Well said!

Seditious admitted no such thing. He said he doesn't "want your terrible magic sky daddy" to exist — James Riley

That's a blatant lie. Seditious said exactly what I said he did:

Do I hope that your terrible magic sky daddy doesn't exist? Obviously — Seditious

So, the BS is entirely yours Mr Riley. Anyway, I think you should calm down. There is no need to foam at the mouth just because you've failed to convince people. You're beginning to sound like Nation of Islam or the Taliban.

One such slander is that atheists are all secret believers. Another is that they are Communists (very popular in the 1950's). Another is that they are afraid of God and therefore repressed theists, living in denial. Yet another is that they are egomaniacs who don't have room in their lives for someone more powerful than them. That's my favorite one. — Tom Storm

I see what you mean. But why is it "slander" to try to find an explanation for atheism? Most people do believe in God. Atheists are an exception. Therefore it is legitimate to find an explanation for this exception. Psychology does that all the time.

I think precisely because atheists come in many shapes and forms we shouldn't dismiss out of hand the possibility that at least some of them have a conscious or unconscious hope or desire for God not to exist. In fact, as we have just seen, to atheists like @Seditious this is "obvious".

But I agree that most "discussions" tend to end in ad hominems and that shouldn't be the case, especially on a philosophy forum.

:up: Agree A. Thanks.

That's a blatant lie. Seditious said exactly what I said he did: — Apollodorus

No, you said "God". He didn't say God. He qualified his comment to the Abrahamic god. That's why I asked if you were Christian. I assumed you had your panties all up in a knot because that's the only god you know. So I asked. You didn't answer.

If most "discussions" tend to end in ad hominems and that shouldn't be the case, especially on a philosophy forum, then it's probably because you lack analytic thinking skills and are over your head. At least I hope that's what it is. Otherwise, your misquoting people, or saying things they didn't say, is trolling.

My experience with trolls is, they must get the last word. So the floor will be yours.

I always try to focus not on who said what, but what was said. That seems more logical to me. However, once in a great while, I am forced to consider who said what, if only because they are a waste of time and incapable of reasoned argument, or the understanding of it. It’s such a drag because I’m one of those people who naturally doesn’t focus on names. So, when I feel compelled to remember someone, so I don’t waste my time any longer, it is, itself, time consuming. I’m still feeling my way around TPF, but so far:

Synthesis, check;
3017amen, check;
Apollodorus, check.

Hopefully the list doesn’t get too long.

No, you said "God". He didn't say God. — James Riley

He said "sky daddy". "Sky daddy" is a well-known slang name for God:

"The use of the mundane sky and extremely familiar daddy in place of lofty terms such as God in Heaven or God the Father is intended disrespectfully, mocking (and potentially offending) those who might believe in such a figure" sky daddy Wiktionary

You can tell as many lies as you wish, Mr Riley. That won't change the facts.

He said "sky daddy". "Sky daddy" is a well-known slang name for God: — Apollodorus

Here's the record. I will emphasis the relevant portions for you:

"TL;DR: upon close inspection of the biblical god, it quickly becomes apparent it was fashioned after Man's lesser-desirable traits, making the worship thereof foolish at best.

I was raised to be a christian, dragged to more than a few churches. Eventually, as a teenager, I got bored enough to actually read the bible, not selectively, but cover to cover. It was interesting, so much so that I was compelled to concurrently read multiple versions/iterations of the bible, so as to compare and contrast the language used, with the hope of gleaning a more accurate understanding.

Being full of teenage hormones and a strong natural sense of justice/fairness, I was more than taken aback by the plethora of blatant contradictions I found in the bible, not to mention the horrific behavior of the main and ancillary characters. I knew there were some in there (contradictions) , I'd encountered a few previously, but in my quest to better comprehend the literary work and thus the derivative ideologies, I had gone about it with as open and objective a mind as I could manage. Suffice it to say that the end result was my complete and total atheism, at least in regard to the Abrahamic/biblical "god".

It wasn't merely the contradictions, the imperfect nature of what should've been the perfect work of a perfect entity, that drove me so far from belief, but more so the childish and disgusting, outright repulsive personality of this god thing.

Do I hope that your terrible magic sky daddy doesn't exist? Obviously, but not actively or often, I so very rarely to never think about it. If you've actually read the bible, in its entirety, in as short a period of time as you can manage, you would be insane to wish for such an entity to have any basis in reality, unless of course, you were some sort of immoral masochistic sociopath."

You stand corrected.

No. The relevant portion is this:

"Do I hope that your terrible magic sky daddy [God] doesn't exist? Obviously "

Hope that God (or "sky daddy") doesn't exist is not only factual but "obvious" to atheists like Seditious.

That's what that statement means to the rest of us. But maybe you are Irish or something. Which is not my fault.

No. — Apollodorus

The record speaks for itself and it's says you are a liar.

The record speaks for itself and it's says your are a liar. — James Riley

Not at all. The record doesn't say that. You say that. And we've seen what your statements are worth. As I said, you need to calm down, you are only aggravating yourself and making your condition worse.

As I said, you need to calm down, you are only aggravating yourself and making your condition worse. — Apollodorus

Thank you for your concern for me, Apollodorus. I will take this under advisement.

Look at your own picture, you will immediately understand what I mean. Or maybe not. In which case it's probably too late.

you need to calm down, you are only aggravating yourself and making your condition worse. — Apollodorus

Aha. Atheism is a condition. It can be treated, much like homosexuality and kleptomania and the common cold.

Apollodorus, I saw several men (they may be women, or anywhere on the non-binary spectrum; and I shall say this several-word reference every time I indicate a human being in my texts, because I a so fucking fed up with the progressive protocol of proper political correctness) fall out from arguing with you.

This is because you seem to be impervious to logic, impervious to considering facts and arguments, you can't see reason if it bit you on the leg, and your only, and I say only, saving grace is your faith, which is not logical, but hey, you got to go with what you got.

I've only seen one person on the forums who is equally as erudite in his (or her or anyone's who is on the non-binary spectrum) text, and who is so doggonedly impervious to other's arguments, and that was ImmanuelCan in the other forum. There is one difference: ImmanuelCan constantly referred to Plato and Socrates as the keepers of some secret wisdom, which the forum user ImmanuelCan was in possession of, but would never give out.

He was right, if I had the secret of the universe, I would not give it out, either.

So I propose to you to answer this: Are you in fact ImmanuelCan from the other forum? Yes, or no, it actually is neither here nor there, I'm just curious.

I am curious because I've noticed that several other of the psychopathic and / or mild mannered schizophrenics (in my opinion; I have no medical proof of this diagnosis) have migrated to this forum, for instance, johndoe7, another one, and one who is not schizophrenic but displays some mild forms of narcissistic rage is fooloso4, which rage does not come out as anger, but as a pretension of not understanding the simplest things when he is defeated in an argument.

Of the lot, I like, and look up to fooloso4 because he is very well read, and is smart, and logical, and reasonable (except when he or she or the being on the spectrum of nonbinary sexuality loses and argument), and then for long nobody, and you come in as a distant second as my favourite from that forum, oh, 180, he's smart too, and then there are the cannibals. I call them cannibals because there is so much rage, anger, and outright hatred on that forum.

So I propose to you to answer this: Are you in fact ImmanuelCan from the other forum? Yes, or no, it actually is neither here nor there, I'm just curious. — god must be atheist

Well, to be quite honest, this forum has always looked to me more like a social club for the retired and the unemployed, no offence intended.

In particular, what I've noticed here is that some members tend to read an awful lot into other people's comments that just isn't warranted by the original comments. Your comment seems to belong to this category.

Personally, I very rarely frequent online forums. I happen to work from home at the moment so I have a bit of spare time to engage in discussions here. However, my colleagues and I will be back in the office in June and I don't think you'll hear from me again. Additionally, I'm sure the forum admins or whoever they are can confirm that I'm not who you imagine I am.

I do agree that I tend to be outspoken and "impervious to other people's arguments". But this is only because I believe in freedom of speech, I allow others to present their views and I expect the same in return. It's as simple as that. So, I wouldn't be quite so paranoid if I were you.

The record speaks for itself and it's says your are a liar. — James Riley
Not at all. The record doesn't say that. You say that. And we've seen what your statements are worth. As I said, you need to calm down, you are only aggravating yourself and making your condition worse. — Apollodorus

:100: Anger management does not seem to be popular with the fanatical atheists here!
:joke:

: Anger management does not seem to be popular with the fanatical atheists here! — 3017amen

Very true. That's an idea for a new thread: Does atheistic philosophy foster fanaticism, paranoia, and mindless violence?

That's an idea for a new thread: Does atheistic philosophy foster fanaticism, paranoia, and mindless violence? — Apollodorus

Perhaps, but history shows it's you guys with the serious murderous cred. And the capacity to deny every bit of it.

Anger management does not seem to be popular with the fanatical atheists here!
— 3017amen

Very true. That's an idea for a new thread: Does atheistic philosophy foster fanaticism, paranoia, and mindless violence? — Apollodorus

Yep. Check out my profile I did one awhile back on that very same topic. We uncovered a lot of resentment, anger and other emotional deficiency kinds of things. Maslow would call it, deficiency motivation, as opposed to growth motivation.

I've always said we're boys and girls in adult bodies. Having a sense of Innocence, wonderment, curiosity, positive energy, are certainly among many virtues to behold. However, to act reasonably, as a so-called responsible adult, one must know which hat to wear when, by of course treating like cases likely and different cases differently.

That said, one must learn not to exclusively dichotomize things by staying in one emotional place too long. In this case, the angry Atheist adult who now decides to, for whatever reason, wallow in the bottomless chasm of self pity, does so at the risk of much shame and interminable misery, not to mention risking one's overall health and well-being.

In a world of volitional existence, one could argue that it's all about self-awareness and courage. The good news is that for the most part, we humans can be who we want to be.

Anyway, check out the thread if you want to revisit it...

Perhaps, but history shows it's you guys with the serious murderous cred. And the capacity to deny every bit of it. — tim wood

I wouldn't say that's an objective statement. Atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot murdered more millions in one century than Christians did in the whole history of Christianity.

For example, Imperial (Christian) Russia's government executed 3,932 people for political crimes between 1825 and 1910 (nearly a century). Stalin's atheist regime executed 681,692 people for "anti-Soviet activities" in one year alone, 1937-1938.

Soviet Russia murdered more than 20 million and Maoist China more than 60 million of their own people.

Anyway, check out the thread if you want to revisit it... — 3017amen

Will do, thanks.

Soviet Russia murdered more than 20 million and Maoist China more than 60 million of their own people. — Apollodorus

Kindly provide us with the statistic of the abortions that Christian women have had.

I wouldn't say that's an objective statement. Atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot murdered more millions in one century than Christians did in the whole history of Christianity. — Apollodorus

I can't talk to the statistical comparison. In your view is there a connection between atheism and mass murder or are mass murderers more likely to be atheists. Or both. Or is there another factor behind this?

I suppose 'my atheism' is derived in part from fear of theists who take their bullshit literally and thickly spread it wherever they go.

. Friend ... it is simple ... do not put your mind in it ... do not complicate a simple phenomenon ... do not become more confused than you already are ...

. Atheism is ... a Negative Belief ... about existence ... It is a big NO to existence ... to Godliness ... to divineness ...

. Yes ... There is no God beyond ... God is in Here-Now ... Everything is God ... Everything is Brahma ... There is nothing in this whole existence whose nature is apart of Godliness ...

. Atheist are right in a sense ... but wrong in another sense ... Yes ... there is no God up there to judge you ... not because ... there is no divine quality in existence ... as atheist do say ... but because ... everything is God ... and everything is good as it is ... nothing is judged by anything ...

. You don't need a belief about that which is ... because that which is ... is ... regardless your so-called philosophical beliefs ...

In your view is there a connection between atheism and mass murder or are mass murderers more likely to be atheists. Or both. Or is there another factor behind this? — Tom Storm

That's a good question.

I suppose it would be arguable that religion aims to convert people and save them from ignorance and sin, not to murder them.

By contrast, atheism when combined with extremist political views, would more readily lend itself to the murder of political opponents.

Whether atheism would of itself lead to mass murder is debatable. However, given that atheism is often accompanied by extremist political views, this may render it more prone to commit destructive actions such as mass murder.

Maybe we should start a discussion to explore this a bit further.

Most Atheists are very unsophisticated in their thinking when it comes to justifying their belief system. For example, even their own conscious existence is essentially logically impossible to explain. Which goes back to their precarious and untenable position of the Atheist having to defend same (no EOG). They can't.

Must be some sort of issue with cognitive dysfunction as it relates to emotion... :joke:

Most Atheists are very unsophisticated in their thinking when it comes to justifying their belief system. — 3017amen

Well, atheism is not a belief system. Further, in a world full of God-based religions, to reject them on principle and reason implies some thinking, which adherents don't do at all. As to sophistication, your usage is a red-herring and a category error, being both irrelevant and not relevant. And your

Which goes back to their precarious and untenable position of the Atheist having to defend same (no EOG). They can't. — 3017amen

is straw-man, because atheists don't have a position to defend and to my knowledge, none try.

So what is your point?

,

Atheism is ... a Negative Belief — Anand-Haqq

No. It isn't. Do you "believe" that 2+2=4? Do you "negatively believe" that 2+2=37? There are questions the answers to which, under proper focus, have nothing to do with belief.

Or they may in your usage and understanding, but if you remain in that your frustration will be unending. And if you project that on others, that's pathology. If you impose it on others, that's much worse.

This is a philosophy site. Not a ranting place,

Most Atheists are very unsophisticated in their thinking when it comes to justifying their belief system. — 3017amenWell, atheism is not a belief system. — tim wood

Yes it is a belief system, we'll have to agree to disagree. Because logically you have to use reason to arrive at your conclusion. Hence, in logic, any atheist who posits God does not exist has the precarious and untenable position of defending same.

The most prudent thing an atheist could do is to say nothing about it. Otherwise, he has essentially endorsed another belief system.

As I said, the amusing and ironic part is that the Atheist can't even logically explain their own conscious existence, it's logically impossible. So how can they posit no God?

. First of all ... Atheism is a belief system ... it is not a fact ...

. And as all belief systems ... is unreal ... because one who believes ... does not know ... otherwise ... he would not believe ... in something which is a fact ... You cannot believe in the moon's existence ... Can you ... ?

. You see ... friend ... Philosophy ... is really for mediocre beings ... and ... you must consider yourself a philosopher ... hence ... your great comment ...

. But reading your sentence ... it teased me a big laugh ... reminding me ... the whole pathology of beliefs and ignorance ... reflected by you ... through you ... that ... humanity have ...

. You did not even read my answer ... you did not even respond to my answer ... you reacted to it ... you must be a reactionary ... a so-called activist ... trying to fight for any stupid belief ... for any stupid dogma ... that you find good with you ...

. You just vomited your prejudices ... because ... it did not make any sense ...

. I did say ... that Life ... is beyond any prejudice ... any stupid belief ... and you ... go to me with your philosophical rubbish ... declaring that I'm one with beliefs ...

. Life is beyond any philosophy ...