What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

[F1fan]

There are already several posters arifying what you're getting wrong.

You and yourself?

And that is that you definition defines nothing, and therefor everything.

Which definition of mine are you referring to?

Toads are atheists. Trees are atheists. Anything that can't or won't think is an atheist.

In a very broad definition of the word atheism this is correct. The word atheism has many definitions and subsets, so to refer to the most broad meaning will leave the interpretaton to the other. One major flaw you have is a talent to use many words to weave incoherent explanations of how you think human knowledge works. You love to be confused, but don't let using words get in the way. You even wrote recently that language is inadequate to describe reality. False, it is very good at describing reality when used for that purpose, and with the intent to express knowledge. You seem to disdain this as much as atheists, who as a category are well informed and can distill nonsense from factual explanations.

Because by your definition atheism is thoughtless, and pointless, and devoid of any intellectual substance or value.

Much the same way not being a cyclist involves no movement, no thinking, no focus, no effort, etc.

Oddly your statement here is what blind faith is. Atheism has been resolved in the mind. Atheists have done the work to examine whether religious ideas are credible and believable. Atheists do give believers the chance to present arguments for why gods exist, but they consistently lack evidence, the one crucial element. Atheists have done the homework and theists offer nothing new.

All these must be provided by the theist or the empty silence that results is "atheism".

What theists claim is is the emptiness. This doesn't mean that people can have religious feelings and experiences and it inspires them to be as good a person as they are capable. I'm not talking about this. Such folks are like my grandmother who, along with her friends at church, would feed about 200 people twice a week. They never once talked about Jesus or Christianity. They served their fellow citizens. To my mind this is the best way to show how Christianity is a valid spiritual path. Trying to argue it in debate? No, theists can't win. That they don't realize this is why they fail.

 

[Willamena]

What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

Disbelief in god.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Some or perhaps most do, but you can't derive that from the label "atheism" as that is not what the label means.


Some certainly do, but that is also something can't derive from the label "theism" as that is not what the label means either.

You're wrong on both counts

lol.
You’d argue with a wall.
You just add more evidence to the veracity of 2 Timothy 3:1-5….
“But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.”

 

[ChristineM]

not open to any agreement

That appears to work 2 ways

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You’d argue with a wall.

He disagrees with your definitions of atheist and theist, which you seem to equate with naturalism and supernaturalism. The ideas correlate like that - atheists are naturalists and theists generally believe in a supernatural intelligent designer, but those ideas are consequences of atheism and theism, not integral to their definitions. You might also define the two as those who pray and those who don't, but the answer would be the same. Those qualities are also frequently the consequences of holding a god belief or not, but not part of his definitions or mine.

Have you observed any flagellum originate from natural processes?

Have the evolutionary pathways at least been posited for its creation through natural processes?

What about the lipid layer which protects the cell…how did it originate?

Which came first, RNA or protein?

There’s functional design in these things. They work together, but not separately.

What does experience tell us?

As far as we know, none of that requires an intelligent designer. Your argument that it does is rooted in the assertion that nature could not do this unaided, but it's a merely an incredulity fallacy - you can't see how, so it didn't happen.

Whenever researchers discover functional designs in complex patterns, outside of the biological sciences, we recognize mind as the source.

Solars systems and their central stars have functional design, but were assembled by no intelligence.

Guessing life arose by chance, & the bio machinery it needed, is based on no experiences; that isn’t even faith … it’s flimsy hope.

That isn't the naturalist's position, which is that life MAY HAVE arisen undesigned. That's not a guess, and unless you can disprove it, it remains a possibility.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And we have no evidence of intelligent oversight being necessary….

Have you observed any flagella originate from natural processes?

Have the evolutionary pathways at least been posited for its creation through natural processes?

What about the lipid layer which protects the cell…how did it originate?

Which came first, RNA or protein?

There’s functional design in these things. They work together, but not separately.

What does experience tell us?

Yes. it's empiricism if it's based in experience (evidence).

Whenever researchers discover functional designs in complex patterns, outside of the biological sciences, we recognize mind as the source.

This premise was the basis for S.E.T.I., as I’ve mentioned before.

We don’t find natural processes building complex structures with function. However, we have found that intelligence builds such things.

Experience has revealed it…. repeatedly.

Guessing your car will start, is probably a strong faith; it’s based on your past experiences.

Guessing life arose by chance, & the bio machinery it needed, is based on no experiences; that isn’t even faith … it’s flimsy hope.
From my perspective.

You see, my understanding allows for, & explains, the incidents surrounding invisible intelligent entities that @Sgt. Pepper has described, and numerous other rational & respectable posters.
I don’t have to dismiss their accounts to the “mistaken” bin.

All the best to you and yours.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

atheists are naturalists…

Correct…that being so, what other way would everything exist?

There are only two options: through natural processes, or through an intelligent agency (= a god.) Do you know of a third?

Now granted, theism might accept other means…..even I accept natural processes as a source of creating some complexity, but limited.

But Im right about atheism, unless you can name a third.

Until you do, my statement stands: he’d argue with a wall.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

lol.
You’d argue with a wall.
You just add more evidence to the veracity of 2 Timothy 3:1-5….
“But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.”

I don't care about your scriptures.

The fact is that your claims about the labels atheism and theism were flat out wrong.

Case in point: take a theist scientist like Ken Miller.
He by no means thinks there is "too much complexity and design" for there to be a god behind it.
He also thinks there is natural explanations for these things - or he wouldn't be working in the field in the first place to try and find such explanations.

So yeah..... Don't know what else to tell you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are only two options: through natural processes, or through an intelligent agency (= a god.) Do you know of a third?

That you, or anyone else, can't conceive of a third only means you can't conceive of it. Not that there isn't.

But Im right about atheism, unless you can name a third.

The "unless" part points to the age old argument from ignorance.

Until you do, my statement stands: he’d argue with a wall.

Again: Ken Miller.

A theist who believes there are natural explanations (or he wouldn't be a scientist).
Also a theist who does not believe there is "too much complexity and design for a god to no be involved".

This means that what you attributed exclusively to atheism, isn't exclusive to atheistm at all.
It also means that what you attributed to theism, isn't always the case either. In fact, statistically, theists that believe as you claimed are in fact a minority among theists.
Most theists aren't creationists and have no issue with scientific explanations at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are only two options: through natural processes, or through an intelligent agency (= a god.) Do you know of a third?

Aliens. Time travel. Ghosts. Pixies.

If we're going to lower our bar so low that your particular brand of unsupported magic poofing gets consideration, then all sorts of other rectally sourced "explanations" pass that bar as well.

 

[F1fan]

Have you observed any flagella originate from natural processes?

This is a question that follows from ignorance about how biology and nature works. Anyone asking such questions (a common creationist tactic) lacks understanding of evolution, so is irrelevant. Of course we know what the alternative is implied, that a creator made anything magically and in the moment. Have creationists ever observed any unique thing being created instantly, and in a way that defies the laws of physics, all theories in science, AND has no biological ancestors? No.

Have the evolutionary pathways at least been posited for its creation through natural processes?

The sciences are available for free on the internet. Why is it you lack even the basic 7th grade knowledge?

What about the lipid layer which protects the cell…how did it originate?

Why haven't you looked up the answer for yourself? Obviously you read this question on a bogus creationist site.

Which came first, RNA or protein?

There’s functional design in these things. They work together, but not separately.

What does experience tell us?

It depends on the level of your education, and whether you have been manipulated by non-factual social dogma.

Whenever researchers discover functional designs in complex patterns, outside of the biological sciences, we recognize mind as the source.

Cite an expert, not a creationist. As it is, the laws of physics explains why matter/energy behaves as it does.

This premise was the basis for S.E.T.I., as I’ve mentioned before.

We don’t find natural processes building complex structures with function. However, we have found that intelligence builds such things.

What is intelligent about DNA that leads to cancer in children?

Experience has revealed it…. repeatedly.

Guessing your car will start, is probably a strong faith; it’s based on your past experiences.

Yes, cars actually start. This is a fact, so it is reasonable to expect the pattern to continue given our experiences. Most have also experienced an occassion when the car did not start, so we are aware that this is a real possibility.

Guessing life arose by chance, & the bio machinery it needed, is based on no experiences; that isn’t even faith … it’s flimsy hope.
From my perspective.

Who says "life arose by chance"? It's a fact life did emerge, and there are natural explanations. Thus far no theist can point to facts that suggests any gods exist, nor how any supernatural can create anything from nothing. Before you refer to the Big Bang, that was not a creation event, it was a change in state of existing energy.

So theists who think there must be a God, and this God created all things, can't point to any facts of this being correct,or even plausible. So who is really guessing here?

You see, my understanding allows for, & explains, the incidents surrounding invisible intelligent entities that @Sgt. Pepper has described, and numerous other rational & respectable posters.

What @Sgt. Pepper refers to is paranormal, not supernatural. And notice she no longer believes in the sort of creationist God, so be careful not to embellish and distort what others say as you try to seek support and credibility for dubious claims and criticisms.

 

[F1fan]

Correct…that being so, what other way would everything exist?

Stuff exists as a fact. There are no gods known to exist, no supernatural phenomenon known to exist. So its more likely that stuff has always existed in one form or another. To assume a supernatural has no basis in fact or observation.

There are only two options: through natural processes, or through an intelligent agency (= a god.) Do you know of a third?

Yes, extra-terrestrials could have started life on this planet. In fact, there are organic chemicals found on asteroids.

And what evidence is there that any gods exist, and can do anything that you claim? Surely you're not just falling back on religious ideas that ancient people dreamed up, right?

Now granted, theism might accept other means…..even I accept natural processes as a source of creating some complexity, but limited.

Funny how many Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims accept results in science.

But Im right about atheism, unless you can name a third.

Your prejudice against atheism is based on non-factual religious beliefs. Nor does your judgment follow from reason.

Until you do, my statement stands: he’d argue with a wall.

And the wall is poorly educated believers who reject factual results in science, and reject reason as the proper cognitive tool to come to valid conclusions. The wall you put up against facts and reason is fabricated with baseless religious assumptions that have no true premises to defend in debate.

Thanks for your confession.

 

[PureX]

Stuff exists as a fact. There are no gods known to exist (opinion, and also irrelevant as human knowledge does not determine the parameters of existence), no supernatural phenomenon known to exist (also just an opinion). So its more likely that stuff has always existed in one form or another (a summation based on opinion, and therefor only an opinion, itself) To assume a supernatural has no basis in fact or observation. (an unsupported and therefor biased opinion)

And what evidence is there that any gods exist, and can do anything that you claim?

And what evidence is there that they don't?

For the lack of evidence to stand as evidence there has to be a specific and logical expectation of what that evidence would be, and a means of ascertaining it, if it is there. We (you) have none of this. And not findng what we don't know how to look for or even identify if we found it does not logically equate to any form of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what evidence is there that they don't?

For the lack of evidence to stand as evidence there has to be a specific and logical expectation of what that evidence would be, and a means of ascertaining it, if it is there. We (you) have none of this. And not findng what we don't know how to look for or even identify if we found it does not logically equate to any form of evidence.

Congratulations: you managed to argue that theism is not even wrong. IOW, for us to say that claims of the existence of gods are false would need those claims to be of a higher quality than they are now.

This is not a good thing. "You can't say that I'm wrong because my claim is too vague and incoherent to test, so I'm justified in believing it!" is not a position that a rational person would take.

 

[PureX]

Congratulations: you managed to argue that theism is not even wrong. IOW, for us to say that claims of the existence of gods are false would need those claims to be of a higher quality than they are now.

This is not a good thing. "You can't say that I'm wrong because my claim is too vague and incoherent to test, so I'm justified in believing it!" is not a position that a rational person would take.

Theism is a faith choice, not an evidence choice. The faith choice occurs prior to the evidence returned.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theism is a faith choice, not an evidence choice. The faith choice occurs prior to the evidence returned.

No argument here.

 

[F1fan]

And what evidence is there that they don't?

So you will accept a scenario where the police show up at your house to arrest you for murder, and you ask what the evidence is that you did it, and they say there's isn't any, but also no evidence that you didn't murder the victim? You will go to jail because you accept that kind of thinking?

For the lack of evidence to stand as evidence there has to be a specific and logical expectation of what that evidence would be, and a means of ascertaining it, if it is there. We (you) have none of this. And not findng what we don't know how to look for or even identify if we found it does not logically equate to any form of evidence.

There is no reason for any rational thinker to entertain a supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon. The only reason a supernatural get's introduced in these discussions is because of the tradition of belief in religions. Science and reason follows evidence. Guesses and traditions of cultural belief is irrelevant.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For the lack of evidence to stand as evidence there has to be a specific and logical expectation of what that evidence would be, and a means of ascertaining it, if it is there.

Not at all.

So you seem to be saying that if you claim a god exists that the skeptic needs to believe you unless he can describe what the evidence for your god would look like and demonstrating that it doesn't exist. It doesn't work like that.

not findng what we don't know how to look for or even identify if we found it does not logically equate to any form of evidence.

You don't seem to understand that the skeptic needs no evidence to say that he is not convinced by the theists insufficiently evidenced claims.

Yours is a variation of a common apologist's verbal sleight-of-hand. Another variation is that the faith-based thinkers claims should be excused from requiring evidentiary support because their god is beyond empirical inquiry. Both are forms of claiming an exemption from needing to provide evidence, but there are no exemptions. Present compelling evidence or have your claim go unbelieved. There are no other paths to belief for the critically thinking empiricist.

I understand that this is a cause of frustration and offense to you. You've made that clear with your frequent references to myopic thinking, materialism, and "scientism" in the disparaging sense of the word. You seem to think that the critical thinker's filters are too narrow, and that other kinds of ideas should be allowed in and be believed that critical thought rejects. But you can't make a case for any benefit following doing that beyond letting in comforting thoughts, and there's not even that for the atheist who is already comfortable without a god belief.

 

[PureX]

So you will accept a scenario where the police show up at your house to arrest you for murder, and you ask what the evidence is that you did it, and they say there's isn't any, but also no evidence that you didn't murder the victim? You will go to jail because you accept that kind of thinking?

There is no reason for any rational thinker to entertain a supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon.

Except that whatever the source of “the natural order” is, it is by definition, itself, “supernatural”. So by that reasoning, any rational person would not stupidly dismiss the idea of a supernatural cause for natural phenomena. As by definition it would ultimately have to be.

The only reason a supernatural get's introduced in these discussions is because of the tradition of belief in religions. Science and reason follows evidence. Guesses and traditions of cultural belief is irrelevant.

I don’t care about religion. I care about our being honest and logical in our reasoning, and then honest with each other. The idea of a supernatural cause or realm of reality is not illogical, no matter how much you dislike it. In fact, whatever the origin of existence as we know it is, it is by definition “supernatural”. And since everything about existence as we know it points to a singular, specific origin, we’re going to have to accept that the “supernatural” is a very significant aspect of the truth of what is.

 

[F1fan]

Except that whatever the source of “the natural order” is, it is by definition, itself, “supernatural”.

Who says? Why is that a rational conclusion when there is zero evidence of any supernatural existing outside of human minds?

Given that matter/energy exists, and humans have explanations how it works in an automatic way, how is the assumption that energy has always existed and was never caused not superior? This assumption is what the available evidence conforms to. There is none that supports the assumption that a supernatural exists and caused anything.

So by that reasoning, any rational person would not stupidly dismiss the idea of a supernatural cause for natural phenomena. As by definition it would ultimately have to be.

What supernatural cause are you referring to? Show us the fact that it exists, and is also the cause of anything, and how it works.

I don’t care about religion.

Nor science and reason.

I care about our being honest and logical in our reasoning, and then honest with each other.

Your posts don't back this up.

The idea of a supernatural cause or realm of reality is not illogical, no matter how much you dislike it.

It's not a matter of like, it is a matter of fact. The idea of a supernatural has no factual basis. As I noted it is only part of discussion because of the old traditions of religious belief that is like a virus to many minds.

In fact, whatever the origin of existence as we know it is, it is by definition “supernatural”.

Not in science. It is in creationism, and even the vague religious minds that desire a creation of some sort to be true for the sake of their ideology.

And since everything about existence as we know it points to a singular, specific origin, we’re going to have to accept that the “supernatural” is a very significant aspect of the truth of what is.

Why assume the Big Bang was supernatural? And again, tie it to the supernatural you showed exists as a fact above.

In science the cause of the expansion is unknown. But it could be as simple as an unstable singularity that reached a critical point. There is no reason for us in the 21st century to defer to ancient stories by people who had no idea how things are in reality.