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.
No, you're mixing up beliefs, and you're describing Agnosticism.
Atheism is "disbelief in the existence of God or gods."
Agnosticism is (as you mentioned kind of shelving what is not known): "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
As explained in the FAQ (nobody ever reads them anyway) agnosticism is a knowledge -position. "We do not know whether there is a god or not."
Theism or atheism is a belief -position based on agnosticism. Theism - "I do not know (for sure), but I believe..based on the evidence."
Atheism-"I do not know for sure but - after having looked at the evidence, I am not persuaded, so do not believe in the god -claim."
That is why we have ongoing discussions about the evidence. It can look very convincing, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, if you apply science and logic. Which is why they end up getting pooh-pooed and Faith is held up as the best reason for belief.
Now, I hope that you will take the point on board and not revert to the familiar position of "You say that but it isn't what you really think". Often by reference to "There is no God" remarks which ought be taken with the rider "on all the evidence and so far as I can tell" or "That's my personal view (I have to say it's mine, too) but that is not the logical basis or rationale of atheism". And of course can (and usually does) relate to the particular figure of Biblegod rather that any and all God -claims.
P.s Austin Athests have a very good talk on this "Agnosticism" argument which is based on a misrepresentation of atheism.
Wait, what exactly do you think is the "big fat strawman"?
You know, if you accuse someone of logical fallacy without stating what and why - that's logical fallacy itself.
But I am happy you're finally admitting Atheism is religion (legion/group thought) - but you still haven't seen how faith is applied by blindly denying all possible definitions (even logical ones) of all possible gods without even knowing them all.
A common logical fallacy and cognitive distortion is all-or-nothing, either/or, polarized thinking. It's called different things but essentially it's not good - it's what bi-polar ideas are based on - extremes. When you state that one must be EITHER theist OR atheist - that's illogical. One can see aspects of truth in each without believing either entirely - I'm one.
Also, "All have faith, but not all are conscious of having faith." The first principle of philosophy (& what psychology is based on) is that each of us cannot help but think in subjectively limited ways. People who realize this tend to not be as ruled by it as people who don't.Only that you, self-identifying with the Atheist herd, were incorrect in your argument for illogical Atheist beliefs. That's appeal to Authority and I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting facts in your face that you deny to cling to your previous beliefs. I was essentially referring to cognitive dissonance:
Atheists often accuse Theists of this, but I see their hypocrisy.
Again, this doesn't apply - appeal to authority which is illogical. Personally, I believe that Jesus was a good guy - but not the god many made him out to be (despite his teachings not to).Again, please specify exactly what I stated that was "fallacious." I don't think you can, or else you would have. I won't pretend to have invented the wheel, but I will tell you, with great heart ache, that I'm a bit of a lone wolf. I'm surrounded by Theists that are a bit sucked into extreme religion, and yet I've also hung out with Atheists who are anti-religion and for things I'm against. I don't believe as most people do - in fact I don't know a single person who believes as I do on all important (to me) matters.
In my previous post, I explained that you had misunderstood and misrepresented atheism as some extreme Gnostic position, when it is actually a belief -position based on agnosticism. And I have not in any way admitted atheism is a Faith or based on faith. I have said that even if it was a religion....its' rationale would still be valid as it is based on reason and evidence and not Faith.
note it is a common mistake to confuse belief (on reliable evidence -such as my car will start, or reasonable expectation - that my house will not fall down) and confuse it with Faith of the religious kind, which is belief without good evidence or in spite of it.
The 'Muslim' example was not appeal to authority. It was an attempt to debunk atheism on the grounds that we would never believe even in the face of conclusive evidence - which is what you accused us of.
I must also reject your assertion of group -think just because since there are now a lot more of us and we are getting organized, we are getting together. If you are going to dismiss as Groupthink every organization that has meetings and lectures and publishes books, you are going to have to reject almost everything except Misanthropy.
I also reject the claim to Intelligent design. It has been debunked and most tellingly in its Lab -coat costume of I/C at Kitzmiller v Dover. by science and the law.
It remains only to get to the only argument that is really valid - the evidence. And the way the logic works is - agnosticism is not knowing whether there is a god or not, so the persuasive power of the evidence for a god is everything. If it fails to stand up to scrutiny, Not knowing - and therefore logical non -belief is mandatory -remains the valid knowledge and belief position.
I simply do not get the argument from Love. It is (on all evidence) a human social and sexual instinct (Love is a blunderbuss word that gets used for all sorts of things) that has evolved for social, family and partner cohesion. I fail to see anything to support god - belief there.
The cognitive dissonance you may find, dear lady, is ever on the theist side when they find their claims and beliefs soundly debunked (which is what has occurred regularly ever since I started posting here) and they have to fall back on believing in spite of the weight of the evidence or at least lack of any sound supporting evidence for their beliefs.
Two or three of yours have already been debunked and already we are getting the denial by presenting the same debunked claim again and again. I believe this is what cognitive dissonance is.
And the theist or not argument is also false. One believes or not. Those who are in the position of not knowing whether they believe or not must be very small, but in any case, the logical mandate is to NOT believe until they are sure. I think you are misunderstanding -or misusing - the idea of absolute certainties here.
I must say you are giving us an excellent platform for debunking some of the common misrepresentations about atheism. I'm still curious as to whether this is all your own work (impressive, if misguided) or you lifted it from theist apologetics sites. "Ten irrefutable reasons why atheism is wrong" sort of thing.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-30-2017 at 10:10 PM..
Yet, "there is no Santa Clause" and "there is no FSM" are also faith based claims that can not be proved (but can be disproved depending on definitions).
Yes. That's why we use them as god - claim debunkers; there is no better evidence for any of them (they are all made up claims, deliberately or not) God, Santa or the FSM.
The response is often to say that The FSM was made up and nobody Believes it. True, but not the point. Or that the God -figure is much bigger and more ineffable than Santa. Also true and also not the point.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-30-2017 at 09:47 PM..
In my previous post, I explained that you had misunderstood and misrepresented atheism as some extreme Gnostic position, when it is actually a belief -position based on agnosticism. And I have not in any way admitted atheism is a Faith or based on faith. I have said that even if it was a religion....its' rationale would still be valid as it is based on reason and evidence and not Faith.
note it is a common mistake to confuse belief (on reliable evidence -such as my car will start, or reasonable expectation - that my house will not fall down) and confuse it with Faith of the religious kind, which is belief without good evidence or in spite of it.
The 'Muslim' example was not appeal to authority. It was an attempt to debunk atheism on the grounds that we would never believe even in the face of conclusive evidence - which is what you accused us of.
I must also reject your assertion of group -think just because since there are now a lot more of us and we are getting organized, we are getting together. If you are going to dismiss as Groupthink every organization that has meetings and lectures and publishes books, you are going to have to reject almost everything except Misanthropy.
I also reject the claim to Intelligent design. It has been debunked and most tellingly in its Lab -coat costume of I/C at Kitzmiller v Dover. by science and the law.
It remains only to get to the only argument that is really valid - the evidence. And the way the logic works is - agnosticism is not knowing whether there is a god or not, so the persuasive power of the evidence for a god is everything. If it fails to stand up to scrutiny, Not knowing - and therefore logical non -belief is mandatory -remains the valid knowledge and belief position.
I simply do not get the argument from Love. It is (on all evidence) a human social and sexual instinct (Love is a blunderbuss word that gets used for all sorts of things) that has evolved for social, family and partner cohesion. I fail to see anything to support god - belief there.
The cognitive dissonance you may find, dear lady, is ever on the theist side when they find their claims and beliefs soundly debunked (which is what has occurred regularly ever since I started posting here) and they have to fall back on believing in spite of the weight of the evidence or at least lack of any sound supporting evidence for their beliefs.
Two or three of yours have already been debunked and already we are getting the denial by presenting the same debunked claim again and again. I believe this is what cognitive dissonance is.
And the theist or not argument is also false. One believes or not. Those who are in the position of not knowing whether they believe or not must be very small, but in any case, the logical mandate is to NOT believe until they are sure. I think you are misunderstanding -or misusing - the idea of absolute certainties here.
I must say you are giving us an excellent platform for debunking some of the common misrepresentations about atheism. I'm still curious as to whether this is all your own work (impressive, if misguided) or you lifted it from theist apologetics sites. "Ten irrefutable reasons why atheism is wrong" sort of thing.
I would agree with this if we have to limit the definition to an omni-dude in the sky definition. When we move to a description of "god" that would match observations but not match religion's claim, because its not good enough for them, and still deny it because of some strange sortagod notion then your statements here fall short.
Also, I think group think is important when we point out what we are doing that is exactly the same as religion and are saying that the religion is bad for doing it. Its not that we do group think things, its when we are doing the exact same thing but calling them wrong.
Thirdly, you pointed out what I have been pointing out since day one. Anything that every group has should not be equated to a particular belief system. For example meeting places, all groups have them, so that doesn't apply as a distinction of a belief group.
I have been saying since day one; Being a hypocrite, child molester, or general oppressor also fits this notion of "all groups have them" so they should not be used as the 'fires of religion again" type statements. All large groups have them so they also become irrelevant when assigning them to a particular group you don't like.
I file that under "dehumanize the enemy just because we have to even though we do it too."
This, "all groups have them", is probably the biggest reason I lost my fear of religion and began to focus on bad people being bad people. A bad priest is a bad priest a bad atheist is a bad atheist. I don't side with either because of their particular belief and will call the police or handle them each based on their wrong doing.
That looks like it deserves a detailed answer- congrats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I would agree with this if we have to limit the definition to an omni-dude in the sky definition. When we move to a description of "god" that would match observations but not match religion's claim, because its not good enough for them, and still deny it because of some strange sortagod notion then your statements here fall short.
I agree that disbelief in "Omni Dude" as you call it is a bit of a different question from any sorta god or Agnostic -god. In the video I posted, Matt Dillahunty says that 'Does not exist' (on all the evidence) is applied mainly to a particular god -claim, generally Biblegod and the Christian religion. "Any kind" of god we have to be more cautious about and 'don't believe (inadequate evidence)' is probably the better response.
Quote:
Also, I think group think is important when we point out what we are doing that is exactly the same as religion and are saying that the religion is bad for doing it. Its not that we do group think things, its when we are doing the exact same thing but calling them wrong.
We are not saying that religion is bad for doing group -think (2). It is not even our beef that they are doing it on Faith - though that isn't a good reason to believe anything. We say it is bad because it is influential and the influence is bad (1). As to group -think, where the term is meaningful,(there is nothing wrong in like -minded people getting together) we can't all do our own research, so we are reliant on the Expert. But when the Experts are talking demonstrable garbage, that thousands or millions take what they say on Faith is a problem.
Quote:
Thirdly, you pointed out what I have been pointing out since day one. Anything that every group has should not be equated to a particular belief system. For example meeting places, all groups have them, so that doesn't apply as a distinction of a belief group.
Exactly. People getting together, having meetings and publsihing books is not bad in itself, and not to be equated with 'Religion'. When I first started out what...thirty years ago now, by God..atheism wasfragmented, almost silent. What was seen quickly was a crying need for some kind of support for atheists who felt isolated and more for deconverts who had lost their group and missed it. That's why Atheist "Churches" were started - to provide the trappings without the opium -feed.
Quote:
I have been saying since day one; Being a hypocrite, child molester, or general oppressor also fits this notion of "all groups have them" so they should not be used as the 'fires of religion again" type statements. All large groups have them so they also become irrelevant when assigning them to a particular group you don't like.
The point about the bad in religion is that it debunks the claim to the moral high ground that religion lays claim to. It is a major platform of their propaganda. The Badness of atheists is another one. Showing this to be utterly false is both needful and useful. Of course, having bad apples in any group does not discredit the group itself (though having a lot of them and especially at the top would be a problem). That's why the Great Atrocity Debate is irrelevant - as regards which is true; it does not do a thing to show which view is actually correct. Evidence and reason does that.
Quote:
I file that under "dehumanize the enemy just because we have to even though we do it too."
Yes. that is a too tempting ploy in debate, though it is hard not to call unquestioning faith -believers Sheep and woeful apologetics 'stupid'.
Quote:
This, "all groups have them", is probably the biggest reason I lost my fear of religion and began to focus on bad people being bad people. A bad priest is a bad priest a bad atheist is a bad atheist. I don't side with either because of their particular belief and will call the police or handle them each based on their wrong doing.
Again, yes. The problem is not in bad people - we don't ban the group they belong to; we call the police. The problem is when the police can't touch them because of the authority that the group has. Ot at least protesting that the police should not be able to touch them because of the respect we should have for the group, or that the group protests that, because of their beliefs, they should be able to ignore the law and do what they like.
We come up against that regularly in debating a particular kind of Religio with a beef about gay rights or teaching evolution.
(1) there are a number of vids out explaining that. Tracie Harris on Christian Family values is probably the definitive one.
(2) I suspect that this is a theist Rhetorical ploy - accusing us of doing it and then accusing us of accusing them of doing it so they can accuse us of hypocrisy.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-31-2017 at 06:56 AM..
Yes. That's why we use them as god - claim debunkers; there is no better evidence for any of them (they are all made up claims, deliberately or not) God, Santa or the FSM.
The response is often to say that The FSM was made up and nobody Believes it. True, but not the point. Or that the God -figure is much bigger and more ineffable than Santa. Also true and also not the point.
That is not really completely true. Many people feel an emotional attachment to The FSM as revealed, and they have to fight this Heart-Felt Faith with logic and doubt. There is always somebody that is willing/capable to believe something.
That looks like it deserves a detailed answer- congrats
I agree that disbelief in "Omni Dude" as you call it is a bit of a different question from any sorta god or Agnostic -god. In the video I posted, Matt Dillahunty says that 'Does not exist' (on all the evidence) is applied mainly to a particular god -claim, generally Biblegod and the Christian religion. "Any kind" of god we have to be more cautious about and 'don't believe (inadequate evidence)' is probably the better response.
We are not saying that religion is bad for doing group -think (2). It is not even our beef that they are doing it on Faith - though that isn't a good reason to believe anything. We say it is bad because it is influential and the influence is bad (1). As to group -think, where the term is meaningful,(there is nothing wrong in like -minded people getting together) we can't all do our own research, so we are reliant on the Expert. But when the Experts are talking demonstrable garbage, that thousands or millions take what they say on Faith is a problem.
Exactly. People getting together, having meetings and publsihing books is not bad in itself, and not to be equated with 'Religion'. When I first started out what...thirty years ago now, by God..atheism wasfragmented, almost silent. What was seen quickly was a crying need for some kind of support for atheists who felt isolated and more for deconverts who had lost their group and missed it. That's why Atheist "Churches" were started - to provide the trappings without the opium -feed.
The point about the bad in religion is that it debunks the claim to the moral high ground that religion lays claim to. It is a major platform of their propaganda. The Badness of atheists is another one. Showing this to be utterly false is both needful and useful. Of course, having bad apples in any group does not discredit the group itself (though having a lot of them and especially at the top would be a problem). That's why the Great Atrocity Debate is irrelevant - as regards which is true; it does not do a thing to show which view is actually correct. Evidence and reason does that.
Yes. that is a too tempting ploy in debate, though it is hard not to call unquestioning faith -believers Sheep and woeful apologetics 'stupid'.
Again, yes. The problem is not in bad people - we don't ban the group they belong to; we call the police. The problem is when the police can't touch them because of the authority that the group has. Ot at least protesting that the police should not be able to touch them because of the respect we should have for the group, or that the group protests that, because of their beliefs, they should be able to ignore the law and do what they like.
We come up against that regularly in debating a particular kind of Religio with a beef about gay rights or teaching evolution.
(1) there are a number of vids out explaining that. Tracie Harris on Christian Family values is probably the definitive one.
(2) I suspect that this is a theist Rhetorical ploy - accusing us of doing it and then accusing us of accusing them of doing it so they can accuse us of hypocrisy.
I said all of this before. its safe to assume that any marketing tactic or rhetoric ploy we accuse theist of doing, our leaders do it too.
I draw the line at with people thinking a belief statement decides how the universe works. or people that think they know enough to decide how reasonable conclusions on the workings of the universe should be taught because of how it effects the marketing of their belief statement.
We can assume that many people will side with people of the same belief because of the belief and not what the person is doing.
Status:
"Before saving for a rainy evening, see your xenial lawyer!"
(set 9 hours ago)
19,607 posts, read 650,458 times
Reputation: 319
It's An Honest And Neutral Universe!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I said all of this before. its safe to assume that any marketing tactic or rhetoric ploy we accuse theist of doing, our leaders do it too.
I draw the line at with people thinking a belief statement decides how the universe works. or people that think they know enough to decide how reasonable conclusions on the workings of the universe should be taught because of how it effects the marketing of their belief statement.
We can assume that many people will side with people of the same belief because of the belief and not what the person is doing.
What should count for much here would be Honesty and Neutrality regardless of Religious Affiliation(s) or otherwise.
Do your job (How The Universe Works ), Honestly And Neutrally, and don't let your Worldview "get in the way"!!
I said all of this before. its safe to assume that any marketing tactic or rhetoric ploy we accuse theist of doing, our leaders do it too.
I draw the line at with people thinking a belief statement decides how the universe works. or people that think they know enough to decide how reasonable conclusions on the workings of the universe should be taught because of how it effects the marketing of their belief statement.
We can assume that many people will side with people of the same belief because of the belief and not what the person is doing.
If that's so, it doesn't matter -as I said on the Rhetoric thread - because we have reason and evidence in support; they don't - and even have to dismiss it and appeal to Faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
That is not really completely true. Many people feel an emotional attachment to The FSM as revealed, and they have to fight this Heart-Felt Faith with logic and doubt. There is always somebody that is willing/capable to believe something.
That could indeed happen, just as the Star wars enthusiasts started the"Force" religion, and some seemed to take it seriously.
Status:
"Before saving for a rainy evening, see your xenial lawyer!"
(set 9 hours ago)
19,607 posts, read 650,458 times
Reputation: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
If that's so, it doesn't matter -as I said on the Rhetoric thread - because we have reason and evidence in support; they don't - and even have to dismiss it and appeal to Faith.
That could indeed happen, just as the Star wars enthusiasts started the"Force" religion, and some seemed to take it seriously.
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.
It's An Honest And Neutral Universe!!
), Honestly And Neutrally, and don't let your Worldview "get in the way"!! 
