Why aren't you an Atheist?

by Bloody Hotdogs! 697 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Christ Alone

  Just a thought, and this will negate alot of what I say and have said.

  But I was thinking about stereotyping. I think this is a huge problem in our modern culture. We group people into types like "believer" or "atheist", "American" or "Foreigner", "Democrat" or "Republican". And then we put a definition that should fit to all people in this certain group. Occasionally I've tried to avoid that with saying things like "atheists TEND to think...". But that really isn't good enough.

  Maybe much of our problem (and it's been referred to on this thread) is trying to pigeon hole all people of a certain group into a single definition.

  Maybe that's why tolerance doesn't catch on very often. We assume that all people that belong to a certain group have the same characteristics of the label that we've assigned.

  Believers are delusional because...

  Atheists are mean and angry because...

  Republican's don't see reality...

  Yet, behind these stereotypes or labels are individual people that have feelings and are varied in their thoughts and beliefs.

  And here is a fact that no one can argue with: Everyone in every group believes that they are right.

  Maybe it's time to get rid of the labels and view each person as a single individual. Stereotyping has led to so many horrible atrocities. Stereotyping the Jews led to the persecution of the Nazis. Stereotyping of African Americans has led to the still current racism that is still going strong. Stereotyping has led to the belief that all those that believe in God are delusional. Stereotyping has led to the belief that all Atheists are angry, mean, and without solid morals.

  I want to think about this further for myself. But maybe if we get rid of the stereotypes and start looking at people as individuals, this will lead to greater understanding, love, respect, and tolerance.
• 

  Finkelstein

  To understand and be in acceptance of human ignorance is to be understanding of god(s)

  One has to reflect upon why in all human history has there been an abrupt stop of any newly created recognized deities ?
• 

  King Solomon

  Funny, KS, that you didn't read the book or research this subject, yet you have given your grand write off "Next".

  The thing is, when you have a background to evaulate claims, you don't have to read EVERY LAST detail in order to call BS or realize it's a come-on, promising what it fails to deliver. It looks like elements of evolutionary psychology but written from the perspective of a believer, with scriptures from the Bible used throughout.

  I looked at his claims, his wikipedia, googled, read a NY Times interview, found the claims of the book (which are nothing new, but if you've not seen it, it's NEW TO YOU!), read a review, checked for peer reviews or if these werew published in respected journals (nope!), and concluded he's selling a book with a eye-grabbing title.

  That approach to book sales is hardly news to anyone: there's a LONG HISTORY of tabloid or paperback science books being sold for $$$ (and need I mention the WT/Awake?). Pretty conclusive to me....
• 

  jamesmahon

  Outlaw:

  If your willing to argue a side..You need to have Proof..

  If you have no proof..

  All you have is Faith that your right..

  Faith is what you have when the position you hold is only partially supported by the available facts. You do not need 'proof' to argue a side. You need evidence. This evidence does not need to meet the requirements of 'proof' to argue a side. Life would be boring if 'proof' was required. The gaps in the evidence is what faith fills. For a theist gaps in understanding of how the universe works are filled by a faith in god. For an atheist the gaps are filled with a faith that either human endevour will explain the gaps (which has worked pretty well up to now) or a faith that the universe may just be beyond human comprehension and we just have to live with that.

  The ability to argue from a position of faith is why it is ok on this board to suggest that someone is a paedophile with no more evidence than their refusal to support blanket naming and shaming from a list compiled by a bunch of incompetent window cleaners. But hey, you would never do anything like that would you because you would only argue from a position of proof.
• 

  Christ Alone

  The thing is, when you have a background to evaulate claims, you don't have to read EVERY LAST detail in order to call BS

  Your claimed respect for yourself never ceases to amaze me. Now you claim that you can go without the facts of a large book, read only what others have said about it, and make a 100% accurate claim about the studies in it. Fascinating. We have our own prophet here! I didn't ask if you read every last detail. The fact is, you didn't read a single page of the book!

  Reminds me of a certain troll on this site that wanted to review Crisis of Conscience and disprove everything that it said, when it was found out that he didn't read any of it.

  Maybe he has enough of a background to review all the claims of that book too. You should meet and fall in love.
• 

  happy@last

  I believe in Deism, I do not believe God has any interest in what is happening on this planet whatsoever. Anyone with almighty power and an ounce of love would have sorted out the mess here long ago. Believe nothing you are told and half of what you see, works for me.
• 

  King Solomon

  OUTLAW SAID:

  An air speed indicator is a solid object you can see and touch..

  You can prove it exists..

  An air speed indicator shows you what speed you are going..

  You simply have to look to the ground to prove your actually moving..

  So there is proof involved ..

  Well, now you're just being silly and not even trying (that's tiresome; you're not serious). You've not heard of IFR, I guess?

  When someone uses the word "indicate" with no proof to back it up..

  Well, that's PROOF you're not serious: I provided you with a definition (which is easy enough to google), but you ignore it.
• 

  jamesmahon

  You simply have to look to the ground to prove your actually moving..

  That is actually completely wrong. Go and ask a physicist. There is no way to determine absolute motion. You could not prove that it was you that was moving as opposed to the ground. It is the basis of relativity.
• 

  Christ Alone

  I looked at his claims, his wikipedia, googled, read a NY Times interview, found the claims of the book (which are nothing new, but if you've not seen it, it's NEW TO YOU!), read a review, checked for peer reviews or if these werew published in respected journals (nope!), and concluded he's selling a book with a eye-grabbing title.

  Also, with the speed that you responded, you didn't do all this. The time between when I posted the article about the book and the time you responded was about 12 mins. Able to research all of his studies, claims, and reviews in 12 mins and make an absolute 100% judgement of the entire book, all without reading a single page. AMAZING!
• 

  King Solomon

  Also, with the speed that you responded, you didn't do all this. The time between when I posted the article about the book and the time you responded was about 12 mins. Able to research all of his studies, claims, and reviews in 12 mins and make an absolute 100% judgement of the entire book, all without reading a single page. AMAZING!

  Uh, his assertions are found (condensed) on wikipedia, and in the NYTimes article (three paragraphs, at most), and the review. All the flowery poetic writing in the book is simply filler for people like you, or provides background for laypeople, but doesn't go towards proving his assertions. Fact is, some studies can be reviewed in minutes, since they have abstracts/conclusions; in fact, that's a critical SKILL to develop, as you don't read EVERY LAST WORD of any study, but rely on abstracts. In fact, there are pubs that contain ONLY abstracts, and the read can scan for topics of interest, or look up the full-text version of the article, if desired. You apparently don't know that kind of thing, I see, but that doesn't change the fact it is the case....

  Like I said, the title itself raised a HUGE red flag: there are no "BORN BELIEVERS". He admits in the text that children start to develop beliefs in supernatural forces as their parents, but that's hardly "born". FAIL.