Atheism is just silly.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by satron
Can you admit that lack of belief of a newborn isn't the same of the supposed lack of belief in a grown-up? Do are you saying that atheists have the mind of a child?

I really don't hope you believe that.

Lack of something is not something.

However - - every honest legitimate Atheist is also Agnostic. God can not be proven or dis-proven.

An Atheist doesn't know - - - - anymore then a believer knows.

When you've been exposed to a notion that can't be proven, your mind has to makes a decision whether to believe it or believe in the negation of that notion, unless evidence enters the arena. The only time you can be said to have a lack of belief in something is when you haven't heard of the notion.

Originally posted by satron

When you've been exposed to a notion that can't be proven, your mind has to makes a decision whether to believe it or believe in the negation of that notion, unless evidence enters the arena. The only time you can be said to have a lack of belief in something is when you haven't heard of the notion.

Zero (nothing) is not One - - no matter how much you want to believe it is.

Lack of something is not something. - - no matter how you try to twist it.

Lack of belief in a deity comes about because nothing supports it. It is not a conscious decision to not believe - - - it is lack of proof/knowledge.

reply to post by satron


Um, no.

I do not believe in the non-existence of imaginary creatures. Before reading Winnie the Pooh I didn't believe in Winnie the Pooh. After reading Winnie the Pooh, I still didn't believe in Winnie the Pooh. I didn't start believing in the "non-existence" of Winnie the Pooh. It's so damn simple yet apparently infinitely complicated to deists. Before church and the bible, I did not believe god existed. After, I didn't believe god non-existed. (?) Nothing changed. It's not a two-sides-of-the-same-coin deal here. You're intentionally trying to interject religious connotations into a situation where none exist. You are simply wrong.

I don't have to accept that atheism is a belief, because it isn't. Atheism literally means "without god". Not "belief that we are without god". Only deists are stuck in the "must believe god exists or believe god doesn't exist" bizarro world. For an atheist, there is no evidence, thus no proof. Ergo, no god. No 'belief' required since it's quite evident that there just isn't a god. It's not an equation that ends up with fractions. It's a yes/no, 1/0.

Believe me when I say I don't feel like you're "trying to knock me down". It's feels more like I'm trying to teach calculus to a 6 year old with ADD. Deists scramble about trying to gain any foothold and find some way around the points being discussed head on. Or, in this case, play little games by transposing the wrong definition of a word that is clearly being used in an entirely different context leading the other person to wonder where they learned the language. I need to repeat since simple concepts don't get through. This isn't a matter of "you gotta believe in something!" This idea of belief implies uncertainty (where faith in a religious context is certainty without evidence) and for an atheist there is no uncertainty. It's so simple.

No, that is not gnosticism. Gnosticism is the knowledge of the divine. There is no divine.

There is no god. And now you resort to the saddest attempt to 'debunk' atheism. "Prove there's no god." The burden of proof is on those that believe there is. That's just the way it is, sorry. It just happens to be the way logic and reason works. An appeal to ignorance is the refuge of liars and the small minded.

Originally posted by Annee

Zero (nothing) is not One - - no matter how much you want to believe it is.

I don't even know what you are getting at. What is this supposed to mean?

Lack of something is not something. - - no matter how you try to twist it.

Sure, when you lack the understanding of a notion, you lack a position. Fortunately for you, you have been living in this world for awhile now to understand the notion of what God means, more or less. There shouldn't be a lack in anything that is relevant to our discussion about your understanding.

Lack of belief in a deity comes about because nothing supports it. It is not a conscious decision to not believe - - - it is lack of proof/knowledge.

No, a lack of belief is reached when you haven't been subjected to the notion of what it is to be believed. If you don't have the evidence to believe something, you believe that idea is not correct, until you have the evidence to change your belief. When it comes to belief, the evidence doesn't even have to be concrete to hold or change it. You can find something that you feel rings more true than what you previously believed, and so you find it necessary to augment your beliefs.

reply to post by satron


Is there a Spiderman? An actual, live in the flesh Spiderman that does all the things the holy books of Amazing Spiderman and Spectacular Spiderman describe (with pictures even!)?

When you answer no, which you will, otherwise you need psychiatric help, was that thought "There's no such thing as Spiderman"? Or was it "I have a non-belief in Spiderman"?

Originally posted by satron
No, a lack of belief is reached when you haven't been subjected to the notion of what it is to be believed.

You are wasting my time. The circle now ends.

I actually never believed. I tried to believe because it is the social/cultural world you are physically born into. But I never actually believed.

So NO - - I am not "unbelieving" something I once believed.

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by satron

 

Um, no.

I do not believe in the non-existence of imaginary creatures.

So you believe that they don't exist.

Before reading Winnie the Pooh I didn't believe in Winnie the Pooh. After reading Winnie the Pooh, I still didn't believe in Winnie the Pooh. I didn't start believing in the "non-existence" of Winnie the Pooh. It's so damn simple yet apparently infinitely complicated to deists.

I don't think everyone goes about believing everything they come in contact with, that would be pretty absurd to do.

Before church and the bible, I did not believe god existed.

When was that? How do you know? Were you around back then?

After, I still did not believe god existed. Nothing changed. It's not a two-sides-of-the-same-coin deal here. You're intentionally trying to interject religious connotations into a situation where none exist. You are simply wrong.

I'm not trying to interject anything religious into the discussion, I'm pointing out the absurdity of some of the stereotypical claims made by atheists. I could do the same to theists, but this is the way the discussion has went.

I don't have to accept that atheism is a belief, because it isn't.

I guess that's your belief

Atheism literally means "without god". Not "belief that we are without god"

Atheism is totally about belief.

Only deists are stuck in the "must believe god exists or believe god doesn't exist" bizarro world.

It's not a bizarro world, it's reality. Reality can be strange, I agree.

For an atheist, there is no evidence, thus no proof. Ergo, no god. No 'belief' required since it's quite evident that there just isn't a god. It's not an equation that ends up with fractions. It's a yes/no, 1/0.

If an atheist had proof, why would they call themselves an atheist? Wouldn't they be more of a gnostic by then? I would say knowledge trumps belief, wouldn't you agree?

Believe me when I say I don't feel like you're "trying to knock me down". It's feels more like I'm trying to teach calculus to a 6 year old with ADD.

Well, you implied it. Maybe you're not that good of a teacher.

Deists scramble about trying to gain any foothold and find some way around the points being discussed head on.

You make it sound like are desperate to exclaim their view. I wouldn't say that, if they have a good point to make that can't be extinguished. Why do you dismiss it so quickly?

Or, in this case, play little games by transposing the wrong definition of a word that is clearly being used in an entirely different context leading the other person to wonder where they learned the language.

What game are you talking about? Are you confusing this discussion with another one you're having? The words atheist and atheism can be looked up pretty easily, and I'm not sure why you are hung up.

I need to repeat since simple concepts don't get through. This isn't a matter of "you gotta believe in something!" This idea of belief implies uncertainty (where faith in a religious context is certainty without evidence) and for an atheist there is no uncertainty. It's so simple.

Yeah, there is uncertainty, because there is a lack of evidence to say you are right or wrong. If someone thinks they are certain of a particular belief system, then that's their choice, and you can call them a liar. But that doesn't mean much to our discussion.

No, that is not gnosticism. Gnosticism is the knowledge of the divine. There is no divine.

If you are gnostic you have knowledge, either way. When I say gnosticism, I don't mean the old beliefs system. That's why I don't capitalize it.

There is no god.

Prove it.

And now you resort to the saddest attempt to 'debunk' atheism. "Prove there's no god."

Do you make it a habit to believe things that you can't prove? Even worse, say you know something that can't be proved? Irony noted.

The burden of proof is on those that believe there is.

Burden of proof is a fallacious argument. This isn't a court hearing.

That's just the way it is, sorry. It just happens to be the way logic and reason works. An appeal to ignorance is the refuge of liars and the small minded.

If you were logical, you'd have evidence to support your belief, or claim of knowledge. I think your logic has fell apart by way of its inconsistency.

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by satron

 

Is there a Spiderman? An actual, live in the flesh Spiderman that does all the things the holy books of Amazing Spiderman and Spectacular Spiderman describe (with pictures even!)?

I don't believe there is. Do you?

When you answer no, which you will, otherwise you need psychiatric help, was that thought "There's no such thing as Spiderman"? Or was it "I have a non-belief in Spiderman"?

Why would belief that the Spiderman exists require the use of psychiatric help?

Originally posted by Annee

You are wasting my time. The circle now ends.

You are free to believe in what you want, I don't know why you would continue to do so in the face of reason.

I actually never believed. I tried to believe because it is the social/cultural world you are physically born into. But I never actually believed.

I find that to be impossible. I don't think your position in your mind exists in some special state. You either believe in something or you believe that something isn't required to be believed in, whatever your personal experiences tell you to do.

So NO - - I am not "unbelieving" something I once believed.

I'm confused, you said that "I actually never believed", but now you say "I once believed".

Anyways, I'm sure you can change your beliefs when you feel that they need to be changed. Many people have done it, you can too!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by enlaavionsobreelmar
Atheism isn't really stupid, it's the way humans are born. Humans aren't born with a belief in any god, they have it implanted in their brain as a child.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

NO - its not. Atheism is a non-belief.

A non-belief is not a belief. Lack of belief is not a belief.

Atheism means lack of belief in a deity/god.

I was raised as a Christian. As a child I was taught all the fundamentals of an Assembly of God viewpoint. I REALLY did believe all that I was told, and prayed really hard to receive all the promised blessings. I was soooooo indoctrinated that I actualy got sent to the principal's office, on numerous occasions, for preaching about Hell!

As I grew older and became aware of history and science and other religious viewpoints, my "belief" slowing vanished. It quietly disappeared, never to be seen or heard from again. The light of logic shone and banished the darkness of my "belief" forever.

Now, I am baffled by the Christians that tell me "just believe." "It's so simple to just believe!" No, it's not! Belief isn't something that be turned on or off with will. It isn't a pointy arrow that can be turned around. My belief is gone, non existent. Period.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by enlaavionsobreelmar
Atheism isn't really stupid, it's the way humans are born. Humans aren't born with a belief in any god, they have it implanted in their brain as a child.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

NO - its not. Atheism is a non-belief.

A non-belief is not a belief. Lack of belief is not a belief.

Atheism means lack of belief in a deity/god.

I was raised as a Christian. As a child I was taught all the fundamentals of an Assembly of God viewpoint. I REALLY did believe all that I was told, and prayed really hard to receive all the promised blessings. I was soooooo indoctrinated that I actualy got sent to the principal's office, on numerous occasions, for preaching about Hell!

As I grew older and became aware of history and science and other religious viewpoints, my "belief" slowing vanished. It quietly disappeared, never to be seen or heard from again. The light of logic shone and banished the darkness of my "belief" forever.

Now, I am baffled by the Christians that tell me "just believe." "It's so simple to just believe!" No, it's not! Belief isn't something that be turned on or off with will. It isn't a pointy arrow that can be turned around. My belief is gone, non existent. Period.

It didn't go away, you just believe that God doesn't exist. You don't know for sure because you have no evidence to say whether you are correct or not. You still believe, but your position of belief has switched.

reply to post by satron


You see, it's this right here:

I'm confused, you said that "I actually never believed", but now you say "I once believed".

Quite obvious that you don't have the best grasp on the language. When Annee said "I am not "unbelieving" something I once believed" it was a rhetorical device. It did not mean she literally unbelieved what she believed, it was to get the message across. Which is pretty clear.

It's apparent you're being willfully ignorant and possibly trolling and my discussion with you has come to an end.

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by satron

 

There is no god. And now you resort to the saddest attempt to 'debunk' atheism. "Prove there's no god." The burden of proof is on those that believe there is. That's just the way it is, sorry. It just happens to be the way logic and reason works. An appeal to ignorance is the refuge of liars and the small minded.

edit on 3/20/2012 by LuckyLucian because: (no reason given)

Who made that rule? For almost ALL of recorded history, up till the past 20 years or so, JUST ABOUT EVERYONE believed in a deity of some sort.

And you just as blindly say that "there is no god."

And now I'm your "foe?"

That's nice...

How old are you? Have you not seen and experienced the metaphysical and cyclical nature of reality, or do we live in different worlds?

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by satron

 

You see, it's this right here:

I'm confused, you said that "I actually never believed", but now you say "I once believed".

Quite obvious that you don't have the best grasp on the language. When Annee said "I am not "unbelieving" something I once believed" it was a rhetorical device. It did not mean she literally unbelieved what she believed, it was to get the message across. Which is pretty clear.

It's apparent you're being willfully ignorant and possibly trolling and my discussion with you has come to an end.

I now see what Annee is saying, sorry I misread it Mr. Perfect. I have the ability to own up to my mistakes, can you?

I'm not trolling, so don't even suggest that I am. I have stated a perfectly good position that you seem to be bent on toppling, but you can't seem to do it. You shouldn't even worry that much about it. I'm not trying to BS you with anything I've said. If there was a flaw, I would consider it, I guarantee you. But until I see something stated that shows that I'm so wrong, I'm not changing a thing.

Please, show me that I'm wrong. I'd hate to live with an incorrect position. Don't let me be like this!

Until then, atheism is the belief that there is no God. I've even seen a definition stating that atheism is the doctrine that God doesn't exist. Now, I wouldn't go that far and say that it is a doctrine, necessarily. It's kind of hard to say the doctrine is...until you get deep enough into the discussion.

Yea, most definitions of atheism says "Doctrine or belief relating to the non existence of god."

Originally posted by graphuto
Yea, every single definition of atheism says "Doctrine or belief relating to the non existence of god."

Not every. You can look it up in different dictionaries and every definition is slightly different. That just points to the fact that there isn't really a consensus on what atheism is. I just say that it is the belief that God doesn't exist, because it's simple and I think it addresses the reality of the matter more succinctly.

reply to post by satron


Truth be told, I believe that god and the universe are one. It's the belief in Jesus, that I have lost.

What I'm arguing is that belief is a positive and non-belief is not the opposite, it's the non-existence of belief. I used my lack of belief in what I used to belief, Jesus as savior, as an example. I don't believe that. It isn't that I believe that Jesus isn't my savior, I don't believe in a savior, I have no belief anymore. Just as I have no belief in Santa Clause, anymore. What I used to believe, no longer exists as belief.

reply to post by graphuto


It's a common sense rule used in debates, discussions and scientific processes. The person that asserts something is true must show their proof, the person that asserts it is false questions the evidence, the process it was acquired, and refutes the findings, etc. It's from this interaction that the truth is discovered.

Yes, I do say there's no god. Until there is even the tiniest fraction of evidence there isn't even the remotest possibility I entertain the thought. I'm 32, not that it matters, the philosophical nature of things don't require a god, and we do live in the same world.

You've made an appeal to popularity again and an appeal to tradition all rolled into one. We all know groups of people can be wrong no matter how many there are. We all know groups have done things in the past that have been wrong no matter how long they were doing them. These are not arguments.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by satron

 

Truth be told, I believe that god and the universe are one. It's the belief in Jesus, that I have lost.

What I'm arguing is that belief is a positive and non-belief is not the opposite, it's the non-existence of belief. I used my lack of belief in what I used to belief, Jesus as savior, as an example. I don't believe that. It isn't that I believe that Jesus isn't my savior, I don't believe in a savior, I have no belief anymore. Just as I have no belief in Santa Clause, anymore. What I used to believe, no longer exists as belief.

edit on 20-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

If you didn't believe in that or in any kind of supernatural interpretation, you'd still believe in the nonexistence of those things, simply because you can't prove it.

EDIT: I used to believe in Santa Claus too, but now I don't, because there is plenty of evidence that Santa doesn't exist as the stories tell him to exist on Earth.

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by graphuto

 

It's a common sense rule used in debates, discussions and scientific processes. The person that asserts something is true must show their proof, the person that asserts it is false questions the evidence, the process it was acquired, and refutes the findings, etc. It's from this interaction that the truth is discovered.

Yes, I do say there's no god. Until there is even the tiniest fraction of evidence there isn't even the remotest possibility I entertain the thought. I'm 32, not that it matters, the philosophical nature of things don't require a god, and we do live in the same world.

You've made an appeal to popularity again and an appeal to tradition all rolled into one. We all know groups of people can be wrong no matter how many there are. We all know groups have done things in the past that have been wrong no matter how long they were doing them. These are not arguments.

This is really the same problem that Jesus had with the Jews of his time.

People taking the LETTER of the law, and twisting it to where it no longer matches the SPIRIT of the law.

When you break down Christianity to it's MOST BASIC core, this is what you have:

We were created by a Supreme Being.

We are to treat our neighbors (any other person on the planet, they're all our neighbors) as we would like to be treated, in every facet of life.

That's real hard to get behind huh?

If there IS no God, then WHAT is the point? Of anything at all? Not saying that I or anyone else is so weak minded as to NEED a purpose, but it's just how nature works. Everything has a purpose.