The logical fallacy of atheism

[vskipper]

Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

^ definition of atheism. If you are accurate in your response then apparently most atheist don't know they are really agnostics

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah but you can test for the existence of a pink elephant. Presently we dont have the means to test for a being outside of space & time. Thus why I find the agnostic as the more reason based stance.

If there's absolutely no way for us to test an idea, then there's absolutely no justification for you to believe the idea.

Trying to exempt God from normal standards of evidence might make it hard to conclusively disprove God, but it also implies that any religion that relies on the existence of God is completely irrational.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Both apply to me, though the first one applies more in an "I think the non-existence of gods is more reasonable than the existence of gods" sense, not in the "I am absolutely certain that no gods exist" sense.

Standards of Truth; Certain Knowledge does not exist, one must establish a standard of truth, or forever be unsure of what one believes. Certainty is a statistical term.

Standards arise from experience, one's own observations, what one is told, etc. Which experiences give repeatable results, or which beliefs do we 'like.' Consider all of this.

For me, I have reached the Standard of Truth that if it is not natural, it lacks import. If it can't be felt, then it has no feeling, if it can be seen, it has no appearance, etc. If it is not natural, then it is irrelevent, because I have no way of sensing the super-natural or even knowing if it exists.

So I have a standard of truth that tells me observation of natural phenomena is all I have to base truth on. The second standard is that if there is something supernatural it is, for all practicle purposess, meanignless.

Now, I don't believe I have 'certain knowlege' that god does not exist, but I have as close to certain knowledge as one can come that there is no reason to behave as if I believed in god. In fact, behavior, based on unreasonable claims and beliefs, is dangerous.

Behavior based on the here and now, on the human condition, can produce results. Behavior based on a belife that a supernatural being will give you 72 virgins if you blow yourself up can send planes into skyscrappers.

So my certainty, is that, whether god eists or not (a meaningless question), it is immoral to make decision or behave based on any knowlege other than here and now, natural, that which we can experience for ourselves.

I am 100% certain, that 'belief in god' is the no. 1 cause of idiocy, death, conflict, starvation, genocide, disease, etc. Whether he actually exists or not is meaningless.

Also not that is not necessarily a beliver that causes the pain. It is quite often someone who couldn't care less about god, that manipulates believers. I.e. believers are a natural resource to be used for ulterior motives.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you say there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of El Shaddai or any similar being you are agnostic not atheist.

The terms aren't mutually exclusive. Plenty of agnostics are atheists and vice versa.

 

[vskipper]

And from what I am hearing from ouroboros it still sounds like a belief system thus not grounded in evidence or rational reasoning in modern terms.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

^ definition of atheism. If you are accurate in your response then apparently most atheist don't know they are really agnostics

Actually, most atheists seem to be well aware that they are both atheists and agnostic. You do understand that the two aren't mutually exclusive, don't you?

 

[LuisDantas]

If there's absolutely no way for us to test an idea, then there's absolutely no justification for you to believe the idea.

Trying to exempt God from normal standards of evidence might make it hard to conclusively disprove God, but it also implies that any religion that relies on the existence of God is completely irrational.

And also that God is ultimately irrelevant, or at least impossible to demonstrate as a relevant presence.

 

[vskipper]

Standards of Truth; Certain Knowledge does not exist, one must establish a standard of truth, or forever be unsure of what one believes. Certainty is a statistical term.

Standards arise from experience, one's own observations, what one is told, etc. Which experiences give repeatable results, or which beliefs do we 'like.' Consider all of this.

For me, I have reached the Standard of Truth that if it is not natural, it lacks import. If it can't be felt, then it has no feeling, if it can be seen, it has no appearance, etc. If it is not natural, then it is irrelevent, because I have no way of sensing the super-natural or even knowing if it exists.

So I have a standard of truth that tells me observation of natural phenomena is all I have to base truth on. The second standard is that if there is something supernatural it is, for all practicle purposess, meanignless.

Now, I don't believe I have 'certain knowlege' that god does not exist, but I have as close to certain knowledge as one can come that there is no reason to behave as if I believed in god. In fact, behavior, based on unreasonable claims and beliefs, is dangerous.

Behavior based on the here and now, on the human condition, can produce results. Behavior based on a belife that a supernatural being will give you 72 virgins if you blow yourself up can send planes into skyscrappers.

So my certainty, is that, whether god eists or not (a meaningless question), it is immoral to make decision or behave based on any knowlege other than here and now, natural, that which we can experience for ourselves.

I am 100% certain, that 'belief in god' is the no. 1 cause of idiocy, death, conflict, starvation, genocide, disease, etc. Whether he actually exists or not is meaningless.

Also not that is not necessarily a beliver that causes the pain. It is quite often someone who couldn't care less about god, that manipulates believers. I.e. believers are a natural resource to be used for ulterior motives.

Stalin, jeffrey Dahmer, Kim Jong, Mussolini, machiavelli, marx = atheists

Great power usually leads to great tyranny. Religion was merely exploited. Today they use modern comforts of living.

 

[vskipper]

Actually, most atheists seem to be well aware that they are both atheists and agnostic. You do understand that the two aren't mutually exclusive, don't you?

Athiest = there is no God , agnostic = there is no proof for or against
Atheist = no , agnostic = maybe, theist = yes

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Athiest = there is no God , agnostic = there is no proof for or against
Atheist = no , agnostic = maybe, theist = yes

Sorry, but your overly simplistic and naively ignorant perspective on these varied and nuanced philosophies doesn't get to be correct just because you say so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Athiest = there is no God , agnostic = there is no proof for or against
Atheist = no , agnostic = maybe, theist = yes

No.

- atheist: "I do not believe that any gods exist" or "I believe that no gods exist"
- agnostic: "the existence of god(s) is unknowable"
- agnostic atheist: "I can't know for sure whether God exists, but I see no reason to believe in him"
- agnostic theist: "I think God exists, but I can't know for sure that he does."

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Stalin, jeffrey Dahmer, Kim Jong, Mussolini, machiavelli, marx = atheists

Great power usually leads to great tyranny. Religion was merely exploited. Today they use modern comforts of living.

Hitler, McVey, Koresh, Jeffries, Phelps, Bin Laden = theists.

Yes, I said religion is expolited. And it has nothing positive to offer. Belife in things that can't be seen, heard, felt, touched, or tasted, pretty much opens you up to all sorts of manipulations, for which YOU HAVE NO STANDARD OF TRUTH.

I have no idea what you mean by modern comforts of living.

 

[Willamena]

If you say there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of El Shaddai or any similar being you are agnostic not atheist.

Perhaps, but even the agnostic has to have a reason for making such a claim.

 

[LuisDantas]

Stalin, jeffrey Dahmer, Kim Jong, Mussolini, machiavelli, marx = atheists

Great power usually leads to great tyranny. Religion was merely exploited. Today they use modern comforts of living.

Mussolini an atheist? I will need some evidence.

 

[vskipper]

No.

- atheist: "I do not believe that any gods exist" or "I believe that no gods exist"
- agnostic: "the existence of god(s) is unknowable"
- agnostic atheist: "I can't know for sure whether God exists, but I see no reason to believe in him"
- agnostic theist: "I think God exists, but I can't know for sure that he does."

:clap :yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

:clap :yes:

So you've changed your mind, then?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So you've changed your mind, then?

I suspect reading comprehension may be a factor in his sudden agreement.

 

[vskipper]

No.

- atheist: "I do not believe that any gods exist" or "I believe that no gods exist"
- agnostic: "the existence of god(s) is unknowable"
- agnostic atheist: "I can't know for sure whether God exists, but I see no reason to believe in him"
- agnostic theist: "I think God exists, but I can't know for sure that he does."

Hitler, McVey, Koresh, Jeffries, Phelps, Bin Laden = theists.

Yes, I said religion is expolited. And it has nothing positive to offer. Belife in things that can't be seen, heard, felt, touched, or tasted, pretty much opens you up to all sorts of manipulations, for which YOU HAVE NO STANDARD OF TRUTH.

I have no idea what you mean by modern comforts of living.

I mean that current power players use things like television, internet, air conditioning, cars, to keep people working & busy and go the general direction they want.

As for felt you are reaching and nothing positive you are short sighting. Never say never or always. I have found many positive things in many religions. But your commentary is opening the doors for a conversation Id rather havein a seperate thread I'll be posting later.

 

[vskipper]

I suspect reading comprehension may be a factor in his sudden agreement.

Or it could be that because I am having to use a Nook to type my comments are generally short & brief. This is to say nothing of personal interpretation of wording based on worldview.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I mean that current power players use things like television, internet, air conditioning, cars, to keep people working & busy and go the general direction they want.

As for felt you are reaching and nothing positive you are short sighting. Never say never or always. I have found many positive things in many religions. But your commentary is opening the doors for a conversation Id rather havein a seperate thread I'll be posting later.

I will stand corrected. I mean religion offers nothing positive in and of itself. Nothing good comes from religion, that cannot be produced without religion in a better way. There are many 'good' religious people, doing many good things in the name of their religion. But they are doing nothing that is not being done without the name of religion being invoked.