To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be clear the title of this thread is false.

There are currently several purported definitions of atheism, personally I always use the real one, the established one, the one used historically in books on theology, philosophy and so on, the one that's been around for hundreds of years.

But there are some who like to use a different definition one made up one afternoon by Antony Flew in the 1970s in a rather obscure book The Presumption of Atheism.

Nobody paid much attention to this until relatively recently where it became fashionable amongst militant atheists, some of whom even insist that Flew's definition is the true definition.

You can read more about this hand waving and other foot stamping here.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of atheists who rely on the historic definition and do not agree with this attempt to redefine it, so any pretense that all atheists adopt the "lack of belief" view is false, many atheists do not share that definition at all.

[TRANSPONDER]

But this is a problem for the pop-atheist, because unless one has set criteria for recognizing evidence for anything, God or anything, then one will never recognize genuine evidence even if they tripped over it.

A god is something to be worshiped. And if worship is selfless, then worship me, not because I will do you any good, but because I won't. I firmly swear not to ever ever do you any good, on myself. (I hope that's a reductio ad absurdum for absolutely selfless worship.)

A god is not something to be worshiped because it brings physical, worldly things. This is proven by the fact that nobody's god ever appears and showers them with gold and jewels, yet they still worship.

With few exceptions most of us worship ourselves most of the time, some of us all the time.

(X) What's left then? Happiness? Well if you want to worship the Sha of Anger and it somehow brings you happiness, go for it. However, happiness and fulfillment are so personal that at this point, we really can't talk meaningfully about gods and worship, it's just personal. And if you want to end here, so be it. The conclusion is that it doesn't matter if your god exists in the same universe as you or not. If you want to worship Bilbo Baggins and it makes you happy, then that's that. Gods don't actually have to exist physically, to exist meaningfully as gods.

But what about being a good person? Well, that's neither so selfless that you ought to just worship me because I'll swear on myself never ever to help you, nor so selfish that you're done with it if not showered in gold and jewels. And it's meaningful enough in our shared society where we have to live together that we can now talk about what accomplishes this and what doesn't.

So there we go, I'd recognise evidence for god. God doesn't even have to exist, to exist. This is a version of the Ontological Argument that actually works. You can define a god into existence, but there's a massive catch: He has to actually help people be good people. If he instead helps people be evil (there are a lot of molestation scandals tied to religion) then he simply doesn't qualify. If he helps some people be good and others to be evil then he can be a personal god for the former (as in X) but an impartial observer for whom that is not the case doesn't have to concede that he's objectively a god.

We are clay in God's hands, he does as he sees fit to pursue his own purpose, we were created by God for God, he creates good and evil as he sees fit, as he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Since, as an atheist, I don't credit a single word of that Faith - claim, what (I really want to know) do you think it is getting you? Do you seriously think it's going to move someone who doesn't believe in any god? No more than it would move you to have a Muslim threaten you because you don't reverence the all -powerful Allah who created you from clots of blood (which unlike dust is at least organic). Or is it that at some time you were converted by having a wodge of theophanic scripture dumped on you and you caved in, so you think it'll work on us? What? I'm genuinely curious.

Just sayin' you must know that preachery is not going to work. Why do you do it? Is it just to earn brownie points with God that you are preaching to the unbeliever even though you know it's a waste of effort? I'm truly curious, why?

[TRANSPONDER]

P.s actually I might guess (yes the old mustwach 'Losing Faith (Theramin trees) explains. It's a game. A theist confirmation -game. You get together for mutually affirming Bibletalk and each person has to back up the other. I suspect that they come here and expect us to play that game, too.

[Purple Knight]

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

I've affirmed that if he's a greater being and made us, he has a right to us. It's the same as I have a right to kill and eat a cow. We humans really made our beds with this one.

However, that doesn't mean the cow is wrong to struggle or run away or try not to be killed. In saying the cow has no rights, we have removed agency from the cow. The cow now is what it is, and does what it does. If it gores a man to death, we can kill it, but that's morally meaningless as we can kill it anyway. Nothing the cow does is wrong. We can reward or punish but that's not the same thing.

If this is the universe we live in, and we're all just cows to god, to be rewarded for being helpful to it and punished for being harmful to it, then any morality I make up, even if it is flawed, is superior to a state in which agency has been removed from me because I am nothing but god's livestock.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #90]

or of course 'even though I don't know, I will believe' (theism)

Complaining about how those who are not atheists are misinterpreting atheism, and on the other hand, here is an example of an atheist misinterpreting theism, as if that is acceptable for some reason to do with lacking belief in gods.

How is that truthful expression? Does it need to be truthful expression if it comes from an atheist?

Search "theism"

belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Theism hasn't lasted this long based upon the idea that while one does not know, one will believe anyway.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #93]

The Soul Eats Experience.

[TRANSPONDER]

Very good. This has been tackled before; Morality is either valid on an empirical basis, which means that Morality is valid whether or not God agrees with it ir not, or morality is only based on what God wants and says, in which case there is no actual morality, only the orders of a dictator.

Now some might say that morality is valid because the nature of the giver of the moral law is by nature Good (moral).

Which of course is the half of the problem of evil; no being who was perfectly (or even basically) moral would act as it does, which either means that the morality -giving god (1) is Not the one described in the Bible Or God is not moral, or at least not moral in any way that makes sense to us - using the morality we were given. In which case again, morality is just God's say -so and is Not any kind of morality we'd recognise as good or valid.

It does raise the question: cave into a dictator or defy it? I've actually seen 'cave in' with several apologetics of the 'bite the bullet' kind: 'God will burn you if you don't play ball' variety . It's a stark choice and I'm profoundly thankful that I don't believe any of it, so it is only the less stressful problem or relative human morality

P.s of course we get the apologetics which is what these debates are generally about. Explanations (excuses) as to why the immoralities of God are not immoral, just the errors, contradictions and inaccuracies of the Bible are not immoralities, errors or inaccuracies. Because one has to Interpret then correctly, but what then end up with is Faith. Interpretation itself almost always ends up with Faith. In fact interpretation itself is Faith. These debates I think point up the false argument or propaganda put out that the evidence actually supports the Bible. It does not. What Faith does is fiddle, wangle and misrepresent the evidence to look like it supports the Bible and in fact it clearly does not and what Faith has to do is find explanations, excuses, evasions and in the end faith -based denial to maintain the Faith - position that was where it started.

It is -and you may take this to the bank - fair assessment of evidence that will show that it does NOT support the Faith and faith -based denial is where the religion case will always end up. But nobody realised this until atheism entered the apologetics arena and what they (the Believers) dearly want to is to exclude atheism from it once again.

(1) sometimes called evolutionary instinct

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #96]

which post are you replying to?

It does not appear to be a reply to post#94

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #93]

The Soul Eats Experience.

Thanks for the "like", PK

The soul eats experience=429
Arms crossed over chest
Old Outposts Of Form
When You Are Feeling Tired
Neurotransmitters
Seven groups of rings

Thanks for the "like", PK = 209
Hypnagogic experience
Sharing Your Love
The Spirit of the Land
All Things Are In Order
You Are Watched Over
The immune system
A Judgmental System

[Sherlock Holmes]

But this is a problem for the pop-atheist, because unless one has set criteria for recognizing evidence for anything, God or anything, then one will never recognize genuine evidence even if they tripped over it.

A god is something to be worshiped. And if worship is selfless, then worship me, not because I will do you any good, but because I won't. I firmly swear not to ever ever do you any good, on myself. (I hope that's a reductio ad absurdum for absolutely selfless worship.)

A god is not something to be worshiped because it brings physical, worldly things. This is proven by the fact that nobody's god ever appears and showers them with gold and jewels, yet they still worship.

With few exceptions most of us worship ourselves most of the time, some of us all the time.

(X) What's left then? Happiness? Well if you want to worship the Sha of Anger and it somehow brings you happiness, go for it. However, happiness and fulfillment are so personal that at this point, we really can't talk meaningfully about gods and worship, it's just personal. And if you want to end here, so be it. The conclusion is that it doesn't matter if your god exists in the same universe as you or not. If you want to worship Bilbo Baggins and it makes you happy, then that's that. Gods don't actually have to exist physically, to exist meaningfully as gods.

But what about being a good person? Well, that's neither so selfless that you ought to just worship me because I'll swear on myself never ever to help you, nor so selfish that you're done with it if not showered in gold and jewels. And it's meaningful enough in our shared society where we have to live together that we can now talk about what accomplishes this and what doesn't.

So there we go, I'd recognise evidence for god. God doesn't even have to exist, to exist. This is a version of the Ontological Argument that actually works. You can define a god into existence, but there's a massive catch: He has to actually help people be good people. If he instead helps people be evil (there are a lot of molestation scandals tied to religion) then he simply doesn't qualify. If he helps some people be good and others to be evil then he can be a personal god for the former (as in X) but an impartial observer for whom that is not the case doesn't have to concede that he's objectively a god.

We are clay in God's hands, he does as he sees fit to pursue his own purpose, we were created by God for God, he creates good and evil as he sees fit, as he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Since, as an atheist, I don't credit a single word of that Faith - claim, what (I really want to know) do you think it is getting you?

What is what getting me? It was posted because it addresses some of the issues raised in the preceding post, this is a thread in the Christianity and apologetics area.

Do you seriously think it's going to move someone who doesn't believe in any god?

That question never crossed my mind, I did not write it, I quoted it.

No more than it would move you to have a Muslim threaten you because you don't reverence the all -powerful Allah who created you from clots of blood (which unlike dust is at least organic).

Are you accusing me of wrongdoing? I'm not really following you.

Or is it that at some time you were converted by having a wodge of theophanic scripture dumped on you and you caved in, so you think it'll work on us? What? I'm genuinely curious.

I quoted something from the Bible in the Christianity and Apologetics area, what is your complaint exactly? perhaps its best that you contact a moderator.

Just sayin' you must know that preachery is not going to work. Why do you do it? Is it just to earn brownie points with God that you are preaching to the unbeliever even though you know it's a waste of effort? I'm truly curious, why?

I have a right in the forum to quote the Old Testament, so I really do not understand your point.

[Sherlock Holmes]

P.s actually I might guess (yes the old mustwach 'Losing Faith (Theramin trees) explains. It's a game. A theist confirmation -game. You get together for mutually affirming Bibletalk and each person has to back up the other. I suspect that they come here and expect us to play that game, too.

Who are you accusing of what? might it be that this area of the forum is not for you? why participate in threads that dwell on subject matter that you disapprove of?