Shifting more towards atheism

[dfnj]

That's a very handy bias you have there, but logically it makes no sense at all. I guess your critical thinking skills aren't as strong as you like to tell yourself they are.

What I lack in ego I make up with ignorance.

 

[dfnj]

The problem with the Biblical concept of love is by the evidence it is limited by the tribal constraints to not extend beyond the tribe, This is overwhelmingly obvious by factual evidence of history.

Tribal war, persecution, ethnic cleansing, prejudice, anti-semitism, purges and the exclusive beliefs are clearly described in the Bible, and witness of history concerning those that believe differently and accept one of the conflicting variations the Christian. Even today the aggressive condemnation of atheists and LGBT communities reflect a rather limited concept of compassionate love for those who are different. Violent give no ground or compassion of Abrahamic tribal wars continue unabated.

I agree. Once you have a "chosen" people, then there is no moral consequence to murdering the non-chosen. Labels are used for political power. How else can the king build an empire without demonizing the people about to be conquered with death and murder? And the last ingredient you need to add is pretending the king is GOD on earth with divine authority. Otherwise, you can't build an empire under the rule-of-law.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree. Once you have a "chosen" people, then there is no moral consequence to murdering the non-chosen. Labels are used for political power. How else can the king build an empire without demonizing the people about to be conquered with death and murder? And the last ingredient you need to add is pretending the king is GOD on earth with divine authority. Otherwise, you can't build an empire under the rule-of-law.

This extends today to the concept in the USA of the Manifest Destiny of the goal of rule by Christian Nationalism. The popularly elected Mike Johnson and Marjorie Green are examples of this and they demonize the LGBT community and atheism, including the Qanon conspiracies, which include anti-semitism conspiracies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We are talking about atheism and not bati-ism. Making an outlandish comparison simply weakens your position.

Outlandish? Batman and gods have exactly the same amount of evidentiary support. What's outlandish is your arbitrary decision to believe in one and not the other, and to object to those that don't.

Atheism defines itself by what it is not, instead of what it is. A-theism versus Theism is like a-symmetrical versus symmetrical.

Agreed. And you've described two MECE sets - mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. In both cases, where the terms apply, everything is one or the other with nothing being both or neither. In mathematical term they are complements

All words are just words.

That was in response to, "As far as I can tell, God is just a word that only exists in our use of language." True, but some words have real referents.

And this is exactly the lie that so many theists are trying to tell us these days. They are not "without" theism. No one is in our culture.

Atheism as most unbelievers (and probably most believers use the term) is the complement to theism. Everybody is theist or an atheist, and nobody is both or neither.

The antithetical being that the theist proposition that God/gods exist is invalid.

Atheists say that the claim that gods exist is unfounded. If that's what antithetical means to you, then no argument. If not, you're in your own world arguing about nothing.

It has nothing to do with what anyone does or doesn’t believe.

Atheism has nothing to do with what people do or don't believe? do tell. You've gone way off the reservation here, amigo.

The term "belief" means that we have decided to accept something as true even though we don't actually know that it is true.

That's faith, not belief. Some beliefs are justified. They are facts.

Either pose better logical reasoning for your silly, vague, meaningless alternative, or accept the correction. It's really not that hard to just admit that someone else has recognized the better way.

Your opinion here is irrelevant to others. You should have discerned that from the reactions to it.

The purpose of language is to clarify communication. When people deliberately insist of using words vaguely and nonsensically, they are abusing language and thereby abusing us. And when this occurs we should point it out.

We have been pointing that out. We're all communicating just fine out here outside your bubble. It's you that cannot join us.

The problem here is that even if “anti” theism were the more technically correct label, it is verbally very clumsy, and so was switched by use to “atheism”.

LOL. Yeah, that extra "nti" that separates atheism from antitheism makes the word too cumbersome to use.

Why do you persist in this quixotic campaign? You have marginalized yourself and rendered your opinions on atheist irrelevant, since you seem incapable of understanding what atheists tell you.

I guess your critical thinking skills aren't as strong as you like to tell yourself they are.

How would you know? When you post so outlandishly, you render your opinions about the thinking skills of others irrelevant.

 

[dfnj]

Atheism as most unbelievers (and probably most believers use the term) is the complement to theism. Everybody is theist or an atheist, and nobody is both or neither.

When I'm around theists I pretend I'm a theist. And when I'm around atheists I pretend I'm an atheist. For me, ideas are like clothing. I just wear whatever is appropriate for the occasion.

 

[F1fan]

opinion.

What really happens is that we both see the same evidence but simply don’t agree to our arrived conclusions.

I notice no counter arguments to my comment. The only reason believers conclude what they do is because of the assumptions they make that critical thinkers do not.

That's a very handy bias you have there, but logically it makes no sense at all. I guess your critical thinking skills aren't as strong as you like to tell yourself they are.

You don’t offer any rebuttal either, which isn’t surprising. Theists are very good at making claims, but very bad at making valid arguments.

 

[PureX]

... although you cannot prove a negative, that is, you cannot prove God does NOT exist, you can draw a strong conclusion based on induction. Since there has not been any clear and decisive evidence for the existence of God, then by induction, there will continue not to be any clear and decisive evidence for the existence of God.

That is not a logical conclusion. The lack of evidence is not evidence of anything unless such evidence can logically be defined as expected to exist, could be ascertained if it exists, and would to be proporly understood as such. In this instance there is none of that. So the lack of evidence logically indicates nothing at all.

 

[PureX]

You don’t offer any rebuttal either, which isn’t surprising. Theists are very good at making claims, but very bad at making valid arguments.

You simply ignore it.

You demand proof when you have yourself stated that you are agnostic, and that you therefor have concluded that no such proof (knowledge) can be ascertained. So you demand what you've already determined that no one can give you, and that is not only illogical, it's disingenuous. But no matter how many times this criticism is pointed out to you, you just ignore it, while constantly labeling yourself a "critical thinker". Seems you're really only willing to think critically about what others are thinking. But never yourself.

 

[PureX]

That was in response to, "As far as I can tell, God is just a word that only exists in our use of language." True, but some words have real referents.

All words have real referents. You just presume yourself to be in charge of what "real" means.

Atheism as most unbelievers (and probably most believers use the term) is the complement to theism. Everybody is theist or an atheist, and nobody is both or neither.

Atheists say that the claim that gods exist is unfounded. If that's what antithetical means to you, then no argument. If not, you're in your own world arguing about nothing.

"Unfounded" is the wrong term because it's based on the idea that if God exists, the proof of it could be "found". Atheists rely on this error so they can pretend that when the proof is not "found", that it means that no gods exist. Every conversation I have with atheists I keep encountering this kind of deliberate obfuscation and subterfuge. They're agnostic but they demand proof from others. They're "unvelievers" that believe adamantly that theism is false. They're critical thinkers that are only critical about what other people are thinking.

 

[F1fan]

You simply ignore it.

You have Trump level denial as I have gone into detail responding to your mangled use of language. As have others, which you ignore.

You demand proof when you have yourself stated that you are agnostic,

No, I categorize myself as atheist. I do assert everyone is agnostic where it comes to religious claims because as a set of claims they don't correspond to anything we can discern as real and independent of imagination. Even you often fall back to your redoubt of "God is a mystery".

and that you therefor have concluded that no such proof (knowledge) can be ascertained.

I'm an atheist responding to claims made by theists. Where's the knowledge they claim informs them a God exists? Kenny's reference to evidence is typical among believers who make massive assumptions that prop up non-factual religious ideas.

I use the rules of logic, which you disregard when convenient for your religious position.

So you demand what you've already determined that no one can give you, and that is not only illogical, it's disingenuous.

We atheiosts show our work. You go on and on about nothing but distraction, and cver for believers who can't show anyone that they have a rational conclusion that a God exists based on nothing more than evidence. They ignore the assumptions they make that gives the "evidence" life.

But no matter how many times this criticism is pointed out to you, you just ignore it, while constantly labeling yourself a "critical thinker". Seems you're really only willing to think critically about what others are thinking. But never yourself.

Your criticism is highly biased, and your words reveal it. You expect your criticism to be respected as you disrespect rebuttal criticism. And when you refer to ego in others, oh the irony meter goes off.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All words have real referents.

Uh, no, they don't. Only words for things that can be experienced have real referents. This is the fundamental difference between wolves and werewolves, for example, assuming that the latter don't exist. It's strange that you would claim otherwise.

You just presume yourself to be in charge of what "real" means.

It doesn't matter what it means to others if they don't mean something that can be experienced somewhere at sometime. It's the same with your sage of the words truth and atheist. If by truth you don't mean the quality that demonstrably correct ideas possess, and if by atheist you don't mean a person with no god belief, then it really doesn't matter what it is that you DO mean when you use those words.

"Unfounded" is the wrong term because it's based on the idea that if God exists, the proof of it could be "found"

No, it means that a belief in god is based in nothing. The belief has no foundation.

Atheists rely on this error so they can pretend that when the proof is not "found", that it means that no gods exist.

Atheists don't need to pretend anything. They simply ignore the god claims of theists. It's the theist who is pretending.

Every conversation I have with atheists I keep encountering this kind of deliberate obfuscation and subterfuge.

That's either a defect in every atheist or one in your understanding of them. Occam can tell us which it is.

They're agnostic but they demand proof from others.

Atheists know that believers have no proof or evidence for their god beliefs. I've told you this before, but in every case, you've failed to acknowledge seeing it much less attempt to rebut it. That makes you wrong until you do, and you know you can't successfully rebut that.

 

[PureX]

Uh, no, they don't. Only words for things that can be experienced have real referents.

We experience ideas. See, this is where you presume yourself to be the definer-in-chief of what is real and what isn’t.

This is the fundamental difference between wolves and werewolves, for example, assuming that the latter don't exist. It's strange that you would claim otherwise.

It doesn't matter what it means to others if they don't mean something that can be experienced somewhere at sometime. It's the same with your sage of the words truth and atheist. If by truth you don't mean the quality that demonstrably correct ideas possess, and if by atheist you don't mean a person with no god belief, then it really doesn't matter what it is that you DO mean when you use those words.

No, it means that a belief in god is based in nothing. The belief has no foundation.

Atheists don't need to pretend anything. They simply ignore the god claims of theists. It's the theist who is pretending.

That's either a defect in every atheist or one in your understanding of them. Occam can tell us which it is.

Atheists know that believers have no proof or evidence for their god beliefs. I've told you this before, but in every case, you've failed to acknowledge seeing it much less attempt to rebut it. That makes you wrong until you do, and you know you can't successfully rebut that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Only words for things that can be experienced have real referents. This is the fundamental difference between wolves and werewolves, for example, assuming that the latter don't exist. It's strange that you would claim otherwise.

We experience ideas. See, this is where you presume yourself to be the definer-in-chief of what is real and what isn’t.

You're confused about what real means. To be real is to exist somewhere in time and space and to affect and be affected by other real things. Ideas are real, but their referents are not necessarily so. The idea of a wolf exists and so do wolves. That word has a real referent. A wolf can exist over there right now and affect you and you it. Werewolves aren't. The idea of a werewolf exists, but you won't find any anywhere ever as best we know.

It seems like you define the word real differently. As I said, if you mean anything other than what you just read by the word real, then your opinions about reality aren't useful.

Likewise with truth and atheist. Your definitions of those words render your comments on either subject moot. According to your definition of atheist, I'm not an atheist, since I have never claimed that gods don't exist. So why would anything you have to say on the subject be useful? That's the price one pays for using rogue definitions for words, and nobody has been able to help you.

 

[Augustus]

There's a lot of different categories that are established or that are new that we place phrases and meanings into as experience.

And for all the atheists on RF gods fall into a category of things they believe don’t exist.

This is a conscious stance they have taken and is thus best described as a form if belief rather than the absence of a belief.

 

[F1fan]

And for all the atheists on RF gods fall into a category of things they believe don’t exist.

Only you say this. None of the others agree with you. As an atheist I have never said "I believe gods don't exist".

Ask yourself, how often is the idea "gods don't exist" argued by atheists? It's a strong atheism position that can apply to specific claims. Don't confuse atheists arguing against the idea "God does exist", thus rejecting claims that gods exist.

This is a conscious stance they have taken and is thus best described as a form if belief rather than the absence of a belief.

I'm not seeing many atheists assert "gods don't exist" and then argue for that position and claim.

If your position is "gods don't exist" how do you defend it? How do you prove it if challenged?

 

[Augustus]

Only you say this. None of the others agree with you. As an atheist I have never said "I believe gods don't exist".

Ask yourself, how often is the idea "gods don't exist" argued by atheists? It's a strong atheism position that can apply to specific claims. Don't confuse atheists arguing against the idea "God does exist", thus rejecting claims that gods exist.

You have repeatedly done so in this thread just using different phraseology.

For anyone who can comprehend the word god, there is no cognitive difference between not believing gods exist and believing they don’t exist. The difference is purely grammatical.

I'm not seeing many atheists assert "gods don't exist" and then argue for that position and claim.

If your position is "gods don't exist" how do you defend it? How do you prove it if challenged?

Whether you hold a belief is completely unconnected to the ability to defend or prove it.

Belief in some form is forced on you by the act of comprehension of the term god.

We also frequently have beliefs we can’t defend that we are very confident are correct, especially related to common skills and knowledge that we intuitively know though experience, but couldn’t “prove” to a sceptic.

But if someone asked me to defend why I disbelieve in the existence of gods it’s because I’ve never seen any evidence that would make me believe in anything I would personally describe as a god.

Hence, until given reason to think otherwise, I’ll be going on the assumption they don’t exist. That’s perfectly normal and reasonable. It is the position that all atheists here argue explicitly or implicitly.

The is absolutely no need to be certain in your beliefs, they are frequently held at below 100% confidence. We remain open to philosophical doubt, I believe magic unicorns don’t exist but it’s not impossible that they do.

Retaining philosophical doubt about beliefs doesn’t change the fact they are beliefs.

So if a new guy comes along and says that the real God is Zanobo, and it does XYZ, and the answers to questions are much like any other religious claim, baeless, then we can quickly dismiss Zanobo as being any more credible as a God that any other.

A critical thinker will dismiss the claim, they won't believe "Zanobo does not exist" because that was never an idea that the critical thinker had, he only responded to the claim "Zanobo exists" and dismissed it. There was never the idea "Zanobo does not exist" introduced, nor thought by the skeptic.

You can quickly dismiss it because you have already decided that there is no reason to believe that any of the things you would term gods exist.

You may be open to the idea that something could exist, but until shown sufficient evidence for this your stance is they don’t exist.

Richard Dawkins accepts there is always a modicum of philosophical doubt, but he certainly believes no gods exist.

 

[1213]

Your neglecting the fact that your choice was directly influenced by your culture, family and peers within a limited range of choices. You claim to have the freedom of choice, but fail to realize it is limited by documented deterministic factors

Like what?

 

[shunyadragon]

Like what?

Natural Laws, the chain of your decisions in the past, culture, your religion, education, family and peer pressure.

Simple example our clothes and food are cominately within the range of our culture and religion. In some cultures such as Judaism and Islam the selection is more limited.

More of a problem: The dominate belief in Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity is the reject of the sciences of evolution. These are the only religious beliefs that that consistently reject science.

 

[shunyadragon]

When I'm around theists I pretend I'm a theist. And when I'm around atheists I pretend I'm an atheist. For me, ideas are like clothing. I just wear whatever is appropriate for the occasion.

I do not pretend.

 

[McBell]

I do not pretend.

I do not pretend to be something I am not.

Well...
Except sober.
I have pretended to be sober at times.

And according to those present, I failed.
Epically.