PLZ READ OP FIRST! The Atheist Delusion

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


BECAUSE THE VERY TERM ATHEIST POSTULATES A VIEW ON A SUBJECT THAT IS UNPROVABLE AND A POSSIBILITY OF UNCERTAINTY>
THIS MAKES IT A BELIEF>. Without CERTAINTY .. AN UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTION> I am done with this , it is so obvious.

Atheist are defending the concept of belief because it feels it harms them.
READ SOME PHILOSOPHY BEFORE YOU DEBATE BELIEF OR RELIGION.




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by IamBoon
 


It’s not, it is someone who doesn’t believe that god exists.


I know... so what is your problem with my previous posts?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
hehehe S&F for the foolproof argument..

Couldn't have brought it better myself. the reasoning presented in OP clearly shows that both Theists and Atheists indeed choose for "a leap of faith".

faith, or belief is needed to accept something for wich there is no conclusive evidence, as fact...

But as your OP shows wouldn't the safest "bet" be to choose to believe in the existence of god? 50/50 are some decent odds while the only choice possibly making one some profit is the belief in a god, NOT the disbelief.

What moves an atheist to still choose to not believe?

I guess both sides "choose" to accept certain hints as fact for the sole purpose of strengthening their view/belief



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 


Thanks for ignoring virtually all of my post…



BECAUSE THE VERY TERM ATHEIST POSTULATES A VIEW ON A SUBJECT THAT IS UNPROVABLE AND A POSSIBILITY OF UNCERTAINTY>


No it does not; I and PLB have already shown that. It literally means without the belief in god;

“a” = without
“theism” = belief in a god or gods

Although it can, it does not necessarily mean that one believes that a god or gods do not exist.

Your argument only makes sense if you consider the latter definition alone.

reply to post by ChickenPie
 



I know... so what is your problem with my previous posts?


It didn’t make sense.


[edit on 30-7-2010 by Mike_A]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 


Some people...


Listen.. even if you like it or not, not all atheists believe that gods do not exist. A child or a bushman who has never even thought about any gods, or heard of the concept are atheists, but they dont have a belief that gods do not exist.. thats ridiculous.

"Yes my 3 week year old son believes that no gods exist."

RIDICULOUS.. just absurd..



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 



So would you say you believe deity's are a work of fiction?
2nd

PS: answering this might set you up




I see a different trend surfacing here... It doesn't revolve around the concept of believing in a deity or not. It seems that a select amount of atheists have a deep resentment of the concept of believing or having faith...
wonder how that works out for ya in your daily life...


[edit on 30/7/2010 by faceoff85]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   

You can be an atheist without believing gods do not exist.

No. English has had a word for that since the 19th Century, agnostic.

The alternative to using the word is to use some phrase instead. "Negative" is a long-winded way of saying "not." The phrase "negative explicit atheist" says that its referent is not an explicit atheist.

Quite so. A non-Catholic isn't a Catholic, either.

Since your only attested instance for the usage is Wikipedia, it is unsurpising that negative explicit atheist isn't a standard usage. Then again, it is awkward, vague, misleading, and when applied to agnostics, marginally ad hominem. Those features, too, assure us that the solecist character of the usage is something that is likely to persist.

I am agnostic. I am not any kind of atheist. Non-atheist isn't a kind of atheist any more than non-Catholic is a kind of Catholic.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by faceoff85
 





wouldn't the safest "bet" be to choose to believe in the existence of god?


he said it was 50\50.. so why is it a safer "bet" to choose deism? What does that mean?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by faceoff85
 


reply to post by faceoff85
 


lol It depends which deity or whether you mean deities in general. I would say that those named gods that I know of are works of fiction because of the contradictions in their concept and the religious texts that describe them. I can’t describe deities in general as a work of fiction since the lack of evidence for or against them precludes any positive judgement.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by faceoff85
 





wouldn't the safest "bet" be to choose to believe in the existence of god?


he said it was 50\50.. so why is it a safer "bet" to choose deism? What does that mean?


hehehe... its simple really.

Think of it as having cancer (the human condition of aging and dying)
At this moment a human can do 2 things... go to the hospital and TRY to get cured (no guarantees given) Or just stay at home and wait until you die... (certainty)



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


even with your tactical choice of words, you still show a decent amount of faith on this subject. The whole point is that it takes a certain amount of faith or belief in a subject to be able to take a stance on the subject. The only way out for you on this would be to say "I dont know"

Thats the only sentence portraying a total lack of belief...



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Also to the OP;

Noun
•S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
•S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

reply to post by faceoff85
 



The only way out for you on this would be to say "I dont know"


That is what I'm saying just not in the case of the christian god or other named gods because I have sufficient evidence against their existence, at least as described.

As far as gods that I know little about or are undefined then I can't say anything about them (I don't know).

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Mike_A]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Your "bushmen" are not atheist because there is no basis for the term. Atheist are so called because of a view they hold on the unknowable.


Your "bushmen" would be free of the concept and labels that describe religious ort anti-religious thought..



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits

You can be an atheist without believing gods do not exist.

No. English has had a word for that since the 19th Century, agnostic.

The alternative to using the word is to use some phrase instead. "Negative" is a long-winded way of saying "not." The phrase "negative explicit atheist" says that its referent is not an explicit atheist.

Quite so. A non-Catholic isn't a Catholic, either.

Since your only attested instance for the usage is Wikipedia, it is unsurpising that negative explicit atheist isn't a standard usage. Then again, it is awkward, vague, misleading, and when applied to agnostics, marginally ad hominem. Those features, too, assure us that the solecist character of the usage is something that is likely to persist.

I am agnostic. I am not any kind of atheist. Non-atheist isn't a kind of atheist any more than non-Catholic is a kind of Catholic.


The problem with this is:

1) People with this position are called atheist by most theist (as their god is rejected).

2) People with this position call themselves atheists.

3) Most people who call themselves atheist hold this position.

I must say I claim this from personal experience so may not be true.

I rather think agnosticisms is vague and it is no more than a branch of atheism. Then there are people who call themselves agnostic atheists.

The bottom line is that as soon as the word atheism pops up the straw man "but you believe god does not exists so you also believe" is brought up. The only reason this is done is to attempt to make the position of an atheist equally weak to that of a theist. This whole debate is actually just about that. Else nobody would even care about all this.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

That is what I'm saying just not in the case of the christian god or other named gods because I have sufficient evidence against their existence, at least as described.


Again you show an amount of belief in the above presented statement. Unless your evidence is so conclusive that no christian on earth can disagree, it is still based on belief/faith..

Accepting an opinion or idea is the very basis of belief... what you do is no different from what a theist does. you just settle at the opposite end of the sprectrum

@-PLB-

and the funny thing is that an atheist brought this up...


[edit on 30/7/2010 by faceoff85]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by IamBoon
 

It didn’t make sense.


[edit on 30-7-2010 by Mike_A]


What didn't make sense?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by faceoff85
 



Unless your evidence is so conclusive that no christian on earth can disagree, it is still based on belief/faith..


Yes but that relates to my disbelief in named gods not my lack of belief in undefined gods. Both come under the term atheism and the positive belief in the first instance does not confer a positive belief in the second.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by IamBoon
 


"Yes my 3 week year old son believes that no gods exist."

RIDICULOUS.. just absurd..


...

Your kid doesn't believe no God exists. He doesn't know even know of the question. He's simply ignorant, no offense. That's different than someone who knows and understands the question, "Is there a God?", and then tries to answer it to the best of their ability.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


I explained in my first reply to you.

You said:


Lack of empirical evidence can only bring you so far as to say that the probability of God existing is slim, but you cannot know God does not exist from that alone. So, if you don't know God does not exist, then that means you believe He doesn't exist.


Thus by your logic not knowing that something does not exist means that one must believe that it indeed does not exist. That just doesn’t make sense.

Let’s say I said I was sat on a chair, you do not know that the chair doesn’t exist but that does not mean that you activley believe that it doesn’t.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by faceoff85
 





Think of it as having cancer (the human condition of aging and dying) At this moment a human can do 2 things... go to the hospital and TRY to get cured (no guarantees given) Or just stay at home and wait until you die... (certainty)


Sound like a Pascal's Wager Pascal's Wager kinda thing.

You cannot “bet” on the general concept of “theism.” You have to pick specific doctrines.


If a person bets on the wrong god, then the True God™ just might punish them for their foolish behavior. What’s more, the True God™ might not mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they have rational reasons — thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.




Think of it as having cancer (the human condition of aging and dying) At this moment a human can do 2 things... go to the hospital and TRY to get cured (no guarantees given) Or just stay at home and wait until you die... (certainty)


Many have died because they trusted in prayer rather than medicine..





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join