What are the concepts behind the belief sytem of Atheism?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier

Every christian apologist brings up stalin, mao, and pol pot. Maybe a handful of other atheist leaders. I can name about a million religious leaders. There is no comparison between the millions of people killed under secular leadership, compared to the trillions killed under religious leadership.

I forgot to respomd to this rediculous quote. Where did you get "trillions"? As a scientist i assume you know better than to speculate especially grossly exagerated numbers.

Here is an estimate from a non believer. dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.de...

Its 25 million. Lets just throw in another 5 million for fun and say 30 million.

Mao alone killed many more than that. 45 million in 4 years. Far worse than any religion. www.independent.co.uk...

Should I continue with Stalin, Pol Pot, etc? Or so you concede you absoluty have no idea where the rediculous trillions you mentioned came from? What about the short man from france?

I think it may take a while but lets also see you list the "millions" of religious leaders using god to kill people.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I was taught to believe as a child then rational thinking skills gained at school and as an adult ended my belief in any gods, they fell into the same bag of fairy tales as dragons and fairies.
There is no label for me not believing in dragons as far as I am aware, so knowing your post history and strong philosophical argument, may I ask your thoughts on the atheist label in itself?
Do you see it as one who does not believe in gods but holds 'religiosity', that is a new one for me.

I say I don't believe in gods because I have seen no reason or evidence to convince me that they exist, same with dragons, but I am open to change if new reason or evidence is strong enough to change my thoughts.
Who needs the labels I often wonder, there is no label for me because I specifically do not believe that pixies ever existed in Devon or Cornwall, why for gods?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I was taught to believe as a child then rational thinking skills gained at school and as an adult ended my belief in any gods, they fell into the same bag of fairy tales as dragons and fairies.
There is no label for me not believing in dragons as far as I am aware, so knowing your post history and strong philosophical argument, may I ask your thoughts on the atheist label in itself?
Do you see it as one who does not believe in gods but holds 'religiosity', that is a new one for me.

I say I don't believe in gods because I have seen no reason or evidence to convince me that they exist, same with dragons, but I am open to change if new reason or evidence is strong enough to change my thoughts.
Who needs the labels I often wonder, there is no label for me because I specifically do not believe that pixies ever existed in Devon or Cornwall, why for gods?

The argument isnt sound there is not even a realm of usuable argument for the existence of those things. I am an agnostic so dont say i am a believer. Its just not a good argument and as with Russels teapot the argument has been debunked.

Christians can point towards epistemological arguments. Anslem, Aquinas, etc. Even the finely tuned universe though none of them point towards a biblical god. There are rational arguments for god even though they have good rebuttals which makes the whole dragon and unicorn thing false.

a reply to: luthier

What? Are you saying there is more evidence supporting claims of gods than dragons or pixies?
You make the assertion, I say source it.
I've lived long enough and searched my own theological path in life along the way and as such I doubt your claims.
Please do share your strong evidence that 'your' god has any more supporting evidence than dragons or pixies, or heck even Norse and Greek gods, I said I'm open to new evidence, I stand by that...if there is new evidence.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

What? Are you saying there is more evidence supporting claims of gods than dragons or pixies?
You make the assertion, I say source it.
I've lived long enough and searched my own theological path in life along the way and as such I doubt your claims.
Please do share your strong evidence that 'your' god has any more supporting evidence than dragons or pixies, or heck even Norse and Greek gods, I said I'm open to new evidence, I stand by that...if there is new evidence.

Its not "my god". I am AGNOSTIC. Just pointing out the logical fallacy in this type of argument

www.gotquestions.org...

www.richmond-philosophy.net...

www.iep.utm.edu...

Also a good read. A review of Paul Davies god and the new physics

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: luthier

Cheers, was just checking
I don't know your post history though, and even if I did there is real folklore where I live with some folk who believe in pixies, town carnivals and all sorts, so even if the lore is word of mouth over generations it is as valid as any written book.
Nobody knows if the author was just writing fiction for the masses, and control of them.

Same with dragons, they've held their place in folklore, no more or less evidence for them than gods, I stand by that.
...unless you know something different? Dragons/gods/pixies, meh, same same.
Please explain if you see gods as being more believable, and why?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

Cheers, was just checking

I don't know your post history though, and even if I did there is real folklore where I live with some folk who believe in pixies, town carnivals and all sorts, so even if the lore is word of mouth over generations it is as valid as any written book.
Nobody knows if the author was just writing fiction for the masses, and control of them.

Same with dragons, they've held their place in folklore, no more or less evidence for them than gods, I stand by that.
...unless you know something different? Dragons/gods/pixies, meh, same same.
Please explain if you see gods as being more believable, and why?

I do find the concept of something that has always existed (since there can not have been nothing and now something) a necesary being interesting and harder to just brush off as folklore. The finely tuned universe theory which Davies does a good job of exploring is also interesting not enough to be a true believer but enough for me to not dismiss the possibility of a designer not necesarily anything like the biblical or folklore gods. Hence my apreciation of the deist view of god, or pantheism.

Did you read the links?

originally posted by: luthier
I do find the concept of something that has always existed (since there can not have been nothing and now something) a necesary being interesting and harder to just brush off as folklore. The finely tuned universe theory which Davies does a good job of exploring is also interesting not enough to be a true believer but enough for me to not dismiss the possibility of a designer not necesarily anything like the biblical or folklore gods. Hence my apreciation of the deist view of god, or pantheism.

Did you read the links?

I read the links, no new evidence, so basically you have nothing more concrete than I have. It is why I put gods in the same fairy tale bag as fairies, pixies, dragons, Norse gods, Greek gods, the Abrahamic god, Hindu and Sikh gods, and Ahura Mazda the Zoroastrian creator god.

How can you as a proclaimed "AGNOSTIC "say dragons and pixies are any less valid than say Shiva?

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: luthier
I do find the concept of something that has always existed (since there can not have been nothing and now something) a necesary being interesting and harder to just brush off as folklore. The finely tuned universe theory which Davies does a good job of exploring is also interesting not enough to be a true believer but enough for me to not dismiss the possibility of a designer not necesarily anything like the biblical or folklore gods. Hence my apreciation of the deist view of god, or pantheism.

Did you read the links?

I read the links, no new evidence, so basically you have nothing more concrete than I have. It is why I put gods in the same fairy tale bag as fairies, pixies, dragons, Norse gods, Greek gods, the Abrahamic god, Hindu and Sikh gods, and Ahura Mazda the Zoroastrian creator god.

How can you as a proclaimed "AGNOSTIC "say dragons and pixies are any less valid than say Shiva?

Did you read the links? Because of the logical argument. Meaning the use of reason to determine the existence of god rather than a folk story with dogma. Read davies. He just wrote a new book.

I find shiva the destroyer a folk lesson and also dont believe in such a god. I just cant rule out a necesary being any more than a multiverse or universe being a means of its own.

a reply to: luthier

Oh please stop with the silliness.
I read the links and there is no more evidence for any gods than for dragons or pixies in Devon and Cornwall.
You have nothing fella.
I appreciate you believe whatever you do but I believe in nothing to be honest, ghosts, goblins, pixies, or souls.

...as far as the evidence I'm aware of, when I die I just become biochemical energy for whichever creature or process feasts on me.
Show me evidence to the contrary then I'll listen/watch with an open mind.

originally posted by: luthier
I find shiva the destroyer a folk lesson and also dont believe in such a god. I just cant rule out a necesary being any more than a multiverse or universe being a means of its own.

So you have belief lol
I have no belief, in anything, aside from believing that x or y person may act in a certain way based on previous behaviour and reasoned thinking.
You do not seem to be agnostic to me as I re-read your posts.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

Oh please stop with the silliness.
I read the links and there is no more evidence for any gods than for dragons or pixies in Devon and Cornwall.
You have nothing fella.
I appreciate you believe whatever you do but I believe in nothing to be honest, ghosts, goblins, pixies, or souls.

...as far as the evidence I'm aware of, when I die I just become biochemical energy for whichever creature or process feasts on me.
Show me evidence to the contrary then I'll listen/watch with an open mind.

Fair enough. Just trying to show these are logical arguments that have not had completely satisfying rebuttals. Meaning the logic used to refute the argument has no more evidence than against.

What was the first thing or thing that always existed. If there is no first thing or constant thing how did anything exist? Hard one to not use theoretical physics or go into infinite regress if you use logic.

Of coarse its not evidence but there is no completely satisifying argument against this argument. Meaning no proof against it.

I keep myself open to the posibility.

originally posted by: luthier
Of coarse its not evidence but there is no completely satisifying argument against this argument.

Yep that says it all really, of course there is no evidence.
Same for dragons and pixies.
There is no convincing argument for me to campaign against local claims of pixies in festivals...I just point out the similar lack of evidence.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: luthier
Of coarse its not evidence but there is no completely satisifying argument against this argument.

Yep that says it all really, of course there is no evidence.
Same for dragons and pixies.
There is no convincing argument for me to campaign against local claims of pixies in festivals...I just point out the similar lack of evidence.

How do i not seem agnostic exactly. I have said i sometimes lean deist and pantheist.

What is your argument for the folklore being true. Meaning what is the logic behind believing in the folklore other than it was told to you by someone else. Do you see what i mean?

a reply to: luthier

Believe whatever you like, personally I believe in nothing which lacks any evidence.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

Believe whatever you like, personally I believe in nothing which lacks any evidence.

And makes it easy to win any argument since you have nothing to defend.

a reply to: luthier

Tough luck.


*Edit*
Why would I want to invent something to defend?!

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

Tough luck.

*Edit*
Why would I want to invent something to defend?!

Not for me. I could care less. If you dont believe in anything thats your own choice and i support anyone thinking for themselves.

a reply to: luthier

That's cool, you just seem like a rabid Christian in disguise lol.
Have a good one.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

That's cool, you just seem like a rabid Christian in disguise lol.
Have a good one.

No need to be insulting.

I am a former philosophy student and study anthropology as a hobby. I often defend positions i dont agree with when there is a complete fallacy or illogical arguement. Something my favorite atheist professor taught me years ago. Its a way to see if people have thought through their own beliefs. Which in many cases they havent yet hold strong opinions.