How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet

Theocrat said:
In effect, atheism has to presuppose theism before atheists can make their case about the nonexistence of God.
Click to expand...

I dunno. What if you grew up in a non-religious household?

Then one day someone asks you randomly "Are you saved?" and have the concept put to you? I think basically, the presupposing job is done for everyone by the Theists themselves.

Since we like to split hairs in this thread, I will say up until that point the person might be considered simply Non-Theist. They could be a fairly carefree person that doesn't even give serious thought to religion until the question is put to them by someone else.
 
I Disagree

VIDEODROME said:
I dunno. What if you grew up in a non-religious household?

Then one day someone asks you randomly "Are you saved?" and have the concept put to you? I think basically, the presupposing job is done for everyone by the Theists themselves.

Since we like to split hairs in this thread, I will say up until that point the person might be considered simply Non-Theist. They could be a fairly carefree person that doesn't even give serious thought to religion until the question is put to them by someone else.
Click to expand...

The fact is everyone knows that God exists because God Himself has made it known to all men (cf. Romans 1). The creation testifies that there is a God. Human conscience testifies that there is a God. Most importantly, the Scriptures testify that there is a God. So, whether it's by general revelation or specific revelation, no one is without excuse about there not being evidence for God's existence.

The problem is people have a natural tendency to suppress the truth that God exists by attributing the evidences to other things in the universe which cannot explain themselves. Evolutionists, for example, do that all of the time when trying to explain away the immense complexity of human anatomy and physiology be ascribing it to random processes and long periods of time instead of the obvious conclusion that humans are created by God.

So, nobody is "non-religious," and even such a notion falsely assumes that neutrality exists. That is where the crux of the issue is. Atheists believe that they are philosophically neutral when it comes to belief in God. They are not, and there are a number of ways to prove that.
 
Theocrat said:
Atheists believe that they are philosophically neutral when it comes to belief in God. They are not, and there are a number of ways to prove that.
Click to expand...

Well, I think there are materialist people that are passive about religion and would rather avoid the whole topic (smarter than all of us in this crazy thread topic). If it can't be avoided in the society they live in, I suppose that forces them to take a stance one way or the other. This would mean they are no longer neutral if they declare themselves Atheist.

However, other people might shrug and say they're Agnostic. I think that would be the neutral stance. Or the stance that says "Please, I don't even care stopping bugging me."
 
Last edited:
Religious Views Come Out

VIDEODROME said:
Well, I think there are materialist people that are passive about religion and would rather avoid the whole topic (smarter than all of us in this crazy thread topic). If it can't be avoided in the society they live in, I suppose that forces them to take a stance one way or the other. This would mean they are no longer neutral if they declare themselves Atheist.

However, other people might shrug and say they're Agnostic. I think that would be the neutral stance. Or the stance that says "Please, I don't even care stopping bugging me."
Click to expand...

I understand that. Even if people ignore threads and sub-forums like these which discuss religion, their religious views come out in other threads and sub-forums. Their religious views just don't get pointed out as much in those other threads and sub-forums. But no one is "non-religious." Every viewpoint is connected to other beliefs, which are inherently theological or philosophical in nature. If someone says that they don't have a view about God, then their viewpoint is that whether or not there is a God is not important or relevant. It's still a viewpoint.
 
Sola_Fide said:
To say "I don't see enough evidence yet" is a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the nature of the question.

You won't EVER "see" the evidence, because you have a pre-commitment AGAINST Christianity.

You are not neutral. You keep talking like you are. You do not yet understand the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

otherone said:
Neutral or not, we atheists, remain unconvinced. What do you care, anyway? Y'all can laugh yer asses off in Paradise watching us poor philistines tortured in hell forever by your loving god, while rolling around in a big pile of all the socks you've ever lost during your time on earth.
Click to expand...

Sola_Fide said:
Do you understand what I am saying though?

How can you say you "see no evidence" when you have a presupposition that excludes all the theistic evidence?
Click to expand...

otherone said:
Mea Culpa....no credible evidence.
Click to expand...


You're still not getting what Im saying. The evidence that you will see as "credible" is determined by your presupposition of nontheism. There is no way possible to be neutral. You are biased at the outset.
 
Theocrat said:
Well, I think you do define yourself in opposition to my beliefs, if you consider yourself an atheist.
Click to expand...

REALLY?
You define YOURSELF as someone in opposition to the belief in Santa Clause? The belief in the Tooth Fairy? The belief In Allah? You DEFINE yourself as an "a-brahman" or "a-zeusian"?
 
otherone said:
REALLY?
You define YOURSELF as someone in opposition to the belief in Santa Clause? The belief in the Tooth Fairy? The belief In Allah? You DEFINE yourself as an "a-brahman" or "a-zeusian"?
Click to expand...

Every Christian believes in Allah. Allah just means God in Arabic. Christians who speak Arabic pray to Allah.
 
otherone said:
Ruh-heally, Eddie? The god of the Koran is YOUR god?
Click to expand...

No, the God of the Bible is my God. If I spoke Arabic I'd call Hm Allah as Arab Christians do. If I were a Maltese Christian I'd call Him Allah as well.

God in various languages:
English - God
Spanish - Dios
German - Gott
Arabic - Allah
 
Last edited:
eduardo89 said:
Every Christian believes in Allah. Allah just means God in Arabic. Christians who speak Arabic pray to Allah.
Click to expand...

eduardo89 said:
No, the God of the Bible is my God. If I spoke Arabic I'd call Hm Allah as Arab Christians do. If I were a Maltese Christian I'd call Him Allah as well.

God in various languages:
English - God
Spanish - Dios
German - Gott
Arabic - Allah
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Roman Catholic apologetic is wrong because it is not a defense of Christianity, it is a defense of "theism" in general, which is not Biblical.

The Bible defends Christianity alone. Roman Catholicism isn't Christian and doesn't defend Christianity at all.
 
Not Really

otherone said:
REALLY?
You define YOURSELF as someone in opposition to the belief in Santa Clause? The belief in the Tooth Fairy? The belief In Allah? You DEFINE yourself as an "a-brahman" or "a-zeusian"?
Click to expand...

No, because my religious belief is not defined as a "non-belief in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, nor Allah." I am a Christian, which means that I believe that the God revealed in the Scriptures (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is the God of the universe. And because He is the only true God, then there can be no other gods.

I think you missed my point, anyway. I said that an atheist must define what he means by "God" if he wants to assert that God doesn't exist or that there is no evidence of God. And whatever definition of "God" he uses will be based on another person's religious view of Who God is. That is how atheism presupposes theism.
 
Last edited:
Sola_Fide said:
Wrong. The Roman Catholic apologetic is wrong because it is not a defense of Christianity, it is a defense of "theism" in general, which is not Biblical.

The Bible defends Christianity alone. Roman Catholicism isn't Christian and doesn't defend Christianity at all.
Click to expand...

What the hell does that have anything to do with the post you quoted?
 
erowe1 said:
That's everybody of every religion.
Click to expand...

I can only base my thoughts on this from my own experience. When being raised Catholic, it seemed like questioning anything was really discouraged. I mean really, if I would have asked serious questions and been a skeptic in Sunday School I'd be on everyone's shit-list really fast.

Atheism generally differs in that skepticism and questioning is welcomed. Even if Faith is necessarily present because you can't have expertise level knowledge in everything, I think Reason and even doubt are much more appreciated.

Again though, this is the impression I get from my own experiences.
 
VIDEODROME said:
Even if Faith is necessarily present because you can't have expertise level knowledge in everything,
Click to expand...

Faith isn't just necessary in the areas you don't have expertise. It's necessary to be able to have any beliefs about anything at all. No atheist is able to get to their atheism without taking a leap of blind faith. It is not possible to have any beliefs at all based solely on reason without faith.
 
Last edited:
erowe1 said:
Faith isn't just necessary in the areas you don't have expertise. It's necessary to be able to have any beliefs about anything at all. No atheist is able to get to their atheism without taking a leap of blind faith. It is not possible to have any beliefs at all based solely on reason without faith.
Click to expand...

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." - Hebrews 11:6

I do not believe "God" as defined in Christianity exists based on the evidence presented. Faith is different in the Christian context than elsewhere, it's a very relative term.

The relevant atheism is a lack of belief in God(s), not a knowledge claim that God(s) do not exist.
 
Last edited:
eduardo89 said:
No, the God of the Bible is my God. If I spoke Arabic I'd call Hm Allah as Arab Christians do. If I were a Maltese Christian I'd call Him Allah as well.

God in various languages:
English - God
Spanish - Dios
German - Gott
Arabic - Allah
Click to expand...
Russian - Бог
 
1stAmendguy said:
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." - Hebrews 11:6

I do not believe "God" as defined in Christianity exists based on the evidence presented. Faith is different in the Christian context than elsewhere, it's a very relative term.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point about Christian faith. Everyone has faith in something. But not everyone has saving faith in Jesus Christ.

But your very ability to believe anything at all based on evidence requires you first to believe something with no evidence. So if you were to say that evidence was necessary in order to warrant belief in anything, that would be self-defeating.

My point was and is that, whatever your aversion to Jesus Christ is, it's not based on an aversion to believing something by faith rather than evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top