Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[ArtieE]

Yes, I acknowledge my belief, faith as such, do you?

As far as we can tell, the universe did begin in a specific creation event.

For the record, not even Lemaître himself who came up with the theory calls it a creation event. Guy Threepwood has been told this numerous times but still keeps repeating the same mantra. Tells us a lot about what kind of person Guy Threepwood is.

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."
Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And who is a theist ?

A person who believes in at least one god.

Edit: or, perhaps more accurately: a person who believes in at least one thing that he considers to be a god.

 

[McBell]

To support that the universe exists and could come to exist without any gods.

Please quote where that claim has been made.
Post numbers will be enough.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol if you don't think 0 gods are less likely than 1+ then you are not an atheist by definition. If you do, you believe that 0 is more likely than 1+ even if you're not absolutely certain. Again, I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

So a person who hasn't assigned a probability to the likelihood of the existence of at least one god is neither a theist nor an atheist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol it's not against the point out all, it's a massively clear example of a famous atheist figurehead making a claim of belief.

And in doing so, he took on a burden of proof... i.e. he did the thing you claimed he refused to do.

 

[1137]

Please quote where that claim has been made.
Post numbers will be enough.

This is why people who play philosophy should be versed on logic! If there are no gods, then the universe has to be godless and explainable without gods. Very, VERY simply deduction.

So a person who hasn't assigned a probability to the likelihood of the existence of at least one god is neither a theist nor an atheist?

Ah the same false dichotomy as the OP, because agnosticism doesn't exist right

And in doing so, he took on a burden of proof... i.e. he did the thing you claimed he refused to do.

Yeah, because that's what atheism is, and I was happy to see Dawkins admit it. It makes even less sense now that you modern online atheists pretend otherwise.

 

[McBell]

This is why people who play philosophy should be versed on logic! If there are no gods, then the universe has to be godless and explainable without gods. Very, VERY simply deduction.

Please quote where that claim has been made.
Post numbers will be enough.

 

[1137]

Please quote where that claim has been made.
Post numbers will be enough.

Lol what a joke.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah the same false dichotomy as the OP, because agnosticism doesn't exist right

Agnosticism exists, but I thought you said that agnosticism is its own category separate from atheism and theism.

 

[1137]

Agnosticism exists, but I thought you said that agnosticism is its own category separate from atheism and theism.

Correct, agnosticism is not identical to either atheism or theism.

 

[McBell]

Lol what a joke.

Yes.
You are a joke.

Please present the post numbers where the claim you claim to be have been made was made.
Your inability to present them is most revealing.
Almost as if your claim is a bold faced lie.
How can you expect anyone to take a bold faced liar seriously?

 

[Augustus]

Personally, I see that argument as mostly irrelevant, since etymology doesn't dictate meaning.

And words certainly don't get their meaning from the letters they are comprised of.

Again, I did not posit a 'correct' definition.

You agree that people who describe atheism as "lack of belief in gods" are correct by a normal definition of the word "atheist"?

I agree that words often have many meanings and can be legitimately used in ways that match all of the common usages, and they can also legitimately be used in ways that do not match any of the common usages.

The "rejection of God" definition became obsolete once English-speaking countries' paradigms shifted to include more gods than just classical monotheistic ones.

If words get their meaning from usage, how can the most common definition of a word be 'obsolete'? That's absurd.

Again, can you cite a reference.

When I look at Oxford, I get "Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’."

You just have. Atheos + ism.

You can't say it 'literally' means "without theism" (a- theism) without accepting that it must also 'literally' mean "the principle of being without god" (athe-ism).

Anyway, words don't get their meanings from letters, they are merely symbolic.

 

[Koldo]

To support that the universe exists and could come to exist without any gods.

Why would an atheist have to support that ?
That's only proper if the proposed claim is: 'The universe exists and could come to exist without any gods.'.
Merely believing that sentence to be true doesn't involve any 'burden of proof', except the one that was met once you accepted that to be true.

 

[1137]

Yes.
You are a joke.

Please present the post numbers where the claim you claim to be have been made was made.
Your inability to present them is most revealing.
Almost as if your claim is a bold faced lie.
How can you expect anyone to take a bold faced liar seriously?

Haha I literally never said it was from a post here. There's this magical thing called logic that you can use to follow lines of thoughts. In this case, if there are no gods, it's logically asinine to think the universe cannot exist without gods or is not godless. Simple as that genius!

 

[McBell]

Haha I literally never said it was from a post here. There's this magical thing called logic that you can use to follow lines of thoughts. In this case, if there are no gods, it's logically asinine to think the universe cannot exist without gods or is not godless. Simple as that genius!

Wait, so your claimed claims are nothing more than you making assumptions and then declaring your assumptions as claims made by others?

Please be so kind as to explain to the thread how that is not you being a bold faced liar?

Lemme go get some popcorn.
This is going to be entertaining.

 

[1137]

Why would an atheist have to support that ?
That's only proper if the proposed claim is: 'The universe exists and could come to exist without any gods.'.
Merely believing that sentence to be true doesn't involve any 'burden of proof', except the one that was met once you accepted that to be true.

So you're saying there's no burden of proof on beliefs?

 

[1137]

Wait, so your claimed claims are nothing more than you making assumptions and then declaring your assumptions as claims made by others?

Please be so kind as to explain to the thread how that is not you being a bold faced liar?

Lemme go get some popcorn.
This is going to be entertaining.

Yep, cause logical deduction is just claims and assumptions. Take logic once you graduate high school and try telling the professor that!

 

[McBell]

Yep, cause logical deduction is just claims and assumptions. Take logic once you graduate high school and try telling the professor that!

Sorry.
I can no longer take you seriously.
You have basically admitted to being a bold faced liar.

Have a nice day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, because that's what atheism is, and I was happy to see Dawkins admit it. It makes even less sense now that you modern online atheists pretend otherwise.

"The probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low" is the claim that Dawkins made. You do not need to make this claim to be an atheist.

 

[Koldo]

A person who believes in at least one god.

Edit: or, perhaps more accurately: a person who believes in at least one thing that he considers to be a god.

Wouldn't that mean that atheism is a label about word usage rather than a distinct view about what is believed to exist ?
According to your use, two people can believe that the same set of things exist, and yet, merely because they label them differently, one might be a theist while the other an atheist.

I think that an important aspect of atheism is the absence of belief in the beings that are considered gods not just by our own selves but also in our own cultures.