How do atheists know there is zero chance of a divine creator? (paradise, Christian)

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

Black/white yes/no /dark/light/ for/against - that is the nature of those who see things through the dual lens of world views.

Belief is belief. A theist believes in at least 1 idea of god(s) and an atheist believes that no god(s) (no matter what the idea is) exist.

Simply, no. An atheist is one who lacks belief in a god, there is no requirement for a positive belief in the absence of gods. You are redefining atheist so that you can hold yourself apart and morally superior to people you don't like. Like I said virtually none of the people you want to disassociate yourself from believe what you are claiming they do. If we go with your redefinition of atheist, then all the people you are arguing with are taking the middle position.

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

Sure I can. I do, and I will continue to say so. Bigotry is bigotry, hate speech is hate speech. It doesn't make it any more right that it isn't done in the name of some idea of god!

I don't think anyone is saying that it is. Unless of course you are redefining more words... As far as I can tell no one is advocating violence against theists, using force or the threat of force to restrict religious practice beyond asking the religious to abide by the same laws as the rest of us, or mandatory reeducation of religious children by the state. You seem to be equating these sorts of actions with civil protest, or expressing disapproval, which seems a bit disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

IMO the reason most organised religions have become the bigoted fear mongering god corrupting agencies they have is because the well was poisoned by such types who easily enough push their agendas to the fore and subtly and not so subtly demand that all behave like they do, having made their way to influencing position (such as spokespersons) within the organisations. After a while the less pushy, less vocal, more tolerant either leave the disease or they adapt. Very few challenge the corruption with any success.

I would submit that all organized religion came about entirely for the purpose of justifying the actions of a particular group, enforcing social conformity, and reinforcing social taboos and distinctions.
Individual spirituality may be innocent, a relatively harmless method of coping with the unknown, but the first time one person told another, "God told me that you should...", the rot set in.

I tend to think that the believers who end up with socially constructive, inclusive, nurturing beliefs came up with the right answer, but I don't think their theological "math" holds up. We can agree that 2 + 2 = 4, but if your reasoning is that "two" + "two" = total number of letters - number of words = 4, you won't get credit on your math exam. Right answer, but the logic is faulty. I may argue about their rationale, but we can easily be good and pleasant neighbors. We are on the same page. Believers who are convinced that God wants them to discriminate, exclude, and harm other people... We are not on the same page, I don't think that avoiding hurt feefees of people who may quite literally think you should be killed is really an important issue.

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

So no...it is not about 'either/or'. It is about removing ones self from being associated with the crapsters.

This is what I originally said. It is about creating an artificial distinction in order to say, "I'm not like them." You are effectively trying to create sects or denominations within non-belief, trying to otherize those who are not in total agreement with you. I don't see that as a positive. We are all in this together, we are all atheists, non-believers. Some are strident, some conciliatory, you have to choose your attitude, but trying to make your own little box of "True non-believers" is just a little silly. I hoped to have left all that crap behind when I left Christianity.

-NoCapo

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

Black/white yes/no /dark/light/ for/against - that is the nature of those who see things through the dual lens of world views.

Belief is belief. A theist believes in at least 1 idea of god(s) and an atheist believes that no god(s) (no matter what the idea is) exist.

So you have belief. Belief for or against.
So what is the 'binary' really?

Belief or lack of belief.

In relation to god(s) existing, I have lack of belief. In relation to god(s) not existing, I have lack of belief.

Your error is a common one. In having lack of belief you are correct. In stating that atheism is belief in the existence of no gods, you are incorrect. The atheist position is (like yours) lack of belief, based in insufficient evidence to convince. the only 'belief' atheism has is that reason and evidence are the best and only valid methods of assessing data.

Then the best position for them would be the middle one.

The middle position is not always the best. One person says it is wrong to kill infidels and another says it is right to kill infidels. But one has to be right and the other wrong because just half - killing infidels is not the 'best' position.

I suppose in this case non belief is the best because it is rational, not because it is a compromise between claiming knowledge that gods exist or knowledge that they don't - but logically untenable claims.

Sure I can. I do, and I will continue to say so. Bigotry is bigotry, hate speech is hate speech. It doesn't make it any more right that it isn't done in the name of some idea of god!

IMO the reason most organized religions have become the bigoted fear mongering god corrupting agencies they have is because the well was poisoned by such types who easily enough push their agendas to the fore and subtly and not so subtly demand that all behave like they do, having made their way to influencing position (such as spokespersons) within the organizations. After a while the less pushy, less vocal, more tolerant either leave the disease or they adapt. Very few challenge the corruption with any success.


So no...it is not about 'either/or'. It is about removing ones self from being associated with the crapsters.

You can do and say what you like (within the law) and can expect to be called on it if you seem to be in error.

I don't know whether your beef is with a supposed extreme position on the god - question (which atheism doesn't actually hold) or with the way we argue. On the first, we correct you, on the second, we don't care. We are going to be reasonable, informative and polite as possible, but we will not be silent, appeasing or suffer fools gladly.

You will have to learn to live with it

[Rotagivan]

Note: Since this is a long post answering three different posters, I can't be bothered doing a proof-read before publishing...anything which I say which can be taken out of context because of this, I will sort if necessary. Hopefully readers will get the gist based on my previous posts in this thread...

Cheers.

Originally Posted by mordant

There is no such thing as having no belief either way.

Yes there is. You believe gods do not exist. That is belief one way.

You believe or you don't.

That god(s) exist? There is the 'I don't know' middle position and this position exists regardless of your belief.

Of course there's nothing to stop a person from living an unexamined life of intellect and just avoid owning a position on anything, I suppose.

If you are implying this is what i am doing, then this >

When it comes to beliefs. there is no need to own a position for or against. It is simple, but your beliefs complicate it. Your beliefs have issue with my position.

Or pretending that this is being above the fray when it is really just avoiding the fray.

Both, only it isn't pretending. 'The Fray' is BS. Destructive posturing.

They are entirely about faith if there is no evidence to substantiate the claims one makes for them. Either faith, or outright cynical manipulation and fabrication.

Nonetheless, as I said "Ideas of god(s) are not all about religion or faith."

I would accept the existence of a god for which there is evidence to substantiate its existence.

The problem I see with this reasoning is that 1: The god idea has to be defined to you and accepted as a legitimate idea of a god by you and 2: The definition must be able to provide the evidence you require.
If neither of those two conditions are met, you will be unable to accept. Your conditions are created from the position of rejection of the ideas of god(s) in the first place.

The same way I accept that my stepson exists because he just walked past my office door and said good morning, because we have a history of actual interaction, and because he exists in shared reality -- when we are in the same room together, others see and hear him also. Things like that. I make no special pleadings, for deities or my stepson. They have to actually exist.

That is what I mean. Your god idea is defined by you to have to be able to meet those conditions you set in order for it to be called 'god' in the first place.

Thus 'god' has to be as tangible as your son and able to communicated with you face to face (and maybe even make you a cup of coffee as well)

As a practical matter they have to be relevant also. Gods who are non-existent, dead, absent or indifferent all look and act the exact same way, which is to say, not at all; therefore they don't deserve my brain cycles except that too many others afford their brain cycles to them and insist that I should too and I have to keep writing paragraphs like this one and the one preceding it.

On the contrary, there was no pressure or expectation from me that you had to write anything. You chose to do so of your own volition.

What you do with you brain is your business and I have not said anything to the contrary or insisted anything of or from you.

Some people make random assertions and think random thoughts; some people make substantiated claims and think logically. It's an interesting discussion what people really believe beneath their outer veneers of certitude. Or what they are really afraid of, or desperately yearn for. But you can always tell the ones who are "keeping it real" because they believe based on evidence even when what they believe is not what they would superficially prefer to believe or feel better believing.

The problem with that thinking is that if there is evidence, there is no need to believe. I don;t have to believe that i am typing this because the evidence before me tells me this is so.

I make the claim that real (un)belief is what you have good cause to think is likely to be true based on what you actually can know, regardless of your biases, hopes, dreams, aspirations or ideals. I have reason to think my unbelief is in that class of thinking precisely because I don't prefer this awareness of reality. Who wouldn't want a benevolent creator, sustainer and ruler of heaven and earth in your corner? Or, in your case apparently, who wouldn't want to be free of having a justifiable opinion about anything? But alas ... life is what it actually is, not what we wish it were.

You resort to one particular idea of god in the first place as part of your argument for not believing that particular god exists and thus no god(s) exist.
I have justifiable opinions about many things. I have shared a particular one in relation to this thread. You skirt around this and argue something I have not even hinted at let alone openly stated. Indeed. your comment above implies things about me which it is convenient for you to suspect and mention simply because doing so is a necessary expression of impulse implemented through your particular belief system. You have no choice but to use such method of 'arguing'. This of course does not prove you are correct. It simply shows the observer how belief systems express particular attitude into the world.

The default is to not believe in something that is unsubstantiated, which by definition is choosing one of the two ways available -- given the nature of this choice. God exists, or doesn't. If you take the default position you are saying no, not maybe.

You are incorrect about the default. The default in relation to ideas of god(s) is 'no beliefs either way.' What new born human being has the capacity to 'not believe in something that is unsubstantiated'?
Also what universe law states that ideas of god(s) have to be substantiated?

I suppose you could say you are like a NULL in a database, which provides tertiary logic -- not simply true or false but true, false, or unknown -- you are saying "I don't know". But a concept like nullility just kicks the can down the road, and not very far, either. NULL still excludes true and false, and is still a choice and a position that someone, sooner or later, is going to want you to give account of and show why true or false is not valid.

In relation to ideas of god(s) true of false is substantiated based on the idea of the god. If either true or false cannot be substantiated, then unknown is the correct position.

In fact the parallel makes a decent analogy. In tertiary logic you have a problem called null propagation that becomes an issue. In boolean math, null plus anything else equals null. By introducing unknowns into the equation you render a lot of things that intuitively are knowable, unknowable. In database design we put up with this because sometimes the need to explicitly represent an unknown is more valuable than the unwanted knock-on effects. In philosophy though once you introduce "I don't know" in a pedantic fashion you pretty soon call all knowledge claims into question.

So what? The expression "the more I know, the more I understand how much I don't know" is a reasonable and honest one.

Everything is questionable anyway. How do you know you are not existing inside a simulation? The true answer is that you don't know.
How does this understanding affect you? That is your choice.

I have said many times in the past that "I don't know" aren't the Three Dirty Words and theists ought to be far more comfortable with them and therefore far less in thrall to the siren song of faux certitude promulgated by religion. But at the same time we can't legitimately deny the astounding preponderance of evidence against the notion of deities generally and invisible personal interventionist deities specifically.

Like I said. How do you know that we are not all existing within a simulation? It would not matter in the slightest how much evidence we are able to obtain in relation to what we are experiencing as real. None of that evidence can thus be used to categorically show that we are not. All one can do is claim that we are not.

Thus "I don't know" applies equally to me as it does to a theist as it does to an atheist. No one knows for sure and no one can know for sure.

Believing either way, makes no difference at all apart from causing conflict without possible resolution related BS) which is destructive, stupid, immature, pointless posturing.

I never said I would attempt to impose my unbelief, or moral convictions, or whatever on them. I said that I will resist being pushed. And I should. As should they, if I were doing that.

Yet here you are trying to push me into being something I am not.

You seem to equate resistance to violation of healthy personal boundaries as behaving badly and equivalent to the impertinence and disrespect inherent in proselytization and things such as forbidding gay marriage, the sale of liquor on Sunday mornings, or other attempts at controlling others. They are not.

Yet my healthy personal boundary happens to be the middle position which you argue does not even exist! therefore you are being a hypocrite in relation to what you don't not like happening to you but feel free and justified (through your own beliefs) to do to me.

Theists are great at being toad-touches and then when people react angrily to being violated, calling that "hateful" or "scornful" or "persecution" for simply "holding fast to their faith". That also is a false equivalence. Do not violate people's healthy personal boundaries and they will not hold you accountable for those violations. Simples.

Then take my advice and desist with you attempts to do this to me.

Originally Posted by NoCapo

Simply, no. An atheist is one who lacks belief in a god, there is no requirement for a positive belief in the absence of gods. You are redefining atheist so that you can hold yourself apart and morally superior to people you don't like. Like I said virtually none of the people you want to disassociate yourself from believe what you are claiming they do. If we go with your redefinition of atheist, then all the people you are arguing with are taking the middle position.

This is exactly as I would like to see happen. The word atheist has been hijacked and is inappropriate for that.

Better to forego the need for it than to have to put up with individuals who have pushed their opinions into both theism and atheism - using those positions to express their hate and intolerance.

The middle ground is the logical position to adopt if indeed you are someone who has no use for superficial conflict, name calling and general shady bigotry-motivated agenda. Even if that is not YOU, by calling yourself atheist and ignoring such expression when it comes through atheism, you are enforcing such expression anyway.

I am morally superior to those expressions I do not like. They are inferior expressions - which are well overdue for deletion. (This is of course up to the individual to do - to rid themselves of this habit). There is nothing wrong with being in a position which concideres morals as part of what is observably better behavior than hatefulness. And it is certainly something which no decent human being would feel compelled to attack me for.

I don't think anyone is saying that it is. Unless of course you are redefining more words... As far as I can tell no one is advocating violence against theists, using force or the threat of force to restrict religious practice beyond asking the religious to abide by the same laws as the rest of us, or mandatory reeducation of religious children by the state. You seem to be equating these sorts of actions with civil protest, or expressing disapproval, which seems a bit disingenuous.

History shows us plainly that small things develop into big things. If we accept hateful expressions which are 'only' verbally violent, we will adapt to accept physical violence.

The idea is for the individual to denounce within your self any internal expression of hatred against others and in doing so to prevent all outward expression of that hatefulness to exude into the external world we all share.
I do not redefine words. I do not participate in the (rather ancient) invention of semantics which allows for words which are significantly different in meaning to being used interchangeably when it suits. It is a kind of goal-post shifting in relation to argument, and is pointless for that...no one scores goals but the game goes on and on anyway. It is illusion and delusion.

I would submit that all organized religion came about entirely for the purpose of justifying the actions of a particular group, enforcing social conformity, and reinforcing social taboos and distinctions.
Individual spirituality may be innocent, a relatively harmless method of coping with the unknown, but the first time one person told another, "God told me that you should...", the rot set in.

Sure. This type of thing does not just occur with organised religion, it is a condition of human society at present.
It is not too different from someone telling me that I should believe god(s) do not exist because "science has told me that I should..." Science of course tells us no such thing. Science isn't about proving or disproving ideas of god(s)/afterlife etc.

'The rot' is still there. I ask radical atheists what the envision the world would be like without theism and the answer has always been 'not much different.' Same old same old really. Why would I want to support something which will make no significant difference (and makes no claim it will) to the world?
I might as well just have my own individual innocent spirituality totally harmless method of dealing with the unknown and leave the world to its own BS.

I tend to think that the believers who end up with socially constructive, inclusive, nurturing beliefs came up with the right answer, but I don't think their theological "math" holds up. We can agree that 2 + 2 = 4, but if your reasoning is that "two" + "two" = total number of letters - number of words = 4, you won't get credit on your math exam. Right answer, but the logic is faulty. I may argue about their rationale, but we can easily be good and pleasant neighbors. We are on the same page. Believers who are convinced that God wants them to discriminate, exclude, and harm other people... We are not on the same page, I don't think that avoiding hurt feefees of people who may quite literally think you should be killed is really an important issue.

As I said, my issue is with those who express hatefulness. I am unconcerned as to what they claim justifies that hatefulness. Nor am I justified in reflecting hatefulness toward those who are hateful.

If you are the same, then we are on the same page. I consider words to also count as weapons used in attempts to harm others.

This is what I originally said. It is about creating an artificial distinction in order to say, "I'm not like them." You are effectively trying to create sects or denominations within non-belief, trying to otherize those who are not in total agreement with you. I don't see that as a positive. We are all in this together, we are all atheists, non-believers. Some are strident, some conciliatory, you have to choose your attitude, but trying to make your own little box of "True non-believers" is just a little silly. I hoped to have left all that crap behind when I left Christianity.

-NoCapo

I make no apology for my position. I am glad it is a real position which has tangible positive effect for myself and those around me in the real world I express into. It is not artificial. It is the necessary result of the radical theist against radical atheist battle, both those positions I regard as artificial, and I am unconcerned how ancient they are in relation to one another.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Your error is a common one. In having lack of belief you are correct. In stating that atheism is belief in the existence of no gods, you are incorrect. The atheist position is (like yours) lack of belief, based in insufficient evidence to convince. the only 'belief' atheism has is that reason and evidence are the best and only valid methods of assessing data.

You say 'belief' when really it is belief. As a species we are eons away from gathering data which may provide us with definite answers to difficult questions. In the mean time people can choose to believe, or - like my self, remain aloof from the tomfoolery of belief systems altogether.

The middle position is not always the best. One person says it is wrong to kill infidels and another says it is right to kill infidels. But one has to be right and the other wrong because just half - killing infidels is not the 'best' position.

You are mistaken in relation to how you are understanding/representing my position. I am not saying killing anyone is right, for whatever reason. My position on killing infidels is not middle ground. My position as middle ground is that it is wrong to kill anyone regardless as to whether they believe in the existence of god(s) or believe that god(s) do not exist. How you misunderstood my position is a mystery. Perhaps you haven't really misunderstood it but are misrepresenting it in order to show some justification of your own position? Hard to tell...forgive me if I am getting the wrong end of the stick here...

I suppose in this case non belief is the best because it is rational, not because it is a compromise between claiming knowledge that gods exist or knowledge that they don't - but logically untenable claims.

It is the best position in relation to anything which professes belief in anything. Belief is irrational. I know or I don't know. That is the fact of the matter.

You can do and say what you like (within the law) and can expect to be called on it if you seem to be in error.

If the hat fits, then fair enough.

I don't know whether your beef is with a supposed extreme position on the god - question (which atheism doesn't actually hold) or with the way we argue. On the first, we correct you, on the second, we don't care. We are going to be reasonable, informative and polite as possible, but we will not be silent, appeasing or suffer fools gladly.

As long as you don't try to force your beliefs down my throat, you will get no argument from me. that is the nature of the position of the middle ground.

You will have to learn to live with it

Live with what? Like I said, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs down my throat, you will get no argument from me. That is the nature of the position of the middle ground. If you are saying that I learn to live with accepting double standards, hypocrisy, turn a blind eye to hateful expressions, radical based remarks, stupid name calling, then no, 'i don't have to actually have to learn to live with that.' That is the beauty of my position. It allows me not to be in the position to 'like it or lump it.

That is precisely why I do not call myself an atheist or a theist. Both sides have their share of undesirables in their midst.

[Arach Angle]

lmao. mort. There is no such thing as honestly not knowing so we say we can't offer an opinion. You actually believe that? And you guys talk about straw men?

Then with just conservation laws one can only logically answer "probably yes" then. toss in emergence and the only answer out of "Yes" or "no" is "yes", based in the science. "no" as an emotional need is meaningless. 'no" based on a person not knowing enough is invalid, go learn more.

"faith" or "belief" in terms of no supporting evidence needed is disgusting and vile to even push it off as a remotely valid faith or belief. Tell me where that is so wrong?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Your error is a common one. In having lack of belief you are correct. In stating that atheism is belief in the existence of no gods, you are incorrect. The atheist position is (like yours) lack of belief, based in insufficient evidence to convince. the only 'belief' atheism has is that reason and evidence are the best and only valid methods of assessing data.

Rotagivan

You say 'belief' when really it is belief. As a species we are eons away from gathering data which may provide us with definite answers to difficult questions. In the mean time people can choose to believe, or - like my self, remain aloof from the tomfoolery of belief systems altogether.

Very well. You distance yourself from them. We try to show people that belief systems (in the sense of belief in gods) is invalid and thus organizations that derive authority from such beliefs should ne be supported (Irreligion, or 'nones' is coming out of this.

The middle position is not always the best. One person says it is wrong to kill infidels and another says it is right to kill infidels. But one has to be right and the other wrong because just half - killing infidels is not the 'best' position.

Rotagivan

You are mistaken in relation to how you are understanding/representing my position. I am not saying killing anyone is right, for whatever reason. My position on killing infidels is not middle ground. My position as middle ground is that it is wrong to kill anyone regardless as to whether they believe in the existence of god(s) or believe that god(s) do not exist. How you misunderstood my position is a mystery. Perhaps you haven't really misunderstood it but are misrepresenting it in order to show some justification of your own position? Hard to tell...forgive me if I am getting the wrong end of the stick here...

Then we agree that middle ground is not always the best. A non - belief position rather than a assertion that gods do not exist is correct, not because it is some kind of middle ground, but because it is logically tenable. What we do not know to be so, we do not believe. But atheism does not have the 'do not exist' claim you impute to it. That would make atheism irrational and, if he had held that view, we would have had to change it to the one we actually hold. On the other hand a midway position between accepting theism and opposing theism - not believing it but doing nothing about it (which is as I say a frequent objection to militant atheism) is half accepting what it wrong - like half -killing infidels. If it is wrong we have to say so. lf you have a problem with people who have Hi -jacked the term, I cannot accept that we have to find another term.The Hi -jackers will have to justify their position on atheism, if they can.

I suppose in this case non belief is the best because it is rational, not because it is a compromise between claiming knowledge that gods exist or knowledge that they don't - but logically untenable claims.

Rotagivan

It is the best position in relation to anything which professes belief in anything. Belief is irrational. I know or I don't know. That is the fact of the matter.

That is ok so far as it goes with untestable claims like a god or some kind. Where there is some evidence that is logically or evidentially testable, like personal god or Holy books, then it is more an evidence -based degree of improbability. "Believe or not" was a false dichotomy (proposed by theists) right from the start.

You can do and say what you like (within the law) and can expect to be called on it if you seem to be in error.

Rotagivan

If the hat fits, then fair enough.

If there is some error on either side, it is best that we clear it up.The cap that seems to fit you is that we are wrong to use the term atheist (let alone militant atheists) partly because you seem to think that implies a denial of any possible gods (which we don't; our disbelief position is the same as yours) and partly because of the activities of militant atheism in opposing the claim of organized religion and the authority deriving from it. I am sorry, but we have to do this. Religion (and one particular religion) should not give people authority over us all - whether religious or not.

I don't know whether your beef is with a supposed extreme position on the god - question (which atheism doesn't actually hold) or with the way we argue. On the first, we correct you, on the second, we don't care. We are going to be reasonable, informative and polite as possible, but we will not be silent, appeasing or suffer fools gladly.

Rotagivan

As long as you don't try to force your beliefs down my throat, you will get no argument from me. that is the nature of the position of the middle ground.

As far as I can see, you are here arguing with us. You can believe whatever you like (it seems to be what we believe, too) but asking us to desist from active combatting of the claims of religion and the authority it derives from that seems to be forcing your views down our throats. .

You will have to learn to live with it

Rotagivan

Live with what? Like I said, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs down my throat, you will get no argument from me. That is the nature of the position of the middle ground. If you are saying that I learn to live with accepting double standards, hypocrisy, turn a blind eye to hateful expressions, radical based remarks, stupid name calling, then no, 'i don't have to actually have to learn to live with that.' That is the beauty of my position. It allows me not to be in the position to 'like it or lump it.

That is precisely why I do not call myself an atheist or a theist. Both sides have their share of undesirables in their midst.

That seems to be the nub. You seem to have a problem with atheism in its work of opposing and debunking the claims of religion and the authority it derives from that. You use a criticism of strong language as a rationale. That is tough. Strong language is what we get in debate, but that doesn't invalidate the need for the debate. You can choose to refuse to call yourself an atheist and distance yourself from that activity if you choose. But you are here apparently telling us of your disapproval. Noted. But we cannot allow ourselves to swallow your views and share them - if that was your purpose in posting here. That is what you will have to live with - our good right to be atheists and militant ones, too.
I might add that you would be in a better position to correct extreme language in the cause of militant atheism - as I do myself - if you were part of it.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

Note: Since this is a long post answering three different posters, I can't be

.

I am ok with athiest Rotgivan. all groups of people have jerks. I should have been a cop's cop. I hate dishonest people that claim to be honest. But I understand you. Your stance is not totaly invalid. arg as been honest. I get him now.

I disassociate with certain personality types. Like adults that were abused children, they can be very dangerous. No matter what they believe. I am an atheist, I separate from people that push off their emotional needs as "better" than "the enemies emotional needs. That's what I do. Thats what you are pointing to.

At the end of the day it is how we treat each other.
At the end of the day It is about how logically we support our beliefs.

Some say at the end of the day it's about siding with a non-belief (or belief).

I, and many others say "nope", it's about helping people and teaching people how to honestly interpret the events they see. As honestly as we can. I think I am with ya more than agin ya rot.

[mordant]

I am not persecuting anyone or forcing anyone to do anything. I am simply arguing the merits of a point of view.

I have been very clear about the definitions I'm using and the distinction I make between belief and knowledge positions. Rotagivan has been equally clear about his definitions which are different and incompatible, as well as in my view, illogical. Since we can't agree on definitions then we are just talking past each other, and never the twain shall meet.

This thread has degenerated into such a tangled mess that I can't really track who is claiming what and why, which is even worse than debating theists. At least they have a clear position, however indefensible. This supposed middle ground appears to be invented by the Cheshire Cat ... it is precisely what the arguer says it is at any given moment, no more and no less.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by mordant

I am not persecuting anyone or forcing anyone to do anything. I am simply arguing the merits of a point of view.

I have been very clear about the definitions I'm using and the distinction I make between belief and knowledge positions. Rotagivan has been equally clear about his definitions which are different and incompatible, as well as in my view, illogical. Since we can't agree on definitions then we are just talking past each other, and never the twain shall meet.

This thread has degenerated into such a tangled mess that I can't really track who is claiming what and why, which is even worse than debating theists. At least they have a clear position, however indefensible. This supposed middle ground appears to be invented by the Cheshire Cat ... it is precisely what the arguer says it is at any given moment, no more and no less.

no, I see you as trying to limit the possible answers based on how you feel instead of what the answer can be. Merits of "yes" or "no" only. That there can only be two choices and "I don't know" is not valid? You actually believe that? For this god thing?

"faith" and "Belief" have definitions that we can literately stick with also. Literal people need literal wording. But These words also have Vernaculars and common uses. I certainly would not ever use the word "faith" or "belief" meaning unsupported conclusions. That is just stupid. So I based "a faith" or "a belief" on what we do know. You can base a "faith" on nothing ... you honestly think that's ok? with any belief?

"Yes" and "maybe yes" are the two most logical conclusions. Factually "no-nothing" does not match conservations laws. Omni-anything is less valid. So stating a "belief" or "faith" as otherwise is stupid and less valid. and all lines of logic based off of "blind faith" are just that ... blind. But If you need to "literally" stick to definitions then I have no faith in anything. But I am not a literalist. we need to be honest with ourselves.

It is ok to say "I don't know enough to say.". It is not ok to claim "because I don't know the only logical answer is no." That's not rational. to me.

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

I am ok with athiest Rotgivan. all groups of people have jerks. I should have been a cop's cop. I hate dishonest people that claim to be honest. But I understand you. Your stance is not totaly invalid. arg as been honest. I get him now.

I disassociate with certain personality types. Like adults that were abused children, they can be very dangerous. No matter what they believe. I am an atheist, I separate from people that push off their emotional needs as "better" than "the enemies emotional needs. That's what I do. Thats what you are pointing to.

At the end of the day it is how we treat each other.
At the end of the day It is about how logically we support our beliefs.

Some say at the end of the day it's about siding with a non-belief (or belief).

I, and many others say "nope", it's about helping people and teaching people how to honestly interpret the events they see. As honestly as we can. I think I am with ya more than agin ya rot.

I actually agree with this. The point of not holding to a creed or dogma is that you don't have to be on a "team" and always agree with them. You get to examine each thing as it comes, and accept or reject it on the merits. And there is no need to divide, us vs them.

For example, I agreed with Hitchens about quite a lot, but feel that he was a bit too antagonistic toward all religion. But that doesn't mean I have to reject everything he said, nor do I have to jump on the bandwagon with Ayan Hirsi Ali simply because she is an atheist. That is the point of a reasoned life, I evaluate, I decide for me. I just find it absolutely counterproductive to try to divide the world of non-believers into "denominations" and then make blanket condemnations or approbations based on that. I have had enough of that as a Christian, why carry it with us?

-NoCapo

[Rotagivan]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Then we agree that middle ground is not always the best.

No. That is not what I said.

I am not willing to repeat what I said either.

non - belief position rather than a assertion that gods do not exist is correct, not because it is some kind of middle ground, but because it is logically tenable. What we do not know to be so, we do not believe.

However as we both know, there are those calling themselves atheists who do assert a belief that god(s) do not exist.

But atheism does not have the 'do not exist' claim you impute to it. That would make atheism irrational and, if he had held that view, we would have had to change it to the one we actually hold.

Then what would you see such a personality expressing such belief to be? What is that persons position?

On the other hand a midway position between accepting theism and opposing theism - not believing it but doing nothing about it (which is as I say a frequent objection to militant atheism) is half accepting what it wrong - like half -killing infidels. If it is wrong we have to say so. lf you have a problem with people who have Hi -jacked the term, I cannot accept that we have to find another term.The Hi -jackers will have to justify their position on atheism, if they can.

Good luck with that. In the present I am assuming (quiet correctly) the middle position - the position which has no beliefs either way.

That is ok so far as it goes with untestable claims like a god or some kind. Where there is some evidence that is logically or evidentially testable, like personal god or Holy books, then it is more an evidence -based degree of improbability. "Believe or not" was a false dichotomy (proposed by theists) right from the start.

Whatever. I don't see the relevance. What is the difference between 'a personal god' and 'a god of some kind'?

If there is some error on either side, it is best that we clear it up.The cap that seems to fit you is that we are wrong to use the term atheist (let alone militant atheists) partly because you seem to think that implies a denial of any possible gods (which we don't; our disbelief position is the same as yours) and partly because of the activities of militant atheism in opposing the claim of organized religion and the authority deriving from it.

You don't get it even though I have explained in quite simple enough terms. I don't support ANY kind of hate speech. It is irrelevant to me from what position this type of expression derives, it comes from the same basic BS attitude.

Got it?

I am sorry, but we have to do this. Religion (and one particular religion) should not give people authority over us all - whether religious or not.

I think of this as borderline CTism, but whatever...

...You have to rely on the militants to help you achieve the goal of making sure Religion (and one particular religion) does not give people authority over us all - whether religious or not?
Good luck with that.
It does not matter through which position this authority to dictate the terms of our collective existence, it amounts to the same thing.
The best we are able to do is use what available freedom we each have to dictate our OWN authority over our OWN self, regardless of the external dictation taking place.

Like I said, remove all religion from the face of the earth and you will still have the same problems humankind have always had. Bullies, murderers, liars, cheats, manipulators, blah blah blah. Atheism as a position is unable and ill equipped to change anything. It does not even have the ability to help an individual with honest self evaluation and introspection. it's sole purpose is to oppose all form of theism. hoo rah and woopty doo.

As far as I can see, you are here arguing with us. You can believe whatever you like (it seems to be what we believe, too) but asking us to desist from active combatting of the claims of religion and the authority it derives from that seems to be forcing your views down our throats. .

Not at all. You can do as you please, just don't demand that I am (or can only be) an atheist or a theist. Okay.
Oh - and if I catch you hate-speaking I will jump on your case. Understood?

That seems to be the nub. You seem to have a problem with atheism in its work of opposing and debunking the claims of religion and the authority it derives from that. You use a criticism of strong language as a rationale. That is tough. Strong language is what we get in debate, but that doesn't invalidate the need for the debate.

Hello? What do you think I am doing right now with you?

One can debate without hatespeak.

One cannot with integrity, support hatespeakers within the ranks and turn a blind eye in allowing hateful individuals to go unchallenged within ones ranks.

But you do, therefore, I am not one of you.

You can choose to refuse to call yourself an atheist and distance yourself from that activity if you choose. But you are here apparently telling us of your disapproval. Noted. But we cannot allow ourselves to swallow your views and share them - if that was your purpose in posting here. That is what you will have to live with - our good right to be atheists and militant ones, too.
I might add that you would be in a better position to correct extreme language in the cause of militant atheism - as I do myself - if you were part of it.

Not really. I don't have to call myself an atheist in order to make a complaint about those type of expressions. Indeed, I tried it for a while and found it makes no difference. The hatespeakers are in controlling influential positions. I am 'a Christian apologist' as far as they are concerned. A soft useless excuse of an atheist in their opinion.

You might not agree with that sentiment (at least outwardly) but remaining silent about such amounts to the same thing as wanting it said.

Thus, whatever. it suits me to have discovered this for what it is and adopt the position which is more suitable to my personality anyway.

Neither theism nor atheism owns me. Got that?

Just to remind you.



See that middle area called "no belief"?