Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[1137]

I admit all my beliefs. I have no idea why you think I wouldn't. What do I stand to gain by believing in an idea and concealing it?

The avoidance of a burden of proof, which is extremely hard to meet for a negative belief.

You seem to see us as all having character defects for being atheists. Is that correct? Can an atheist be an honest or a good person according to your religious beliefs?[/QUOTE]

Of course they can? Some of my closest friends are atheists. Just because someone makes dishonest arguments does not make them inherently dishonest, especially when it comes to religious debate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no strong or weak version of atheism. Atheism is a positive belief system and has been so defined by the supreme court. If a person wishes to align themselves with the position that there simply is not enough evidence for god then they would be agnostic like me.

Atheism and religion
Contrary to the opinions of evangelical atheists, atheism is a religion which has repeatedly attempted to take away the religious liberties of Christians in order to support their false religion.
Although atheists claim that atheism is not a religion the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion as it fits in with its definition, distinguishing between “religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs."
History of Atheism - Conservapedia

Effect of atheism on societies
Atheism has a negative effect on societies culture (see: Atheism and culture).
Various social science studies, historical data and other data, demonstrate that atheism often has a harmful effect on individuals and societies (See: Atheism statistics and Christianity vs. atheism statistics).
History of Atheism - Conservapedia

According to conducted studies it really won't matter what Atheists believe or assert to take a stand on;

Atheists as a percentage of the world's population have declined since 1970 and atheism is expected to face long term decline.
On July 24, 2013, CNS News reported:
“Atheism is in decline worldwide, with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world’s population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020, according to a new report by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass."

Conservapedia is conservative apologetics. Their values are not mine. Find something mutually acceptable if you want it to be read. I don't really care what conservatives have to say any more.

If it wasn't for the Christians that founded this country and who made the initial rules for this society to be founded on then we would not likely see anyone with the freedom to even try to claim an atheist stance. It is my firm position that if you don't want to deal with theistic people then you should not be afforded the rights that the country was founded on whose basis was on their belief that;

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Christianity has nothing to do with freedom or rights, none of which had anything to do with anybody but the men who decided they wanted them, enumerated them, fought for them, established methods to enforce them,and continue to defend them. No creator was involved. If we have one, it sits idly by watching human history unfold without its compassion or intervention. Al through the Middle Ages, man languished under Christian autocracies, and had few to no rights.

Thanks for wanting to take my rights away, but fortunately, they don't depend on you.

If you feel there is no possibility for a creator to exist then you should live by the governing rule of evolution where "the strong survive" and the weak are eliminated. Assemble an army of atheists and take the US out then form your own rules to live by and you won't be arguing against their belief system while enjoying a freedom based on that belief system.

Thanks for the life advice, but no thanks. I don't see much from the Christian community that appeals to me. If I were going to pick an ideology by faith, t would need to be one that is producing a happier and smarter person than we would expect without it.

What do you think about this comment?

"Christian conservatives ... want to control the right of women to have abortions; to ban all forms of gay marriage; to prevent the teaching of safe sex in schools; to encourage home schooling; to ban the use of contraceptives; to halt stem cell research with human embryos; to / stop the teaching of evolution and/or to start the teaching of intelligent design; to bring God into the public square and eliminate the separation of church and state; to overturn the legality of living wills; to control the sexual content of cable and network television, radio, and the Internet; and to eliminate an "activist" judiciary that limits or impinges on their agenda, by placing God-fearing judges on the bench who will promote their sincerely held beliefs." - John Dean - White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973

Sorry, but you people lost me long ago.

And you have evolution wrong. The strong often succumb.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are free to use any words you like. But then, you shouldn't expect us to feel bad for your frustrations when you are misunderstood. Language isn't a dictatorship. It's a democracy, a relationship between the speaker and the

What frustrations? I don't need to be understood, although I do make effort to be. I tell others what the words I use mean. The other party needs to make a good faith effort to understand. Lacking that, there's really no basis for discussion anyway, is there?

"Cooperative principle - In social science generally and linguistics specifically, describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations, that is, how listeners and speakers must act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way."

 

[Blackdog22]

Seriously, you are not addressing my point. According to those evolutionists, who claim there is no evidence for intelligent design, they believe a polar bear evolved by chance from once its ancestors were nothing more than a single celled organism. How many times must I repeat myself?

I did actually, you just seem confused as to how evolution functions, and exactly what it is used to explain. No one will ever claim a polar bear came from a rock my dude.

Ok, then if I understand you correctly you are saying that the only way life could have begun and evolved is the same way God did.

Not even close to what I was saying. Was my post unclear or something? Im not saying God evolved at all. If he did evolve what exactly did he evolve from? Anyways, my point was quite simple, if its difficult, or impossible, for you to think that the most basic building blocks of our Universe, that would of been necessary to form all life, is IMPOSSIBLE to believe without God, but then you can imagine God just magically existed and came about and SOMEHOW that isnt impossible to you, then I would love to know what kind of logic you use to come to this conclusion. You might as well be saying a tiny pebble is MUCH harder to throw than a pebble the size of Jupiter, it makes that little sense.

And if God had to have come about "by chance" then so could have life here on earth done so as well. Well that’s a bit of twist because now you are de facto saying God has to exist or evolution without God is untenable. On that score, I can agree with you.

Again, not even close. If the Universe could of come about by its own then thats it, no need for God. How you came to some conclusion that God needed to be in there, or was therefore necessary, ill never know. Please do explain.

All I can say then is without God there is no chance in the world, no chance in any honest scientist’s mind that life could evolve on its own (by chance) creating the most fantastic machines and physiological miracles. This is where I and atheism are at a major impasse.

Yet you just admitted you could believe that life could of come about by chance. Which one is it?

 

[Blackdog22]

No, perhaps because they never existed? (apart from the infamous Piltdown Pug of course)



Just like you would from a Model T to a Ford Mustang, that doesn't mean one spontaneously morphed into the other through a series of accidental design improvements




It depends on which process exactly you favor, from gradualism to punctuated equilibrium etc, we can invent the intermediates along with excuses for why they were never found. Either way 'the dog ate my homework' does not earn a passing grade.... Call us stubborn, some of us like a little evidence for extraordinary claims.

Wait, do you not actually believe dogs came from wolves or am I misunderstanding you? Also, evidence for extraordinary claims? Aren't you a theist? Lol?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The avoidance of a burden of proof, which is extremely hard to meet for a negative belief.

What burden of proof do you believe atheists have? What do I need to prove, to whom, and why?

 

[Blackdog22]

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. (A concept which was originally mocked and rejected by atheists as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang')

The literal creation of all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly know it or investigate it. If you disapprove of the word ''creation' being applied here,
maybe it's the implication of the reality rather than the word you don't like?

I dont need to acknowledge that im taking a leap of faith, im making no absolute claims about the origins of our Universe as theists are. I do however read about possibilities and find them interesting, but that is all they are, possibilities.

I disapprove of the word "created", per your initial post, because something being created assumes something exists to create. You are leading the argument to your own bias and its really, really obvious. If you want to make an absolute claim then you need to show how you got there and....ahem... like you mentioned earlier "evidence for extraordinary claims" wasn't it? Until then, if you actually want to speak honestly, all you can say is I don't know until such a time that you have that evidence. Pretending in an honest debate is kind of rude imo.

 

[1137]

What burden of proof do you believe atheists have? What do I need to prove, to whom, and why?

All beliefs have a burden of proof, including the belief that the universe is godless. If the atheist is right and there are no gods, they have to explain away gods, explain how the universe can exist without gods, etc. The worst part to me is that most atheists are fully capable of making these arguments, but instead hide behind the burden of proof.

 

[ArtieE]

All beliefs have a burden of proof, including the belief that the universe is godless.

A weak atheist has no burden of proof. A strong atheist does. Or at least one could expect that the strong atheist explains why he believes no gods exist.

 

[Notanumber]

God only exists in the minds of those that rely on others for guidance instead of using their own intuitive.

 

[1137]

God only exists in the minds of those that rely on others for guidance instead of using their own intuitive.

The esoteric left hand path self evidently contradicts that claim.

 

[ArtieE]

All beliefs have a burden of proof, including the belief that the universe is godless. If the atheist is right and there are no gods, they have to explain away gods, explain how the universe can exist without gods, etc. The worst part to me is that most atheists are fully capable of making these arguments, but instead hide behind the burden of proof.

I suppose if a Christian believes that his particular god exists he has the burden of proof. He must prove that his particular god exists. If the same Christian believes that all the other gods don't exist he has the burden of proof and must prove that every other god doesn't exist too. The only difference between a Christian and a strong atheist is then that a Christian has one less god he needs to prove doesn't exist.

 

[Notanumber]

The esoteric left hand path self evidently contradicts that claim.

It may be just a claim to you but it is my belief.

This just about sums it up.

 

[1137]

It may be just a claim to you but it is my belief.

This just about sums it up.

View attachment 16291

How does that quote suggest theism is about needing guidance?

 

[Willamena]

I suppose if a Christian believes that his particular god exists he has the burden of proof. He must prove that his particular god exists. If the same Christian believes that all the other gods don't exist he has the burden of proof and must prove that every other god doesn't exist too. The only difference between a Christian and a strong atheist is then that a Christian has one less god he needs to prove doesn't exist.

That's not logical, Artie. It is impossible to prove non-existence. There can be no burden of proof for the impossible.

 

[Thumper]

I couldn't be more clear, or point out any more often, that I'm not talking about certainty. Why can you guys not comprehend this? How many times do I have to say this? I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.
I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.
I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.
I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.
I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.
I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

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

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.

I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.
I'm talking about belief, leaning one way over other, not about certainty.

I'm so happy at least one person is capable of reading and understanding basic statements

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.

You're really stuck on that word "belief," aren't you?

Sorry, my mind doesn't work that way, it just doesn't. I give no more thought to gods that I do to invisible pink unicorns (IPUs).
Could they exist? Highly doubtful.
Am I certain IPUs don't exist? Well 99.9999% certain.
Do I have an emotional belief about IPUs? Not really, just doesn't rise to that level of concern.

Can you understand this way of looking at it? Highly doubtful.

 

[1137]

You're really stuck on that word "belief," aren't you?

Sorry, my mind doesn't work that way, it just doesn't. I give no more thought to gods that I do to invisible pink unicorns (IPUs).
Could they exist? Highly doubtful.
Am I certain IPUs don't exist? Well 99.9999% certain.
Do I have an emotional belief about IPUs? Not really, just doesn't rise to that level of concern.

Can you understand this way of looking at it? Highly doubtful.

This is exactly what belief is

 

[Thumper]

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

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

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.

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

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.

I see what you are saying now and it is exactly what I was. To combine the two thoughts (somewhat imperfectly) = a-theos-ism.

 

[Thumper]

This is exactly what belief is

That is not normally the way people of "faith" use the term "belief". But if that works for you, okay.

 

[Willamena]

That is not normally the way people of "faith" use the term "belief". But if that works for you, okay.

Belief comes with inherent, implicit uncertainty.