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

[Sheldon]

Oh, I'm fully aware others see it differently. All I am doing is pointing out the fallacies of the things they are pointing to justify what they are claiming.

No you haven't, at all.

 

[Sheldon]

It is difficult to discuss things with someone whose reading comprehension is so bad they get almost everything wrong in every post.

I'm prepared to cut you some slack. You might surprise us all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well firstly he didn't resort to petty insults as you did, and secondly the definition he is asserting doesn't exclude you, but yours does exclude me and many other atheists here. No one is telling you that you cannot believe no deity exists, knock yourself out, please extend other atheists the same courtesy when they explain to you they don't believe in any deity or deities, and that their atheism is not a belief that no deity exists.

Shall I explain the marbles again?

So where does it end? Well, atheism is a cognitive stance that can be a lack of neither positive nor negative beliefs about gods or a negative belief about gods as far as I can tell.
And then you can add the dimension of knowledge.

Where we differ, is that I consider it necessary that there is cognition present to say that you are an atheist. Thus a baby have no cognition about gods and is thus not an atheist or theist, because it doesn't have the cognition to reflect about these words.

 

[Windwalker]

Well firstly he didn't resort to petty insults as you did,

Claiming that we condemn atheists, or that we don't understand atheism, while we call ourselves atheists, or did in the past, is pretty insulting. Not to you maybe...

Or, starting a thread where the only choice you give for those who don't agree with you is to call themselves a liar? That is insulting. You started this thread with an insult.

and secondly the definition he is asserting doesn't exclude you, but yours does exclude me and many other atheists here.

I don't exclude your atheism. I do exclude little children from you claiming them as atheists because they "lack belief in God' sort of stretching of meaning from dictionary definitions. Rightly so. That's dishonest logically. I think you know that.

No one is telling you that you cannot believe no deity exists, knock yourself out, please extend other atheists the same courtesy when they explain to you they don't believe in any deity or deities, and that their atheism is not a belief that no deity exists.

"I do not believe God exist" "I believe God does not exist", are 100% identical in meaning. Both are statements of belief, both are affirmations of belief about God, one positive, one negative. To claim they aren't is purely semantics, straining at gnats. The meaning is identical, however you say it.

You've been asked, "Do you believe God does not exist". Have you dared to answer that yes or no yet? Are you avoiding answering it for some reason?

If you merely "lack belief", like someone who has never heard of God before, then why are you on a Religious Forum? You most certain believe that God is not real. Why is that so hard to admit? Are you ignorant of the question of God? You don't just lack belief in God, as if you've never heard of God before. Claiming that would be dishonest. You know enough to have chosen what you believe, unlike a small child.

Shall I explain the marbles again?

You've explained that marbles are not marbles. That's not a legitimate answer.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, atheism is a cognitive stance

No, not in its broadest sense. It can of course be a cognitive stance, but it need not be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, not in its broadest sense. It can of course be a cognitive stance, but it need not be.

The problem is that your defense of that, it need not be cognitive, is cognitive. In effect you are saying. I can cognitively defend that what I do is not cognitive. But your defence is cognitive. That is what the problem some of us have with your position.

 

[Sheldon]

Claiming that we condemn atheists, or that we don't understand atheism, while we call ourselves atheists, or did in the past, is pretty insulting. Not to you maybe...

Do I need to quote your post as a comparison here?

Or, starting a thread where the only choice you give for those who don't agree with you is to call themselves a liar? That is insulting. You started this thread with an insult.

Nope. you simply choose to take it that way, and remember that one of those choices includes all atheists, the other negates mine.

I don't exclude your atheism.

If anyone defines atheism broadly as a belief, a worldview, or a religion then yes that is what they are doing. This has been my point from the start. I worded the poll provocatively for a reason, as one position tells atheists like myself they are excluded from atheism, whereas the other doesn't exclude any atheists.

I do exclude little children from you claiming them as atheists because they "lack belief in God' sort of stretching of meaning from dictionary definitions. Rightly so. That's dishonest logically. I think you know that.

Then you have missed the point, as it is more than simple pedantry.

"I do not believe God exist" "I believe God does not exist", are 100% identical in meaning.

Sorry but that is absurd. They may encompass a single definition - atheism, but they are not the same, let alone 100% identical. Do I need to explain the marbles again?

You've been asked, "Do you believe God does not exist". Have you dared to answer that yes or no yet?

Dare to answer? I have answered it more than once, emphatically NO, I hold no such belief, but I do disbelieve the claim a deity or deities exist, which makes me an atheist.

If you merely "lack belief", like someone who has never heard of God before, then why are you on a Religious Forum?

It's not a religious forum, read the title properly. It is entitled General Religious Debates, you do know what debate means right?

You most certain believe that God is not real.

I most certainly do not. Stop telling me what I believe.

Why is that so hard to admit?

It's not true.

Are you ignorant of the question of God?

I have no idea what you mean, though I suspect this is going to be another futile attempt to insist I adhere to your narrow closed minded worldview.

You don't just lack belief in God, as if you've never heard of God before.

I do just lack belief in any deity or deities, and I have no idea what you personally mean by god, as that is your baggage not mine.

Claiming that would be dishonest.

Nonsense, you telling me what I think and know, after I have expressly and explicitly explained I hold no such belief is what's dishonest. It seems you know your own theistic belief is unsupported by any objective evidence, and so it is so fragile you cannot cope with me not believing you, so you must misrepresent my lack of belief as a belief.

You know enough to have chosen what you believe, unlike a small child.

Correct, and I have chosen not to believe the claim any diety or deities exist. However both I and atheists who claim to believe a deity doesn't exist, and a child who is incapable of holding any belief in a deity, are atheists.

You've explained that marbles are not marbles. That's not a legitimate answer.

Another asinine straw man.. so I'll explain it again very very slowly for you...

There is a jar of white and black marbles, we don't know how many of each. Someone claims they believe there are more white marbles. I don't believe the claim as it is not supported by sufficient objective evidence, but this does not mean I believe there are more black marbles.

Take your time this time, as your last observation of this scenario was facile nonsense, that entirely missed the point.

 

[Sheldon]

The problem is that your defense of that, it need not be cognitive, is cognitive.

The problem is that your objection to that is cognitive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem is that your objection to that is cognitive.

Correct, I can't reduce it away and neither can you. I can't make all of the world independent of cognition. If you can that, please submit a paper to some sort of scientific organization.

 

[Windwalker]

Nope. you simply choose to take it that way, and remember that one of those choices includes all atheists, the other negates mine.

I choose to take it that way?

To quote:

1. Yes I accept the fact that atheism is not a belief.
2. No, I lie that atheism is a belief.

I believe atheism is a belief, but you are saying that for me to say that, I am a liar. How is that not insulting, pray tell? (Let alone both a strawman, and intellectually dishonest).

I chose to take it that way? Like saying to someone who is overweight, "hey fatass!", and when they object and call that insulting, you saying "Only because you choose to take it that way"? How juvenile is that?

If anyone defines atheism broadly as a belief, a worldview, or a religion then yes that is what they are doing.

Lying? No they aren't. They are speaking the truth in how they understand what atheism is. I am not lying when I say I believe it is a belief. Nor are all the other atheists in this thread, yet you seem to want to deny them that, for some reason, and call all of us liars. That smacks of the True Christian(tm) syndrome, that only True Atheists(tm) believe as you do, and you just insult the rest who don't.

This has been my point from the start. I worded the poll provocatively for a reason, as one position tells atheists like myself they are excluded from atheism, whereas the other doesn't exclude any atheists.

No? You call them liars. I'd say that's pretty much excluding them, and insulting them in the process.

Then you have missed the point, as it is more than simple pedantry.

It's hardly nitpicking. I've heard many atheists revel in this absurd notion that the dictionary definition of a "lack of belief in God" somehow translates into atheism being the "default position". Countless threads on this site have been made to argue that as true somehow, against reason. It's irrational. And as such, it smacks of religiousness to the core.

Sorry but that is absurd. They may encompass a single definition - atheism, but they are not the same, let alone 100% identical. Do I need to explain the marbles again?

What is different in meaning then? Does one mean you have no idea what God is? Explain your marbles, such as they are to you.

Dare to answer? I have answered it more than once, emphatically NO, I hold no such belief, but I do disbelieve the claim a deity or deities exist, which makes me an atheist.

So yes, you don't believe God exists, hence you belief there is no such thing as God. No matter how you choose to say that, you are meaning the same thing. A belief is a belief. "I believe unicorns are not real," is the same as saying "I do not believe unicorns are real".

It's not a religious forum, read the title properly. It is entitled General Religious Debates, you do know what debate means right?

Read this: www.religiousforums.com

It's not religious forums? The entire site is named that!

I most certainly do not. Stop telling me what I believe.

You believe God exists? There's really only two choices here. And that's why it's called either theism or atheism, BTW.

I have no idea what you mean, though I suspect this is going to be another futile attempt to insist I adhere to your narrow closed minded worldview.

My worldview? You have no idea what my worldview is, let alone be able to consider it narrow. My worldview allows for theism and atheism as equally valid perspectives. Does yours? I'll bet yours is a lot narrower than that.

Correct, and I have chosen not to believe the claim any diety or deities exist. However both I and atheists who claim to believe a deity doesn't exist, and a child who is incapable of holding any belief in a deity, are atheists.

See? You are just like the Muslim who defines Muslim in such a way that little children are Muslims by default. No difference. This is religious in nature.

Question, are infants communists or anarchists because they don't believe in democracies, lacking any knowledge of what they are as they do?

Anyway, I'm pretty much done here. This is like arguing with a YEC about evolution.

 

[Sheldon]

Correct, I can't reduce it away and neither can you. I can't make all of the world independent of cognition.

So what was your objection then? If I use my cognitive ability to examine a claim, and cannot believe it as it has no objective basis and is at odds with biological evidence, what's the problem?

It can't be as you said my use of cognitive ability, as that was what you used to object?

 

[wandering peacefully]

I hereby dismiss the term "atheist". It no longer holds the position of description of my non belief in supernatural occurrences or belief in the theist's God

And to be fair, the term theist in history pertains to one "God" belief. With all of the baggage of that one belief system alone, it is hard to argue all of the other belief systems with the one word "atheist".

Especially when the newer or Eastern religious are not technically under the umbrella of "Theist ".



With all of the various created belief systems other than the Theist belief, A- Theist [ lack of belief in the Theist version of religious beliefs] does not include the many other supernatural belief systems or other non-theiest, non-religions.

From this day forward I will use the term asupernaturalist-secular humanist to describe my lack of belief in anything that produces zero evidence of existence.

 

[John53]

From this day forward I will use the term asupernaturalist-secular humanist to describe my lack of belief in anything that produces zero evidence of existence.

But will it fit on a business card?

 

[wandering peacefully]

But will it fit on a business card?

Of course!

 

[Secret Chief]

Of course!

You're an ASHer!

 

[lukethethird]

You should ask that of the atheist. It certainly seems to matter to them there needs to be concrete evidence, like hair samples or such, in order for people to believe. Doesn't seem a very passive lack of belief to me. Sounds like an opposition, an insistence upon acceptable criteria. Why does it matter so much to them, if it's just a mere lack of belief? Can you answer that?

Of course it matters if there is evidence for people to believe, otherwise we are left with bigotry.

 

[wandering peacefully]

"Realistic" as compared to what? You have interpreted your experiences in this way. I have no criteria from which to judge. They are your experiences and your interpretation of those experiences. So why should you ask for my judgment? And why should I presume to do so? This makes no sense to me.
I am neither dead, nor an animal. So I have no reason to concern myself with this claim. As to the manipulation of the "natural order of nature", I don't know what the natural order of nature is. If such spirits exist, I must presume they are part of the "natural order of nature".
That would depend on why I don't believe it. But as I've stated, I have no reason to bother myself about any belief regarding this claim. As it has no relation to me.

Yeah, sorry. I know you don't care about what people believe. Neither do I. And I don't actually believe what I used to believe either.

It was another unsuccessful attempt at analogy besides the marbles, coins, jurors or garage dragons using an actual belief as an example.

My attempt was to try to get you and your fellow Taoist to understand why I cannot believe your stories of Gods = atheists, while at the same time not confessing to know for certain if your claims are false = agnostic. Agnostic atheist.

However, I see it was not useful. I am no longer an atheist. I am an asupernatualist-secular humanist. I no longer need to deal with theist at all. I just dont believe in anything lacking evidence outside of human imagination.

 

[wandering peacefully]

There is no reason to argue one way or the other.
The scenario you describe would be your experience of what happen, that would not be my taste to disprove or prove, it's your personal experience.

The more important question would be, what did you, your self get out of this experience?

I'm not arguing anything. I was just attempting an explanation of non-belief of theist's claims (atheist) while at the same time not claiming to know for certain if the theist's claims are false, agnosticism.

What would you imagine it did for me? What other reason is there for beliefs in fairy tales or in gods or universal consciousness, other than to comfort all unknowing humans in times of doubt, sorrow, and need?

Of course it was comfortable, magical, mysterious and joyful. That is what beliefs are all about.

However, there can come a time in existence when imagination can no longer be validated as being realistic in the natural system we actually live in.

Do you still believe Santa is a real being? I don't. And although it was once cozy and comfortable, I just cannot talk myself into believing he is real. It is no different than disbelief in cozy comfortable gods and above natural happenings. I liked it, it was fun and exciting and comforting. I just dont find it real outside of my powerful human imagination.

 

[Sheldon]

I hereby dismiss the term "atheist".

I hereby dismiss the words dismiss, and hereby and term. Sadly your sentence no longer makes any sense, but that is a price I'm prepared to pay.

From this day forward I will use the term asupernaturalist-secular humanist to describe my lack of belief in anything that produces zero evidence of existence.

From this day forward I will no longer listen to anyone who opens their dialogue with the words "from this day forward". As it is blindingly obvious everything is from this day and we can only go forward.

However I am also a secular humanist, as well as an agnostic atheist. No wonder my back hurts under the weight of these labels ...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

1. they are not 2. many cultures / civilisations have no flood myth at all..................

There are samples from six (6) continents and islands of the sea where hundreds of such Flood legends are known.
Mention to us an area where the legend is Not known _______________