  

I only have one question to ask.  Have you ever seen a tree?  Do you thinks its an accident what dog spelled backwards is?

 We are waiting for you to stop struggling.

To pin you into God's collection of disbelieving species.