I see no value in atheism

[ArtieE]

I will try and be patient...but it requires an effort on your part to be forthright and honest with me....ask me what you like, and I will provide my honest understanding....

Thanks for the offer, but Mestemia made a logical and rational point and I got the point but you didn't. My points would also be wasted.

 

[Curious George]

The term "lack" merely means "to be without". "Lack" simply means "the state of being without". Remember, "lack" is not used here with a negative connotation (which would be absurd unless the Oxford English Dictionary was taking a stance against atheism).

Yes, but I think she is driving at the fact that you are using "lack" as "not with" as opposed to complete absence.

 

[Typist]

I can think of lots of people who lost their faith due to loss of family, and reached a conclusion that there is no God.

Reached a conclusion, reason.

Their decision wasn't a rational one, it was because the idea of the God in their mind couldn't exist, and if that particular God doesn't exist then no God must exist. That's not a reasonable position.

It may not be valid, I don't know, but it's surely a product of reason. You're confusing "product of reason" with "reasonable". As example, I could reason that you are a deity by examining your screen name, but that wouldn't be reasonable reasoning.

On top of that, we have people who are atheists but are still religious, such as certain kinds of Buddhists, who tend to follow in the understanding of their religious tenets rather than become atheist because they reasoned their way to that position.

Yes, some Buddhists reason there is no God, or they reason that the God idea is just a distraction from more important matters.

T

hen there are implicit atheists, who are atheists because they are unaware or ignorant of the claim or possibility of a God's existence.

Ok, this one I'll grant you. Have you ever met a person over the age of 10 who'd never heard of God? I'm sure they exist, but are so few as to be irrelevant.

I agree - to the extent that I THINK I understand what you mean by "binding upon all reality".

That's probably not the best choice of phrase on my part. I mean it in the sense that the laws of gravity are "binding" on any object we may toss up in to the air.

T

hus far, I'm assuming that you mean "we can't assume human reasoning - as it currently exists - is capable of giving us answers, or even forming conclusions, on every single potential aspect of the Universe".

Yes, we can't assume that, because we don't even know what "all of reality" refers to in even the most basic manner. As example, we don't know the relationship between what we can observe, and all that is. We don't know our sample size.

Atheists are jumping to huge conclusions based on an unknown sample size, and then labeling that razor sharp reasoning. And then to cover the whole thing up they pretend they haven't reached a conclusion at all, after posing their conclusions as superior to theists in the last 2,973 threads. I'm sorry, honesty requires us to label this gibberish.

If that's what you mean, then I agree with you. What makes you think that anyone here, atheist or otherwise, disagrees with that?

Sigh.... I truly hate the intellectual dishonesty part of atheism, so you'll get no reply here, sorry.

What do you mean that "forum atheists" don't "apply the test" to their own position?

I could put this better too. I'm relying too much on repetition, and need to find a better way. Please pardon me while I struggle.

Atheists reasonably question the qualifications of holy books, right? I agree such a challenge is entirely valid and reasonable.

But then they don't challenge their own chosen authority, human reason. They just assume it is qualified to address questions about what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, a realm we can't even define.

I know this could and should be put in other better ways, but honestly, I think the main reason members aren't getting this is they simply don't want to. Seeing this, but continuing to try anyway, makes me as irrational as them.

You've repeatedly asserted that we can't form conclusions about particular claims because we have no reason to assume human reasoning "is binding upon all reality" and it is unreasonable to assume what the state of the Universe truly depends on when we have so little information about it. If you didn't mean that human reasoning is limited, what exactly did you mean?

I NEVER claimed human reason is limited. I have no way of knowing that.

I claimed it is not proven that it's ability is unlimited, applying to everything everywhere. Which is what's necessary if we want to use reason to debunk God claims, a proposal about the fundamental nature of everything.

You have repeatedly insulted, patronized and ridiculed people in this thread. Those are not the actions of a reasonable, or humble, person.

I'm not a reasonable or humble person, and don't claim to be. So you are debunking an assertion of your own invention, a rather common hobby here on the forum.

And the reality of the situation won't be reached by you making personal attacks, baseless assumptions and generally behaving in an arrogant, superior manner. If you want reasonable debate, behave reasonably.

I am arrogant, and superior, on this limited range of topics. If you would like to weave a fantasy that I'm otherwise, I'll leave that up to you to cook up.

I don't especially care if the debate is reasonable, that is, I don't mind if folks call me names and such. What I care about is that the conversations go somewhere, and don't just go round and round and round in the same tiny little circles century after century after century.

Thus, I admittedly get grumpy and impatient when I have to explain for the 9,000th time hyper-simple things like atheism is not merely a lack of belief. If members would consider stop chanting their memorized dogmas, I'll make a good faith effort to dial back the grumpy.

 

[ArtieE]

Is that the same as the belief that God DOES exist, the requirement for "theism"?

Theism is the belief that one or more gods exist. That the Christian God exists is not a requirement.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This idea is actually being discussed with another poster. I still have not been provided any evidence supporting this further requirement of "knowing what God is" in order to merely "lack a belief". The definition only requires the absence of belief. That is what the word "lack" means. Any other requirement is simply being added into the definition to strengthen your argument, but it simply isn't true. Why do you think that the word "lack" requires acknowledgment of an idea? Does a man on an island not lack a TV if he doesn't know what a TV is? Of course he does, because he simply doesn't have a TV. That is all that the definition requires.

You test my patience with the TV analogy....it is like kiddies TV program...

Definitions, if we are to understand each other, require conceptual agreement as to what words mean, and the understanding of grammar etc.,...here on this thread,,,i have repeatedly shown that many of the posters are without the fundamental understanding to understand properly what is being said to them..

 

[Curious George]

Reached a conclusion, reason.



It may not be valid, I don't know, but it's surely a product of reason. You're confusing "product of reason" with "reasonable". As example, I could reason that you are a deity by examining your screen name, but that wouldn't be reasonable reasoning.



Yes, some Buddhists reason there is no God, or they reason that the God idea is just a distraction from more important matters.

T

Ok, this one I'll grant you. Have you ever met a person over the age of 10 who'd never heard of God? I'm sure they exist, but are so few as to be irrelevant.



That's probably not the best choice of phrase on my part. I mean it in the sense that the laws of gravity are "binding" on any object we may toss up in to the air.

T

Yes, we can't assume that, because we don't even know what "all of reality" refers to in even the most basic manner. As example, we don't know the relationship between what we can observe, and all that is. We don't know our sample size.

Atheists are jumping to huge conclusions based on an unknown sample size, and then labeling that razor sharp reasoning. And then to cover the whole thing up they pretend they haven't reached a conclusion at all, after posing their conclusions as superior to theists in the last 2,973 threads. I'm sorry, honesty requires us to label this gibberish.



Sigh.... I truly hate the intellectual dishonesty part of atheism, so you'll get no reply here, sorry.



I could put this better too. I'm relying too much on repetition, and need to find a better way. Please pardon me while I struggle.

Atheists reasonably question the qualifications of holy books, right? I agree such a challenge is entirely valid and reasonable.

But then they don't challenge their own chosen authority, human reason. They just assume it is qualified to address questions about what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, a realm we can't even define.

I know this could and should be put in other better ways, but honestly, I think the main reason members aren't getting this is they simply don't want to. Seeing this, but continuing to try anyway, makes me as irrational as them.



I NEVER claimed human reason is limited. I have no way of knowing that.

I claimed it is not proven that it's ability is unlimited, applying to everything everywhere. Which is what's necessary if we want to use reason to debunk God claims, a proposal about the fundamental nature of everything.



I'm not a reasonable or humble person, and don't claim to be. So you are debunking an assertion of your own invention, a rather common hobby here on the forum.



I am arrogant, and superior, on this limited range of topics. If you would like to weave a fantasy that I'm otherwise, I'll leave that up to you to cook up.

I don't especially care if the debate is reasonable, that is, I don't mind if folks call me names and such. What I care about is that the conversations go somewhere, and don't just go round and round and round in the same tiny little circles century after century after century.

Thus, I admittedly get grumpy and impatient when I have to explain for the 9,000th time hyper-simple things like atheism is not merely a lack of belief. If members would consider stop chanting their memorized dogmas, I'll make a good faith effort to dial back the grumpy.

What would you suggest we analyze reason with again?

 

[ArtieE]

I did not say it was the same. I said it was a belief that they hold.

A theist does not need to hold the belief that God exists.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, but I think she is driving at the fact that you are using "lack" as "not with" as opposed to complete absence.

The meaning of the word "lack" might be a bit ambiguous. Presence or absence or with or without is linguistically better.

 

[leibowde84]

I did not say it was the same. I said it was a belief that they hold.

Right, so even though they hold the belief that God MIGHT exist, they still "lack the belief that God DOES exist". Right? I mean, they are still "without" the "belief that God exists".

 

[leibowde84]

Hey...this is life...evolution in space and time...i learn, you learn, from the challenges we face and adapt to, the cosmos is always at peace at the macro level because we keep resolving the differences through the various means available.at the micro level. There will never be peace at this level....we can do our best to be honest and say what we mean and mean what we say according to the moment...people are not equal...some say with an agenda...some just speak without an agenda...which are you....rhetorical to be sure,,,but seriously too...?.

I could not be more serious. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Skepticism and doubt are no more scientific than belief and trust.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then act accordingly....as an adult that is..

Yes...the operative word is 'adult'...kiddies Q and A is silly....

I can't help but notice that, instead of answering the question and actually adding to an intellectually honest debate, you are just continuing to attack and insult me for no reason whatsoever. It's okay, I'll just wait until you've calmed down.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, but I think she is driving at the fact that you are using "lack" as "not with" as opposed to complete absence.

"Complete absense" would still fit into the category of "not with", correct? It is just a further defined version of "not with". Whether or not something is completely absent, if one does not "hold" it, they are "without" it.

 

[Typist]

1. I meant what I said. No other atheists have made the claim on this thread thus far. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Apologies, I've lost track of what you're referring to. Remind me if it's important.

2. Just because we have not gotten to an answer thus far, doesn't mean that one is not attainable.

Ok, so how many more thousands of years would you judge to be sufficient?

I enjoy discussing this topic,

Ok, I can vote for that, probably the best reason of all.

One thing is for sure, we won't get anywhere if we just drop it.

This is the assumption shared by both theism and atheism. It's very understandable, but the problem is, there is no evidence it is true. What I mean specifically is that theists and atheists both assume, without questioning usually, that the point of the inquiry should be to establish a knowing, a symbol in our heads.

I tried to ask you earlier, perhaps you missed it.

If the question is "does God exist in the real world?"......

Why are we looking for God in the symbol world?

Such an investigation requires digging in to the relationship between symbols and the real world. As a quick simple example, a photo you take of your friend will never be your friend, no matter how good of a photo it is.

The word God will never be God. Ideas about God will never be God. Conclusions about God will never be God. None of that stuff is God, but merely symbols.

If there is a God in the real world (I don't claim to know one way or the other) there's little chance we would see him, as we are totally obsessed and distracted by the symbols in our heads. We are to use the common phrase "lost in thought".

Seen this way, the philosophical process we are engaged in together is not the path to advancing this inquiry, but the primary obstacle, for the simple reason that our attention is not focused on the real world, but the symbol world.

It's as simple as this.

You ask, "Are there shoes in your closet?"

And I reply, "I don't know, I'll go look in the garage to see."

Translation:

You ask, "Is there a God in the real world?"

And I reply, "I don't know, I'll go look in the symbol world to see."

Giving up is not an option for me.

I'm not suggesting giving up on the inquiry. I'm suggesting giving up on a methodology, the search for a knowing, which has been a proven failure over thousands of years.

3. This is an entirely semantic argument. If you find it "tiresome", ignore it. You are under no obligation to participate. But, being disrespectful by trying to bully those that are interested in discussing it is childish.

I am just trying to fit in to the social environment I find myself in, which is primarily childish.

4. Atheism, in its most general form, merely requires an absence of the belief that God exists.

No, no, no and no, no, no and more no, no, no and then no too.

Simply wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

This "merely lacks belief" business is just a pile of memorized atheist dogma, like the virgin birth of Jesus on the Christian side. It has no basis in reality whatsoever, it's a complete fantasy, a bogus made up make believe fantasy story. Clear enough?

 

[leibowde84]

Theism is the belief that one or more gods exist. That the Christian God exists is not a requirement.

I agree. Did someone suggest otherwise?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you think God exists?

No.

Do you think God does not exist?

No.

Do you think God might exist?

"Might" as in "it is possible"? Yes. "Might" as in "there are good reasons to believe it"? No.

So how does a person incapable of belief withhold belief?

The same way a person who is incapable of flight remains on the ground.

 

[leibowde84]

You test my patience with the TV analogy....it is like kiddies TV program...

Definitions, if we are to understand each other, require conceptual agreement as to what words mean, and the understanding of grammar etc.,...here on this thread,,,i have repeatedly shown that many of the posters are without the fundamental understanding to understand properly what is being said to them..

Why does the TV analogy "test your patience". And, what do you mean by your second claim? It seems like you have a tendancy to look down on other members of this forum. Is that what you are expressing?

 

[leibowde84]

Apologies, I've lost track of what you're referring to. Remind me if it's important.



Ok, so how many more thousands of years would you judge to be sufficient?



Ok, I can vote for that, probably the best reason of all.



This is the assumption shared by both theism and atheism. It's very understandable, but the problem is, there is no evidence it is true. What I mean specifically is that theists and atheists both assume, without questioning usually, that the point of the inquiry should be to establish a knowing, a symbol in our heads.

I tried to ask you earlier, perhaps you missed it.

If the question is "does God exist in the real world?"......

Why are we looking for God in the symbol world?

Such an investigation requires digging in to the relationship between symbols and the real world. As a quick simple example, a photo you take of your friend will never be your friend, no matter how good of a photo it is.

The word God will never be God. Ideas about God will never be God. Conclusions about God will never be God. None of that stuff is God, but merely symbols.

If there is a God in the real world (I don't claim to know one way or the other) there's little chance we would see him, as we are totally obsessed and distracted by the symbols in our heads. We are to use the common phrase "lost in thought".

Seen this way, the philosophical process we are engaged in together is not the path to advancing this inquiry, but the primary obstacle, for the simple reason that our attention is not focused on the real world, but the symbol world.

It's as simple as this.

You ask, "Are there shoes in your closet?"

And I reply, "I don't know, I'll go look in the garage to see."

Translation:

You ask, "Is there a God in the real world?"

And I reply, "I don't know, I'll go look in the symbol world to see."



I'm not suggesting giving up on the inquiry. I'm suggesting giving up on a methodology, the search for a knowing, which has been a proven failure over thousands of years.



I am just trying to fit in to the social environment I find myself in, which is primarily childish.



No, no, no and no, no, no and more no, no, no and then no too.

Simply wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

This "merely lacks belief" business is just a pile of memorized atheist dogma, like the virgin birth of Jesus on the Christian side. It has no basis in reality whatsoever, it's a complete fantasy, a bogus made up make believe fantasy story. Clear enough?

The question is not whether God exists or not in the real world. The question of this discussion is the meaning of the term atheism and who can accurately be classified as an atheist. We are not discussing the existence of God. We are discussing the belief in that existence and what is necessary for theism and atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheists are jumping to huge conclusions based on an unknown sample size, and then labeling that razor sharp reasoning.

You mean "rationalists".

Atheists reasonably question the qualifications of holy books, right?

No. Atheists are just not theists. Those who "reasonably question the qualifications of holy books" are rationalists and irreligious.

An atheist is simply any person who is not a theist.
A rationalist is a person who bases his beliefs on logic reason and scientific evidence.
An irreligious person is anybody who is on the scale from not religious to hostile towards religion.

 

[leibowde84]

You mean "rationalists".No. Atheists are just not theists. Those who "reasonably question the qualifications of holy books" are rationalists and irreligious.

An atheist is simply any person who is not a theist.
A rationalist is a person who bases his beliefs on logic reason and scientific evidence.
An irreligious person is anybody who is on the scale from not religious to hostile towards religion.

Testify!! Right on!