PLZ READ OP FIRST! The Atheist Delusion

reply to post by ChickenPie

You didn't even bother to rebut what I wrote.

Because you are starting from a false definition of atheism which rendered your point nonsensical in relation to the correct definition of the word and what I have said on it.

If you want to define an atheist as someone who is without belief in God, then fine, but I don't see how that refutes the points I've made.

Because you claimed that not knowing something does not exists results in a belief that it does not indeed exist. That just doesn’t make sense as it precludes another possibility; i.e. that one can simply not hold a belief where you are insisting on foisting a positive belief on them.

If I said to you that there was a lamp next to me, you have no evidence to either believe or disbelieve this statement. Since you can’t know that the lamp does not exist you are saying that you are left with a belief that it does not.

This is not true since you could just take the position that the existence of the lamp is only a possibility and say nothing of its existence or nonexistence or probability thereof.

reply to post by IamBoon


How can the lack of belief be described as a belief? A belief is a premise that one holds to be true, in my lack of belief in a god what do I hold to be true?

I have a lack of belief in many things as does everyone, the vast majority of these things we don’t even know about. I have a lack of belief in the folk law of the indigenous peoples of the Amazon yet I don’t even know what this folk law is, how can that lack of belief therefore be described as itself a belief?


By the way, why are you an atheist? You have said that you think atheism is a belief but cannot be supported by evidence and is as a result totally illogical, why would you subscribe to something which you yourself see to be so irrational?

reply to post by eight bits


So you’re just going to define things however you want so that they suit your argument?

The fact of the matter is that many atheists use the word to mean a lack of belief in god, morphological analysis of the word shows that it means a lack of belief in a god and the dictionary (a reflection of what society believes a word means) says that it is a lack of belief in a god.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god as well as the belief that there is no god (depending on context of course).

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ChickenPie

So? Is that bad?

I makes the term "believe" meaningless, as everything becomes a believe.

We do take everything for granted though. We believe the sun will still exist when we wake up tomorrow, but we don't know that for sure. But there are things you can state with certainty. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is not a belief but a truth.

But still it is used to attack atheists. "You also believe so your position is as weak as mine", and that is a straw man.

I don't think it weakens atheism at all if you remember what lead to the atheism (i.e., the reasons).

Originally posted by ChickenPie

We do take everything for granted though. We believe the sun will still exist when we wake up tomorrow, but we don't know that for sure. But there are things you can state with certainty. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is not a belief but a truth.

But still it is used to attack atheists. "You also believe so your position is as weak as mine", and that is a straw man.

I don't think it weakens atheism at all if you remember what lead to the atheism (i.e., the reasons).

As long as you realize the significant different between believing the sun will rise next morning and believing the god of the bible exists, there isn't that much wrong. One is based on evidence and inductive reasoning, the other is based on faith.

Still to avoid confusion I wouldn't call the sun rising next morning a "believe".

[edit on 30-7-2010 by -PLB-]

Originally posted by ChickenPie
For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is not a belief but a truth.

That is circumstantial evidence not a truth.

2 + 2 = 11 is also true in certain circumstances.

Just wanted to clarify something with my "Allah example" before. When I ask if you believe in Allah, it is assuming that in addition to this belief you believe that Muhammad was the final prophet and that the Quran is His word.

Equating "Allah" with "Yahweh" and "Jesus" is dishonest because it ignores the rest of the features that differentiates one adherent of a religion from another. If the only difference between Christianity, Islam and Judaism was the name of God, why are the customs, traditions and beliefs so different in many ways?

This is one of the biggest challenges Theists are yet to confront. What makes the "God" you believe in the right one?

TD

"Not A" does not equal "A".

Ayn Rand doesn't equal Aristotle. So what?

The issue is what you believe about religious subject matter, without verification by natural means. In fact, we can skip the "without..." part, because now we're just intervening in your denial of having any belief.

You believe there is no god.

That is a different thought from "you don't believe there is any god."

Me, neither. But I don't believe there is no god. You do.

Story ends.

Mike

So you’re just going to define things however you want so that they suit your argument?

Nope. I am telling you how many native speakers of English use some of the words that come up in this discussion.

The fact of the matter is that many atheists use the word to mean a lack of belief in god,

Cool. So did Bruce, and I don't recall mentioning whether or not he was an atheist. It doesn't matter. Native speaker is what matters.

There is no controversy about the accuracy of the statement, "atheists do not believe in god." The issue is its completeness. Attested instances (records of atheists, or any native speakers for that matter, using the word) do not resolve completeness questions.

the dictionary (a reflection of what society believes a word means)

As I said, you really need to educate yourself about what fact claims lexicographers actually make, and what inferences they draw from records of speech and writing behavior.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god as well as the belief that there is no god (depending on context of course).

Great. We agree. Now let's work on agnosticism, which excludes atheism, and is the lack of belief in a god, as well as the lack of a belief that there is no god. Depending on context, of course. Nobody describes chairs as agnostic.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
This is one of the biggest challenges Theists are yet to confront. What makes the "God" you believe in the right one?

Yes, although we all know the Mormons are correct .

video.google.com...#

reply to post by -PLB-


Hehe, very nice. Reminds me of that Hell video with Rowan Atkinson.

ETA: Here is the link: Rowan Atkinson In Hell

[edit on 30/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Mike_A

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god as well as the belief that there is no god

Chicken/Egg - Cart/Horse? If you believe there is no God (Atheism) then you have a lack of belief in a God. It comes with the territory. This does not mean that Atheism is not a belief, it has to be otherwise it would be a fact which it patently is not as it cannot be proven any more than one can prove that God exists.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Equating "Allah" with "Yahweh" and "Jesus" is dishonest........why are the customs, traditions and beliefs so different in many ways?

Whilst I would accept that Christianity is different in some ways, are the faiths so very different. I think not. I would not equate the God of the Jews and Allah with Jesus, but I would with God in Christianity since the root of all these religions goes back to Judaism and indeed the 'documentation' of the foundation is the same. It is not dishonest to equate the God of the three religions and say He is one.

[edit on 30/7/2010 by PuterMan]

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Because you are starting from a false definition of atheism which rendered your point nonsensical in relation to the correct definition of the word and what I have said on it.

My points are relevant even with the definition of atheism given by you. Why are you still ignoring them?

Because you claimed that not knowing something does not exists results in a belief that it does not indeed exist.

In regards to atheism...

An atheist is someone who is without belief in God. But why are they without belief in God? Typically, it's because there is no empirical evidence for God, but their reasons do not matter... The point is atheists do not possess certain knowledge that God does not exist; and since they do not possess that kind of knowledge, then of course atheism--the stance that God does not exist--is a belief.

Why you do not understand this is beyond me.

If I said to you that there was a lamp next to me, you have no evidence to either believe or disbelieve this statement. Since you can’t know that the lamp does not exist you are saying that you are left with a belief that it does not.

Uh, exactly, which is perfectly sound logic I might add...

This is not true since you could just take the position that the existence of the lamp is only a possibility and say nothing of its existence or nonexistence or probability thereof.

First of all, there's a problem with your analogy. You never asked me if I thought there was a lamp next to you. If you did, then of course I would have prefaced whatever I was going to say with, "I believe," because I would have no way of knowing. But since you didn't ask me a direct question, then that leaves me with the option of sidestepping the entire issue. As an atheist, you do not have this luxury. You've already been confronted with the possibility that there is a God and you have already made the decision to believe there is no God, without possessing certain knowledge that God does not exist.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

My biggest question is WHY do atheists care so much if their stance is a belief or not?

Are you also an abeliefist? (yeah...I like to make up words).


Do those of you that are hell bent and demanding you don't hold a belief see believing in something as bad? Are you bold enough to say you don't hold ANY beliefs on any subject?


Or is it that if you admit you hold a belief on the subject of "god" (the belief that no god(s) exist) then you have to admit that you have no evidence to prove this belief...just as you accuse theists of???

I assume this is the real reason...because you realize that by admitting to a belief...you are also admiting you hold that belief with no evidence...and that is one of atheists favorite arguments against theists.

So all the twisting and turning desperately trying to show you really don't hold a belief is amusing. Because Atheists are so much like religious fundamentalist in this way(and in so many more ways...the two extremes of the spectrum)...and neither side even realize it.

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by ChickenPie
For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is not a belief but a truth.

That is circumstantial evidence not a truth.

2 + 2 = 11 is also true in certain circumstances.

This is nonsense.

If you take two objects and group them with two other objects, how many objects do you have? You have four. That is a truth.

When does 2 + 2 = 11?

Originally posted by Dark GhostThis is one of the biggest challenges Theists are yet to confront. What makes the "God" you believe in the right one?

You don't think any theists have confronted this issue before?

I don't know if the God I believe in is the right one. How could I?

Originally posted by ChickenPie
You don't think any theists have confronted this issue before?

I don't know if the God I believe in is the right one. How could I?

This makes you agnostic.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
This is nonsense.

If you take two objects and group them with two other objects, how many objects do you have? You have four. That is a truth.

When does 2 + 2 = 11?

My sum was written in ternary and i believe yours was in decimal.

That is why it isnt a truth, it relies on other factors - the number base system used - to become a fact, whereas a truth is a fact in itself.

An similar example as a truth would be "5 + 5 = A in base 16"

It is similar to the computer joke, "There are 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those who dont"

PS You didn't respond to my return volley on page 6.


[edit on 30/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

I've come to the conclusion that there is no god or diety, i'm certain since there is nothing backing up the claim that there is. So, i don't believe anything nor am i an atheist. I lack all belief.

Yay.

All the atheists I know live fairly normal and in some cases boring lives.

You'd think the motivation of their being no afterlife would make them want to do something meaningful with their lives.

Apparently not...

By night an atheist half believes in God. EDWARD YOUNG

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by ChickenPie
This is nonsense.

If you take two objects and group them with two other objects, how many objects do you have? You have four. That is a truth.

When does 2 + 2 = 11?

My sum was written in ternary and i believe yours was in decimal.

That is why it isnt a truth, it relies on other factors - the number base system used - to become a fact, whereas a truth is a fact in itself.

For example I could also say 5 + 5 = A which is correct if you know the number base.

It is similar to the computer joke, "There are 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those who dont"

If you possess two objects, and then somebody gives you two more objects, how many objects do you possess altogether?

When is the answer to this question not four? Answer the question or admit you're being nonsensical.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
My biggest question is WHY do atheists care so much if their stance is a belief or not?

They don't. Only some theists seem to care.

In my experience people of all persuasions don't like bad logic though.

[edit on 30/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
My biggest question is WHY do atheists care so much if their stance is a belief or not?

They don't. Only some theists seem to care.

In my experience people of all persuasions don't like bad logic though.

[edit on 30/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

Speaking of bad logic, I read what you wrote on page 6. It doesn't make any sense. Care to explain it again using different words?