Is atheism a belief?

[TagliatelliMonster]

True guidance is God's guidance.

Please define what you mean by "true" guidance as opposed to just "guidance".
Then please demonstrate this premise.

True guidance exists.

Please demonstrate this premise.

Therefore God exists.

Here's an argument with the exact same logic applied:

- grass growth is regulated by undetectable fairies
- grass grows
- therefor fairies exist.

Another way to phrase it is, morality is a true guidance to love, the only way for true guidance to exist is through God. Morality in an objective sense exists. Therefore God exists.

Same fallacious nonsense as above.
This again another attempt at simply "defining" god into existance.

Demonstrate your premises.

There is an elaboration and proof to those two premises and how we can know it.

Explain.

But as intuitive as the moral argument is, it's my least favorite.

There's nothing intuitive about magical thinking and assumed conclusions.

 

[Link]

There is no point elaborating in this thread, I will make a whole new thread for it because morality is as complicated as it gets. It will get lost in this thread. And let's be honest, if it's proven, you know very well you won't accept it.

 

[LuisDantas]

If there is strong proofs for God's existence and Atheists choose not to listen, is it Theists fault in this case, even if many of them present such proofs?

We will probably never know, since that situation has never existed in this world.

Unless you are talking about Cargo Cults or something similar.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the case that disbelievers are unwilling to change or believe? What if they aren't willing to try to understand? What if Atheists are making too much noise and never try to really understand?

What if none of this is true and your arguments are really as fallacious as we are showing them to be?

Atheists haven't proven themselves to be more sincere to the truth than others nor are they be to relied on to assess how strong an argument is.

Arguments fall and stand on their own merrit, not on who utters them or who deconstructs them.
If the argument is fallacious, then the argument is fallacious.

And the fact is that your arguments so far are pretty much employing just about any fallacy they could have.

What is not useful is denying premises without any reasons and not elaborating why. Anyone can deny anything. That leaves no room for dialogue.

Premises need to be demonstrated. Otherwise they are just more claims.

A conclusion in a deductive argument can only ever be as good as the premises.
If your premises are undemonstrable, your conclusion can safely be ignored.

 

[Link]

We will probably never know, since that situation has never existed in this world.

Unless you are talking about Cargo Cults or something similar.

You may think so, but if you ignore proofs on that basis, you are doing so through circular reasoning.


"There aren't proofs for God's existence, so I won't listen to proofs of God's existence" is a way of mind ****ing yourself into circular compounding of ignorance.

 

[Willamena]

When you say "there are no gods", then you are making an appeal to knowledge. It's a knowledge claim. You claim to KNOW there are no gods.

That's not the case. There's a stronger argument for that every expression objectively phrased is an expression of belief first, and knowledge second.

Just phrasing something objectively doesn't make it an appeal to knowledge. "Knowledge" requires more than just being true, it must also be a justified belief.

Otherwise it is "I believe there are no gods".

You can preface your belief with "I believe that...," but it's still a belief.

IN that sense, knowledge is kind of a subset of belief.
Obviously you will believe that which you claim to know.
But the other way round isn't so. You will not necessarily claim to know that which you merely believe.

Right: you will believe that which you know, because belief (in the proposition) stands prior to knowledge of the subject of the proposition. In the same way, the objectively phrased claim is (or should be regarded as) a belief before it is a truth.

 

[ratiocinator]

Philosophers including Plato have proven God.

Clearly not - otherwise they wouldn't have been disputed.

Who you go to matters.

It wouldn't, if there had actually been any concrete proofs.

Which god do you think has been proved anyway? There have been literally thousands of them.

In my experience, some of the "proofs" are obviously wrong because you can apply the same argument to get a contradictory god (or other idea), some of them have been overtaken by science, some of them prove that there is some mystery but stop light years short of an actual god of any sort.

 

[Link]

What if none of this is true and your arguments are really as fallacious as we are showing them to be?

Then they have to listen and show them to be fallacious, otherwise, dialogue becomes meaningless. Denial with no elaboration to an elaboration or denial of proofs is petty. So far, we humans aren't very good at dialogue. We argue a lot, but never reach a conclusion because our dialogues are insincere and we are rebelling against one another.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Philosophers including Plato have proven God. There is a revision of their proofs by conjecture in this century. Who you go to matters.

Just like philosophers back in the day had "proven" that the flow of time is a constant and the same for everyone always everywhere, until Einstein found out that isn't correct.

Or like how philosophers had "proven" that things can't be in two places at once, until scientists have discovered that electrons can do exactly that.

You can lock up 10.000 of the most BRILLIANT philosophers that have ever lived in a room and ask them to come up with quantum mechanics and none of them would even come close.

The lesson here is that drawing conclusions from mere words, is not a pathway to truth.
If you want to learn about the universe, you're going to have to ask the universe by studying it.

 

[Link]

Clearly not - otherwise they wouldn't have been disputed.
.

This is a weak premise, that I know for a fact is wrong. I know Shiism is proven both in Quran and Sunnah to Muslim, both them full of proofs of Wilayah of Ahlulbayt (as) but I won't hold my breath for Muslims to all wake up and see it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no point elaborating in this thread, I will make a whole new thread for it because morality is as complicated as it gets. It will get lost in this thread. And let's be honest, if it's proven, you know very well you won't accept it.

Cool.

Create a thread. Perhaps include in your OP the usernames of the people in this thread involved with this line of discussion with an "@" prefix in front of the username. That will notify them.

Looking forward to it already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then they have to listen and show them to be fallacious

We already did that. You ignored it.

Denial with no elaboration to an elaboration or denial of proofs is petty.

Fallacies in an argument don't need elaboration. They just need to be pointed out.

 

[Ouroboros]

And let's be honest, if it's proven, you know very well you won't accept it.

If that's the case, you're doing a fools errand.

 

[ecco]

I know a retired Church of England vicar who is an atheist.

You mean you know a retired Church of England vicar who is an atheist and a hypocrit.

 

[ecco]

Most atheists lie about their "unbelief" because they cannot reconcile their presumption (belief) that gods don't exist with their complete inability to produce any evidence to support it.

There is plenty of evidence that all gods are the creations of man's imaginings. Even you would have to admit that Atlas and Shiva and Oshun are not really God. Even you would have to admit that Atlas and Shiva and Oshun are the creations of man's imaginings. You, like all other theists, make one and only one exception - your own god - although there is no rational reason for doing this.

On the flip side, there is no evidence that JesusGodHolyGhost, Allah, Atlas, Shiva, and Oshun are really God. There is nothing that cannot be explained by natural causes.

More evidence that Gods are the creations of man's imaginings is the fact that all Gods (supposedly) look like the people in whose imaginations they were created.

Even as they constantly demand that theists produce evidence to support their presumption (belief) that God/gods do exist. They are hiding their blatant hypocrisy (from themselves) behind this lie about their "unbelief".

I don't ask theists for evidence to support their versions of Gods. I don't think most atheists as for evidence. In fact, if you look back a few posts you will see another atheist recognizing that theists work on beliefs and blind faith.

There isn't anything anti-theist about the concept of blind faith in religious beliefs - as theists are actually proud of the fact that they invoke faith to believe those religious claims. They consider it a virtue.

I do occasionally ask for evidence of some of the things their god supposedly did, like The Great Flood. There never is any. I do occasionally ask for evidence of some of the things their holy scripture states like The Exodus. There never is any. I do occasionally ask for explanations of how some of their beliefs could really be true. For instance, how was Matthew able to quote, word for word, the Sermon on the Mount. For instance, how could Shogi Effendi be privy to the detailed conversations Ballula ostensibly had with Highest level Government officials. There never are any good explanations.

 

[ecco]

You post a lot.

I merely point out the flaws in reasoning that I see in the claims people propose or reject.

You also duck and dodge a lot as you just did again. You quoted and responded to very little of my post. In its entirety, it read...

You post a lot. Most of your posts are criticisms of other people's positions. I see very little where you justify why you are a...

Philosophical Taoist/Christian
...whatever that's supposed to mean. So, to quote the...

Philosophical Taoist/Christian
...grow some balls, show your position, and defend it.

Still waiting.

 

[ecco]

I've never met an atheists that said they needed to be an atheist. Or many theists, either, for that matter. Yet I think personal need is the driving factor for both camps.

More unsupported, unsupportable BS. You keep posting nonsense, I'll keep calling you out.

And you keep ignoring the rest of the posts. Perhaps if you would read the whole post, you would understand them, better.

Well, here is a part of your post...

I've never met an atheists that said they needed to be an atheist. Or many theists, either, for that matter. Yet I think personal need is the driving factor for both camps.[/QUOTE]
​

To which I responded...

More unsupported, unsupportable BS. You keep posting nonsense, I'll keep calling you out.

​

Then you went on with...

There is no real asymmetry. Everyone is choosing their positions based on their personal experiences and how they've come to understand them, and on their respective personal needs. It's not really any more or lass logical to be an atheist than to be a theist. It's just that atheists tend to need to hold their pretense of "objective evidence" in very high regard, while theists do that with their religion (myth, tradition, practice and dictum, etc.).

That was a fairly bland ramble, so I didn't bother responding. It lends no support to the beginning of your comment regarding "personal needs", which, as I said is "More unsupported, unsupportable BS".

 

[ecco]

Atheism is unjustified aversion from the truth of our nature, the proofs around us, the design of irreducibly complex systems in biology, earth, and universe, as well good philosophical proofs and reminders of God, and aversion from the holy books that prove God.

Are you saying that the Koran proves Allah and the conversations he had with Muhammed?
Are you saying that the Vedas prove Shiva is the true God?

 

[ecco]

I've demonstrated one proof so far in this thread.

Untrue.

 

[ecco]

Let's have an analogy.

Please search for gooblydockydogodo

I searched and searched and searched. So far the closest I've come is the finding of a gooblydockydodogo.