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

[rational experiences]

Science theism. A theist.

Human first.

What objective reason do you use?

Self a human. Says to self I am God.

The choice of your answer. As a human only. A choice.

So science machine should not exist.

Is pretty basic human choice.

Then thinker thinks again.

What you ignore is a self human review. Behaviours.

I cannot be god or a God as I want the machine. I want to design build machine. I want to put substance into machine reacted by my thought controls.

Yet you are not substance nor reactor or reaction it is all mind thought.

I hence must abstract myself as a deity.

I chose alien. Nothing like me so I could practice science.

So the alien belongs to abstract reality as what you never were yourself...a human.

No he says I am a human first. Not a God or an alien. It's what I want abstracted by design.

I hence put the alien into the machine as inside machine the deity controller within machine first. As fake machine designed controller.

Who however is controlling the machine by design button pushing?

I am says the human God designed destroyer.

Oh so the alien goes away then? Yes converted inside said reaction.

Why do you see it in heavens? Science never owned heavens holy zero presence. It was reflected causes.

Reality of a visionary hologram manifested thought first when it never first existed.

As highest natural self existed first bio human.

Science is not believable as you lied human brother. A theist just belief you were a God.

 

[John53]

I believe my brain just melted

 

[Sheldon]

Those pesky beliefs can lead one down the primrose path.

Word salad...

That's why I do not value beliefs over Discovering the real truth.

Nor do I, and I have found that random capitals is seldom a good sign.

Sure, it takes much more work to Discover, however one acquires so much more than accepting those Beliefs.

I agree....and random capitals doesn't make your claim more Compelling

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

You don't see the irony of that sign off alongside the rest, do you? FYI you didn't remotely address my post, what's odd is you think I didn't notice that or the significance of it? Try again...

"My understanding is that the parameters of the test can sometimes negate the result, but that the effect has been demonstrated to be true. The link I gave explains why there are sometimes variable results."

You introduced this phenomenon, not me, I have investigated it, and your sweeping strident claims for personal experience are meaningless to anyone but you, as such claims must be. I am not making claims here, merely fact checking your claim, and that is what you are failing to understand.

I don't always know what is clear, only what is objectively evidenced, as that is open minded, maybe you should try doubting a little more, and believing a little less.

 

[Bird123]

Straw man. What an atheist says is that he doesn't believe in gods. This atheist thinks plenty, believes plenty, and claims plenty, but none of it is that there is a god. And if you believe in a god, then you're just guessing, since you don't have sufficient evidence to justify your belief. This is not the same as saying that you're wrong about gods.



And another straw man. When you can accurately describe what atheists believe and do, they will agree with you. Why wouldn't they?



Another straw man. Who asks a theist for evidence after he says he believes in a god? Atheists know that theists don't have it. "Where's your evidence?" doesn't come up until the theist begins speaking as if there is a god, and should be understood as a rhetorical question when it does, that is, a statement written in the form of a question. The atheist's position is generally that there is no evidence for gods, and the request for it should be understood as a statement that the atheist is unwilling to believe in gods on faith alone.



No. I have a variety of goals posting on religious discussion boards, but that is not one of them. One is finding logical fallacies and naming them. It's an essential skill in critical thinking. Critical thinking requires fallacy-free reasoning if one is to arrive at sound conclusions.

I just identified the same fallacy in the three posts I quoted above. That wasn't really practicing, as that fallacy is easy to identify, and no further practice is needed. My purpose there was to correct errors. We've got a couple of posters who feel that it is appropriate to mischaracterize atheists and then ridicule their straw men. I like to point out when this happens. It negates the lie, and exposes the bad faith tactic for what it is.



I am not interested in what they believe, but in what they know and can convincingly demonstrate. I don't believe that they have access to any knowledge not also available to atheists, nor do they know anything about gods or reality not known to atheists.



I'm continually reviewing my habits of thought and deed. It's an essential in self-actualization. One decides what he wants to be, and makes it happen if possible. That requires being as objective about oneself as possible, and doing so often.



False beliefs are undesirable. They cause us to make mistakes if we act on them. For those to whom this matters, there is a method to minimize the number of false beliefs one holds. Require compelling evidence that something is the case before admitting into one's mental map as a fact.



There is nothing of value accomplished by religions that can't be done as well or better without it. We're frequently told about the church generating universities, hospitals, and food lines, but secular governments do it better. We're told how they make people better people, but I don't see that. I have no religious friends. Some may believe in a god, but they don't go to church, read Bibles, pray, or talk about religion. Yet just about everybody I know makes charitable contributions of both time and money. These are kind, decent, giving people, and religion wasn't necessary.

The religious are more likely to give their time and money to the church. I'd rather they do like the rest of us do.



Religion doesn't actually deal with any problems. It talks about some, and creates others.

In the case of Christianity, it's pretty clear that they neither understand nor respect human beings, and create a ton of problems because of it. They tell people to not be gay. Not helpful. Generates self-loathing and homophobia. They tell priests to be celibate. That was a disaster. They recommend abstinence only. What'll we name the baby? They try to criminalize abortion, and where successful, unwanted baby's are born to those that don't hemorrhage to death in an alley or filthy clinic first. They describe humanity as weak and dependent on a god. They do violence to reason by praising faith as a higher virtue. Not helpful. It's practice for later in life when they believe other things by faith, such as that climate change is a hoax, or the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus, or that an American presidential election was stolen. That kind of thinking is the legacy of Sunday school.

So your goal is to teach critical thinking to those who solely rely upon beliefs. Very good!!

So you concluded that religion is not the best way for everyone to have it made. I can agree with that. On the other hand, having religion is the best way for all the kiddies of this world to learn and grow. How many problems would never come out without religion? If the problems do not come out, they are very hard to solve.

Look around you. When something is Discovered it leads to more knowledge. So much knowledge lives beyond the surface.

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? All the secrets of the universe stare us all in the face. What are we all missing? What are you missing around religion?

Intelligence and knowledge runs deep. Widen that view. Stretch that thinking to the limit. It waits for you.

It doesn't matter what everyone else does. It's what you choose to do that counts. Never base God on religion. Look around you. There is Method to the madness. It is there you will find God.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

Have you stopped misrepresenting atheism as a belief?

Atheism is a Belief. Discover God and beliefs will no longer be needed.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Sheldon]

I believe my brain just melted

I feel your pain, if everything were "very clear" to me, I'd be a little worried.

 

[Bird123]

Word salad...



Nor do I, and I have found that random capitals is seldom a good sign.



I agree....and random capitals doesn't make your claim more Compelling



You don't see the irony of that sign off alongside the rest, do you? FYI you didn't remotely address my post, what's odd is you think I didn't notice that or the significance of it? Try again...

"My understanding is that the parameters of the test can sometimes negate the result, but that the effect has been demonstrated to be true. The link I gave explains why there are sometimes variable results."

You introduced this phenomenon, not me, I have investigated it, and your sweeping strident claims for personal experience are meaningless to anyone but you, as such claims must be. I am not making claims here, merely fact checking your claim, and that is what you are failing to understand.

I don't always know what is clear, only what is objectively evidenced, as that is open minded, maybe you should try doubting a little more, and believing a little less.

Tap dancing. You should teach it.

So much about God is said that simply isn't true. So much about what water freezes quicker is said that simply isn't true.

Everyone accepts all those BELIEFS!!!!

The Real Answer??? Do the work!! Do the experiment!!! Do what it takes to Discover the Real Truth!!!

It's so simple. Has religion corrupted your thinking to the point you will never Discover anything on your own??

I am one who will Discover. I am one who will do the work necessary. Where is that Hunger to Know in you???

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Sheldon]

Tap dancing. You should teach it.

I wouldn't presume...

So much about what water freezes quicker is said that simply isn't true. Everyone accepts all those BELIEFS!!!!

"My understanding is that the parameters of the test can sometimes negate the result, but that the effect has been demonstrated to be true. The link I gave explains why there are sometimes variable results."

I wonder if you will ever address this? That's not true, I don't wonder at all really.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If one asks: Have you quit beating your wife yet?, One might already have the fact that he is beating his wife. If not, the question is: Are you beating your wife?

The question: Are you beating your wife might step on some toes, however it is a valid question regardless of the reply.

You missed an obvious point. That is not a good sign.

 

[John53]

I feel your pain, if everything were "very clear" to me, I'd be a little worried.

I was foiled, I was referring to the post before that. It wasn't a rational experience to me.

 

[stevecanuck]

Don't you see? Even that book is about people. People created it.

Given that there's no such thing as a god, we agree that it was manmade. However, that's not the point. What matters is that devout Muslims believe the Qur'an is a verbatim sermon from Allah. They act based on what their imaginary master wants, and none of that is any good for us.

In a multilevel classroom, one sees others learning lessons one has already learned. Is this a reason to hate?? Of course not. For those of us who must watch, it is a reminder of what the best choices really are. On the other hand, one can choose to work on the problem through education and pointing others in the right direction.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I'll take Italian dressing with that word salad please.

 

[Valjean]

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 _______________

The legend, or a legend?
People need water. We usually lived near it. floods happened. There were no team sports or soap operas to gossip about. The weather was the hottest topic around.

 

[Valjean]

Exactly. "It's just the absence of belief. What? You believe in God? Where's your evidence???" That's a strange expression of a mere lack of belief there.

Why is that strange? The whole question hinges on evidence or its lack.

 

[Valjean]

They claim the theist is wrong unless and until he can prove to the atheist that he is right. And they make this claim loudly and repeatedly, ad nauseum. Yet, somehow, they can't seem to admit that they are doing so.

They proclaim the theist's claim of God is insufficiently evidenced. Logic, not the atheist, holds that unevidenced things are assumed not to exist. We make this claim repeatedly because it seems to go in one ear and out the other. The theists seem unable to understand this.
My apologies if this nauseates you, but what are we to do, come over and hit you over the head? No, we just patiently keep trying to explain it to you.
If you claim 2+2=5, and we explain and we demonstrate that it doesn't, and you continue to say they equaled five, who's being obtuse?
Perhaps you're annoyed because we don't step down or revise our opinions. But why should we?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My understanding is that the parameters of the test can sometimes negate the result, but that the effect has been demonstrated to be true. The link I gave explains why there are sometimes variable results.

Strictly speaking, the above is not exactly true. Firstly because of the variability with respect to the actual claims involved, but more importantly because stricter experimental control that actual investigates the variability of the environment of the liquids as well as whether or not the process occurs when these and similar factors are controlled for fails to find the genuine effect (thus making the effect a matter of environmental variability and not "hot water freezing faster" or something similar):
"We provide and justify a rigorous, yet inclusive, definition of the Mpemba effect that permits variations in the experimental conditions within prescribed limits. We have made repeatable observations of the Mpemba effect in water by making systematic alterations to the cooling environment within these limits. Without systematically imposing a bias, we were unable to make any observations of the Mpemba effect." (emphasis added)
Burridge, H. C., & Hallstadius, O. (2020). Observing the Mpemba effect with minimal bias and the value of the Mpemba effect to scientific outreach and engagement. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476(2241), 20190829.
Even more recently, in the APS journal Physical Review E, authors Takada et al. begin by noting that despite certain empirical findings and various suggested explanation, "there exists still a certain skepticism on [the Mpemba effect's] validity"
Takada, S., Hayakawa, H., & Santos, A. (2021). Mpemba effect in inertial suspensions. Physical Review E, 103(3), 032901.

 

[Valjean]

The, "so have you stopped beating your wife, yet" question? Yes, I saw that. But as the antithetical to theism, atheism is a counter claim. As the claim is that theism is untrue unles and until it is proven true to the atheist's satisfaction.

But it's not atheism saying this, its logic. Plus we're not saying it's untrue. We're saying it's insufficiently evidenced.
We're atheists. We're don't hold a position on the question of God.

Atheists also love to tell us all ad nauseum about their "unbelief" when in fact they believe that theism is untrue unless and until it can be proven otherwise. Atheists seem to have a hard time being honest with themselves about their own position.

This is the logical default. Belief in a thing follows evidence. No evidence? No belief -- pending evidence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why is that strange? The whole question hinges on evidence or its lack.

It's strange to assert that atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" and then speak of evidence at all. In general, one can have evidence for one's beliefs, one's disbeliefs, even one's uncertainty regarding the truth or falsehood of a claim/proposition/etc.
It is hard to imagine how one can have any evidence in support of a belief they do not have.
Putting the same sort of issue differently, if one defines atheism in this manner (as a lack of a belief), then it follows that there exists no beliefs that atheists have which can distinguish them from theists. Atheists and theists have compatible belief systems, because what would be the crucial distinguishing set of beliefs (namely, that atheists don't believe in god but theists do) is for atheists the empty set (they have no beliefs concerning god or "lack" any beliefs in/concerning/about god, and therefore have no beliefs about god that differentiate them from theists).

 

[Valjean]

In my case, i think atheist is a person who says "God (any god, or gods) does not exist".

In your case?
Yes, that's the position of some atheists, but not all, therefore, it's not definitive of the term.
I asked for a feature common to all atheists, not the subset you're familiar with.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is a Belief. Discover God and beliefs will no longer be needed.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Perhaps clear to you, but not clear per se.
What does atheism believe in? Over a thousand posts explaining that atheists don't necessarily believe in anything, and you still insist we believe in something.

Discover God and you will have a belief in God, won't you?

 

[Valjean]

It's strange to assert that atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" and then speak of evidence at all. In general, one can have evidence for one's beliefs, one's disbeliefs, even one's uncertainty regarding the truth or falsehood of a claim/proposition/etc.
It is hard to imagine how one can have any evidence in support of a belief they do not have.
Putting the same sort of issue differently, if one defines atheism in this manner (as a lack of a belief), then it follows that there exists no beliefs that atheists have which can distinguish them from theists. Atheists and theists have compatible belief systems, because what would be the crucial distinguishing set of beliefs (namely, that atheists don't believe in god but theists do) is for atheists the empty set (they have no beliefs concerning god or "lack" any beliefs in/concerning/about god, and therefore have no beliefs about god that differentiate them from theists).

It's not we atheists claiming evidence. We're asking for evidence.
It's not any belief that distinguishes us from theists, but our lack of belief.