What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

[zippy2006]

Why do you think atheists are irrational?

My point was that I do not believe that atheists tend to be irrational to the extent of seeing sufficient evidence and not believing. I suppose I could be wrong. Other than that, it depends on the atheist. Some are more rational than others.

 

[Belk]

Ha, you think atheists exist who believe that they have sufficient evidence to believe in God but nevertheless do not believe in him? Apparently you think atheists are more irrational than I do. ...It seems that you are willing to say almost anything to support your strange position.

I think it is possible, yes. Do you have an actual rebuttal?

 

[bhsmte]

My point was that I do not believe that atheists tend to be irrational to the extent of seeing sufficient evidence and not believing. I suppose I could be wrong. Other than that, it depends on the atheist. Some are more rational than others.

Your post seemed to indicate you feel atheists are irrational; "Apparently you think atheists are more irrational than I do."

Just curious what you base this on.

 

[zippy2006]

I think it is possible, yes. Do you have an actual rebuttal?

You have no case. You reject my description of atheists based on a performative self-contradiction.

If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition, then they see that it ought to be believed. If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition and does not believe it, then they contradict themselves. They see that something ought to be believed and at the same time do not believe it.

When you need to claim that atheists tend to contradict themselves as a way to reject a description of atheism, you're really running out of ideas!

 

[bhsmte]

You have no case. You reject my description of atheists based on a performative self-contradiction.

If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition, then they see that it ought to be believed. If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition and does not believe it, then they contradict themselves. They see that something ought to be believed and at the same time do not believe it.

When you need to claim that atheists tend to contradict themselves as a way to reject a description of atheism, you're really running out of ideas!

Some folks, are quite capable (from a psychological standpoint) of compartmentalizing, to this degree.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It's explained right there in my post.

No, it's not. You have asserted that I've committed a fallacy, however you haven't said which fallacy and where I committed it specifically.

So, which fallacy, and where?

To someone who prefers not to believe it? I seriously doubt it.

I prefer to believe that which is true. If god really exists, then I would prefer to believe that. If he does not exist, then I would prefer to believe that.

What one prefers to believe is irrelevant though, what matters is what beliefs are justified. Without evidence, I have no reason to accept that a god exists. That means regardless of what the truth is, the only intellectually honest position I can take is to withhold belief until the evidence is shown.

Then you won't mind my saying it again...I don't believe it.

That's an amazing display of arrogance.

It takes a lot of gall to assert you know more about someone's beliefs and motivations than the actual person who holds those beliefs and motivations.

Again, you aren't paying attention, it's ll there in my post.

Refer to the first section above

 

[bhsmte]

No, it's not. You have asserted that I've committed a fallacy, however you haven't said which fallacy and where I committed it specifically.

So, which fallacy, and where?



I prefer to believe that which is true. If god really exists, then I would prefer to believe that. If he does not exist, then I would prefer to believe that.

What one prefers to believe is irrelevant though, what matters is what beliefs are justified. Without evidence, I have no reason to accept that a god exists. That means regardless of what the truth is, the only intellectually honest position I can take is to withhold belief until the evidence is shown.



That's an amazing display of arrogance.

It takes a lot of gall to assert you know more about someone's beliefs and motivations than the actual person who holds those beliefs and motivations.



Refer to the first section above

Don't you love it when they read minds?

 

[Dave Ellis]

"The fool says in his heart there is no God." Since I am already committed to believing the bible, where does that take me?
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly." I have already bent the heck right out of that rule. But no more.

A line saying essentially "the people who don't believe what's in this book are dumb" isn't exactly all that meaningful.

Especially when the only way to accept what's in the book requires unjustified leaps of logic and blind faith.

 

[bhsmte]

A line saying essentially "the people who don't believe what's in this book are dumb" isn't exactly all that meaningful.

Especially when the only way to accept what's in the book requires unjustified leaps of logic and blind faith.

That is called; protecting one's faith and is a crude defense mechanism to do so. Some theists, need to negatively label those, who disagree with them, it brings a temporary relief and comfort.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it's not.

It is.

I prefer to believe that which is true. If god really exists, then I would prefer to believe that. If he does not exist, then I would prefer to believe that.

What one prefers to believe is irrelevant though, what matters is what beliefs are justified. Without evidence, I have no reason to accept that a god exists. That means regardless of what the truth is, the only intellectually honest position I can take is to withhold belief until the evidence is shown.

Again, I seriously doubt it.

That's an amazing display of arrogance.

I still don't believe it.

Refer to the first section above

Refer to the reply to the section above.

 

[Belk]

You have no case. You reject my description of atheists based on a performative self-contradiction.

If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition, then they see that it ought to be believed. If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition and does not believe it, then they contradict themselves. They see that something ought to be believed and at the same time do not believe it.

When you need to claim that atheists tend to contradict themselves as a way to reject a description of atheism, you're really running out of ideas!

Do tell.

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is.

Simply labelling something fallacy doesn't make it so.

I've asked you to identify the fallacy and you've failed to do so.

My point stands.

Again, I seriously doubt it.

I still don't believe it

Then you're arguing from a position of unjustified arrogance or wilful dishonesty.

Again, my points stand.

 

[The Times]

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No it is not a legitimate question, rather a heartful, intentional and wilful attack on the Christian religion.

For one to ask a comparative question, one must be looking for the best answer. For example if I compare insurances for the cheapest quote, I'm intent on shopping for the best deal right?

So I must be looking and considering the best answer for the question, for this is an honest persuite. An Athiest isn't looking for an honest answer and neither is their question an honest one, rather the aim is to peg all the false religions against Christianity, in an effort to contaminate and to play down Christianities pearl of good price so to speak.

The Athiests use this line of questioning in an effort to defame Christianity and this is their calling out as the many dishonest advocates of the Devil. For the Devil is the Father of lies and his seed certainly use his line of questions and reasoning.

So in other words, you can't think of a reason why the gods of other religions should be ruled out in favour of the Christian god....

 

[Freodin]

Presumably you meant "who believe there are."

No, it seems that I meant to type "who believe that there are", and missed the "there". Typos do happen.

But you are mistaken, for my definition does not exclude those who believe there are sufficient reasons to reject the existence of God. Consider the two compatible claims:

1. There are insufficient reasons to believe in God.
2. There are sufficient reasons to reject the existence of God.

These are perfectly compatible. Similarly, I can say that there are insufficient reasons to believe there is an elephant in the room, and there are sufficient reasons to reject the existence of an elephant in the room.

I might have phrased it a little vaguely in my post - sorry, it was late and I am in a lot of pain right now - but I did address this in my post. The argument was not between sufficient reasons against God existing and sufficient reasons for God lacking.

As I said: "...sufficient reasons to reject the existence of God, topping sufficient reasons to believe in God."
Meaning: there are both sufficient reasons for and against God, and the person, for whatever reasons, prefers the against side. Such a person would not think there are no sufficient reasons for God, and still be an atheist.

Beyond that, I don't think the claim that infants are atheists is even remotely tenable.

If you consider the concept of "holding a (positive) belief" as a component of the term in question, and consider that "holding a belief" is limited to entities that are capable of holding beliefs - conscious living beings - then there are only two potential options: one either has such a belief, or one does not. Atheists are those people who do not have such a belief. Babies, if they don't have such a belief, fall into this group.

You wanted to know what it was that all atheists have in common. That is it. Why do you still refuse?

 

[just a believing guy]

Wrath is not a sign of love. If that is the kind of love that you are meant to show, the kind of love that reflects your God... I would advise you to reconsider it.

God does not show His wrath anymore. Even if He did, it would not be so different from let's say your mom punnishing you for not doing your chores.

 

[just a believing guy]

I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to my view of your lack of understanding.

A picture is worth a thousand words. And what this picture is telling me is that people who buy the Bible are one with God: they are in Him and He is in them. This is what I understand. You atheists are outnumbered by a great deal, and no definitions of atheism will ever change this I hope.

 

[Freodin]

God does not show His wrath anymore. Even if He did, it would not be so different from let's say your mom punnishing you for not doing your chores.

Don't tell me that... tell that to Section9+1.

You know, this is one of the other things about "Christianity" that... how to phrase it... does annoy me a little.

You are having a conversation with a Christian, talking and arguing about certain points, back and forth... and suddenly a different Christian chimes in to tell you, the unbeliever "No, you are wrong. It is completely different from what the first Christians says."
They criticise/correct you on a position that another Christians does indeed hold. But they (mostly) never bother to address the other Christian directly.

So what is an unbeliever to think? Who is he to believe? The Christian who tells him A? The Christian who tells him NOT-A?

 

[just a believing guy]

Don't tell me that... tell that to Section9+1.

You know, this is one of the other things about "Christianity" that... how to phrase it... does annoy me a little.

You are having a conversation with a Christian, talking and arguing about certain points, back and forth... and suddenly a different Christian chimes in to tell you, the unbeliever "No, you are wrong. It is completely different from what the first Christians says."
They criticise/correct you on a position that another Christians does indeed hold. But they (mostly) never bother to address the other Christian directly.

So what is an unbeliever to think? Who is he to believe? The Christian who tells him A? The Christian who tells him NOT-A?

That is why there are many churches / denominations.

 

[Freodin]

A picture is worth a thousand words. And what this picture is telling me is that people who buy the Bible are one with God: they are in Him and He is in them. This is what I understand.

Hey, I alone own at least four Bibles. Inherited, gifted, pressed on me by missionaries.
And here I am... an atheist! Buying bibles, even by bulk, doesn't make you a believer. It isn't a gateway for or to God. Many current atheists will even tell you that it was reading the Bible was what crashed their former faith.

You atheists are outnumbered by a great deal, and no definitions of atheism will ever change this I hope.

In that regard, you Christians are also outnumbered by a great deal. So what?