PLZ READ OP FIRST! The Atheist Delusion

reply to post by Amagnon


Don't flatter yourself. This isn't a vs thread either. I am an ATheist and I am attacking certain irrational ideologies ATHEISTS hold.


Instead of playing referee maybe you should read the post first.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Lack of empirical evidence can only bring you so far as to say that the probability of God existing is slim, but you cannot know God does not exist from that alone. So, if you don't know God does not exist, then that means you believe He doesn't exist.

Eh? If I don’t know something does not exist then I believe that it doesn’t exist? You’ve lost me.

That's because you don't know what atheism is... evidently. If the definition of an atheist is somebody who doesn't know if God exists, then that means everyone is an atheist.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by Mike_A

 

I cannot make it any simpler than this seeing as the original and subsequent posts were to complicated for you.

Most argument Atheists use can also be used by THeists. THis IS because of the subject. Watch.


THere is no empirical data proving god.
THere is no empirical data Disproving god.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence.
Theism is a lack of belief in god(s) nonexistence.


See? Does that make Theism a non belief? NO. It is a flawed argument that Atheists use to make themselves seem superior. It is egotistical garbage.

Your "lack of belief" argument holds no water on the subject of existence. And admitting to there being a possibility of an object without 100% certainty is a belief also. ugh And I thought Christians were thick headed about certain dogmas.

You forget:

(Negative explicit) Atheism is a lack of belief god(s) do not exist.
Theism is the belief in god(s).


And exactly this makes one a belief and the other not.

YOu should try understanding instead of ignoring the point. I will show you again. Using your own argument.


(Negative explicit) theism is a lack of belief that god(s) do not exist.
Atheism is the belief in no god(s).


And exactly this makes one a belief and the other not.

Originally posted by IamBoon
Are "Negative explicit Theists" non-believers then?

It just does not make sense. With theism the distinction between believing in god(s) or the lack to believe in god(s) does not exist. With atheism there is the distinction between believing god(s) don't exist, and the lack of this believe.

So my stance is, I don't believe gods exist, because there is no proof. I also don't believe they don't exist because there is no proof. However, the gods made up by humans can often be falsified, as they make empirical claims about them. But in that case it is no longer a matter of believe. You can see it as a hypothesis with a certain degree of likeliness. If something is extremely unlikely, we accept it as untrue. This is not a believe, or else you can call anything a believe, and the word no longer has a meaning.

reply to post by IamBoon

Instead of playing referee maybe you should read the post first.

You can't come into a thread and know what's going on just because you have a buz on. You still have to read. Boon it seems is taking the devils advocate here for the moment. OP has offered a point that I have seen no worthy argument against as of yet.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by IamBoon
Are "Negative explicit Theists" non-believers then?

So my stance is, I don't believe gods exist, because there is no proof.

You do not have certain knowledge that God does not exist; therefore, you're left with a belief. You believe God does not exist.

reply to post by IamBoon


Well as you can read in my post above, this just doesn't not make any sense, as I explain in the first paragraph.

reply to post by ChickenPie


Wrong, I don't believe god(s) exists, and I also don't believe god(s) don't exist.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by IamBoon
Are "Negative explicit Theists" non-believers then?

It just does not make sense. With theism the distinction between believing in god(s) or the lack to believe in god(s) does not exist. With atheism there is the distinction between believing god(s) don't exist, and the lack of this believe.

So my stance is, I don't believe gods exist, because there is no proof. I also don't believe they don't exist because there is no proof. However, the gods made up by humans can often be falsified, as they make empirical claims about them. But in that case it is no longer a matter of believe. You can see it as a hypothesis with a certain degree of likeliness. If something is extremely unlikely, we accept it as untrue. This is not a believe, or else you can call anything a believe, and the word no longer has a meaning.

What? So you are saying that belief doesn't matter in THeism?

Or are you saying that You can be Atheist and believe in god?

THer is no proof saying god doesn't exist either... AN opinion on anything unknowable it a belief. I don't know why I even bother. I thought maybe Atheists wouldn't avoid logical and rational argument like the plague.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Wrong, I don't believe god(s) exists, and I also don't believe god(s) don't exist.

You say I'm wrong without giving reasons why I am wrong. What I'm saying is quite simple and logical.

You do not have certain knowledge that God does not exist. What you do have is reason to believe God does not exist--the reason being lack of evidence. But that alone is not certain knowledge. Now, if you do not have certain knowledge that God does not exist, then your conclusion that God does not exist is a belief.

Allow me to iterate: if you do not know, then you believe.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

Originally posted by IamBoon

What? So you are saying that belief doesn't matter in THeism?

Or are you saying that You can be Atheist and believe in god?

THer is no proof saying god doesn't exist either... AN opinion on anything unknowable it a belief. I don't know why I even bother. I thought maybe Atheists wouldn't avoid logical and rational argument like the plague.

What I am saying is:

You can't be a theist without believing in god

but

You can be an atheist without believing gods do not exist.

Wrong, I don't believe god(s) exists, and I also don't believe god(s) don't exist.

reply to post by -PLB-


This isn't going to be that, good shoulder, bad shoulder, routine is it?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by ChickenPie
You say I'm wrong without giving reasons why I am wrong. What I'm saying is quite simple and logical.

You do not have certain knowledge that God does not exist. What you do have is reason to believe God does not exist--the reason being lack of evidence. But that alone is not certain knowledge. Now, if you do not have certain knowledge that God does not exist, then your conclusion that God does not exist is a belief.

Allow me to iterate: if you do not know, then you believe.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by ChickenPie]

You were wrong when you said "You believe God does not exist".

I don't believe that.

reply to post by ChickenPie

Exactly man. It is such a simple concept that I am amazed anyone can remain ignorant to it.

And what is funnier , is that the "rational , logical and evidence based "Atheists are showing the validity of the first point I made in the OP! LMAO!

Originally posted by -PLB-

I don't believe that.

You're not an atheist?

reply to post by IamBoon


Your OP wasn’t complicated it was just wrong, I know what you are saying I just disagree. Let’s not get pissy because someone doesn’t find your logic to be all that logical.

THere is no empirical data proving god.
THere is no empirical data Disproving god.

How does either argument make the lack of belief in a god or gods itself into a belief?

Nevertheless, there not being any empirical data proving god is reason to take the position of none belief but there not being any data disproving god is not reason to take the position of belief and leads to many logical problems.

If I use the former argument then I must naturally reject anything that equally shares a lack of evidence. That’s easy to do, nothing I believe or know conflicts with that principle.

However taking the latter argument I would have to accept anything that equally cannot be disproved. This inevitably leads to huge numbers of contradictions; I would have to accept the existence of everything from Santa to pink unicorns to aliens to just about anything else. Thus the latter is not a logical theistic argument

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence.
Theism is a lack of belief in god(s) nonexistence.

But theism is not the lack of belief in a god’s nonexistence. It just isn’t, the lack of belief in a god’s nonexistence is (weak) atheism or agnosticism. Theism is the positive belief in one or more gods. You can’t change that to win an argument. Saying “I don’t believe that god doesn’t exist” is not the same as saying “I believe god exists”.

Your "lack of belief" argument holds no water on the subject of existence

It doesn’t intend to; I am not arguing that there are no gods or that there is a reason to believe that there are no gods I am arguing against the notion that atheism is itself a belief.

And admitting to there being a possibility of an object without 100% certainty is a belief also.

Yes but it is a belief that is separate from my lack of belief in a god or gods; it may lead to my atheism but it is not the same thing. Just as my belief that alien life is possible is separate from my lack of belief in alien life.

reply to post by ChickenPie

If the definition of an atheist is somebody who doesn't know if God exists,

It’s not, it is someone who doesn’t believe that god exists.

reply to post by cushycrux


Again it’s not really the topic but as an addendum, killing someone because they have asked you to end their suffering most definitely is done out of love; as would defending a loved one in a violent manner. But that’s for another topic.






[edit on 30-7-2010 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by IamBoon

What? So you are saying that belief doesn't matter in THeism?

Or are you saying that You can be Atheist and believe in god?

THer is no proof saying god doesn't exist either... AN opinion on anything unknowable it a belief. I don't know why I even bother. I thought maybe Atheists wouldn't avoid logical and rational argument like the plague.

What I am saying is:

You can't be a theist without believing in god

but

You can be an atheist without believing gods do not exist.

ONE MORE DAMN TIME PLB. YOUR ARGUMENT SUCKS AND HOLDS NO WATER! Watch what happens BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECT!
Watch what happens to your argument.

'What I am saying is:

You can't be an atheist without believing in godlessness

but

You can be an theist without believing gods do not exist."


See how that works? Are theist not believers? Atheist and theist are believers by default I am not arguing this anymore it is really a waste of time if you do not understand yet.

Originally posted by ChickenPie

You're not an atheist?

My position is close to agnostic, I do however reject the existence of any god I know of made up by humans. And That makes me atheist, at least to the followers of those religions. Maybe fellow atheist will call me agnostic.

The Topic is kind of puerile. No way I discuss such illogical things.
2nd line.

Originally posted by IamBoon
You can't be an atheist without believing in godlessness

This is just wrong. You can. You just misunderstand what "atheist" means. I already showed you what "Negative explicit" atheism is. And it clearly says "but do not assert it is true that deities do not exist."

If you reject this definition, thats ok. Then we just don't agree on the definition of atheist, and feel free to call me agnostic.