Atheism

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Cosmic, more word games from you?

A non-belief is not an acknowledgement that a belief is true. I do not believe in any deity, does that mean I acknowledge the existence of all deities? No, it means I acknowledge that other people believe in one or more deities. I simply do not participate.

Bald is not a hair color.
Not collecting stamps is a hobby.
And putting on your clothes is not stripping.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Cosmic, more word games from you?

A non-belief is not an acknowledgement that a belief is true.

only to the minority

I do not believe in any deity, does that mean I acknowledge the existence of all deities?

how so ? when the deity(s) denounced openly is the belief.

No, it means I acknowledge that other people believe in one or more deities. I simply do not participate.

the evidence from the minority would be to the contrary.

Bald is not a hair color.

agreed.

Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

disagree.

And putting on your clothes is not stripping.

agreed.

so what does it mean?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Cosmic, more word games from you?

A non-belief is not an acknowledgement that a belief is true.

only to the minority

Sentence fragment and argumentum ad populum. A grammatical error and a logical fallacy in only 4 words.

I'm sorry, but saying 'only to the minority' doesn't prove your point. You have to actually prove that separately. How is non-belief an acknowledgement that the belief is true?

I do not believe in any deity, does that mean I acknowledge the existence of all deities?

how so ? when the deity(s) denounced openly is the belief.

More grammar issues...
Ok, you have to demonstrate that not accepting the positive claims of a deity is a belief.

No, it means I acknowledge that other people believe in one or more deities. I simply do not participate.

the evidence from the minority would be to the contrary.

What does that mean? I'm simply saying that I do not believe in any of the deities...this means I think none of them have evidence to support their beliefs

Bald is not a hair color.

agreed.

Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

disagree.

Typo, meant to say not a hobby.

And putting on your clothes is not stripping.

agreed.

so what does it mean?

That atheism is not a religion and not an acknowledgement of the truth of religious claims.

Heliocentrism isn't an acknowledgement of geocentrism's truth.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Atheism is a system based in belief... deities excluded, a belief is a belief...

now how strongly and ad/pro vocative one is about their belief would seem to make it a faith. some may even call it a religious practice since it is only targeted at Monotheism.

I still have not seen those videos of the contrary.

thanks for all the grammar checking, although there is only thing I am learning about grammar checkers... which has nothing to do with correcting my shortcomings.

Atheism is common sense and logic, rather than thinking there's a man who loves us living in the clouds.

reply to post by ac3rr

yup that's kinda what were told as kids... but we all grow out of that.

if you are looking for some unseen man with white hair and eyes of fire so be it, mine as well be looking for aliens and pink unicorns too.

Originally posted by ac3rr
Atheism is common sense and logic

lets use the tools at our disposal then and not even acknowledge the Theists then, sounds like a good plan to me...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Atheism is a system based in belief... deities excluded, a belief is a belief...

It's based in disbelief. There is actually a big difference between not believing in gods and believing there are no gods.

now how strongly and ad/pro vocative one is about their belief would seem to make it a faith. some may even call it a religious practice since it is only targeted at Monotheism.

Vocal and proactive atheists are zealous, though have nothing to do with faith. There is a focus on the "monotheistic" Abrahamic religions (even though none of them are monotheistic) because their adherents tend to create a lot of problems for others.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Atheism is a system based in belief... deities excluded, a belief is a belief...

It's based in disbelief. There is actually a big difference between not believing in gods and believing there are no gods.

but it is still a system based on some type of belief or other, even the definition states that.

Vocal and proactive atheists are zealous, though have nothing to do with faith. There is a focus on the "monotheistic" Abrahamic religions (even though none of them are monotheistic) because their adherents tend to create a lot of problems for others.

on the contrary it has alot to do with what atheism preaches, for if they were secure in their belief system they wouldn't even debate it, in otherwords more like Agnostics who are quite composed.

you have to understand TDI arrived here just being who I am... an American metal head, I asked questions and found answers on ats. You however are a light for atheism because we share something in common and I admire that. No one for that matter is going to take away from me who I am, let alone be it here on ats. Actually ats has provided me with truth to my questions, which I am not really so interested in being addressed now... I am only interested in the actions and moral composure of the professed atheists, I still am not liking what I am seeing.

just go ahead and deny that Neil Peart is not a deity... I dare ya

specially with all his lyrics in which it is quite evident and his tragedy which sent him out on a motorcycle trip for quite awhile.

sh*t happens bro...

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


now before you think or state that I am trolling asking about Neil Peart, let me state this...

what if I told you I could not hear that he was this excellent drummer, or that I could see his skill at all...

how would you go about convincing me or showing/teaching me of his truth ?

remember now I am a guitarist, it is a little different than time keeping when doing a song...

even if everyone agreed (the majority) that Neil was like one of te best drummers around but I still denied it claiming I could not hear it... but not only that but I was adamant about disproving Neil as skilled drummer for that matter...

edit:
taking also into account that I do not give a hoot what the majority or even the records say about his achievements... I do not recognize Neil or any of his works or praises, in fact I totally denounce him and am on a mission to discredit him until someone can give me the hard evidence that only my mind will accept... Screw the majority, screw the facts, screw even the fact that his music and song sound beautiful to the majority of others, I do not care or believe in Neil's abilities.

post the evidence and facts ! I demand it !

if you are not going to answer any of my questions I can list them for you again if you like ?

crap I do not even believe Neil exists... regardless of the fact that people say they see him on videos or documentaries, I do not believe it because he is not standing here right in front of my eyes trying to shake my hand...

people who believe in Neil are total imbeciles, raving mad lunatics and fanatical nutjobs...

I have heard of this guy Neil Peart however... wonder if I should slay at him because other people like his song ?

this may not have been some good critical thinking but I hope you get my point ?

peace dude...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Haven't you ever heard the saying "If you've got nothing good to say don't say anything at all?"

There is a focus on the "monotheistic" Abrahamic religions (even though none of them are monotheistic) because their adherents tend to create a lot of problems for others.

The attribution of causality is a matter of belief. Abrahamic adherents are numerous. Their tradition has always mixed temporal power and political activity with their spirtual observance, and the tradition has a long history.

To believe that their seeming to have a record of "creating a lot of problems for others" is attributable to one component of their belief system, rather than their numbers, longevity, literacy (history is written by the literate) and persistent interest in temporal affairs is a belief.

Prevalence of the belief positively correlates with the belief that the Abrahamic God does not exist, was made up, and was confected to compensate for Bronze Age goatherders' failed attempt to invent natural science. These are all beliefs, and since they are mutually supportive and their prevalence is correlated, we may fairly speak of them being part of a "belief system."

There is actually a big difference between not believing in gods and believing there are no gods.

But there is no difference between believing there are no gods and believing that Santa Claus and gods are equally credible.

-

Originally posted by eight bits
Prevalence of the belief positively correlates with the belief that the Abrahamic God does not exist, was made up, and was confected to compensate for Bronze Age goatherders' failed attempt to invent natural science. These are all beliefs, and since they are mutually supportive and their prevalence is correlated, we may fairly speak of them being part of a "belief system."

The fact that such people cause problems for others has nothing to do with beliefs about the particulars of their religion.

But there is no difference between believing there are no gods and believing that Santa Claus and gods are equally credible.

Gods and Santa Claus are not equally credible. Gods all have different definitions.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
now before you think or state that I am trolling asking about Neil Peart, let me state this...

what if I told you I could not hear that he was this excellent drummer, or that I could see his skill at all...

how would you go about convincing me or showing/teaching me of his truth ?

I think what matters most is that you know that Neil Peart exists, not how impressed you are with his talents or disgusted with his lack thereof. His abilities are not a matter of truth, just opinion.

Atheists see no evidence that gods exist. It's not a case that they really do believe in gods but just don't like them.

.

Gods and Santa Claus are not equally credible. Gods all have different definitions.

So, in your view, there are gods who are more credible than Santa Claus?

It goes without saying that I'd be interested to know which one(s).

Although my interest in your views is genuine, my post doesn't assert anything about your individual beliefs. The topic of the thread is Atheism. The simultaneous disavowal of any categorical belief along with the assertion of equal credibility of gods and Santa Claus, which was alluded to in my post, is a staple feature of atheist apologetics.

You and I agree that there is a difference between not believing that there are gods and believing that there are not gods. My remark, then, was not rebuttal, but an expansion of the point which you began. Whether or not it applies to you, it does apply to many others who are atheists.

-

Originally posted by eight bits
So, in your view, there are gods who are more credible than Santa Claus?

It goes without saying that I'd be interested to know which one(s).

Well, let's say there's a community of sun worshippers. I can see the sun and it can be demonstrated to exist. Or maybe an islander tribe believes their totem pole is god. I could see it and touch it. Now, I may dispute that such things actually are gods, though they can at least establish the existence of what they believe to be their god. The definition of one's god therefore greatly affects credibility.

Originally posted by ac3rr
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Haven't you ever heard the saying "If you've got nothing good to say don't say anything at all?"

actually "no" I guess every region around the globe has it's own philosophies...

is that saying from Jediism ? it sounds really cool and all but I see problems with it in different situations, see in my country we have sayings like "stand for something or fall for anything" alot of the philosophies I have in my country help one avoid getting a beat down verbally or otherwise. We're quite independent here in the United States.

where were you from again ac3rr ?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Atheism is a system based in belief... deities excluded, a belief is a belief...

Atheism: I don't believe in any deity.

...it's a single non-belief. There is no system and there is the opposite of a belief.

now how strongly and ad/pro vocative one is about their belief would seem to make it a faith. some may even call it a religious practice since it is only targeted at Monotheism.

It isn't targeted at any one belief system. You are participating in sampling bias. You are sampling atheists who live in societies whose biggest religious groups are monotheistic. I'm quite sure that Democritus didn't give a flying bag of bird poop about monotheism, as he probably had never considered the practice.

I still have not seen those videos of the contrary.

Atheists in India. India is primarily Hindu.



Atheists also existed in Ancient Greece.

It's kind of sad, that we need to have this kind of meaningless debates as the 'atheism as a religion' (or whatever atheism 'is').

It's purely a semantic trap with the only purpose of painting atheism into a corner, from where it has to operate at the same level as theism. I.e. fabulations are as 'valid' as logic or scientific arguments.

It's from the evangelical bag-of-tricks, and while it eventually will fade out as being worthless (as 'intelligent design' did) some christian-ideology strategist will construct another populistic slogan. I expect 'Science is doctrinal' coming around soon.

If you can't sell the product on its own merits, it becomes important to discredit competition.

But I'm actually quite optimistic about it. When 'Honest Joe' has sold one car too many which broke down after half a mile, the scales will tip, and the more frenetic his sales-talk consequently becomes, the more obvious the scam will be. The selling of spiritual snake oil has had its day, and atheism makes sure, that the scam isn't revived in silence.

And I'm not even an atheist myself.