I am so proud: I invented a phrase that is widely used now in atheism. I first brought it up at TAM London in 2010, and then discussed it again in Montreal in 2011, and now it’s widely used.
That term is “Dictionary Atheism“.
Of course, it’s kind of a mixed legacy. I am reviled practically every day for arguing that atheism has antecedents and implications. The latest example of an approving response to the term is from Greta Christina, who is officially done with Dictionary Atheism. And aren’t we all?
I never understood the opposition to the idea that not believing in gods has implications for what you do believe in. I mean … of course it fucking does. If you’ve left a religion then whatever your religion used to inform now has to be informed by something else by definition; if you were never religious then you would have understood that from the start.
Although, now I think about, it a lot of the initial opposition did seem to come from the same general direction as those whose behaviour left much to be desired where the treatment of women was concerned. They appeared to strongly resent the implication that a secular & reason-based morality was necessarily egalitarian regarding gender and required them to not behave like arseholes. In the spirit of generosity I grant that if you’re a career arsehole that’d be a difficult adjustment.
Man, I admire Greta’s ability to communicate her well thought out opinions in an easy to digest form.
To reply to Hank_Says, I think the second commenter (I don’t recall how to spell it without going to check) brought up one of the main reasons people oppose it. Dodging the responsibility of thinking deeply about it, or doing much about the problems out there, or fixing any problems within the atheism movement, and so on.
Though I think there’s also the part where a chunk disagree with the implications, or where they lead people like Greta and PZ. Basically, they really hate liberalism/social justice/sociology/etc.
Not just that.
There’s also the tentacles.
Dang, I just hate it when folks don’t understand, that part of being an adult, is making decisions and living with the consequences of those decisions. You decide atheism is only a dictionary definition, and a large portion of atheist say, what about biblical misogyny? So, why haven’t you dismissed the biblical misogyny and looked at the evidence about equality of the sexes, not your presuppositions based on those dismissed biblical teachings (if the deity doesn’t exist, neither does its teachings)? The philosophers appear to too lazy to recognize consequences of their decisions, and the misogynists have a problem with bigotry to begin with.
Dictionary atheists only make sense in a strategic sense.
The existence of the atheist community should not even be a topic as simply looking at reality shows it is there. Every community has to do some basic maintenance to make sure that it can function as a community and we do that with morals and ethics.
Community activism needs a healthy and thriving community. Communities have to take that into account in addition to the things that define the community, the things that are implied by atheism (fighting creationism). Everything that undermines community and makes atheists suffer as a group and is fair game for organized community activity or atheists will simply stop being a community functionally. Community values have to be a basic principles or the rest will have no strength.
What does bringing up the definition have to do with that? It’s already implied by what we are, but does not take into account why or how we are atheists now which defines the problems that atheists suffer from. The things activism should be aimed at. The only reason to motivate this that I can think of is to prevent atheists from connecting something without actually doing the work of saying why atheists should not make the connection. It’s more than a little lazy and insulting.
What’s the point of having a community if we are going to act like maintaining it isn’t critical?
I gradually slid into atheism, literally by ceasing to go to church – that’s my version of a dictionary atheist. But I don’t consider that to be the defining moment, because there was never a time that I formally stopped going. No, the week that I spent hiding in my room, reconsidering everything about my life and the world around me, in view of the fact that there is no god, that is when I became an atheist. When I figured out why people vote Republican because they believe in a non-existant god, I knew that I was into the implications.
You can’t just not go to church. There are lots of alleged Christians who sleep late on Sundays.
PZ is too modest. Another of his lasting contributions to atheism is, of course, the .
That last comment did not go as expected! I wish it was possible to edit comments. Trying again…
PZ is too modest. Another of his lasting contributions to atheism is, of course, the Courtier’s Reply (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply).
@3, John-Henry
I suspect that thinking deeply about whether you’re a Dictionary Atheist will almost certainly lead to you no longer being one, which will then imply, just as leaving religion implies, that you will need to continue thinking which may lead to the necessity to change your behaviour or attitudes. Like religionists confronted with leaving their comfy confines, I suspect a lot of atheists don’t want to examine any core values because admitting error or ignorance, much less incorporating new ones, is just plain hard.
One curious thing I’ve noticed is how involved with atheism the people who object to non-dictionary atheism apparently are. If you are just a Dictionary Atheist and nothing else it makes me wonder, then, what you’re doing reading the blogs of movement atheists in the first place, much less leaving comments complaining about how your identity is being criticised and described to other atheists in the broader community. Why do you care what someone else thinks of your amoral apolitical apathetic atheism? Why exactly are you reading the blogs of atheist activists in the first place if not to inform your godless outlook in some way? Even if you just like seeing religious misbehaviour slapped around or creationism debunked, that’s still a little bit more than “just an atheist – nothing else”. There’s a reason you, as an unbeliever, want to specifically see bad religious acts punished, or at least stupid religious ideas mocked – but it’s a reason beyond the simple fact of your non-belief. If you were, as advertised, “just” an atheist whose atheism carried no moral or political associations or implications, you need to explain why you care about what other atheists think about certain things and why you care what religious people get up to.
Unimpressed. It’s a no True Scotsman all the way down.
Don’t get me wrong, I 100% agree that “atheism has implications” and opens a lot of questions that we have a duty to answer.
But there’s plenty of people who identify as atheist, live their lives as there is no god that don’t care about that.
You don’t get to decide who is an True Atheist and who’s not, PZ, anymore than my liberal Christian friends don’t get to say that the WBC are not True Christians.
That’s just not how most people understand the word, dictionary or not.
Now, if you want to embark in a battle to *reclaim* the word, it’s another matter entirely but
1) Do you have the numbers?
2) Is it worth it?
Yes to both stupid questions.
F.O. @11:
Please point out where PZ attempts to decide who is or isn’t a true atheist. Since it’s not in this post, I assume you have a link to a previous post of his where he says that.
I don’t believe any such post exists. I’ve never seen him say that dictionary atheists aren’t atheists. AFAICT, he’s always said they are, but many dictionary atheists do not explore the implications of their non-belief, saying there is nothing more to atheism than not believing in a deity. Then why do so many of them support church/state issues? Why do they want religion out of politics if atheism is nothing more than not believing in a god or gods?
As I’ve said many times, if you no longer believe in a deity, what then of the beliefs you hold that are derived from or influenced by the religious beliefs you’ve rejected? Should one not at least reexamine those beliefs to ensure there is a good reason to retain them?
@F.O.
I don’t think PZ is trying to say who is a True Atheist or anything like that. Only which atheists are of one type or another type (which is legitimate, we categorize people based on their ideology all the time).
Though, of course, the semantics can be confusing enough that I’m not always sure commenters who use the term “dictionary atheist” are merely trying to communicate the categorization stuff, or if they are mixing things up somewhere…
F.O. #11
Unimpressed
@F.O.
The thrust of PZs message on this topic has always been about changes to the atheist community, not telling people they are not atheists. On the other hand pointing out atheists who are not good people is part of this. I’m sure that feels exclusionary, but if someone is going to act in a way that makes the community worse and we focus on those things more people will respond to it.
@Tony
This is one example of a statement I find confusing. There is nothing more to categorizing someone as an atheist than whether or not they believe in a god…so you must be trying to say something else, but I’m not sure what.
Similarly to F.O.’s post, yours would be helped by a link to an example of someone making the error you are decrying :P
If all a person’s atheism is is “dictionary atheism,” that atheism is utterly uninteresting and the person going on about how his atheism means only not believing in gods is at best an anti-intellectual tedious bore, at worst a liar trying to rationalize anti-social behavior.
What makes atheism interesting, a belief worth defending and expounding, a belief worth discussing or even caring about in any way, is the philosophy underlying that atheism, and any philosophy complicated enough to actually justify and explain atheism has implications far beyond mere dictionary atheism. The rejection of supernaturalism and associated magical thinking as epistemological tools and the understanding that many kinds of beliefs that are traditionally broadly embedded in our cultures have no basis in any kind of scientific thinking or close observation of reality matter and give rise to many, many beliefs other than mere dictionary atheism.
The mere belief that gods do not exist, unaccompanied by an underpinning philosophy with far-reaching implications, belongs in the same intellectual void that religion occupies, and should be derided with every bit the same vigor that beliefs in gods, ghosts, and supply-side-economics deserve. Beliefs plucked out of thin air for no reason deserve no respect and can be dismissed out of hand while time is better spent dealing with the reality based world, and if such beliefs happen to be true it’s purely by accident and not through any virtue or correctness of the ignorant believer.
@brianpansky, quoting Tony!:
1. Many dictionary atheists do not explore the implications of their non-belief
2. saying there is nothing more to atheism than not believing in a deity
Statement 2 is presented as the justification for the choice made in Statement 1.
While in certain contexts it is reasonable to say that there is “nothing more to atheism than not believing in a deity,” it is paradoxical to say that one need not interrogate the implications of our philosophical positions because the positions are not the implications therefore the implications may as well not exist.
And Tony! doesn’t challenge dictionary atheists by saying that they are wrong about this bolded statement, that there is “something more” to categorizing someone as an atheist. Tony! challenges the validity of using “nothing more” as a reason for choosing to leave uninterrogated the implications of one’s position.
You must have more than non-belief in a god to determine that you don’t want to interrogate the implications of non-belief in a god.
:sigh:
..oh come ON.
@ F.O. & Brian Pansky
I am a “dictionary communist”. Communism doesn’t affect my thoughts, or actions, in any way, manner or form though.
I’m against “capitalism” you see. But in a dictionary sense too … this doesn’t affect my thoughts, or actions, in any way, manner or form.
I have a compulsion to try and make sense out the stance of those who claim there is nothing more to atheism than none belief of gods.
the only way I can is to assume that those taking that stance did not arrive at their none belief through reason but through merely a leap of “none faith” and clearly have not stopped believing in many other things which also do not have any rational basis in observable reality.
uncle frogy
@theophontes
I do not hold the following position: that atheism doesn’t affect my thoughts, or actions, in any way, manner or form.
It very much does affect my thoughts and actions.
@Brian Pansky #24 by way of Theophontes #22:
It is possible for someone to attempt to explain a phenomenon to you without accusing you of participating in said phenomenon.
Especially in the context where you were expressing a lack of understanding without attesting to your own non/beliefs, I think that’s probably the most reasonable interpretation of theophontes’ writing.
“Dictionary atheism” is just the excuse people give not to comfront their hideously antihumanistic attitudes. This is most apparent when they reveal themselves to be lying about how “atheism has no implications” when they argue for church/state separation, the exclussion of mythological absurdities from science curriculae, or just generally ANYTHING that they say AS ATHEISTS.
It’s a particularly stupid smoke screen aswell, because since the objections to their views are not solely based on atheism, they don’t necessarily require atheism to argue successfully against them. Therefore, crying “but dictionary atheism!” does fuck all to support or validate their views, it’s just a distraction. Humanist values are not exclusively dependent on atheism, but they sure as fuck are consistent and INFORMED by it. When people cry “dictionary atheism” they are basically saying “i don’t want to explore the cognitive dissonance in my believes”, which is extra sad because these fuckers are prone to claiming they are the most rational beings that walk the fucking earth.
@ Brian Pansky
Yes, and denatured apple juice is still apple juice. Even at the point it becomes water.
Atheism is an ideological position. To reject its implications is also an ideological position. It is, in fact quite a strong position to take. Denoting such atheists as “dictionary atheists” is a lot more precise in its categorisation. Why the emphasis on abstracting the terms that we use?
@ Crip Dyke
Indeed.
My responding to F.O. and Brian Pansky in the same comment, is not to suggest they be lumped together.
@ F.O. #11
I don’t think that’s what PZ is doing. From what he has written previously on the subject, I think PZ’s position on this is similar to my own. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods of any kind. However, the belief in gods and the following of religion has had such a drastic effect on the shaping of our societies that the lack of such beliefs logically necessitates a drastic reevaluation of your worldview. There are many logical and moral implications which follow from this rejection of gods and religion. Choosing to ignore those implications does not make you “not an atheist”, but it does make you thoughtless.
@theophontes #27
I’m fine with categorizing people as “dictionary atheists” (as I said in my post number 14). (Though, as noted, no dictionary atheist rejects all claimed implications, just some or many. So a more detailed definition would need to indicate which things they do and do not think are implications of atheism.)
I’m interpreting the rest of your post to mean that you want to always refer to these dictionary atheists as dictionary atheists, and never refer to them as “atheists”. Because you think that’s better semantics. Or something?
Well, I’m not here to argue which semantics are better.
But I will clarify one aspect of the semantics I use: “dictionary atheists” are just a subset of atheists. They are still unambiguously atheists.
I *want* to believe there are inherent moral implications, and that these implications conveniently line up with my own progressive humanist value system, but I just can’t. There are too many working examples of atheists who just aren’t that way. Some of the most misanthropic, mysogynistic, xenophobic people I have ever encountered have also been atheists — complete with their own little secular organizations and “movements”. Objectivists will talk until they are blue in the face about how their fucked up morality and politics comes straight from their metaphysical understanding of the world. Sure, it would be great if more atheists were also progressive and humanist, but it would be *just as great* if more religious people were progressive and humanist, too.
I have to agree with Stephen @ #9, “The Courtier’s Reply” is a much greater contribution to the atheist lingo than “Disctionary Atheism”.
#11: Please do note that “Dictionary Atheist” includes the word “atheist”. It is not “Dictionary No-True-Atheist” .
They are most definitely atheists.
They’re just shallow, stupid atheists.
Yes, the selfish folks are those who fail to see that once religious/biblical morality is also rejected, it doesn’t mean every person for themselves. If they think selfishly, they go off the deep end they often become arrogant and ignorant liberturds spouting unworkable slogans all over the place. Often this is due to pure mental laziness and fear.
Anybody with empathy, and a working mind, can see humanity is all connected, and whatever morality is developed should be evidence based, and treat all humanity the same. This is why probably a majority of atheists are progressive to varying degrees. And why the Randists and misogynists must be told “keep away and stop bothering your betters”.
@joedelaney, #31:
Identifying letters added.
taking [b] first:
The fact that 42 month old atheists often do not understand having 2 groups, each with 2 of X inherently implies having 4 of X does not mean that having 2 groups each with 2 of X does not logically imply having 4 of X.
Now for [a]:
You need to read up on the distinction between X inherently implies Y and X + certain givens known as P1, P2, …, Pn together imply Y and therefore, so long as P1-Pn remain true, X inevitably implies Y.
That P1-Pn (properties extrinsic to X) are required means that X does not inherently imply Y.
But if P1-Pn are very, very common and expected to continue indefinitely (e.g. “the totality of human bodies require large amounts of food,” “human food must primarily be produced on earth,” “human food is dependent on both an ecosystem and a food chain that ultimately derives the vast majority of its energy from the sun,” “producing human food occupying a place farther removed along the food chain from original solar production of energy/food requires more energy per unit of food ultimately delivered.” and “humans cannot feasibly and/or economically change the amount of solar energy per square meter falling on the surface of the earth”) then a single X that is subject to human choice, (e.g. “producing beef”) can be identified as inevitably producing a certain un/desirable outcome (e.g. “will require more of the limited resources land & sunlight on a per-unit-of-food basis than producing yams”).
Inherently really isn’t often the most useful or accurate description of the possible and/or proven implications of X.
I moved on to thesaurus atheism long ago.
Brian Pansky @18:
I must have been unclear in my post. The people I’m talking about are the very dictionary atheists this thread is all about. They are the people who don’t want to explore the implications of their atheism. I’m not talking about the label ‘atheist’. I’m talking about the implications of one’s atheism.
If you once believed in god, and were a homophobe who felt gay people shouldn’t get married or that gay people were sinners who were going to hell…if you no longer believe in god, what then of you homophobia? I’m not saying such an individual will outright reject their homophobia. I’m simply saying that one of the implications of this person’s non-belief *ought* to be a re-examination of their homophobia, bc it was derived in part (or in whole) from their religious beliefs. If their religious beliefs are gone, how does that impact their other beliefs? Does this person continue to believe that gay people will go to hell? Does this person continue to believe that gay people shouldn’t get married?
That’s what I’m talking about. And that’s just a couple of examples of the implications of no longer believing in god. Implications that dictionary atheists refuse to acknowledge when they say “there is nothing more to atheism than not believing in gods”. If your theism impacted your beliefs and opinions, then so too should your atheism.
@ joedelaney #31
That doesn’t at all mean the implications aren’t there, it just means that those atheists are too thoughtless to spot them.
You have to remember that, statistically, Atheists are overwhelmingly White, male, well educated, middle-class-or-above. In other words, chock-fucking-full of all of the privilege. When the logical conclusions oppose their privilege, they ignore them and pretend the implications aren’t there. #NotAllAtheists.
“Dictionary atheism” is just the excuse people give not to comfront their hideously antihumanistic attitudes. This is most apparent when they reveal themselves to be lying about how “atheism has no implications” when they argue for church/state separation, the exclussion of mythological absurdities from science curriculae, or just generally ANYTHING that they say AS ATHEISTS.
The more I think about it, the less sure I am that this sort of criticism will make a dent in their thinking. It’s obviously right, I agree with it, and it’s pretty much what you ought to say to these people if they’re thinking rationally and carefully (a big “if”)….. The thing is that they’re apparently in some sort of strange mindset where it just doesn’t mean the same thing as it does to us.
I got to thinking of it as a case of realism vs. instrumentalism. The nonexistence of gods is a belief that’s instrumentally useful for them in certain specific ways, like the examples you cite, and they’ll acknowledge those logical and social implications of it (although in the context of this argument they might not agree to calling them “implications” but come up with some other convoluted description to avoid looking inconsistent). The point is is that they’re not thinking of it purely as a claim about reality and all of the implications such claims have. They’re not putting much value in knowing about the truth, all of it and whatever that may be, given some fact or another (like the fact that gods don’t exist**). It’s not hard to imagine that playing games like this would be useful for someone with hideous or at least ridiculous ideas. But to respond by saying they do find this idea useful in some ways but not others should probably not come as a surprise to them. That’s kind of the point of treating it instrumentally as opposed to realistically.
Anyway, if you think it’s a claim about reality, there’s not much need to appeal to what our goals are or what they ought to be (for this argument, although we ought to discuss them of course). That is, getting them to see how it’s useful in these other (ethical/progressive/humanistic) ways is one strategy which might work for some, but to me that seems like in some ways it’s granting them too much. Factual claims about reality always do have lots and lots of implications — full stop — whether they are physical or logical or ethical or social or however you want to describe them. That comes with the territory of being about reality, because in our experience “reality” is this self-consistent and all-encompassing thing, so facts about it are not utterly disconnected from one another. That is just a quick and dirty way to demonstrate there are implications, but of course it’s a much bigger job to work out what precisely all of those implications are or how we ought to think about them. The latter does take a lot of work, but that’s no reason to dismiss the entire project, especially not because of the kind of stupidity (calling it a “reason” is too generous) we get with dictionary atheism.
**Note that there’s often a confused part of their argument that replaces this kind of concrete fact about reality with talk about individual beliefs in a subjective way, stories about what caused them to be atheists, claims about why they won’t be theists, a focus on whether someone is an atheist instead of whether they are being good or rational concerning facts in the world, talk about “agreement” (usually an emphasis on disagreement) among people instead of what there actually is and how it works, about what’s useful for being preventing divisiveness or encouraging unity among atheists, about who we ought to be criticizing instead of them, etc., etc. That is, some stuff that’s sort of in the neighborhood of a fact about the nonexistence of gods (but is not actually that), enough to be confusing to a person who’s not looking extremely carefully for a fact-claim about reality independent of a specific person’s perspective/goals/etc. Indeed, they’ll sometimes go further with claims that terms like “god” or “supernatural” don’t even mean anything. It’s just bizarre that you would think of it as fact claim about the existence of one or more things (which as an atheist you think is false), yet also make assertions like this about its content.
That’s most of what convinced me that it’s about more than just stupid dishonest assholes. There’s a lot of that, but there’s also a lot of room for genuine confusion about these finer points, which many people don’t even touch when they’re having arguments about this crap.
Sorry, my first paragraph above was a quote from azhael in #26.
To put it in dudebro terms, perhaps, dictionary atheism is kind of like that scene in the Matrix movie with the blue and the red pills. If you realize that there are no gods, and that most of the human race is lurching around thinking that there are, that entire nations, political acts and wars are based on a belief that you now know to be untrue, you can’t just go “meh” and shuffle off to play games. Unless, of course, you don’t bother with thinking about anything beyond your own self.
@Crip Dyke, #31
I think that’s a really helpful distinction.
So (my take) when PZ says, as he does above, “atheism has…implications,” he’s saying atheism inevitably implies [whatever implications] (given P1–PN) but people who are countering that or questioning it might be saying atheism doesn’t inherently imply [whatever implications].
I’m not sure who is talking past whom, if that’s the case.
Agreed. It might help to fit what I was saying into that. Suppose you have a fact: the mass of the Sun is 1 (in some units). That may or may not be an intrinsic property of massive things like that (I don’t know what the best thinking is currently on that sort of question), but whatever kind of fact or property it is, that certainly doesn’t imply all by itself anything else you may or may not want to know about the world. And it doesn’t need to, nor should anybody care or be surprised that it doesn’t do that. If you want to know things about Earth’s orbit around the Sun, for example, you need to know more than just that one fact. You won’t get to know such facts without that piece of the puzzle, but there’s more to life, the universe and everything than just that one thing. Saying that the nonexistence of gods (“by itself” or “inherently” or “intrinsically” or whatever) doesn’t imply this or that is very similar and is utterly irrelevant. It’s very reasonable to take a different starting point, which includes all observations or experiences or ideas we have about the world, which are true and justified and methodologically sound, so that their implications are seen as ways of logically or physically relating such things to each other, not merely pondering each of them idly as if they were in isolation. We’re not in fact in a universe with only the Sun, so don’t bother talking about what that means to us (if anything, talk about what it “means” to this alternate Sun in this crazy other world that isn’t anything like ours, if that really interests you). We’re in a universe with lots of different shit in it, including the Sun. And, as a matter of fact, gods are not included. So, there’s no reason why you can’t use all of that and relate those different things to each other, if you’re going to be thinking about them at all.
@37, Tony
That wasn’t the part that was unclear :P
And I already got the rest of what you are saying in this post #37.
Then whence cometh my confusion? Just the wording of that part I first quoted, I suppose. I think I get it now.
consciousness razor # 45
I’m not so sure about I agree with that completely.
The problem with the “inherent” language is that it sounds awfully close to the definition/category issue (who is and isn’t an atheist, what is and isn’t atheism) which isn’t at play here but which is misinterpreted as being at play.
There are a few semantic issues here. One is the inevitable/inherent distinction. The other is that the term “Dictionary Atheist” sounds as if it is making a statement, at least partly, about people who categorize people (themselves or others) as atheists according to the dictionary definition and when, in fact, it’s about people who employ the dictionary definition in certain limiting ways—which, to me, is a difficult usage to unpack.
Funny, I always thought atheists had two things in common. They do not believe there is a God, and they hate Him.
Now, why would anybody in their right mind (like atheists) hate a phantasm? There is no reason to hate something that doesn’t exist…..
When we die, we are going to stand before God and give an account for our lives. Because God is good, He is going to judge each of us according to the perfect, moral standard of His Law. If we’ve ever lied, stolen, taken His name in vain, He will find us guilty of breaking His Law. And because God is good, He must punish our sin; and the punishment God has ascribed for sin is eternity in Hell.
But God is also merciful, loving, and kind in that He provided one way to escape that punishment; and that was through the gift of His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ: fully-God and fully-Man, without sin. He died a horrible, bloody death on the cross that He did not deserve in order to take upon Himself the punishment we rightly deserve for our sins against God. And then three days later He forever defeated sin and death when He rose from the grave.
What God requires of you and me is that we repent–that we turn from our sin, and by faith and by faith alone, receive Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Jesus said, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
So, please, repent and believe the gospel while God has given you time.
@Dean S.
Well that’s a neat story, but do you have any evidence that it is true?
Eternal punishment for finite sins is just pure sadism.
Jesus didn’t die. He spent a lousy afternoon hanging around the cross and then a couple of days later he’s good to go again. What kind of sacrifice is that?
Your god has to give me a reason to believe in him. So far, the evidence of his existence is sorely lacking. No evidence, no belief.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls #12:
Why thanks.
I still fail to understand the benefit of such attachment to the word “atheist” though.
@Tony! The Queer Shoop #13:
If he did, I really missed it.
All the rest, I agree with you.
@Brian Pansky #14: You are probably right.
@Brony, Social Justice Cenobite #16:
Maybe when I use “atheist” I think about a random godless individual, while for PZ the word is much more about the community, as you point out, and the movement.
Maybe it’s because I know more people who happen to be atheists rather than people who are actively involved into the movement.
@theophontes #22
What part of
did you miss?
@Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened #29
I agree.
@PZ #33
Thanks for clarifying.
@consciousness razor #39
I agree, but then why not call oneself “humanist” and avoid the confusion alltogether?
Again, I don’t understand why calling yourself an “atheist” is so important.
Anyway.
I’m splitting the hair and being a concern troll.
This discussion doesn’t really deserve the volume it has reached.
What is important is that yes, dictionary atheists should be called out on their inconsistency and that atheists do have beliefs and those beliefs have consequences.
I think pretty much everyone in this thread agrees on this, so I’m moving on.
What imaginary deity? You present ZERO physical evidence for one, physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Ergo, your argument is false, and you are a delusional fool believing in phantasms.
You’ve never read the bable have you? When shall I arrange for your stoning for wearing a cotton-polyester blend? What a delusional fool who presupposes, not looks at evidence. You make believers look bad….
Yeah, lots of people did that. Crucifixion was very popular then. Heck, two guys died with Jesus, one of whom was so good as to convert at the last moment – did he deserve death?
And how does that work? And how does God define sin, when he made the universe and made us? Could he not just forgive us, or redefine sin? And how do all sinners deserve the same eternally-cruel punishment? (Not that I object to God taking some punishment for all the cruelty that he has put us through.)
And, by the way, there is a good case that Jesus did not die for our sins, but to show us how to live. Did you not get the memo?
Dean S.,
Do you believe that there is only one god?
If so, why do you gender it? How can something that is unique be gendered?
For as long as I can remember, I’ve been an atheist and a liberal. But there was a time when I was in college, and had a lot of friends who were both religious and liberal, that I had trouble reconciling the two. It wasn’t that I questioned my atheism or my liberalism, but it wasn’t clear to me how one followed from the other. But eventually I realized that, if there is no god and especially no afterlife, then this is the one chance we get, and any life spent in slavery or misery is, well maybe not a wasted life or a life not worth living, but certainly a tragedy for all of us. And so anyone who takes atheism seriously and intends to live a moral life has to be dedicated to the proposition that everyone deserves the chance to live comfortably and free.
Brian. Yes, there is evidence. When you repent of your sins and put your trust in Christ, God gives you the Holy Spirit so that you know God and have a relationship with Him. Don’t believe me, you will just have to do it, then you will know.
Dean S.:
That’s quite a prediction. So we’ll be in a space and have some kind of bodies after we’re dead, while we’re standing on something in some place and communicating to somebody? What exactly makes you think we’ll be zombies, that at least minimally can exist in space, instead of ghosts for example (or simply nonexistent)?
I would ask the logical question about why a god would ask us for an account if it could know whatever it wants to know, but for now I’m more interested in how you know about our future as zombies. Or maybe the question should be what your metaphor, if it’s meant to be one, is supposed to fucking mean.
Great. Why do that later, instead of now or thousands of years ago, when people were breaking his perfect fucking law? How fucking horrible of a parent would you have to be, to watch your children, murdering and raping and torturing and lying to each other for fucking millennia, let’s say, and decide to wait instead of stopping it as soon as possible?
Doesn’t follow. Punishment isn’t good. It’s bad. What’s better is not having any suffering in the first place, including natural suffering that nobody could have chosen to do anything “sinful” or “not sinful” to somehow have an effect on it.
You give me a person as a gift, and you’re engaging in slavery. It doesn’t matter whether you profit from it. (Or maybe it’s good old fashioned blood sacrifice, if I’m expected to kill them and not put them into service…..) Granted, that person is supposedly identical with this “God” character anyway, but that just calls attention to a whole other clusterfuck of inconsistencies. Anyway, I have no idea how anything like that could be a coherent escape from punishment (or why it would be needed in the first place at all). But it’s quite a story.
Nerd, I read the Bible all the time. Did you know that the Bible says that if you look with lust, you have already committed adultery in your heart and that hatred or anger is murder of the heart. Repent and put your trust in Christ while you still have time.
That’s a damned stupid cliche, and it’s wrong. We don’t believe in gods, and we despise the ignorance of religion.
The rest of your comments are rank godbotting. If you can only parrot mindless pieties about jesus, you can just fuck off now, before I boot you.
Al Dente wrote:
One might even call it evil. If I thought even for a moment that the sadistic, evil creature described in that holy book was real, I would feel compelled to seek to help vanquish the malevolent cosmic oppressor. Instead, I sit on the internet, complaining about his fan clubs, since they’re the only real threat from those books.
Note that I didn’t actually write that, but I quoted it and do agree with it. Maybe the first thing to say is that “humanist” isn’t altogether unconfusing. But besides that, I’m just not following you here.
How important do you think that I think it is? In fact I am an atheist, so that’s a good reason why I call myself that. It’s important to me to be honest, but beyond that I don’t know what you think I’m introducing to it by doing something like that — something that it doesn’t actually have. What is that supposed to be, according to you?
Do you understand what that means? I’ll just ignore you from now, if you want.
What? Maybe your comment here doesn’t deserve to be written. It hasn’t been interesting to me, and you don’t even seem interested enough in it to complete your own thoughts.
Buh-bye, concern troll.
Dean S.,
How many Amalekites have you killed today?
consciousness razar. Punishment is good. If someone murders, don’t you think it’s a good thing if they go to jail and are punished? If a judge said, I know that you are a murderer, but you can go free, we wouldn’t think very highly of that judge now would we? It would be unjust if they were not punished for their crime. God is perfectly just, that is why all sin must be punished. And that punishment is either paid by us in hell, or paid by Christ on the cross on our behalf. There are only two choices. Repent and trust in Christ while you still have time.
@Dean S.
That’s all you’ve got, isn’t it? That isn’t evidence. That is self delusion.
Also, by the way, I was previously a believer, so I’ve already tried all of that! Never got any evidence.
Instead, all the evidence points towards the conclusion that your beliefs are made up nonsense that is destroying your ability to think properly about whether or not it is true.
ck, the Irate Lump,
I thought Al Dente was cooking your pasta so that it was still firm when you bite it. :-)
You are just missing out on the standard. God is perfect, and His standard is perfection. You must realize that our sinfulness is before a holy and infinite God. That is why the punishment that Jesus had to suffer on the cross was the very wrath of God. But God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, and that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Hi Brian. Let me share with you my experience and please let me know if your experience was the same. If you asked me what it would take to believe that my wife does not exist, I would say, nothing, I know her. I give the same answer for God. I know Him, so it is impossible that He does not exist.
Does that describe your Christian experience?
What a Moroon, I’ve killed no Amalekites today. Did you know that if you are angry or hateful, God considers that murder of the heart?
Since your deity is imaginary, dismissed as delusional fuckwittery.
Your delusional testament is given all the consideration it deserves. Directly into the dumpster with the garbage.
DELUSIONS.
YOUR GOD IS IMAGINARY EXISTING ONLY AS A DELUSION BETWEEN YOUR EARS.
Either mature intellectually and show solid and conclusive physical evidence, or you will be banhammered as a deluasional fucwitted fool.
Dean S.,
Did you know that your god ordered his chosen people to slaughter the Amalekites (along with sundry other peoples)?
Better be sure there aren’t any Amalekites or Midianites or Bashanites hanging around your neighborhood, or your god’s going to get pretty pissed if you don’t off them.
And just to be on the safe side, don’t forget to slaughter their cattle.
@66 Dean S.
2 June 2015 at 10:04 pm
Ya it was just sort of something I really thought I knew. And I prayed all the time, and I really was a true believer. Even up to the last few moments, I really thought it was true, and cared about it all deeply. But this was delusion. I had no reason to think it was true. Completely unlike a friend or a wife. Total indoctrinated delusion.
You’ve got nothing. You need to be educated. Your mind is weak and deformed from being fed lies and nonsense. True wisdom comes from seeking the truth in reliable ways.
You’re wrong.
I win, because my unsupported assertion uses only two words, whereas yours requires three.
That and because you’re actually fucking wrong. A great many people throughout history have explained at length and in great detail what precisely is wrong with this kind of view. The authors of the Bible didn’t say much of any use about it, as might be expected by a reasonable person unlike yourself, but you should try to expand your reading on the subject.
Rehabilitation and protection of society are important, and that’s what our justice systems ought to be aimed at doing. Nobody’s fucking talking about letting fucking murderers run amok, except supposedly your god who won’t even fucking bother to lift his magical fucking finger about it.
PZ, I understand your frustration. There is a problem though. I know the truth and whether you agree or disagree with my worldview, do you understand that I must continue to speak that truth? Whether you think I’m delusional or not is not the issue. When you all understand that I truly believe what I am writing, and that a great majority of the world is headed to Hell, I simply must proclaim the Gospel, because it is salvation to the sinner. My desire is to engage everyone from that perspective.
By the way, Dean S., you still haven’t explained how it makes sense that a monotheistic god is male. Maybe I should be more specific: does god have a penis?
Brian,
You wrote: Ya it was just sort of something I really thought I knew. And I prayed all the time, and I really was a true believer. Even up to the last few moments, I really thought it was true, and cared about it all deeply. But this was delusion. I had no reason to think it was true. Completely unlike a friend or a wife. Total indoctrinated delusion.
So, did you know God or not? A true believer knows God.
What a Maroon, The Bible refers to God as Father approximately 170 or so times. One cannot be a Father unless He is male.
Whether you are delusional or not is the issue, regardless of what we think. In fact, you are. But we can save that part for much later in the discussion, if you want.
Then I’ll think you’re sincere (except when you use metaphors, to push your claims forward, when you clearly don’t mean them). Not that you’re telling the truth, or even simply that you’re not delusional. Just that you believe what you’re saying you do.
No such thing. If I agreed with you, then I’d agree with you…. but you specifically noted that’s not supposed to be a precondition for wherever the fuck this sentence is going….
Even other Christian don’t believe this, about “sola scriptura.” The vast majority of them, probably most of them in sects that are officially supposed to have this as a doctrine.
So that’s weird. But why in the everloving fuck would any atheist go along with this?
So you want to talk. Is that actually what that entire fucking mess I just quoted was supposed to say, not the rest of the bullshit?
@Dean S.
Ok, if you are going to play that word game, then there is no such thing as a true believer. You aren’t a true believer. You just think you are.
Your word game changes nothing. It’s a silly word game.
Everyone,
Let me throw some quotes at you from above:
Nobody’s fucking talking about letting fucking murderers run amok, except supposedly your god who won’t even fucking bother to lift his magical fucking finger about it.
That and because you’re actually fucking wrong.
or you will be banhammered as a deluasional fucwitted fool.
So you want to talk. Is that actually what that entire fucking mess I just quoted was supposed to say, not the rest of the bullshit?
If you can only parrot mindless pieties about jesus, you can just fuck off now, before I boot you.
That’s a lot of anger and a lot of language. I wonder if I started this conversation about how I believed that unicorns exist if you would all be so angry. I think I originally wrote:
Funny, I always thought atheists had two things in common. They do not believe there is a God, and they hate Him.
hmmmm.
@Dean S
Talking to you is kind of a waste of time (thought slightly amusing) because you are so disconnected from reality. You are like the conspiracy theorists who truly believe that the government is controlled by reptiles from outer space.
@79 Dean S.
Yes. Hmmmmmm. It’s anger at you and at the legions of fools like you.
Got it?
*not anger at an actual god that exists.
Fiction. Like Harry Potter, your deity doesn’t exist, until you provide the conclusive physical evidence for it. Show us the equivalent of the eternally burning bush, or shut the fuck up as any liar an bullshitter should do when called on the veracity of their bluffs.
Delusional fuckwitted fool, how can something not believed in be hated? That is your lack of intelligent thinking talking. Showing us with prima facie evidence you speak in slogans, not reality.
Yeah, gee, I wonder. Are the unicorns supposed to be perfectly good and punish us for eternity, for “sins” that in many cases have nothing to do with anyone doing something harmful to anyone else?
Besides not existing and being completely intellectually disreputable just on that metaphysical question, that would also make a fucking joke out of ethics, so that it’s impossible to have a coherent and serious adult conversation about issues that affect actual people in real life, based on what we know of the facts, right now and for what looks like all of recorded history. Yeah, that would make me really fucking angry, as it should, that you’re acting this way when it comes to the biggest problems any thinking being could conceivably face. I think you can put up with some salty language, if that’s the kind of bullshit we can expect from you. At least maybe you could somehow find a way to understand what seems so utterly fucking repulsive about it from our point of view, instead of acting like the biggest jackass of a tone troll I’ve seen in a very long time.
Dean S.
You are preaching.
PZ is not frustrated.
What he meant by “boot you” is that he can prevent you from commenting here and even remove all of your existing comments.
Make it like you don’t exist.
Dean S, you want the anger to go away?
Show honesty and integrity.
Either provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, or shut the fuck up about it.
We detest liars and bullshitters, who can’t put up the evidence, but won’t shut the fuck up either. That is you at the moment. No honesty and integrity….
Brian, yes, it’s anger at me because I’m talking about God. If I was talking about unicorns, you guys wouldn’t be angry at me. That’s my point.
Nerd, I am being completely honest about my beliefs and about God.
chigau, yes I understand. It’s PZ’s site and he is free to do whatever he chooses. Preventing me from commenting though, doesn’t change the truth about God and that we all one day will face judgment when we die. That is why you should repent and trust in Jesus now while you still have time.
consciousness razor, wow, couldn’t have asked for better proof for my hypothesis than your last comment. Thanks. Whether you are angry with me or not, or feel I am doing a good job of commenting or not, still doesn’t change the fact that one day every one of us will die. Don’t you ever wonder what happens after someone dies?
Brian, it’s not a word game. I know God. And if you don’t, then unfortunately you weren’t a true believer. But there is still time to repent and put your trust in Christ and know God. Please think about it. It’s the most important decision you could ever make.
@Dean S.
That’s not really a point though. And you’ve already been told by others why your beliefs are more anger inducing than nice pointless unicorn beliefs. Your god belief is not comparable to something as simple as unicorn belief. You just told us a big weird complicated story, don’t pretend you forgot the story you wrote to us. Without the disgusting story, maybe people wouldn’t be angry at your silly foolishness.
Now, Dean, it’s clear you aren’t interested in actually listening to people. I gave you some good links, which talk about evidence and all sorts of good stuff, and all you do is ramble on and on about how you think our anger directed at you must be not directed at you, but at your imaginary friend. Or whatever. That’s really annoying.
You don’t have any demonstrable logical skill, nor any evidence. You ignore what people give you. You are ridiculous. And you are wasting everyone’s time. How is it possible that you don’t feel embarrassed at your own foolishness here?
Brian, I think I missed your links. I will go back and take a look at them. But no, I don’t feel embarrassed. I am sharing the truth with you about God.
@91 Dean S.
Apparently you didn’t even read what I said!
I already told you, I was just like you. “Look at me everyone, I’m a true believer and I actually know god!”
I did all that repenting and etc. etc. I was very serious about it all.
But it was delusion.
Now please read what I write if you are going to respond to me. It’s irritating when you don’t, and it makes you look silly.
Dean S.
Jesus doesn’t need you.
You are irrelevant to God.
and the Easter Bunny thinks you’re an idiot.
Brian, two links to 1.5 hours of youtube video? Is there an article I can read somewhere? I have to get my kids to bed soon.
Hi Brian, I read. You ended with it’s delusional, which means that you didn’t really know God. If however, your point is that you really knew God, then what you are saying is you know God exists and are willfully rejecting Him. If you are saying that there was no God to know, then you really didn’t know Him.
I guess it’s because unicorns aren’t supposed to be assholes. Maybe you should make your fictional characters more likable.
But no. You think everyone should worship your asshole wizard in the sky. Not just that it’s something you like doing because it makes you feel good about yourself or your life or the world or whatever pie in the sky hopes you have about anything. No, you think we are morally obliged to do worship this tyrant, and we’ll suffer eternal punishment if we fail to lick its magic boots in the proper fashion. Indeed, it’s so important that that’s the only good there is, period — but by the way, fuck what anyone might think about what is beneficial to themselves or others in their own lives. Sure, how could stuff like that have anything to do with what’s good? Totally got us there. You win. For fuck’s sake, just a clue before you write some more…
Look, maybe you’re a lost cause, but that is an extremely shitty belief system to push on other people. If I didn’t already know all about it having been raised and educated and socialized in it (making your attempts at preaching totally pointless, btw), then I doubt I could’ve dreamed up an ethical view that’s even half as bad as that, if I was trying to make it awful. It’s really incredible that people have cobbled together something so completely horrible and can find ways of convincing others about it. But if you changed god with a unicorn, or add the unicorn in, or whatever the fuck you do with it, it won’t help. Get rid of the whole fucking thing and start over from scratch. Do you get that?
chigau, that’s right. Jesus doesn’t need me, but He does command me to share the truth about eternal life. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father, but by me. Please consider that 10 out of 10 people die and then all eternity.
I’m happy you are on such good terms with the Easter Bunny that you found it important to get his opinion about me.
consciousness razor, the two greatest commandments in the Bible are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
What’s wrong with that?
@97 Dean S.
Question Dean:
If (hypothetically) there were no god, then which way would you think it best for me to describe it? As having actually known a god? Or not? Or what?
Think about that and you will see that you are still playing silly games here.
Hi Brian. Except that there is a God, so the only conclusion I can draw is that you didn’t know Him. But if you repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus, then you can know Him.
There is no god to know.
Hi Brian, Good luck proving that one.
Dean, are you capable of answering my hypothetical question? Or is your brain too broken to do that?
Brian, if there was hypothetically no God, then you would have to answer that you didn’t know Him.
so if (hypothetically) on judgment day, when you stand before a holy and righteous God, will you be a good enough person to go to heaven?
Dean S.
It was the Easter Bunny who explained to me that Jesus and the fig tree thing.
and the horse theft
If PZ decides to go with a purge, this thread is going to look right peculiar.
@Dean 106
Thanks for answering. I’ve said basically everything that needs to be said, so I don’t want to waste too much more time talking here, but I will return the favor:
If there were such a judgement event, I might get into heaven I guess. Depending on the standard being used to sort people.
This from Dean S. #99
Is a jewel beyond price.
@Dean S
So why should this be convincing? From my perspective it just looks like you got a funny feeling What is that supposed to tell me?
Frankly it looks like giving up on reason and letting brain processes involved in social memory push you around.
Brian, thanks. The standard that God uses is perfection. Jesus said, be perfect therefore, as your Father in heaven is perfect. In fact God gave us a conscious so we would know right from wrong and when we are sinning against Him. I know I fell short when I evaluated myself against God’s commandments and I hope you at least take time to evaluate yourself as well.
All kidding aside, thanks for taking the time to chat with me. I appreciate you hanging in there with me the whole time.
Chigau, yes, if PZ goes with the purge and all my comments are gone, it will look mighty funny with you guys talking to an imaginary friend about God. I suspect tomorrow morning I won’t have the privilege to chat with you guys again.
Jesus and the fig tree talks about bearing fruit. Every true Christian must bear good fruit. Lack of bearing good fruit as a pattern of life means that you were never saved in the first place. The fig tree in the part of the Bible that you were referencing applies to Israel. They had turned away from God and made religion a bunch of rules that they made up and Jesus was talking about how if they did not bear fruit, they would be cut down and thrown into the fire (hell.) It’s a terrible thought and I would ask as you head to bed tonight to honestly think about what happens when someone dies. The Bible says everyone is appointed to die once, and then the judgment.
Brony, The only way you will truly know is if you repent of your sins and put your trust in Christ. I can only speak truth, but you hold the cards in your hand. If you won’t repent then you won’t know God.
There isn’t a god to love, with any part of my mind. There aren’t any souls, my heart pumps blood, and what little strength I have also has nothing to do with it. So if it’s not something that can be done, saying it’s a commandment that we should do is pointless jabbering. Say something else, Bible — that’s what I should say. Just the idea that I’m being commanded to love is not consistent with my understanding of any sense of what the word “love” means. I do know what harassment and abuse and rape are like, and that’s closer to what this commandment means. That some character in an ancient book of myths is supposedly commanding me personally to do this does not make it any more impressive or even coherent.
But you could say (again) that I can’t prove there’s no god. Not as a logical proof or deduction, no. The problem is still that there’s no reason to believe there is one. Because that’s our situation, “loving” an unknown or unknowable thing (assuming it exists) still isn’t something that can be done. I may as well command you to fly to the Andromeda galaxy on your unicorn and get there by lunch tomorrow. You can’t, for various reasons, so there’s no sense in saying you should or that you must.
And if I don’t love myself much, then it won’t be any good for my neighbor. The idea that selfishness or self-centeredness should be the starting point for my good interactions with other people is simply ludicrous.
Same sort of deal with the “golden rule.” Do to them what they want done to them, not what you want done to you. It makes no sense that everyone has the same interests or that this is even a tenable way to begin thinking about the subject.
This is not ethics. It’s ancient, pious bullshit that ruins serious attempts to think about ethics, from people like you who probably just don’t know of any better alternative which isn’t riddled with nonsense. Probably because you’ve been lied to your entire life about it, in a culture that’s been lying to itself for much longer than that, and of course that part isn’t your fault. But there’s no reason why you can’t start thinking about it more clearly for yourself right now. You are still responsible for yourself, aren’t you? Are you an adult? Are you capable of opening a philosophy book? Try it out sometime.
Dean S.
It just gets better and better.
@Dean S
You have the cart before the horse.
Why do I have any reason to think that there is something I need to know? You are the one going on about something worth knowing. You can be as earnest as you want and claim you know some truth, but this is not even remotely good enough to wonder if I should consider that you have a truth. Let alone doing your little exercise of little detail.
@Dean S
And don’t go acting so humble with that “I can only…” stuff. You came in here and disrupted a social situation and think we should listen to you based off of your feelings. This is not really very well thought out.
consciousness, the Bible says love your neighbor as yourself, because the most natural thing for most people to do is to love themselves. We eat when we are hungry, clothe ourselves when we are cold, rest when we are tired. The point is that if you could love others the way you love yourself, then that is true sacrificial love.
I’m 46 years old, married with two children. Been to college and post college for my job and took philosophy and I was taught to think for myself. That’s why I’m open to the truth. Most people don’t want there to be a God because then we are accountable for our actions to someone other than ourselves. It’s a scary thought to be judged by someone else’s standard, especially when that someone is a holy, righteous and good God.
@ Brian Pansky #30
Dang, the interwebz ate my response.
We should simply use language that is appropriate. Let me try an example:
Rancid foods are still food. There will also be times when it is appropriate not to need to mention that the food is rancid. But if we are discussing what is for dinner, yes, we certainly have to differentiate our terms. If anything, the more pertinent and descriptive the adjectives the better.
Something else that may be interesting to tease out:
I could make the argument that I am a dictionary atheist. Atheism is something I arrived at as an end point to a long process of seeking understanding, and considering the world from a Humanist perspective. The net effect of the process leads to the conclusion that there are no gods, and “I am an atheist”. In that context, there is nothing new to be deduced from the statement. We cannot say that implications flow from it – that much is already water under the bridge. In such a case the term I use would be such as in a dictionary. But this is not what PZ refers to when he refers to “dictionary atheist”, and I have yet to hear anyone that PZ refers to as “dictionary atheist” argue such a position.
@ F.O. #51
Actually, it is you that missed a bit:
Happy that you have taken PZ’s #33 on board now.
Brony, no actually I have it right. Believe so that you might understand.
Amazing how being taught to think for yourself means you’re open to truth that doesn’t require thinking.
Also, this is why philosophers get such a bad rap. :)
Patrick, well yes, philosophers are people who have too much time on their hands, but then all those fraternities wouldn’t have those witty one liners like, I drink therefore I am.
What are your spiritual beliefs?
@Dean S
So let me get this straight. This,
Refers to this?
That makes about a much sense as “Feel conceive of heat so you might sense thermosensation.”
Or “Imagine a butterfly so your eyes might receive images of insects.”
No. If you have a thing worth understanding you will have something to show for it. I’m really starting to believe that what you are describing is simply a way to get the parts of cognition involved in social processes to provide that extra emotional “kick” that humans use to make abstractions like language work.
Brony, no it’s the real deal, not some emotional kick. Repent and believe in Jesus.
@Dean S
You should avoid putting more carts in front of that poor horse.
If I have no reason to think that you have anything worth “believing in before understanding”, I’m certainly not going to think that any of your religious wrongdoings are things I need to be worried about. Or believe that this long dead person of any benefit to me at all.
Brony, don’t forget, that long dead person rose the from the dead and defeated death and sin. Eternal life is those who repent of their sins and believe in Jesus.
Repent what?
oh
OK
I have not committed a single sin since I stopped being a Christian.
This is beginning to make me laugh.
Unless that horse was Apple Jack. She could totally push all of those carts. But she could not make the reason work. I don’t even think Discord could do that.
@Dean S
First of all I’m not going to remember something that we do not have in common. That’s just an annoying attempt to try to create a connection because it defies all everything.
Second If I have no reason to think that you have anything worth “believing in before understanding” I’m not going to accept a resurrection, or eternal life, or this category of wrongdoing you call “sin”.
Night all. Got to go to work tomorrow.
@Dean S
Goodnight! I hope you are still able to play tomorrow.
@ Brony:
Objection! This makes more sense than what Dean S. is saying.
@ Dean S.
I think it’s cute that you think I take you seriously enough to engage with you. I mean really, if you got charged for that philosophimicalizing edumacation, I’d seek a refund.
That’s some really bad psychology. I’m accountable to you, Dean, you and everyone else on the planet. That even includes people in the future who don’t even exist yet, because my actions may impact their lives in some way, which matter every bit as much as mine does. On top of that, I’m morally accountable to many non-human animals, when they’re capable of having some kind of life full of experiences and having interests analogous to ours. I have no fucking clue whether dogs or cats or whatever the fuck are “holy, righteous and good” to anybody, whatever that means to you, and that makes no fucking difference at all to me or how I should act toward them. I still think they should be treated with respect as living organisms that experience pain and pleasure and have their own sorts of interests. They don’t need to be judging me, nor do I need to be scared, because none of that shit is the fucking point. Are you following me here?
So, even if that’s what I wanted (despite everything I think I know about my own mind, you presumptuous asshole), it would make no sense whatsoever that my motivation is to lack accountability. I certainly can’t escape that, nor is it even remotely plausible that I think I could somehow. And besides that, like I said, I know that I don’t want to because I do care about being a good person. I’m sure you have been told (and maybe you sincerely believe it) that we want to get away with being bad people and think this our way half-baked plan for doing so, but that is a stupid and bald-faced lie. You should know better than that already.
Indeed, pay some fucking attention to what this very thread was about, before you waltzed into it and derailed everything. Notice how the whole fucking point here is that we’re genuinely interesting doing what’s right based on what we know, not just focused narrowly on an obscure and mostly pointless ontological question about some magical mystery-being? That’s a big fucking clue that you’re on the wrong track, which seems to have sailed way over your head. Or you’re just trolling us. That’s another option.
Anyway, you’re simply fucking wrong about why I believe that there are no gods (or souls, ghosts, witches, wizards, magic powers, etc.). It’s a question about what there is. That is plainly what the belief is about, not what I want, and my reasons for not believing in facts like that are due to the evidence that I’ve been able to sort through, about what kinds of things are and how such things work. I don’t think minds exist without bodies, nor could they be minds if they don’t extend in space and time. If a god were some kind of a physical entity, of matter moving around, then at least there’s some potential that it exists with the properties you’re attributing to it. But it’s not supposed to be like that, according to believers like you. That’s why I don’t think there is one. Your idea — that idea — is wrong. That’s it. But however many times we say it in all sorts of different ways, you just don’t fucking listen. It’s always preaching time, never listening time.
@PatrickG
I’m think the analogy is technically off. I needed a better cognitive equivalent for “understand” that works for the visual system but I did not want to get too jargony. I have a bad enough time with that.
@Brony:
When in doubt, use phlogiston. :)
Hey godbot, do you happen to know what a soul is made of? How much does it weigh? When does your god insert a freshly minted soul into a human foetus? Are souls recycled? Do memories formed in an intricate mass of neurons just fly off coherently to this supposed godly judgement? Or are our somewhat disassembled bodies coming along for the ride? What does a disembodied soul live on? Do you hear voices speaking to you in your head?
How can your non-existent god be inifnitely just and accept punishment by proxy through an innocent? Are you seriously stupid enough not to see the complete and utter ridiculousness of your shitty mythology?
Nobody here is impressed by your mindbogling arrogance and your claims…they mean nothing, so if all you are going to do is quote ancient myths to us, you are wasting everybody’s time including your own. Everything i can claim to know, i can demonstrate to anybody’s satisfaction, otherwise i wouldn’t claim to know it, how come you are such a complete failure in demonstrating that your ridiculous believes are anything other than bad fiction?
That’s very obviously a lie, because an all-powerful being does not have to do anything. No, if the god you describe existed, it would be infinitely evil. Torturing anyone, for any reason, is evil. Torturing amyone for ever would be infinitely evil. Now if you worship infinite evil out of fear, Dean S., then be reassured: there is almost certainly no such being as your god (and if there was, you would have no way of knowing how to avoid being tortures forever, since an infinitely evil being can lie to you). However, I suspect your motive is rather less forgiveable: an anticipation of sitting safe in heaven and gloating over the torments of those who disagreed with you. But let me assure you, even if you are a psychopathic sadist like the god you worship, I have no desire to torture you.
Your BELIEF is irrelevant. EVIDENDCE for your imaginary deity is paramount and the ONLY thing we are interested in.
Saying belief is acknowledging you don’t have evidence. Therefore, you shut the fuck up if you have honesty and integrity. That is so lacking in theists.
Since your deity in imaginary, this is a bullshit statement without evidence. Dismissed as fuckwittery Your testament is dismissed as fuckwittery, since you can’t show one iota of evidence for what you say as being true. It is just slogans repeated ad nauseum.
Dean S. #119
This god myth judges gay people and non-Christians. Therefore he is not righteous and good. QED.
(I wish I had a more advanced Poe meter. Dean S’s posts are messing with it.)
Dean S.
Okay, I’m gonna trust my meter. This is televangelist talk. Good day.
@Saad, #142:
yeah. I wouldn’t fear being judged by someone righteous and good who knew all the facts. If you’re fearing judgement by a righteous, good judge in possession of all the facts, that’s saying something rather bad about you – in this case, Dean S – isn’t it?
And if you’re certain that your judge issues fearful judgements, well, that’s saying something rather bad about your judge – in this case Dean S’s god – isn’t it?
Dean S: proving the deficiency of his personal morality and of his vision/version of god one Socratic question at a time.
Nick Gotts @140,
It’s even worse than that. They allege that their god actually created the souls it loves to torture, and then set up this world as a test that the vast majority is bound to fail. And then tortures them forever for failing. Such is the alleged perfection of their deity.
Their deity is like an evil scientist who genetically engineers rats that are attracted to sulphuric acid, and then sets them loose in a maze surrounded by vats of acid. Only the acid doesn’t kill them, it just makes them live forever in excruciating agony. And the reward for those rats who manage to get to the cheese is to sing eternal praise to the wise and benevolent evil scientist.
Dean S @79:
See, none of that proves anyone is angry. The use of what you call “profanity” is not necessarily indicative of anger. People use coarse language when they’re passionate. People “swear” when they’re happy. People “curse” when they’re sad.
In short, people use harsh/coarse/profane/swear/curse words in various emotional states. You cannot determine by the words you read on the screen how a particular commenter feels emotionally.
Additionally, you’re parroting mischaracterizations of atheists. While I’m sure there are atheists somewhere who are angry with your fictional deity, they aren’t likely to be found here. Around here, you’re more likely to find atheists who feel anger due to the actions of religious people*. What type of actions? Here’s a non-comprehensive list of actions undertaken by religious people that piss off atheists (not all atheists, but a significant amount):
• opposing marriage equality (as virtually every GOP candidate has done, as well as the assholes in Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, and The National Organization of Marriage)
• opposing gender neutral restrooms (see above)
• mocking the struggles of trans people (as Mike Huckabee did)
• pushing an anti-life agenda. The people I’m talking about are those who call themselves “pro-life”. They are not pro-life. They are pro-fetus, which comes at the expense of a pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy, which is a basic human right. The stated desire of anti-abortion opponents is to “eradicate abortion”, but that’s not their actual goal. If it was, they would support accessible and cheap (or free) contraception for women, because unwanted pregnancies are the reason why women obtain abortions. If you prevent the pregnancy, no need for an abortion. But they don’t support contraception access. They support limiting it, which shows where their priorities are. They don’t want women having abortions and they don’t want women having contraception. Why is that? Because they think all women should be bound by the dictates of their [the abortion opponents’] religious beliefs. *ALL* women, regardless of their personal beliefs. Abortion opponents want their religious views to govern everyone else. If such happened, it would be one more step towards a theocracy, which would not be good for anyone (oh, it would be ok for the people in the dominant religious group, but what about when they get knocked off their perch?)
• Attempts to bring creationism into the classroom. Public schools should be teaching information that is evidence based. Testable. Verifiable. Replicable. Public schools are ostensibly secular, but thanks to the efforts of many religious people, creationism has been snuck into classrooms. Some teachers treat evolution as just opinion. That’s fucking wrong. Evolution-unlike creationism-has mountains of evidence supporting it. Creationism or Intelligent Design is nothing more than “god did it” and that has no place being taught as science in public schools (or anywhere really, but the government can only regulate the schools).
As I said, not a comprehensive list by any stretch. There are a plethora of reasons atheists are angry at religious people. Greta Christina lists quite a few more reasons. Reasons that are shared by other atheists (including me).
So please quit parroting this bullshit idea that atheists are angry at god and engage with what atheists actually say. That way you won’t come off as dishonest and not interested in actual discussion. Of course, given the comments I’ve read from you thus far in this thread, it doesn’t seem like you’re here for conversing so much as proselytizing. Which leads me to my next point-
You’re deeply mistaken if you think you need to proselytize here. A great many commenters here-as well as atheists in general-come from religious backgrounds. Not all christian backgrounds mind you, bc christianity is merely one of the many religions (and shares the top spot with judaism and islam in terms of number of adherents-which incidentally is not evidence that any of them are correct). Many atheists have come from fundamentalist homes where they were taught religious dogma from early in their lives. Many atheists were quite religious for a good chunk of their lives. So don’t treat your audience as if you’re the savior bringing the “good news” to them. The news you’re peddling has already been heard for one. For two, it’s not good. Which leads to my third point-
Contrary to your assertion upthread, there is no evidence that any god exists. Not just your god either, so don’t worry, atheists don’t just disbelieve in Yahweh. They also disbelieve in Isis, Set, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Odin, Thor, Loki, Baldur, Freja, Aphrodite, Zeus, Athena, Hermes, Herakles, and all the other gods humanity has created. This lack of a belief in imaginary creatures extends beyond deities. Typically, atheists also don’t believe in demons, the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, dragons, demons, elves, fairies, trolls, ogres, or pixies. Why?
Because there is a lack of evidence. For all of those imaginary creatures above. Show us the evidence (you said there’s some, but haven’t shown it). But understand-again-that many atheists come from a religious background and already have seen the “evidence” for christianity and other religions. They’ve found it lacking. And that’s an understatement.
I do hope you’ve decided to actually engage people and talk with them, rather than at or to them. If you’re not prepared to do that, please go away.
*Not all religious people
Dean S @89:
That’s simply not going to happen. If that’s your only reason for being here, you may as well go away. No evidence, no belief. And for all that you may think otherwise, you have no evidence for your beliefs.
Oh, and another thing-as most of us here are atheists, we don’t believe in the concept of original sin. We don’t believe in holding people accountable for the actions of imaginary creatures (adam and eve). Moreover, a moral person would not hold people accountable for actions they did not perform. I am not to blame for the actions of my mother or father, nor the actions of my great-great grandmother or grandfather. That is not moral. That is not just. Your religious beliefs have warped your sense of morality.
@90:
Well I know that my bodily functions will cease and that rigor mortis will set in at some point. I’m hoping that I’ll be cremated bc funeral cost quite a bit of money and I don’t want any family or friends to have to come out of pocket to that degree (not that cremation is cheap, but it’s cheapER than burial typically).
Of course I know that’s not what you meant. You meant “what do you think happens to your soul after you die”. See, personally, I don’t believe in souls. Why? Again, no evidence.
Additionally, I don’t believe in heaven or hell (I’m an atheist). I think there’s just as much chance of me going to heaven or hell as there is for me going to Valhalla. Which is to say, I don’t think there’s a chance at all. Why? Again, no evidence. There is absolutely no reason anyone should think heaven or hell exists. What we know of the human biology is that our bodily functions cease when we die and that’s the end, and since our minds are intimately connected to our bodies, so goes our mind upon death. There is nothing left to go anywhere.
It’s really funny how out of your depth you are here. Makes your preaching somewhat amusing (though it will get tiresome if you keep it up).
About the whole “what happens after you die” stuff:
– Part of your brain is destroyed = your personality can change, you can lose certain functions, become paralyzed, etc
– All of your brain is destroyed = you come back to life as an immortal
Wut.
I have a ten year old Mac laptop that totally croaked. It no longer boots, I tried yanking the hard disk to extract the data on it, but no go. It’s totally dead.
I wonder where it went? I mean, I know where the corpse is — it’s in my closet — but where did the soul of the machine go?
Dean S @91:
The problem with this is most of the people here don’t believe in your god. Most of the people here also don’t believe in the need to repent for shit we haven’t done. You think it’s important? Great. Knock your socks off. Repent for whatever it is you believe you should repent for (though personally I don’t believe anyone needs to repent for the actions of imaginary creatures). But stop trying to push it on us.
Get it through your thick skull-we don’t believe in your god.
And here I thought your imaginary deity was unknowable. That humans cannot comprehend god or his ways bc he is so much greater and more complex than anything we could comprehend. Or so it goes according to some religious believers. I guess you’re not one of them, since you apparently know him. Which is no different than me saying that I’m on speaking terms with Superman.
Saad @149:
Good point. Never thought of that!
I can’t resist:
“A blow to the head confuses a man’s thinking. A blow to the foot has no such effect. This cannot be caused by an immortal soul.”
– attributed to Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BCE)
Dean S @97:
You don’t get to decide for others whether or not they once believed in god. You don’t get to determine what makes a “true believer” or not. You are not the final judge.
Again, plenty of religious people-people who believed fervently in their god (not always the barbaric god of the bible)-rejected their beliefs after years of believing in their fictional deity. It happens. You need to deal with reality rather than pretending your opinions override others’.
@100:
You keep returning to bullshit like this as if it’s convincing. It’s not.
There is no reason to a biblical commandment to love a deity if you don’t believe in that deity in the first place. It makes as much sense as saying “love the lord your Odin with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength”. There is no evidence that Odin or your god exists, and thus, there is no reason to believe in either of them.
@127:
Why do you believe in things without any evidence? Your belief that Jesus rose from the dead has no evidence in support of it. And no, the bible is not evidence that what the bible says is true.
****
Brian Pansky @130:
I’m late to the fun, but yeah, it’s still amusing, though I’m not sure for how much longer. I can feel the tediousness setting in.
Dean, aren’t you terrified that if you don’t die in battle you might not get into Valhalla? Doesn’t that scare you so much that it makes you wanna belief preposterous nonsense? No? Hmmm…
Your hell doesn’t scare me at all…not one bit, because nothing so ridiculous could possibly exist, so your attempts to scare people into forgoing their intellects and reasoning and blindly accepting blatantly absurd horseshit out of emotion, not only are not going to work, they tell us everything we need to know about you and the disgusting bullshit you believe.
By the way, pride and arrogance are supossed to be sins according to the crappy stories you claim to believe, and you have those in spades, so careful, or you might anger the monster in the sky.
PZ: Thanks for pointing out Greta’s article — her comparison of theists to LGBT persons, and the implications of admitting to being in either group, was spot-on. As far as I’m concerned, she’s pretty much refuted the entire “dictionary atheism” crock once and for all.
Apologies, I couldn’t resist.
Dean S. sez….
46:
Hey, look, it’s Ray Comfort!
48:
1. God is so perfect and good that we need to be perfectly good too to live according to God’s Law.
2. This is impossible, so we all break this perfect law.
3. Therefore the perfect and good God must punish us with eternal torment.
You do realize that this doesn’t make any logical sense at all, right? A perfect and good God making a set of laws for imperfect beings where they are basically expected to fail is far from a perfect or good thing to do. Punishing them with eternal torture on top of that, for not living up to standards that they cannot live up to by fucking definition, is also far from perfect or good. Add original sin into the mix to ensure that even those who never even had the chance to do anything count as sinners anyway, and you have the most evil fucking set of rules ever imagined in fiction.
Why did God need to work so hard to create a convoluted loophole to his own rules? Also “fully God and fully-Man”, and the Trinity in general, is just illogical bafflegab. As is “defeated death”. Death still exists, you know. That’s kind of the whole point of your inane preachings.
56:
You do realize you are describing a self-fulfilling prophecy right? Where the only evidence you can find for God is a feeling you get when you are fully committed to already believing in God? Where every person who fails to receive this feeling is just dismissed as Not a True Believer? Does that bother you at all?
58:
One of the many ways the New Testament made the rules of the Old Testament worse: They added Thoughtcrime.
63:
1. Punishment is not good, it is a (somewhat) necessary evil. In general terms, punishing bad behavior isn’t as effective as rewarding people for doing good. (see: positive reinforcement)
2. You talk about punishing a murderer with a prison sentence, yet God is punishing things like anger or working on the Sabbath with infinite torture.
3. If God was perfectly just, there would be no Christ Loophole.
4. If God was perfectly just, there would be proportional punishment and reward according to the quantity and intensity of bad and good things done in life.
God is less just than the painfully imperfect justice system of imperfect, fallible human beings. Which is just pathetic.
66:
Terrible, terrible piece of work. The issue is whether you can prove to us, independent observers, that your wife exists. Can you do so directly, showing her to us? Or indirectly, with photos, documents, and so forth? If you can’t, you should really start asking yourself why. Why is your wife unable to appear to us, and why do have absolutely no evidence, aside from word and personal experience, to verify to other people that your wife actually exists. There is no reason for us to believe you and the state of affairs is incredibly suspicious and you should really wonder for yourself why that is the case, because it is incredibly bizarre. At very least, WE need a good explanation for this bizarre state of affairs, to explain why evidence that would verify the existence of anyone else’s spouse doesn’t exist for yours, but in no way calls into doubt her existence. That is the point.
73:
Why are atheists considered to be the arrogant ones again?
87:
If we regularly were accused of secretly believing in unicorns, and just hating them, by idiots making the same arguments over and over again, we would hate talking about unicorns too.
90:
Yes. Don’t you? You have a set belief in there being an afterlife, and it being an afterlife that is specific to Christianity. There are far more options than that, and I doubt that you have considered what other people believe about afterlives for even a minute. And I don’t even think you could fully grasp the concept of their being NO afterlife. You just don’t have the intellectual courage to do so.
97:
This is the perfect illustration of someone who is incapable of questioning their own preconceptions.
112:
Conscience. In other words, “knowledge of good and evil”. God didn’t so much give that as much as punish humans for taking it….
113:
Ya don’t say.
119:
We are held accountable and judged by someone else’s standards every day. It’s called law. It’s called society. It’s called friends, families, and relationships. It’s called employment. The real scary thought is that we will be “held accountable” and “judged” by an entity that will punish us with infinite severity, no matter what we do, no matter how minor our alleged crime. Injustice like that is terrifying. But it really doesn’t matter, because there is no reason to believe that any god is real, let alone the one specific to the Abrahamic religions, let alone the version specific to Christianity.
Imagine the perfect and most intelligent teacher. That teacher designs a test for all of their students. Because the teacher is the perfect educator and maximally intelligent, the test that the students must pass require a perfect education and maximal intelligence. A perfect teacher would not allow anything short of such perfection, and if they created an easier test, the students would not be living up to the perfect teacher’s perfect standards.
Sadly, despite receiving education from the Perfect Teacher, none of the students are capable of passing the exam created by that teacher.
Is this the fault of the teacher, for using setting up a test that only they could possibly pass and having impossibly high standards?
Does this perhaps show that maybe the Perfect Teacher wasn’t so perfect, either in their illogical excuse for test design or in expecting their education to be far more effective than it actually was?
Or is it the fault of the students, for not being as perfect as the most perfect teacher in the world, after receiving a year of education from them?
I would lean towards the first two explanations. But Christians apparently want to blame those lazy, stupid students, for their inability to be as good as the Perfect Teacher. Oh well. At least you can get an automatic A in the class if you kneel down in the middle of the room, sobbing about your inferiority and pledging undying loyalty to the Perfect Teacher. That’s just good educational policy right there.
Anteprepro:
Thanks for quoting the following part from our resident godbotherer, which I’d missed:
I’d ask for evidence that Dean S. knows this to be true, but he’s not been forthcoming with any other evidence to support his assertions, so I guess I won’t bother. I will point out that “most” people believe in a deity of some sort. Atheists are quite a minority.
You confused “good” and “just”.
That would make the victim of the crime, the judge and the executioner all the same person. Three in one.
So, in order to believe, you first need to believe.
Totes legit.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not capable of knowingly pretending things to myself. I cannot believe without evidence.
I think everyone here did. You see, almost everyone here grew up as a Christian and then figured out there’s actually no evidence that any religion is true.
What makes you believe that something is correct simply because it’s in the Bible?
The point of sending someone to jail is to keep them away from any further potential victims. It’s a security measure.
Except in the USA. In the USA, the point of sending someone to jail is to provide slave labor for private for-profit companies. But I digress.
Then show us that you know him. Merely saying so is not very convincing, you’ll have to admit.
But why do you truly believe what you’re writing?
Because you haven’t thought it through. That’s the only reason, I bet; and that’s what we’re all pointing out to you.
Comparing yourself to God now? :-)
Seriously, this blog has been existing for ten years. You’re not the first missionary who appears here and believes if he just says the right magic words we’ll all agree with them; you’re not the hundredth; quite possibly even the thousandth has long passed. We’re familiar with your script; it’s boring.
Also… as it happens, there isn’t a movement of unicorn believers that wants to take control of education, politics, daily life and everything.
In the absence of a god, the first is rather useless, don’t you think? It doesn’t differ from “colorless green ideas sleep furiously”.
Wait, wait, wait. Which one?
Several religions claim that there will be a judgment day when the dead and/or resurrected will stand (metaphorically or literally) before a holy and righteous God – and then they disagree on all the details.
Um. PZ only does that when people who are already banned come back under another name and e-mail address (or of course when sensitive personal information is posted).
Hmmmmm. You see, my conscience tells me that lots and lots and lots of acts ascribed to God (and even specifically Jesus sometimes) in the Bible are flat-out evil. What shall we do about that?
That’s an… interesting claim. Most people in the world believe in at least one god, and very much want at least one to exist – because that idea gives them hope and consolation. Think about it:
You look forward – for no good reason, but you do – to an eternity of bliss; and before that you enjoy the idea of never being really left alone, never having no friends, never encountering a situation you can’t handle (because or and similar such platitudes).
I can’t do any of that.
Again: think about this.
I am accountable to the rest of the world, as comment 135 says.
You are accountable only to your delusion. You’ve wronged people? Doesn’t matter, your imaginary friend has undone it by granting you forgiveness.
Think about it. Think about it with all your philosophical prowess.
Impossible. In fact, an evil suggestion to even make.
Evidence?
“It says so in a book” doesn’t count.
Fuck yes! :-)
That’s in fact what purgatory was invented for. But somehow I think Dean S. is a Protestant and doesn’t believe in purgatory, only in heaven and hell…
Dean S. @65
So you figured out where my nom du blog comes from. You may stick a gold star in the middle of your forehead. I notice that while you mentioned pasta, you failed to respond to my comments @50. Not that I’m surprised. You’re not here for discussion, you’re here to convert the unbelievers.
Why do so many Christians have the idea that non-Christians have never heard of Jesus? I was raised as a Catholic. I went to 12 years of Catholic schools and then four years at a Catholic college. Trust me when I say I’m more than familiar with Christian credos, particularly Catholic dogma. Do you want to know the difference between partial indulgences and plenary indulgences? I can explain it to you. I’m fairly representative of the commentariat in my knowledge of Christianity. So please, knock off the “Jebus died for your sins because God loves you” babble because we’ve heard it before many, many times.
You also need to understand two other points:
What you’re doing here is called interrupt selling. You popped up in the middle of a conversation to sell us something. It’s like a telephone solicitor calling you during supper time. It’s irritating and generally counter-productive. We’re not angry at god (why would we be angry at an imaginary being?) but we are annoyed with you.
Nobody here is interested in what you’re selling. We’ve already investigated the merchandise and find it doesn’t suit our needs or desires. None of us have a god-shaped hole in our psyches demanding to be filled. We’re familiar with your product and we don’t want it.
Therefore, God has no free will.
Everyone is a sinner.
God has no choice but to deliver sinners to an eternity in Hell, unless they know Jesus Christ.
“Everyone” includes infants and children too young to know who Jesus Christ was.
Billions of infants and children have died, and continue to die, without knowing who Jesus Christ was.
Therefore, billions of infants and children will spend an eternity in Hell for something they never had a chance to do (know Jesus Christ and accept him as their lord and savior).
Wow. That’s a lot of responses. I will have more time later, but will try and respond to each of your comments. If I miss something, I’m sure you will let me know.
*popcorn*
*rum*
*lots of rum*
God created all things, visible and invisible.
God created humans in his own image.
Original sin is an inherent part of humans.
God hates original sin, and must punish it by torturing humans who bear it.
Since God created all things, and created humans in his own image, original sin is an inherent part of God.
Therefore, humans must be tortured for all eternity because God is inherently self-loathing and sadomasochistic.
@Lofty, #138. The Bible answers some of your questions but not all.
When does your god insert a freshly minted soul into a human foetus?
The human soul is the part of a person that is not physical. It lasts eternally after the body experiences death.
I don’t know when God created all human souls, but there is a soul in a baby at the point of conception.
Do memories formed in an intricate mass of neurons just fly off coherently to this supposed godly judgement?
You will have full understanding in the afterlife. There will be no debating God. If you are in hell, you will understand that you deserve it. If you are in heaven, it’s because you repented of your sins and put your trust in Christ.
Do you hear voices speaking to you in your head?
Nope
Show of hands, who really wants do this again?
Dean S., since you’re back for more,
I didn’t ask you why you thought god is male, I asked how it makes sense for a monotheistic god to be male. Gender implies contrast–a dichotomy at the least, though of course we see a beautiful spectrum in humans. But if there is and can only be one god, then how can there be a contrast?
I know this sounds flip, but I’m trying to get you to think, not just parrot trite pieties. Your answers here so far haven’t shown that you have any capacity for critical thinking. You’ve been endowed with one of the most amazing products of nature, a human brain, yet when it comes to questions of religion you turn it off. Sad.
Dean S @167
Figments of the imagination are generally not physical.
If (that’s IF) your god exists and I get to confront him after death, he’s going to have a whole lot of explaining to do to me. I’ll debate him when he tries to justify all the bad shit he’s caused or allowed to happen. And I’m not going to accept “you can’t debate me ’cause I’m god” because that’s a bullshit answer coming from a bullshit critter. What’s he going to do, send me to Hell?
@Dreaming #139
How can your non-existent god be inifnitely just and accept punishment by proxy through an innocent?
I think your doctrine is a little wrong. God is one essence and three persons. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God. God humbled Himself by taking human form, so that He could live the perfect life, die on the cross for our sins and be resurrected on the third day. Eternal life is for those who repent and put their trust in Christ. It’s all in the Bible. You should consider reading it with a humble heart. Why don’t you start with one of the Gospels.
.
@Nick #140
Torturing anyone, for any reason, is evil. Torturing amyone for ever would be infinitely evil.
It’s not torture, it’s judicial punishment. However, if you view it as torture, all the more reason to avoid it by trusting in Jesus.
.
Dean is just reciting bible stories. This is pointless.
If the body “experiences” things in the normal psychological sense of the word, then can the part of a person that is not physical experience things? If so, how? And why the redundant parts?
If you mean “experiences” in sense that there is a process that it undergoes, is the part of the person that is not physical the part that does all of the experiencing in the form of thinking or perceiving or remembering or whatever? If so, how exactly does it do that? You’re saying something about what’s going on here and now in reality (lots of places, at least where all of the people are), not something removed or totally unknowable, so what is it that you supposedly already have that makes you say that and would convince someone else to agree? Why don’t scientists see some kind of a thing going on, in these places where there are people with souls, that does anything like support what you’re saying about them?
Of course, there isn’t a baby at the point of conception, but there is a soul in a baby. Some other baby, somewhere, probably. It’s very simple.
How do you know that? What are the steps that led you to think this is true, partially true or imperfectly understood by you as true? That is not something I’d need to learn in an afterlife. It’s already happened to you, so you are licensing yourself to the assumption (at least implicitly) that you already have the means to explain this much. If that were the case and you were being honest with us, why wouldn’t you do that?
@Saad #142. That’s right, God judges all people. That is why most people don’t believe in the one true God, because they don’t want to be accountable to a higher being’s standard.
@Crip. #144. I don’t fear judgment for myself, just you. I’ve repented and put my trust in Christ. My name is written in the book of life. Is yours? Don’t wait until you die to find out.
@172 Dean S.
3 June 2015 at 5:14 pm
More word games. (No, forever punishment is not a good judicial punishment. It is nonsense).
You still give no evidence that this absurd Jesus “trusting” thing makes any sense or is real. Why are you unable to see how pointless your posts are?
@176 Dean S.
Still makes no sense. Still no evidence.
“No, really, I have to boil you alive for eternity in a pit of hot lava. Because of the rules. The rules I made. You can see why I don’t have a choice, right?”
Apparently, Dean S’s god is just another one of a long string of torturers attempting to evade responsibility by cloaking abominable treatment of people in the mantle of “law” and “justice”. That’s some real twisted morality you got there, Dean-o.
@ chigau:
I definitely stand corrected!
Dean S. @175 sez:
I bolded the part you have no evidence for. I have a corollary statement for you since you accept that: you don’t believe in the goddess Ninti, but she still brought you life, and Ereshkigal will judge you unworthy of said life if you do not worship her sister compatriot. You will not escape as she and Nergal did.
Here’s an important rule to think about:
Dean S. is just godbotting, not thinking. Banned.
There is no evidence for a SOUL, you fail to provide any physical evidence for one, so just another lie and bullshit from a proselytizer. Proseletizers can only tell their lies based on an imaginary deity and book of mythology/fiction.
A lot of atheists know more about their book of mythology/fiction than they do. Which is why they are atheists. They saw the drivel for what it was–utter and total bullshit.
Why just one? Much more instructive to look at the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew and Luke) together, and compare and contrast with John. The first thing to notice is how obviously fictional and symbolic Mark is, and the second is how dependent Matthew and Luke are on that fiction. Then turn to John and notice how clearly antagonistic the theology of that text is toward that of the Synoptics (and secondarily, how incoherent the theology in John is taken on its own, the product of multiple authorship). Bottom line, what we have in the canonical gospels looks very much like a literary tradition originating with a single text (Mark) and developing along literary lines, entirely unconstrained by any real events or any interest in reporting same. The gospels are stories.
No need to say it twice. :)
I can still drink the rum, though, right?
Dean S thinking???? BwahahaHAHAHAHAHAHHAA.
Now back to the Redhead’s tasks.
*hoists a shot glass in chigau’s general direction*
Awww, poor flattened godbot, nothing but smug biblical assertion and now just a fading glow on the screen.
Do we get another godbot to put on the barbeque?
chigau @186
Did you bring enough for everybody?
Al Dente #190
You bet!
Hold out your glasses, mugs and sippy cups.
*guzzle*
I AM GOD. DESPAIR! *GIGGLES DRUNKENLY (IN A GODLIKE FASHION THOUGH)*
(Foo. Missed out on seeing the response to my theololgical arguments.)
Still:
What makes you think that they are mutually exclusive?
Either the damned suffer for eternity in hell, or they do not.
If they do not suffer, then we, as those destined to be damned (according to you), have nothing to fear in hell, even assuming that hell exists. As Ted Chiang puts it, in describing a Hell which is the absence of God: “For most of its inhabitants, Hell is not that different from Earth; its principal punishment is the regret of not having loved God enough when alive, and for many that’s easily endured.”
If they do suffer for eternity, then that suffering can be correctly called “torture”.
“But why is the rum gone?”
Oh noes! We’ve been sent to Hell!
*checks the Pullet Palace*
It appears they *CSI Cybertechnobabble* and diverted the transfers.
In heaven there is no beer
That’s why we drink it here
‘Cause when we are gone from here,
All our friends will be drinking all our beer*
*Actual song. I have an early childhood memory of a room full of tipsy grownups singing along to great hilarity. I didn’t get the joke.
Typical fundy dishonesty: deliberately causing severe or prolonged pain is “torture”: what excuse is given for doing this is irrelevant. Also, typical fundy stupidity: trusting a torturer.
CJO, awesome. That song brings back lots of good memories. The sort of blurry, drunk kind.
Just wanting to chip in: I grew up in a Christian family, going to church every Sunday. My parents hosted a Bible study group on Friday evenings, and hosted a brush-arbor revival on their property. My brother went to Lutheran seminary. We hosted and supported missionaries of various flavors, and my dad worked with Christian agencies several times. I have been employed by two different denominations in mission support, and have the T-shirts. I have argued theology while cleaning ovens, and went to college to learn more about how religion affected people. I have sat through many a sermon, and spoke at a few fundraisers. In other words, like many here, I grew up Christian, and know about religion.
This latest godbot was running through the same old routine, with less originality than most. Dang, I could almost feel the oven-cleaner on my skin, and was going to say what I said to the other guy in the oven crew, “You drink this bottle of lye, and I will sit down and offer my brain to Jesus.” See, Mark 16:18 says that a Christian cannot be poisoned, and I would no more turn loose a self-fulfilling brain virus in my head than I would take up a serpent.
This is just in case anybody is thinking that PZ had to ban the clown because we were outclassed.
*thinks* There’s got to be some way to make money from Homeopathic Atheism.
The one out-classed was the godbot who came to evidential discussion with nothing but personal testament. Which is dismissed before it is even said, as all proselytizers are liars and bullshitters, proven every time they appear.
Any skeptic/atheist worth their electrons will require that the godbot take their arguments outside of themselves, and their mythical/fictional holy to real third party evidence, preferably peer reviewed science/academic literature. Where they must point and allow us to evaluate said evidence….
You have to be a bit careful with that one, because really edumacated theololgians will know that that bit’s from the Marcan appendix.
But it’s worth having a comeback: If the claims in the Marcan appendix are false, why are they still in the bible at all? Are there other claims in the bible that might be false? Why or why not? How did false claims get into the bible? And so on.