What Can Atheism Lead To?

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you really need for me to define the difference between Pol Pot and Peter next door, a very sincere and genuine man, who understands his opinion is only an opinion, which may be wrong or right?

So, an extremist atheist is someone who takes over a country and enacts genocide? Well, I guess there's hardly an extremist movement in atheism at all, then.

Belief is perception based, I do not know any atheist who uses such garbage, who doesn't believe in the analogy they are using.

What are you talking about? What do you mean by "believe in an analogy"?

Do you or do you not understand the difference between such things as the FSM being examples of satirical analogies of religion and an actual belief in a God or Gods?

Personally, I believe any person who would come up with an analogy of tooth fairies, et al, would have had to have had the mental capability of a child. Just a strawman argument to try to divert attention away from the subject or topic base at hand.

It's not a straw-man, it's an analogy. Whenever I hear the tooth-fairy or flying space kettle brought-up by an atheist, it's almost always in response to the "prove God doesn't exist" argument. In which case, both are perfect examples of using such logic to defeat itself - since neither the tooth fairy, the FSM or the flying space-kettle can be proven to not exist.

And do not insult people by saying that they have the "mental capacity of a child". You're the one who hates using insults, belittling and mocking people, remember?

It makes it even more ironic, when their same strawman can be used against their position, albeit they cannot see it.

Because it can't.

Simply because the two statements do not go together, neither rationally or logically. A lack of belief in God, doesn't translate in any mans language, to God doesn't exist. A lack of belief, still leaves the probability wide open, irrespective of how small, some may say, the probability is.

The reasoned atheist, never says, God doesn't exist, they know it is their opinion, that it is, their belief. The reasoned theist doesn't deny the probability that God may not exist, they will outrightly tell a person, this is their opinion, this is their belief.

You've not answered my question - in fact you've only restated what I just did, more or less. Here is my question again:

How is it any more irrational for an atheist to "dogmatically" believe there is no God than it is for a theist to believe that there is?

LOL not quite true Immortal, I see your perception as well, I could easily align with it, in fact I have once already, then I gained a better view.

You've yet to demonstrate that. In fact you regularly prove the opposite.

 

[Falvlun]

Most theists do not positively assert that a deity exists, most atheists, not even Dawkins, positively asserts that a deity doesn't exist. What these people will tell you, it is their belief and some like Dawkins will give their perception of the probability attached to it.

Those that positively assert that a Deity does, or doesn't exist, align in the same extremes as each other, are each others mirror image, and are diametrically opposed.

Thanks for your clarification.

Although, in my experience, it is pretty rare for a theist to not positively claim that a god exists. You will often get an athiest saying that theirs is a position of greater probabilty-- they are atheist, not because they necessarily believe that there is no god, but because they think that the probability of there not being a god to be greater than that of there being a god. I'm not sure if I've ever heard a theist make such a clarification of their position, perhaps simply because they rarely have to, generally being in the majority.

 

[footprints]

So, by that standard non-belief in anything is "dogmatic"?

LOL more perception. To deny a horse is a tree, would be a logical position and a direct right to a non-belief position. No dogma in it, for all sane people with knowledge of horses and trees could spot the difference.

When you stop trying to put your faith of belief pertaining to deities, in the same category of knowledge we have of horses and trees, then it will not be dogma.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy, or are you a dogmatic anti-toothfairian?

I happen to know the toothfairies in my family very well, as a matter of fact they are the same people who are also Santa.

I also know of, not personally or intimately, the toothfairy which is trapped inside some non-believers heads.

If there is empirical evidence of God - present it.

If there is empirical evidence against a deity - present it.

Two can play that dumb game. Albeit one of us knows it is dumb.

The way they're depicted in practically every religion on the face of the earth. Can you give us examples of religions or beliefs which describe a God as possessing no qualities or powers that go beyond the known laws of the natural universe?

What a perception. Not even all sects of Christian project God as a supernatural being. Many Christians hold the view that God is the natural energy force of the Universe, many others cannot even begin to define who or what God per se is, they just believe there is something else out there. This also does a great discredit to Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism, and many natural spiritual beliefs held by ancient cultures which still exist in the world today.

Can you define all the natural laws of the Universe? We as a species do not have all this knowledge yet, and you want to jump to some speculative, fairytale belief, based on limited knowledge.

None believers use this supernatural garbage just as much as the other sects who use it.

Who says so? You?

Sorry I thought I already did say it. A non-believer under normal circumstances wouldn't even be looking for evidence, why look for evidence in something a person doesn't believe exists. However, some do seek evidence against their natural beliefs, I am testimony to this fact. Albeit, in all honesty, it wasn't may logic and reason which helped me find what I did, this was all by accident, for my own personal belief still told me, I wasn't going to find anything there.

No, it can't. Because by the very definition, non-believers are non-believers in something.

Yes, non-believers are non-believers in something, which is where their belief patterns come from.

And Yes, non-believers as it pertains to deities, are non-believers in deities, for they hold on to their flying teapot analogies and supernatural beliefs.

 

[footprints]

Thanks for your clarification.

Although, in my experience, it is pretty rare for a theist to not positively claim that a god exists. You will often get an athiest saying that theirs is a position of greater probabilty-- they are atheist, not because they necessarily believe that there is no god, but because they think that the probability of there not being a god to be greater than that of there being a god. I'm not sure if I've ever heard a theist make such a clarification of their position, perhaps simply because they rarely have to, generally being in the majority.

Life experience defines a persons perception. A non-believer caught in the bible belt of the USA, can easily be led to the perception that the whole world is against them. And from their perception of life, they would be right, albeit what they really mean is the known world around them, not the whole world. If that same person came into a forum like this, do you know what they would find, more believers preaching the same things at them. They would also find, others who believed just like them, who would give them hope.

The same applies to a theist who is continually debating against non-believers or even believers of another sect. Their perception of life can get twisted and distorted, simply due to the environment they continually surround themselves in. It isn't hard for these people to start to believe, due to their own perception, that they are surrounded by atheists, for basically in reality, they really are.

Life is about balance. Everybody must escape, from their own perception of life every once in a while, else they will be caught in the web of deception woven from their own perception.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL more perception. To deny a horse is a tree, would be a logical position and a direct right to a non-belief position. No dogma in it, for all sane people with knowledge of horses and trees could spot the difference.

When you stop trying to put your faith of belief pertaining to deities, in the same category of knowledge we have of horses and trees, then it will not be dogma.

Okay then. Explain to me how and why a non-belief in a God is less rational than a non-belief in the Loch Ness monster or the FSM.

Also, "faith of belief" doesn't mean anything. Just say "belief" or "faith".

I happen to know the toothfairies in my family very well, as a matter of fact they are the same people who are also Santa.

I also know of, not personally or intimately, the toothfairy which is trapped inside some non-believers heads.

Again, not answering my question. Do you or do you not believe in the tooth fairy?

If there is empirical evidence against a deity - present it.

I have never claimed that there is, nor have I ever claimed a deity does not exist.

Two can play that dumb game. Albeit one of us knows it is dumb.

Except you said "Who says there is no empirical evidence to be found?", implying that there is empirical evidence. If that is true, present it.

What a perception. Not even all sects of Christian project God as a supernatural being. Many Christians hold the view that God is the natural energy force of the Universe,

... That is capable of performing acts that go beyond the known natural laws of the universe. Hence, supernatural. It doesn't matter if you label it as "natural force".

many others cannot even begin to define who or what God per se is, they just believe there is something else out there.

... Which they usually define as a supernatural force or being.

This also does a great discredit to Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism, and many natural spiritual beliefs held by ancient cultures which still exist in the world today.

Buddhists don't believe in a God or Gods, Taoists believe in supernatural entities, and Pagans also believe in a supernatural forces that govern the universe (in general, anyway, since "Pagan" is a hugely broad spectrum, even moreso than most religions).

Can you define all the natural laws of the Universe? We as a species do not have all this knowledge yet, and you want to jump to some speculative, fairytale belief, based on limited knowledge.

I said "the known laws of the natural universe".

None believers use this supernatural garbage just as much as the other sects who use it.

In what way?

Sorry I thought I already did say it. A non-believer under normal circumstances wouldn't even be looking for evidence, why look for evidence in something a person doesn't believe exists.

Because that's how you find out if it exists or not. You seem to be equating a non-belief in the existence of God with a belief in the non-existence of God yet again. Most atheists that I encounter have looked for evidence, and just found it lacking.

However, some do seek evidence against their natural beliefs, I am testimony to this fact. Albeit, in all honesty, it wasn't may logic and reason which helped me find what I did, this was all by accident, for my own personal belief still told me, I wasn't going to find anything there.

Then share this evidence with us.

Yes, non-believers are non-believers in something, which is where their belief patterns come from.

And Yes, non-believers as it pertains to deities, are non-believers in deities, for they hold on to their flying teapot analogies and supernatural beliefs.

Except it's not a belief - it's an analogy. How many times do I have to tell you that?

 

[footprints]

So, an extremist atheist is someone who takes over a country and enacts genocide? Well, I guess there's hardly an extremist movement in atheism at all, then.

LOL

Wars can be fought on many levels, with guns and bombs, with sticks and stones, with words and even with thought.

What are you talking about? What do you mean by "believe in an analogy"?

Do you believe the analogy of a FSM is a true analogy of a deity? Then this is a belief. I for one will say it isn't and that it is, a figment of some atheists, vivid imaginations.

Do you or do you not understand the difference between such things as the FSM being examples of satirical analogies of religion and an actual belief in a God or Gods?

I can understand the premise of what the atheist is getting at, you seem to loose track of the fact, that I was once an atheist, I used the same dumb analogies. Albeit at the time, I didn't believe they were dumb analogies, I thought they were something intelligent.

It's not a straw-man, it's an analogy. Whenever I hear the tooth-fairy or flying space kettle brought-up by an atheist, it's almost always in response to the "prove God doesn't exist" argument. In which case, both are perfect examples of using such logic to defeat itself - since neither the tooth fairy, the FSM or the flying space-kettle can be proven to not exist.

It is a logical fallacy, a strawman. The atheist who use it will never see it, simply because they believe there is intelligence in it. Theists when they point to a deity, are pointing to an alledged, observed deity, whose proof of validy was testified to by ancient, base root cultures. Atheists point to nothing, except a figment of their imagination.

And do not insult people by saying that they have the "mental capacity of a child". You're the one who hates using insults, belittling and mocking people, remember?

Sorry I borrowed your terminolgy when you said they would have to be 8 years old and still believe in the tooth fairy (post 236). If you don't want insults, don't put them out in the first place and they won't come back to you.

Because it can't.

LOL of course it can't

You've not answered my question - in fact you've only restated what I just did, more or less. Here is my question again:

That is because it was a silly question.

How is it any more irrational for an atheist to "dogmatically" believe there is no God than it is for a theist to believe that there is?

That is a different question, so I will answer it differently.

There is no difference between the two. Just as there is no difference between the atheist and the theist who view things logically and reasonably.

You've yet to demonstrate that. In fact you regularly prove the opposite.

LOL that is your perception for you.

 

[footprints]

Okay then. Explain to me how and why a non-belief in a God is less rational than a non-belief in the Loch Ness monster or the FSM.

How many times do we have to swing around the same tree?

Deities are alledged figures, observed and testified to, by ancient, base root cultures. Just as it was impossible for them to see our reality, the Sydney Harbour Bridge as just one example, it is nearly impossible for us to see their reality.

I will leave the Lock Ness monster alone, as there is conflicting evidence pertaining to this.

As for the FSM, we all know that is defined as a figment of some atheistic imaginations. A make believe thing which no ancient, base root culture ever testified to.

 

[footprints]

Also, "faith of belief" doesn't mean anything. Just say "belief" or "faith".

All beliefs have an element of faith attached to them, to a greater or lesser degree. I have told you before, I will not deny reality, just to appease your belief patterns.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL

Wars can be fought on many levels, with guns and bombs, with sticks and stones, with words and even with thought.

Still no closer to defining what constitutes an "extreme" atheist.

Do you believe the analogy of a FSM is a true analogy of a deity? Then this is a belief. I for one will say it isn't and that it is, a figment of some atheists, vivid imaginations.

What are you talking about? "A true analogy of a deity"? That doesn't mean a thing and you know it.

An analogy is an analogy. It's a device held up to reflect certain views or, in this case, beliefs. Of course FSM is a figment of "some atheists vivid imagination" - that's the whole point. At what point does using such an analogy become a belief?

I can understand the premise of what the atheist is getting at, you seem to loose track of the fact, that I was once an atheist, I used the same dumb analogies. Albeit at the time, I didn't believe they were dumb analogies, I thought they were something intelligent.

If it's dumb, explain how and why.

It is a logical fallacy, a strawman. The atheist who use it will never see it, simply because they believe there is intelligence in it. Theists when they point to a deity, are pointing to an alledged, observed deity, whose proof of validy was testified to by ancient, base root cultures. Atheists point to nothing, except a figment of their imagination.

The whole point is that there is as much real evidence of said figment of their imagination as there is of the alleged "observed deity". "Ancient cultures" believed the world was flat and at the center the universe. How old an idea is does not add to it's validity - that's called appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy.

FSM, meanwhile, is not a strawman. It's a counter-claim used to mirror the claims of theists when presented without evidence.

Sorry I borrowed your terminolgy when you said they would have to be 8 years old and still believe in the tooth fairy (post 236). If you don't want insults, don't put them out in the first place and they won't come back to you.

Are you serious??

You thought me saying that most people only believe in the tooth fairy as children was an insult??

You just keep finding new ways to amaze me in your intellectual self-delusion.

LOL of course it can't

Okay then, use it.

That is because it was a silly question.

Still belittling, I see.

That is a different question, so I will answer it differently

Here is what I asked initially:

So, forgetting for the moment that the term "atheism" only pertains to a lack of belief in God rather than a belief in the nonexistence of God, how is it any more irrational for an atheist to "dogmatically" believe there is no God than it is for a theist to believe that there is?

Here's the question I asked the second time:

How is it any more irrational for an atheist to "dogmatically" believe there is no God than it is for a theist to believe that there is?

It's the exact same question word for word. Do not insult my intelligence.

There is no difference between the two. Just as there is no difference between the atheist and the theist who view things logically and reasonably.

Fair enough, although if you truly think that it puzzles me that you rail so much against atheists and yet I've never seen you make any attempt at arguing with theists.

For example, you have asserted that The God Delusion is generally held as the atheist's holy book, and have repeatedly stated that it is irrational, inflammatory and ignorant. Considering this, how do you feel about, say, the Bible or the Qur'an?

LOL that is your perception for you.

Difference is, I'm right.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How many times do we have to swing around the same tree?

Deities are alledged figures, observed and testified to, by ancient, base root cultures. Just as it was impossible for them to see our reality, the Sydney Harbour Bridge as just one example, it is nearly impossible for us to see their reality.

I will leave the Lock Ness monster alone, as there is conflicting evidence pertaining to this.

As for the FSM, we all know that is defined as a figment of some atheistic imaginations. A make believe thing which no ancient, base root culture ever testified to.

As explained above, that is appeal to tradition. It carries no weight whatsoever.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All beliefs have an element of faith attached to them, to a greater or lesser degree.

Doesn't change the fact that "faith of belief" is a meaningless phrase that you made up to sound intelligent. It doesn't mean any more than just "faith" or "belief" do on their own and you know it.

I have told you before, I will not deny reality, just to appease your belief patterns.

And what is my "belief pattern", exactly?

 

[footprints]

Again, not answering my question. Do you or do you not believe in the tooth fairy?

Ah, if I know the tooth fairies, in my family personally, I certainly do believe in them. For I am real, that is how you keep getting replies back. For you see, I am the tooth fairy when I am there, if not somebody else takes over the role.

The tooth fairy, like Santa, are loving people who love to see their children smile and be happy. By some atheists analogies, we would ban all childrens books from book shops, for surely Hansel and Gretel didn't exist, did they? The Cat in the Hat series well that would be gone.

There is nothing wrong with an active, fertile imagination, in fact it can be quite beneficial in life, depending on a persons occupation. It is only when imaginations get over zealous, can they be detrimental and distort the reality of life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ah, if I know the tooth fairies, in my family personally, I certainly do believe in them. For I am real, that is how you keep getting replies back. For you see, I am the tooth fairy when I am there, if not somebody else takes over the role.

The tooth fairy, like Santa, are loving people who love to see their children smile and be happy. By some atheists analogies, we would ban all childrens books from book shops, for surely Hansel and Gretel didn't exist, did they? The Cat in the Hat series well that would be gone.

There is nothing wrong with an active, fertile imagination, in fact it can be quite beneficial in life, depending on a persons occupation. It is only when imaginations get over zealous, can they be detrimental and distort the reality of life.

Now that is a straw man. A pretty amazing example of one too.

A: Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
B: Sometimes my family dress up as tooth fairies for the kids in order to make them happy - there is nothing wrong with imagination! Atheists just want to get rid of all children's stories and ban imagination!

Do you understand that when I ask you if you believe in the tooth fairy I'm NOT asking you about whether you believe in people's right to have imagination, dress up as fairies or make children happy, right? I'm asking you whether you believe in the literal existence of a magical fairy who floats into children's rooms and exchanges their teeth for money.

Honestly, your pathological inability to answer even basic questions that require to just be honest about your actual beliefs astounds me.

 

[Sunstone]

Supposing, for argument's sake, that there's such a thing as an "atheistic worldview," what could this worldview lead to, and what possible effects could it have on the individual and society, and why?

The notion that atheism leads to genocide is as valid as the notion that the mustaches worn by Hitler and Stalin led to the Second World War. Among other things, correlation is not causation.

 

[footprints]

Doesn't change the fact that "faith of belief" is a meaningless phrase that you made up to sound intelligent. It doesn't mean any more than just "faith" or "belief" do on their own and you know it.



And what is my "belief pattern", exactly?

I have told you before, I will not distort reality, just to appease your belief patterns. Faith of belief, is just another way of saying, the amount of faith a person puts into their belief. Much shorter and quicker to say, Faith of Belief.

People form belief patterns over every single event or situation, that directly impacts on their personal life experience, be this experience direct or indirect as in word of mouth off somebody they know, it could even be from a book, a televison show, a movie or even a song. It is a persons individual life experience which builds their perceptions, perceptions fuel a persons belief patterns.

Where you are personally concerned, I have no absolute way of knowing, whether what you write in this forum is a complete fabrication or the truth as you really see it. I have assumed, and it is only an assumption, that you are an honest poster, and will say things as your own perception sees it. However in the greater reality, I do know and accept this assumption may be incorrect, and you may indeed be lying through your teeth.

So therefore, I cannot rationally nor logically say what your personal beliefs as a real person are. All I can do is say, what some of the personal belief patterns of the pseudonym, Immortal Flame are, and I couldn't even do this, if you hadn't revealed them to me, in our discussions together.

So therefore, the Pseudonym Immortal Flame has revealed many belief patterns so far to date. These range from perceptions of deities, to perceptions of a persons personal character.

 

[footprints]

Now that is a straw man. A pretty amazing example of one too.

A: Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
B: Sometimes my family dress up as tooth fairies for the kids in order to make them happy - there is nothing wrong with imagination! Atheists just want to get rid of all children's stories and ban imagination!

Do you understand that when I ask you if you believe in the tooth fairy I'm NOT asking you about whether you believe in people's right to have imagination, dress up as fairies or make children happy, right? I'm asking you whether you believe in the literal existence of a magical fairy who floats into children's rooms and exchanges their teeth for money.

Honestly, your pathological inability to answer even basic questions that require to just be honest about your actual beliefs astounds me.

You do of course realise when you ask me to swallow your magical bean, that you are denying direct evidence of life around you. The tooth fairy is real, well at least in my home, so too is Santa, for you see they are both me, irrespective of any story I may tell the children, to make their adventure more exciting. And do you know what, every tooth fairy and every Santa in every home where they exist, are real people too.

LOL You just want people to accept your fairytale, as you try and imply it, to deities.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have told you before, I will not distort reality, just to appease your belief patterns. Faith of belief, is just another way of saying, the amount of faith a person puts into their belief. Much shorter and quicker to say, Faith of Belief.

If that's what you've always meant then you could say "faith in belief", since that makes more sense.

People form belief patterns over every single event or situation, that directly impacts on their personal life experience, be this experience direct or indirect as in word of mouth off somebody they know, it could even be from a book, a televison show, a movie or even a song. It is a persons individual life experience which builds their perceptions, perceptions fuel a persons belief patterns.

Where you are personally concerned, I have no absolute way of knowing, whether what you write in this forum is a complete fabrication or the truth as you really see it. I have assumed, and it is only an assumption, that you are an honest poster, and will say things as your own perception sees it. However in the greater reality, I do know and accept this assumption may be incorrect, and you may indeed be lying through your teeth.

So therefore, I cannot rationally nor logically say what your personal beliefs as a real person are. All I can do is say, what some of the personal belief patterns of the pseudonym, Immortal Flame are, and I couldn't even do this, if you hadn't revealed them to me, in our discussions together.

Not a single part of what you say in these two paragraphs means a damn thing, you're just dodging the question. You said:

I have told you before, I will not deny reality, just to appease your belief patterns.

This statement implies that you happen to know what my "belief patterns" are. You and I both know it's pretty safe to assume that "ImmortalFlame" is me. Now, what are my belief patterns?

So therefore, the Pseudonym Immortal Flame has revealed many belief patterns so far to date. These range from perceptions of deities, to perceptions of a persons personal character.

Such as...?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You do of course realise when you ask me to swallow your magical bean, that you are denying direct evidence of life around you. The tooth fairy is real, well at least in my home, so too is Santa, for you see they are both me, irrespective of any story I may tell the children, to make their adventure more exciting. And do you know what, every tooth fairy and every Santa in every home where they exist, are real people too.

LOL You just want people to accept your fairytale, as you try and imply it, to deities.

I never once have said that people do not have the right to believe what they want. I just question the supposed rationality of it.

Now, this is the last time I'm going to ask you: Do you or do you not believe in the literal existence of a magical fairy who floats into children's rooms and exchanges their teeth for money? Whether you know people who dress up as fairies or tell their children such fairies exist is irrelevant. I'm asking do YOU believe the existence of such a being to be true.

But, since you raised the subject: Do you also believe that there exists a man who travels around the world and delivers presents to every child on Earth in a single night while riding on a sleigh with eight reindeer?

Anything other than a "yes" or a "no" is a dodge.

 

[footprints]

I have never claimed that there is, nor have I ever claimed a deity does not exist.

I cannot remember whether I have asked you this before or not, so I will ask you then. Put your cards on the table.

Does a deity exist?

Has a deity ever existed?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I cannot remember whether I have asked you this before or not, so I will ask you then. Put your cards on the table.

Does a deity exist?

No idea.

Has a deity ever existed?

No idea.