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.
The ONLY way one can "lack belief" in something...is to never consider/contemplate and assess the matter.
True.
Quote:
Once one has considered/contemplated something, and made an assessment about it...they necessarily have a "belief position" relative to it.
As with the integer scale: Positive--Neutral--Negative.
Quote:
The only way a Atheist could "lack belief" is if they never considered the matter as to whether any God(s) exist.
Then, they would technically be Atheist...but they would not even know it.
Usually lacking belief leads to either neutrality or search. You don't just sit on your duff like some King requiring subjects bring you material to dismiss or confirm.
Quote:
So, logically...once one takes anything under consideration, they necessarily have a belief about it.
Yes. Anchovies are okay, just not everyday.
Quote:
No Atheist on this board can reasonably claim they "lack belief" relative to the issue of whether or not God(s) exist.
This wouldn't be a problem so much if it weren't coupled with anti-agnosticism. So, it's "Bring me proof... just make sure it's origins relate to naturalism or I will".
Quote:
That "lack belief" way of defining Atheism...is just a bogus cop-out that some Atheists use so they don't have to own their position on the matter.
Sometimes worldviews are utilized as a means to an end/platform.
No, we are not here to once again talk about your opinion, question-begging and word games, we are here to talk about atheism. And we have met the burden of proof. Now if you want to call our evidence 'God', that is just a label that explains nothing. If you want to add something else to our evidence, then that puts the burden is on you.
But not here, you have a thread of your own to present that extra evidence.
Or the science forum.
How does your label differ from mine and just exactly how does it explain the evidence is NOT of God???
I lack belief in your claims. how do our exchanges go with my lack of belief?
Thats what most lack of belief looks like.
what is going on here is more than just lack of belief. Its a belief that all god claims need to be stopped.
they really need top prove why that is. Its not a negative claim.
I think it is, but it is fiddling the meanings so that 'atheist' means 'someone who never thought about the god -claim'. Which is clearly rubbish by excluding those who have thought about the god -claim and rejected it. They are as atheist as any person who is capable of thinking about it but does not find the claim adequately supported (by evidence and reason).
Gldnrule will do himself no good by trying to make out that anyone who considers the god -claim and rejects is is not an atheist. Of course they are, even if they adopt the disguise -name 'Bright'. Which I for one won't touch.
p.s Arach, the topic is Not about what atheists decide to do about being atheist. Supporting the continued influence of religion on society, wanting to eliminate the influence of religion on society, or not caring either way - they are still, by definition, atheist if they do not believe in any god - whether they have thought about it or not.
No, we are not here to once again talk about your opinion, question begging and word games, we are here to talk about atheism. And we have met the burden of proof. Now if you want to call our evidence 'God', that is just a label that explains nothing. If you want to add something else to our evidence, then that puts the burden is on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
How does your label differ from mine and just exactly how does it explain the evidence is NOT of God???
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Amalekite 1Sam15
Can you demonstrate evidence of god Mystic?
Well, at a minimum, I think simply being WHY we and everything else even exists qualifies, as does being WHY there are "laws" governing how everything functions instead of chaos. Why would you disagree?
Well, at a minimum, I think simply being WHY we and everything else even exists qualifies, as does being WHY there are "laws" governing how everything functions instead of chaos. Why would you disagree?
How does your label differ from mine and just exactly how does it explain the evidence is NOT of God???
Your God is Napi, the Great Creator, also the God of the Blackfoot and Blackfeet nations. Under your own rules you must accept that your God is not Napi until you can prove otherwise. By the way Christ doesn't exist in that belief.
Why don't you refer him by his real name? Napi is Reality.
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.
