Seven Core Elements of Anti-Religious Faith... OKA: A-theism.

[PubliusInfinitum]

Had a conversation recently; wherein a self-proclaimed atheist made the following positive assertions regarding Atheism.

I'd be interested in knowing if any of our inhouse heathens can do any better than the advocate of these Core Elements of Atheism did, when I simply asked her to substantiate them.

It's interesting that when I pointed out that her failure to sustain her own asserted 'would-be atheist facts', provided irrefutable evidence that she was demonstrating profound faith in that which has no logical or factual underpinnings... she damn near lost her mind.

So be careful kids... this is sound reasoning and for the Humanist, it can be rather disorienting...

The Seven Core Elements of Atheism... advanced by Bobby, An Atheist:


1.God is just an idea.

2.There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men.

3.Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure.

4.There was no Invisible being involved.

5.Science has more than enough evidence to prove that.

6.God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights.

7.Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!!

Again... these were shouted to me, BY AN ATHEIST... and represented as fact.

She couldn't actually point towards anything factual in support of 'em... and I'm just looking to see if any of you who also claim to be atheists can do so.

 

[rikules]

Had a conversation recently; wherein a self-proclaimed atheist made the following positive assertions regarding Atheism.

I'd be interested in knowing if any of our inhouse heathens can do any better than the advocate of these Core Elements of Atheism did, when I simply asked her to substantiate them.

It's interesting that when I pointed out that her failure to sustain her own asserted 'would-be atheist facts', provided irrefutable evidence that she was demonstrating profound faith in that which has no logical or factual underpinnings... she damn near lost her mind.

So be careful kids... this is sound reasoning and for the Humanist, it can be rather disorienting...

The Seven Core Elements of Atheism... advanced by Bobby, An Atheist:


1.God is just an idea.

2.There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men.

3.Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure.

4.There was no Invisible being involved.

5.Science has more than enough evidence to prove that.

6.God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights.

7.Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!!

Again... these were shouted to me, BY AN ATHEIST... and represented as fact.

She couldn't actually point towards anything factual in support of 'em... and I'm just looking to see if any of you who also claim to be atheists can do so.

=======
1.God is just an idea.

That's right.
you have never seen god
or spoken to god

there is NO God.

god is just made up.


2.There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men.


and even THAT book is not evidence.

how can fairy tales written by ignorant camel jockies be considered "evidence"?


3.Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure.

and you can pprove otherwise?

show me.....


4.There was no Invisible being involved.

and you can prove otherwise?

show me....



5.Science has more than enough evidence to prove that.

science is working on that job.

science has shown MORE evidence for evolution than YOU can show for creation.

if you happen to have ANY evidence of god and creation....

show us.....

6.God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights.

you're are beginning to get it right....

(carefull your head might explode...you probably find this reality very disorienting)


7.Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!!

well...
sort of...

through the ages various people have discussed the topic of human rights

eventually SOME of them got together and wrote it all down

there was no god there.

in fact
if you check out the constitution and the bill of rights to see who wrote them you will see LOTS of HUMAN NAMEs...but no god.



"She couldn't actually point towards anything factual in support of 'em... and I'm just looking to see if any of you who also claim to be atheists can do so. "

I don't need to.
I have faith!

I fyou want me to believe in your mythical god YOU can start by showing me proof of gods existance...


after that you can try to expain to me why god promotes slavery

and why he is such a vicious jerk who punishes people for ridiculous reasons

 

[Oscar Wao]

So what was "Nature's God" written there for? Was "Nature's God" another fictional fantasy character that just HAPPENED to be put into the DOI?

I'm not down with turning us into a fundy country, but come on; don't be so intelectually dishonest as to claim that there was a COMPLETELY secular culture back in the colonial times.

 

[jillian]

So what was "Nature's God" written there for? Was "Nature's God" another fictional fantasy character that just HAPPENED to be put into the DOI?

I'm not down with turning us into a fundy country, but come on; don't be so intelectually dishonest as to claim that there was a COMPLETELY secular culture back in the colonial times.

the CULTURE wasn't necessarily secular.

but government was and is.

 

[uscitizen]

My athesim is based on non faith, not on faith.
I have no proof that god exists. It does not take faith to not believe in something that cannot be proven to exist.

On the other hand those who do believe have faith.

 

[rikules]

So what was "Nature's God" written there for? Was "Nature's God" another fictional fantasy character that just HAPPENED to be put into the DOI?

I'm not down with turning us into a fundy country, but come on; don't be so intelectually dishonest as to claim that there was a COMPLETELY secular culture back in the colonial times.

"So what was "Nature's God" written there for? Was "Nature's God" another fictional fantasy character that just HAPPENED to be put into the DOI? "


again
"natures god" was written by the framers.

there was NO GOD in attendance...at that time...or ever...

so, yes...........
"natures god" is fictional fantasy that was put there by people who believe in something that isn't real.




"I'm not down with turning us into a fundy country, but come on; don't be so intelectually dishonest as to claim that there was a COMPLETELY secular culture back in the colonial times."


I never said that.
why do you lie?
isn't lying against gods commandments?

are you risking hell by lying like this?

 

[Oscar Wao]

So what was "Nature's God" written there for? Was "Nature's God" another fictional fantasy character that just HAPPENED to be put into the DOI?

I'm not down with turning us into a fundy country, but come on; don't be so intelectually dishonest as to claim that there was a COMPLETELY secular culture back in the colonial times.

"So what was "Nature's God" written there for? Was "Nature's God" another fictional fantasy character that just HAPPENED to be put into the DOI? "


again
"natures god" was written by the framers.

there was NO GOD in attendance...at that time...or ever...

But they wouldn't have written it into one of our historical founding documents if they didn't believe any being existed or at least possibly could exist.

so, yes...........
"natures god" is fictional fantasy that was put there by people who believe in something that isn't real.

Atheism requires at least SOME faith in order to deny the existence of a God-being.

I like how St. Anselm put it, from his "Ontological Argument":

"For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived."

In English, after deciphering this jargon from my philosophy textbook (I keep my textbooks and don't sell them, sue me), it means that atheism stands on shaky ground. After all, how and why can you conceive of a being which doesn't exist? If He didn't exist, surely the concept wouldn't come up, would it?

The concept of a monotheistic Supreme God, in all of His majesty and traits that He possesses, has to at least POSSIBLY exist, if books like the Bible which explain His traits and purposes for our lives are kept and preserved for millennia, yes?

Believe me, not even the biggest scammer can come up with such a structured concept.

(I'm Protestant but I like some of these Catholic saints' writings.)

"I'm not down with turning us into a fundy country, but come on; don't be so intelectually dishonest as to claim that there was a COMPLETELY secular culture back in the colonial times."


I never said that.
why do you lie?
isn't lying against gods commandments?

are you risking hell by lying like this?

OK, I misrepresented that part. Forgive me for doing such.

 

[del]

So what was "Nature's God" written there for? Was "Nature's God" another fictional fantasy character that just HAPPENED to be put into the DOI?

I'm not down with turning us into a fundy country, but come on; don't be so intelectually dishonest as to claim that there was a COMPLETELY secular culture back in the colonial times.

the CULTURE wasn't necessarily secular.

but government was and is.

the massachusetts bay colony was a theocracy.

 

[uscitizen]

Is Witch burning secular?

 

[del]

Is Witch burning secular?

no reason it can't be.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

My athesim is based on non faith, not on faith.
I have no proof that god exists. It does not take faith to not believe in something that cannot be proven to exist.

On the other hand those who do believe have faith.

This is where you and the militant atheists screw up. God DOES exist -- in the human heart. Mankind created God in his own image, it DOES exist.

See?

What you have described here is agnostic, not atheist.

 

[uscitizen]

I think the difference is that Agnostic think that god might exist.
They don't have the balls to say that he does not exist.
Agnostics are wishy washy wussies.

Many agnostics will get religion the first time their life is threatened.

 

[jillian]

Is Witch burning secular?

no reason it can't be.

it could be.


but never has been.

 

[Father Time]

There's only one tenet of atheism

1. There's no God.

You can totally distrust all things scientific but as long as you believe there's no God you're an atheist.

 

[Jurginvoncelle]

HEY P!
That's why they call it "faith" because it is not proof!

I would fight and die for you to believe whatever you want, but you know, just as we all know; you can’t prove “something” does not exist.

Now make this "something” invisible.

Every coincedent called an act of God

And you still can NOT prove nonexsistance of ANYTHING let alone God.


But look at OUR legal system; proof is not always fact, neither is justice consistently faithful.

 

[Jurginvoncelle]

Is Witch burning secular?

no reason it can't be.

it could be.


but never has been.

Only if burned with candles (your choice of color,) & “waxing poetically”.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I think the difference is that Agnostic think that god might exist.
They don't have the balls to say that he does not exist.
Agnostics are wishy washy wussies.

Many agnostics will get religion the first time their life is threatened.

And from your post, where you were saying there is "no evidence," it's easy for one to see your agnosticism.

There's only one tenet of atheism

1. There's no God.

You can totally distrust all things scientific but as long as you believe there's no God you're an atheist.

That's the core defect in militant atheism. Because God DOES exist! It's a creation of Man, in Man's own image. It's mostly an emotion, which EXISTS but only in the heart of humans.

Saying "there is no God" misses the point entirely. It's like saying "there is no love, fear, envy, hatred."

See?

 

[mudwhistle]

Had a conversation recently; wherein a self-proclaimed atheist made the following positive assertions regarding Atheism.

I'd be interested in knowing if any of our inhouse heathens can do any better than the advocate of these Core Elements of Atheism did, when I simply asked her to substantiate them.

It's interesting that when I pointed out that her failure to sustain her own asserted 'would-be atheist facts', provided irrefutable evidence that she was demonstrating profound faith in that which has no logical or factual underpinnings... she damn near lost her mind.

So be careful kids... this is sound reasoning and for the Humanist, it can be rather disorienting...

The Seven Core Elements of Atheism... advanced by Bobby, An Atheist:


1.God is just an idea.

2.There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men.

3.Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure.

4.There was no Invisible being involved.

5.Science has more than enough evidence to prove that.

6.God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights.

7.Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!!

Again... these were shouted to me, BY AN ATHEIST... and represented as fact.

She couldn't actually point towards anything factual in support of 'em... and I'm just looking to see if any of you who also claim to be atheists can do so.

=======
1.God is just an idea.

That's right.
you have never seen god
or spoken to god

there is NO God.

god is just made up.


2.There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men.


and even THAT book is not evidence.

how can fairy tales written by ignorant camel jockies be considered "evidence"?


3.Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure.

and you can pprove otherwise?

show me.....


4.There was no Invisible being involved.

and you can prove otherwise?

show me....



5.Science has more than enough evidence to prove that.

science is working on that job.

science has shown MORE evidence for evolution than YOU can show for creation.

if you happen to have ANY evidence of god and creation....

show us.....

6.God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights.

you're are beginning to get it right....

(carefull your head might explode...you probably find this reality very disorienting)


7.Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!!

well...
sort of...

through the ages various people have discussed the topic of human rights

eventually SOME of them got together and wrote it all down

there was no god there.

in fact
if you check out the constitution and the bill of rights to see who wrote them you will see LOTS of HUMAN NAMEs...but no god.



"She couldn't actually point towards anything factual in support of 'em... and I'm just looking to see if any of you who also claim to be atheists can do so. "

I don't need to.
I have faith!

I fyou want me to believe in your mythical god YOU can start by showing me proof of gods existance...


after that you can try to expain to me why god promotes slavery

and why he is such a vicious jerk who punishes people for ridiculous reasons

Your argument falls apart when you start blaming God for everything bad in the world. He doesn't support slavery....he allows it to happen. He never asks us to do anything that's bad for us which you can't seem to understand.

I would go deeper into what his purpose is but then you'd just call it a deflexion from reality.

One Aethist I was talking to...a young soldier...repeated something that was taught to him by another Aethist....that he can't believe what he can't see. So I asked him if he believes in air.

Total silence followed of course.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

One Atheist I was talking to...a young soldier...repeated something that was taught to him by another Atheist....that he can't believe what he can't see. So I asked him if he believes in air.

Total silence followed of course.

Once again illustrating my point. Militant atheists make a mistake when claiming God does not exist. Of course it does. Different ones for every culture, it's the ultimate multicultural expression!

The militant atheists should stop wasting time and energy denying the existence of deities, and start explaining what they really are.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Had a conversation recently; wherein a self-proclaimed atheist made the following positive assertions regarding Atheism.

I'd be interested in knowing if any of our in-house heathens can do any better than the advocate of these Core Elements of Atheism did, when I simply asked her to substantiate them.

It's interesting that when I pointed out that her failure to sustain her own asserted 'would-be atheist facts', provided irrefutable evidence that she was demonstrating profound faith in that which has no logical or factual underpinnings... she damn near lost her mind.

So be careful kids... this is sound reasoning and for the Humanist, it can be rather disorienting...

The Seven Core Elements of Atheism... advanced by Bobby, An Atheist:

1.God is just an idea.

2.There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men.

3.Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure.

4.There was no Invisible being involved.

5.Science has more than enough evidence to prove that.

6.God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights.

7.Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!!

Again... these were shouted to me, BY AN ATHEIST... and represented as fact.

She couldn't actually point towards anything factual in support of 'em... and I'm just looking to see if any of you who also claim to be atheists can do so.

=======
1.God is just an idea.
That's right.
you have never seen god
or spoken to god
there is NO God.
god is just made up.

So, your argument is to assert your founding premise and then conclude your argument by returning to your premise, as proof of itself??
'God is just an Idea; thus there is no God; Ergo, God is just made up...'
Huh... Bobby, is that you? Hey girl... how they hangin'? Seem's you're stuck in your illogical, unsubstantiated, anti-religious faith...

2.There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men.
and even THAT book is not evidence.
how can fairy tales written by ignorant camel jockies be considered "evidence"?

So, We've expanded the syllogism to now include what you claim to be a fact, regarding on the origin concepts conveyed through the Bible...

'God is just an Idea; thus there is no God; thus, God is just made up...; the Scriptures are fairy tales... Ergo: they can't be evidence of that which is just made up.'

Second verse, Same as the first!

Oh this is quite a profession of faith.

3.Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure.
and you can pprove otherwise?
show me.....

Show you what? That thermo-dynamics and chemistry are essential elements in the natural creation of biological life? It seems that's a foregone conclusion; and one mutually recognized.

The issue is that I believe that it follows sound reason, that an intelligent designer; in this case "The Creator"; would naturally include those elements essential to creating whatever it is called for in the design...
You on the other hand are demanding that such simply occurred as a function of coincidental happenstance; which requires you to be in possession ofall of the facts to rest that conclusion as fact.
And to be honest; I don't get the impression that you're a person in possession of anywhere near all of the facts. As a matter of indisputable fact; you BEING a person, pretty well rules that out.

I am taking this position based upon a species of reasoning which induces theoretical possibilities as elements of the equation where there are no facts from which to draw otherwise.

My position is based upon a BELIEF... it represents a FAITH.

As does yours... the distinction is, that I recognize and readily admit that my position is such; while you're stating yours as indisputable fact; in the absence of any actual facts.

My position serves sound, sustainable reason; while your's; as far as I can tell, seems only to serve you and; at least thus far, seems to be leaning on fairly consistent invalid logical constructs; thus represents unsound reasoning; and in my book; where a position fails reason; it fails truth... thus represents deceit... thus serves evil.

Feel better?

4.There was no Invisible being involved.
and you can prove otherwise?
show me....

Prove what?

You're requiring me to convert this, the positive assertion of fact; advanced by an anti-theist; into a negative and prove the antithesis? Seems more reasonable to me that you just prove the positive assertion to which you clearly adhere... instead of forcing me to prove the inverse and demanding that my ignorance of that; establishes your fact.
Now if you're asking me if I believe that there exist in nature forces which cannot be examined through the reflection of light?

Sure, try taste... smell, nearly the entire spectrum of the product of generated energy... oka: waves... Time... space... We may see a narrow range of the affects of such, but we can't see them; and in nearly every circumstance; to recognize the effect of such; we must come to recognize that such is a result of some unseen; and heretofore unknown force.

For instance; humanity has for the whole of it's existence been effected by gravity... for nearly ALL of our 20,000 years of existence, it never occurred to us that the force even existed... it's only in the last 400 years or so, that we've even considered it... and to date, we still don't understand it; despite all of our scientific prowess.

So, where the equation considers a being that exist beyond our means to "see" it... I'd say the possibilities are pretty good; at least as good that there might exist other forces in nature that we can't 'see'... or perceive through our biological sensors; or technological extensions of those sensors.

It's a fascinating issue... I happen to believe that it follows that such does exist; as such serves reason.

5.Science has more than enough evidence to prove that.
science is working on that job.
science has shown MORE evidence for evolution than YOU can show for creation.
if you happen to have ANY evidence of god and creation....
show us.….

Huh... so you feel that science is working on the job is disproving God?

That's interesting; because the key element to valid science is objectivity... thus where the foundation of a given experiment is biased; the conclusions drawn from that study will, it follows; be prejudiced by that bias.

Perhaps you're thinkin' of pseudo-science... which is fairly common amongst the faithful adherents of anti-theism... Anthropologic Global Warming and other such beliefs which hope to effect some form of Social Justice.

6.God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights.
you're are beginning to get it right....
(carefull your head might explode...you probably find this reality very disorienting)

So you've nothing to add here? Except for the dissembling commentary?

Fair enough... I'll only add that this is not a good sign; where your effort is to substantiate these Seven Core Elements of the anti-Religious Faith.

But it's your argument, so you're entitled to construct it as ya wish... Just be prepared to take responsibility for it.

7.Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!!
well...
sort of...
through the ages various people have discussed the topic of human rights
eventually SOME of them got together and wrote it all down
there was no god there.
in fact
if you check out the constitution and the bill of rights to see who wrote them you will see LOTS of HUMAN NAMEs...but no god.

Golly... is it me; or did you bounce through an exercise in intellectual Plinko?

"Sort of"... Either humanity recieves our rights through an endowment from our Creator; or we don't... Ya seem to be of the belief that we don't... yet when the equation turns to the question of whether we do or not; suddenly there's a doubt...

Don't be afraid... that's a good sign.

Of course, there's work to be done... but that's no big deal; as long as we get to the business of doing it.

"through the ages various people have discussed the topic of human rights
eventually SOME of them got together and wrote it all down
there was no god there.
in fact
if you check out the constitution and the bill of rights to see who wrote them you will see LOTS of HUMAN NAMEs...but no god."

I guess the first thing to recognize is your habit of 'running home to your rhetorical Momma'...

Again you re-state your founding premise as your conclusion...
You seem to be claiming some authority inherent in those men and the respective documents... while simultaneously rejecting the principles on which they claimed their authority... and as a result pumping the inherent misnomer for all it's worth.

'God is just an Idea; thus there is no God; thus, God is just made up... thus, the Scriptures are fairy tales... and can't be evidence of that which made up; ergo; God was not there when man gave us our rights.'

Suffice it to say that we've established that it is possible that an intelligent being can exist beyond our means to perceive him... and we can rest assured, that the US Declaration of Independence was created by serious men engaged in a serious endeavor; who concluded that they possessed an authority drawn from the responsibilities inherent in the divine endowment of 'unalienable', inseparable rights to humanity, from Nature's God; rights which they stated were 'certain'; and SO certain as to be 'self-evident'... they stated such as "TRUTH".

What's more, is that this was more than just an academic debate... it was vastly more than some discourse of a heady subject; some collective intellectual perusal of ethereal 'what ifs...'

Those men were of such a committed faith in those principles that they stated them as the authority on which they sought to separate themselves and their nation from the most powerful human force on earth... an otherwise irresistible force which was sure to look upon that position as a direct affront to it’s human authority and with decided antipathy; and they SIGNED IT… knowing full well; and further stating their keen awareness, that such would likely result in their collective deaths; and placed their fate in the hands of ‘providence’. (look it up… note the lower-case ‘p‘. )

Meaning in short; that the men who on one hand you claim to be sufficient to grant to you your RIGHTS… and who on the other hand you simultaneously claim to be so delusional that they project a plastic-banana specter as their authority, in what amounted to a suicide pact.

Now as a general rule; reasonable people aren’t prone to set the authority of their rights upon the manifestations of fools or crazy people.

So with that said, let me help ya through this.

The Founders of America; AKA: These United states... recognized that man was endowed by God with unalienable rights… that those rights were sustained through the recognition, respect for and the bearing of the responsibilities inherent in those rights; not the least of which is to defend the means to exercise those rights; so convinced were they of this certain, self evident fact; that they set their own lives; and the lives of their families, friends and constituents on the line; risking everything they had worked their entire lives to achieve; when there was otherwise no reason to do so… they faced the most powerful force on earth, BELIEVING that the authority was valid; their reasoning sound; and that at the end of the day; that through divine providence that would prevail; having adequately defended their means to exercise their rights.

In the wake of that extensive and costly defense; after some interim devices had been tried and failed; they took to what would become the guiding charter of Rules by which the US Federal Government would conduct itself; which we know as the US Constitution. And within that US Constitution; after much debate; they decided to add specific protections for key aspects of those divinely endowed rights which laid at the foundation of the Charter of founding principles, in the US Declaration of Independence.

Now note what I just said… and what I did not say… The framer’s of the USC added PROTECTIONS FOR RIGHTS WHICH HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED AS INHERENT … Rights which they claimed as the authority to separate from the human power that bound them.

Thus, those rights pre-existed the US Declaration of Independence; thus they pre-existed the Framing of the US Constitution; Ergo: The Enumerating of Protections AGAINST THE USURPATION OF HUMAN POWER INTRINSIC TO GOVERNMENT; is not; CANNOT be said to be the imparting of rights…

Meaning in short that the Framers of the US Constitution were decidedly NOT ‘giving you your rights’… they were adding rules which prevented government from preventing you from exercising your pre-existing; God given rights.

Which means that in the absence of God; you have no rights… Because crazy people aren’t really in a position to grant rights.
Now is that where you were headed?
　

"She couldn't actually point towards anything factual in support of 'em... and I'm just looking to see if any of you who also claim to be atheists can do so. "
I don't need to.
I have faith!

Yep, ya sure do… sadly, for you and your faith, you’ve got serious problems in the supporting construct inherent to it…
Study the argument a bit more carefully and see if ya come up with something closer to a sound response.

Keeping in mind that we&#8217;re not really interested in seeing any more of the premise being advanced as a conclusion&#8230; and flipping positive assertions of fact on it&#8217;s back; in an attempt to have the opposition prove the negative. And towards an explanation; the only way to prove a negative is to convert it into a positive and work the equation&#8230; Which hopefully you recognize, just sorta leaves us chasing your tale&#8230; <(pun&#8230;J }