Atheistic Double Standard?

[Sonofason]

For what? Putting forth evidence for something that isn't even there?

Ok......

You're the atheist. If you can't put forth the evidence I suggest that you simply disavow your faith in the non-existence of God. That would be the right thing to do, and stop trying to convince believers that no God exists, which could inevitably cause young children to lose their faith in God. Because that is going to look very bad for you. I mean, it already looks bad.

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that you got the point. Not collecting stamps can be a hobby, if you make it your hobby. In the same way, we can define atheism as we see fit. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism can also be defined as a belief that no god exists. It's really up to you.

Yes, but that's not necessarily good reasoning, or even the best reasoning.

I am an active non-collector of stamps in the same way that someone might be a non-smoker or a non-drinker. The point, I think, is to demonstrate the stubbornness of people to adhere to convention. If someone proclaims convention, it doesn't make them right, it just makes them like everyone else.

 

[1137]

For what? Putting forth evidence for something that isn't even there?

Ok......

For anything. Not one refutation, not one piece of evidence for physicalism, not one attempt to answer questions still detrimental to the position, just a bunch of plugged ears and screaming that "there is no evidence." I mean, how dishonest do you have to be to pretend there's no evidence when so much of it is easy to explain away?

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, but that's not necessarily good reasoning, or even the best reasoning.

I am an active non-collector of stamps in the same way that someone might be a non-smoker or a non-drinker. The point, I think, is to demonstrate the stubbornness of people to adhere to convention. If someone proclaims convention, it doesn't make them right, it just makes them like everyone else.

Indeed, and so it would logically follow that if a smoker is someone who smokes, and a theist is someone who does believe in the existence of God and a non-smoker is someone who does not smoke, then an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God. An atheist is not someone who lacks belief. That is just a play on words to make the stance seem more reasonable. But the fact is that being an atheist is anything but reasonable, and the games that are played with this word atheism puts them on full display as completely unreasonable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You are wrong...Atheism is the belief that no god exists. And if you claim to be an atheist, it is your duty and responsibility to provide evidence to support this unfounded faith of yours.

You can't be that obtuse.

Want evidence? Ok.

It's the theists inability to prove any and all claims made by themselves to even start with, resulting in a notable lack of concensus much to their dismay. Thus to rectify and sidestep that rather frustrating issue, and completely impossible task involving the burden of proof themselves, subsequently engauged in shifting their own burden of proof in response made towards their own initial claim. Somehow convincing and equating that burden of proof, in their own minds as being on par alongside their very own initial claim called theism.

Therefore exhibit A...

Theists themselves.

 

[Sonofason]

You can't be that obtuse.

Want evidence? Ok.

It's the theists inability to prove any and all claims made by themselves to even start with, resulting in a notable lack of concensus much to their dismay. Thus to rectify and sidestep that rather frustrating issue, and completely impossible task involving the burden of proof themselves, subsequently engauged in shifting their own burden of proof in response made towards their own initial claim. Somehow convincing and equating that burden of proof, in their own minds as being on par alongside their very own initial claim called theism.

Therefore exhibit A...

Theists themselves.

Let us consider the beginning of the universe. In the beginning God said, "let there be light". Today scientists tell us that in the beginning there was light. Wow...that is quite remarkable. To me, this looks like evidence for the existence of God. We discover this remarkable biblical claim within the first few verses of the Bible, and recently science confirms that it was true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Indeed, and so it would logically follow that if a smoker is someone who smokes, and a theist is someone who does believe in the existence of God and a non-smoker is someone who does not smoke, then an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God. An atheist is not someone who lacks belief. That is just a play on words to make the stance seem more reasonable. But the fact is that being an atheist is anything but reasonable, and the games that are played with this word atheism puts them on full display as completely unreasonable.

Funny on how there is enough proof for smoking.

None on belief.

Let's use a cigarette. No arguement there.

I'll let you make the equivalence for which a smoker smokes.

A believer does what again that parralls smoking....

You're the atheist. If you can't put forth the evidence I suggest that you simply disavow your faith in the non-existence of God. That would be the right thing to do, and stop trying to convince believers that no God exists, which could inevitably cause young children to lose their faith in God. Because that is going to look very bad for you. I mean, it already looks bad.

I think it's the inverse I'm afraid. I look at the actuality that is going on. There is no God to even speak of. Only people like yourself saying there is God.

I don't think I'm the one looking bad here concerning this. ;0)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Let us consider the beginning of the universe. In the beginning God said, "let there be light". Today scientists tell us that in the beginning there was light. Wow...that is quite remarkable. To me, this looks like evidence for the existence of God. We discover this remarkable biblical claim within the first few verses of the Bible, and recently science confirms that it was true.

Do you know what light is? It's electromagnetic radiation.

"Let there be electromagnetic radiation"

 

[Twilight Hue]

For anything. Not one refutation, not one piece of evidence for physicalism, not one attempt to answer questions still detrimental to the position, just a bunch of plugged ears and screaming that "there is no evidence." I mean, how dishonest do you have to be to pretend there's no evidence when so much of it is easy to explain away?

If it's that tangible. Indulge me with a few examples.

 

[Sonofason]

Funny on how there is enough proof for smoking.

None on belief.

Let's use a cigarette. No arguement there.

I'll let you make the equivalence for which a smoker smokes.

A believer does what again that parralls smoking....

I think it's the inverse I'm afraid. I look at the actuality that is going on. There is no God to even speak of. Only people like yourself saying there is God.

I don't think I'm the one looking bad here concerning this. ;0)

I'm sorry, there is no equivalence that I am aware of between smokers and believers.
Perhaps you could fabricate one for me.

 

[Sonofason]

Do you know what light is? It's electromagnetic radiation.

"Let there be electromagnetic radiation"

Yes, I do in fact know all about it.
But I get you're point. God didn't actually say "Let there be light"
He said, "יְהִ֣י אֹ֑ור"

 

[Sonofason]

Do you know what light is? It's electromagnetic radiation.

"Let there be electromagnetic radiation"

Are you trying to suggest that a statement made using scientific terminology is somehow more meaningful than the same sentence in laymen's terms. Please say it isn't so. I know you are not that shallow.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

You're the atheist. If you can't put forth the evidence I suggest that you simply disavow your faith in the non-existence of God. That would be the right thing to do, and stop trying to convince believers that no God exists, which could inevitably cause young children to lose their faith in God. Because that is going to look very bad for you. I mean, it already looks bad.

Okay is this meant to be sarcasm?

I thought it was because this is one of the most silliest things I have ever read.

This seems like something that a 4Chan atheist would make up about what a Christian tells an atheist.

 

[Sonofason]

Okay is this meant to be sarcasm?

I thought it was because this is one of the most silliest things I have ever read.

This seems like something that a 4Chan atheist would make up about what a Christian tells an atheist.

Everything I say to atheists is usually sarcastic, but that doesn't make my statement any less valid.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Everything I say to atheists is usually sarcastic, but that doesn't make my statement any less valid.

If you don't mind me asking, do you believe in Bigfoot?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Everything I say to atheists is usually sarcastic, but that doesn't make my statement any less valid.

Also here is a more high-definition version of your avatar if you want to use it.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

No. I remember giving precise evidence that god does not exist one of these threads months or years ago sometime. No one replied to it. But they do like to reply to the vague claims and give scripture to prove arguments that have no substantial conversation. I actually kind of wished a believer can prove me wrong (any) by giving evidence not based on any sacred scripture but just logic and how they view reality and conclusions thereof. Christians are the only ones I know that have to have the bible for every christian conversation. Even Muslims don't do that.

In a philosophy class at college I learned that one old Christian, Saint Augustine, said there are five proofs for God's existence. 1.motion-every movement is caused by a previous movement, nothing moves on it's own. 2.cause-every effect has a cause, the universe must have a cause. 3.contingency-there must some source of life that sustains life, that would have to be above life itself. 4.perfection-the universe is too perfect for it be an accident, atoms didn't just randomly collide to make planets, stars, comets etc. 5.order-only an intelligent being could make such a harmonious universe as ours, we can see a pattern of creation: light and darkness, kinds of animals, male and female, seasons that correspond to each other etc. etc. Of course this was all by an old guy who wore robes and wrote with a feather and ink. I think real Christians would say the proof is faith, the scriptures say "we walk by faith, not by sight." 2nd Corinthians 5:7 NKJV. I believe it was Immanuel Kant, a drop out from Lutheranism, who believed in inherent knowledge, knowledge "apriori" or before experience. Kant thought we could infer a lot about the "noumenal" acausal world from the "phenomenal" causal(caused) world, but that the world wasn't just our experiences and there was something like "gnosis" that could be found within the self. Or maybe that's just my take on it. I think David Hume is the father of my own school, agnosticism. I think Rene Descartes said something similar, that is that all we see could be an illusion created by a magician or demon and we can't be sure if anything really exists except ourselves. Again that's just my take on it. And I felt like I needed to respond, it is my area of knowledge. I did fail philosophy, but I got a lot of good books on it.

 

[Sonofason]

If you don't mind me asking, do you believe in Bigfoot?

Sure...lots of people believe in the creature known as Bigfoot. While I have not seen this creature for myself, I have little cause to doubt the numerous claims of its existence.
I believe in aliens too. But I haven't seen any of those either. Nearly anything is possible. Who am I to judge?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm sorry, there is no equivalence that I am aware of between smokers and believers.
Perhaps you could fabricate one for me.

You were the one with the analogy.

 

[Sonofason]

You were the one with the analogy.

Oh right....if a smoker is a person who who smokes, and a theist is someone who believes in the existence of God, and if a non-smoker is someone who does not smoke, then a non-theist or atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of God.

I'm not sure why you were trying to force me to reword my analogy, but here it is in its unaltered and uncorrupted form.