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.
Is not believing in Yetis a thing?
Is not believing in little green men a thing?
Is not believing in my gold plated Porsche 911 a thing?
All you need to be to be an atheist is to not believe in gods. There are different reasons not to believe, either because you do not find religious claims credible (consciously or subconsciously), or because you have considered the position rationally based on what we currently know.
This game about is atheism a belief is a ridiculous attempt to move the burden of proof. But we can not prove atheism is true, we can not prove gods do not exist. And we do not need to, we do not believe because we do not accept the evidence provided by religious people as credible. That is enough to not believe, and that is the position for many atheists.
Atheism only becomes a positive belief when you argue for atheism. What would one expect if there are no gods? Natural forces creating complexity? We have that. For the allegedly improbable things we require an old, large universe. We have that. Is this a better argument than gods? Rationally I say yes, that is why I am an atheist.
Could I be wrong? Yes. But I see no evidence I am.
Since you have considered the existence of Gods, you necessarily possess a Belief Position on it: You believe that the existence of Gods (in the context you define them) is very, very low on The Scale of Probability.
This "Non-Belief" stuff is bogus.
At some point someone said, "I don't believe in X"...as an abbreviated way of saying, "I don't believe in the existence of X".
It stuck...and since then many think having no belief IN the existence of X", equates to having no belief ABOUT the existence of X". It doesn't.
Since you have considered the existence of Gods, you necessarily possess a Belief Position on it: You believe that the existence of Gods (in the context you define them) is very, very low on The Scale of Probability.
This "Non-Belief" stuff is bogus.
At some point someone said, "I don't believe in X"...as an abbreviated way of saying, "I don't believe in the existence of X".
It stuck...and since then many think having no belief IN the existence of X", equates to having no belief ABOUT the existence of X". It doesn't.
How strange - you make a good argument for atheism without intending to.
Yes, a sliding -scale of probability must (on practical terms) reach a point where one believes or not. Though the confidence in that belief or disbelief matches the scale of probability.
Or that's the way it ought to work. So that's fine, but then you think this proves totally the wrong conclusion: This "Non-Belief" stuff is bogus.
And your second point is you eject that not having a belief in this or that = non -belief about it. Generally they would indeed equate. I can't think of how that wouldn't be the case. Care to explain?
How strange - you make a good argument for atheism without intending to.
Yes, a sliding -scale of probability must (on practical terms) reach a point where one believes or not. Though the confidence in that belief or disbelief matches the scale of probability.
Or that's the way it ought to work. So that's fine, but then you think this proves totally the wrong conclusion: This "Non-Belief" stuff is bogus.
And your second point is you eject that not having a belief in this or that = non -belief about it. Generally they would indeed equate. I can't think of how that wouldn't be the case. Care to explain?
He is an atheist. His god is not a deity. He just uses the word god and you don't like it.
Since you have considered the existence of Gods, you necessarily possess a Belief Position on it: You believe that the existence of Gods (in the context you define them) is very, very low on The Scale of Probability.
This "Non-Belief" stuff is bogus.
At some point someone said, "I don't believe in X"...as an abbreviated way of saying, "I don't believe in the existence of X".
It stuck...and since then many think having no belief IN the existence of X", equates to having no belief ABOUT the existence of X". It doesn't.
exactly right. Back to Santa.
Some of us here are talking about what put the toys there. Some of us are here to only fight coke's santa.
Example: Keep in the back of our heads this is a general spirituality forum.
" ... If you are not talking a Coke's Santa god here (it's alive but not with a planning, intelligent, will) you are off topic. Remember the only reason for atheists to be here is in refuting the claim of a theism or religion or at least a spirituality. We are not here to put forward speculative non -theist alternatives. Take them to the science forum and argue them there. I'm not going to keep on explaining this."
anything but that (Bad Santa) is "off topic" means this is not a general spirituality forum. I wonder what category that is?
So You call your thing that put the toys "god" although its not the coke santa god. I don't call it god.
But the above quote about why we are here does show why people are fighting it so hard. It has nothing to do with being consistent with observation. It is only about what they believe about religion. Thats more theist-ist like than atheist-like. When looking at how people are behaving.
That aint just "lack belief".
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-27-2021 at 05:01 AM..
He is an atheist. His god is not a deity. He just uses the word god and you don't like it.
I believe that Goldie has told us he is now a theist. He can correct me on this. I don't like the way he used 'God' to mean 'everything' as it is the same semantic trick that Mystic uses. The 'God' label slapped on your garden gnome, thus proving that God exist.
If the cosmos is intelligent, let him prove it, if not it is better called 'nature'. Applying the venerable Pantheism in fine as it is really turning legitimate awe at nature into a religion. It doesn't make nature intelligent - not without evidence of that. Which Mystic and Goldie both know they don't have, which is why they have to cheat.
Now he (and Goldie here) can call the cosmos of unplanning natural forces anything they want, but (under the Humpty dictum) other people won't because they want to be understood by others. Goldie and Mystic just want to trick them.
You can listen and learn, I don't care. So can they, if they want. But you and Goldie are sunk too deep in anti -atheism that you have forgotten what your argument is even about and it's now personal for you, which is why you in particular just do accusations, canards and slanders, and ignore and deny anything and really just are an abusive stalker.
I don't care because this post was for others so they won't be fooled by twitterlies.
Mystic is at least fighting like a madman to keep his foundering Ark of Belief afloat.
I believe that Goldie has told us he is now a theist. He can correct me on this. I don't like the way he used 'God' to mean 'everything' as it is the same semantic trick that Mystic uses. The 'God' label slapped on your garden gnome, thus proving that God exist.
If the cosmos is intelligent, let him prove it, if not it is better called 'nature'.
Now he (and Goldie here) can call the cosmos of unplanning natural forces anything they want, but (under the Humpty dictum) other people won't because they want to be understood by others. Goldie and Mystic just want to trick them.
You can listen and learn, I don't care. So can they, if they want. But you and Goldie are sunk too deep in anti -atheism that you have forgotten what your argument is even about and it's now personal for you.
Mystic is at least fighting like a madman to keep his foundering Ark of Belief afloat.
His god aint no deity I ever saw.
yes, its semantics. They are using parts of the definition of god that point to something that is responsible for the the things around them. He has strength of evidence and he calls the system god.
so what?
You asked for proof. he gave it. Spacetime, via qed is the fabric of the universe. "Life" is on that fabric and thus the fabric of spacetime, in this region, may be alive.
You need something more than "semantics" and "I don't believe ya" to show where that claim is not reasonable.
I believe that Goldie has told us he is now a theist. He can correct me on this. I don't like the way he used 'God' to mean 'everything' as it is the same semantic trick that Mystic uses. The 'God' label slapped on your garden gnome, thus proving that God exist.
If the cosmos is intelligent, let him prove it, if not it is better called 'nature'.
Why exactly is it better called "nature"? Your preference is not exactly a scientific criterion. We are talking about religion and spirituality which ARE beliefs.
Why exactly is it better called "nature"? Your preference is not exactly a scientific criterion. We are talking about religion and spirituality which ARE beliefs.
well, that and you get a big timeout if you lay out why you believe. Using actual data to from a belief, in a belief forum none the less, doesn't get us anywhere.
Why exactly is it better called "nature"? Your preference is not exactly a scientific criterion. We are talking about religion and spirituality which ARE beliefs.
We know nature exists. We don't know that a divine being exists. So by calling it nature, or the universe, we are being 100% accurate , and not referring to it by a name that may not be accurate and is only a hypothesis.
Why exactly is it better called "nature"? Your preference is not exactly a scientific criterion. We are talking about religion and spirituality which ARE beliefs.
Because that's what it is you silly ol' boob! I swear you could muddy-up gin.
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.
How strange - you make a good argument for atheism without intending to.
I swear you could muddy-up gin.
