Moral obligations for atheists (delusion, meaning, believe, debate)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That right there is your major mistake. It is NOT a simple concept. Belief is a state of mind about EXISTING Reality that is not tied to FACT. It has polarity and has no conclusive fact behind it that is why it is a BELIEF, pro or con. Facts have no con. So either it is a fact and the state of BELIEF pro or con has no relevance or it is something you BELIEVE, pro or con. The disingenuous use of disbelief in the semantic logic terpsichore around the ontology of our EXISTING Reality is not just a debasement of logic, disingenuous, and wrong, it is a hateful and completely unwarranted deception (and for many atheists and others here apparently a convincing self-deception). As you have just admitted, it is NOT a FACT about Reality, therefore that is your BELIEF about what exists in Reality. How can it not be??? It seems atheists are so enamored with their desire to not have to prove their beliefs about Reality they think using a different way of stating it automatically invokes the cover of logic that by deliberate misapplication somehow absolves them of the requirement so they can assume what they believe is fact until someone proves it wrong. That rule can be applied to many things not known to exist, but it cannot be applied against the question of the ontology of Reality which undeniably EXISTS. Predictions about the state of Reality at some future date are in the class of issues that are not known to exist. This seems to be the primary confusion about the logic of disbelief. Disbelieving in what may or may not exist now or in the future is a vastly different process from determining the ontology (status) of an EXISTING Reality because what you cannot prove conclusively can only BE a belief, all BS about claims or non-claims notwithstanding. Anyway, what the hell is so difficult about accepting your beliefs about existing Reality as BELIEFS until conclusively verified just like theist beliefs, instead of wanting to pretend it must be the DEFAULT to annoy and aggravate theists. Your state of BELIEF either pro or con does not constitute an assertion of fact, just your state of BELIEF about something, pro or con. That's it! No need for proof unless you insist on coercing anyone else to accept your state of mind about it (BELIEF) as fact. It is your BELIEF until you can establish it as fact. With our indisputable Creator, Reality, there can be no question of existence, just ontology which is relegated to the status of BELIEF until conclusively established.Please don't because so can I. The atheist allergy to accepting their BELIEF about the ontology of Reality as a mere BELIEF is powerful and they are tenacious in their desire to pretend they have the upper hand over theists by demanding their BELIEF about our EXISTING Creator (Reality) be considered fact until proven otherwise. They apparently have even convinced some philosophically uninformed theists.
You know, for all your gobbledy guke ( because CD won't let you spell it the correct way, LOL) , and attempt at using big words to mask the fact that you aren't actually saying anything of substance, you cannot alter the fact that I have shown through examples that it is not the responsibility of atheists to specify the lack of evidence for gods. It's YOUR role in this debate. It is not the role of an atheist to substantiate their disbelief with examples of a lack of evidence on the theist's part. You are smart enough to grasp this. That you choose to ignore this is telling , and indicative of the value of attempting honest debate with you.
You know, for all your gobbledy guke ( because CD won't let you spell it the correct way, LOL) , and attempt at using big words to mask the fact that you aren't actually saying anything of substance, you cannot alter the fact that I have shown through examples that it is not the responsibility of atheists to specify the lack of evidence for gods. It's YOUR role in this debate. It is not the role of an atheist to substantiate their disbelief with examples of a lack of evidence on the theist's part. You are smart enough to grasp this. That you choose to ignore this is telling , and indicative of the value of attempting honest debate with you.
::Sigh:: You are MISAPPLYING the logic rule to an EXISTING Reality, not something that may or may not exist! Did you even bother to read my rebuttals of your examples? Clearly not. We are NOT debating the existence of gods. We are deciding the status of our one and only EXISTING Creator, Reality. We are trying to decide whether or not it qualifies as GOD or something else. If it qualifies as God and can be established to be FACT, atheism is dead in the water. We cannot establish that. If it can be established as FACT that it does not qualify as God, theism is dead in the water. We cannot establish that as FACT. Therefore atheism and theism (however defined or semantically twisted) are BOTH BELIEFS. Your logic rule does NOT apply to this issue.
::Sigh:: You are MISAPPLYING the logic rule to an EXISTING Reality, not something that may or may not exist! Did you even bother to read my rebuttals of your examples? Clearly not. We are NOT debating the existence of gods. We are deciding the status of our one and only EXISTING Creator, Reality. We are trying to decide whether or not it qualifies as GOD or something else. If it qualifies as God and can be established to be FACT, atheism is dead in the water. We cannot establish that. If it can be established as FACT that it does not qualify as God, theism is dead in the water. We cannot establish that as FACT. Therefore atheism and theism (however defined or semantically twisted) are BOTH BELIEFS. Your logic rule does NOT apply to this issue.
You are moving the goalposts from previous posts, so you would do well to save your "sighs". I can agree that both are beliefs, but one is a belief in something without solid evidence (theism). The other is a belief that evidence is lacking to support the claim (atheism). The alternate term for believing that evidence is lacking to support a claim is DISbelief in the claim , on the basis of a lack of evidence.
You though, are trying to claim that belief without firm evidence is as credulous as DISbelief in the evidence and the claim , and that both are equally valid polar opposites. They are not. One makes a leap without adequate fact, the other chooses not to leap specifically because enough facts are lacking. No sensible person equates the two.
So please stick with what you are saying in prior posts before choosing to go around sighing for dramatic effect.
You are moving the goalposts from previous posts, so you would do well to save your "sighs". I can agree that both are beliefs, but one is a belief in something without solid evidence (theism). The other is a belief that evidence is lacking to support the claim (atheism). The alternate term for believing that evidence is lacking to support a claim is DISbelief in the claim, on the basis of a lack of evidence.
Claim, schmaim!!! Sheesh! I never would have expected anywhere near this level of intransigence about the misapplication of the logic rule. The rule cannot be applied to what DOES EXIST, period. So any and all claims for evidence of existence are bogus because that ASSUMES a fortiori nonexistence as a FACT, but it is merely a BELIEF as you freely admit.
Quote:
You though, are trying to claim that belief without firm evidence is as credulous as DISbelief in the evidence and the claim , and that both are equally valid polar opposites. They are not. One makes a leap without adequate fact, the other chooses not to leap specifically because enough facts are lacking. No sensible person equates the two.
You are just filled with sigh-inducing misunderstanding. There can be no such thing as " firm evidence" (aka FACTS) about the ontology of what is being discovered about an EXISTING phenomenon without firmly assigning the evidence to one or the other BELIEF about it when there is no conclusive way to do that because they are BOTH BELIEFS, NOT FACTS.
Quote:
So please stick with what you are saying in prior posts before choosing to go around sighing for dramatic effect.
I have not changed anything I have said in any of my exchanges with you but you have presented many sigh-inducing arguments indicating you do not comprehend why you are misapplying the logic rule.
ok change what I said. You lack belief in what I said about personality types because you don't know enough. I am not doing your leg work for you. And you proved my point. You are making a claim that doesn't fit the information far more than I am. People that don't know really are not in a position to say things like "lacks any credible evidence"
Yes, I can prove where you said something, at least, woefully incomplete. In atheism and theist we will have the exact same personality types in them. It can't be any other way because we are all people. You are making the assertion that goes against what we know, not me. You have to prove your point.
I also point to what you pointed out ... there are pantheist atheist, Buddhist atheist, living universe atheist, all kinds of belief that are far more "faith" based than even my beliefs. Heck, I even consider mystic god atheist because it is not any deity I ever saw. Its not a deity at all. IMO.
Is it moral for people to think that (the bolded) as opposed to saying it?
Is it moral for people to think that (the bolded) as opposed to saying it?
I get ya, and you are correct. I am a bit of a jerk, I get that.
Again, for me, its not really about how people say it. We are all guilty of human frailties to a degree. Thats why I am big on actually putting in what we know to see who is doing what. Who is really a nice person and dead wrong.
One of my base claims (I call axioms) is "lacking belief" because we are not sure what the person said is fine and dandy. In fact, its really is the best default position.
Its not best "default" to argue people from that position. What I mean by that is it not "moral" to not go and learn about what a person is saying and yet still tell them "I lack belief in what you say" or "Thats an assertion you have to prove."
Lets put something in there to demonstrate the difference. For example, I say A^2 + B^2=C^2.
When a person tells me, that is arguing for the point of "lack of belief in it", that what I said is "assertion and you have prove that", I am sorry eylnn, at what point to we get to say "enough, its not an "assertion", you don't know what you are talking about?"
Remember now, I am not talking about the regular person that says "I lack belief in that because I don't know.". And they stop right there. I am fine with with that type. Its not "moral" to tell people, "The Pythagoras' Theorem is plausible but I don't don't see any credible evidence for people to think that. You are "enabling" believers in it by telling them what it actually means."
Claim, schmaim!!! Sheesh! I never would have expected anywhere near this level of intransigence about the misapplication of the logic rule. The rule cannot be applied to what DOES EXIST, period. So any and all claims for evidence of existence are bogus because that ASSUMES a fortiori nonexistence as a FACT, but it is merely a BELIEF as you freely admit.
You are just filled with sigh-inducing misunderstanding. There can be no such thing as " firm evidence" (aka FACTS) about the ontology of what is being discovered about an EXISTING phenomenon without firmly assigning the evidence to one or the other BELIEF about it when there is no conclusive way to do that because they are BOTH BELIEFS, NOT FACTS. I have not changed anything I have said in any of my exchanges with you but you have presented many sigh-inducing arguments indicating you do not comprehend why you are misapplying the logic rule.
It is ironic to be accused of misunderstanding the rule of logic by someone who has shown they can't grasp the fundamental and qualitative difference between belief in something despite not having evidence and a belief that there is no evidence. But I must say, we are now done. You join only 2 other groups of posters I have ever found to "not be worth it". The first was 911 conspiracy theorists when I first starting participating in these sites. No logic could penetrate their paranoia . The second was religious fundamentalists on evolution discussions. No facts could penetrate their religious shield . Now there is you. Nothing can get through your desperately held belief . You reject all examples of normal logic because it does not say what you wish, and instead seemingly operate from a self invented rule that " the more big words I use the smarter what I claim seems and the more sense it will make". Either that, or you just deliberately try to confuse and obfuscate as a substitute for substantive thought
I will let others spend the next 13 years arguing with you on the same issue you cannot grasp the logic on. I have better things to do. I will also let you have the last word here, since I see no reason to get in a tit for tat exchange with someone I have dismissed as a serious poster worth consideration.
You make a claim about personality types, tell me to research them, and when I tell you its not my job to do research to support your claims you say you aren't doing my legwork? It's not MY legwork, it is yours. Support your claim or not, doesn't matter to me. But don't pretend it is MY job to come up with facts to support YOUR claim.
As to the point about personality types, this is irrelevant. The point isn't the personality type, but how they chose between belief and disbelief. You have done nothing to show that type A theists use the same mindset and thought patterns as type A atheists. Not even close. There is no "we" anywhere that knows that the same personality types use the same mindset and thought patterns to decide between theism and atheism. If there were , YOU could and would offer the proof instead of dodging the request to prove your claim by trying to insist I do the "legwork".
I am not dodging anything Nate. What I am doing is seeing you be pretty certain in your statements. certain enough to me that you claim a basic understanding of people is an assertion. I, maybe its a little rude, that's true enough, am holding my ground on what I am talking about to demonstrate what I mean.
There is a difference between how atheist express atheism (the definition). Some of us are controlled by our statement of belief about god as deeply as some theists'.
Ok now ... lets just stay on the claim. "People actions are defined by personality types". Example "Cluster-b". Basically, emotional vs logic and any metal state that they are. "Personality types and disorders" is not relevant is dead wrong. Its the Macro explanation and mechanism for what we see people doing the things they do. Thinking of like saying "He is limping because he hurt is foot."
Look at people that follow "faith" more than "logic" or how they "feel" vs "commonsense". That descriptor is not based on what they believe nate. Its based on people being people.
Look at atheist like Buddhist. They are atheist by definition. But reincarnation and rebirth is as much "faith based" and emotional as some theist theist belief to me. Many people that are theist in the states would be in a Buddhist in a Buddhist region. They would believe it just like they believe in Jesus in the states. Because they are same person.
Thats such a basic statement, you are the one actually making the the "assertion" that is countering what we see.
It is ironic to be accused of misunderstanding the rule of logic by someone who has shown they can't grasp the fundamental and qualitative difference between belief in something despite not having evidence and a belief that there is no evidence. But I must say, we are now done. You join only 2 other groups of posters I have ever found to "not be worth it". The first was 911 conspiracy theorists when I first starting participating in these sites. No logic could penetrate their paranoia . The second was religious fundamentalists on evolution discussions. No facts could penetrate their religious shield . Now there is you. Nothing can get through your desperately held belief . You reject all examples of normal logic because it does not say what you wish, and instead seemingly operate from a self invented rule that " the more big words I use the smarter what I claim seems and the more sense it will make". Either that, or you just deliberately try to confuse and obfuscate as a substitute for substantive thought
I will let others spend the next 13 years arguing with you on the same issue you cannot grasp the logic on. I have better things to do. I will also let you have the last word here, since I see no reason to get in a tit for tat exchange with someone I have dismissed as a serious poster worth consideration.
well, again ... its like a person saying I am closed minded and rude because I say "Yeah, we are warming up now and you are "more" wrong for saying we are not".
or
"man, how ironic that you say "lets look at all the evidence then you say .... "no, it doesn't look like geological activity is causing it.""
Its just not black and white.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
