PLZ READ OP FIRST! The Atheist Delusion

reply to post by djzombie


Hey, you believe that you are an atheist, that's cool. It's cute, in a "Jews for Jesus" kind-a way.

If you honestly BELIEF in no god, as in have some express faith in the fact that there is no god, then you are not an atheist. You can fly under the flag all you want, you can profess it to the world, but you aren't.

Sorry man, but there is no point arguing it, it's just the facts. Sometimes the truth hurts, don't it?

reply to post by WolfofWar


Um. You left out part of it and you used the word disbelieving as your reference instead of disbelief. And anyhoo, the sentences mean essesentially the same thing for all of your semantic gymnastics.

intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief

— dis·be·liev·er noun

SOURCE@Merriam Webster

Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Date: 1672
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Disbelief@ Merriam Webster

Funny that soo many like to classify stupid as synonomous with "Disagrees with me". It shows who's actually stupid.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Your lack of logic only shows your own arrogance. As if you professing what someone else's beliefs are actually makes them so.

There seems to be no reasoning with a brick wall so I'll leave this thread to the trolls that can't seem to see past their own self proclaimed theistic superiority.

Enjoy admonishing others who would not try to force their beliefs upon anyone as you're attempting to do here.

In closing:
I am an atheist.
I believe there is no god.

Whether or not you can accept that is your own choice, but makes no difference to me, as I won't be returning to this arrogance filled thread again.

Good night, I've said my piece.

reply to post by WolfofWar


Ah, so one can only be an atheist if they convince themselves they know something that is impossible to know for sure? It's ALL BELIEF regardless how you cut it.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Uhh..

"to withhold or reject belief."


So...who's argument you trying to win?

withhold....as in refrain from, reject, to hold back.

I didn't want to make it too easy to invalidate the threads point so I left that out, but you brought it up anyways.

So. Disbelief is to withold belief, as in not having belief. To put belief aside.

By your own definition, Atheism is a disbelief of god.

If this is true, and you posture that it is, then disbelief, by your own definition, is to withhold belief. Withhold means to hold back or refrain.

So. If my SAT logic is correct: Atheism is the witholding of any belief in a god.

Atheism != a belief.

Thanks for proving me right, now move along, there is no reason to go over this again and again, especially when you are now even proving yourself wrong.

Can we officially just declare this sad new low for an ATS thread officially closed already? Before people are made more foolish by their own words?

Originally posted by djzombie
Your lack of logic only shows your own arrogance. As if you professing what someone else's beliefs are actually makes them so.


In closing:
I am an atheist. not really, but ok.
I believe there is no god.

Whether or not you can accept that is your own choice, but makes no difference to me, as I won't be returning to this arrogance filled thread again.

Good night, I've said my piece.

Again, say what you will, but if you truly are professing you have a faith-based belief that there is no god, you are not in fact an atheist. It's cool, I've known a lot of Catholics who only thought they were Catholic, but really not. You're essentially the Roman Catholic Atheist.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

 

Uhh..

"to withhold or reject belief."


So...who's argument you trying to win?

withhold....as in refrain from, reject, to hold back.

I didn't want to make it too easy to invalidate the threads point so I left that out, but you brought it up anyways.

So. Disbelief is to withold belief, as in not having belief. To put belief aside.

By your own definition, Atheism is a disbelief of god.

If this is true, and you posture that it is, then disbelief, by your own definition, is to withhold belief. Withhold means to hold back or refrain.

So. If my SAT logic is correct: Atheism is the witholding of any belief in a god.

Atheism != a belief.

Thanks for proving me right, now move along, there is no reason to go over this again and again, especially when you are now even proving yourself wrong.

Can we officially just declare this sad new low for an ATS thread officially closed already? Before people are made more foolish by their own words?

That's interesting. So you're giving those who define atheism as a lack of belief in deities exactly what they want. If atheism is not a belief, then the only way you can be an atheist is if you know deities don't exist. Is that what you're saying? If not... at least it got me thinking a little.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

Remember: Absence of belief is not belief of absense!

One could possess no concept of a God and thus no concept of not believing in one and no concept of believing there isn't one.

[edit on 7/31/2010 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by ChickenPie


Not quite. No, not at all actually.

You don't have to know anything. You simply are lacking a belief in something. It's like a light switch. There is on and off. Theism and Atheism. One is the absence of something, a disbelief. A lacking of any belief.

I do not believe in a god. I do not know if he exists or if he does not, I simply have no belief in a god.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Not quite. No, not at all actually.

You don't have to know anything. You simply are lacking a belief in something. It's like a light switch. There is on and off. Theism and Atheism. One is the absence of something, a disbelief. A lacking of any belief.

I do not believe in a god. I do not know if he exists or if he does not, I simply have no belief in a god.

In any case, thanks for giving me some more ammo to troll atheists with.

I think babies are atheists because they lack belief in deities, but their lack of belief is out of utter ignorance rather than a conscious decision.

Now, an adult who says they disbelieve in God's existence is asserting something. They're asserting God does not exist or probably does not exist because X, Y, Z, etc., but these assertions are not based on certain knowledge of God's nature or existence; therefore, they're beliefs.

Finally, if one wants to argue that atheism is truly not a belief, then that means in order to be an atheist you would have to assert that you know God does not exist; that's different than saying you believe or disbelieve in God's existence.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

reply to post by ChickenPie


No. Actually. You don't have to know that god doesn't exist to have no belief in him.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

No. Actually. You don't have to know that god doesn't exist to have no belief in him.

Duh...

You're missing my point though, I think.

I'm responding to those who claim atheism is not a belief. If atheism is not a belief (I think it is), then stop saying you believe that God does not exist or disbelieve in God's existence--which carries with it assertions regarding God's existence that are not based on certain knowledge. Instead, assert that you know God does not exist. In that way, people cannot say your atheism is a belief. They may call you nuts though.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

reply to post by WolfofWar


Considering you are confused as to my actual stance? Might wish to read the thread all the way through bucko.
I agree that atheism constitutes a belief. I just take issue with the fact that you are:
1) Using the classically stupid and high horsed tactic of whole heartedly engaging in an argument while complaining about said argument.
2) Are using semantic gymnastics to tell people they aren't the labels they have assumed all because they do not exhibit the same zealoted BS a great deal do when they confuse their belief for absolute knowledge. You are in no position to dictate to others what they are or are not.

Originally posted by ChickenPie
In any case, thanks for giving me some more ammo to troll atheists with.

I think babies are atheists because they lack belief in deities, but their lack of belief is out of utter ignorance rather than a conscious decision.

Now, an adult who says they disbelieve in God's existence is asserting something. They're asserting God does not exist or probably does not exist because X, Y, Z, etc., but these assertions are not based on certain knowledge of God's nature or existence; therefore, they're beliefs.

But where is YOUR knowledge that God DOES exist? Where is your proof, evidence that God exists and is the Creator. Do you believe in aliens? If not, how can you claim to believe this when you probably don't understand the nature of aliens and how they would act?

Finally, if one wants to argue that atheism is truly not a belief, then that means in order to be an atheist you would have to assert that you know God does not exist; that's different than saying you believe or disbelieve in God's existence.

Maybe some people are actually Agnostics but classify themselves as Atheists because they are opposed to modern religion. Most religions these days recognise Atheists simply as those who do not follow a religion and do not believe in a God. Agnosticism is not something that is recognised in modern religions; you are either a Theist or an Atheist. Therefore, Agnostics and Atheists are grouped together and this is why there is so much confusion when differentiating between them.

[edit on 31/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Why was this moved to "Chit-Chat" and all stars removed.... I think an Atheist moderator got mad. Little spoiled children only play silly games.

reply to post by WolfofWar


A stance on something improbable or probable but cannot be proven as factual either way makes that stance a belief.

The definition of the stance on the subject just describes it as negative.

If there is no hard evidence for the negative stance then it is a belief. For example


I lack belief that the soul exists. (The stance by definition is negative , that does not mean the stance cannot be a belief.) Is this a belief? T or F?

I do not believe that time exists existentially. belief T or F?

I assert there is no god. belief T or F?

It is the subject which causes any stance to be based on belief because the concept is unprovable either way.

For Atheism to not be a belief there would have to be no concept of god or any supernatural entities/ phenomenon... but then there would be no term to describe Atheism because there is no concept to base it on.

Originally posted by IamBoon
Why was this moved to "Chit-Chat" and all stars removed.... I think an Atheist moderator got mad. Little spoiled children only play silly games.

Yeah.. I wondered that myself. Website fail.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
But where is YOUR knowledge that God DOES exist? Where is your proof, evidence that God exists and is the Creator.

I do not have certain knowledge of God's existence, but I do believe in His existence.

That's neither here nor there though. This thread is for those who claim atheism is not a belief.

Do you believe in aliens?

I believe that it's probable there are other forms of life that did not originate from earth.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

reply to post by IamBoon

That is like saying theism is rooted in science and we all know that is bad science.

I agree with most of what you stated in the OP, however I'm particularly perplexed to this statement. First of all, it's an appeal to numbers fallacy. Secondly, I have an extremely high IQ and have been taught the evolution side of things from schooling and have also read numerous books on creation science and happen to agree that the creationists have better arguments for the universe we see today than the secular scientists.

You must understand that secular scientists and creation scientists both come from very esteemed university programs and are both highly educated. Both secular scientists and creation scientists have the EXACT same data to form opinions on, but their differing presuppositions lead them to differing conclusions for the data they are observing.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
But where is YOUR knowledge that God DOES exist? Where is your proof, evidence that God exists and is the Creator. Do you believe in aliens? If not, how can you claim to believe this when you probably don't understand the nature of aliens and how they would act?

I don't really see how these two things are tied together, but I'll play.

My proof of God's existence is my own. It is subjective and reasoned. I would not expect you to accept my proof, so you're on your own there. But I hope that you're okay with me saying that I believe in God.

Aliens, intelligent life from outside the Earth, if we can use those parameters to define them, I have neither a belief of or a disbelief of. When I reason it out, it seems sensible that there are aliens, but the exercise ends there. I have no proof, objective or subjective, so I throw up my hands and say "I don't know."

I do not believe that there are aliens.

I do not believe that there are no aliens.

I do believe that there could be aliens. I even believe that there should be aliens. But that's it.

If we accept alien agnosticism as not including the "can't ever know whether aliens exist," I would toss my hat in with the alien agnostics. If we do need to have that codicil in there, I don't know what label you'd apply to me.

The label doesn't change my beliefs though.