I am saying that Atheism by definition cannot have a God.. It by definition states that it has to lack it to even be atheistic.. Now for instance, if you were to say that a group of "Atheists" were to worship someone they perceived as God, like say.. Richard Dawkins or Charles Darwin or whatever.. Then, it would fall under possibly religious or cultish, however.. Those "Atheists" would then not be actual atheists. Atheism could not influence people, but, people tend to have a mob mentalitity when in large groups. A bunch of people who were pissed at how religion was being put into law (perceivably) and got together, became very vocal, and lashed out.
By the way, I don't speak for atheists or for that matter, anyone who is not me.. I just have a problem with how it is defined on forums like these with people using colloquial metaphors.
It's just a little irritating when someone uses an improper definition to describe their viewpoints whether they are Atheist or Theist in this case. This would mean that the entire premise of anyone's argument (on this subject) is based on a straw man because the word doesn't mean what people are saying it does. It is clearly defined, and anything beyond what is defined, even attributes taken on by said group, does not change the original definition.
If you are going to argue against this group, all I ask is that you target the group for what they really are, Anti-Theists/Irreligionists.
"But where there is no restraint of a higher supernatural Judge, there is rarely an example of someone doing the right thing ONLY because it's the right thing to do."
If you assume that this supernatural judge writes the standard, whatever it is saying would then be subjective as it stands anyway. There are no special exclusions given inside or outside our universe that would change that. Just because it makes a purpose doesn't mean there should be one. I mean, what is the purpose of giving the purpose in the first place(rhetorical) and if you were given the answer to that question, why exactly would you assume it is the right one? Because it created us? What kind of standard is that? It may seem nihilistic, but, even if there is a purpose, your purpose runs out, when your purpose runs out (i.e. God's plan for you) you are no different from me here now. If it gives you another, then it appears that it will go on forever, in which giving a purpose, is purposeless. If there is eternity, no matter what place you are sent to, you still must understand that infinite is not necessarily a good thing. I enjoyed the quote by Achilles in Troy. "I'll tell you a secret. Something they don't teach you in your temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we're mortal, because any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again."
In my view, which seems directly opposite to most. Something being infinite has no value (in my opinion), and something that can be destroyed (finite) has to fight through the absurdity of the human condition and make peace with the idea that there may be absolutely no reason at all for existing, except to survive, then die. Taking one's own life because of this absurd condition is even more absurd than the original condition we are born into.
You can invite me all you like to investigate the "greatest" prophet on earth, but.. It is technically an assertion based on your interpreted opinion.
Seriously, you can invite people to give Jesus a "chance", but I would *ask* you to not make such remarks like this to me, as I do not have any interest in yours or anyone else's perceived deity.
