Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Agnostics, Atheists, Brights, Free Thinkers

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

the argument isn't i don't believe you, it's i don't believe in god.  this is indeed first person testimony which is enough evidence for the claim made.  if you disagree that's fine but this line of debate is exhausted.

 

Yes.  That's it.  Really, all of it.  

 

:thumbu:

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

the argument isn't i don't believe you, it's i don't believe in god.

If no one ever claimed that god existed, why would you ever say you didn't believe in god? Atheism is a response to the claim that god(s) exist(s). Without the theist to contrast to, the term is meaningless.

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, mererdog said:

If no one ever claimed that god existed, why would you ever say you didn't believe in god? Atheism is a response to the claim that god(s) exist(s). Without the theist to contrast to, the term is meaningless.

disagreed, but happily.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Not really.  Atheism is comparable to being vegetarian

And if no one ate meat, no one would be a vegetarian. Since no one eats diamonds, we don't have a word for people who don't eat diamonds, you dig?

Vegetarianism exists as a response to meat eating. Atheism exists as a response to theism. Pacifism exists as a response to violence. Anarchism exists as a response to government.

Without the one, you can't have the other. Without understanding the one, you can't understand the other.

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, mererdog said:

And if no one ate meat, no one would be a vegetarian. Since no one eats diamonds, we don't have a word for people who don't eat diamonds, you dig?

Vegetarianism exists as a response to meat eating. Atheism exists as a response to theism. Pacifism exists as a response to violence. Anarchism exists as a response to government.

Without the one, you can't have the other. Without understanding the one, you can't understand the other.

 

 

All true.  In a Godless world, there would be no Atheists.  I can dream.         :D  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mererdog said:

If no one ever claimed that god existed, why would you ever say you didn't believe in god? Atheism is a response to the claim that god(s) exist(s). Without the theist to contrast to, the term is meaningless.

 

No.  Atheism is not reactive to God claims.  There is no reactive movement against fairies.  Or leprecauns.  Or Unicorns.  Or Bigfoot.  Or the Lochness Monster.  No.  Atheism is reactive to religion.  Not God.

 

While I'm on my rant -- Yes.  I said rant -- modern Atheism is also not reactive to the gods.  Or Pagans.  Or Heathens.  Or the other Polytheists.  For the simple reason that they leave us alone.  That they are not poisoning  legislation, or the general culture --  In particular, what they have not done to the Pledge of Allegiance.  Or the money.  These are the things that Atheists hate.  Not God.  Religion.  

 

I'm done.

 

:sigh2:

 

:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair - many atheists couldn't care less about the Pledge or God on the money or legislation or anything else. The only thing all atheists have in common is the fact that they do not profess that there is/are a god/gods that exist. Herding cats and all.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist for the following reasons: 

- I feel the term "god" is lacking sufficient definition. There are many things people wish to consider a "god" or "gods", and they all appear to have mutually exclusive traits. When theism can decide what exactly a "god" is, at that point I will bother worrying about finding out whether it exists or not. Until then, I cannot KNOW whether it does or not. 
- So far, I have not heard a presumed definition of "god" or "gods" that stands up to empirical criticism. If I were to believe something exists, I would need evidence that it does exist. That is the only way to _know_ something exists: to look at the evidence. 

Thus: knowledge=false; belief=false. 

Agnostic atheist. I don't know, but I'm not holding my breath. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2017 at 7:14 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

You sound like fun.  Welcome to the board.

Thanks, bro. Likewise. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/19/2017 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

:lol:      :lol:     :lol::lol::lol:      :lol:     :lol:

 

You are making this way more complicated than it is.

 

An Atheist is someone who has one less God than a Monotheist.

 

An Atheist is Godless.  Also, godless.

 

This goes way beyond   "who does not specifically lay claim to a belief in a specific god/God"  No.  Not lacking a specific god.  Lacking all of them.  Lacking any of them.  Having none at all.

 

:whist:

 

One thing is NOT complicated. 

Atheists/atheists are about as easy to group as all other discussions of groups connected with spirituality or lack thereof. 

 

Reading this thread the fact they do not have a god/God has even come into question as a point of agreement.

So what professes to be simple - seems perhaps not to be ....

 

A side issue would be defining god/God to determine if we accept the definition.

(money is god to some...so are cheeseburgers to others..and lets not omit the Rastafarians) 

 

von

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Uasal said:

To be fair - many atheists couldn't care less about the Pledge or God on the money or legislation or anything else. The only thing all atheists have in common is the fact that they do not profess that there is/are a god/gods that exist. Herding cats and all.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist for the following reasons: 

- I feel the term "god" is lacking sufficient definition. There are many things people wish to consider a "god" or "gods", and they all appear to have mutually exclusive traits. When theism can decide what exactly a "god" is, at that point I will bother worrying about finding out whether it exists or not. Until then, I cannot KNOW whether it does or not. 
- So far, I have not heard a presumed definition of "god" or "gods" that stands up to empirical criticism. If I were to believe something exists, I would need evidence that it does exist. That is the only way to _know_ something exists: to look at the evidence. 

Thus: knowledge=false; belief=false. 

Agnostic atheist. I don't know, but I'm not holding my breath. 
 

 

I do care.  A lot.  I don't want to give the impression of always being enraged.  I'm not.  I lose no sleep over these matters.  It's more like sand in a wet bathing suite.  It irritates without being a central concern.  It's just there.  In the background.  Like my arthritis.  Sometimes, I have a flare up.

 

Yes.  The definitions question.  People get very hot over something  that can't be defined.  It amounts to belief in belief rather than belief in God.

 

When I want intellectual purity, I go with the Agnostic label.  When I want to be understood, with no BS, I go with Atheist.  I took ordination with the Apathetic Agnostic church.  The motto is, We don't know and we don't care.  At least, they have a sense of humor.

:whist:

 

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

 

One thing is NOT complicated. 

Atheists/atheists are about as easy to group as all other discussions of groups connected with spirituality or lack thereof. 

 

Reading this thread the fact they do not have a god/God has even come into question as a point of agreement.

So what professes to be simple - seems perhaps not to be ....

 

A side issue would be defining god/God to determine if we accept the definition.

(money is god to some...so are cheeseburgers to others..and lets not omit the Rastafarians) 

 

von

 

I like to make three basic distinctions.

 

1.  The God of Monotheism.  The God of the Bible or Koran.

 

2.  The God of Deism.  The God of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.  God who set things into motion but does not get involved.  No revelations.  No Scriptures.  No involvement with prayer.

 

3.  The God of Pantheism.  It's called God, but the concept is ill fitting.  What Spinoza called "Nature's God."  In other words, the Universe.  

 

There is also the treatment given by A.A.  God is a "Higher Power".  Since they pray the "Lord's Prayer" at these meetings -- I disregard this as the hypocritical nonsense that it is.  

 

We can make two additional categories.

 

1.  Polytheism:  It's a different head and a different reality.  Lumping the gods of Polytheism with the different Monotheisms is not useful.

 

2.  Vedanta/Hinduism:  Both a Monotheism and a Polytheism.  It is not like anything else.  

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 At least, they have a sense of humor.

:whist:

 

I took a world religion class in college and the professor said this was the only thing that really mattered in choosing a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2017 at 10:55 PM, Rev. Calli said:

Greetings to you my brother,

 

My way got rid of them immediately.   Your way took six months.  

 

Seriously tho, much of the doctrine and practices of the JW's I am very familiar with, having done much research on Escatology and denominations that stressed the coming last days while I was in Seminary.  For a time, the denomination was also pretty strong in the Milwaukee area, having their missionaries out every Saturday and some weeknights going door to door. When I owned my coffee shop, they were even known to come in there to try to Proselytize.  Even after telling them multiple times I'm ordained in the Methodist church and very unlikely to change my views, they were adamant.  Finally, I resorted to the big guns.  Fortunately, they didn't take me up on my offer.  It would have been hard to explain to my wife:evil:

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

I understand what you're saying but I kind of enjoyed having them come over. I got to meet some nice people who were doing their best to follow the teachings of the Bible as they understand them.

I started our Bible study the first morning with this scripture; 1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I then explained to them that as a kid in church I had been told to stay away from JWs because they had bad doctrine. I even told them, after they asked what else I had heard, that some would call them a cult. They just said that they had heard worse. LOL Then I explained that, as a grown man, I was going to see first hand what they teach and make up my own mind. They had a nice little book that lays out their doctrine, clearly, in an organized fashion. As we went through it we found that for the first three or four chapters we were in complete agreement. When we had differences I would question them and then give scriptures that supported why I disagreed with their stance. Hopefully I gave them something to think about that wasn't covered in the literature.

 

How to explain to the wife ... Hi dear, I got you some help with the housework!:lol:

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pastor Dave

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

I understand what you're saying but I kind of enjoyed having them come over. I got to meet some nice people who were doing their best to follow the teachings of the Bible as they understand them.

 

As we went through it we found that for the first three or four chapters we were in complete agreement.

 

How to explain to the wife ... Hi dear, I got you some help with the housework!:lol:

 

 

 

 

 

First I compliment you on your humor

 

AND CERTAINLY stand and applaud you AND your visitors for the great exchange of ideas from both sides

 

If we could clone that...sigh.... it would be a much improved world

 

BRAVO.... every time we understand better win. 

 

von

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I took a world religion class in college and the professor said this was the only thing that really mattered in choosing a religion.

 

 

It's good to have friends with a sense of humor.   :D   Well, what is a church but it's people?     :D   

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/19/2017 at 3:45 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

:lol:      :lol:     :lol::lol::lol:      :lol:     :lol:

 

You are making this way more complicated than it is.

 

An Atheist is someone who has one less God than a Monotheist.

 

An Atheist is Godless.  Also, godless.

 

This goes way beyond   "who does not specifically lay claim to a belief in a specific god/God"  No.  Not lacking a specific god.  Lacking all of them.  Lacking any of them.  Having none at all.

 

:whist:

Just another point. Belief often isn't quite so simple, either. So complications can be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Key said:

Just another point. Belief often isn't quite so simple, either. So complications can be possible.

 

 

Atheism complicated?  Simple non-belief -- not even dis-belief -- on one point of one issue?  What am I not seeing?  How can anything be more simple?  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Atheism complicated?  Simple non-belief -- not even dis-belief -- on one point of one issue?  What am I not seeing?  How can anything be more simple?  

More specifically, for one who does have belief, clarification is often required to distinguish another belief to comprehend it. Which is what complicates Atheism in the point of view of Monotheist, and possibly other belief systems. Which is why it is often difficult for them to pinpoint or define what an Atheist actually believes. Thus, complications arise via communicating the differences, which is what I feel is being experienced here in this thread.

I get it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Key said:

More specifically, for one who does have belief, clarification is often required to distinguish another belief to comprehend it. Which is what complicates Atheism in the point of view of Monotheist, and possibly other belief systems. Which is why it is often difficult for them to pinpoint or define what an Atheist actually believes. Thus, complications arise via communicating the differences, which is what I feel is being experienced here in this thread.

I get it, though.

 

 

:lol:

 

Yes.  My point exactly.  If someone is determined to project the complexity of their beliefs -- onto the simplicity of my non-belief -- it's their issue.  Not mine.

 

:D 

 

I am not motivated to try to explain Atheism to all those believers.  There is no Atheist obligation to enlighten the believer.  Just as well.  I do despise missionaries.  

 

:mellow:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I consider myself a agnostic and cognitively I know the biblical god is just rubbish to me. I feel embarrassed by what I am about to say but I find 50+ years of Christian indoctrination hard to shake off. I know you think this is stupid but it is a long term coping mechanism . I feel at odds with my cognative mind and my conditioned thoughts. I know I do not fit into any religious camp any more and I get cross with myself at times knowing my indoctrination  is just nonsense.  I wonder how others feel. I would be glad to here from other agnostics or atheists. 

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now