International Atheist Day

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Chloe

I'm not aware of any theists who write books about them not believing in God, no. Are you?

Originally Posted by GenYus234

I think ganz meant that people often write books about what they believe (or don't) in.

I was only trying to establish what she meant to say. But, yes, that was my next question. (I don't think for a second that my own or Chloe's personal awareness of such books is any evidence at all but we can leave that question for later while we're establishing the claim.) Is there some difference between books about "not believing in God" and books about any other personal belief, other than the tautological one?

[Chloe]

Yes; the words are different, and in a different order.

I really don't follow what point you're trying to make here. You seem to be saying that a book about not believing in gods is exactly the same as a book about believing in some god or other. Surely that's not it, though.

[ganzfeld]

I'm not trying to make any point. I was trying to understand yours. You seem to be saying that 1) writing books "about not believing in God" is different from writing books about other personal beliefs (for example "not believing in Cthulu" or "not believing the world is flat") 2) That this difference is not a tautological restatement of my clause "other than the fact that they say they don't believe in any gods" and 3) That there are no theists who write such books.

[Chloe]

It's adding to your statement.
1. they say they don't believe in god, but they also
2. write books about not believing in god.

I doubled the differences. I could do so again by adding "make films about not believing in a god," or "write songs about not believing in a god," for example. I do not believe that oral expression of non-belief is the only distinction, as you appear to do.

[ganzfeld]

By "saying" I didn't mean to imply that they vocalized it in audible spoken language. I would certainly include writing it in a book, singing it, or signing it. (Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure not all of them do say it. Also, I'm not sure that some theists don't claim they don't believe in God. But that only means there's even less difference between the two groups than that one thing.)

[Chloe]

That was not at all clear from your post.

[ganzfeld]

I had written something else instead of "say" but it was awkwardly wordy (even for me and that's saying something). I thought most people would understand most of the common definitions of an ordinary verb.

[Chloe]

Most people may well have.

[NobodyAtAll]

Just as atheists also differ from each other as well. So do theists who no more all believe the same thing than do all women or all blacks or all [enter your own group here].
Fundamentalists think the Bible is literally true. Catholics think the Bible is a collection of stories, fables, histories, poems written by people inspired by God. Inspired doesn't mean they understood or got it right. There are still important lessons to be learned from poems, fables, etc. and even from misinterpretations. Literal truth is not the only thing we learn from. (There really wasn't a tortoise nor a hare, but sometimes it is good to consider that 'slow and steady may win the race.') Did God really want y'all to slaughter His other people? Or maybe you confused your own bloodlust and deep need for a homeland with divine instructions.
I really am aiming at being as unoffensive as possible, but to a Catholic perspective, the Old Testement is composed of warning stories of how people messed up over and over until finally Jesus came in person to say "People, love one another. Turn the other cheek. It's not about money and land. All people whatever race, job, past sins are cool with me," and so on. And does Catholic church history show that lesson was learned? No, sadly, no it does not. Are Catholics still trying to get it right, and still messing up? Well, yeah.
Sorry for the way long post, but I get tired of the 'God is a meanie. Read what these people said He wanted them to do.' Some of my students write that I am a meanie. That doesn't make it true. Now the folks who believe all that horror was what God wanteand justify that. They are scary.

[crocoduck_hunter]

The core tenet of Christianity revolves around the need for Jesus's sacrifice to absolve humanity of Original Sin. This is, in fact, still a major part of Catholic doctrine. So is the idea of eternal damnation for those who aren't saved.

Sorry, but it's not possible to reconcile those ideas with a non-malicious deity.

[BrokenBiscuit]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

Also, I'm not sure that some theists don't claim they don't believe in God.

I thought that was what you meant, but I was going to let it go.

That's fine. The world's a big place and I'm sure you're right. I'm sure some atheists pretend they're theists too. But bringing it up in that way evokes that trope I hate, that atheists largely know in their heart of hearts there's a god but reject it by saying they don't believe.

I agree with your other point. You judge someone by their deeds, their personal qualities or the way they spend their time rather than the faith they follow. People are people. I know plenty of atheists who would produce equally pointless, insulting pictures.

[GenYus234]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Sorry, but it's not possible to reconcile those ideas with a non-malicious deity.

You can, but you have to scrap the omnipotence (maybe omniscience too). If the Christian God is not all-powerful, then He would have to work within existing rules. There might be a law of conservation of sin where sin cannot be destroyed, but it can be moved from system to system.

Of course, this makes CG (or His people) a liar as He (or they) pretend to omnipotence and omniscience.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by BrokenBiscuit

But bringing it up in that way evokes that trope I hate, that atheists largely know in their heart of hearts there's a god but reject it by saying they don't believe.

I can understand how annoying that is, having been the target of it (even here on this board). It's wrong to accuse someone of lying about their beliefs but, unfortunately, it is true that we are relatively poor judges of ourselves. I think psychology and cognitive science have shown that multiple times. And I think it's as hard for theists as atheists to come to terms with that.

[Esprise Me]

Originally Posted by GenYus234

You can, but you have to scrap the omnipotence (maybe omniscience too). If the Christian God is not all-powerful, then He would have to work within existing rules. There might be a law of conservation of sin where sin cannot be destroyed, but it can be moved from system to system.

Of course, this makes CG (or His people) a liar as He (or they) pretend to omnipotence and omniscience.

Well, not necessarily a liar, just wrong. Maybe God is benevolent but not all-powerful, but his followers think he's both, and because he's not omnipotent he doesn't have a way to correct them? Sorry, that's a bit pedantic, but I try to allow for the maximum number of possibilities when I trash the concept of God.

[Black Sunshine]

Originally Posted by RobDBlackwolf

"Better a fool who leaves others alone in their belief, than a buttfedora who forces his upon others and insults them."

I so want a t-shirt that says this.