Atheism, the art of defying logic, reason and commonsense.

[E.G]

[center]Atheism: the art of defying logic, reason and commonsense[/center]

Throughout my years of traveling and meeting different people, I have also met atheists, among whom I have made friends. I have also realized that there are three different groups of atheists:

1- Those, who have been hurt, offended or disappointed in church, and the so called people of God.

2- Those, who could not resist or break free from their families pressure; they gave in, following the non-belief ideology, which was imposed on them.

3- The third is a smart bunch, want to make a "splash" or make money challenging the big guy God. This way they would look bigger and smarter to impress, or to make speeches and write books to gain fame and make money.

What is the common thread among these three groups?

In two word: emotional reaction.

Let us switch our magnificent mind to the channel reads Neutral, where we can come to conclusions that are most beneficial, first and for most, to ourselves, our peace of mind and potential prosperity.


Definitions:

Logic is a systematic approach to a problem.

Reason is basically answering the question why. It implies rationality.

Common sense is exercising good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.


- We depend on air, every second, to continue to live, but we cant see Air, why cant be there a God whom we cant see but feel his present? (Reason).

- We came from apes and survival is for the fittest. Why then, as human species we have, for generations, an acceptable system of passing inheritance to succeeding generations? This defies the concept of survival is for the fittest, since it gives some people advantages over others, also makes them depended on those who pass the inheritance (thus, they are not necessarily the fittest). (Logic).

- If life came about as a result of a big bang theory: Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense- a miracle. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang") http://www.big-bang-theory.com/.

So, the question is, if that is how it came about, what would stop this phenomenon from happening again? And what could be the results? A major explosion covering the entire universe? This appears to contradict having an order in the universe as many scientists have testified. If we (the human species) were a product of such a disorderly "Big Bang", how come then we always seek harmony and order for our lives? (Common sense).

[Willum]

As years progress, you will find more:

Those who begin with no assumptions, who reconstruct what must be based on realistic and determinable observations.

Those who will not use a higher power to excuse prejudice, murder, and oppression.

Those who value critical thinking, and will not allow circular arguments, or those arguments that prove fairies, dragons and unicorns as well as they do a terricidal god.

There will be those who, not having belief ingrained in the from birth will see that when given two hypothesis: A Judeo-Christian God, or a God made up by men, those who will navigate through what can and can't be proven, and arrive at more reasonable conclusions then half-gods who support the Roman government, and the salvation of souls.

There will be those who realize that the arguments from ancient philosophers, such as you can't see air, but you can trap it in a balloon, and make it do work. Who will show that Jehovah is exactly as powerless as Ba-el in Elijah.

Who understand the conservation of energy: That matter is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. That there are particles called Bosons that occupy no volume, and so the universe's entire mass can be concentrated at one point. Without God. That this point can decay into neutrons, which decay into hydrogen, our universe.

You see, there are an ever increasing number of folks who aren't constrained by the beliefs born in the Dark Ages, when Judeo-Christianity murdered science along with every man woman and child who disagreed with what didn't make sense in the Bible.

So you may find hope for atheists, yet.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Throughout my years of traveling and meeting different people, I have also met atheists, among whom I have made friends. I have also realized that there are three different groups of atheists:

1- Those, who have been hurt, offended or disappointed in church, and the so called people of God.

I propose that if these "people of God" would just quit using their religious beliefs as a cudgel, a good many folks wouldn't be upset with 'em.

2- Those, who could not resist or break free from their families pressure; they gave in, following the non-belief ideology, which was imposed on them.

'Cause "You'll believe, or you'll burn in Hell" is such a sound way to go.

3- The third is a smart bunch, want to make a "splash" or make money challenging the big guy God.

Wasn't it God who "splashed" the entire planet 'cause he was upset with some of it's inhabitants?

This way they would look bigger and smarter to impress, or to make speeches and write books to gain fame and make money.

Now all y'all remember that next time you're channel surfing, and you come across that preacher begging for your dollars.

What is the common thread among these three groups?

In two word: emotional reaction.

I have me one of them "emotional reactions" everytime it is, a theist declares it's someone else being emotional.

Like when their favorite god of all of 'em says such as "Those who don't believe, well they're fools".

Let us switch our magnificent mind

I'm unaware of any incident in which OP has shown he's got him a "magnificent" mind, so...

I challenge OP to show he speaks truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

Let us switch our magnificent mind to the channel reads Neutral, where we can come to conclusions that are most beneficial, first and for most, to ourselves, our peace of mind and potential prosperity.

I ain't never had a tractor that could plow a field in neutral.

Maybe it is, leaving one's mind in "neutral" is how they set to think there's a god "up there".

Definitions:

Logic is a systematic approach to a problem.

Where theism is a "goddidit" approach to all problems.

Reason is basically answering the question why. It implies rationality.

An implication is not a proving.

Common sense is exercising good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.

It's just a shame to see OP couldn't do him none of it.

- We depend on air, every second, to continue to live, but we cant see Air, why cant be there a God whom we cant see but feel his present? (Reason).

'Cause, using reason, stuff that ain't there, ain't there.

- We came from apes and survival is for the fittest. Why then, as human species we have, for generations, an acceptable system of passing inheritance to succeeding generations? This defies the concept of survival is for the fittest, since it gives some people advantages over others, also makes them depended on those who pass the inheritance (thus, they are not necessarily the fittest). (Logic).

Genetic relationships. Your logicer is as faulty as your reasoner.

Maybe if you'd take 'em out of neutral, you could set down the road to actual, provable knowledge.

- If...

If I didn't have me some unknown, unknowable quality, I wouldn't have me a house with me a pretty thing sittin' in it. Fixin' groceries. For me to eat.

So, the question is, if that is how it came about, what would stop this phenomenon from happening again?

Nothing.

What'd stop God from flooding this whole planet again, if'n he found out some Christian cooked 'em a cake for a gay wedding?

And what could be the results?

Best I can tell, God's upset at the gay wedding cake making, such that he's done set to warming up the globe a real good bunch.

A major explosion covering the entire universe?

Data indicates the universe itself is an "explosion".

This appears to contradict having an order in the universe as many scientists have testified.

Please present such scientists, and their arguments for analysis.

1st challenge.

If we (the human species) were a product of such a disorderly "Big Bang", how come then we always seek harmony and order for our lives? (Common sense).

'Cause "common sense" ain't near common as you've been so obviously led to believe.

"Common sense" is an argument from a whole bunch of folks, or, as the Latino population refers to it, an argumentum ad populum.

If we all thought the moon wasn't there, then where the heck did them astronauts land?

And what Willum said.

(edit for I have as much ability to tag as I do to make biscuits, and pretty thing says they's easy to fix.)

(2nd edit 'cause did I tell y'all 'bout the time I tried to make biscuits, and the hospital got put in the newspaper)

[benchwarmer]

[center]Atheism: the art of defying logic, reason and commonsense[/center]

Throughout my years of traveling and meeting different people, I have also met atheists, among whom I have made friends. I have also realized that there are three different groups of atheists:

1- Those, who have been hurt, offended or disappointed in church, and the so called people of God.

2- Those, who could not resist or break free from their families pressure; they gave in, following the non-belief ideology, which was imposed on them.

3- The third is a smart bunch, want to make a "splash" or make money challenging the big guy God. This way they would look bigger and smarter to impress, or to make speeches and write books to gain fame and make money.

I humbly suggest you are missing at least one group.

4- Those who decided to research the claims made by religion and found them to be unsupportable. This group has found no compelling reason to believe in any god based on all evidence so far.

I don't have the stats, but I would guess many non theists actually fit in group 4 rather than the other 3 you give.

What is the common thread among these three groups?

In two word: emotional reaction.

Among your definitions, possibly. However you failed to include what is probably a rather large percentage of non theists in my group 4 above and there is no 'emotional reaction' involved in group 4.

Let us switch our magnificent mind to the channel reads Neutral, where we can come to conclusions that are most beneficial, first and for most, to ourselves, our peace of mind and potential prosperity.


Definitions:

Logic is a systematic approach to a problem.

Reason is basically answering the question why. It implies rationality.

Common sense is exercising good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.


- We depend on air, every second, to continue to live, but we cant see Air, why cant be there a God whom we cant see but feel his present? (Reason).

I think this is a horrible analogy. For one, I may not be able to see the nitrogen and oxygen which make up most of our atmosphere, but I can certainly feel it. Next time you are out for a drive, stick your hand out the window. I can also see the air holding up moisture (clouds), smoke (smog), and all manner of things flying through it like birds and airplanes.

Tell us how to feel God like we can feel air then I will grant your premise.

- We came from apes and survival is for the fittest. Why then, as human species we have, for generations, an acceptable system of passing inheritance to succeeding generations? This defies the concept of survival is for the fittest, since it gives some people advantages over others, also makes them depended on those who pass the inheritance (thus, they are not necessarily the fittest). (Logic).

I think you don't understand what the concept 'survival of the fittest' means and/or you are contorting it to mean something completely different.

- If life came about as a result of a big bang theory: Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense- a miracle. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang") http://www.big-bang-theory.com/.

Life didn't come about as a result of any theory. Theories don't do things, they explain things. You are correct that we don't know many things. It's ok to say "I don't know". It's far better than making something up or saying 'God did it' and then supplying no evidence.

So, the question is, if that is how it came about, what would stop this phenomenon from happening again?

Nothing. Do you know that it's not going to happen again? Do you know if it's already happened again? Do you know that it hasn't?

And what could be the results? A major explosion covering the entire universe?

That makes no sense. The universe has expanded from some point of origin. You seem to be suggesting that another universe will appear over top of ours? Maybe, what evidence do you have that supports that theory? If it did happen within our universe, it would start at a single point and expand outwards just like ours. I don't understand the 'major explosion covering the entire universe part'.

This appears to contradict having an order in the universe as many scientists have testified. If we (the human species) were a product of such a disorderly "Big Bang", how come then we always seek harmony and order for our lives? (Common sense).

You totally lost me there. That's like saying since the sky is blue there's no reason to eat meatballs.

[Divine Insight]

[center]Atheism: the art of defying logic, reason and commonsense[/center]

Throughout my years of traveling and meeting different people, I have also met atheists, among whom I have made friends. I have also realized that there are three different groups of atheists:

1- Those, who have been hurt, offended or disappointed in church, and the so called people of God.

2- Those, who could not resist or break free from their families pressure; they gave in, following the non-belief ideology, which was imposed on them.

3- The third is a smart bunch, want to make a "splash" or make money challenging the big guy God. This way they would look bigger and smarter to impress, or to make speeches and write books to gain fame and make money.

What is the common thread among these three groups?

In two word: emotional reaction.

I see your list as nothing more than a purposeful ad hominem aimed at insulting atheists. It certainly doesn't reflect the character of most atheists I know. Especially those who are educated in the sciences.

Do there exist atheists who fall into the categories you've suggested above? Sure. But then there are Christians who fall into similar categories. I've created the following categories just to echo the ones you've created for atheists. But I can assure you that I've met plenty of Christians who fall into these three categories.

1. Christians who have been hurt by the truth of reality and became religious in an effort to find comfort. (to echo your #1 group)

2. Those who have been raised and indoctrinated by religious families and feel pressured to defend their family's religion. In fact, this is probably the most common type of Christian. (to echo your #2 group)

3. Those who are extremely egotistical and love to use religion and the authority of God to spew hatred toward non-believers in the name of Jesus and God whilst having other "Christians" actually back them up and praise them for supporting Jesus. I think these people are easy to spot as well, and quite common especially on Internet forums since such forums offer them a platform to spread their hatred in Jesus name. (to echo your #3 group).

Do I believe that these three groups describe ALL Christians. No, not at all.

Clearly there are also some Christians who actually believe in Christian theology for reasons they believe are "reasonable". But I actually think those are extreme rare.

I would suggest that the overwhelming number of Christians "believe" in Christianity because they were indoctrinated into it, and they have simply bought into the teachings that if they dare to question this God or doubt him they will be cast into eternal damnation for their insubordination. I believe most Christians keep the faith out of fear of damnation, or the lust for the promised reward.

I don't believe any Christians who claim that they defend the religion simply because they love Jesus or God and for no other reason. If they love Jesus or God it can only be because they think Jesus or God is going to bestow them with a gift of eternal life in exchange for their loyalty and devotion.

[E.G]

[Replying to post 3 by JoeyKnothead]

So you may find hope for atheists, yet.

There is always hope for all those brave and free thinkers that their motive is to find the truth and discover the formula for success in life. This post was not intended to be a philosophical discussion, but rather a practical one, especially for the analytical and critical brains that are capable of seeing both sides of any argument, hypothesis or theory (that is what it means to set your mind on neutral (unbiased), i.e., not prematurely take one side of the argument).

You said:

the Dark Ages, when Judeo-Christianity murdered science along with every man woman and child who disagreed with what didn't make sense in the Bible.

Allow me to suggest that this statement fits into emotional argument; we cant take few cases and build a large conclusion on them. We learn this in schools, colleges and universities. Moreover, if it wasnt for the Christian moral teaching and values, and the Christian scientists, we would not have today this advanced knowledge and civilization. I would like to direct you to this link where over 200 names of Christians in science and technology are listed from the year 1098 to "currently living":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... technology,

You will find the most contributors to science and technology were Christians, not atheist or all other religion combined. Can you tell me, what is the secret behind this FACT?

The history of Christianity attests to the fact that what the Lord Christ left behind has taken the world from darkness to an everlasting positive light. Just imagine for a minute, the countries of North America being established on different moral and judicial systems that were not based on the teaching of Lord Christ and his Holy Bible? Would you still consider it for a place to live in?

[E.G]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Divine Insight wrote:

1. Christians who have been hurt by the truth of reality and became religious in an effort to find comfort. (to echo your #1 group)

2. Those who have been raised and indoctrinated by religious families and feel pressured to defend their family's religion. In fact, this is probably the most common type of Christian. (to echo your #2 group)

3. Those who are extremely egotistical and love to use religion and the authority of God to spew hatred toward non-believers in the name of Jesus and God whilst having other "Christians" actually back them up and praise them for supporting Jesus. I think these people are easy to spot as well, and quite common especially on Internet forums since such forums offer them a platform to spread their hatred in Jesus name. (to echo your #3 group).

Do I believe that these three groups describe ALL Christians. No, not at all.

It might shock you to hear that I agree with most of your statements! And this is how an intelligent discussion should be in order to find the facts and the truth that are most beneficial, first and for most, to ourselves, our peace of mind and potential prosperity.
I am a truth seeker, an opened mind person with a highly critical analytical brain. My motto simply is: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32

The fact remains, two wrongs don't make a right!

Neither arrangement grants any merits to the hypothesis that God does not exist or he is not good. It is a moment of weakness form us as human, where we want to divert the discussion or lay the blame on someone outside ourselves. This is not the best state of mind in searching for facts or the truth.

[Divine Insight]

The fact remains, two wrongs don't make a right!

I totally agree with you on this ideal. Yet if you stop and think about it this is precisely the principle Christianity is based upon.

1. Supposedly humans are all sinners who have turned against God and lust to do evil things.

2. God sends his only begotten Son to earth with a message of salvation for humans.

3. Humans turn against God and brutally crucify God's only begotten Son in the most horrific and disrespectful way possible.

4. God then offers us FREE SALVATION for having done even MORE wrongs against him.

Our "wrong" of having crucified God's Son without good reason supposedly vindicates us from having done "wrongs".

In other words, Christianity is totally dependent upon the idea that two wrongs make a right.

As long as you are willing to condone the "wrong" of having Jesus crucified as your sacrificial lamb you can be forgiven all of the wrongs you have previously committed.

However, if you refuse to condone this "wrong" on your behalf to make "right" your "wrongs", then you will be condemned to eternal hell for not understanding that two wrongs makes a right.

So how can you argue that Christianity makes any sense at all if you don't even agree with the Christian God that it makes sense that two wrongs should make a right?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by E.G]


Perhaps the problem is categorization in the first place. Reasons for belief and non belief often are associated with complex notions of self. Your suggestion of 3 categories come off in poor taste as well. Especially the second and third categories which suggest aside from Trauma the only reasons you can see someone being an atheist is through mechanism of cruelty and vanity/greed.

Basically you put for the the notion of these three categories.

1. Trauma

2. Weak minded individuals easily preyed upon by abusive individuals within their social groups

3. Vain and greedy individuals.

It seems you have a very negative view of atheists. Why is this the case?

One way to understand why people believe what they believe is to ask someone and try to understand why you believe what you believe.

Why are you a Christian?

I am an atheist because after years of biblical study I started finding issues with the written word itself. To me it became a self contradiction. it was no longer logically compatible. Yet it was not here where I gave up on religion and spirituality. I had just posited to myself that the written word had been lost to time and just trust in God to show me the way. This led to varies religious and/or spiritual beliefs. In the end one by one they continually failed in terms of logical and reason. At this point it would be intellectually dishonest for me to be a believer.

My family is very religious, I have not had negative personal encounters with religion. I keep my beliefs to myself. I will dabble anonymously on the internet not for fame or fortune, but simplly to have an intellectually stimulating conversation. I don't fit into any of the categories you listed. Perhaps it's time you start revising your position.

[OnceConvinced]

[center]Atheism: the art of defying logic, reason and commonsense[/center]

Throughout my years of traveling and meeting different people, I have also met atheists, among whom I have made friends. I have also realized that there are three different groups of atheists:

1- Those, who have been hurt, offended or disappointed in church, and the so called people of God.

I always had positive experiences in churches. I was respected and valued. So I don't fall into this category.

2- Those, who could not resist or break free from their families pressure; they gave in, following the non-belief ideology, which was imposed on them.

My family are mainly Christians. My parents are committed Christians. The pressure was on me to STAY a Christian. To actually break free from the Christian delusion was a very difficult thing. Extremely difficult. So I don't fall into this category either.

If you want to talk about emotion, emotion wanted me to remain a Christian. It was a heartbreaking thing losing my faith. I cried many tears and there was a lot of anguish. I begged God to help me. In the end I got real and realised there was no point in shedding any more tears. Logic and reason won out in the end.

3- The third is a smart bunch, want to make a "splash" or make money challenging the big guy God. This way they would look bigger and smarter to impress, or to make speeches and write books to gain fame and make money.

Not me. I came to be an ex-Christian due to rational reasons, not emotional ones. It was an inescapable conclusion I came to that Christianity was a lie and that the bible was very wrong in places. There was no way around it.

What is the common thread among these three groups?

In two word: emotional reaction.

I know of very few atheists that are atheists for them reasons you mention. In fact I find that it's Christians who are Christians for emotional reasons.

In fact go to any church or evangelical crusade and it will always be emotional appeals that gets those people flooding up to the front to give their lives to Christ. Just listen to the words of the speakers. Listen to that music in the back ground enhancing the effects of their words. It's all emotional appeal. Nothing logical. I guarantee it. That's how evangelists get so many converts, but even then once the emotion wears off, the logic and reason comes back for many.

- We depend on air, every second, to continue to live, but we cant see Air, why cant be there a God whom we cant see but feel his present? (Reason).

We can prove scientifically that air exists. We can't prove God scientifically. In fact according to God he won't be tested. Air can be. We can soon find out what happens if something stops breathing it.

It is highly irrational to compare air to God.

- We came from apes and survival is for the fittest. Why then, as human species we have, for generations, an acceptable system of passing inheritance to succeeding generations? This defies the concept of survival is for the fittest, since it gives some people advantages over others, also makes them depended on those who pass the inheritance (thus, they are not necessarily the fittest). (Logic).

I'm not seeing any contradiction on this one sorry.

- If life came about as a result of a big bang theory: Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense- a miracle. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang") http://www.big-bang-theory.com/.

So you on the other hand would rather believe that some magical being said abracadabra one day and it was all created by magic? How logical and rational is that?

So, the question is, if that is how it came about, what would stop this phenomenon from happening again? And what could be the results? A major explosion covering the entire universe? This appears to contradict having an order in the universe as many scientists have testified. If we (the human species) were a product of such a disorderly "Big Bang", how come then we always seek harmony and order for our lives? (Common sense).

I have no idea whether the Big Bang happened at all. It is of no interest to me. Somehow the world got here. It may have always existed. I see no need to stoop to ignorance and say "Goddidit" just because I don't have the answers.