Atheism is not a default position

[Bunyip]

As an atheist who eats babies, I accept your terms. The universe needs a cause because the universe is not God, and only God needs no cause. I mean, this is some by-definition shasterisks here.

Why does the universe need a cause? I must have missed the logical argument for that one - I was too busy burying dinosaur bones in my yard to upset the JW's next door.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Correct, atheism/theism is about what a person BELIEVES, whilst agnosticism/gnosticism is about what a person KNOWS.

Careful, you're letting them drag you too far down the rabbit hole: That's not a distinction I'm prepared to acknowledge. I'm still waiting for someone to distinguish agnosticism from atheism in a manner that makes any intelligible sense whatsoever.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Why does the universe need a cause? I must have missed the logical argument for that one - I was too busy burying dinosaur bones in my yard to upset the JW's next door.

Amateur mistake: You gotta bury the bones in their yard, or they're all "you just buried those bones in your yard, didn't you?", and then you've gotta rely on your talent for subterfuge---which, having been trained (as all atheists are) in Hell for such purposes, we're certainly well-equipped, but you must have skipped Mephistopheles' class on risk-mitigation.

Anyways: The Universe needs a cause because everything needs a cause, and this is not a circular argument because it is not a circular argument.

 

[Bunyip]

Careful, you're letting them drag you too far down the rabbit hole: That's not a distinction I'm prepared to acknowledge. I'm still waiting for someone to distinguish agnosticism from atheism in a manner that makes any intelligible sense whatsoever.

Agnosticism has a 'g' in it.

As to something deeper, don't hold your breath.

 

[Bunyip]

Amateur mistake: You gotta bury the bones in their yard, or they're all "you just buried those bones in your yard, didn't you?", and then you've gotta rely on your talent for subterfuge---which, having been trained (as all atheists are) in Hell for such purposes, we're certainly well-equipped, but you must have skipped Mephistopheles' class on risk-mitigation.

Joking aside, I once found a fossil of an early stage in the evolution of God. It had a fully formed beard, but only a rudimentary staff of vengeance - may have been a hobo.

Anyways: The Universe needs a cause because everything needs a cause, and this is not a circular argument because it is not a circular argument.

Everything needs a cause except God - the supposed cause? Is that it?

If not circular, is it an elipse?

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Agnosticism has a 'g' in it.

You ***, my brother's asleep not ten feet from me and I just LOL'd at 2 AM.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

If not circular, is it an elipse?

Nope, it's an ellipsis.

BOOM: MIND = BLOWN.

 

[Bunyip]

Nope, it's an ellipsis.

BOOM: MIND = BLOWN.

Oh crap - that was brilliant. Wonder how many will get the trinity reference.

 

[ArtieE]

Are you.. do you.. I can't... what?

Let me try to get this straight: atheism infers no claim of not knowing and no claim of knowing---it doesn't infer "A", "not A", "I don't know if A", or "I don't know if not A". You've literally defined the term "atheism" into meaningless nonexistence.

LOL. Theism is defined as the presence of belief in the existence of god(s) and atheism is defined as the absence of belief in the existence of god(s). Both are perfectly good definitions.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Oh crap - that was brilliant. Wonder how many will get the trinity reference.

I know, right? I may have just converted myself...which... kinda sounds sinful.

LOL. Theism is defined as the presence of belief in the existence of god(s) and atheism is defined as the absence of belief in the existence of god(s). Both are perfectly good definitions.

Yep! Glad to hear you've evolved from your earlier definition---and so quickly, too!

Oh dear, I'm getting too snarky. Time to sleep and recharge my patience-batteries.

 

[ArtieE]

Careful, you're letting them drag you too far down the rabbit hole: That's not a distinction I'm prepared to acknowledge. I'm still waiting for someone to distinguish agnosticism from atheism in a manner that makes any intelligible sense whatsoever.

You don't acknowledge there's a difference between knowing something and believing something?

 

[Bunyip]

You don't acknowledge there's a difference between knowing something and believing something?

Not when it is a belief you do not have. Knowing God does not exist and believing God does not exist are essentially equal - given that there is no evidence to address.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

You don't acknowledge there's a difference between knowing something and believing something?

Are you really willing to define atheism and agnosticism as "lack of belief" vs. "lack of knowledge"? Because... because---and I don't normally do this---you really shouldn't. It'd be like shooting fish in a barrel... tomorrow. I do need sleep.

Edit: Oh! What he said:

Not when it is a belief you do not have. Knowing God does not exist and believing God does not exist are essentially equal - given that there is no evidence to address.

 

[ArtieE]

Are you really willing to define atheism and agnosticism as "lack of belief" vs. "lack of knowledge"? Because... because---and I don't normally do this---you really shouldn't.

Those are the definitions. Get some sleep.

 

[Desert Snake]

Edit: Oh! What he said:

''Belief'', when used in the Xian sense, has a broad meaning. One still uses the word ''belief'', even when one thinks they know that G-d exists.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not when it is a belief you do not have. Knowing God does not exist and believing God does not exist are essentially equal - given that there is no evidence to address.

....
It's a belief, only, not knowledge. One can only make a statement that one ''knows'', that deity does not exist. Our knowledge is thus ''subjective'', making it belief.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ie, ''I believe that I know''=/=''I know''

 

[Bunyip]

....
It's a belief, only, not knowledge. One can only make a statement that one ''knows'', that deity does not exist. Our knowledge is thus ''subjective'', making it belief.

What is the difference in practice between not believing an unevidenced entity exists, and knowing something for which there is no evidence does not exist?

 

[ArtieE]

Not when it is a belief you do not have. Knowing God does not exist and believing God does not exist are essentially equal - given that there is no evidence to address.

So if a person says "I don't believe" he means the same as if he had said "I don't know"?

 

[Desert Snake]

What is the difference in practice between not believing an unevidenced entity exists, and knowing something for which there is no evidence does not exist?

Because ''no evidence'', is subjective. That's your summation, not necessarily others. Hence it's not in any practical or real sense ''knowing''.

It's just your perspective/opinion