Your denial does not stand up to the facts. As in the past we will have to agree to disagree.
@Mock Turtle got it right concerning the meaningless of this article.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.
- Thread starter David T
- Start date
Your denial does not stand up to the facts. As in the past we will have to agree to disagree.
@Mock Turtle got it right concerning the meaningless of this article.
Nice, but not a meaningful response, as usual.
@Mock Turtle got it right concerning the meaningless of this article.
What facts?
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Disbelief is not belief, lack of belief is not belief
Those are facts.
I find it interesting in a strange sort of way that believers, faithful etc seem to believe they know what atheism is better than atheists.
Let me put it this way, atheism is a belief in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Not collecting stamps does not make a philosophical/theological conclusion that stamps do not exist,
Lack of belief is a descriptive of a belief. the assertion of the lack of Gods requires belief without objective verifiable evidence. Therefore it is a belief system.
As in the past we will have to agree to disagree.
I was not talking philosophical/theological but hobbies.
Yes, lack of it. What? It is not assertion, just the way it is based on the 100% lack of evidence
Ok
Edit : we have,on occasion agreed on some topics, faith or lack of it is not one.
dimmesdale
Member
It is not a problem. More an excuse.
An infinite Being would not be reasonably compared to a cat.
Right, there you are at your conclusion but is it true or fiction?
And if they were all on the same page, then critics would say conspiracy. These are all repeated over and over.
Reasonably there is no evolutionary purpose. Even if assigned it would not conform to the naturalist reality which is no purpose or reason. It would be mental fictions which are contradictions. Contradictions do not exist. I could concoct an attractive god which would not hold me accountable for the way i treat other people or expect certain duties to others. You may have yourself convinced but it does nothing on my end. Why does existence of anything mysterious depend on coherence in the first place? If a horse does not understand a math equation, does that mean a math equation does not objectively exist? The existence of God would in no way be dependent on our understanding any more than other things that exist independent or our understanding. None of it explains why we are here or why we got here in the first place. Lets just ignore the big questions and fixate on cats or a dentist bill.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting that any person whose position is based only the lack of evidence that supports the existence of any God, and participates in religious forums, are NOT RATIONAL? There are some religious forums that do prohibit Atheist attending their forums, under the guise of protecting its members and their religious agenda. From what perspective are you deciding what is rational? Yours? Or, are you just trying to shame Atheists to leave?
Atheist contribute to religious forums for social, humanitarian, and personal reasons. They may want to provide many people with the answers to natural phenomena, that don't include, "God did it". They might want to provide encouragement for early indoctrinated minds, to begin the journey of regaining their lost innocents, creativity, and their natural curiosity. Maybe they just feel that if 2 1/2 Billion people think that the king IS wearing clothes, then maybe they just need special glasses to see it. Maybe they're just hoping to find just one proven miracle, one supernatural event, or just one piece of evidence that a God truly does exist. Once evidence is produced, their position will disappear. Maybe they just want to confront all the mischaracterizations, lies, and misrepresentations of all Atheists and Atheism. The kind that many believers enjoy depositing. Atheist will usually restrict themselves to non-religious topics, science related topics, or topics in which Atheism is the subject. Very few are involved in Biblical interpretations, sermonizing, Comparative Religions, or Biblical storytelling. Therefore there are hundreds of other threads you can attend, without any Atheists involved.
For some atheist there maybe some ego gratification, knowing that proof of the existence of a God is unknowable and unfalsifiable. But then the converse is also true among believers. There may be ego gratification knowing that proof of the NON-existence of a God is also unknowable and unfalsifiable as well. For me, I do not live in a world of NON-existence. I live in a world where things exist or they don't.
Which I consider a bad analogy as cited.
I believe there is a fallacy here of 'arguing from ignorance. I actually believe atheists have reasonable rational argument, especially against the God(s) and ancient world views like Judaism and Christianity, but it remains a philosophical/theological assertion based on belief and not evidence.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
It is not the lack of belief in a God, it is the lack of evidence that can sustain a belief in a God that is in question. Atheism is not a belief, it is a position resulting in a disbelief. The position is that no evidence exists to justify a belief that a God(s) exists. The result is a disbelief in the existence of a God. Since you are making the claim that a God does exist, you have the burden of proof. If your only evidence is that you have no evidence, then you are an Atheist masquerading as a Believer. Since neither of us can point to any objective evidence to support our positions. The difference is, that you choose to believe anyway, and I chose not to believe at all. Therefore, the real difference in our positions is choice.
What kind of logic are you creating here? Disbelief is the opposite of belief. Since when does the lack of belief, also become a description of a belief? Do you believe that the flying spaghetti is the one true God? If you don't believe this, then you are an Atheist to this God, right? So are you going to call this the "Religion of Disbelieving"? If Religions were television channels, Atheism would be the "off" switch. Or, by your logic, the "off" switch would be just another channel.
Not really, its a very apt analogy, people with religious belief and no understanding of atheism consider atheism in the same terms as they consider their own faith. They fill in the gaps of what they cannot comprehend with their own ideas. Atheism is not a philosophical or theological position. What atheism is is simply the result of the100% lack of evidence for gods or gods existence. Not just your god but any and all gods. Lets face it, you are most probably almost as atheist as i am. This is assuming you believe in one god. As far as the 4200+ other gods (excluding the 33million hindu gods) you hold the same disbelief as me.
As for arguing from ignorance, yes you are, the motivation for atheism is nothing more, nothing less than total lack of evidence. Your personal belief regarding atheism is not relevant to atheists just as an atheists belief regarding your personal reasons for holding the religion you think is right can never be valid.
Something to think about, the french have the perfect word that certainly works for me, and i know of many other atheists with the same view. That word is 'bof'
The 'arguing from ignorance' as a fallacy is in your court for claiming the support of 100% evidence, which does not past muster to justify an atheist world view based on evidence.
Atheism is indeed a philosophical/theological claim that no God(s) exist. It is not a factual statement supported by the evidence.
I have made no claim that amounts to an 'argument from ignorance.'
I see no reason 'bof' Business of Fashion' has anything to do with this.
Simple for you to prove, provide one shred of verifyable evidence for a gods existence.
Correct, it is supported by 100% lack of evidence
I said the french have a word. Being silly is not helping
lukethethird
unknown member
Atheism is a lack of theism, suggesting that atheism is a belief system says more about the person making such a claim than it does about non believers.
Would you please rephrase this so that it fulfills some minimal requirements of coherence?
Ciao
- viole
You are right. And atheists, well, at least this atheist, like to seriously consider all avenues before coming to a naturalistic conclusion about the origins of the existing.
Once I painfully ruled out God, It took me indeed a lot of additional phylosophical thinking and years of long pondering to be moderately sure that not even garden fairies were involved in that creation act. My brain nearly melted on the effort.
I considered everything, believe me. Even the powerful claim that this Universe is fined tuned for carrots, which garden fairies are so fond of.
I know I have no evidence to show that, and I am a little embarrassed to show such self confidence that not even garden fairies are involved in the creation of the Universe without showing any evidence, but I assure you that this conclusion came after years of intense and deep phylosophical and theological (actually, fairological) thinking.
Ciao
- viole
P.S. Would that be more intellectually honest for me to be agnostic, instead of afairist, about the claim that invisible garden fairies created the Universe?
Last edited:
Pitching out a 'Red Herring' on the dock on a hot summer day does not add to the discussion.
lukethethird
unknown member
What theology are atheists supposed to "believe" does not exist, yours, someone else's? An atheist doesn't have to even know what your theology is in order to lack a belief in theology.
Well, it's a problem for me, as someone who prefers to have a clear idea of what they're talking about. If not knowing what you're talking about doesn't trouble you then alas we're not likely to have a meaningful conversation, are we.
You can find cats in reality. Search reality as you will, you won't find infinite beings ─ they're only found in your imagination.
You can win the argument easily by giving us a satisfactory demonstration of a real infinite being. Or you can begin to make the idea of a real infinite being more credible by offering a falsifiable hypothesis as to what such a being actually is and in what manner it could exist in reality. The stage is yours.
I'll clarify by saying that sharing a common pool of stories may assist those sharing to think of themselves as a group and thus to function cooperatively, and that functioning cooperatively may enhance the chances of its individuals to survive long enough to breed. If you don't survive long enough to breed then you're not a player in the game of evolution.
So what?!?!?!!?
Over the top sarcasm does not add to the discussion.