Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism

johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,

A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism

Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?

It simply does not follow.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:38:57 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The misconception imo arises from the belief that you don't give a name to something that describes what it isn't. I don't see it happen in Australia, because it's actually a thing in the cultural mannerisms here to actually be deliberately indirect.
Person A: "How was your day"
Person B: "Not bad."
Person A: "Watcha been up to?"
Person B: "Not much."
Person A: "What are you buying for Christmas?"
Person B: "Nothing major."
Person A: "how much did it cost?"
Person B: "Not a large amount."
Person A: "Thank you for your time."
Person B: "No worries."

When I hear people complaining that atheism is a belief, I get the impression they don't understand that some people/cultures give names to things that describe what they aren't. Atheism is a prime example. It simply means it's not theism.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 9:56:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:38:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The misconception imo arises from the belief that you don't give a name to something that describes what it isn't. I don't see it happen in Australia, because it's actually a thing in the cultural mannerisms here to actually be deliberately indirect.
Person A: "How was your day"
Person B: "Not bad."
Person A: "Watcha been up to?"
Person B: "Not much."
Person A: "What are you buying for Christmas?"
Person B: "Nothing major."
Person A: "how much did it cost?"
Person B: "Not a large amount."
Person A: "Thank you for your time."
Person B: "No worries."

When I hear people complaining that atheism is a belief, I get the impression they don't understand that some people/cultures give names to things that describe what they aren't. Atheism is a prime example. It simply means it's not theism.

I understand what it means in the truest sense, It just means a lack of belief in God/s, but it ends there, once you have a belief in what God is, which isn't hard, then you can not claim to be an atheist, because you no longer lack belief, you understand what is God. and being an atheist, you most certainly can not claim that something you lack belief of, does not exist or that it is improbable that God exists, because you have to actually hold some type of belief of what God is, to conclude that it is improbable that God exists.

It simply does not follow.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:11:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:56:27 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:38:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The misconception imo arises from the belief that you don't give a name to something that describes what it isn't. I don't see it happen in Australia, because it's actually a thing in the cultural mannerisms here to actually be deliberately indirect.
Person A: "How was your day"
Person B: "Not bad."
Person A: "Watcha been up to?"
Person B: "Not much."
Person A: "What are you buying for Christmas?"
Person B: "Nothing major."
Person A: "how much did it cost?"
Person B: "Not a large amount."
Person A: "Thank you for your time."
Person B: "No worries."

When I hear people complaining that atheism is a belief, I get the impression they don't understand that some people/cultures give names to things that describe what they aren't. Atheism is a prime example. It simply means it's not theism.

I understand what it means in the truest sense, It just means a lack of belief in God/s, but it ends there, once you have a belief in what God is, which isn't hard, then you can not claim to be an atheist, because you no longer lack belief, you understand what is God. and being an atheist, you most certainly can not claim that something you lack belief of, does not exist or that it is improbable that God exists, because you have to actually hold some type of belief of what God is, to conclude that it is improbable that God exists.

It simply does not follow.

I understand what unicorns and Santa Claus are meant to be, but I don't believe they exist.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:22:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:11:09 AM, desmac wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:56:27 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:38:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The misconception imo arises from the belief that you don't give a name to something that describes what it isn't. I don't see it happen in Australia, because it's actually a thing in the cultural mannerisms here to actually be deliberately indirect.
Person A: "How was your day"
Person B: "Not bad."
Person A: "Watcha been up to?"
Person B: "Not much."
Person A: "What are you buying for Christmas?"
Person B: "Nothing major."
Person A: "how much did it cost?"
Person B: "Not a large amount."
Person A: "Thank you for your time."
Person B: "No worries."

When I hear people complaining that atheism is a belief, I get the impression they don't understand that some people/cultures give names to things that describe what they aren't. Atheism is a prime example. It simply means it's not theism.

I understand what it means in the truest sense, It just means a lack of belief in God/s, but it ends there, once you have a belief in what God is, which isn't hard, then you can not claim to be an atheist, because you no longer lack belief, you understand what is God. and being an atheist, you most certainly can not claim that something you lack belief of, does not exist or that it is improbable that God exists, because you have to actually hold some type of belief of what God is, to conclude that it is improbable that God exists.

It simply does not follow.

I understand what unicorns and Santa Claus are meant to be, but I don't believe they exist.

No, you lack a belief that they exist, That means you should suspend judgement.

If you believe they don't exist, then you are making a claim, that you don't believe they exist.

But atheism is simply a lack of belief that God/s exist, therefore the claim that God/s do not exist, does not follow, because you simply lack belief in their existence, not actually believe they don't exist.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:49:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:22:51 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:11:09 AM, desmac wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:56:27 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:38:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The misconception imo arises from the belief that you don't give a name to something that describes what it isn't. I don't see it happen in Australia, because it's actually a thing in the cultural mannerisms here to actually be deliberately indirect.
Person A: "How was your day"
Person B: "Not bad."
Person A: "Watcha been up to?"
Person B: "Not much."
Person A: "What are you buying for Christmas?"
Person B: "Nothing major."
Person A: "how much did it cost?"
Person B: "Not a large amount."
Person A: "Thank you for your time."
Person B: "No worries."

When I hear people complaining that atheism is a belief, I get the impression they don't understand that some people/cultures give names to things that describe what they aren't. Atheism is a prime example. It simply means it's not theism.

I understand what it means in the truest sense, It just means a lack of belief in God/s, but it ends there, once you have a belief in what God is, which isn't hard, then you can not claim to be an atheist, because you no longer lack belief, you understand what is God. and being an atheist, you most certainly can not claim that something you lack belief of, does not exist or that it is improbable that God exists, because you have to actually hold some type of belief of what God is, to conclude that it is improbable that God exists.

It simply does not follow.

I understand what unicorns and Santa Claus are meant to be, but I don't believe they exist.

No, you lack a belief that they exist, That means you should suspend judgement.

If you believe they don't exist, then you are making a claim, that you don't believe they exist.

But atheism is simply a lack of belief that God/s exist, therefore the claim that God/s do not exist, does not follow, because you simply lack belief in their existence, not actually believe they don't exist.

Please do not tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I believe that unicorns and gods do not exist and until someone shows me verifiable evidence that either do exist I shall continue to believe so.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:57:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:49:11 AM, desmac wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:22:51 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:11:09 AM, desmac wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:56:27 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:38:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The misconception imo arises from the belief that you don't give a name to something that describes what it isn't. I don't see it happen in Australia, because it's actually a thing in the cultural mannerisms here to actually be deliberately indirect.
Person A: "How was your day"
Person B: "Not bad."
Person A: "Watcha been up to?"
Person B: "Not much."
Person A: "What are you buying for Christmas?"
Person B: "Nothing major."
Person A: "how much did it cost?"
Person B: "Not a large amount."
Person A: "Thank you for your time."
Person B: "No worries."

When I hear people complaining that atheism is a belief, I get the impression they don't understand that some people/cultures give names to things that describe what they aren't. Atheism is a prime example. It simply means it's not theism.

I understand what it means in the truest sense, It just means a lack of belief in God/s, but it ends there, once you have a belief in what God is, which isn't hard, then you can not claim to be an atheist, because you no longer lack belief, you understand what is God. and being an atheist, you most certainly can not claim that something you lack belief of, does not exist or that it is improbable that God exists, because you have to actually hold some type of belief of what God is, to conclude that it is improbable that God exists.

It simply does not follow.

I understand what unicorns and Santa Claus are meant to be, but I don't believe they exist.

No, you lack a belief that they exist, That means you should suspend judgement.

If you believe they don't exist, then you are making a claim, that you don't believe they exist.

But atheism is simply a lack of belief that God/s exist, therefore the claim that God/s do not exist, does not follow, because you simply lack belief in their existence, not actually believe they don't exist.

Please do not tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I believe that unicorns and gods do not exist and until someone shows me verifiable evidence that either do exist I shall continue to believe so.

I am not telling you what to do or not do, but the correct definition of atheism is not a belief or believing that God/s do not exist, but rather, a lack of belief that God exists.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 12:27:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I am not telling you what to do or not do, but the correct definition of atheism is not a belief or believing that God/s do not exist, but rather, a lack of belief that God exists.

I've obviously been mis-labelling myself all these years. What's the right word for someone (like me) who believes gods do not exist?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 1:07:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 12:27:08 PM, kp98 wrote:
I am not telling you what to do or not do, but the correct definition of atheism is not a belief or believing that God/s do not exist, but rather, a lack of belief that God exists.

I've obviously been mis-labelling myself all these years. What's the right word for someone (like me) who believes gods do not exist?

Not sure, but atheism isn't a belief per se, it's the contrary, it's a lack of belief.
bulproof
Posts: 25,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 1:23:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 1:07:15 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 12:27:08 PM, kp98 wrote:
I am not telling you what to do or not do, but the correct definition of atheism is not a belief or believing that God/s do not exist, but rather, a lack of belief that God exists.

I've obviously been mis-labelling myself all these years. What's the right word for someone (like me) who believes gods do not exist?


Not sure, but atheism isn't a belief per se, it's the contrary, it's a lack of belief.
Men claim that god's exist.
I request evidence of the claim.
I reject the claim based upon the evidence not supplied to support the claim.
In order that my rejection of the claim is proved false the claimant merely needs to provide of their claim.
Can any of you claimants provide such evidence or is my rejection the only valid position regarding your claim?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 2:40:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,

A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism

Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?

It simply does not follow.

It is quite simple, John. If you tell me that God exists but can't produce any evidence to support your claim, then there is no reason to accept the claim and no reason to believe in God. This does not necessarily need lead one to state God does not exist.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 3:10:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,
A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism
Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?
There are two reasons to reject a claim:
1) it is invalid;
2) it is valid, but untrue.

Invalid claims can include claims rejected either because they're incoherent, because there's already a better explanation for the evidence, or because it is irrational, lazy, sloppy or dishonest to advance the claim based on the evidence supplied.

For example, a child who insists that an invisible dog kicked the blankets off his bed, is making an incoherent claim.

A patient with a long history of lying claiming her toast talked to her already offers a better explanation for that report than talking toast.

A self-styled prophet insisting that his unauthenticated, unverified claims about the universe are true, while the unauthenticated, unverified claims of other prophets are surely false, is being too irrational and dishonest for any such claim to be considered based on the evidence supplied.

These are all invalid claims. You don't have to worry about their truth because the claims haven't met the minimum validity needed to warrant verification.

Religious claims about the universe can be rejected for all three reasons. Talk of gods, spirits and demons can be viewed as incoherent; religions have a long history of hiding ignorance and error; and the basis of evidence, accountability and falsification offered by religion is too weak to even consider most religious claims as valid.

Treating invalid claims as valid means people worry about their veracity rather than questioning their validity.

Another way of saying it is that gods should not be treated as though they exist unless minimum standards of evidence, accountability and integrity are met.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 3:17:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,

A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism

Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?

It simply does not follow.

The prefix 'a' simply means "without", and theism "belief in God(s). What exactly is the problem?

Also, aren't you semantically doing the same thing? i.e. you don't believe atheism and you're trying to define it out of existence.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 3:20:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 3:17:34 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,

A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism

Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?

It simply does not follow.

The prefix 'a' simply means "without", and theism "belief in God(s). What exactly is the problem?

Also, aren't you semantically doing the same thing? i.e. you don't believe atheism and you're trying to define it out of existence.

Also, 'a' can also means opposite of, and theism has already been defined.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 3:32:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,

A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism

Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?

It simply does not follow.

There exists a dichotomy in the truth of the matter: either there exists a god or gods or there exists no god or gods. One must be true and the other false.

To put forth either of these statements is the assert a positive claim, and express belief in the truth of that claim. If you do not have a belief in a claim, you lack belief in it, by definition. So, if one believes that no god or gods exist, then that is a positive belief in that dichotomous claim. Regarding the other claim, there exists a god or gods, one cannot logically believe it is true because that would be a contradiction. Therefore, one lacks belief that there exists a god or gods.

Personally, if one generally believes that no god or gods exists AT ALL (rather than a directed belief towards a specific notion of god), then I refer to them as an antitheist. But, logically, all antitheists are atheists, but not all atheists are antitheists.

I actually concocted a logical proof that reflects this if you are interested: http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 3:52:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
There are two main reasons why Atheism is defined simply as "A lack of belief" and not "a belief that God(s) do not exist".

1. There is not one single concept of a God

Do you believe in Zeus? No? So should I label you an atheist with respect to Zeus? Of course not, that is silly. Theism/Atheism are not terms that apply to a specific concept of a God. If you believe in any concept of a God you are a theist. To label an atheist as someone who believes God(s) do not exist is to say that the atheist must hold the belief that every single concept of God that has ever been presented does not exist, which is absurd considering the wide range of what people call God(s).

I understand from a theists perspective that you believe the God you pray to is real, therefore in your view he may be the only one worthy of discussion. But if so, that is rather arrogant. What makes your beliefs superior to anyone else's? From an atheists perspective there are at minimum thousands of different God(s) to have a position on. No one word or statement can describe my position on all of them, except to say that I do not hold an active belief in any of them.

There are some concepts of a God(s) that I will say unequivocally do not exist. But not all. Lack of belief is the one commonality in my position towards all, so that is what the label refers to. Think of the word "phone"? What does it mean? After all some phones can access the internet, some phones can take pictures, none of that matters. If it can make calls, it is a phone. Everything else is extra. Same goes for the word Atheist. If you don't hold a belief in any God(s), you're an atheist. If you go the extra step and believe some or even most God concepts are not real, that doesn't change the fact that you do not hold a belief in any of them.

2. Addressing a belief in the negative is functionally a waste of time

In a court room we don't ask jurors to name the defendant "Guilty", "Innocent", or "Unsure". We leave it to guilty/not guilty because we have decided that we will only act on guilty. It does not matter whether the jury is convinced of innocence or merely unconvinced of guilt. Nothing changes between those two. It is only when a guilty verdict is reached that consequences follow.

Same goes for God beliefs. Say you have 3 people; A believer; a mere non-believer, and a believer in nonexistence. Which one of these is not like the other? Clearly the believer. It is only when you believe in the existence of a God that your lifestyle is impacted. Neither of the latter two pray, go to church, or make decisions expecting for some deity to hold them accountable for it. I used to be a mere non-believer with respect to what I found to be the most common conception of a God. Once I thought things through more deeply I now say that that conceptual God does not exist. You know what changed in my life? Nothing.

I find that the only reason theists insist on separating atheists into these two groups is so that they can have an excuse for failing to meet their burden of proof. If they are talking to a mere non-believer then they can claim that he has not taken a position and is therefore pointless to discuss this with. If he is a believer in God(s) non-existence then they will try to paint it as an unsupported faith based position. In others words "you're belief is just as silly as mine so na na". All of this is irrelevant however to whether the claim was actually supported.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:26:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 3:52:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
I find that the only reason theists insist on separating atheists into these two groups is so that they can have an excuse for failing to meet their burden of proof. If they are talking to a mere non-believer then they can claim that he has not taken a position and is therefore pointless to discuss this with. If he is a believer in God(s) non-existence then they will try to paint it as an unsupported faith based position. In others words "you're belief is just as silly as mine so na na". All of this is irrelevant however to whether the claim was actually supported.

Ok then, this may be off topic, but what is the proof? If someone tells you the truth, then how can you know without revelation? You might hear, but how do you know? And is it the messenger that discourages your trust in what is said, if it"s the truth?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:46:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,

A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism

Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?

It simply does not follow.
This is a good question.

I don't think anyone, atheist or otherwise can give a suitable answer to match perfectly with it's definition, so aside from definition in the technical sense, I think atheism in my opinion can be summed up this way:

1. Lack of belief in a creator.

2. Belief that the God of the Bible/gods in religion do not exist.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:59:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 5:26:44 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:52:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
I find that the only reason theists insist on separating atheists into these two groups is so that they can have an excuse for failing to meet their burden of proof. If they are talking to a mere non-believer then they can claim that he has not taken a position and is therefore pointless to discuss this with. If he is a believer in God(s) non-existence then they will try to paint it as an unsupported faith based position. In others words "you're belief is just as silly as mine so na na". All of this is irrelevant however to whether the claim was actually supported.

Ok then, this may be off topic, but what is the proof? If someone tells you the truth, then how can you know without revelation? You might hear, but how do you know? And is it the messenger that discourages your trust in what is said, if it"s the truth?

I don't claim to know the truth, and as an agnostic atheist I do not believe knowledge pertaining to the existence of a god is attainable. My position has nothing to do with the messenger. I form my beliefs based on the evidence available to substantiate them. As far as I can tell there is no evidence available to us to support God claims, thus I do not believe them.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 11:57:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 3:10:01 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,
A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism
Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?
There are two reasons to reject a claim:
1) it is invalid;
2) it is valid, but untrue.

Invalid claims can include claims rejected either because they're incoherent, because there's already a better explanation for the evidence, or because it is irrational, lazy, sloppy or dishonest to advance the claim based on the evidence supplied.

For example, a child who insists that an invisible dog kicked the blankets off his bed, is making an incoherent claim.

A patient with a long history of lying claiming her toast talked to her already offers a better explanation for that report than talking toast.

A self-styled prophet insisting that his unauthenticated, unverified claims about the universe are true, while the unauthenticated, unverified claims of other prophets are surely false, is being too irrational and dishonest for any such claim to be considered based on the evidence supplied.

These are all invalid claims. You don't have to worry about their truth because the claims haven't met the minimum validity needed to warrant verification.

Religious claims about the universe can be rejected for all three reasons. Talk of gods, spirits and demons can be viewed as incoherent; religions have a long history of hiding ignorance and error; and the basis of evidence, accountability and falsification offered by religion is too weak to even consider most religious claims as valid.

Treating invalid claims as valid means people worry about their veracity rather than questioning their validity.

Another way of saying it is that gods should not be treated as though they exist unless minimum standards of evidence, accountability and integrity are met.

You must like whistling in the wind.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 12:03:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 3:52:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
There are two main reasons why Atheism is defined simply as "A lack of belief" and not "a belief that God(s) do not exist".

1. There is not one single concept of a God

Do you believe in Zeus? No? So should I label you an atheist with respect to Zeus? Of course not, that is silly. Theism/Atheism are not terms that apply to a specific concept of a God. If you believe in any concept of a God you are a theist. To label an atheist as someone who believes God(s) do not exist is to say that the atheist must hold the belief that every single concept of God that has ever been presented does not exist, which is absurd considering the wide range of what people call God(s).

I understand from a theists perspective that you believe the God you pray to is real, therefore in your view he may be the only one worthy of discussion. But if so, that is rather arrogant. What makes your beliefs superior to anyone else's? From an atheists perspective there are at minimum thousands of different God(s) to have a position on. No one word or statement can describe my position on all of them, except to say that I do not hold an active belief in any of them.

There are some concepts of a God(s) that I will say unequivocally do not exist. But not all. Lack of belief is the one commonality in my position towards all, so that is what the label refers to. Think of the word "phone"? What does it mean? After all some phones can access the internet, some phones can take pictures, none of that matters. If it can make calls, it is a phone. Everything else is extra. Same goes for the word Atheist. If you don't hold a belief in any God(s), you're an atheist. If you go the extra step and believe some or even most God concepts are not real, that doesn't change the fact that you do not hold a belief in any of them.

2. Addressing a belief in the negative is functionally a waste of time

In a court room we don't ask jurors to name the defendant "Guilty", "Innocent", or "Unsure". We leave it to guilty/not guilty because we have decided that we will only act on guilty. It does not matter whether the jury is convinced of innocence or merely unconvinced of guilt. Nothing changes between those two. It is only when a guilty verdict is reached that consequences follow.

Same goes for God beliefs. Say you have 3 people; A believer; a mere non-believer, and a believer in nonexistence. Which one of these is not like the other? Clearly the believer. It is only when you believe in the existence of a God that your lifestyle is impacted. Neither of the latter two pray, go to church, or make decisions expecting for some deity to hold them accountable for it. I used to be a mere non-believer with respect to what I found to be the most common conception of a God. Once I thought things through more deeply I now say that that conceptual God does not exist. You know what changed in my life? Nothing.

I find that the only reason theists insist on separating atheists into these two groups is so that they can have an excuse for failing to meet their burden of proof. If they are talking to a mere non-believer then they can claim that he has not taken a position and is therefore pointless to discuss this with. If he is a believer in God(s) non-existence then they will try to paint it as an unsupported faith based position. In others words "you're belief is just as silly as mine so na na". All of this is irrelevant however to whether the claim was actually supported.

I stopped reading when you falsely assumed I don't believe in Zeus,

Try again
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 12:06:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 2:40:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,

A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism

Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?

It simply does not follow.

It is quite simple, John. If you tell me that God exists but can't produce any evidence to support your claim, then there is no reason to accept the claim and no reason to believe in God. This does not necessarily need lead one to state God does not exist.

Dan, to claim their is no evidence to support the claim of God, is outright false. it might not be evidence that you accept, but it is evidence nonetheless.

Other than that I get your point.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 12:07:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 5:59:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/20/2015 5:26:44 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:52:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
I find that the only reason theists insist on separating atheists into these two groups is so that they can have an excuse for failing to meet their burden of proof. If they are talking to a mere non-believer then they can claim that he has not taken a position and is therefore pointless to discuss this with. If he is a believer in God(s) non-existence then they will try to paint it as an unsupported faith based position. In others words "you're belief is just as silly as mine so na na". All of this is irrelevant however to whether the claim was actually supported.

Ok then, this may be off topic, but what is the proof? If someone tells you the truth, then how can you know without revelation? You might hear, but how do you know? And is it the messenger that discourages your trust in what is said, if it"s the truth?

I don't claim to know the truth, and as an agnostic atheist I do not believe knowledge pertaining to the existence of a god is attainable. My position has nothing to do with the messenger. I form my beliefs based on the evidence available to substantiate them. As far as I can tell there is no evidence available to us to support God claims, thus I do not believe them.

So the idea that the universe formed without direction or guidance seems more appealing.

Alrighty then.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 12:58:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 9:30:15 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If Atheism is to be defined simply as,

A lack of belief in God/s. = Atheism

Then how can you say that something you lack belief of, does not exist?

It simply does not follow.

I don't see why not.
bulproof
Posts: 25,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 1:01:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Do you have a particular god in mind or will any god do?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 3:15:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 3:52:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
There are two main reasons why Atheism is defined simply as "A lack of belief" and not "a belief that God(s) do not exist".

1. There is not one single concept of a God

Do you believe in Zeus? No? So should I label you an atheist with respect to Zeus? Of course not, that is silly. Theism/Atheism are not terms that apply to a specific concept of a God. If you believe in any concept of a God you are a theist. To label an atheist as someone who believes God(s) do not exist is to say that the atheist must hold the belief that every single concept of God that has ever been presented does not exist, which is absurd considering the wide range of what people call God(s).

I understand from a theists perspective that you believe the God you pray to is real, therefore in your view he may be the only one worthy of discussion. But if so, that is rather arrogant. What makes your beliefs superior to anyone else's? From an atheists perspective there are at minimum thousands of different God(s) to have a position on. No one word or statement can describe my position on all of them, except to say that I do not hold an active belief in any of them.

There are some concepts of a God(s) that I will say unequivocally do not exist. But not all. Lack of belief is the one commonality in my position towards all, so that is what the label refers to. Think of the word "phone"? What does it mean? After all some phones can access the internet, some phones can take pictures, none of that matters. If it can make calls, it is a phone. Everything else is extra. Same goes for the word Atheist. If you don't hold a belief in any God(s), you're an atheist. If you go the extra step and believe some or even most God concepts are not real, that doesn't change the fact that you do not hold a belief in any of them.

2. Addressing a belief in the negative is functionally a waste of time

In a court room we don't ask jurors to name the defendant "Guilty", "Innocent", or "Unsure". We leave it to guilty/not guilty because we have decided that we will only act on guilty. It does not matter whether the jury is convinced of innocence or merely unconvinced of guilt. Nothing changes between those two. It is only when a guilty verdict is reached that consequences follow.

Same goes for God beliefs. Say you have 3 people; A believer; a mere non-believer, and a believer in nonexistence. Which one of these is not like the other? Clearly the believer. It is only when you believe in the existence of a God that your lifestyle is impacted. Neither of the latter two pray, go to church, or make decisions expecting for some deity to hold them accountable for it. I used to be a mere non-believer with respect to what I found to be the most common conception of a God. Once I thought things through more deeply I now say that that conceptual God does not exist. You know what changed in my life? Nothing.

I find that the only reason theists insist on separating atheists into these two groups is so that they can have an excuse for failing to meet their burden of proof. If they are talking to a mere non-believer then they can claim that he has not taken a position and is therefore pointless to discuss this with. If he is a believer in God(s) non-existence then they will try to paint it as an unsupported faith based position. In others words "you're belief is just as silly as mine so na na". All of this is irrelevant however to whether the claim was actually supported.

You have made too many assumptions about my beliefs that are out right false. I believe God exists, therefore I also believe God is able to incarnate by plenary portions of himself into any character he so desires, including Zeus, Appolo, or whatever.

Thus I believe God exists and also demi-gods exist.

Thus your post does not apply to my way of thinking.
bulproof
Posts: 25,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 3:19:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 3:15:52 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:52:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
There are two main reasons why Atheism is defined simply as "A lack of belief" and not "a belief that God(s) do not exist".

1. There is not one single concept of a God

Do you believe in Zeus? No? So should I label you an atheist with respect to Zeus? Of course not, that is silly. Theism/Atheism are not terms that apply to a specific concept of a God. If you believe in any concept of a God you are a theist. To label an atheist as someone who believes God(s) do not exist is to say that the atheist must hold the belief that every single concept of God that has ever been presented does not exist, which is absurd considering the wide range of what people call God(s).

I understand from a theists perspective that you believe the God you pray to is real, therefore in your view he may be the only one worthy of discussion. But if so, that is rather arrogant. What makes your beliefs superior to anyone else's? From an atheists perspective there are at minimum thousands of different God(s) to have a position on. No one word or statement can describe my position on all of them, except to say that I do not hold an active belief in any of them.

There are some concepts of a God(s) that I will say unequivocally do not exist. But not all. Lack of belief is the one commonality in my position towards all, so that is what the label refers to. Think of the word "phone"? What does it mean? After all some phones can access the internet, some phones can take pictures, none of that matters. If it can make calls, it is a phone. Everything else is extra. Same goes for the word Atheist. If you don't hold a belief in any God(s), you're an atheist. If you go the extra step and believe some or even most God concepts are not real, that doesn't change the fact that you do not hold a belief in any of them.

2. Addressing a belief in the negative is functionally a waste of time

In a court room we don't ask jurors to name the defendant "Guilty", "Innocent", or "Unsure". We leave it to guilty/not guilty because we have decided that we will only act on guilty. It does not matter whether the jury is convinced of innocence or merely unconvinced of guilt. Nothing changes between those two. It is only when a guilty verdict is reached that consequences follow.

Same goes for God beliefs. Say you have 3 people; A believer; a mere non-believer, and a believer in nonexistence. Which one of these is not like the other? Clearly the believer. It is only when you believe in the existence of a God that your lifestyle is impacted. Neither of the latter two pray, go to church, or make decisions expecting for some deity to hold them accountable for it. I used to be a mere non-believer with respect to what I found to be the most common conception of a God. Once I thought things through more deeply I now say that that conceptual God does not exist. You know what changed in my life? Nothing.

I find that the only reason theists insist on separating atheists into these two groups is so that they can have an excuse for failing to meet their burden of proof. If they are talking to a mere non-believer then they can claim that he has not taken a position and is therefore pointless to discuss this with. If he is a believer in God(s) non-existence then they will try to paint it as an unsupported faith based position. In others words "you're belief is just as silly as mine so na na". All of this is irrelevant however to whether the claim was actually supported.

You have made too many assumptions about my beliefs that are out right false. I believe God exists, therefore I also believe God is able to incarnate by plenary portions of himself into any character he so desires, including Zeus, Appolo, or whatever.

Thus I believe God exists and also demi-gods exist.

Thus your post does not apply to my way of thinking.
So you believe in every god ever invented by man, I don't think that's a fast track to paradise.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 3:24:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 5:59:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/20/2015 5:26:44 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:52:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
I find that the only reason theists insist on separating atheists into these two groups is so that they can have an excuse for failing to meet their burden of proof. If they are talking to a mere non-believer then they can claim that he has not taken a position and is therefore pointless to discuss this with. If he is a believer in God(s) non-existence then they will try to paint it as an unsupported faith based position. In others words "you're belief is just as silly as mine so na na". All of this is irrelevant however to whether the claim was actually supported.

Ok then, this may be off topic, but what is the proof? If someone tells you the truth, then how can you know without revelation? You might hear, but how do you know? And is it the messenger that discourages your trust in what is said, if it"s the truth?

I don't claim to know the truth, and as an agnostic atheist I do not believe knowledge pertaining to the existence of a god is attainable. My position has nothing to do with the messenger. I form my beliefs based on the evidence available to substantiate them. As far as I can tell there is no evidence available to us to support God claims, thus I do not believe them.

It doesn't matter what you claim to know or don"t know. The Truth is the Truth no matter what the Truth is, correct? I"m asking what the proof is, and isn"t it revelation or experience that brings about the knowledge of? If you know then you acknowledge, and to know is that something is revealed or experienced, correct? If something is substantiated, then it maybe compelling if, it"s what one is looking for, but it"s not really knowing, or the knowledge of, the truth of the matter.

Hence one is stuck with the messenger and whether the message is true or not, because one must seek to find.

Question; do ideas exist though they maybe true or not, or realistic or not, or doable or not? And are they a physical existence?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 3:35:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 3:19:35 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/21/2015 3:15:52 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:52:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
There are two main reasons why Atheism is defined simply as "A lack of belief" and not "a belief that God(s) do not exist".

1. There is not one single concept of a God

Do you believe in Zeus? No? So should I label you an atheist with respect to Zeus? Of course not, that is silly. Theism/Atheism are not terms that apply to a specific concept of a God. If you believe in any concept of a God you are a theist. To label an atheist as someone who believes God(s) do not exist is to say that the atheist must hold the belief that every single concept of God that has ever been presented does not exist, which is absurd considering the wide range of what people call God(s).

I understand from a theists perspective that you believe the God you pray to is real, therefore in your view he may be the only one worthy of discussion. But if so, that is rather arrogant. What makes your beliefs superior to anyone else's? From an atheists perspective there are at minimum thousands of different God(s) to have a position on. No one word or statement can describe my position on all of them, except to say that I do not hold an active belief in any of them.

There are some concepts of a God(s) that I will say unequivocally do not exist. But not all. Lack of belief is the one commonality in my position towards all, so that is what the label refers to. Think of the word "phone"? What does it mean? After all some phones can access the internet, some phones can take pictures, none of that matters. If it can make calls, it is a phone. Everything else is extra. Same goes for the word Atheist. If you don't hold a belief in any God(s), you're an atheist. If you go the extra step and believe some or even most God concepts are not real, that doesn't change the fact that you do not hold a belief in any of them.

2. Addressing a belief in the negative is functionally a waste of time

In a court room we don't ask jurors to name the defendant "Guilty", "Innocent", or "Unsure". We leave it to guilty/not guilty because we have decided that we will only act on guilty. It does not matter whether the jury is convinced of innocence or merely unconvinced of guilt. Nothing changes between those two. It is only when a guilty verdict is reached that consequences follow.

Same goes for God beliefs. Say you have 3 people; A believer; a mere non-believer, and a believer in nonexistence. Which one of these is not like the other? Clearly the believer. It is only when you believe in the existence of a God that your lifestyle is impacted. Neither of the latter two pray, go to church, or make decisions expecting for some deity to hold them accountable for it. I used to be a mere non-believer with respect to what I found to be the most common conception of a God. Once I thought things through more deeply I now say that that conceptual God does not exist. You know what changed in my life? Nothing.

I find that the only reason theists insist on separating atheists into these two groups is so that they can have an excuse for failing to meet their burden of proof. If they are talking to a mere non-believer then they can claim that he has not taken a position and is therefore pointless to discuss this with. If he is a believer in God(s) non-existence then they will try to paint it as an unsupported faith based position. In others words "you're belief is just as silly as mine so na na". All of this is irrelevant however to whether the claim was actually supported.

You have made too many assumptions about my beliefs that are out right false. I believe God exists, therefore I also believe God is able to incarnate by plenary portions of himself into any character he so desires, including Zeus, Appolo, or whatever.

Thus I believe God exists and also demi-gods exist.

Thus your post does not apply to my way of thinking.
So you believe in every god ever invented by man, I don't think that's a fast track to paradise.

The village idiot is back, when you realise how stupid your response is and why I won't respond, then you'll become a man my son.