Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not necessarily looking to "pollute the climate" - but I do have to admit that I am looking to cloud people's judgment and potentially get them to slip. That, I am trying to do sometimes.

And "honest"? Do you think my tone and willingness to state certain things is me making the conversation "less honest?" If anything, people seem to despise the amount of honesty I bring to the conversation.

Besides - I can certainly be seen to have made completely benign and peaceful posts around here. When someone is genuinely questioning a thing, or when I can tell their intentions are pure, there is no reason to "go on the attack." but when they aren't, and especially when they aren't but profess that they are? Well, I can't deny that I have too much fun at that point not to.

You can judge people’s intentions? By what psychic superpower do you feel capable of doing that?

And if you enter into a conversation with the sole intent of tripping someone up and making them look foolish, then yes, that is dishonest.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Elementary my dear Moteykins, one would describe it as a belief of course. It is an attitude held towards a proposition.

It would be quite delusional to consider that by explicitly considering and responding to their statement you are, in fact, expressing a 'lack of belief'.

Just as when you express your disbelief regarding the proposition 'god(s) exist' you are clearly not displaying a 'lack of belief', but a belief. It is the expression of a judgement, not the absence of one.

And this is why atheism is best characterised as a belief.

Okay... and how about my most recent court/jury example. Is it fair and correct for a subset of the jury who wants to pronounce the verdict as "guilty", to inform a dissenting juror that they must then believe the defendant innocent when they pronounce that they aren't entirely sure, or want to talk over more about the verdict?

The dissenting juror might be heard to say things like this, don't you think?

"I'm just not sure there is enough evidence to warrant a verdict of guilty."
"I don't know if he is innocent - I just don't think the case was made that he is guilty."​

Do you see those as entirely implausible statements to be made? Is that some kind of impossible position to hold or try to defend or explain?

Please, Augustus... tell me what you think. "Hung juries" are a thing... and they happen for precisely the case above. You would think the court would just allow the majority to out the dissenting juror as a liar, if you were actually correct about these points you keep making. Does the jury come out and say, specifically, "We have one juror who thinks the defendant is innocent, your honor." And would that be a fair way to treat the position of the person who just isn't sure?

Think about this honestly, please. Without all the bias you have consistently been bringing to the table thus far.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You can judge people’s intentions? By what psychic superpower do you feel capable of doing that?

Yes, I feel that I can. Have I been wrong in some instances - yes. But by the replies I have gotten, it hasn't been too many. So, yes, I trust my ability to assess a situation and read intent. If you don't trust your sense in this, fine. Go about your business, and do whatever it is you do.

You see... you make the mistake of believing that I must necessarily find "shameful" the types of things you, personally, find shameful. Try again, friend. That's not how this works.

And if you enter in a conversation with the sole intent of tripping someone up and making them look foolish, then yes, that is dishonest.

When I said "slip" - I most certainly meant that they let fly their ACTUAL thoughts on a particular matter. The ones they were hiding. I don't mean I try to get them to state something contrary to their position. Not at all. I'm not even sure how that is possible without some kind of duress being imposed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thanks for that little demonstration of prejudice. Not sure what you hope to prove by it, but if you can’t make a point without being wilfully insulting, perhaps you simply have no point to make?

Oh... there was a point there in that post you quoted. Clear as day. You just didn't like it. That is all.

 

[Sheldon]

Does an "ill temper" make the points made in a post any less cogent, forceful or real?

I'd have to say not, idea stand on their own merits.

 

[Augustus]

Okay... and how about my most recent court/jury example. Is it fair and correct for a subset of the jury who wants to pronounce the verdict as "guilty", to inform a dissenting juror that they must then believe the defendant innocent when they pronounce that they aren't entirely sure, or want to talk over more about the verdict?

The dissenting juror might be heard to say things like this, don't you think:
"I'm just not sure there is enough evidence to warrant a verdict of guilty."
"I don't know if he is innocent - I just don't think the case was made that he is guilty."

Do you see those as entirely implausible statements to be made? Is that some kind of impossible position to hold or try to defend or explain?

Please, Augustus... tell me what you think. "Hung juries" are a thing... and they happen for precisely the case above. You would think the court would just allow the majority to out the dissenting juror as a liar, if you were actually correct about these points you keep making. Does the jury come out and say, specifically, "We have one juror who thinks the defendant is innocent, your honor." And would that be a fair way to treat the position of the person who just isn't sure.

Think about this honestly, please. Without all the bias you have consistently been bringing to the table thus far.

All of your examples relate to somebody very obviously expressing a belief, not the absence or lack of a belief.

This isn't a particularly winning argument for why people expressing their disbelief in the existence of gods are in fact not taking a stance regarding the proposition of gods existence.

If indeed they are taking a stance towards that proposition, they are expressing a belief and atheism is thus best described as a belief, not a lack of belief.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'd have to say not, idea stand on their own merits.

A person confident in the ideas they are expressing, would be more likely to articulate them clearly and without emotion, one would imagine.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Oh... there was a point there in that post you quoted. Clear as day. You just didn't like it. That is all.

There was a deliberate insult, I got that alright.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

All of your examples relate to somebody very obviously expressing a belief, not the absence or lack of a belief.

This isn't a particularly winning argument for why people expressing their disbelief in the existence of gods are in fact not taking a stance regarding the proposition of gods existence.

If indeed they are taking a stance towards that proposition, they are expressing a belief and atheism is thus best described as a belief, not a lack of belief.

Then tell me, pointedly, what does the hold-out juror believe? I mean, other than that they believe there not to be enough evidence to claim a verdict of guilty.

Which is precisely where I stand on God, by the way - that I believe that there is not enough evidence to find God in the position of "existence." Do I go further to state that I believe God to be completely innocent of existence? No. Like the hold-out juror, I can't state that I believe him to be "innocent" in that way either. Perhaps He is "guilty of existence" - but how would I know? And therefore, if I cannot know, it makes absolutely no sense to believe in the positive... but I know that I don't have enough information (and likely cannot have) to believe in the negative. Therefore it is a proposition I must necessarily put on the shelf, to await further confirmation either way. And that position is NOT me stating that I positively believe that "God doesn't exist."

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There was a deliberate insult, I got that alright.

And besides all that? Did you get the point? Or is that all you could see was the thing that you thought was an insult?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, I feel that I can. Have I been wrong in some instances - yes. But by the replies I have gotten, it hasn't been too many. So, yes, I trust my ability to assess a situation and read intent. If you don't trust your sense in this, fine. Go about your business, and do whatever it is you do.

You see... you make the mistake of believing that I must necessarily find "shameful" the types of things you, personally, find shameful. Try again, friend. That's not how this works.

When I said "slip" - I most certainly meant that they let fly their ACTUAL thoughts on a particular matter. The ones they were hiding. I don't mean I try to get them to state something contrary to their position. Not at all. I'm not even sure how that is possible without some kind of duress being imposed.

Why would you assume people are hiding their true thoughts from you? That’s a little odd, I have to say.

Perhaps you are hiding something from yourself…

 

[Sheldon]

If indeed they are taking a stance towards that proposition, they are expressing a belief and atheism is thus best described as a belief, not a lack of belief.

Except I'm an atheist, and I am not taking a stance, I'm disbelieving one.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And besides all that? Did you get the point? Or is that all you could see was the thing that you thought was an insult?

Nothing of any real substance. Just some nonsense about threats, based entirely on prejudice, from someone who knows next to nothing about me or what I truly believe.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why would you assume people are hiding their true thoughts from you? That’s a little odd, I have to say.

Perhaps you are hiding something from yourself…

You're just so smart @RestlessSoul. I obviously can't fool you! Hahaha... now go on and play with the other kids, dear.

 

[Augustus]

Which is precisely where I stand on God, by the way - that I believe that there is not enough evidence to find God in the position of "existence."

Me too.

Excellent, we are agreed that atheism constitutes a belief, and that those who think it does are not lying. Praise the lord

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Me too.

Excellent, we are agreed that atheism constitutes a belief, and that those who think it does are not lying. Praise the lord

But not the belief you keep on stating the atheist must necessarily hold. Do you get that? It isn't a belief about the existence of God - it is a belief about the amount of evidence it takes to get to the stage of actually having a belief one way or the other on the "existence of God" question.

Please - go ahead and tell me that you have not been characterizing it as a "belief that there is no God." Given your plethora of posts stating exactly that, this should be interesting.

 

[oldbadger]

Not for me, I’m an autodidact.

Look it up, ......

I did..... and I never knew that.
'self taught person'....?

Well done.

 

[oldbadger]

Me too.

Excellent, we are agreed that atheism constitutes a belief, and that those who think it does are not lying. Praise the lord

Phew!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Really? How would you know? I doubt if you can support that claim.

Because if they don't teach those things they aren't christian churches.

Try going to ChristianForums.com. You will find that there are definite belief requirements for who can identify as Chrsitian, beginning with a belief in God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You might want to edit the entry on Wikipedia then.



It seems Unitarians think otherwise. As does the Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy that quite a few theists seem keen to derive their definition of atheism from?

I already now what Trinitarianism is, I just find the notion bizarre, but then I am an atheist, who doesn't believe in any deity or deities, including those imagined to be three separate entities, yet one single deity.

Without a doubt, one of the most liberal faith movements, the official Unitarian Universalist Association website states, "Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that embraces theological diversity; we welcome different beliefs." Because the religion does not require a belief in God, Christ's divinity, or the trinity doctrine, most traditional Christian faith groups would classify them as a non-Christian cult.
Is Unitarian Universalism Truly Christian or Not?