My Fellow Atheists, We Aren't Responsible

[Tetracide]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

OK. Y[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLblxvI2rls"]ou are irresponsible[/ame]

 

[Tetracide]

OK. You are irresponsible

Now, c'mon, that's not fair. "Irresponsible" implies failing to live up to a responsibility. I'm saying negative atheists have no responsibility.

 

[Rogo]

I suppose I am a "positive" atheist... even though I condemn any people with a religious affiliation pressing their own views on others or performing acts of violence in the name of their ideology/religion. While both may be rare in most civilized nations, it still happens all around the world.

 

[JBeukema]

First things first.

I want to OP to prove (s)he exists

 

[emilynghiem]

OK. You are irresponsible

Now, c'mon, that's not fair. "Irresponsible" implies failing to live up to a responsibility. I'm saying negative atheists have no responsibility.

Dear Tetra: Thank you for taking an evenly-keeled attitude and approach to this.
I do believe the Gentiles/secular humanists are included in the Bible under natural laws.
I consider myself more of a "naturalist" so I hope you do not mind dialogue where we might agree.

1. In addition to the different types of atheism, I also notice a great deal of mental energy and debate is spent on being "anti-THEIST" since "theists" presumably DO exist
regardless if God exists or not. I believe there is more personal issues and biases
involved there, and overcoming THAT first, allows the natural truth and harmony to work
out and connect people REGARDLESS of our beliefs or nonbeliefs (ie there would much
less conflict between our natural positions and views, by resolving the emotional
projections layered on top; the different views are not the issue but our inability to express them without stepping on or offending or otherwise causing divisive conflict with others).

2. Where I do find theists and atheists equally responsible is on issues such as using science to PROVE methods of spiritual healing; without medical proof, many people do not have access to help for sickness, including mental illness/criminal addictions even cancer or other physical conditions, that have been successfully cured or treatment enhanced
by spiritual prayer, specifically demonic deliverance which is a particular method, and not just positive thinking or personal will, but involves spiritual diagnosis and intervention.

I have read and recommend specific books on this area that I believe is on the cutting edge of mental health and criminal justice reform by focusing on medical treatment and correction instead of wasting mass resources on punitive measures that don't solve the problem but make it worse. In these books, the authors cite responsibility on both the side of the Christian believers AND the scientific community, where "fundamentalists" on BOTH sides have OPPOSED research and dialogue and collaboration on solutions, each fearing domination by the system of the other. So the responsibility is shared to overcome this division, for nontheists to be as open to proveable concepts from the spiritual side, as spiritual believers must work with science instead of fundamental rejecting as separate.

Resources I recommend:
"Healing" by Francis MacNutt (cites medical study on rheumatoid arthritis cases
cured by healing prayer methods)
"Glimpses of the Devil" by Scott Peck (studied two severe cases of schizophrenia
in patients who could not be treated until after deliverance prayers were applied to remove the external influences blocking the person's mind and will from cooperating)
"Healing Light" by Agnes Sanford
(explains the general healing process in terms of natural process and energy, taking
the position that people do not need to believe on faith in advance, but can receive
the healing first and let the understanding come later after they see how it works)

After reading these books and studying this same process that a friend of mine uses to help people break out of mental and even criminal addictions and mindsets that obstruct their own free will and reason, as well as the natural healing energy of the mind and body; I believe that it is legally and medically necessary to pursue scientific research and proof that these methods are effective, in order for all people to access this kind of help.
Otherwise, it is like denying a medical cure to people with dangerous conditions, such as alcohol or sexual even predatory addictions that can pose fatal danger to society.

So there are legal and ethical responsibilities involved, not just to be passive and wait for other people to prove their points, but to actively seek proof of methods that have been used to save lives, so that more people can be helped in time to prevent damage or death.

 

[Mad Scientist]

First things first.

I want to OP to prove (s)he exists

Good point. Could be just some Spam Bot. Spoon pics or OP doesn't exist.

 

[k2skier]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYsUKws_Aa4&feature=feedu]YouTube - Responding To Deluded Atheists[/ame]

 

[Avatar4321]

No one ever wants to be responsible nowadays.

You don't have to believe me. But I know that God lives because of my experiences with God. Because I can't show you my personal experiences doesn't mean they didn't happen.

The only way you can find out whether God is there is to learn for yourself through your experiences. And you are responsible for those. If you don't both seeking God to find out for yourself, you lose out on the blessings.

It's amazing that God provides a way to learn and people don't bother trying to find out for themselves.

 

[del]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

 

[uscitizen]

Tetracide? That is the murder of tropical fish?

 

[uscitizen]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

Ohh I know you will not give one but you would sell it?

 

[Samson]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

.

I'm sensing cynacisim

 

[del]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

Ohh I know you will not give one but you would sell it?

everything has a price

 

[del]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

.

I'm sensing cynacisim

 

[Anguille]

[/QUOTE]

I blame Einstein for you not giving a fuck.

 

[del]

I blame Einstein for you not giving a fuck.

von heisenberg would probably agree

 

[rightwinger]

First things first.

I want to OP to prove (s)he exists

I have faith that he exists

 

[HUGGY]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

Whew! That sure takes the pressure off. We atheists were pretty much lost until you got here!

 

[uscitizen]

Clearly that is a DB meter.

Excrement is not caliberated on a DB scale.