Atheists and Agnostics don't believe in God but want spread their nothing word

a reply to: DeadSeraph
I think you may have missed some of my previous posts which give context to the one you replied to.
I self identify as an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in any gods but I do not believe there are no gods. I do not believe in pixies as I said in the post you replied to, but I do not believe there are no, or have never been, pixies.
One who does not believe in gods is in the category of atheist.
There is no category for one who does not believe in pixies.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

But we just talked about that and I showed you how and why that isn't so. Those who believe in God have a belief in God. Those who don't believe in God don't have a belief. They don't have a Belief that there is no God. The same as someone who doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy simply Doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy. They don't have a negative belief.

The only time anyone ever uses belief in that negative way is when they talk about Atheists. Nobody goes around saying that non-believers of Santa have a belief that there is no Santa Claus. They just say they Don't Believe in Santa Clause. They only time anyone says "They have a belief that there is No...." is when the talk is about Atheists.

It's a false premise and word play by Theists to try and make Atheists "non-belief" in to some kind of "Belief".

a reply to: mOjOm

Then you have stories of gods among men, even having illegitimate kids here and there.

a reply to: mOjOm

But we just talked about that and I showed you how and why that isn't so. Those who believe in God have a belief in God. Those who don't believe in God don't have a belief. They don't have a Belief that there is no God. The same as someone who doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy simply Doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy. They don't have a negative belief.

Not in these examples, because as I stated, these are falsifiable things. We can argue the semantics, but in the end people generally know that santa isn't real, because he doesn't come down our chimney or actually leave us gifts. He is a supposedly physical person (in the myth) that doesn't act on our physical world/

The only time anyone ever uses belief in that negative way is when they talk about Atheists.

That isn't really true. We have these sorts of discussions about all kinds of things. Take the example of Aliens. We don't know if there are aliens out there, so we either believe there are, or we believe there aren't.

It's a false premise and word play by Theists to try and make Atheists "non-belief" in to some kind of "Belief".

I think that could be viewed either way, depending on which side of the argument you are on. It seems to be an argument over semantics, yet it's a hill that atheists have also chosen to die on for whatever reason, so they obviously have their own motivations for making it an issue of contention.

originally posted by: grainofsand

One who does not believe in gods is in the category of atheist.

But my problem with that is this. There are other things, other than a lack of belief in gods, that are very common among atheists. So the atheist position regarding gods isn't the only thing that the category generally entails.

So if atheists were to stand up and say in unison that a lack of belief in gods is the only thing they have in common then I wouldn't believe them.

So I consider atheism to be a pattern of thought that encompasses more than gods. Spiritual atheists such as Annee are exceptions that prove the rule.

👣

a reply to: infolurker



wow.

This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making.

ABSENT PROOF OF HARM.
Allowing a kid to die of treatable pneumonia, or be beaten to death with a 'rod' of some kind.....or to grow up as an illiterate individual in today's world is not HARMFUL?

ok. We're done. You have clearly lost the ability to think clearly.

You scare me. People like you scare me.
You people scare me.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
Take the example of Aliens. We don't know if there are aliens out there, so we either believe there are, or we believe there aren't.

Perhaps you live in a binary world but I don't.
There might be alien life given the number of stars in the universe but there might not, I don't know, so I don't believe there are, I consider it a possibility...same as with gods, but I don't believe there are due to lack of evidence same as claims of gods.

originally posted by: BlueMule
So I consider atheism to be a pattern of thought that encompasses more than gods. Spiritual atheists such as Annee's are exceptions that prove the rule.

But a lack of belief in god is the only one required.

a reply to: grainofsand

It's not that I live in a binary world, I was just trying to illustrate that we have these same discussions in other subjects. Admittedly, I should have included a 3rd premise (that which states there may or may not be aliens, which is akin to agnosticism in this case).

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You scare me. People like you scare me.
You people scare me.

Pretty sure the feeling is mutual

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: BlueMule
So I consider atheism to be a pattern of thought that encompasses more than gods. Spiritual atheists such as Annee's are exceptions that prove the rule.

But a lack of belief in god is the only one required.

That makes a culturally-conditioned concept of God the mythologem around which atheism revolves. But it is not the only thing it generally entails.

👣

originally posted by: BlueMule
Spiritual atheists such as Annee are exceptions that prove the rule.

...and that shows that any attempts to create an atheist label with more added value than "one who does not believe in gods" is clearly not honest.
I am an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe in gods because I have seen no evidence ever in my life to draw me towards believing in gods. I remain atheist as does Annee.
I dislike the "I know" brigade of atheists as much as I dislike the "I know" brigade amongst theists. I do not consider all Christians as I do Westboro church, as you should not consider all atheists as the militant radicals.
It would be pleasing to me if you found another descriptive term and refrained from attempting to pollute an umbrella term for those who do not believe in any gods.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

Not in these examples, because as I stated, these are falsifiable things. We can argue the semantics, but in the end people generally know that santa isn't real, because he doesn't come down our chimney or actually leave us gifts. He is a supposedly physical person (in the myth) that doesn't act on our physical world/

So use the example of Fairies then. Fairies and Gods are equally non-physical. You can't falsify Fairies any more than you can Gods.

That isn't really true. We have these sorts of discussions about all kinds of things. Take the example of Aliens. We don't know if there are aliens out there, so we either believe there are, or we believe there aren't.

Semantics again. Some Believe in Aliens. Some Don't Believe in Aliens.

I think that could be viewed either way, depending on which side of the argument you are on. It seems to be an argument over semantics, yet it's a hill that atheists have also chosen to die on for whatever reason, so they obviously have their own motivations for making it an issue of contention.

It's because it's a false representation of what their stance is and is used to make a false narrative. If you believe in Sasquatch you believe in Sasquatch. If you Don't believe in Sasquatch you don't believe in Sasquatch. You can say that those who don't believe actually believe in the non-existence of Sasquatch, which is just making a double negative within the language but it's not needed. Within this argument it is actually used as some kind of lame attempt at discrediting one side. Either you recognize that or you don't and I really don't care. I was just explaining the difference between the two and why I think it is being used that way.

Meanwhile, back in the educated world, I found this link to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
From the United Nations Human Rights Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights. 1989.

Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents

On this link there's a map of the world showing the two countries who have not signed up. The US, and Somalia. As of last August.

I DARE YOU, inforlurker, to look at these links, and then come back and tell me how dangerous educated people are.
How fine and dandy kids who have no education and are neglected medically are.

Can you do that?
No.
You can't, not credibly. But go ahead and try.
Find me ONE THING in either of those links that confirms your nonsense.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Yeah, I know.
Scary stuff.

a reply to: DeadSeraph
No, there are agnostic theists in the world as well.
There are agnostic alien believers same same. You know, those who say "I know there is no way to prove aliens but I still believe because..."
I think you have a different understanding of what agnostic means. There are agnostic theists same as there are agnostic deists, and agnostic atheists as I am.
Atheist does not mean "I believe gods do not exist" it means "I do not believe in gods".
An agnostic position can accompany that in perfectly valid harmony.

a reply to: grainofsand

No, there are agnostic theists in the world as well.

Actually I identify as an agnostic deist, if anyone cares.
I don't know, but I think there's something out there that we can't understand, describe, or explain.

Thanks for bringing this up.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: BlueMule
Spiritual atheists such as Annee are exceptions that prove the rule.

...and that shows that any attempts to create an atheist label with more added value than "one who does not believe in gods" is clearly not honest.
I am an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe in gods because I have seen no evidence ever in my life to draw me towards believing in gods. I remain atheist as does Annee.

Evidence? Well, I guess we need to add an emphasis on evidence to the atheist label. Generally, atheists seem to think objective, scientific evidence has something to do with a belief in gods or a lack thereof.

"One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc." -Sam Harris

So let's add a lack of interest in altered states of consciousness to the list of things that atheism generally entails.

And common mistakes about them.

And let's add skepticism toward parapsychological effects to the list. Skepticism which frequently crosses over into pseudo-skepticism. That's why the skeptic movement, which is epitomized by James Randi, is overwhelmingly atheistic.

Tossing babies out with bathwater.

👣

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: DeadSeraph
No, there are agnostic theists in the world as well.
There are agnostic alien believers same same. You know, those who say "I know there is no way to prove aliens but I still believe because..."
I think you have a different understanding of what agnostic means. There are agnostic theists same as there are agnostic deists, and agnostic atheists as I am.
Atheist does not mean "I believe gods do not exist" it means "I do not believe in gods".
An agnostic position can accompany that in perfectly valid harmony.

I suppose you are right. I was recently thinking about this very thing, because while I consider myself a theist, I am agnostic about certain details. I guess I always sort of looked at the word "atheist" in a broader sense, and didn't really consider it as being compatible with agnosticism. Good discussion

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: grainofsand

One who does not believe in gods is in the category of atheist.

So I consider atheism to be a pattern of thought that encompasses more than gods. Spiritual atheists such as Annee are exceptions that prove the rule.

Hey! Don't leave out that I specified Atheist is Lack of belief in a god.

What I do believe still lacks belief in a god.