Atheism doesn't exist?:)

[viole]

Don't worry, atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature.

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

which God? You mean something like the great Juju at the bottom of the sea loves me? Oh cool. Thank you.

btw, that is not a big deal. Everybody loves me.

Ciao

- ciole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am rather careful about the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. I do my best to practice the first.

It seems to me...pardon my assumptions here, but I base them upon the arguments of atheists who DO understand the difference between blaming the deity believed in and blaming the people who believe...that it gets pretty obvious when someone is mad at God rather than at the worshipers.

Far too few of them make the obvious deduction that if no God exists, then the harm is done by PEOPLE believing in that deity, and arranging His/Her/Its commandments to suit them. Criticizing the deity simply takes the responsibility for that harm off the shoulders of the believers/leaders of the belief system.

And from what I have read from you, you do not understand the difference between someone who is merely entertaining a notion that "God exists" in order to make a point, versus that person actually believing that God exists, and only making that point against Him because they are "mad at Him." You don't know the difference. DON'T.

When I preface a statement like this:

IF GOD EXISTS AND THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT IS TRUE, then He is responsible for the death of probably hundreds of men, teens, adolescents, toddlers and babies due to enacting the tenth plague of Egypt - the event tied to Passover.

When I say that, I am NOT tacitly admitting to God's existence in any way. Do you get that? NOT IN ANY WAY. I don't believe God exists. Do not believe. However, if evidence were provided and I then must therefore believe it all to be true, then I would understand the fact above. If He exists, God killed hundreds of people innocent of the crime He was punishing the Egyptians for.

What you do when you claim that my stating an "If... Then" scenario like the one above means that I am "angry at God" and therefore "believe in God," is like stating that I am angry at Odin, because if Odin exists, then, according to the stories he murdered Ymir and made the world out of his body and the sky out of his skull. So, how about it @dianaiad? Are YOU angry at Odin? Keep in mind... no matter what you say, I will definitely claim that you are. That's exactly how you theists do it... so what's good for the silly, silly goose...

 

[dianaiad]

Those who "do believe that there is no God" are a subset of atheists... but are not representative of all atheists. Anyone who does not have a belief in any God/gods is an atheist.

I absolutely agree. MY point is only that this IS a subset of atheism/atheists, and atheism as a whole can't just throw them out as 'not being atheists.' I personally think that atheists who do any amount of actual THINKING are the 'I don't see any evidence for God,' type and not 'There is no God and cannot be a God, period." It is those who throw out of atheism the folks who 'add on' to the 'lack of belief in God' with whom I argue.

If I had to guess, you have also been told this many multiple times. Apparently it is just easier not to shatter your glass-house of a worldview, keep you poor opinion of atheists that you seem to think strengthens your position (hahahahaha) and keep trudging out the same CRAP over and over.

You don't read what I write, do you?

I have NEVER said that the 'strong' atheists comprise the whole of atheism. I only state that strong atheists ARE atheists. I argue against the notion that only 'weak' atheists can be atheists. I argue against the notion that the anti-theist leaders of the 20th century who were responsible for the deaths of countless millions of people weren't 'really' atheists.

my standards here are not 'double.' I also do not argue, as many do, that Christians who behave badly are not 'real' Christians, or that Muslims who believe differently from the mainstream are not 'real' Muslims,' or....

Atheism is, at the base, a simple 'lack of belief in a God or Gods." All the extreme levels...anti-theism, 'strong' atheism, etc., are subsets of atheism, and MUST BE atheists first in order to BE anti-theist/strong atheists, whatever.

Or--not all atheists are 'strong' atheists, but all strong atheists are atheist.

Why do I have to go on and on in order to get that through?

Why do I meet so many people who commit the 'true scott' fallacy for their own belief system, but get all unhappy when someone else does the same thing for theirs?

 

[dianaiad]

And from what I have read from you, you do not understand the difference between someone who is merely entertaining a notion that "God exists" in order to make a point, versus that person actually believing that God exists, and only making that point against Him because they are "mad at Him." You don't know the difference. DON'T.

When I preface a statement like this:

IF GOD EXISTS AND THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT IS TRUE, then He is responsible for the death of probably hundreds of men, teens, adolescents, toddlers and babies due to enacting the tenth plague of Egypt - the event tied to Passover.

When I say that, I am NOT tacitly admitting to God's existence in any way. Do you get that? NOT IN ANY WAY. I don't believe God exists. Do not believe. However, if evidence were provided and I then must therefore believe it all to be true, then I wold understand the fact above. God killed hundreds of people innocent of the crime He was punishing the Egyptians for.

What you do when you claim that my stating an "If... Then" scenario like the one above means that I am "angry at God" and therefore "believe in God," is like stating that I am angry at Odin, because if Odin exists, then, according to the stories he murdered Ymir and made the world out of his body and the sky out of his skull. So, how about it @dianaiad? Are YOU angry at Odin? Keep in mind... no matter what you say, I will definitely claim that you are. That's exactly how you theists do it... so what's good for the silly, silly goose...

Do you understand the difference between the word 'many' and the word 'all?"

Have you noticed that I have been VERY careful to use 'many' , and address those 'many' and do not claim that ALL atheists do this?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is the most useful diagram I've found....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I absolutely agree. MY point is only that this IS a subset of atheism/atheists, and atheism as a whole can't just throw them out as 'not being atheists.' I personally think that atheists who do any amount of actual THINKING are the 'I don't see any evidence for God,' type and not 'There is no God and cannot be a God, period." It is those who throw out of atheism the folks who 'add on' to the 'lack of belief in God' with whom I argue.

I can hold my own in a conversation with people who adamantly state that there "is no God." I am actually of that opinion myself, however I recognize it as only opinion. An opinion I come to when faced with reality as it presents itself, and the complete lack of compelling evidence that exists for the proposition that "God exists." I don't actually believe that God does not exist. And maybe this is where your problem understanding lies.

Here's an example that might clear things up:

I hate mushrooms. I absolutely detest the things. Their taste is just odd, and their texture is disgusting. Now, I KNOW that this is my opinion about mushrooms, and that other people like them very much. I DON'T BELIEVE that mushrooms taste objectively odd, and that their texture is objectively disgusting. I know it is only my opinion of them. Others may enjoy the taste or the texture, or both. I find them completely disgusting - I mean... to no end are they vile and horrifying. But I don't truly believe that to be the case objectively. It is true for me, and that is where it ENDS.

I have NEVER said that the 'strong' atheists comprise the whole of atheism. I only state that strong atheists ARE atheists. I argue against the notion that only 'weak' atheists can be atheists. I argue against the notion that the anti-theist leaders of the 20th century who were responsible for the deaths of countless millions of people weren't 'really' atheists.

And I don't think you read either then. Because the post you originally replied to didn't state that people who believe "no God exists" are not atheists. If you don't believe me, go back and read. Use those little arrow links to trace the conversation back. You're the one being irrational here and arguing against something that wasn't even an issue in the first place, apparently.

Why do I meet so many people who commit the 'true scott' fallacy for their own belief system, but get all unhappy when someone else does the same thing for theirs?

I didn't do this. Are you referring to others? Because I know for a fact that, again, the posts you quoted said nothing like what you are railing against here.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Do you understand the difference between the word 'many' and the word 'all?"

Have you noticed that I have been VERY careful to use 'many' , and address those 'many' and do not claim that ALL atheists do this?

And I don't believe it to be "many." Not at all. A true atheist does not believe in God. Anyone mad at God isn't a true atheist BY DEFINITION. This isn't a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Being angry at God, and therefore tacitly admitting His existence BREAKS THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "atheism."

Are you getting this? I mean at all?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but how do you rule out the deist god, for example. You wouldn't expect to find any evidence for it even if it ever existed.

.. but I don't believe you know what you claim to know because I consider it unknowable however certain you are.

I believe that it is wise to hold some philosophical doubt, ..

Even if we knew for a fact that our conscious experience was of nothing external - just an illusion created by a great deceiver - what would you do differently?

Where did he arise from and why? Why do you not think that 'no evidence ever' is not important? What you believe is your choice.

True it is not that I know everything. We do not know where the energy which ignited the Big Bang came from? The answer would not be available in my life-time (I am 77). But I think it cannot be from anywhere else but 'absolute nothing' with some quirk of Quantum Mechanics. Most probably existence as non-existence are just phases and related as mentioned 3,000 years ago in RigVeda.

It is not wise to believe in absurd possibilities advanced by religionists and philosophers. This is just mental gymnastics. Why then you do not believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster, the pink Unicorn and the elephant in your pocket?

Actually the belief that I follow, Advaita (non-duality in Hinduism) says exactly that. The universe and us in it are but illusions (Maya). But till we are here in the illusion, we have to do what it demands, that is, go to the bath room every morning.

 

[night912]

I know there is a God. There is such a thing of 100%
whereas, for a non believer, its maybe almost impossible to claim that he doesnt believe 100% and that there is no God 0%
BTW a famous atheist say or wrote something like that

If you believe, then it's 100%. If it's anything less than 100%, then it means that you don't believe. BTW, famous or not, atheism does not require atheists to take another atheist's word as being holy and/or to be all end all. So if it was your intention to point out that it's wrong to disagree and/or be in difference with that atheist, then good luck on that.

If you like to play word games using percentage, it's fine with me. I'll show you how to play. If something is possible, then it's 100%. Being impossible is 0%. So, saying that it's "almost impossible" means that it is possible, so it's greater than 0%. So let's see how good you are at this game by looking at your words, "for a non believer, its maybe almost impossible to claim that he doesnt believe 100%"

"Almost impossible" = it is possible
"He doesn't believe 100%" = non believer, because he believes less than 100%
Non believer = atheist
Atheist = someone who doesn't believe that a god exist, which that is called atheism

So the final word......
It's not impossible to not believe. So that means that it is possible to not believe. Since it's possible to not believe, someone who does not believe in 100% is a non believer. Since a non believer does not believe that god exist, that makes him an atheist. So an atheist exist since he is a non believer because he does not 100% believe that a god exist. So that would make it atheism. Even when you believe that it's almost impossible for you to be wrong while playing the word game, I showed that it is possible, and in fact proved that you are 100% wrong when you said that it's not atheism.

So how did I do playing with you in your word game?

 

[night912]

I once lived together with a cat. Cats have been worshiped as gods by the ancient Egyptians. So that cat could have been a goddess. I hoped she'd loved me.

You are talking about that cat literally, correct? Don't want be to confused with it being metaphorically referring to a female body part.

 

[night912]

Don't worry, atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature.

Wrong, atheists don't HAVE to, although some will do it because they might just want to point out the idiocracy, nothing wrong with that.

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

Ok, I admit that I do not have any beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

Now for mine. I challenge you to prove to me that I'm wrong to assume that you won't accept my response as being my honest answer.

 

[Rabbi Daniel]

If you believe, then it's 100%. If it's anything less than 100%, then it means that you don't believe. BTW, famous or not, atheism does not require atheists to take another atheist's word as being holy and/or to be all end all. So if it was your intention to point out that it's wrong to disagree and/or be in difference with that atheist, then good luck on that.

If you like to play word games using percentage, it's fine with me. I'll show you how to play. If something is possible, then it's 100%. Being impossible is 0%. So, saying that it's "almost impossible" means that it is possible, so it's greater than 0%. So let's see how good you are at this game by looking at your words, "for a non believer, its maybe almost impossible to claim that he doesnt believe 100%"

"Almost impossible" = it is possible
"He doesn't believe 100%" = non believer, because he believes less than 100%
Non believer = atheist
Atheist = someone who doesn't believe that a god exist, which that is called atheism

So the final word......
It's not impossible to not believe. So that means that it is possible to not believe. Since it's possible to not believe, someone who does not believe in 100% is a non believer. Since a non believer does not believe that god exist, that makes him an atheist. So an atheist exist since he is a non believer because he does not 100% believe that a god exist. So that would make it atheism. Even when you believe that it's almost impossible for you to be wrong while playing the word game, I showed that it is possible, and in fact proved that you are 100% wrong when you said that it's not atheism.

So how did I do playing with you in your word game?

You wrote:If you believe, then it's 100%. If it's anything less than 100%, then it means that you don't believe

That was not my intention. I think you can be a believer with doubts and its less than 100%.
I just wrote, that my belief is 100%, not a shadow of a doubt. I dont even interstand that it could be otherwise. How the world was created? Ploufff. Are you serious. Doesnt make sense to me.
But I highly respect people who think differently.

BTW, when I was young, I was a believer with doubts, and the doubts diseappear, thank God.

 

[night912]

Exactly as much as you have suppressed beliefs/hopes/concepts that Odin is watching over you and on your death, will send the Valkyries to carry you to Valhalla.

Valkyries? As in plural? As I remember correctly, in Thor: Ragnorock, Odin is dead and Hela killed all the Valkyaries except for one. I guess it must of been a different denomination of Norse beliefs. Or maybe another one of Loki's tricks.

 

[viole]

BTW, when I was young, I was a believer with doubts, and the doubts diseappear, thank God.

or Gods.

My doubts also disappeared, thanks Thor.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Catchy title. A-theism means something like No theism. And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%. Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.
And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.
BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

this 100% thing is not applicable. At least if it is intended as probability that god exists.

I can easily prove that by making up a sufficient amount of beings, whose existence is mutually exclusive and independent from the others, and whose probability to exist is each bigger or equal than a number bigger than zero, no matter how small, then I can determine the probability that at least one of these made up beings exists, arbitrarily close to 100%. Which is obviously absurd.

ciao

- viole

 

[Rabbi Daniel]

this 100% thing is not applicable. At least if it is intended as probability that god exists.

I can easily prove that by making up a sufficient amount of beings, whose existence is mutually exclusive and independent from the others, and whose probability to exist is each bigger or equal than a number bigger than zero, no matter how small, the I can determine the probability that at least one of these made up beings exists, arbitrarily close to 100%. Which is obviously absurd.

ciao

- viole

I know 100% that I am writing right now on my computer

 

[viole]

I know 100% that I am writing right now on my computer

Are you 100% sure you are not a brain in a vat believing to do that?

ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

I've seen this definition before. I would drop the first two words (and change "God" to "a god"), and write, "Atheism : lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods."

My reason is that whatever is meant by disbelief is either a synonym of "lack of belief" or going further to claim that the idea is untrue. I use the words unbelief and disbelief as I do the words unproven and disproven, which most people would agree say different things, but others use them as synonyms.

Its the OED definition.

Dawkins had an interesting take on this:

I am not a Dawkins fan, i think he has done much to degrade both science and atheism. But he does come up trumps sometimes.

 

[viole]

This is the most useful diagram I've found....

what I find odd in this diagram, is that it seems to associate gnosis (knowledge) with claims to have a proof. If that was true, than things like scientific knowledge would not exist, since no scientist would claim proof of anything, and knowledge would be applicable uniquely to analytical propositions and tautologies.

ergo, knowledge of a claim and certainty, or proof of the same claim, are two different things. And the Venn diagram fails.

ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

what I find odd in this diagram, is that it seems to associate gnosis (knowledge) with claims to have a proof. If that was true, than things like scientific knowledge would not exist, since no scientist would claim proof of anything, and knowledge would be applicable uniquely to analytical propositions and tautologies.

ergo, knowledge of a claim and certainty, or proof of the same claim, are two different things. And the Venn diagram fails.

ciao

- viole

I see "proof" meaning different things to different people.
Science is often not the basis.
There are more elaborate diagrams to be found, but this
one's simplicity did the job best for me.