I see no value in atheism

[ArtieE]

many of the posters are without the fundamental understanding to understand properly what is being said to them..

Correct. Like when you said: "Are you insane? What is your point?" it clearly shows that at least one poster here is without the fundamental understanding to understand properly what is being said to them.

 

[Curious George]

"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.

yes but if you lack something you usually base it on the the amount you lack. If you have 50 cents you could say you lacked a dollar but this wouldn't be very precise. In reality you don't have a dollar the dollar you need but you are actually lacking 50 more cents.

 

[Curious George]

"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.

yes but if you lack something you usually base it on the the amount you lack. If you have 50 cents you could say you lacked a dollar but this wouldn't be very precise. In reality you don't have a dollar the dollar you need but you are actually lacking 50 more cents.

 

[ArtieE]

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?

Are you a theist or an atheist?

 

[leibowde84]

yes but if you lack something you usually base it on the the amount you lack. If you have 50 cents you could say you lacked a dollar but this wouldn't be very precise. In reality you don't have a dollar the dollar you need but you are actually lacking 50 more cents.

How does this change the fact that if you don't hold a belief that God exists, you "lack" that belief. "Lack" does not mean that one "does not have enough" necessarily. Often, and I would argue in this case, it simply means "being without".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Reached a conclusion, reason.

Not every conclusion is reached by reason. Reason is a particular method used to reach a conclusion, not just any way to reach a conclusion.

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.

Ah, you're using the word "reason" as a noun, not the verb. I thought I was quite clear earlier that "reason" is a particular means of reaching a conclusion, not just any means.

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

Some reason it, some reach the conclusion through acceptance of religious texts or some form of personal enlightenment (as they see it).

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.

But they do still exist. This is not a numbers game.

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.

Then I have absolutely no clue what you can possibly mean by human reasoning being "binding on reality", because reason doesn't - and isn't supposed to - influence reality. It attempts to understand it.

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.

No they aren't - at least, not necessarily. As an atheist, I do not believe there is a God. The reasoning behind this is simply that I have no good, logical reason to believe a God exists. Hence, I withhold belief until I have a good reason to believe the proposition. There is no jumping to conclusion here; in fact, it's the opposite. I'm refusing to jump to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. I'd agree with you if you're taking aim at strong atheists, but not all atheists are strong atheists.

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.

There's not pretence of any kind. The only "conclusion" I have reached is that there is no good reason, that I am aware of, to conclude God exists. That's not gibberish, it's basic and very simple logic.

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

And I truly hate people accusing me of being intellectually dishonest and not bothering to demonstrate how I am. So, tell me, in what way am I being intellectually dishonest?

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.

Since you apparently define "reason" as "any means of reaching a conclusion", how exactly could they do that? As far as I'm concerned, all anyone has to do to void this is admit uncertainty. Most of the atheists I have met (and most on these forums) admit that. How are they not challenging their own 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.

They don't "assume" anything. There is no assumption whatsoever necessarily implied by atheism, just a lack of reaching a particular conclusion.

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.

Because your argument makes no sense.

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

I agree with you that you need to find a way to make your arguments clearer, in that case.

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.

So you have no way of knowing if human reasoning is limited or not, and you feel humans are not qualified to address questions at the heart of all reality (which is realm we can't even define), and yet you explicitly state that we require "unlimited reasoning" to "debunk God claims" because they are "about the fundamental nature of everything"? I have absolutely no idea how you can reach any of those, very specific, conclusions about something you - apparently - cannot address or define.

I'm not a reasonable or humble person, and don't claim to be.

In other words: it's okay for you to behave in an arrogant, unreasonable manner, but woe betide anyone else who does - especially if they're them no good, intellectually dishonest atheists.

Admitting a fault is not mitigating a fault, and it certainly doesn't help if you're a hypocrite.

So you are debunking an assertion of your own invention, a rather common hobby here on the forum.

I'm not debunking an assertion, just pointing out the irony that you decry people for acting unreasonable, arrogant and superior while acting unreasonable, arrogant and superior.

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.

"Grumpy" doesn't cut it. You directly insulted and case insinuations about the intelligence of other people. That's not "grumpy", that's "resorting to personal attacks when your arguments fail to convince because they are too weak to stand on their own so you have to make yourself feel superior by insulting them".

And atheism IS a lack of belief. If you have a problem with that, take it up with a dictionary.

 

[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?

So, are you actually claiming that you know better than the Oxford English Dictionary?

 

[Curious George]

How does this change the fact that if you don't hold a belief that God exists, you "lack" that belief. "Lack" does not mean that one "does not have enough" necessarily. Often, and I would argue in this case, it simply means "being without".

Yes, but if one believes that there is a possibility God exists do they have a complete absence of belief?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, but if one believes that there is a possibility God exists do they have a complete absence of belief?

Certainly not a "complete absence of belief", but that is not relevent. They have a complete absence of "the belief that God exists", which is required for theism. Someone who "believes that God might exist" is not a theist, as they "lack the belief that God exists". I would say that a vast majority of atheists hold the belief that God might exist, but they are still atheists because they lack the belief that God exists.

 

[Curious George]

Certainly not a "complete absence of belief", but that is not relevent. They have a complete absence of "the belief that God exists", which is required for theism. Someone who "believes that God might exist" is not a theist, as they "lack the belief that God exists". I would say that a vast majority of atheists hold the belief that God might exist, but they are still atheists because they lack the belief that God exists.

Is it required of theism? Are you suggesting that the moment someone doubts the faith even a little, they are no longer a theist?

 

[leibowde84]

Is it required of theism? Are you suggesting that the moment someone doubts the faith even a little, they are no longer a theist?

As soon as they don't hold the belief that God exists. Saying that they "doubt their faith even a little" is too vague to pinpoint. But, it is a pretty simple concept. As soon as someone comes to the realization that they no longer believe in the existence of God, they are no longer a "theist" and are then an "atheist".

 

[leibowde84]

Is it required of theism? Are you suggesting that the moment someone doubts the faith even a little, they are no longer a theist?

Theism is simply defined as the belief that God exists. Unless that requirement is met, it is inaccurate to describe the person as a "theist".

 

[Willamena]

No, it doesn't. "I don't believe X" does not mean "I believe Y".

It does when "belief" is understood to be the attitude that holds something "believed" to be true. To believe in god is to hold god to be true, hence to not believe in god is to hold god to be false. Regardless that people may use the word differently in your experience, this usage is not uncommon. Live in the English-speaking world long enough, and you will inevitably encounter the word used in this way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It does when "belief" is understood to be the attitude that holds something "believed" to be true. To believe in god is to hold god to be true, hence to not believe in god is to hold god to be false.

Wrong. "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are different beliefs. Saying "I don't believe God exists" simply means you don't believe God exists, it DOES NOT mean you believe God does not exist. You don't have to hold a claim to be false in order to not accept it as true. I refer you back to the jelly bean jar analogy I used earlier. Saying "I don't believe the claim that the number of jelly beans in the jar is even" does NOT mean you MUST believe the number of jelly beans is odd, even though they are mutually exclusive in reality. You can have insufficient reason to believe either proposition "the number is even" or "the number is odd", and therefore not accepting one does not necessarily mean accepting the other.

Regardless that people may use the word differently in your experience, this usage is not uncommon.

How common its usage is is irrelevant. I care about the actual definition, and how it applies to the discussion.

Live in the English-speaking world long enough, and you will inevitably encounter the word used in this way.

Sure I do, just as I hear people referring to "The Specific ocean" or calling a baby horse a pony. Just because people use it doesn't mean it's correct, and just because I use it in a way that you don't like doesn't mean my definition is inaccurate.

 

[Curious George]

Theism is simply defined as the belief that God exists. Unless that requirement is met, it is inaccurate to describe the person as a "theist".

So if some is nearly certain God exists, but they assert that they don't "technically believe in God" because they realize there is a possibility he might not exist- they are an atheist? Even though they go to church and worship God, and praise God and are 99.9% sure that god hears their prayers, and is influencing the world?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So if some is nearly certain God exists, but they assert that they don't "technically believe in God" because they realize there is a possibility he might not exist- they are an atheist?

That's not what they said. Degrees of certainty are irrelevant - they are questions of gnosticism vs. agnosticism. What matters is whether they BELIEVE the claim. You don't have to believe something is absolutely 100% certain to be true in order to believe it. You believe something as long as you accept it as being true. Whether you're certain it's true or not is irrelevant.

 

[leibowde84]

So if some is nearly certain God exists, but they assert that they don't "technically believe in God" because they realize there is a possibility he might not exist- they are an atheist? Even though they go to church and worship God, and praise God and are 99.9% sure that god hears their prayers, and is influencing the world?

You don't have to be certain, as we are speaking about belief, not certainty. You can certainly believe in God while still understanding that you could be wrong. I think anyone who doesn't realize this is foolish in their beliefs. But that is another topic.

 

[Curious George]

That's not what they said. Degrees of certainty are irrelevant - they are questions of gnosticism vs. agnosticism. What matters is whether they BELIEVE the claim. You don't have to believe something is absolutely 100% certain to be true in order to believe it. You believe something as long as you accept it as being true. Whether you're certain it's true or not is irrelevant.

And what does it mean to "accept" something?

 

[Willamena]

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).

It does mean that, but it comes with a connotation that can easily be seen in, for example, the idea of god that lacks evidence: evidence is needed for the idea to be acceptable. Evidence is missing, and resolving the lack restores a balance. Similarly if I lack vitamin C, then I need some to restore balance, in this case health. That's the context of usage for the word in regards to god: a belief that is lacking arose at a time in our history when belief was the norm.

 

[leibowde84]

It does mean that, but it comes with a connotation that can easily be seen in, for example, the idea of god that lacks evidence: evidence is needed for the idea to be acceptable. Evidence is missing, and resolving the lack restores a balance. Similarly if I lack vitamin C, then I need some to restore balance, in this case health. That's the context of usage for the word in regards to god: a belief that is lacking arose at a time in our history when belief was the norm.

The definition does not say "a belief in God's existence that is lacking". If it did, I would agree with you. However, it says that an atheist is one who "lacks a belief in the existence of God". There is no indication that it is referring to a "lack" of evidence or insufficient belief. It is defined in this context as being without the belief that God exists.