Atheism

[Revoltingest]

I don't see a difference here. "God" is just a word we use to refer to that mysterious force that creates and sustains all that is. Because it's such a profound mystery...

It's a mystery to you, perhaps.
But not to many of us atheists.
"God" is no more a mystery than Voldemort.
They're just not real.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I agree. But in a debate like this, the disagreement precedes the debate, itself.

These threads on atheism aren't meant as Debate threads. Just discussion threads. Look where you're posting.

 

[PureX]

These threads on atheism aren't meant as Debate threads. Just discussion threads. Look where you're posting.

According to nearly every atheist here, there is absolutely nothing about "atheism" to discuss. It's a subject with no content. How do you discuss "unbelief"?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

According to nearly every atheist here, there is absolutely nothing about "atheism" to discuss. It's a subject with no content. How do you discuss "unbelief"?

I find with Journal threads, it may not always be the case, but there's often a focus on responding to the Original Post.

It beats coming in to the thread like a bull in a china shop, and debating for a half hour each person who thoughtfully responded to my OP.

Although I will admit, I did mention you in one of my OPs, as I was trying to figure out whether atheism had more to the definition than the Dictionary definition, based on a post or two you made. And, based on the replies, I concluded it didn't, personally.

That being said, I'm not mad or anything. Sometimes it's hard to remember what board one is in. I'm just kind of trying to steer people away from debating in my journal threads, and just trying to get people to treat things more like a discussion - and trying to steer clear of debating in the process myself if possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to nearly every atheist here, there is absolutely nothing about "atheism" to discuss. It's a subject with no content. How do you discuss "unbelief"?

Among ourselves, you're entirely correct.
The only exception might be how we each
came to disbelief. I was born & remained so,
but others had a circuitous path. (Those
atheists are far more interesting than I am.)

 

[PureX]

I find with Journal threads, it may not always be the case, but there's often a focus on responding to the Original Post.

It beats coming in to the thread like a bull in a china shop, and debating for a half hour each person who thoughtfully responded to my OP.

I not only thoughtfully responded to your OP, I thoughtfully responded to a number of other posts, here. Just because you don't approve of my 'demeanor' doesn't mean I'm not posting legitimate observations that anyone could learn from if they weren't so busy auto-defending their own nonsense.

Although I will admit, I did mention you in one of my OPs, as I was trying to figure out whether atheism had more to the definition than the Dictionary definition, based on a post or two you made. And, based on the replies, I concluded it didn't, personally.

And yet you apparently were not able to explain why not. As have no one else, here. While I went to a lot of trouble to explain why atheism is not just "unbelief". Do me annoying demeanor so upset you that it overrides all logic and reason? As it apparently does so many others? If not, why not try addressing the some of the reasons I gave and explaining how they are unreasonable to you?

That being said, I'm not mad or anything. Sometimes it's hard to remember what board one is in. I'm just kind of trying to steer people away from debating in my journal threads, and just trying to get people to treat things more like a discussion - and trying to steer clear of debating in the process myself if possible.

I understand. But it's very difficult to discuss, let alone debate atheism when half of the participants are insisting that it's not what it is. Or that it is what it's not.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I not only thoughtfully responded to your OP, I thoughtfully responded to a number of other posts, here. Just because you don't approve of my 'demeanor' doesn't mean I'm not posting legitimate observations that anyone could learn from if they weren't so busy auto-defending their own nonsense.

Then I'm sorry if I misunderstood. And some of your posts, I did find useful.

I understand. But it's very difficult to discuss, let alone debate atheism when half of the participants are insisting that it's not what it is. Or that it is what it's not.

Well, we shouldn't be debating here in Journals.

That being said, I understand your frustration. But it's just kind of difficult for me because I felt I made some lighthearted or relaxed statements mostly in these threads, talking about my personal journey, and making sure to put them in a non-debate forum. And it's like, now, I am expected to defend with all my energy like I posted them in a serious debate. And there might be people, like you, that as far as I can tell, might get a bit disappointed if I don't.

 

[PureX]

Among ourselves, you're entirely correct.
The only exception might be how we each
came to disbelief. I was born & remained so,
but others had a circuitous path. (Those
atheists are far more interesting than I am.)

Watching you repeat "nut-huh!" over and over and over is not a discussion. Nor is it a debate. And until the atheist finds the courage to stand up for their chosen position, that's all they can ever do. Well, that and fight with religionists about their religion. But of course that doesn't have anything to do with theism or atheism. That's just anti-religion.

 

[PureX]

Then I'm sorry if I misunderstood. And some of your posts, I did find useful.



Well, we shouldn't be debating here in Journals.

That being said, I understand your frustration. But it's just kind of difficult for me because I felt I made some lighthearted or relaxed statements mostly in these threads, talking about my personal journey, and making sure to put them in a non-debate forum. And it's like, now, I am expected to defend with all my energy like I posted them in a serious debate. And there might be people, like you, that as far as I can tell, might get a bit disappointed if I don't.

Well then I apologize for that. And please feel free to express yourself in any way that feels right. Honest!

I'm just too used to this particular argument, I guess.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Well then I apologize for that. And please feel free to express yourself in any way that feels right. Honest!

I'm just too used to this particular argument, I guess.

It's okay.

I'm still new to the choice of atheism, and I'm not ready to defend myself much on it, yet. But if I ever feel prepared, and we're on a debate board, I may try to justify my ideas more, then.

 

[Revoltingest]

Watching you repeat "nut-huh!" over and over and over...

Try not merely "watching".
Read & to understand the perspectives of others.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Watching you repeat "nut-huh!" over and over and over is not a discussion. Nor is it a debate. And until the atheist finds the courage to stand up for their chosen position, that's all they can ever do. Well, that and fight with religionists about their religion. But of course that doesn't have anything to do with theism or atheism. That's just anti-religion.

my position is there is not enough good evidence for belief in a god. All I can do is tell you why the evidence is flawed. How is this not standing up for a position?

 

[PureX]

It's okay.

I'm still new to the choice of atheism, and I'm not ready to defend myself much on it, yet. But if I ever feel prepared, and we're on a debate board, I may try to justify my ideas more, then.

All I would say to that is that "God" is essentially an open possibility. We can do with it whatever we want to. We can set it aside and leave it undetermined. We can embrace it through some religion or other. Or we can embrace it independently. We can accept it but leave it undefined and unpursued. The 'great mystery'. And we can always change our minds about it at any time and for any reason. We can choose to see God as an abstract intellectual question or we can choose to see God as our best (invisible) friend. Always walking right beside us. Or we can choose anything in between. Or something else. Because the idea of God provides us with endless imaginative possibilities. Some of which could be enormously useful to us.

Or we can simply reject the possibility of God, and close the door on it. Done and done.

But why do that when we have no more reason to presume that God does not exist than to presume that God does exist? We not only don't know, but we have no way to find out. At least not in this existence. I mean, even if we feel no need or reason to explore this possibility of God at the moment, we may have a year from now. Or even ten. So why close the door to what might become a very positive possibility in the future, for no reason?

 

[PureX]

my position is there is not enough good evidence for belief in a god. All I can do is tell you why the evidence is flawed. How is this not standing up for a position?

What position? The question is not about what anyone "believes in", or how strongly or weakly they believe in it. Because belief is just an expression of one's own presumed surety. "I believe in "X" just means that I presume my understanding of "X" to the truth of "X". But no one cares how right I'm presuming myself to be about "X". Not even me, really. And why should they? It has nothing at all to do with whatever is the truth of "X".

So let's please dismiss the whole "belief" thing as a different subject. And that leaves us with two basic propositions: 1. God (whatever we conceive that term to mean) exists, and, 2. God (whatever we conceive that term to mean) does not exist. And to determine which of these propositions we might agree with (if we agree with either) we are going to have to determine what we think that term "God" means. And then that will lead us in the direction of whatever "evidence" we would need to look for to try and validate it.

But how do we do that? We can ask someone, but why would we assume they know any more about what "God" is or means than we or anyone else does? No, I think in the end we're going to have to work this one out for ourselves. We're going to have to develop a plausible idea of what God might be even though we cant know if it's so, and then live with that god-idea for a while to see if it produces any results.

The point of all of this is to show that the real question is not about God-belief, or God's existence. The real question is about the God-possibility, and how we incorporate that possibility into our minds, our hearts, and lives. And then seeing what results. Unless you have done this to your honest and thorough satisfaction, it's not time to be declaring a position, yet.

 

[PureX]

Try not merely "watching".
Read & to understand the perspectives of others.

There's no there, there, to read into. "Nut-huh" is just mindless negation. Repeating "you're wrong" over and over is not a conversation. No information exchanges minds. It's just an ego stroking itself until and unless the atheist finally starts telling us what he DOES believe, and what he DOES think, And WHY he thinks it, instead of hiding behind what he DOESN'T.

This "unbelief" BS is just an excuse not to put their own ideas and reasoning out there. While they cajole and attack the other guy for his.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no there, there, to read into.

Yeah, that's exactly the path I recommend relinquishing.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't want to get anyone's hopes up, but these past couple of years, I've slightly changed and improved on some of my ideas, I feel. And tried to become more a critical thinker. These past couple of days, I've been playing a lot of this video game which I find a little relaxing, and while I've played, I've been thinking hard about life. And it made me realize that I want to try life without magic thinking - no gods, no magic, no spirit world, and probably no aliens since I feel there either isn't evidence for them, or the evidence doesn't hold up.

I realize I have embraced religious thinking a lot these past two or three weeks, so it may come as a surprise that today, I was trying to try thinking without any of the 'magical thinking' (and so far, it has been going well for me), but I think my greater push towards religion and magical thinking was just that - it was a push-back to a more logical form of thinking getting under my skin, and it was my response to being afraid of something a bit "new". But now, I've gotten over that fear.

So I realize if I do eventually identify with atheism, if this way of thinking does work out for me..... that I feel it's not going to be easy, because it involves scrutinizing evidence, fact-finding, and really putting in the work and effort (in my opinion), so to speak. But I feel I'm getting closer and closer to being ready for such a thing, should I pursue it.

I totally get it. Take care.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no issue with that atheist at all except that his argument from ignorance is weak. But then when it comes to the question of "God", we're all arguing from ignorance, aren't we. Unfortunately, I almost never encounter that atheist. Instead, I encounter the ones that want to rig the game and cheat the debate so they can avoid having to offer or defend their actual positions. While freely attacking anyone else's and demanding evidences and proofs that they couldn't possible supply on behalf of their own positions. (Which is why they want to keep it hidden.)

We are all arguing from ignorance, since there is no proof that God exists, but we are not all committing the fallacy of "argument from ignorance."

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Most atheists say that the proposition "God exists" is false because it has not yet been proven true by the believers' evidence.
Thus they commit the fallacy and their argument is illogical.

As a believer I do not claim that the proposition "God exists" is true because it has not yet been proven false, since the proposition cannot be proven true or false. I simply say that the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
I believe that "God exists" but I do not claim it because I cannot prove it is true.

 

[Valjean]

Most atheists say that the proposition "God exists" is false because it has not yet been proven true by the believers' evidence.
Thus they commit the fallacy and their argument is illogical.

Please stop.

You keep constructing the same straw man and making the same analytical errors over and over again, no matter how many time's they've been corrected or explained.
Atheists don't propose that there is no God. They never expect it, or anything, to be "proven true." Nor have we seen any empirical evidence from believers.

We withhold belief because it's not reasonable to believe in something poorly evidenced, particularly when the claims are fantastical. You do the same thing with regard to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or leprechauns.
Do you understand what we mean when we say lack of belief is the epistemic default?

As a believer I do not claim that the proposition "God exists" is true because it has not yet been proven false, since the proposition cannot be proven true or false. I simply say that the proposition "God exists" unknowable.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of believing out of an argument from ignorance.
The proposition that the existence of God is unknowable is Agnosticism. Are you an agnostic now?

I believe that "God exists" but I do not claim it because I cannot prove it is true.

Now that is reasonable -- but leaves nothing to discuss. Are you bowing out of your apologia now?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What position? The question is not about what anyone "believes in", or how strongly or weakly they believe in it. Because belief is just an expression of one's own presumed surety. "I believe in "X" just means that I presume my understanding of "X" to the truth of "X". But no one cares how right I'm presuming myself to be about "X". Not even me, really. And why should they? It has nothing at all to do with whatever is the truth of "X".

Everything we believe to be true is a belief. Those beliefs should be based on good evidence.

So let's please dismiss the whole "belief" thing as a different subject. And that leaves us with two basic propositions: 1. God (whatever we conceive that term to mean) exists, and, 2. God (whatever we conceive that term to mean) does not exist. And to determine which of these propositions we might agree with (if we agree with either) we are going to have to determine what we think that term "God" means. And then that will lead us in the direction of whatever "evidence" we would need to look for to try and validate it.

I disagree. I don't have to come up with an idea of God to not believe in one. People need to bring their evidence to me about their God belief and I can evaluate it to see if I am convinced. People don't choose their beliefs. Saying "I don't believe that God exists" is not the same as saying "I believe God does not exist".

But how do we do that? We can ask someone, but why would we assume they know any more about what "God" is or means than we or anyone else does? No, I think in the end we're going to have to work this one out for ourselves. We're going to have to develop a plausible idea of what God might be even though we cant know if it's so, and then live with that god-idea for a while to see if it produces any results.

The point of all of this is to show that the real question is not about God-belief, or God's existence. The real question is about the God-possibility, and how we incorporate that possibility into our minds, our hearts, and lives. And then seeing what results. Unless you have done this to your honest and thorough satisfaction, it's not time to be declaring a position, yet.

This is not the way to determine truth.

But how do we do that? We can ask someone, but why would we assume they know any more about what "Pixie" is or means than we or anyone else does? No, I think in the end we're going to have to work this one out for ourselves. We're going to have to develop a plausible idea of what Pixie might be even though we cant know if it's so, and then live with that pixie-idea for a while to see if it produces any results.

The point of all of this is to show that the real question is not about pixie-belief, or Pixie's existence. The real question is about the Pixie-possibility, and how we incorporate that possibility into our minds, our hearts, and lives. And then seeing what results. Unless you have done this to your honest and thorough satisfaction, it's not time to be declaring a position, yet.

Have you done this about Pixies? See the impossibility of determining truth this way? No, someone needs to bring you the evidence for Pixies so you can evaluate it if you wish.