True atheists?

[3sigma]

I already told you. To "lack a belief" implies ignorance to such a belief. Once you have knowledge of its existence, you unconsciously AND consciously internalize beliefs about it based on your foundational philosophical worldview.

This meta-belief nonsense is pure semantic subterfuge. The assertion in question is that your God is real. I and other atheists don’t believe that assertion—simple as that. Phrase that concept how you will then answer the question. Which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?

1. Atheism – not believing in a God for which there is no sound evidence.
2. Theism – unshakeably believing in a God without any sound evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever.

 

[Greg1234]

He's right. Atheism is simply lack of belief in god. Different atheists have different opinions about the origins of religion.

No it isn't.

And I'm not going to pin point each atheist's personal belief for rejecting the competence of the writers. The belief regarding the function and origin of religion in atheism is proclaimed well and widely enough. The origin of man and the stage embodying the subtlest form of human ignorance also has a good enough distribution rate by your kin.

 

[Jig]

This meta-belief nonsense is pure semantic subterfuge. The assertion in question is that your God is real. I and other atheists don’t believe that assertion—simple as that. Phrase that concept how you will then answer the question. Which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?

1. Atheism – not believing in a God for which there is no sound evidence.
2. Theism – unshakeably believing in a God without any sound evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever.

I'd put it this why:

1. Atheism - believing God does not exist based on how the evidence is interpreted.
2. Theism - believing God does exist based on how the evidence is interpreted.

Both are philosophical conclusions.

 

[Greg1234]

This meta-belief nonsense is pure semantic subterfuge. The assertion in question is that your God is real. I and other atheists don’t believe that assertion—simple as that. Phrase that concept how you will then answer the question. Which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?

1. Atheism – not believing in a God for which there is no sound evidence.
2. Theism – unshakeably believing in a God without any sound evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever.

Its not about evidence. Or can you not see the man, the light in the sky or hear the voice on the radio. There is only the will for materialism. Theism then, is merely not belieing that life can be assembled through stochastic processes, for which there is no evidence (sans sound).

Simply not believing that biblical writers were incompetent. An assertion for which there is no "sound evidence".

Materialism is not based on "sound evidence". You're only kidding yourself.

 

[Jig]

No, to lack belief implies that I do not believe that thing. Whatever it is. I lack belief in faeries at the bottom of the garden.

So it's not that you believe God doesn't exist, you just don't have a belief about the matter.

In which case, you cannot reject God nor say Christians are wrong. This would imply you have a belief in the matter in which you claim to have a lack of.

Not at all. You really don't know how atheists think, do you?

Do all atheists claim to have a lack of belief? Or do some claim to have a belief against the existence of God? Who is right and who is wrong?

No, I have formed an opinion based on evidence (or in this case, lack thereof). But whether or not I accepted Christian doctrine, I lack any belief in god. Period.

Opinion = a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

No choice involved. I don't think you can really choose your beliefs.

I chose to believe in the Gospel message when I was 20 years old. I didn't believe in it prior.

But I am an atheist - I lack belief in gods.

Then what are you doing debating against Christians if you lack any beliefs about our God??

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So it's not that you believe God doesn't exist, you just don't have a belief about the matter.

No, I lack belief in God.

In which case, you cannot reject God nor say Christians are wrong. This would imply you have a belief in the matter in which you claim to have a lack of.

What do you mean reject god? How can I reject something I don't believe in? And when have I said Christians are wrong?

Do all atheists claim to have a lack of belief? Or do some claim to have a belief against the existence of God? Who is right and who is wrong?

Yes, some atheists are strong atheists and claim that god does not exist. Neither is "right" or "wrong." They just have different opinions.

Opinion = a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

?

I chose to believe in the Gospel message when I was 20 years old. I didn't believe in it prior.

Bully for you.

Then what are you doing debating against Christians if you lack any beliefs about our God??

Why not? Why do I have to have a belief in god to argue with Christians? I find christianity a peculiar set of beliefs, and christians make many claims that are provably wrong. My opinion is that your god does not exist and you're all deluding yourselves. BYMMVOC

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

No it isn't.

Actually, it is. How would you know? I'm the atheist, not you.

And I'm not going to pin point each atheist's personal belief for rejecting the competence of the writers.

Bully for you.

The belief regarding the function and origin of religion in atheism is proclaimed well and widely enough.

Prove it.

The origin of man and the stage embodying the subtlest form of human ignorance also has a good enough distribution rate by your kin.

Sorry. This sentence makes no sense. Please try again in English.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I'd put it this why:

1. Atheism - believing God does not exist based on how the evidence is interpreted.
2. Theism - believing God does exist based on how the evidence is interpreted.

Both are philosophical conclusions.

Actually, this is false. Most atheists don't believe god doesn't exist. And theists have no evidence for their god - merely opinion.

 

[Greg1234]

Actually, it is. How would you know? I'm the atheist, not you.

An atheist is a human. Superiority is not recognized. You have beliefs.

Prove it.

Prove assertions made by atheists entail religion arising through a time of greater mental aptitude, reliable sources or through higher faculties (goat herder references, bronze age mapping is automatically negated).

Sorry. This sentence makes no sense. Please try again in English.

How about your need for an explanation is addressed instead.

The origin of man[Man's origin, beginning commencement.]and the stage embodying [the stage at which human ignorance allegedly began to take shape as a transitional.] the subtlest form of human ignorance[the first traces of ignorance tied to being a human] also has a good enough distribution rate by your kin.[is promulgated at a rate sufficient enough to be detected]

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

An atheist is a human. Superiority is not recognized. You have beliefs.

Sure. But I have no belief in gods.

Prove assertions made by atheists entail religion arising through a time of greater mental aptitude, reliable sources or through higher faculties (goat herder references, bronze age mapping is automatically negated).

Try again, in English.

You made a claim. Apparently you can't support it. I win.

How about your need for an explanation is addressed instead.

Most of what you write is incomprehensible.

The origin of man[Man's origin, beginning commencement.]and the stage embodying [the stage at which human ignorance allegedly began to take shape as a transitional.] the subtlest form of human ignorance[the first traces of ignorance tied to being a human] also has a good enough distribution rate by your kin.[is promulgated at a rate sufficient enough to be detected]

Doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Greg1234]

Sure. But I have no belief in gods.

You have beliefs regarding that presented.

Try again, in English.

You made a claim. Apparently you can't support it. I win.

Because you supplemented and supported the void created through the negation of the other side of the argument.

We're both winners!

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You have beliefs regarding that presented.



Because you supplemented and supported the void created through the negation of the other side of the argument.

We're both winners!

No, I think you're a random phrase generator.

 

[pgp_protector]

To believe in true dogmatic atheism one must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist. This is quite foolish.

Yet, I see this CF faith(less) icon floating around the forums.

I bet the vast majority (if not all) of these supposed atheists are actually masked agnostics. Why are they afraid to call themselves agnostics?

Because
1) They're not afraid
2) They don't believe in any god.
Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

To believe in true dogmatic atheism one must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist. This is quite foolish.

I would agree.

Yet, I see this CF faith(less) icon floating around the forums.

Um, nope. I don't think so.

I bet the vast majority (if not all) of these supposed atheists are actually masked agnostics. Why are they afraid to call themselves agnostics?

Why this obsession to get atheists to claim to be agnostics? We're atheists. Plain and simple. Some are strong atheists (God does not exist); most are weak atheists (we don't believe God exists); and some are agnostics (we don't know if God exists, or we don't know if we can know God exists).

Why this passion on the part of theists to make atheists claim to be agnostics?

 

[Tiberius]

My friend, quoting the Bible is part of my job. You may think it does not have any affect on you but as scripture says in Hebrews 4:12:

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Believing this, how can I not quote scripture. As far as namecalling, if you believe the Bible is calling you names you have a right to believe that. Personally, I think it is trying to get your attention. Certainly I have not called you any names. Let me finish with some more scripture from 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

You may believe it applies to me, but I don't. You can make claims about your holy text, but when you direct those claims at me, they are falling on deaf ears. You want to grab my attention? Give me some actual evidence. Not just words.

Anyway, let me ask you then what the purpose of your previous quote from the Bible was? because it sure looked to me like you quoted it simply to say I was blind. Considering that such a quote doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, I can only conclude that you are intentionally using your holy text to insult me.

And I can pick passages from the Bible too. Psalm 34:13

 

[Gishin]

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

 

[Gishin]

Its not about evidence. Or can you not see the man, the light in the sky or hear the voice on the radio. There is only the will for materialism. Theism then, is merely not belieing that life can be assembled through stochastic processes, for which there is no evidence (sans sound).

Simply not believing that biblical writers were incompetent. An assertion for which there is no "sound evidence".

Materialism is not based on "sound evidence". You're only kidding yourself.

Keep whacking that strawman.

 

[Gishin]

You may believe it applies to me, but I don't. You can make claims about your holy text, but when you direct those claims at me, they are falling on deaf ears. You want to grab my attention? Give me some actual evidence. Not just words.

Anyway, let me ask you then what the purpose of your previous quote from the Bible was? because it sure looked to me like you quoted it simply to say I was blind. Considering that such a quote doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, I can only conclude that you are intentionally using your holy text to insult me.

And I can pick passages from the Bible too. Psalm 34:13

The people who wrote the bible knew they were making outrageous claims, so they made a bunch of failsafe phrases to fall back to when they're called out on it. Just like I could say "Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". Just stating the fact doesn't make it true, and neither does saying those who don't believe in god must be blind make it true.

 

[Jig]

The people who wrote the bible knew they were making outrageous claims, so they made a bunch of failsafe phrases to fall back to when they're called out on it. Just like I could say "Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". Just stating the fact doesn't make it true, and neither does saying those who don't believe in god must be blind make it true.

Source?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Could the religious believers here please tell us which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?

1. Atheism – lack of belief in something for which there is no sound evidence.
2. Theism – unshakeable belief in something without any sound evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever.

Not really.
86% atheism (which is how you and Dawkins are using the term athesim) is near certainty that there are no gods.

Theism is commitment to the idea of a god or gods. It may be in the absence of direct evidence. It is definitely in the absence of science-grade evidence. It is not necessarily the result of unsound reasoning.

A lack of belief in something for which there is no sound evidence is scepticism or empiricism.