Argument against "lacktheism"

[1137]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

If R != gods really exist, there must be *some other R*.

So, when rejecting R = gods really exist, one must propose an alternative R.

Saying "S believes X because R" is a positive position, a claim, no matter what R is, theistic or atheistic.

All positive positions/claims must have reason and evidence for us to seriously consider them.

This means anyone who rejects R = gods really exist must also claim S believes X because R and provide reason and evidence for R. Or to simplify, the very idea of "lacktheism" doesn't really make sense. If you are an atheist you have no escape from believing S believes X because R, same as the theist cannot escape it.

 

[Revoltingest]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

You've got things inverted.
Religious belief requires indoctrination to
know all the mythology that others previously
invented.
Atheism requires nothing. I was born an atheist,
& merely remained so. It's the default state.
I was & am fortunate, eh.

 

[ChristineM]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

If R != gods really exist, there must be *some other R*.

So, when rejecting R = gods really exist, one must propose an alternative R.

Saying "S believes X because R" is a positive position, a claim, no matter what R is, theistic or atheistic.

All positive positions/claims must have reason and evidence for us to seriously consider them.

This means anyone who rejects R = gods really exist must also claim S believes X because R and provide reason and evidence for R. Or to simplify, the very idea of "lacktheism" doesn't really make sense. If you are an atheist you have no escape from believing S believes X because R, same as the theist cannot escape it.

Eh?

Much assumption, little reality

I escaped

 

[Revoltingest]

I escaped

What was your escape
experience, if I many ask?

 

[1137]

You've got things inverted.
Religious belief requires indoctrination to
know all the mythology that others previously
invented.
Atheism requires nothing. I was born an atheist,
& merely remained so. It's the default.

This is a good illustration.

You believe the theist believes in god because of indoctrination. This is a positive claim you must now defend.

As for being "born" an atheist, let's not go down the nonsense rabbit hole of projection it takes to compare the intellect of one's position to a baby.

 

[1137]

Eh?

Much assumption, little reality

I escaped

... what? I'm not sure what you're responding to or what you escaped?

 

[ChristineM]

What was your escape
experience, if I many ask?

Many ask?

How many?

Like you i was not indoctrinated into atheism, unlike you i was indoctrinated into Christianity but escaped.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a good illustration.

You believe the theist believes in god because of indoctrination.

How else can you know the mythology.
Someone must've dispensed it.

This is a positive claim you must now defend.

Neither positive nor negative.
Just an observation supported by people
having the religion of the culture they
were born into, ie, they're taught it.
Instruction without evidence is indoctrination.

As for being "born" an atheist, let's not go down the nonsense rabbit hole of projection it takes to compare the intellectual of one's position to a baby.

It's simple.
I was born without knowledge of any gods.
To not believe in them is to be an atheist (of
the weak variety). When I later (in public school)
learned of religions, & endured attempts to
indoctrinate me, I saw no reasonable basis
for what they believed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Many ask?

How many?

Like you i was not indoctrinated into atheism, unlike you i was indoctrinated into Christianity but escaped.

Was it as harrowing as what @Shadow Wolf endured?

 

[ChristineM]

... what? I'm not sure what you're responding to or what you escaped?

You made the claim that there is no escape, your op works on the false premise that people are indoctrinated into atheism, this is not so.

 

[dybmh]

If you are an atheist you have no escape from believing S believes X because R, same as the theist cannot escape it.

S is a theist
X is their god-concept
R is their reason or reasons

From an atheist perspective R is irrelevant or invalid for one or more of their own reasons.

 

[ChristineM]

Was it as harrowing as what @Shadow Wolf endured?

Nope, i enjoyed being Christian but did not enjoy the christians who made it harrowing

 

[Twilight Hue]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

If R != gods really exist, there must be *some other R*.

So, when rejecting R = gods really exist, one must propose an alternative R.

Saying "S believes X because R" is a positive position, a claim, no matter what R is, theistic or atheistic.

All positive positions/claims must have reason and evidence for us to seriously consider them.

This means anyone who rejects R = gods really exist must also claim S believes X because R and provide reason and evidence for R. Or to simplify, the very idea of "lacktheism" doesn't really make sense. If you are an atheist you have no escape from believing S believes X because R, same as the theist cannot escape it.

People have different standards of believability.

Evidence obviously isn't a factor either as a fair number of theists have such low standards of believability, it completely negates the need for evidence and proof for them.

Atheists have no such issue as the lack of evidence and common sense rational dosent apply in the same way as theists do, of whom have the complete inability to substantiate anything and everything they believe aside from adequately demonstrating time and time again it's all in their fantasy and imagination.

Trying hard to sound like an algebraic genius, doesn't actually change anything either.

 

[Revoltingest]

Trying hard to sound like an algebraic genius, doesn't actually change anything either.

Applying symbolic logic without rigor
can lead one to believe anything.
Gotta watch those premises.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

If R != gods really exist, there must be *some other R*.

So, when rejecting R = gods really exist, one must propose an alternative R.

Saying "S believes X because R" is a positive position, a claim, no matter what R is, theistic or atheistic.

All positive positions/claims must have reason and evidence for us to seriously consider them.

This means anyone who rejects R = gods really exist must also claim S believes X because R and provide reason and evidence for R. Or to simplify, the very idea of "lacktheism" doesn't really make sense. If you are an atheist you have no escape from believing S believes X because R, same as the theist cannot escape it.

Total failure of logic, trying to look like formal logic/mathematics while obeying the rules of neither.

Your single biggest error, however, is that "not believing" something is not a positive claim of any kind. This is, I've observed, something that theists are congenitally blind to.

Not believing, in other words, is merely the consequence of having no reason to believe. As I discovered early (as did @Revoltingest as he says), just because somebody told me something is NOT a reason for me to believe it. Needs more.

Your second error, it's a bit more subtle, is in your notion of a "Reason." The problem, you see, is that such "reasons" can easily be wrong or non-factual. A very good example might be found in the "Heaven's Gate" sect, founded by Marshall Applewhite. Applewhite's followers thought they had a "Reason" in what Applewhite told them. Applewhite, however, simply made the "reason" up, for whatever private purpose he had, which I suppose we can never know, he being dead and all. Along with his followers.

 

[1137]

How else can you know the mythology.
Someone must've dispensed it.

Very interesting. So in order to believe in gods we must be taught about them, but we are all born atheists. Who's that leave to teach us about the gods. Themselves?

Neither positive nor negative.
Just an observation supported by people
having the religion of the culture they
were born into, ie, they're taught it.
Instruction without evidence is indoctrination.

So the evidence for your claim is people are the religion of their culture. But this isn't even close to universally true, just look at the diversity here from mostly Christian cultures. So we can discard this, any other evidence?

It's simple.
I was born without knowledge of any gods

So you would equate atheism with ignorance?

 

[1137]

You made the claim that there is no escape, your op works on the false premise that people are indoctrinated into atheism, this is not so.

So you think people can believe something without a reason, without cause? Can you explain how?

 

[1137]

S is a theist
X is their god-concept
R is their reason or reasons

From an atheist perspective R is irrelevant or invalid for one or more of their own reasons.

How is R irrelevant?

 

[ChristineM]

So you think people can believe something without a reason, without cause? Can you explain how?

What reason or cause is a god? Religion is jam packed with belief without cause.

I don't believe in a god because i have no reason to believe in a god

 

[1137]

People have different standards of believability.

Shouldn't there be an objective standard?

Evidence obviously isn't a factor either as a fair number of theists have such low standards of believability, it completely negates the need for evidence and proof for them.

So "some = all"?

Atheists have no such issue as the lack of evidence

Is it safe to say then that youre choosing to ignore the evidence for theism?

and common sense rational dosent apply in the same way as theists do,

Can we get an objective standard for common sense?

of whom have the complete inability to substantiate anything and everything they believe aside from adequately demonstrating time and time again it's all in their fantasy and imagination.

and yet atheists get upset when asked to substantiate the universe being godless, divine experiences being delusions, etc...

Trying hard to sound like an algebraic genius, doesn't actually change anything

If you felt your point was weak enough to warrant this attack, you could have just not shared.