A Thought for Atheists

[alan1]

Atheists often post that they are persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or even hated by others. Have you ever considered that you might be largely responsible for this? Do you think most atheists assuage the problem or fan those flames of distrust and hatred?

Think of whatever ideal you hold most dear. Let's say it's love. So if I put up websites, posters, books whatever saying "Love is like a spaghetti monster. The only people who believe in it are self-deluded, ignorant assh0les!"? How would you feel about me if you were someone who believed in love?
What if posts from the anti-lovers all reflected that same hostility? I mean, they couldn't just go about their lives but rather put in great effort to prove that something you value, is valueless. How would you feel about such a group? I think many atheists have exacerbated the problem they complain about.

I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe. And while you complain about how religion effects some of our policies, guess what? So does atheism. Do children pray in school anymore? Nope. Federal policy. how about an employer who puts crosses and religious articles arond the office? Subject to lawsuits? You bet. It goes both ways.
So if you want people to have more of a "I don't care what others believe" kind of attitude, why don't you?
Why aren't you admonishing atheists who antagonize people of faith? They whine about people not liking them, and then go out of their way to attack something they know is important to others. That's like spitting on people, telling them they're idiots... and then playing victim because "no one likes me!".

How many times have you told a fellow atheists on this board, that they should never attack someone because of their religious beliefs? After all, that's how you want OTHERS to treat you, right? Or is it only everyone else who should respect religious beliefs / lack thereof?

Just a thought.

I feel persecuted, oppressed, distrusted and hated by this post.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Label you? No need to. You do that quite well yourself!

Got it. So you're spanked and you realize it. Okay. Btw, labeled is spelled with two L's not three. I'm here to help. I'm a helper. It's what I do.

Spanked? Lol! By a self-righteous chump who talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time! You sure have a an over-inflated ego, in fact I'm beginning to wonder how you manage to pull such a big head out of your anus.

Hmmm. Three post. Nothing on the issue. Nothing of substance (not that here, that's a surprise). The only thing you've offered has been a couple of petty insults as labels - and then a claim that you don't label or as you put it labell ...
Now a third post. Hmmm. Anything about Christians? Atheists? Ways in which we can get along better or simply tolerate each other? Um no. Simple petty bullsh1t attacks.
Care to offer a counterpoint? Hmmm. Perhaps that word or concept is too complex. Never mind. Stick with what you know.

BTW, you have a twin on this board. You're just like Yidnar! I mean he's a Christian who attacks any atheist poster, never even attempts to address tpoics. Basically just tells everyone else how self-righteous they are. Sound familiar?
I've seen him do this toward atheists, Muslims and other folks not belonging to his little Aryan society. So I've queried what he has to say on the actual topic. Usually he just cops out with some weak sh1t like "Oh uh, topic this isn't even worth addressing!".
You see, if Christians are weak, petty ignorant morons who have nothing to do but attack others simply because they are different, I will call them on it too.
And if I am actually wrong about something I've written in my OP or any posts for that matter, I will admit it - even to someone who has hostily opposing views. That's called character.
Maybe someday, if you eat all your vegetables, you'll have character too! (that's called humor. as if you would ever apologize or admit you were wrong about something...).

Oh and about the labelled thing. Since you don't have a location indicated on this American board, I assumed you were American. Obviously I was wrong. And you're right about me not being a man of the world. I've only lived long term in five countries and for 2 - 3 months in about ten others. But I have never lived in anywhere in Africa or Oceania.

 

[Avatar4321]

Atheists often post that they are persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or even hated by others. Have you ever considered that you might be largely responsible for this? Do you think most atheists assuage the problem or fan those flames of distrust and hatred?

Think of whatever ideal you hold most dear. Let's say it's love. So if I put up websites, posters, books whatever saying "Love is like a spaghetti monster. The only people who believe in it are self-deluded, ignorant assh0les!"? How would you feel about me if you were someone who believed in love?
What if posts from the anti-lovers all reflected that same hostility? I mean, they couldn't just go about their lives but rather put in great effort to prove that something you value, is valueless. How would you feel about such a group? I think many atheists have exacerbated the problem they complain about.

I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe. And while you complain about how religion effects some of our policies, guess what? So does atheism. Do children pray in school anymore? Nope. Federal policy. how about an employer who puts crosses and religious articles arond the office? Subject to lawsuits? You bet. It goes both ways.
So if you want people to have more of a "I don't care what others believe" kind of attitude, why don't you?
Why aren't you admonishing atheists who antagonize people of faith? They whine about people not liking them, and then go out of their way to attack something they know is important to others. That's like spitting on people, telling them they're idiots... and then playing victim because "no one likes me!".

How many times have you told a fellow atheists on this board, that they should never attack someone because of their religious beliefs? After all, that's how you want OTHERS to treat you, right? Or is it only everyone else who should respect religious beliefs / lack thereof?

Just a thought.

I feel persecuted, oppressed, distrusted and hated by this post.

You should be!

 

[IndependntLogic]

Atheists often post that they are persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or even hated by others. Have you ever considered that you might be largely responsible for this? Do you think most atheists assuage the problem or fan those flames of distrust and hatred?

Think of whatever ideal you hold most dear. Let's say it's love. So if I put up websites, posters, books whatever saying "Love is like a spaghetti monster. The only people who believe in it are self-deluded, ignorant assh0les!"? How would you feel about me if you were someone who believed in love?
What if posts from the anti-lovers all reflected that same hostility? I mean, they couldn't just go about their lives but rather put in great effort to prove that something you value, is valueless. How would you feel about such a group? I think many atheists have exacerbated the problem they complain about.

I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe. And while you complain about how religion effects some of our policies, guess what? So does atheism. Do children pray in school anymore? Nope. Federal policy. how about an employer who puts crosses and religious articles arond the office? Subject to lawsuits? You bet. It goes both ways.
So if you want people to have more of a "I don't care what others believe" kind of attitude, why don't you?
Why aren't you admonishing atheists who antagonize people of faith? They whine about people not liking them, and then go out of their way to attack something they know is important to others. That's like spitting on people, telling them they're idiots... and then playing victim because "no one likes me!".

How many times have you told a fellow atheists on this board, that they should never attack someone because of their religious beliefs? After all, that's how you want OTHERS to treat you, right? Or is it only everyone else who should respect religious beliefs / lack thereof?

Just a thought.

I feel persecuted, oppressed, distrusted and hated by this post.

You are a funny Mountain Man!

 

[HUGGY]

Atheists often post that they are persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or even hated by others. Have you ever considered that you might be largely responsible for this? Do you think most atheists assuage the problem or fan those flames of distrust and hatred?

Think of whatever ideal you hold most dear. Let's say it's love. So if I put up websites, posters, books whatever saying "Love is like a spaghetti monster. The only people who believe in it are self-deluded, ignorant assh0les!"? How would you feel about me if you were someone who believed in love?
What if posts from the anti-lovers all reflected that same hostility? I mean, they couldn't just go about their lives but rather put in great effort to prove that something you value, is valueless. How would you feel about such a group? I think many atheists have exacerbated the problem they complain about.

I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe. And while you complain about how religion effects some of our policies, guess what? So does atheism. Do children pray in school anymore? Nope. Federal policy. how about an employer who puts crosses and religious articles arond the office? Subject to lawsuits? You bet. It goes both ways.
So if you want people to have more of a "I don't care what others believe" kind of attitude, why don't you?
Why aren't you admonishing atheists who antagonize people of faith? They whine about people not liking them, and then go out of their way to attack something they know is important to others. That's like spitting on people, telling them they're idiots... and then playing victim because "no one likes me!".

How many times have you told a fellow atheists on this board, that they should never attack someone because of their religious beliefs? After all, that's how you want OTHERS to treat you, right? Or is it only everyone else who should respect religious beliefs / lack thereof?

Just a thought.

Really? Where do these wimp ass atheists post? I just enjoy informing religious sky fairy worshipers how ridiculous they are. Persecuted by the religious? I wish. Bring em on!

 

[Colin]

Got it. So you're spanked and you realize it. Okay. Btw, labeled is spelled with two L's not three. I'm here to help. I'm a helper. It's what I do.

Spanked? Lol! By a self-righteous chump who talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time! You sure have a an over-inflated ego, in fact I'm beginning to wonder how you manage to pull such a big head out of your anus.

Hmmm. Three post. Nothing on the issue. Nothing of substance (not that here, that's a surprise). The only thing you've offered has been a couple of petty insults as labels - and then a claim that you don't label or as you put it labell ...
Now a third post. Hmmm. Anything about Christians? Atheists? Ways in which we can get along better or simply tolerate each other? Um no. Simple petty bullsh1t attacks.
Care to offer a counterpoint? Hmmm. Perhaps that word or concept is too complex. Never mind. Stick with what you know.

BTW, you have a twin on this board. You're just like Yidnar! I mean he's a Christian who attacks any atheist poster, never even attempts to address tpoics. Basically just tells everyone else how self-righteous they are. Sound familiar?
I've seen him do this toward atheists, Muslims and other folks not belonging to his little Aryan society. So I've queried what he has to say on the actual topic. Usually he just cops out with some weak sh1t like "Oh uh, topic this isn't even worth addressing!".
You see, if Christians are weak, petty ignorant morons who have nothing to do but attack others simply because they are different, I will call them on it too.
And if I am actually wrong about something I've written in my OP or any posts for that matter, I will admit it - even to someone who has hostily opposing views. That's called character.
Maybe someday, if you eat all your vegetables, you'll have character too! (that's called humor. as if you would ever apologize or admit you were wrong about something...).

Oh and about the labelled thing. Since you don't have a location indicated on this American board, I assumed you were American. Obviously I was wrong. And you're right about me not being a man of the world. I've only lived long term in five countries and for 2 - 3 months in about ten others. But I have never lived in anywhere in Africa or Oceania.

Are you really that dumb...or just a liar. My location is shown in the appropriate place in my header. Stop making asinine excuses dumbo! I've seen worms that don't wriggle as much as you do.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm still confused.

The Christmas truce was evidence of God (the specific christian god I'm sure too), however what about the day before Christmas and the day after when they were shooting each other's heads off? What's that evidence of? God? Satan?

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Why on earth would an Atheist care whether people of faith liked them? That's nonsense. As far as sitting down and talking it over, I tend to accept Dave Barry's quip on that subject.

People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them. Dave Barry

Three subjects to avoid discussing casually or with people one doesn't know well : Politics, Child Rearing and Religion.

 

[jillian]

Atheists often post that they are persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or even hated by others. Have you ever considered that you might be largely responsible for this? Do you think most atheists assuage the problem or fan those flames of distrust and hatred?

Think of whatever ideal you hold most dear. Let's say it's love. So if I put up websites, posters, books whatever saying "Love is like a spaghetti monster. The only people who believe in it are self-deluded, ignorant assh0les!"? How would you feel about me if you were someone who believed in love?
What if posts from the anti-lovers all reflected that same hostility? I mean, they couldn't just go about their lives but rather put in great effort to prove that something you value, is valueless. How would you feel about such a group? I think many atheists have exacerbated the problem they complain about.

I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe. And while you complain about how religion effects some of our policies, guess what? So does atheism. Do children pray in school anymore? Nope. Federal policy. how about an employer who puts crosses and religious articles arond the office? Subject to lawsuits? You bet. It goes both ways.
So if you want people to have more of a "I don't care what others believe" kind of attitude, why don't you?
Why aren't you admonishing atheists who antagonize people of faith? They whine about people not liking them, and then go out of their way to attack something they know is important to others. That's like spitting on people, telling them they're idiots... and then playing victim because "no one likes me!".

How many times have you told a fellow atheists on this board, that they should never attack someone because of their religious beliefs? After all, that's how you want OTHERS to treat you, right? Or is it only everyone else who should respect religious beliefs / lack thereof?

Just a thought.

nice diatribe.

 

[Montrovant]

That depends on how you define God. Personally, I do not know enough about Him to attempt to define Him, but I do know that most people who try to defend Him are incorrect about what He is. Maybe you should think that, in defining Him in a way that makes it impossible for you to believe, you are actually saying that you want something else to believe in. Why don't you try to find out who He really is before you decide He does not exist?

If you don't know enough to define god, how do you know that others are wrong about what god is? That seems like a glaring contradiction.

I never claim anyone is wrong about what God is. I rarely even get involved in debates about His existence, tain't my job to prove he exists. I do speak up when people try to twist the Bible to support their interpretation of God, but that is not me defining God, it is just me insisting on people using the same definitions that the rest of the world does.

 

[InDoctriNation]

If you don't know enough to define god, how do you know that others are wrong about what god is? That seems like a glaring contradiction.

I never claim anyone is wrong about what God is. I rarely even get involved in debates about His existence, tain't my job to prove he exists. I do speak up when people try to twist the Bible to support their interpretation of God, but that is not me defining God, it is just me insisting on people using the same definitions that the rest of the world does.

Haha, game over!

 

[Montrovant]

To be more serious, QW, I think you need to be able to define god to present anything of credible, objective evidence of god's existence. By saying you don't feel able to define god, you are basically saying the Christmas cease-fire is evidence of something....but that's all. Not evidence of god, really, because you can't define god, but evidence of something you are unsure what it is, that you have decided to call god.

Faith, belief in god or the supernatural, these are extremely subjective, personal things. I understand the desire to show people who don't believe as you do WHY you hold your beliefs, but it's always good to step back and remember that what may seem obvious to you is not so to someone else. As a non-believer, I've had that problem many times; I just don't understand how people make the connection from an event, like the Christmas cease-fire, to god without being dishonest with themselves. Clearly our thought processes don't follow the same path. It doesn't make either of us wrong, but it also doesn't mean whatever evidence someone provides to prove their beliefs is objective rather than subjective.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Spanked? Lol! By a self-righteous chump who talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time! You sure have a an over-inflated ego, in fact I'm beginning to wonder how you manage to pull such a big head out of your anus.

Hmmm. Three post. Nothing on the issue. Nothing of substance (not that here, that's a surprise). The only thing you've offered has been a couple of petty insults as labels - and then a claim that you don't label or as you put it labell ...
Now a third post. Hmmm. Anything about Christians? Atheists? Ways in which we can get along better or simply tolerate each other? Um no. Simple petty bullsh1t attacks.
Care to offer a counterpoint? Hmmm. Perhaps that word or concept is too complex. Never mind. Stick with what you know.

BTW, you have a twin on this board. You're just like Yidnar! I mean he's a Christian who attacks any atheist poster, never even attempts to address tpoics. Basically just tells everyone else how self-righteous they are. Sound familiar?
I've seen him do this toward atheists, Muslims and other folks not belonging to his little Aryan society. So I've queried what he has to say on the actual topic. Usually he just cops out with some weak sh1t like "Oh uh, topic this isn't even worth addressing!".
You see, if Christians are weak, petty ignorant morons who have nothing to do but attack others simply because they are different, I will call them on it too.
And if I am actually wrong about something I've written in my OP or any posts for that matter, I will admit it - even to someone who has hostily opposing views. That's called character.
Maybe someday, if you eat all your vegetables, you'll have character too! (that's called humor. as if you would ever apologize or admit you were wrong about something...).

Oh and about the labelled thing. Since you don't have a location indicated on this American board, I assumed you were American. Obviously I was wrong. And you're right about me not being a man of the world. I've only lived long term in five countries and for 2 - 3 months in about ten others. But I have never lived in anywhere in Africa or Oceania.

Are you really that dumb...or just a liar. My location is shown in the appropriate place in my header. Stop making asinine excuses dumbo! I've seen worms that don't wriggle as much as you do.

Ahhh. Didn't notice it before. Not sure was there until this post but I could be wrong.
Me wiggle? LOL. Yes you are British aren't you? I've brought up a topic and discussed it. You on the other hand are just a weak angry little woman who has whined and b1tched but never once had sufficient cerebral firepower to discuss the topic in 4 posts. Yes, yes, definitley British. Don't know how I could have missed the trademark inability to directly address a topic... Of course if you had been visible and I had seen your asymetrical facial features and bad teeth, it would have been easier...
At least you've been aptly named there, Colon!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm still confused.

The Christmas truce was evidence of God (the specific christian god I'm sure too), however what about the day before Christmas and the day after when they were shooting each other's heads off? What's that evidence of? God? Satan?

You should study history a little.

The Christmas truce was not a single day even, and both sides ended up transferring front line units that refused to fire on each other after playing soccer together.

It is also telling that you are still resorting to stawmen in an attempt to defend your position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To be more serious, QW, I think you need to be able to define god to present anything of credible, objective evidence of god's existence. By saying you don't feel able to define god, you are basically saying the Christmas cease-fire is evidence of something....but that's all. Not evidence of god, really, because you can't define god, but evidence of something you are unsure what it is, that you have decided to call god.

Faith, belief in god or the supernatural, these are extremely subjective, personal things. I understand the desire to show people who don't believe as you do WHY you hold your beliefs, but it's always good to step back and remember that what may seem obvious to you is not so to someone else. As a non-believer, I've had that problem many times; I just don't understand how people make the connection from an event, like the Christmas cease-fire, to god without being dishonest with themselves. Clearly our thought processes don't follow the same path. It doesn't make either of us wrong, but it also doesn't mean whatever evidence someone provides to prove their beliefs is objective rather than subjective.

Why do I have to stop and define God? Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to define something I do not fully understand?

Do I have to define my neighbor in order to tell you about him? Is my inability to tell you his political belief somehow make my knowledge that he lives next door to me less credible?

The problem here is not my ability to provide evidence, it is your definition of credible. You are quite willing to accept my unsupported word that I have a neighbor without me actually proving I do. The explanation for this is quite simple, we live in a world where the thought that a person does not actually have a neighbor is more incredible that an unsupported assertion that they do.

When it comes to a discussion of the existence of God some people insist on a level of proof they do not apply to anything else. To them, this is no different than a belief that everyone has neighbors. It is the world they live in, and to think anything else requires a level of proof that goes beyond credible and reaches the level that actually requires a person to eliminate all other possible explanations, even ones that are absurd. That is completely unreasonable, and is indicative of extreme bias and being close minded.

Please note that, throughout this thread, I have not tried to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I have been taking the time to urge you, and others, to do exactly what you are saying I should do.

Step back, examine your beliefs and prejudices, admit them, and open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Working hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Me pointing to the Christmas Truce is not me being dishonest, it is but one piece of evidence I have for my faith. The fact that you, and others, reject it out of hand is proof of your bias and dishonesty. I freely admit that, by itself, it does not prove anything, but it is certainly evidence of something.

Open your mind, and look around. Examine the evidence that is all around you. you might be surprised at what you find.

 

[daws101]

To be more serious, QW, I think you need to be able to define god to present anything of credible, objective evidence of god's existence. By saying you don't feel able to define god, you are basically saying the Christmas cease-fire is evidence of something....but that's all. Not evidence of god, really, because you can't define god, but evidence of something you are unsure what it is, that you have decided to call god.

Faith, belief in god or the supernatural, these are extremely subjective, personal things. I understand the desire to show people who don't believe as you do WHY you hold your beliefs, but it's always good to step back and remember that what may seem obvious to you is not so to someone else. As a non-believer, I've had that problem many times; I just don't understand how people make the connection from an event, like the Christmas cease-fire, to god without being dishonest with themselves. Clearly our thought processes don't follow the same path. It doesn't make either of us wrong, but it also doesn't mean whatever evidence someone provides to prove their beliefs is objective rather than subjective.

 

[InDoctriNation]

To be more serious, QW, I think you need to be able to define god to present anything of credible, objective evidence of god's existence. By saying you don't feel able to define god, you are basically saying the Christmas cease-fire is evidence of something....but that's all. Not evidence of god, really, because you can't define god, but evidence of something you are unsure what it is, that you have decided to call god.

Faith, belief in god or the supernatural, these are extremely subjective, personal things. I understand the desire to show people who don't believe as you do WHY you hold your beliefs, but it's always good to step back and remember that what may seem obvious to you is not so to someone else. As a non-believer, I've had that problem many times; I just don't understand how people make the connection from an event, like the Christmas cease-fire, to god without being dishonest with themselves. Clearly our thought processes don't follow the same path. It doesn't make either of us wrong, but it also doesn't mean whatever evidence someone provides to prove their beliefs is objective rather than subjective.

Why do I have to stop and define God? Wouldn't it be arrogant of me to define something I do not fully understand?

Do I have to define my neighbor in order to tell you about him? Is my inability to tell you his political belief somehow make my knowledge that he lives next door to me less credible?

The problem here is not my ability to provide evidence, it is your definition of credible. You are quite willing to accept my unsupported word that I have a neighbor without me actually proving I do. The explanation for this is quite simple, we live in a world where the thought that a person does not actually have a neighbor is more incredible that an unsupported assertion that they do.

When it comes to a discussion of the existence of God some people insist on a level of proof they do not apply to anything else. To them, this is no different than a belief that everyone has neighbors. It is the world they live in, and to think anything else requires a level of proof that goes beyond credible and reaches the level that actually requires a person to eliminate all other possible explanations, even ones that are absurd. That is completely unreasonable, and is indicative of extreme bias and being close minded.

Please note that, throughout this thread, I have not tried to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I have been taking the time to urge you, and others, to do exactly what you are saying I should do.

Step back, examine your beliefs and prejudices, admit them, and open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong. My faith, my belief in God, is a working hypothesis. I examine all the evidence available, test it against my faith, and see what happens. One day I might stumble across something that will prove me wrong, until then I will keep believing because faith, as a working hypothesis, explains more than disbelief does.

Working hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Me pointing to the Christmas Truce is not me being dishonest, it is but one piece of evidence I have for my faith. The fact that you, and others, reject it out of hand is proof of your bias and dishonesty. I freely admit that, by itself, it does not prove anything, but it is certainly evidence of something.

Open your mind, and look around. Examine the evidence that is all around you. you might be surprised at what you find.

If you are not going to define what you mean by God, then I can't really tell you whether or not I believe in him/it. It is a meaningless term unless you define it.

As soon as you say the word "neighbor," I know that you mean another human being. Therefore you do not need to define "neighbor" since the definition is pretty much contained within the word itself. Simply saying you have a neighbor is not an extraordinary claim, and there really are not any repercussions to my belief or disbelief in your claim. If you tell me that your neighbor is Elvis on the other hand, then I'm going to require more evidence for your claim. I could ask you if I could meet your neighbor, and if he'd be willing to perhaps play some of his songs for me in a live performance. If you were to give me the run around at this request, then I'd certainly have to reach the conclusion that you are bullshitting me.

The explanation for my willingness to accept your claim that you have a neighbor has everything to do with the fact that it is not an extraordinary or supernatural claim. Besides, if I really wanted to press you on your claim, I could easily verify it by making a physical observation of your neighbor.

I find it laughable that you equate the claim that a God exists with the claim that someone does not have any neighbors. Again, one claim is easily verifiable, the other is not. I don't require an unreasonable level of proof when it comes to the claim that one does not have any neighbors, unless you think the requirement of the ability to confirm the claim that someone doesn't have any neighbors through observation is an unreasonable expectation.

I appreciate the fact that you haven't tried to shove your beliefs down anyone's throats. You simply appear to have a much, much lower standard of evidence when it comes to supernatural claims that have to do with your particular belief system.

I have opened my mind to the possibility that I could be wrong, and if I come across compelling evidence that suggests that my belief system needs to be revised, then I will go through that process. When it comes to theistic claims of all colors however, I have not come across any evidence that has led me to reconsider my position as an agnostic atheist.

Again, I really think your claim that the Christmas truce is evidence of any sort of supernatural benevolent force at work in the cosmos is just as ridiculous, and valid, as me saying that the fact that children are starving in third world countries is evidence that there is no god. I believe both claims are certainly evidence of something, and that something is the human condition.

 

[LOki]

If you are not going to define what you mean by God, then I can't really tell you whether or not I believe in him/it. It is a meaningless term unless you define it.

It's a meaningless term any way you define it.

Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Unicorns, and leprechauns are--by the exact criteria the faithful use to validate their demand that their God is real--no less real than God.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you are not going to define what you mean by God, then I can't really tell you whether or not I believe in him/it. It is a meaningless term unless you define it.

You seem to think it matters to me if you believe in God as I define Him, I don't. It is not my job to prove He exists, or to define Him.

As soon as you say the word "neighbor," I know that you mean another human being. Therefore you do not need to define "neighbor" since the definition is pretty much contained within the word itself. Simply saying you have a neighbor is not an extraordinary claim, and there really are not any repercussions to my belief or disbelief in your claim. If you tell me that your neighbor is Elvis on the other hand, then I'm going to require more evidence for your claim. I could ask you if I could meet your neighbor, and if he'd be willing to perhaps play some of his songs for me in a live performance. If you were to give me the run around at this request, then I'd certainly have to reach the conclusion that you are bullshitting me.

The explanation for my willingness to accept your claim that you have a neighbor has everything to do with the fact that it is not an extraordinary or supernatural claim. Besides, if I really wanted to press you on your claim, I could easily verify it by making a physical observation of your neighbor.

Good points.

On the other hand, I am not really making an extraordinary claim. I am simply saying that I believe in God, and that there is evidence to support that belief. I am then pointing out to specific posters that their insistence on being given verifiable evidence that God actually exists is holding me to a standard that they do not hold themselves, or even science, to.

You, on the other hand, are being reasonable, and, at least so fat, you have an open mind.

I find it laughable that you equate the claim that a God exists with the claim that someone does not have any neighbors. Again, one claim is easily verifiable, the other is not. I don't require an unreasonable level of proof when it comes to the claim that one does not have any neighbors, unless you think the requirement of the ability to confirm the claim that someone doesn't have any neighbors through observation is an unreasonable expectation.

If I was actually equating the two I would find it laughable also.

I probably should have framed it better, so do not think I am trying to retract my argument. I will, however, try to clarify it.

I was trying to point out that what makes evidence credible is more complicated than simply what is being said, or even who is saying it. Even if you knew me to lie almost every time I posted, you would have no trouble accepting a statement I make that consisted of me saying I have a neighbor. When I am challenged by a person to show "verifiable" evidence that God exists I am presented with an impossible standard, because said person would accept no evidence up to an including Elvis showing up on their doorstep to say God sent him to preach the truth, they would always come up with another explanation of what they see.

In other words, I am not trying to equate something, I am trying to point out the person I am responding to is unwilling to accept any evidence whatsoever.

I appreciate the fact that you haven't tried to shove your beliefs down anyone's throats. You simply appear to have a much, much lower standard of evidence when it comes to supernatural claims that have to do with your particular belief system.

Lower than what? I was agnostic for most of my life, my belief is not something I grew up with. Just because I did not provide more evidence does not mean I have none.

I have opened my mind to the possibility that I could be wrong, and if I come across compelling evidence that suggests that my belief system needs to be revised, then I will go through that process. When it comes to theistic claims of all colors however, I have not come across any evidence that has led me to reconsider my position as an agnostic atheist.

Again, I really think your claim that the Christmas truce is evidence of any sort of supernatural benevolent force at work in the cosmos is just as ridiculous, and valid, as me saying that the fact that children are starving in third world countries is evidence that there is no god. I believe both claims are certainly evidence of something, and that something is the human condition.

Keep looking then.

 

[InDoctriNation]

The reason that the God claim requires extraordinary evidence to back it up is because it is an extraordinary claim. Just like if someone is going to claim that extraterrestrials have visited this planet, I'm going to need a lot more evidence than some lights flying around in the sky, or some tin foil looking substance at a supposed "crash site." The default position is disbelief for any extraordinary claim until the burden of proof has been met, and the burden is always going to be heavier for supernatural claims.

I will keep looking for the truth, and since there will always be something to learn my search will never be over. And I'm just fine with that.