Stupid Atheism

[RichardMNixon]

Pantheism, (for me anyway, it's rather vague/broad), is essentially that the idea of God is the universe, nature and everything in between. It's not saying that God is physically or anthropomorphically the universe, but the concept of God: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.

So for me, instead of searching through a bronze age book for answers, I search through nature herself. What is matter made of? Atoms. What are atoms made of? Particles. etc. It's basically acknowledging (reasoning, analyzing) the reality we are living (the universe); which is surprisingly ignored.

I just prefer to call myself a humanist. People should be defined by what they do believe in, not what they don't; no Jew calls himself an Achristian.
I believe in the power of humans to define right from wrong and true from false using reason, logic, and natural observations; ergo, I am a humanist.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As for the OP, you need to clarify if these are arguments against any generic supreme being, or against, say, Jehovah. I would agree that "fairy tale" isn't an argument by itself, but it's a applicable swipe in an informal debate. As for the third argument, I suppose it can't prove Jehovah doesn't exist, but I think it can be used to demonstrate he isn't the deity your opponent thinks he is. Finally for the second, I'm as certain Jehovah doesn't exist as I am the tooth fairy doesn't, which is to say as certain as any naturalist can be of anything. Christianity seems as valid to me as Last Thursdayism.

As for bad arguments I've seen, "Most smart people are atheists" would probably take the cake.

 

[DrunkCat]

Pantheism, (for me anyway, it's rather vague/broad), is essentially that the idea of God is the universe, nature and everything in between. It's not saying that God is physically or anthropomorphically the universe, but the concept of God: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.

So for me, instead of searching through a bronze age book for answers, I search through nature herself. What is matter made of? Atoms. What are atoms made of? Particles. etc. It's basically acknowledging (reasoning, analyzing) the reality we are living (the universe); which is surprisingly ignored.

I just prefer to call myself a humanist. People should be defined by what they do believe in, not what they don't; know Jew calls himself an Achristian.
I believe in the power of humans to define right from wrong and true from false using reason, logic, and natural observations; ergo, I am a humanist.

You believe that natural observations and putting them through reason and logic bears fruit. So going by "defining by what they believe", it sounds more like you're pantheist than humanist.

 

[RichardMNixon]

You believe that natural observations and putting them through reason and logic bears fruit. So going by "defining by what they believe", it sounds more like you're pantheist than humanist.

I also consider myself ignostic. If your definition of god is that vague I don't really even see the use of the word. We already have plenty of words for universe/nature/cosmos etc.

If you think believing in the power of humans to define their own morality through logic and reason makes you something other than a humanist, then what is a humanist to you?

 

[DrunkCat]

I just find being humanist narrow minded to our own species s'all. And it's not a physical or ideological 'God'; it's the idea of 'God' like I explained before.

 

[Mapp]

For me, one of the stupidest and most exasperating things I see Atheists do when the argue is try to tell Christians what they believe. I hear this a lot from atheists saying to theists, "well you're not a true Christian because you don't sell everything you own," or "You're a Christian huh, that means you must like stoning people and owning slaves." It's just as annoying to me as when a theist tells me, "Oh you're an atheist so you believe in nothing" or "So you don't believe in morality" or "What happened that made you angry at God?" It precludes any form of conversation in favor of arrogantly brushing your opponents with a single broad stroke.

We don't get to define what makes someone a "true Christian" they do, and it's different for every person, just as the definition of God is different for every person. It's fine to quote the Bible at theists to point out inconsistencies in their argument, once they've made it. If for instance they claim the Bible is the literal word of God and that God is morally perfect, then its totally justified to ask them if they agree with laws regarding slavery, stoning and genocide. Arrogantly telling someone what they believe, rather than having an honest conversation about it just makes you look like an ass.

 

[5810Singer]

For me, one of the stupidest and most exasperating things I see Atheists do when the argue is try to tell Christians what they believe. I hear this a lot from atheists saying to theists, "well you're not a true Christian because you don't sell everything you own," or "You're a Christian huh, that means you must like stoning people and owning slaves." It's just as annoying to me as when a theist tells me, "Oh you're an atheist so you believe in nothing" or "So you don't believe in morality" or "What happened that made you angry at God?" It precludes any form of conversation in favor of arrogantly brushing your opponents with a single broad stroke.

We don't get to define what makes someone a "true Christian" they do, and it's different for every person, just as the definition of God is different for every person. It's fine to quote the Bible at theists to point out inconsistencies in their argument, once they've made it. If for instance they claim the Bible is the literal word of God and that God is morally perfect, then its totally justified to ask them if they agree with laws regarding slavery, stoning and genocide. Arrogantly telling someone what they believe, rather than having an honest conversation about it just makes you look like an ass.

Well said.

 

[DrunkCat]

We don't get to define what makes someone a "true Christian" they do, and it's different for every person, just as the definition of God is different for every person.

How does that work? I don't think cherry picking lines out of the new testament constitutes being Christian. Isn't a true Christian one that 'truly' adheres to the word of Jesus Christ?

 

[Nogre]

the concept of God: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.

Ah. Well, I don't think believing in physical evidence and reasoned logic means you think the universe has all those aspects. Personally, I find the entire idea of omnipotence inconsistant (creating a rock you can't lift?), omniscience requires something capable of knowledge (and I don't think the universe qualifies), I don't think nature is at all benevolent (at least not towards us), and I think it's certainly possible there's something outside physical existence. Not that I'm trying to prove you wrong, really, but this is why I wouldn't call myself a pantheist.

However, I do believe that physical evidence and reasoned logic lead us to truth because they have the most successful track record. Science is constantly providing more useful and better working technology and logic-based philosophy establishes increasingly good systems of ethics. So that's why I would consider myself a PEARList. No other label is entirely correct.

We don't get to define what makes someone a "true Christian" they do, and it's different for every person, just as the definition of God is different for every person.

How does that work? I don't think cherry picking lines out of the new testament constitutes being Christian. Isn't a true Christian one that 'truly' adheres to the word of Jesus Christ?

I would agree with this. Pointing out the fact that religion forces you to either cherry picki or believe anything isn't a bad reason for being an atheist. There is no criteria for cherry picking religion without secular philosophy/science, and concluding that you might as well just go with secular philosophy/science from the get-go is a perfectly legitimate reason for atheism, or at least some other form of secularism.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I agree with DrunkCat on this one, cherry picking is one of the worst faces of religion. It's what allows the "Moral Majority" to justify pissing on whoever their bigotry turns them towards.

If you're going to say the bible is a source of morality, you should be have some explanation for the immoral bits, preferably a better one than "UR TAKIN IT OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!!!"

One of my common arguments is that Bentham's writings outline a system for moral behavior without also requiring you to ignore the bits about genocide and sex slavery.

 

[DrunkCat]

the concept of God: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.

Ah. Well, I don't think believing in physical evidence and reasoned logic means you think the universe has all those aspects. Personally, I find the entire idea of omnipotence inconsistant (creating a rock you can't lift?), omniscience requires something capable of knowledge (and I don't think the universe qualifies), I don't think nature is at all benevolent (at least not towards us), and I think it's certainly possible there's something outside physical existence. Not that I'm trying to prove you wrong, really, but this is why I wouldn't call myself a pantheist.

The thing is though that you are using examples that require a 'being' to implement. Can nature create a rock that nature can't lift just doesn't have the same ring to it. It's the idea of omnipotence; that the universe is all powerful, that it contains all power (entropy). How can the universe not contain all/infinite knowledge if that's where we are deriving all of our knowledge? Benevolence is the really abstract one, but the fact that it stirs such healthy discussion makes me keep it on the list. I mean, we are but a part of the universe, and it would require thinking abstractly to the point of contemplating benevolence with inanimate objects. And omnipresence, will, we wouldn't be here discussing the universe if it wasn't! (Or even understanding it or anything!)

 

[ExeFBM]

By definition, nature can't perform miracles. And miracles, I would say, are the objective criteria of omnipotence.

 

[DrunkCat]

I'd say life is a pretty neat miracle. What better way for the universe to know itself? There's also another miracle, self-awareness.

 

[ExeFBM]

A miracle must go against physical and natural laws. We have plausible pathways for the origins of life, and a reasonable understanding of the emergent property of consciousness. Even if either incident is not yet completely understood, calling it a miracle is a leap.

 

[DeistPaladin]

A miracle must go against physical and natural laws. We have plausible pathways for the origins of life, and a reasonable understanding of the emergent property of consciousness. Even if either incident is not yet completely understood, calling it a miracle is a leap.

Technically yes but common usage of the word is often synonomous for "isn't that amazing?"

Hence the deist riddle, "everything is a miracle and nothing is a miracle".

This is the reason I don't think it's important to get worked up about the whole deist/atheist/agnostic/pantheist/humanist labels. Once we agree that we live in a natural universe, debating over whether nature itself should be called a miracle is one of somantics.

 

[TheFearmonger]

A miracle must go against physical and natural laws. We have plausible pathways for the origins of life, and a reasonable understanding of the emergent property of consciousness. Even if either incident is not yet completely understood, calling it a miracle is a leap.

Technically yes but common usage of the word is often synonomous for "isn't that amazing?"

Hence the deist riddle, "everything is a miracle and nothing is a miracle".

This is the reason I don't think it's important to get worked up about the whole deist/atheist/agnostic/pantheist/humanist labels. Once we agree that we live in a natural universe, debating over whether nature itself should be called a miracle is one of somantics.

That's a good way to go about it. We can all get along, and pool our knowledge.

Just thought; religion is the same in that it attempts to claim a god as the ultimate authority, and because of this, they kill each other. We, as naturalist, logical people, don't get vey bitter over our differences, but instead work to increase the worlds knowledge. perhaps this new atheist movement that started in the 50-60's is a precursor to a calmer, happier world.

BTW, deist, when shalleth you add a new symphony movement? I like those

 

[JacobEvans]

This thread has gone completely off course.

You stupid atheists! :lol:

 

[DrunkCat]

A miracle must go against physical and natural laws.

What? Why?

And pantheism is admitting we live in a natural universe. Deism is admitting in living in a 4O being universe, Atheism is admitting in living without a 4O being universe, agnosticism doesn't think we can know anything and humanism only see humans in the central picture.

 

[ExeFBM]

A miracle must go against physical and natural laws.

What? Why?

Because that's what the word means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

 

[Jorick]

Huh, this thread got off track with some interesting discussion... But to get it back there, I'll give some examples.

I hate it when I see atheists (or any non-theists arguing with a theist, for that matter) using ad hominem attacks against someone of a particular faith to 'disprove' the faith. A great example is "Hitler was a Christian." This especially pissed me off because those same people will bash theists for using ad hominem attacks on Darwin to try to disprove evolution.

Another one (that I think might have been said, sorta) I hate is when they try to disprove the Bible and say that disproves the existence of God. We non-Christians pretty much already agree the Bible doesn't prove God, so why should it work in reverse?

The worst one though, in my opinion, is when atheists pull the reversal of idiocy play and claim that proof of evolution disproves God. I don't know about the rest of you, but I detest morons who conflate evolution with the origin of life/the universe. Seeing atheists do the same is almost worse, since anyone who takes 30 seconds to search the damned definition of evolution can see that's a false argument.

 

[MillionSword]

When saying "God doesn't exist is a bad argument" (sure it's a bad argument in that to the religious god DOES exist so its kind of invalid, but) it really depends on what god you're talking about. It's quite acceptable to say the gods of any religions don't exist for certain. However I also wouldn't say it's irrational to say that no deity exists.