Total Posts:268|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lack of belief? Don't make me laugh.

Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 7:18:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, do make me laugh! I enjoy yet find the need to induce a facepalm every time I hear an atheist jump from attacking the existence of God to trying to convince me that he doesn't disbelieve God, he merely 'lacks faith.' In this post I am going to commit the crime of generalisation, I haven't yet met a self-proclaimed atheist who simply 'lacks belief,' but I am aware that they do exist, so my apologies to that endangered species.

Without reading further into this post, answer this question: 'Do you want him to continue baking his bread?' This question seems nonsensical out of context but it aptly describes the situation I have taken an issue with.

Now I shall give you more information about the question; the person I am asking about is a baker who lives not far from your house and who you occasionally buy some bread from, on your way home from work. Now answer, do you want him to continue making it? While you may feel slightly apathetic to whether he does or doesn't bake his bread, your answer will always be one of three answers:
1) Yeah, I guess so
2) No, stop making bread
3) I don't know and I don't care about bread.

That's the three positions of everyone. Most people fall under the (1) category, as the majority of people on earth are religious, and then it would be a close contender between atheism/paganism who deny God (2) and those who have never heard of God. (3)

In relation to religion, generally speaking a self-proclaimed atheist takes position (2). Stop making the bread. When questioned, they claim position (3), 'I don't have an opinion because I don't disbelieve God's existence.' The point which you may see following from this is that it is not possible to separate ignorance from apathy here. You cannot engage in a debate against the existence of God without actually disbelieving him unless you have no opinion on the topic. However, people proclaim themselves to be atheist and attack theists based on their belief that there isn't a God. There is nothing passive about it. The atheists on this site and all the ones I have talked to irl share a common trait: Disbelief.

Imagine I go up to you and tell you that I uncovered a unicorn skeleton in my backyard. Do you believe me? Well, you either:
1) believe me,
2) Disbelieve me,
3) Dismiss me

In case (3) its because you don't care at all. There is no such thing as a person who argues that I actually discovered a horse while simply lacking the belief that I discovered a unicorn. Such a person certainly lacks belief plus holds the positive belief that I found a horse.

Due to the nature of debates, atheists get really worked up and try very hard indeed to convince people that there isn't a God. Does such a person merely have no belief in God? No. Such a person believes there isn't any God.

A person who merely lacks belief in God is a person who either does not know anything about the subject, or who cares absolutely null for the subject. It could also be a mixture of both. When you see militant atheists trying to squeeze themselves into this category, you can accurately assume that something is amiss.

An atheist disbelieves the moment he denies there is a God, there is no such thing as 'lack of belief,' in such scenarios. Denying the existence is not weak atheism. There is just one sort of atheist: They that are of the opinion that there isn't a God. As demonstrated by the bakers example, its not possible to know about something and jump into category 3. you can only be in category 3 if you don't care or don't know. There are exceptions I realise, but generally speaking, you can be relatively certain that people who come at you criticising you for believing in God and attacking the existence of God have a belief that there isn't any God. Just like people who belief alien UFO's are a figment of your imagination believe that there are no alien UFO's.

When atheists make the common claim that 'there is no God,' it can be furthered demonstrated as a positive claim by 2 ways:
a) Its inherent positive nature
b) By responding with the question 'why?'
once you ask that question, it becomes apparent where the BoP is, its on the instigator. In this case the atheist has claimed that there isn't a God and needs to back it up. I've seen it happen too often where the atheist backs down and denies being in denial.

So what about the definition of disbelief vs unbelief? I don't believe that defining words will get you anywhere. What one should recognise is that all this time throughout this post I have assumed the reader understands I am using the word disbelief to describe 'a belief that God is not,' and unbelief as 'a lack of belief that God is.' It follows that if you have disbelief you also have unbelief, therefore an atheist claiming to have unbelief is technically valid, but misleading.

The word disbelief actually has a few definitions: 'Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real, Lack of faith in something' are both common usages of the word. 'an absence of faith,' is the most common definition of unbelief. Either way they are extremely similar and both describe the atheist who attacks the existence of God.

One of my friends is a real militant atheist, he wishes to eradicate theism from the earth, he believes God is a delusion and says all the time without fail that there isn't a God. Is it possible to attribute unbelief to him without also attributing disbelief? I think not.

I also take issue with people who call themselves agnostics, then fight for atheism exclusively. Its not very agnostic imo. The only example I can think of for this is Rationalthinker9119, if you know him.

All up, a person who believes God is the figment of the imagination believes that there is no God. Its not possible to believe God is the figment of the imagination and yet not believe that God doesn't exist.

It's been a while since I've posted in the religion forum, good to see you all. ;)
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 7:54:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Amen brother. BTW, you need to post more and stop long time not posting crap.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:01:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 7:18:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Actually, do make me laugh! I enjoy yet find the need to induce a facepalm every time I hear an atheist jump from attacking the existence of God to trying to convince me that he doesn't disbelieve God, he merely 'lacks faith.' In this post I am going to commit the crime of generalisation, I haven't yet met a self-proclaimed atheist who simply 'lacks belief,' but I am aware that they do exist, so my apologies to that endangered species.

Without reading further into this post, answer this question: 'Do you want him to continue baking his bread?' This question seems nonsensical out of context but it aptly describes the situation I have taken an issue with.

Now I shall give you more information about the question; the person I am asking about is a baker who lives not far from your house and who you occasionally buy some bread from, on your way home from work. Now answer, do you want him to continue making it? While you may feel slightly apathetic to whether he does or doesn't bake his bread, your answer will always be one of three answers:
1) Yeah, I guess so
2) No, stop making bread
3) I don't know and I don't care about bread.

That's the three positions of everyone. Most people fall under the (1) category, as the majority of people on earth are religious, and then it would be a close contender between atheism/paganism who deny God (2) and those who have never heard of God. (3)

In relation to religion, generally speaking a self-proclaimed atheist takes position (2). Stop making the bread. When questioned, they claim position (3), 'I don't have an opinion because I don't disbelieve God's existence.' The point which you may see following from this is that it is not possible to separate ignorance from apathy here. You cannot engage in a debate against the existence of God without actually disbelieving him unless you have no opinion on the topic. However, people proclaim themselves to be atheist and attack theists based on their belief that there isn't a God. There is nothing passive about it. The atheists on this site and all the ones I have talked to irl share a common trait: Disbelief.

Imagine I go up to you and tell you that I uncovered a unicorn skeleton in my backyard. Do you believe me? Well, you either:
1) believe me,
2) Disbelieve me,
3) Dismiss me

In case (3) its because you don't care at all. There is no such thing as a person who argues that I actually discovered a horse while simply lacking the belief that I discovered a unicorn. Such a person certainly lacks belief plus holds the positive belief that I found a horse.

Due to the nature of debates, atheists get really worked up and try very hard indeed to convince people that there isn't a God. Does such a person merely have no belief in God? No. Such a person believes there isn't any God.

A person who merely lacks belief in God is a person who either does not know anything about the subject, or who cares absolutely null for the subject. It could also be a mixture of both. When you see militant atheists trying to squeeze themselves into this category, you can accurately assume that something is amiss.

An atheist disbelieves the moment he denies there is a God, there is no such thing as 'lack of belief,' in such scenarios. Denying the existence is not weak atheism. There is just one sort of atheist: They that are of the opinion that there isn't a God. As demonstrated by the bakers example, its not possible to know about something and jump into category 3. you can only be in category 3 if you don't care or don't know. There are exceptions I realise, but generally speaking, you can be relatively certain that people who come at you criticising you for believing in God and attacking the existence of God have a belief that there isn't any God. Just like people who belief alien UFO's are a figment of your imagination believe that there are no alien UFO's.

When atheists make the common claim that 'there is no God,' it can be furthered demonstrated as a positive claim by 2 ways:
a) Its inherent positive nature
b) By responding with the question 'why?'
once you ask that question, it becomes apparent where the BoP is, its on the instigator. In this case the atheist has claimed that there isn't a God and needs to back it up. I've seen it happen too often where the atheist backs down and denies being in denial.

So what about the definition of disbelief vs unbelief? I don't believe that defining words will get you anywhere. What one should recognise is that all this time throughout this post I have assumed the reader understands I am using the word disbelief to describe 'a belief that God is not,' and unbelief as 'a lack of belief that God is.' It follows that if you have disbelief you also have unbelief, therefore an atheist claiming to have unbelief is technically valid, but misleading.

The word disbelief actually has a few definitions: 'Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real, Lack of faith in something' are both common usages of the word. 'an absence of faith,' is the most common definition of unbelief. Either way they are extremely similar and both describe the atheist who attacks the existence of God.

One of my friends is a real militant atheist, he wishes to eradicate theism from the earth, he believes God is a delusion and says all the time without fail that there isn't a God. Is it possible to attribute unbelief to him without also attributing disbelief? I think not.

I also take issue with people who call themselves agnostics, then fight for atheism exclusively. Its not very agnostic imo. The only example I can think of for this is Rationalthinker9119, if you know him.

All up, a person who believes God is the figment of the imagination believes that there is no God. Its not possible to believe God is the figment of the imagination and yet not believe that God doesn't exist.

It's been a while since I've posted in the religion forum, good to see you all. ;)
He's not a baker, no wait I think he's actually a camel trader with a sideline in tupperware and I don't care for either. I've never seen him bake, in fact I've never seen him. I reject your claims that there even is a baker.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:12:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 7:18:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Actually, do make me laugh! I enjoy yet find the need to induce a facepalm every time I hear an atheist jump from attacking the existence of God to trying to convince me that he doesn't disbelieve God, he merely 'lacks faith.' In this post I am going to commit the crime of generalisation, I haven't yet met a self-proclaimed atheist who simply 'lacks belief,' but I am aware that they do exist, so my apologies to that endangered species.

Without reading further into this post, answer this question: 'Do you want him to continue baking his bread?' This question seems nonsensical out of context but it aptly describes the situation I have taken an issue with.

Now I shall give you more information about the question; the person I am asking about is a baker who lives not far from your house and who you occasionally buy some bread from, on your way home from work. Now answer, do you want him to continue making it? While you may feel slightly apathetic to whether he does or doesn't bake his bread, your answer will always be one of three answers:
1) Yeah, I guess so
2) No, stop making bread
3) I don't know and I don't care about bread.

I disagree, there more positions. For instance:

4} I don't know, but I would like to discuss it.
5) I don't know, but I believe he should keep making bread, based on what I do know.
6) I don't know, but I believe he should stop making bread, based on what I do know.
7) I don't believe the baker exists.
8) I don't know whether the baker actually exists.
9) I hate the baker, so I want him to make a loaf dosed with cyanide, then eat it.

I could go on and on, but I won't, because I'v made my point.


That's the three positions of everyone. Most people fall under the (1) category, as the majority of people on earth are religious,

Religious =/= Theist

The majority of the Chinese and Japanese population are religious, but would be considered atheistic under your spectrum. S

and then it would be a close contender between atheism/paganism who deny God (2) and those who have never heard of God. (3)

In relation to religion, generally speaking a self-proclaimed atheist takes position (2). Stop making the bread. When questioned, they claim position (3), 'I don't have an opinion because I don't disbelieve God's existence.'

Yeah, clearly they don't have an opinion, even though they just expressed one. You're creating a false dichotomy between not believing in something, and caring about something.

The point which you may see following from this is that it is not possible to separate ignorance from apathy here. You cannot engage in a debate against the existence of God without actually disbelieving him unless you have no opinion on the topic. However, people proclaim themselves to be atheist and attack theists based on their belief that there isn't a God.

Some do, some just don't believe in a god, and so argue the god hypothesis. It's like a physicist arguing about a grand unified theory. They don't necessarily have a belief about a unified theory, but that doesn't stop them from arguing against a certain theory.

There is nothing passive about it. The atheists on this site and all the ones I have talked to irl share a common trait: Disbelief.

No, they share the common trait of a lack of belief. All of them lack belief, by definition. Some disbelieve.


Imagine I go up to you and tell you that I uncovered a unicorn skeleton in my backyard. Do you believe me? Well, you either:
1) believe me,
2) Disbelieve me,
3) Dismiss me

Yes, dismiss it as having not enough evidence. Then if you provide evidence, I can argue against it without taking to position of disbelief.


In case (3) its because you don't care at all.

See, you did it again. You're making a false dichotomy between not believing, and caring.

There is no such thing as a person who argues that I actually discovered a horse while simply lacking the belief that I discovered a unicorn.

I'll do it. You make the claim, and I'll do it.

Such a person certainly lacks belief plus holds the positive belief that I found a horse.

Due to the nature of debates, atheists get really worked up and try very hard indeed to convince people that there isn't a God. Does such a person merely have no belief in God? No. Such a person believes there isn't any God.

No, atheists in general, who debate the topic, try and convince people to believe that there is no good reason to believe in god. Some actively try and convince people that god does not exist.


A person who merely lacks belief in God is a person who either does not know anything about the subject, or who cares absolutely null for the subject. It could also be a mixture of both. When you see militant atheists trying to squeeze themselves into this category, you can accurately assume that something is amiss.

An atheist disbelieves the moment he denies there is a God, there is no such thing as 'lack of belief,' in such scenarios.

If an atheist says that there is no god, he does not simply lack belief. I agree.

Denying the existence is not weak atheism.

Depends how you define denying.

There is just one sort of atheist: They that are of the opinion that there isn't a God.

Why, because you don't like the other sorts?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:19:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As demonstrated by the bakers example, its not possible to know about something and jump into category 3. you can only be in category 3 if you don't care or don't know.

I agree. In the exact situation you've laid out, you're correct. It's a shame that situation doesn't reflect reality.

There are exceptions I realise, but generally speaking, you can be relatively certain that people who come at you criticising you for believing in God and attacking the existence of God have a belief that there isn't any God. Just like people who belief alien UFO's are a figment of your imagination believe that there are no alien UFO's.

I can't stand UFO nutjobs. There isn't a single person on this planet who has ever seen a UFO, and I am perfectly willing to state that as fact. I also believe that there probably exists, somewhere in this universe, aliens in spaceships.


When atheists make the common claim that 'there is no God,' it can be furthered demonstrated as a positive claim by 2 ways:
a) Its inherent positive nature
b) By responding with the question 'why?'
once you ask that question, it becomes apparent where the BoP is, its on the instigator. In this case the atheist has claimed that there isn't a God and needs to back it up. I've seen it happen too often where the atheist backs down and denies being in denial.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Don't you just love Hitchens?


So what about the definition of disbelief vs unbelief? I don't believe that defining words will get you anywhere.

Yeah, defining words is useless, let's never do it.

What one should recognise is that all this time throughout this post I have assumed the reader understands I am using the word disbelief to describe 'a belief that God is not,' and unbelief as 'a lack of belief that God is.' It follows that if you have disbelief you also have unbelief, therefore an atheist claiming to have unbelief is technically valid, but misleading.

How is it misleading?


The word disbelief actually has a few definitions: 'Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real, Lack of faith in something' are both common usages of the word. 'an absence of faith,' is the most common definition of unbelief. Either way they are extremely similar and both describe the atheist who attacks the existence of God.

One of my friends is a real militant atheist, he wishes to eradicate theism from the earth, he believes God is a delusion and says all the time without fail that there isn't a God. Is it possible to attribute unbelief to him without also attributing disbelief? I think not.

Agreed. This person falls under the term 'strong atheist'. Or, as I prefer, gnostic atheist.


I also take issue with people who call themselves agnostics, then fight for atheism exclusively. Its not very agnostic imo. The only example I can think of for this is Rationalthinker9119, if you know him.

I call myself an agnostic atheist.


All up, a person who believes God is the figment of the imagination believes that there is no God. Its not possible to believe God is the figment of the imagination and yet not believe that God doesn't exist.

I'm doing it as I type this out, so it must be possible.


It's been a while since I've posted in the religion forum, good to see you all. ;)
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 9:14:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
1.Think they have a reason to believe in deities.
2. Think they have a reason to not believe in deities.
3. Think they don't have a reason to believe in deities.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 9:51:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?

Yes I ate from his bread!
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 9:53:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 9:51:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?

Yes I ate from his bread!
And you live nextdoor to me? Where is he located? In fact where am I located?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 9:55:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 9:53:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:51:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?

Yes I ate from his bread!
And you live nextdoor to me? Where is he located? In fact where am I located?

The bread was good still!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 9:57:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 9:55:10 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:53:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:51:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?

Yes I ate from his bread!
And you live nextdoor to me? Where is he located? In fact where am I located?

The bread was good still!

How do you know you actually ate bread, and weren't hallucinating?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 10:04:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 9:57:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:55:10 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:53:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:51:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?

Yes I ate from his bread!
And you live nextdoor to me? Where is he located? In fact where am I located?

The bread was good still!

How do you know you actually ate bread, and weren't hallucinating?

Hahahaha ! do I have to answer this ?!
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 10:12:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 9:55:10 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:53:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:51:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?

Yes I ate from his bread!
And you live nextdoor to me? Where is he located? In fact where am I located?

The bread was good still!
It really becomes tedious. The story is completely reliant on the existence of a baker who has a shop close to where I live. I reject the claim that such a baker exists, can you or the OP provide evidence that he does?

This in a nutshell is the argument that an atheist has with the theist.
We reject YOUR claim that the baker (god) exists.
Provide evidence that he does!!!!!!!!!!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 10:13:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 10:04:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:57:01 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:55:10 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:53:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:51:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?

Yes I ate from his bread!
And you live nextdoor to me? Where is he located? In fact where am I located?

The bread was good still!

How do you know you actually ate bread, and weren't hallucinating?

Hahahaha ! do I have to answer this ?!

No, but you appear more credible if you do.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 12:23:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 7:18:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Actually, do make me laugh! I enjoy yet find the need to induce a facepalm every time I hear an atheist jump from attacking the existence of God to trying to convince me that he doesn't disbelieve God, he merely 'lacks faith.' In this post I am going to commit the crime of generalisation, I haven't yet met a self-proclaimed atheist who simply 'lacks belief,' but I am aware that they do exist, so my apologies to that endangered species.

Without reading further into this post, answer this question: 'Do you want him to continue baking his bread?' This question seems nonsensical out of context but it aptly describes the situation I have taken an issue with.

Now I shall give you more information about the question; the person I am asking about is a baker who lives not far from your house and who you occasionally buy some bread from, on your way home from work. Now answer, do you want him to continue making it? While you may feel slightly apathetic to whether he does or doesn't bake his bread, your answer will always be one of three answers:
1) Yeah, I guess so
2) No, stop making bread
3) I don't know and I don't care about bread.

That's the three positions of everyone. Most people fall under the (1) category, as the majority of people on earth are religious, and then it would be a close contender between atheism/paganism who deny God (2) and those who have never heard of God. (3)

In relation to religion, generally speaking a self-proclaimed atheist takes position (2). Stop making the bread. When questioned, they claim position (3), 'I don't have an opinion because I don't disbelieve God's existence.' The point which you may see following from this is that it is not possible to separate ignorance from apathy here. You cannot engage in a debate against the existence of God without actually disbelieving him unless you have no opinion on the topic. However, people proclaim themselves to be atheist and attack theists based on their belief that there isn't a God. There is nothing passive about it. The atheists on this site and all the ones I have talked to irl share a common trait: Disbelief.

Imagine I go up to you and tell you that I uncovered a unicorn skeleton in my backyard. Do you believe me? Well, you either:
1) believe me,
2) Disbelieve me,
3) Dismiss me

In case (3) its because you don't care at all. There is no such thing as a person who argues that I actually discovered a horse while simply lacking the belief that I discovered a unicorn. Such a person certainly lacks belief plus holds the positive belief that I found a horse.

Due to the nature of debates, atheists get really worked up and try very hard indeed to convince people that there isn't a God. Does such a person merely have no belief in God? No. Such a person believes there isn't any God.

A person who merely lacks belief in God is a person who either does not know anything about the subject, or who cares absolutely null for the subject. It could also be a mixture of both. When you see militant atheists trying to squeeze themselves into this category, you can accurately assume that something is amiss.

An atheist disbelieves the moment he denies there is a God, there is no such thing as 'lack of belief,' in such scenarios. Denying the existence is not weak atheism. There is just one sort of atheist: They that are of the opinion that there isn't a God. As demonstrated by the bakers example, its not possible to know about something and jump into category 3. you can only be in category 3 if you don't care or don't know. There are exceptions I realise, but generally speaking, you can be relatively certain that people who come at you criticising you for believing in God and attacking the existence of God have a belief that there isn't any God. Just like people who belief alien UFO's are a figment of your imagination believe that there are no alien UFO's.

When atheists make the common claim that 'there is no God,' it can be furthered demonstrated as a positive claim by 2 ways:
a) Its inherent positive nature
b) By responding with the question 'why?'
once you ask that question, it becomes apparent where the BoP is, its on the instigator. In this case the atheist has claimed that there isn't a God and needs to back it up. I've seen it happen too often where the atheist backs down and denies being in denial.

So what about the definition of disbelief vs unbelief? I don't believe that defining words will get you anywhere. What one should recognise is that all this time throughout this post I have assumed the reader understands I am using the word disbelief to describe 'a belief that God is not,' and unbelief as 'a lack of belief that God is.' It follows that if you have disbelief you also have unbelief, therefore an atheist claiming to have unbelief is technically valid, but misleading.

The word disbelief actually has a few definitions: 'Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real, Lack of faith in something' are both common usages of the word. 'an absence of faith,' is the most common definition of unbelief. Either way they are extremely similar and both describe the atheist who attacks the existence of God.

One of my friends is a real militant atheist, he wishes to eradicate theism from the earth, he believes God is a delusion and says all the time without fail that there isn't a God. Is it possible to attribute unbelief to him without also attributing disbelief? I think not.

I also take issue with people who call themselves agnostics, then fight for atheism exclusively. Its not very agnostic imo. The only example I can think of for this is Rationalthinker9119, if you know him.

All up, a person who believes God is the figment of the imagination believes that there is no God. Its not possible to believe God is the figment of the imagination and yet not believe that God doesn't exist.

It's been a while since I've posted in the religion forum, good to see you all. ;)

I am an atheist toward God just like I am an atheist to the idea that aliens have visited the earth and have also abducted people. I don't believe the idea but that doesn't mean I can confidently say this didn't happen. If I had to make a bet over whether aliens do exist or not, I would bet no, because of the lack of evidence. The same goes for God.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:01:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 10:12:47 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:55:10 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:53:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:51:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?

Yes I ate from his bread!
And you live nextdoor to me? Where is he located? In fact where am I located?

The bread was good still!
It really becomes tedious. The story is completely reliant on the existence of a baker who has a shop close to where I live. I reject the claim that such a baker exists, can you or the OP provide evidence that he does?

This in a nutshell is the argument that an atheist has with the theist.
We reject YOUR claim that the baker (god) exists.
Provide evidence that he does!!!!!!!!!!

He moved actually, you can count on government documents to know he exists, and testimonies if you are willing to read'em .
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 4:05:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:01:33 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 10:12:47 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:55:10 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:53:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:51:59 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/9/2013 9:21:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
Do you have any evidence of this bakers existence?

Yes I ate from his bread!
And you live nextdoor to me? Where is he located? In fact where am I located?

The bread was good still!
It really becomes tedious. The story is completely reliant on the existence of a baker who has a shop close to where I live. I reject the claim that such a baker exists, can you or the OP provide evidence that he does?

This in a nutshell is the argument that an atheist has with the theist.
We reject YOUR claim that the baker (god) exists.
Provide evidence that he does!!!!!!!!!!

He moved actually, you can count on government documents to know he exists, and testimonies if you are willing to read'em .

I am the "baker", I forged government papers, and paid people to lie about me. Truth is, I've never baked in my whole life.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 10:26:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 7:18:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I ... facepalm every time I hear an atheist jump from attacking the existence of God to trying to convince me that he doesn't disbelieve God, he merely 'lacks faith.'

Strong atheists don't believe that gods do not exist.
Atheists do not believe that gods do exist.
Strong atheists, then, are a subset of atheists.

A strong atheist can properly try to persuade you that gods don't exist, and also properly try to persuade you that not all atheists are strong atheists. So, if you conflate atheism and strong atheism, you are likely to induce the change of topic that you describe.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 1:55:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 7:18:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Actually, do make me laugh!

What made you think this opening sentence would ever be conducive to civilized, fruitful discourse? Despite it, I will try my best to respond, though certainly not for you.

I enjoy yet find the need to induce a facepalm every time I hear an atheist jump from attacking the existence of God to trying to convince me that he doesn't disbelieve God, he merely 'lacks faith.' In this post I am going to commit the crime of generalisation, I haven't yet met a self-proclaimed atheist who simply 'lacks belief,' but I am aware that they do exist, so my apologies to that endangered species.

You do X every time you hear an atheist claim he has a "lack of belief," but you've never met any atheist who does so?

Without reading further into this post, answer this question: 'Do you want him to continue baking his bread?' This question seems nonsensical out of context but it aptly describes the situation I have taken an issue with.

Now I shall give you more information about the question; the person I am asking about is a baker who lives not far from your house and who you occasionally buy some bread from, on your way home from work. Now answer, do you want him to continue making it? While you may feel slightly apathetic to whether he does or doesn't bake his bread, your answer will always be one of three answers:
1) Yeah, I guess so
2) No, stop making bread
3) I don't know and I don't care about bread.

That's the three positions of everyone.

I'm unsure why you coupled ignorance and apathy together like there is some logical connection between them. There isn't. One could care very deeply about the issue of bread-baking but admit to having less information than necessary to form a justified opinion on the matter.

Most people fall under the (1) category, as the majority of people on earth are religious, and then it would be a close contender between atheism/paganism who deny God (2) and those who have never heard of God. (3)

Many pagans believe in the God of Christianity.

Also, you don't need to have never heard of God to fit into category (3).

In relation to religion, generally speaking a self-proclaimed atheist takes position (2). Stop making the bread. When questioned, they claim position (3), 'I don't have an opinion because I don't disbelieve God's existence.' The point which you may see following from this is that it is not possible to separate ignorance from apathy here. You cannot engage in a debate against the existence of God without actually disbelieving him unless you have no opinion on the topic.

What...? From where did that bizarre conclusion follow?

However, people proclaim themselves to be atheist and attack theists based on their belief that there isn't a God. There is nothing passive about it. The atheists on this site and all the ones I have talked to irl share a common trait: Disbelief.

Imagine I go up to you and tell you that I uncovered a unicorn skeleton in my backyard. Do you believe me? Well, you either:
1) believe me,
2) Disbelieve me,
3) Dismiss me

In case (3) its because you don't care at all. There is no such thing as a person who argues that I actually discovered a horse while simply lacking the belief that I discovered a unicorn.

Of course there's no one who believes X while lacking belief in X. They may argue X without believing it, though. That's called Devil's Advocate.

Such a person certainly lacks belief plus holds the positive belief that I found a horse.

Due to the nature of debates, atheists get really worked up and try very hard indeed to convince people that there isn't a God. Does such a person merely have no belief in God? No. Such a person believes there isn't any God.

Yet I don't try to convince people there is no God. I try to convince people there are no good reasons to believe in God. See the difference?

A person who merely lacks belief in God is a person who either does not know anything about the subject, or who cares absolutely null for the subject. It could also be a mixture of both. When you see militant atheists trying to squeeze themselves into this category, you can accurately assume that something is amiss.

An atheist disbelieves the moment he denies there is a God, there is no such thing as 'lack of belief,' in such scenarios. Denying the existence is not weak atheism. There is just one sort of atheist: They that are of the opinion that there isn't a God. As demonstrated by the bakers example, its not possible to know about something and jump into category 3.

Of course not, because you mistakenly defined category 3 as someone who doesn't know.

you can only be in category 3 if you don't care or don't know. There are exceptions I realise, but generally speaking, you can be relatively certain that people who come at you criticising you for believing in God and attacking the existence of God have a belief that there isn't any God. Just like people who belief alien UFO's are a figment of your imagination believe that there are no alien UFO's.

When atheists make the common claim that 'there is no God,' it can be furthered demonstrated as a positive claim by 2 ways:

Again, I don't say "There is no God". I say "You are wrong for believing in God". Maybe not factually wrong (you might be, by pure luck, factually correct), but rationally wrong.

a) Its inherent positive nature
b) By responding with the question 'why?'
once you ask that question, it becomes apparent where the BoP is, its on the instigator. In this case the atheist has claimed that there isn't a God and needs to back it up. I've seen it happen too often where the atheist backs down and denies being in denial.

So what about the definition of disbelief vs unbelief? I don't believe that defining words will get you anywhere.

You don't believe defining words will get you anywhere? Do you know what the purpose of communication is?

What one should recognise is that all this time throughout this post I have assumed the reader understands I am using the word disbelief to describe 'a belief that God is not,' and unbelief as 'a lack of belief that God is.' It follows that if you have disbelief you also have unbelief, therefore an atheist claiming to have unbelief is technically valid, but misleading.

The word disbelief actually has a few definitions: 'Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real, Lack of faith in something' are both common usages of the word. 'an absence of faith,' is the most common definition of unbelief. Either way they are extremely similar and both describe the atheist who attacks the existence of God.

One of my friends is a real militant atheist, he wishes to eradicate theism from the earth, he believes God is a delusion and says all the time without fail that there isn't a God. Is it possible to attribute unbelief to him without also attributing disbelief? I think not.

In that specific example, disbelief and unbelief both apply; that doesn't mean they both apply to every atheist.

I also take issue with people who call themselves agnostics, then fight for atheism exclusively. Its not very agnostic imo. The only example I can think of for this is Rationalthinker9119, if you know him.

All up, a person who believes God is the figment of the imagination believes that there is no God. Its not possible to believe God is the figment of the imagination and yet not believe that God doesn't exist.

It's been a while since I've posted in the religion forum, good to see you all. ;)

Good to see you, too. If only it were under better circumstances than this very misguided post.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:12:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What made you think this opening sentence would ever be conducive to civilized, fruitful discourse? Despite it, I will try my best to respond, though certainly not for you.

Pfft, Dakota, the introduction was made a little humorous to engage attention and make people read the post, since it is a long post, I didn't want to wall o' text people.

You do X every time you hear an atheist claim he has a "lack of belief," but you've never met any atheist who does so?
Just in case you don't know, I don't simply exist here on DDO alone.

I'm unsure why you coupled ignorance and apathy together like there is some logical connection between them. There isn't. One could care very deeply about the issue of bread-baking but admit to having less information than necessary to form a justified opinion on the matter.

I address this later in the post, someone who deeply cares enough to go out of their way to try and stop people from buying from the baker obviously doesn't want people to buy his bread. Someone who doesn't know that the baker is baking bread cannot care about his baking since he doesn't know about him. This is the equivalent of people in outback Australia and the contacted tribes in the Amazon, they couldn't possibly know much about the theistic God. Someone who doesn't care about whether or not God exists does not have an opinion on the issue. Generally speaking.

Many pagans believe in the God of Christianity.

No they don't, they wouldn't be pagans if that were the case. A pagan is anyone of a religion not one of the big 3. Granted that a Buddhist can believe in the christian God, however that's unlikely as he would be convicted to stop being a Buddhist and start being a christian. Besides, this is rather irrelevant.

Also, you don't need to have never heard of God to fit into category (3).
You do, you cannot have an opinion on God's existence if the very concept of God has never occurred to you. That's what my question at the beginning demonstrated, do you want him to continue making his bread? You don't have an opinion unless I give you more information.

What...? From where did that bizarre conclusion follow?
People who take the time to argue against God's existence for no good reason, militant atheists, disbelieve God. That is their opinion on the topic, but they claim to have opinion (3). You can only have opinion (3) if you don't know about God, or don't care about God. I can tell you now that these sorts of people certainly know about God and certainly care about it enough to spend time each day criticising it.

Of course there's no one who believes X while lacking belief in X. They may argue X without believing it, though. That's called Devil's Advocate.
In the context of this discussion, atheists are not playing the devils advocate, trust me.

Yet I don't try to convince people there is no God. I try to convince people there are no good reasons to believe in God. See the difference?
The difference is that you think one method is more effective to reaching the goal of convincing people that there isn't a God. Allow me to use an example from the 0th law of thermodynamics: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. You are effectively doing the exact same thing from a distance.

Again, I don't say "There is no God". I say "You are wrong for believing in God". Maybe not factually wrong (you might be, by pure luck, factually correct), but rationally wrong.
You are an interesting type, but I'll attribute that to being on the internet. I haven't yet been in a debate with an atheist irl which hasn't gotten pretty heated. In such debates, facades aside, you tell it exactly how you think it, without hiding different views behind different combinations of words to make your case appear stronger than it actually is.

You don't believe defining words will get you anywhere? Do you know what the purpose of communication is?
Arguing over definitions derails debates in my experience. I use words to try to get my message across. The person I am speaking to usually understands me and I have rarely had a need to define words. Imo, stating a definition in a conversation is just weird.

In that specific example, disbelief and unbelief both apply; that doesn't mean they both apply to every atheist.
I gave my respects to that endangered species at the start, I haven't met any yet, and I have met a lot of atheists, so it seems reasonable to assume that they are a rare sort.

Good to see you, too. If only it were under better circumstances than this very misguided post.
What better circumstances exist than the productive discourse of debates?

On a side note, my experience with atheists in real life is quite different to atheists online, it may be that one can be more careful with what one says on a forum, or atheists on DDO might actually be genuinely different.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:14:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 4:07:32 PM, drafterman wrote:
Despite your post, I still lack a belief in god.

oh well.

When people comment on your post without reading through it all, it becomes quite obvious... Just thought I'd say.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:17:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:14:21 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:07:32 PM, drafterman wrote:
Despite your post, I still lack a belief in god.

oh well.

When people comment on your post without reading through it all, it becomes quite obvious... Just thought I'd say.

That, or he was pointing out that your assertions are baseless.

It has already been pointed out to you that attacking the reasons someone gives for their positive belief does not entail a defense of the position that the negative of that belief is true. What more can be said? Your position on the matter is absurd.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:18:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:14:21 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:07:32 PM, drafterman wrote:
Despite your post, I still lack a belief in god.

oh well.

When people comment on your post without reading through it all, it becomes quite obvious... Just thought I'd say.

It seems plausible enough that he read your post in its entirety before commenting to not imply otherwise. He basically just declared your complaints against atheists stating they have a lack of belief unconvincing.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:37:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:17:58 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:14:21 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:07:32 PM, drafterman wrote:
Despite your post, I still lack a belief in god.

oh well.

When people comment on your post without reading through it all, it becomes quite obvious... Just thought I'd say.

That, or he was pointing out that your assertions are baseless.

It has already been pointed out to you that attacking the reasons someone gives for their positive belief does not entail a defense of the position that the negative of that belief is true. What more can be said? Your position on the matter is absurd.

I perceive that Drafterman saw me attacking the idea that you don't have unbelief, you have disbelief, which was what I was doing at the start of the post. It was refined at the end to ensure people couldn't say this ^
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:38:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:18:55 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:14:21 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 6/9/2013 4:07:32 PM, drafterman wrote:
Despite your post, I still lack a belief in god.

oh well.

When people comment on your post without reading through it all, it becomes quite obvious... Just thought I'd say.

It seems plausible enough that he read your post in its entirety before commenting to not imply otherwise. He basically just declared your complaints against atheists stating they have a lack of belief unconvincing.

A lot of things seem plausible.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:39:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:12:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
What made you think this opening sentence would ever be conducive to civilized, fruitful discourse? Despite it, I will try my best to respond, though certainly not for you.

Pfft, Dakota, the introduction was made a little humorous to engage attention and make people read the post, since it is a long post, I didn't want to wall o' text people.

Yeah, I didn't catch the humor in your introduction and I still don't.

You do X every time you hear an atheist claim he has a "lack of belief," but you've never met any atheist who does so?
Just in case you don't know, I don't simply exist here on DDO alone.

My question stands.

I'm unsure why you coupled ignorance and apathy together like there is some logical connection between them. There isn't. One could care very deeply about the issue of bread-baking but admit to having less information than necessary to form a justified opinion on the matter.

I address this later in the post, someone who deeply cares enough to go out of their way to try and stop people from buying from the baker obviously doesn't want people to buy his bread. Someone who doesn't know that the baker is baking bread cannot care about his baking since he doesn't know about him. This is the equivalent of people in outback Australia and the contacted tribes in the Amazon, they couldn't possibly know much about the theistic God. Someone who doesn't care about whether or not God exists does not have an opinion on the issue. Generally speaking.

So, primarily, you have a problem understanding how it is someone can so passionately argue against the case for God's existence while not also believing in God's nonexistence? The reasons will naturally vary from atheist to atheist.

Personally, irrationality irks me. If someone believes X for A, B, and C reasons and A, B, and C are all demonstrably unsound, then I refute them, no matter what X happens to be.

I won't then necessarily flip it around and try to convince them -X, because I don't necessarily believe in -X in every case.

Many pagans believe in the God of Christianity.

No they don't, they wouldn't be pagans if that were the case. A pagan is anyone of a religion not one of the big 3. Granted that a Buddhist can believe in the christian God, however that's unlikely as he would be convicted to stop being a Buddhist and start being a christian. Besides, this is rather irrelevant.

Many pagans believe in the existence of every god ever conceived by man. My current girlfriend used to be a pagan; she and I lived with her very pagan grandparents who held at least once a week, which I participated in. I think I know what I'm talking about here.

Also, you don't need to have never heard of God to fit into category (3).
You do, you cannot have an opinion on God's existence if the very concept of God has never occurred to you. That's what my question at the beginning demonstrated, do you want him to continue making his bread? You don't have an opinion unless I give you more information.

What...? From where did that bizarre conclusion follow?
People who take the time to argue against God's existence for no good reason, militant atheists, disbelieve God. That is their opinion on the topic, but they claim to have opinion (3). You can only have opinion (3) if you don't know about God, or don't care about God. I can tell you now that these sorts of people certainly know about God and certainly care about it enough to spend time each day criticising it.

Of course there's no one who believes X while lacking belief in X. They may argue X without believing it, though. That's called Devil's Advocate.
In the context of this discussion, atheists are not playing the devils advocate, trust me.

Yet I don't try to convince people there is no God. I try to convince people there are no good reasons to believe in God. See the difference?
The difference is that you think one method is more effective to reaching the goal of convincing people that there isn't a God. Allow me to use an example from the 0th law of thermodynamics: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. You are effectively doing the exact same thing from a distance.

My goal isn't to convince people there isn't a God; I just said that. My goal is to get people to understand their beliefs God are unjustified.

Again, I don't say "There is no God". I say "You are wrong for believing in God". Maybe not factually wrong (you might be, by pure luck, factually correct), but rationally wrong.
You are an interesting type, but I'll attribute that to being on the internet. I haven't yet been in a debate with an atheist irl which hasn't gotten pretty heated. In such debates, facades aside, you tell it exactly how you think it, without hiding different views behind different combinations of words to make your case appear stronger than it actually is.

I am very careful with my combinations of words, thankyouverymuch. My atheism rests on no case. I don't present any case. I simply refute theist's cases (and anyone else's cases who I disagree with).

You don't believe defining words will get you anywhere? Do you know what the purpose of communication is?
Arguing over definitions derails debates in my experience. I use words to try to get my message across. The person I am speaking to usually understands me and I have rarely had a need to define words. Imo, stating a definition in a conversation is just weird.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. There is a subtle yet salient difference between disbelief and unbelief; you might think people are totally understanding you when they're not.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 3:48:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:39:55 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:12:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
No they don't, they wouldn't be pagans if that were the case. A pagan is anyone of a religion not one of the big 3. Granted that a Buddhist can believe in the christian God, however that's unlikely as he would be convicted to stop being a Buddhist and start being a christian. Besides, this is rather irrelevant.

Many pagans believe in the existence of every god ever conceived by man. My current girlfriend used to be a pagan; she and I lived with her very pagan grandparents who held circle at least once a week, which I participated in. I think I know what I'm talking about here.

Fix'd. Skipped that word for some reason.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:00:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 3:39:55 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 6/10/2013 3:12:06 AM, Smithereens wrote:
What made you think this opening sentence would ever be conducive to civilized, fruitful discourse? Despite it, I will try my best to respond, though certainly not for you.

Pfft, Dakota, the introduction was made a little humorous to engage attention and make people read the post, since it is a long post, I didn't want to wall o' text people.

Yeah, I didn't catch the humor in your introduction and I still don't.
At least you are an individual.

You do X every time you hear an atheist claim he has a "lack of belief," but you've never met any atheist who does so?
Just in case you don't know, I don't simply exist here on DDO alone.

My question stands.
Yes many. I've even invited a few of them onto this site, thought they went inactive ages ago. Several_ingredients is a militant atheist friend of mine, Jamie56 is just a regular atheist for example, but my college is swarming with them.

I'm unsure why you coupled ignorance and apathy together like there is some logical connection between them. There isn't. One could care very deeply about the issue of bread-baking but admit to having less information than necessary to form a justified opinion on the matter.

I address this later in the post, someone who deeply cares enough to go out of their way to try and stop people from buying from the baker obviously doesn't want people to buy his bread. Someone who doesn't know that the baker is baking bread cannot care about his baking since he doesn't know about him. This is the equivalent of people in outback Australia and the contacted tribes in the Amazon, they couldn't possibly know much about the theistic God. Someone who doesn't care about whether or not God exists does not have an opinion on the issue. Generally speaking.

So, primarily, you have a problem understanding how it is someone can so passionately argue against the case for God's existence while not also believing in God's nonexistence? The reasons will naturally vary from atheist to atheist.
I've been told to my face that I shouldn't believe in God, that there isn't a God, that God cannot exist, that God does not exist etc in very rude language. Of course I have trouble believing it. You too have argued that the existence of God is not possible, does this mean you simply lack belief in God? I'd wager you disbelieve God. The problem is that it all comes down to your word. If you choose not to admit disbelief, I, and no one else can do anything about it.

Personally, irrationality irks me. If someone believes X for A, B, and C reasons and A, B, and C are all demonstrably unsound, then I refute them, no matter what X happens to be.
Atheists have a philosophical bias to attribute anything that argues for God as unsound, theists are the same in the opposite. Saying that you simply find the arguments alone invalid amuses me.

I won't then necessarily flip it around and try to convince them -X, because I don't necessarily believe in -X in every case.

Many pagans believe in the God of Christianity.

No they don't, they wouldn't be pagans if that were the case. A pagan is anyone of a religion not one of the big 3. Granted that a Buddhist can believe in the christian God, however that's unlikely as he would be convicted to stop being a Buddhist and start being a christian. Besides, this is rather irrelevant.

Many pagans believe in the existence of every god ever conceived by man. My current girlfriend used to be a pagan; she and I lived with her very pagan grandparents who held at least once a week, which I participated in. I think I know what I'm talking about here.
How do you believe in Gods that are mutually exclusive? For example a God who cannot lie who says that no other God except Himself exist? The sort of people like your gf, are you sure she isn't the sort of pagan who believes all religions have a part of the truth? That sort is common. I've never heard of a pagan who believes absolutely all gods conceived exist, but I'd take your word for it.

Also, you don't need to have never heard of God to fit into category (3).
You do, you cannot have an opinion on God's existence if the very concept of God has never occurred to you. That's what my question at the beginning demonstrated, do you want him to continue making his bread? You don't have an opinion unless I give you more information.

What...? From where did that bizarre conclusion follow?
People who take the time to argue against God's existence for no good reason, militant atheists, disbelieve God. That is their opinion on the topic, but they claim to have opinion (3). You can only have opinion (3) if you don't know about God, or don't care about God. I can tell you now that these sorts of people certainly know about God and certainly care about it enough to spend time each day criticising it.

Of course there's no one who believes X while lacking belief in X. They may argue X without believing it, though. That's called Devil's Advocate.
In the context of this discussion, atheists are not playing the devils advocate, trust me.

Yet I don't try to convince people there is no God. I try to convince people there are no good reasons to believe in God. See the difference?
The difference is that you think one method is more effective to reaching the goal of convincing people that there isn't a God. Allow me to use an example from the 0th law of thermodynamics: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. You are effectively doing the exact same thing from a distance.

My goal isn't to convince people there isn't a God; I just said that. My goal is to get people to understand their beliefs God are unjustified.
A debate on personal goals would not achieve anything.

Again, I don't say "There is no God". I say "You are wrong for believing in God". Maybe not factually wrong (you might be, by pure luck, factually correct), but rationally wrong.
You are an interesting type, but I'll attribute that to being on the internet. I haven't yet been in a debate with an atheist irl which hasn't gotten pretty heated. In such debates, facades aside, you tell it exactly how you think it, without hiding different views behind different combinations of words to make your case appear stronger than it actually is.

I am very careful with my combinations of words, thankyouverymuch. My atheism rests on no case. I don't present any case. I simply refute theist's cases (and anyone else's cases who I disagree with).
When you are careful with what you say, as you can be online, you have the ability to say what you think will work as opposed to what you really believe. Again, this all resides on what you say, we can never know what you truly think unless I knew you in person. But from experience with people, I justify my generalisations to most atheists.

You don't believe defining words will get you anywhere? Do you know what the purpose of communication is?
Arguing over definitions derails debates in my experience. I use words to try to get my message across. The person I am speaking to usually understands me and I have rarely had a need to define words. Imo, stating a definition in a conversation is just weird.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. There is a subtle yet salient difference between disbelief and unbelief; you might think people are totally understanding you when they're not.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 4:04:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I reject your claim that a baker exists.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin