Is atheism a belief?

[ratiocinator]

Who we is not a physical construct, it's a psychological idea, and all ideas require perception to exist.

We are systems that are self-aware. There is still no route from that to any god. The rest of your "argument" is still disjointed and illogical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you want to stick to petty things and not search things that potentially can be God or the most valuable thing to be sought. It's really up to you.

There is nothing to search if the thing that is supposed to be searched for, isn't properly defined in such a way that it is actually searchable.


Let's have an analogy.

Please search for gooblydockydogodo

 

[Link]

You demonstrated nothing at all.
You made some bizar claims and then plugged in a baseless assertion that it somehow proves god.




So was that the best you've got?
Colour me unimpressed (and unsurprised).

It proves God, if there is a burden of proof for believers (And there is), there is also a burden of disbelievers to listen.

It's a two way street.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can not only show it's searchable, I can prove it exists and more then that that you rely on it's knowledge of it's existence whether you recognize that or not, acknowledge it or not, you rely on it everyday to love others.

Now you 're just going in circles while completely ignoring the objections to your so-called "proof".

You won't agree, but in my view: that makes you lose the argument by default.

 

[Link]

We are systems that are self-aware. There is still no route from that to any god. The rest of your "argument" is still disjointed and illogical.

We self-aware yet self-aware that we don't truly know ourselves nor are the judges to our deeds or others that assign them their true value. God is what defines all things and gives everything their creation and guides them.

 

[Link]

Now you 're just going in circles while completely ignoring the objections to your so-called "proof".

You won't agree, but in my view: that makes you lose the argument by default.

Anyone can deny a premise or an argument flow. But this proof is undeniable, in that all it's premises are known (1) properly basically (2) can be proven even though they are properly basic as well.

There isn't wiggle room out of this. Do you want another proof or do you want continue discussing this one?

 

[ratiocinator]

We self-aware yet self-aware that we don't truly know ourselves nor are the judges to our deeds or others that assign them their true value.

That makes no sense at all.

God is what defines all things and gives everything their creation and guides them.

So you assert.

Do you want another proof...

Where's the first one?

 

[Link]

That makes no sense at all.

It makes sense, what about it doesn't make sense to you?

 

[ecco]

Atheism is the presumption that no gods exist unless and until proven otherwise. And it IS A BELIEF because the atheist believes that he is and would be capable of recognizing the evidence of the existence of a god, if one existed. This belief is what defines atheism as something different from agnosticism.

That's a lot of self-serving nonsense. It's also untrue. You are not an atheist. If you want to post what you think atheists believe, then you need to quote atheists. Since you don't/can't we can just take your comments as unsupportable male bovine feces.

PureX said: the atheist believes that he is and would be capable of recognizing the evidence of the existence of a god, if one existed.

ecco said: That's a lot of self-serving nonsense. It's also untrue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If it is untrue that the atheist believes that he is and would be capable of recognizing the evidence of the existence of a god, if one existed, that means it is true that the atheist believes that he is and would be incapable of recognizing the evidence of the existence of a god, if one existed.

So not a straw man.

When you intentionally select portions of a comment and portions of a reply, you are indeed erecting a strawman. Perhaps I'm being too kind. Perhaps you were just being intentionally dishonest.

Considering that you didn't use the quote features and made me hunt for the original comments, I'm leaning toward the latter.




Now, let's look at the entire sentence: "And it IS A BELIEF because the atheist believes that he is and would be capable of recognizing the evidence of the existence of a god, if one existed."

PureX is asserting that: it IS A BELIEF because....
If nothing else, that part is untrue. Whatever follows the "because" doesn't matter. Whatever follows the "because" is a figment of PureX's imagination - it has nothing to do with truth.

Perhaps, instead of using the phrase "It's also untrue" it would have been clearer if I just said: PureX is lying. But, for reasons that should be obvious to members of RF, I chose a less harsh version.

Purex's comments also contained other fabrications...
UNTRUE: Atheism is the presumption that no gods exist.
UNTRUE: This belief is what defines atheism.

 

[ratiocinator]

It makes sense, what about it doesn't make sense to you?

It doesn't even make sense as a sentence in English.

 

[Link]

How doesn't it make sense in English?

 

[ratiocinator]

How doesn't it make sense in English?

You said "We self-aware yet self-aware that we don't truly know ourselves nor are the judges to our deeds or others that assign them their true value."

Now the "We self-aware yet self-aware that we don't truly know ourselves..." is a reasonable start but "nor are the judges to our deeds or others that assign them their true value." doesn't actually compete a sentence. "nor are the judges to our deeds or others that assign them their true value" - Nor are they what?

 

[Link]

Yes, I guess I did grammar mistakes.

What I meant is nor are WE the judge to our deeds nor do others assign them their (deeds) their true value to who we are.

Who we are and our deeds are linked.

 

[ratiocinator]

What I meant is nor are WE the judge to our deeds nor do others assign them their (deeds) their true value to who we are.

What's this "true value"? Value is a subjective judgement. Why should anybody "truly" know us?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We self-aware yet self-aware that we don't truly know ourselves nor are the judges to our deeds or others that assign them their true value. God is what defines all things and gives everything their creation and guides them.

Claims, claims, claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anyone can deny a premise or an argument flow. But this proof is undeniable, in that all it's premises are known (1) properly basically (2) can be proven even though they are properly basic as well.

There isn't wiggle room out of this. Do you want another proof or do you want continue discussing this one?

All you have is an assumed conclusion that doesn't even follow from the nonsense you call premises.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's this "true value"? Value is a subjective judgement. Why should anybody "truly" know us?

Because that's his assumed conclusion.

 

[Ouroboros]

Because that's his assumed conclusion.

In other words, his "proof" is a moral argument (ethos) and not logic (logos). "For things to be just, God must exist." or "Morals must be absolute and God is that absolute."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In other words, his "proof" is a moral argument (ethos) and not logic (logos).

Not really.
His "proof" is fallacious in that it has an assumed conclusion.
He starts with the (hidden) premise that a god exists and is necessary, then declares some nonsense pretending those are the actual premises and then comes to his assumed conclusion that a god exists - which doesn't even follow from the nonsense he declares as premises.

All the while, off course, not mentioning that he already had his conclusion in mind before he even started.

"For things to be just, God must exist."

Which is also just another declaration / assertion which flows from what is already dogmatically believed, instead of from a reasonable argument.

or "Morals must be absolute and God is that absolute."

Ditto as above.

Another assertion with no proper argument or evidence backing it, and which instead flows from what is already believed.

It's assumed conclusions from top to bottom.

 

[Link]

What's this "true value"? Value is a subjective judgement. Why should anybody "truly" know us?

Because who we are truly exists, we have an accurate reality to who we are, and that's impossible by virtue it's a psychological construct and relies on a perceived assessment to not have a perception seeing us exactly as we are.

The true value is who truly are, which is in God's vision and no where else.