# Note to theists



## atlashunter (May 15, 2013)

Before putting forth an argument to persuade those who don't share your belief in your god ask yourself one question. Would I find this argument persuasive if a follower of a different religion made it to me? If the answer is no then whatever flaw you find if it was made by someone else is probably the flaw that will be found in yours.

It's been said here before. You are atheists just like us with respect to all gods but one. We just apply a little bit more consistency and go one god further.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2013)

*Right-A-Mundo atlasarelli

*disclaimer:
Ted I am merely agreeing with something that has been said on here. I did not go outside and light off fireworks in celebration, nor did I swear to persuade any of my children to name their firstborn after atlas or asath.

carry on.....


----------



## stringmusic (May 16, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Would I find this argument persuasive if a follower of a different religion made it to me?


Yes



> It's been said here before. You are atheists just like us with respect to all gods but one. We just apply a little bit more consistency and go one god further.



I believe I am a human, I denounce that I am any other species. Would it be rational for someone to go one step further and contend that not only am I not any other species, but that I am not human either?

The point is that going one step further doesn't mean that an atheist has somehow taken the intellectual high road.


----------



## JB0704 (May 16, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Before putting forth an argument to persuade those who don't share your belief in your god....



That is not the goal of many of the theists on here.  We just like a good conversation.



atlashunter said:


> .... ask yourself one question. Would I find this argument persuasive if a follower of a different religion made it to me? If the answer is no then whatever flaw you find if it was made by someone else is probably the flaw that will be found in yours.



I think the better debates in this forum avoid religion all-together and focus on the concept of God/morality/etc., and by-pass the details (which are irrelevant without a common basis for comparison).



atlashunter said:


> It's been said here before. You are atheists just like us with respect to all gods but one. We just apply a little bit more consistency and go one god further.



Whole other can of worms, there.


----------



## JB0704 (May 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> *disclaimer:
> Ted I am merely agreeing with something that has been said on here. I did not go outside and light off fireworks in celebration, nor did I swear to persuade any of my children to name their firstborn after atlas or asath.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Before putting forth an argument to persuade those who don't share your belief in your god ask yourself one question. Would I find this argument persuasive if a follower of a different religion made it to me? If the answer is no then whatever flaw you find if it was made by someone else is probably the flaw that will be found in yours.
> 
> It's been said here before. You are atheists just like us with respect to all gods but one. We just apply a little bit more consistency and go one god further.



That's a pretty prideful position to take for a man who can't afford punctuation marks.  Vanna give him some commas for 30 cents.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> *Right-A-Mundo atlasarelli
> 
> *disclaimer:
> Ted I am merely agreeing with something that has been said on here. I did not go outside and light off fireworks in celebration, nor did I swear to persuade any of my children to name their firstborn after atlas or asath.
> ...



LOL! Thanks BH, but I have to cheer along side of you for Asath on this one. 

He makes a very good point that many believers don't understand. I KNOW that my arguments or discussions will never "persuade" a non-believer to believe. Only God can soften a person's heart and reveal Himself to them. I do not pretend to think that I have anything to do with it.

If I am His instrument of revelation, then I am humbly blessed to have participated.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Atheism makes no claims to roads nor heights.  By definition it is atopographical.


----------



## stringmusic (May 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Atheism makes no claims to roads nor heights.  By definition it is atopographical.


----------



## pnome (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Before putting forth an argument to persuade those who don't share your belief in your god ask yourself one question. Would I find this argument persuasive if a follower of a different religion made it to me? If the answer is no then whatever flaw you find if it was made by someone else is probably the flaw that will be found in yours.
> 
> It's been said here before. You are atheists just like us with respect to all gods but one. We just apply a little bit more consistency and go one god further.



I rather think my brand of theism doesn't apply.  For me, no individual human religion could possibly be entirely correct.  So, no one view of "God" can be complete.

But there is purpose.  Of that I am reasonably certain.  And if there is purpose, then there exists one who's purpose it is.


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 20, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> It's been said here before. You are atheists just like us with respect to all gods but one. We just apply a little bit more consistency and go one god further.



You're confusing the term atheist. One cannot say one is an atheist but believes in a god. The sentence is a contradiction in terms. It's similar to a married man saying he's a bachelor to all women except his wife. The atheist by definition doesn't believe in God. It is actually the monotheist who can disbelieve various assertions of who God is and hold to one he believes to be true. 

It's noteworthy though, be it a contradiction, that an atheist would phrase it like you did. It seems like an admittance, given the new way of defining atheism in the passive rather than the affirmative, i.e. ("atheists believe there is no god" VS "atheists lack a belief in a god"). 



atlashunter said:


> IMO, atheism is amoral because it by definition has nothing to say one way or the other about morality. It is only a lack of belief in deities.



I think the quote you made in the original post was recited years ago before the transition to the passive definition. One cannot logically "apply" a lack of a belief, for one would be attempting to apply something that doesn't exist. But one can apply a belief. 

Contradiction in terms aside, if you want to remain in the more passive "lack of a belief in god" category you cannot use your assertion in the original post. One would first need  a belief that there is no god to "apply" it "consistently".


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2013)

Robert Tuck said:


> You're confusing the term atheist. One cannot say one is an atheist but believes in a god. The sentence is a contradiction in terms. It's similar to a married man saying he's a bachelor to all women except his wife. The atheist by definition doesn't believe in God. It is actually the monotheist who can disbelieve various assertions of who God is and hold to one he believes to be true.
> 
> It's noteworthy though, be it a contradiction, that an atheist would phrase it like you did. It seems like an admittance, given the new way of defining atheism in the passive rather than the affirmative, i.e. ("atheists believe there is no god" VS "atheists lack a belief in a god").
> 
> ...



I don't know if you are over thinking this or just being anal. Either way the original point wasn't difficult to grasp. With respect to all other gods except the one a particular theist makes an exception for there is no difference in the theists lack of belief in those gods and the atheists lack of belief in them. In that sense, the theist is also an atheist with respect to those gods. Yes we understand that believing in any god at all means one is a theist. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But for every single god except one the christian is able to identify them as myth just as the atheist does. The only difference is they don't apply the same level of critical thinking in one particular case which most of the time just happens to be for the god they were raised to believe. Some coincidence. The atheist doesn't make that exception. Therefore if one wants to convince the atheist it would be helpful to approach the issue from the point of view of considering what it would take for the christian to be convinced of some god they don't believe in.

Theists lower the bar for what it takes to believe in their particular god but can't seem to understand why atheists are not willing to do the same. That is the source of most of the disconnect in communication.


----------



## JB0704 (May 21, 2013)

Atlas, if you are discussing believing in one god or the other, I think you have to consider that the concept remains whether a theist believes in one spin or the other.

A guy sacrifices a goat in a volcano to worship God, and another guy sacrifices a few $'s on Sunday to worship God......is God wrong because they both worship differently?  Or, is God static, and man changes the way he views God?

That does not say the goat killer and the tithe giver are both correct (they can't be if God has a preference), it is just to say they both believe in god as a concept, but in very different ways.


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2013)

pnome said:


> I rather think my brand of theism doesn't apply.  For me, no individual human religion could possibly be entirely correct.  So, no one view of "God" can be complete.
> 
> But there is purpose.  Of that I am reasonably certain.  And if there is purpose, then there exists one who's purpose it is.




Where do you get this sense of purpose from?


----------



## Four (May 21, 2013)

pnome said:


> I rather think my brand of theism doesn't apply.  For me, no individual human religion could possibly be entirely correct.  So, no one view of "God" can be complete.
> 
> But there is purpose.  Of that I am reasonably certain.  And if there is purpose, then there exists one who's purpose it is.



This was my position from late highschool through mid college!

I was basically like "its impossible to even sift through the religions of the world to figure this crap out"


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 21, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Atlas, if you are discussing believing in one god or the other, I think you have to consider that the concept remains whether a theist believes in one spin or the other.
> 
> A guy sacrifices a goat in a volcano to worship God, and another guy sacrifices a few $'s on Sunday to worship God......is God wrong because they both worship differently?  Or, is God static, and man changes the way he views God?
> 
> That does not say the goat killer and the tithe giver are both correct (they can't be if God has a preference), it is just to say they both believe in god as a concept, but in very different ways.



Are you more of a universalist? Strive to get to your god by one way or another and you're good?


----------



## pnome (May 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Where do you get this sense of purpose from?



You remember that whole "Why is there something and not nothing?" thread?

I can't say with any certainty that my life has anything to do with that purpose of course and I've got no idea what the purpose is.  The only thing I have become convinced of is that there exists a purpose and that I am an expected result of the long chain of causality that started at the big bang.


----------



## JB0704 (May 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Are you more of a universalist? Strive to get to your god by one way or another and you're good?



I am a Christian.  My point in the above statement is to point out that there are not alternative gods.  If one is greater than the other, than one is not god.

I do not believe they are "all correct."  I just believe they are all acknowledging a higher power.

Let's say an eskimo looks at his icy world and concludes that it is the work of a higher power (Romans 1:20), but has never heard of Jesus, or any other God.....so, in his mind he sees a great duck in the sky directing creation.

All he has done is put a face on the name.....God doesn't change because the eskimo thinks he's a giant galactic duck.



> For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.



^^^^Consider what is implicated with the above scripture from the Bible.  I really don't want to dig too far into it, but I just wanted to post it so you kind-of understand what I am saying.


----------



## hunter rich (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes.



So , if you come to me with your best "believe in my god and his kid jesus" and i turned it around and replced it with ...Ranxerox and his kid Lubna  you would now believe in my "god" ?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 22, 2013)

The OP of this thread was not realized for so many years of my life. Thankfully, I realize it now and my time spent here at Woody's is because I enjoy the conversation and always find others belief's interesting. I attribute much of the change as a result of pondering over post from Athiest during that period of change, 4 or 5 years ago


----------



## stringmusic (May 22, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> So , if you come to me with your best "believe in my god and his kid jesus" and i turned it around and replced it with ...Ranxerox and his kid Ranxerox jr.  you would now believe in my "god" ?



So you would tell me the story of Christianity and simply change the names? No, I wouldn't believe that.


----------



## hunter rich (May 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So you would tell me the story of Christianity and simply change the names? No, I wouldn't believe that.



So, Christianity is false based on the names? So unless if you never heard of god and jesus but the story was about Barney and Bam-Bam you would be an athiest?

The OP stated - "Before putting forth an argument to persuade those who don't share your belief in your god ask yourself one question. Would I find this argument persuasive if a follower of a different religion made it to me?"

To which you answered "yes".  

What is your answer?


----------



## Robert Tuck (May 23, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I don't know if you are over thinking this or just being anal.



I was only pointing out an inconsistency with what you say you believe and what you actually believe, using your own posts. You take a passive stance in defining atheism ("I lack a belief in a god") but in application you take the affirmative ("I believe there is no god").  



atlashunter said:


> ...Theists lower the bar for what it takes to believe in their particular god....




Not this theist. In fact I was just called out for over thinking the issue, not under thinking it. You're not choosing your words carefully. "In that sense, the theist is also an atheist with respect to those gods", this is a logically incoherent statement. It's incoherent to say - in respect to all other women on earth I'm a bachelor, but with respect to my wife I'm married. You're trying to call the theist an atheist of sorts for the rhetorical flare. I'm just calling it out for what it is, incoherent.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 23, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> So, Christianity is false based on the names? So unless if you never heard of god and jesus but the story was about Barney and Bam-Bam you would be an athiest?
> 
> The OP stated - "Before putting forth an argument to persuade those who don't share your belief in your god ask yourself one question. Would I find this argument persuasive if a follower of a different religion made it to me?"
> 
> ...



MY answer is that it is not about persuading anyone about anything. It is about sharing, witnessing, professing. After I have done that, you will believe whatever you decide. I will just hope that I have been a sharp and precise enough instrument to represent the Lord God Almighty adequately.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 23, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> MY answer is that it is not about persuading anyone about anything. It is about sharing, witnessing, professing. After I have done that, you will believe whatever you decide. I will just hope that I have been a sharp and precise enough instrument to represent the Lord God Almighty adequately.



That's all we can do and it's actually a Christian requirement. I too think being an instrument is more important than the telling.
The Christian sees the Hindu or Jew as believing wrong. I would compare this as the Atheist believing wrong. I personally don't see a difference. You are either with Jesus or against Jesus. 
The Atheist is asking "don't you see how silly it is to believe in your God and think all the other God's are fake?" Can't you see our point? We take it one step further and include your God too. If Christians believe other God's are fake then in a way they are like us. We just also include your God too. Actually I can see their point. I don't really know what to say other than what Ted said above.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 23, 2013)

I'm a Republican, my wife is a Democrat. I don't try to persuade her to become a Republican. I can only show her why I feel the Republican party is better. In reality it might not even be the better party. I can only show others by being a good Republican. I don't understand why people are Democrats. My children are Democrats. Maybe my wife was a better witness than me. Maybe they will all suffer for believing abortion is right. Maybe I will suffer for not spreading my wealth. We all claim to be Christians.
(I'm just using this as a comparison and to wonder if it really truly matters)


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> So, Christianity is false based on the names? So unless if you never heard of god and jesus but the story was about Barney and Bam-Bam you would be an athiest?
> 
> The OP stated - "Before putting forth an argument to persuade those who don't share your belief in your god ask yourself one question. Would I find this argument persuasive if a follower of a different religion made it to me?"
> 
> To which you answered "yes".


You asked me the question 


> So , if you come to me with your best "believe in my god and his kid jesus" and i turned it around and replced it with ...Ranxerox and his kid Lubna you would now believe in my "god" ?


You seem to be asking the question that if the same story of God and Jesus where told to me, and the names were different, would I still believe in the story.  



> What is your answer?


Yes, I don't believe in God and the bible based on the names only.


----------



## JB0704 (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I don't believe in God and the bible based on the names only.





Not trying to take the other team's side here....but, could you clarify.....would God still be God if we called him Bill?


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Not trying to take the other team's side here....but, could you clarify.....would God still be God if we called him Bill?



Yes, I believe so, although His name would have to actually be Bill for that statement to be true, otherwise, nobody would know who you were talking about. If Jesus' name happened to be something different, it wouldn't change the fact of who He was and what He did.


It's the same argument with the FSM, I don't worship the FSM because that is not God, but if God's name had been FSM from the beginning, then I would still worship Him.


----------



## JB0704 (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I believe so, although His name would have to actually be Bill for that statement to be true, otherwise, nobody would know who you were talking about. If Jesus' name happened to be something different, it wouldn't change the fact of who He was and what He did.
> 
> 
> It's the same argument with the FSM, I don't worship the FSM because that is not God, but if God's name had been FSM from the beginning, then I would still worship Him.



Got it.  

The FSM was created by man to mimic the qualities of God to argue with Christians over the concept.  However, being created, the FSM cannot be God.


----------



## hunter rich (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So you would tell me the story of Christianity and simply change the names? No, I wouldn't believe that.





stringmusic said:


> You seem to be asking the question that if the same story of God and Jesus where told to me, and the names were different, would I still believe in the story.





stringmusic said:


> Yes, I don't believe in God and the bible based on the names only.



I am still confused on what your answer is...


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> I am still confused on what your answer is...



Ok, I see now how I have been confusing in this thread, let my try to clarify.....

When I posted....


			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> So you would tell me the story of Christianity and simply change the names? No, I wouldn't believe that.


I was basing it off the premise that Christianity existed at the same time another person was telling me the same story of Christianity but with different names, I would not believe in that instance. 

I actually forgot about this thread, and coming back to it, based on your post, I started to assume you meant that if "Christianity was was the same story, but with different names, would you still believe?" to which my answered would be "yes".


----------



## hunter rich (May 24, 2013)

stringmusic  

Thank you for the clarification.  

Enjoy your weekend!!


----------



## stringmusic (May 24, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> stringmusic
> 
> Thank you for the clarification.
> 
> Enjoy your weekend!!



Do the same! 

Love me a three day weekend!


----------

