To the Anti-Religious

[Commoner]

Sorry, but this is the last time I'm going to say that. I'm getting tired of repeating myself, sorry.

No need to repeat yourself, I understood your point the first time, I simply think you're wrong and I've explained why.

 

[themadhair]

Consider the following two statements:
I don’t believe in gremlins due to lack of evidence.
I don’t believe in god(s) due to lack of evidence.

Can anyone quantitatively differentiate between gremlins and god(s) as used in those statements?

Consider the following two statements:
I have faith that my car will work tomorrow.
I have faith that gremlins exist and make my household appliances break down.

Can anyone quantitatively differentiate between the meaning of faith as used in those statements?

These seem to be the crux of the discussion at the moment. My answer is no to the first and yes to the second. The first highlights a case of special pleading and the second highlights a fallacy of equivocation.

 

[PureX]

Well, I don't know, PureX seems to be hiding some evidence somewhere, so as soon as he tell us what it is, we can all forget abouth "faith".

You are making a logical fallacy when equating two opposite things - belief and disbelief. It doesn't take faith to reject a positive claim made by someone who can't produce sufficient (or any) evidence for that claim.

True, but rejecting that claim does not assert the opposite claim. Which is what atheists are doing (even as they try to deny it).

 

[PureX]

I feel like a total traitor saying this but I actually might agree with Commoner on this. At least, I think that it is correct to say that one neither believes nor disbelieves in something without implying faith. It would imply faith only if the person said that they believe God doesn't exist and that really isn't the same as having no opinion on God. The only comment that I would like to add here is that we all love speaking philosophically to prove a point but probably most of hte atheists I have talked to at some point let it stip that they actually strongly believe that a God does not exist. So I wonder if our atheists here actually have a -belief- that there is no God or will stand by their argument that they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a God.

This is not their claim, as I understand it. What they claim, is that because they see no evidence that God exists, they do not believe that God exists. They do not, however claim that God does not exist. And since God must either exist or not exist, and they will not claim either one, then they must by default actually be agnostic, and simply do not know if God exists or not. Yet they refuse to admit to this for some strange reason, and they continually fight against anyone else's concept of God (which is not the behavior of someone who simply doesn't know, but is the behavior of someone who believes that gods do not exist).

I don't understand why the subterfuge, except that they refuse to state what they really believe, which is that God does not exist.

 

[themadhair]

I see PureX is again asserting agnostic as a middle ground and making the claim, to atheists I might add, about what atheism is.

I actually do like to challenge god concepts for the same reason I like to challenge conspiracy theorists, creationists, purveyors of scams, etc.

 

[dogsgod]

Gods do not exist, neither does Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, angels, devils, etc., and I see no reason why any one of those would be given anymore consideration over the other.

 

[Madhuri]

Gods do not exist, neither does Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, angels, devils, etc., and I see no reason why any one of those would be given anymore consideration over the other.

Here is an example of a man of faith that we've all been talking about <---
Nothing wrong with it, except absolute statements are a bit annoying.

 

[dogsgod]

This is not their claim, as I understand it. What they claim, is that because they see no evidence that God exists, they do not believe that God exists. They do not, however claim that God does not exist. And since God must either exist or not exist, and they will not claim either one, then they must by default actually be agnostic, and simply do not know if God exists or not. Yet they refuse to admit to this for some strange reason, and they continually fight against anyone else's concept of God (which is not the behavior of someone who simply doesn't know, but is the behavior of someone who believes that gods do not exist).

I don't understand why the subterfuge, except that they refuse to state what they really believe, which is that God does not exist.

You miss the point as to what is required to be an atheist. Atheists think theists are full of ****, they don't share in their beliefs, that's all. They don't have to make any statement at all about the non existence of any god in order to be an atheist, they simply don't share in the belief of the theist. That's all that's required. Whether an individual atheist makes the statement that gods do not exist is another matter entirely.

 

[rageoftyrael]

i guess i should point out why we hate the fact that you want to equate our disbelief in god as faith. because, as you said that faith is a belief in something without evidence, right? very few atheists come to the conclusion that there is no god just cause. we look for evidence.

i mean honestly, i certainly look. i would LOVE to be wrong. i don't wanna stop existing at death, as i generally believe. though of course, if i'm going to hell for having a logical disbelief, then nevermind, i'll take nonexistence. as it is, as i look for evidence, and i see a remarkable absence, not even any intelligent reasoning behind it, i take a lack of evidence, as evidence. you know what they say? a lack of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence, or whatever? sure it is, a lack of evidence, especially in the face of the scrutiny that religion and god gets, is evidence against god's existence.

but let's simplify this even more. purex said that faith becomes less of an issue when you know more and more about the topic at hand, right? So the more you know, the more it becomes about simple reality, and not faith, right? it isn't what you believe, it's what you know. so just reverse the entire thing. i cannot, after any amount of time, find any evidence whatsoever that there is a god. i think not believing is merely the next logical step. it is not the same thing as faith. rejecting a postive claim because there is no evidence, and signs show there likely never will be evidence, is not faith. stop trying to equate people's foolish choice to believe in the tooth fairy as the same thing as people's more logical choice of not believing in the tooth fairy.

 

[dogsgod]

Here is an example of a man of faith that we've all been talking about <---
Nothing wrong with it, except absolute statements are a bit annoying.

How is that annoying? What faith is required? Faith loses all meaning if not believing is a faith. Either people believe things on faith or they don't, it's really that simple when it comes to some things. The things I mentioned are the things of our mythologies, they are fantasy, to believe they exist in reality requires a faith belief.

 

[Madhuri]

How is that annoying? What faith is required? Faith loses all meaning if not believing is a faith. Either people believe things on faith or they don't, it's really that simple when it comes to some things. The things I mentioned are the things of our mythologies, they are fantasy, to believe they exist in reality requires a faith belief.

I'm not going to answer the question about faith because its covered over the last couple of pages.
I find it annoying when people make absolute statements to people who don't share that opinion. It doesn't matter if it is 'There is no God' or 'There is a God', it's more respectful usually to say 'I believe there is/isn't a God'. It's one of the only things that ever annoys me, lol.

 

[dogsgod]

That the tooth fairy does not exist goes without saying, but the mere mention that gods don't exist will have theists jumping up and down like a bunch of yo yos.

 

[PureX]

Here is an example of a man of faith that we've all been talking about <---
Nothing wrong with it, except absolute statements are a bit annoying.

Well, they close off conversation because they are the claim of a closed mind (on that issue). But certainly the same can be said of theist's claims as well.

 

[Vile Atheist]

This is not their claim, as I understand it. What they claim, is that because they see no evidence that God exists, they do not believe that God exists. They do not, however claim that God does not exist. And since God must either exist or not exist, and they will not claim either one, then they must by default actually be agnostic, and simply do not know if God exists or not. Yet they refuse to admit to this for some strange reason, and they continually fight against anyone else's concept of God (which is not the behavior of someone who simply doesn't know, but is the behavior of someone who believes that gods do not exist).

I don't understand why the subterfuge, except that they refuse to state what they really believe, which is that God does not exist.

Unfortunately for your argument, I - and other atheists - get to make the claim about what we believe.

You accuse us of merely hiding and not making a claim. But I ask you: What's the point of making a claim if there isn't enough solid evidence to build a case for God upon? There isn't any?

And if we go the other way, it's silly to ask for evidence God DOESN'T exist because any evidence atheists bring up, there is always a possibility of there being other - yet to be discovered evidence that God DOES exist. At best we can demonstrate how certain characteristics of God are incompatible with scripture and with each other. We cannot say "God doesn't exist", but we can say "THAT God (with a set of specific characteristics) does not exist".

My personal position is that I don't believe in God. I don't believe God exists. But that isn't to say I believe God doesn't exist. I believe God PROBABLY doesn't exist. The mere fact we can explain pretty much anything your heart desires with naturalistic processes demonstrates that if God does exist, at best, He's irrelevant. At worst, an impediment.

And if an irrelevant God exists, to what point and purpose should I spend the only life I have worshipping it? I don't make any claims that God doesn't exist because it's an impossible feat to demonstrate. But it is quite simple for the theist to demonstrate the existence of God. Simply ask your God - pray to your God - to manifest itself on Earth so that the godless can believe. Simply demonstrate how old prophecies that make specific claims that nobody could have had knowledge of at that time period came true. Simply demonstrate one objective miracle. One violation of the laws of nature.

Some atheists make the claim "God does not exist". But that's just as much a statement of faith "God does exist". And both claims require evidence. That doesn't mean atheism is actually agnosticism in disguise. Agnosticism suggests that nobody can possibly know whether or not God exists. Theists claim God does. Atheists claim God probably doesn't and don't accept theistic claims because they are unsubstantiated. Atheists need not make any claims. It's absolutely irrational to when your position is unsupported by evidence.

 

[dogsgod]

Well, they close off conversation because they are the claim of a closed mind (on that issue). But certainly the same can be said of theist's claims as well.

It goes without saying that the tooth fairy does not exist, but the mere mention that gods don't exist is a sure sign of a closed mind. I see.

 

[PureX]

Unfortunately for your argument, I - and other atheists - get to make the claim about what we believe.

You accuse us of merely hiding and not making a claim. But I ask you: What's the point of making a claim if there isn't enough solid evidence to build a case for God upon? There isn't any?

I personally find it annoying, and rather chicken-s***, that so many atheists seem to quite enjoy attacking the beliefs of theists, yet have nothing to offer of their own as a reasonable alternative. They won't even fully admit that they believe that God doesn't exist, when their behavior certainly indicates that this is in fact what they believe.

Imagine yourself being confronted by this sort of nasty attack, and ask yourself how you would feel about it. Especially when it's based on nothing but the fact that the people attacking your beliefs enjoy doing it. It makes them feel superior to you. When in reality they have no more foundation for their beliefs than you or anyone else has.

And if we go the other way, it's silly to ask for evidence God DOESN'T exist because any evidence atheists bring up, there is always a possibility of there being other - yet to be discovered evidence that God DOES exist. At best we can demonstrate how certain characteristics of God are incompatible with scripture and with each other. We cannot say "God doesn't exist", but we can say "THAT God (with a set of specific characteristics) does not exist".

But even that is pretty much an empty hole. I think what a lot of atheists don't understand is that belief in a higher power is an intellectual paradigm. It's not just a religious story, or doctrine. It's a way of understanding the world and how we exist in it. That paradigm is so much bigger than the little objective god-images that you can attack. I really believe that most atheists are completely ignorant of about 90% of what theism really is.

My personal position is that I don't believe in God. I don't believe God exists. But that isn't to say I believe God doesn't exist. I believe God PROBABLY doesn't exist. The mere fact we can explain pretty much anything your heart desires with naturalistic processes demonstrates that if God does exist, at best, He's irrelevant. At worst, an impediment.

And if an irrelevant God exists, to what point and purpose should I spend the only life I have worshipping it? I don't make any claims that God doesn't exist because it's an impossible feat to demonstrate. But it is quite simple for the theist to demonstrate the existence of God. Simply ask your God - pray to your God - to manifest itself on Earth so that the godless can believe.[/QUOTE]The godless don't want to believe, and nothing God does or could do will change that. If God stood in front of me and claimed that he was God, I can think of nothing he could do the convince me, if I didn't want to be convinced. Can you?

The evidence of God's existence is all around us if we want it to be. And if we don't, no evidence ever will suffice.

 

[gnomon]

Here's pretty much the majority of this thread:
Q: "What's your favorite color?"
A: "I don't have one"
Q: "You have to have one. If you don't you're not being fair"
A: "But it's true. I do not have a favorite color."
Q: "Well you're just a bigot to all of us with a favorite color."
A: "Sorry I couldn't pull something out of my *** to make you feel better about yourself."

And the rest, is a case of semantic nonsense to falsely elevate someone's own sense of self worth. How is it up on those towers these days?

 

[dogsgod]

I personally find it annoying, and rather chicken-s***, that so many atheists seem to quite enjoy attacking the beliefs of theists, yet have nothing to offer of their own as a reasonable alternative.

Alternative to what? What's the alternative for leprechauns?

They won't even fully admit that they believe that God doesn't exist, when their behavior certainly indicates that this is in fact what they believe.

Gods don't exist.

Imagine yourself being confronted by this sort of nasty attack, and ask yourself how you would feel about it. Especially when it's based on nothing but the fact that the people attacking your beliefs enjoy doing it. It makes them feel superior to you. When in reality they have no more foundation for their beliefs than you or anyone else has.

What beliefs? The existence of atheists is predicated on there being theists. If there were no theists there would be no atheists. In other words, no one to say that theists are full of **** if there were no theists.

But even that is pretty much an empty hole. I think what a lot of theists don't understand is that belief in a higher power is an intellectual paradigm. It's not just a religious story, or doctrine. It's a way of understanding the world and how we exist in it. That paradigm is so much bigger than the little objective god-images that you can attack. I really believe that most atheists are completely ignorant of about 90% of what theism really is.

What's to know. When theists figure out what they are talking about get back to us.

My personal position is that I don't believe in God. I don't believe God exists. But that isn't to say I believe God doesn't exist. I believe God PROBABLY doesn't exist. The mere fact we can explain pretty much anything your heart desires with naturalistic processes demonstrates that if God does exist, at best, He's irrelevant. At worst, an impediment.

Well, bully for you. Leprechauns probably don't exist, and the same goes for God. Feel better?

And if an irrelevant God exists, to what point and purpose should I spend the only life I have worshipping it? I don't make any claims that God doesn't exist because it's an impossible feat to demonstrate. But it is quite simple for the theist to demonstrate the existence of God. Simply ask your God - pray to your God - to manifest itself on Earth so that the godless can believe. The godless don't want to believe, and nothing God does or could do will change that. If God stood in front of me and claimed that he was God, I can think of nothing he could do the convince me, if I didn't want to be convinced. Can you?

The evidence of God's existence is all around us if we want it to be. And if we don't, no evidence ever will suffice.

You think atheists don't believe theists because they don't want to? This atheist doesn't believe theists because I think they are full of **** when it comes to this God bull ****. It has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting.

 

[themadhair]

I personally find it annoying, and rather chicken-s***, that so many atheists seem to quite enjoy attacking the beliefs of theists, yet have nothing to offer of their own as a reasonable alternative.

Reasonable alterative to what? An idea that has no foundation or relevance to the world or how it operates but, due to it apparently allowing people to cope with unknowns or provide some form of comfort from reality, has been elevated to a status that it simply doesn’t deserve? From what I can see your god-concept requires an alternative in the same way the tooth-fairy concept does.

They won't even fully admit that they believe that God doesn't exist, when their behavior certainly indicates that this is in fact what they believe.

There is more than a great deal of irony involved in this. In order to definitively reject a concept it is necessary to know what that concept contains. But you cannot even offer such a concept. So when you are accusing people of rejecting ‘god’ you are implicitly assuming those people know what ‘god’ is – and the irony to this is that you don’t seem to know what your own god-concept is otherwise it wouldn’t be changing with every fifth or so post.

It is also hypocritical. You accuse others of rejecting something that you seem unable to even consistently elucidate.

Imagine yourself being confronted by this sort of nasty attack, and ask yourself how you would feel about it.

Taking an idea to task and pointing out its holes, its contradictions and its logical flaws is nasty? You really are determined to perceive everything as an attack. Is this a defensive mechanism on your part when you run out of argument?

Especially when it's based on nothing but the fact that the people attacking your beliefs enjoy doing it.

Pointing out logical flaws or errors in reasoning only requires the existence of such within the argument being examined. There are no prerequisites required.

When in reality they have no more foundation for their beliefs than you or anyone else has.

Lovely little sweeping generalisation that serves as an attempt to cover up the multitude of holes discovered in your arguments. People (like me) who found their beliefs on things that actually exist must surely have a much solider foundation? How can you argue otherwise when your beliefs have to resort to things you cannot even demonstrate exist???

I think what a lot of atheists don't understand is that belief in a higher power is an intellectual paradigm.

I strongly disagree with this given both the lack of decent argumentation you have for support and due to the apparent use of your god-concept as a place holder for unknowns. The person committed to intellectual honesty would acknowledge things they do not know as unknowns.

It's a way of understanding the world and how we exist in it.

You make this claim, but given that such an understanding is imposed, rather than derived from, the world around us I have to question it.

I really believe that most atheists are completely ignorant of about 90% of what theism really is.

Since your own god-concept seems to change periodically I think you yourself share any claimed ignorance regarding this.

The evidence of God's existence is all around us if we want it to be.

Is this an admission of conformational bias? It is really quite amazing to me that you can so boldly claim this without being able to hold a consistent idea of what ‘god’ means.

 

[DarkSun]

i guess i should point out why we hate the fact that you want to equate our disbelief in god as faith. because, as you said that faith is a belief in something without evidence, right? very few atheists come to the conclusion that there is no god just cause. we look for evidence.

i mean honestly, i certainly look. i would LOVE to be wrong. i don't wanna stop existing at death, as i generally believe. though of course, if i'm going to hell for having a logical disbelief, then nevermind, i'll take nonexistence. as it is, as i look for evidence, and i see a remarkable absence, not even any intelligent reasoning behind it, i take a lack of evidence, as evidence. you know what they say? a lack of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence, or whatever? sure it is, a lack of evidence, especially in the face of the scrutiny that religion and god gets, is evidence against god's existence.

but let's simplify this even more. purex said that faith becomes less of an issue when you know more and more about the topic at hand, right? So the more you know, the more it becomes about simple reality, and not faith, right? it isn't what you believe, it's what you know. so just reverse the entire thing. i cannot, after any amount of time, find any evidence whatsoever that there is a god. i think not believing is merely the next logical step. it is not the same thing as faith. rejecting a postive claim because there is no evidence, and signs show there likely never will be evidence, is not faith. stop trying to equate people's foolish choice to believe in the tooth fairy as the same thing as people's more logical choice of not believing in the tooth fairy.

Okay. There is also a lack of evidence for God's inexistence, correct? And yet you still don't believe He exists? Could you please explain how this isn't faith, because I am very confused, and it sounds to me as if you're in denial about something that really doesn't matter.