True atheists?

[Greg1234]

What is your belief regarding superman?

No, we do not replace the man with superman.

Yes, you have beliefs regarding the man

 

[Gishin]

Not all beliefs are created equal.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Ah but thats the thing. Even though you attempt to replace the man with a unicorn, we reaffirm Romans 1:20, show you the man, and tell you that you have beliefs regarding the man.

You haven't shown me anything. To use your book as proof, you have to show me yet more proof that your book is legit.

I have a book called the poetic edda. It talks about this cool guy named Odin who impaled himself to a giant tree and after 9 days he came back to life and had all these awesome super powers like the ability to make the swords of his enemies blunt, or to seduce women by whispering sweet magical nothings in their ear. How do I know Odin is real? Because it says so in the poetic edda. How do I know the poetic edda is true? Because it is the word of Odin through his servant Snorri Sturluson. And besides, the book describes Thor's hammer (which represents thunder) as returning to his hand when thrown like a boomerang! How could the author of the Eddas know that lightning travels down to the ground and back up to the clouds unless he was divinely inspired?

See what I mean? You don't believe in the Eddas do you? Why? Because it's not credible. There's no reason to believe the Eddas are true. You can't cite the Bible as proof of God. That is circular reasoning.

The Bible is the word of God>Because the Bible says so>And the Bible is infallible>Because the Bible is the word of God>Because the Bible Says So>And the Bible is infallible>Because the Bible is the word of God........etc etc etc

Similarly, you cannot lack the belief in radio waves as you have a belief regarding the voice on the radio. Replacing the voice on the radio with a chupacabra is merely ignored.

I have a belief in radio waves BECAUSE of the voice in the radio among other things. The voice in the radio constitutes proof of radio waves. But no one has ever produced sufficient proof of unicorns, chupacabras, superman, or gods for me to believe in them. And no, the Bible's statement that the world is proof of God doesn't count because the Bible is not credible as the infallible word of God until someone proves that God exists. Especially considering the fact that the Bible describes the world as a flat disc with edges, set upon pillars, with a sky like a hard mirror of cast bronze. That seems like something that an infallible text wouldn't get wrong. It seems more like it was written by bronze age desert nomads than someone who had special divine access to God.

As Jig said, both sides use the evidence presented and interpret. You cannot "lack beliefs".

Well there's nothing I can say except that you're just wrong about that. I genuinely do lack belief about gods in general. I do have beliefs about certain specific gods. I have a positive belief that God as described in the Bible does not exist because all of the "evidence" present as proof for his existence is either not credible or completely false. Same thing with the God of the Quran. But just because I have a positive belief that YOUR god does not exist doesn't mean I have a positive belief that absolutely no gods exist anywhere in the universe or beyond. Can you understand the difference?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You haven't shown me anything. To use your book as proof, you have to show me yet more proof that your book is legit.

I have a book called the poetic edda. It talks about this cool guy named Odin who impaled himself to a giant tree and after 9 days he came back to life and had all these awesome super powers like the ability to make the swords of his enemies blunt, or to seduce women by whispering sweet magical nothings in their ear. How do I know Odin is real? Because it says so in the poetic edda. How do I know the poetic edda is true? Because it is the word of Odin through his servant Snorri Sturluson. And besides, the book describes Thor's hammer (which represents thunder) as returning to his hand when thrown like a boomerang! How could the author of the Eddas know that lightning travels down to the ground and back up to the clouds unless he was divinely inspired?

See what I mean? You don't believe in the Eddas do you? Why? Because it's not credible. There's no reason to believe the Eddas are true. You can't cite the Bible as proof of God. That is circular reasoning.

The Bible is the word of God>Because the Bible says so>And the Bible is infallible>Because the Bible is the word of God>Because the Bible Says So>And the Bible is infallible>Because the Bible is the word of God........etc etc etc


I have a belief in radio waves BECAUSE of the voice in the radio among other things. The voice in the radio constitutes proof of radio waves. But no one has ever produced sufficient proof of unicorns, chupacabras, superman, or gods for me to believe in them. And no, the Bible's statement that the world is proof of God doesn't count because the Bible is not credible as the infallible word of God until someone proves that God exists. Especially considering the fact that the Bible describes the world as a flat disc with edges, set upon pillars, with a sky like a hard mirror of cast bronze. That seems like something that an infallible text wouldn't get wrong. It seems more like it was written by bronze age desert nomads than someone who had special divine access to God.




Well there's nothing I can say except that you're just wrong about that. I genuinely do lack belief about gods in general. I do have beliefs about certain specific gods. I have a positive belief that God as described in the Bible does not exist because all of the "evidence" present as proof for his existence is either not credible or completely false. Same thing with the God of the Quran. But just because I have a positive belief that YOUR god does not exist doesn't mean I have a positive belief that absolutely no gods exist anywhere in the universe or beyond. Can you understand the difference?

That's the point, they can't understand. They literally cannot conceive of someone lacking the intuition of god that they possess. It's fascinatin'

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

That's the point, they can't understand. They literally cannot conceive of someone lacking the intuition of god that they possess. It's fascinatin'

And what's hilarious about that is I was a Christian for 23ish years until recently when I "de-converted". So I have a VERY good idea about how they think because I was in the same mental place just a short while ago. I've experienced the issue from both sides.

 

[Jig]

Check this out:

Theism - lack of belief in the non-existence of God.

 

[pgp_protector]

Check this out:

Theism - lack of belief in the non-existence of God.

Well we all know you wouldn't lie, after all that's an abomination to the Lord right?
So where did you find that definition?

This is the one I've seen from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism

the·ism   
1. the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Check this out:

Theism - lack of belief in the non-existence of God.

Ok. So what?

 

[Jig]

Ok. So what?

Two can play this game...

 

[Greg1234]

You haven't shown me anything. To use your book as proof, you have to show me yet more proof that your book is legit.

You believe that it is illegitimate. I don't have to show you anything except that studied and derived accordingly. See then, the man. Thats what you are "shown".

I have a book called the poetic edda.

Thats nice. Reading text and understanding it are two different things. Romans 1:20 is clear enough.

See what I mean? You don't believe in the Eddas do you?

Understand the Eddas. We are now dealing with text which has been studied. What has been given in the bible spans through multiple sources. That represented in text are studied and interpreted accordingly.

The Bible is the word of God>Because the Bible says so>And the Bible is infallible>Because the Bible is the word of God>Because the Bible Says So>And the Bible is infallible>Because the Bible is the word of God........etc etc etc

Well you see, thats the conundrum. Texts like the bible show that God is invisible made known through that which is created. The atheist says that God should be visible, and man is not evidence for God (invisible). A stunning reversal by the men who are able to alter universal law.

So which is it? The (goat herding)bible or the (magnificent) atheist. Its something Christians struggle with everyday.

I have a belief in radio waves BECAUSE of the voice in the radio among other things. The voice in the radio constitutes proof of radio waves.

By George...

But no one has ever produced sufficient proof of unicorns, chupacabras, superman, or gods for me to believe in them.

You again attempt to replace the voice on the radio (man) with unicorns (chupacabras). You dont seem to get it.

And no, the Bible's statement that the world is proof of God doesn't count because the Bible is not credible as the infallible word of God until someone proves that God exists.

First of all, calm down. Secondly I am aware of your beliefs regarding the bible. The belief that its "not credible", its unreliable, its goat herding on paper etc. I do not adhere to them. See the above? That was a statement of belief. You have exemplified the fact of this thread.

Especially considering the fact that the Bible describes the world as a flat disc with edges, set upon pillars, with a metal dome for a sky. That seems like something that an infallible text wouldn't get wrong.

Ok.

It seems more like it was written by bronze age desert nomads than someone who had special divine access to God.

And there's another one.

Same thing with the God of the Quran.

What is a "God of the Quran"? Understand what God is, then grasp texts like the Edda, the Quran, or the bible. Youre just reciting atheist doctrine now.

But just because I have a positive belief that YOUR god does not exist

You have positive beliefs regarding the voice on the radio. The concluding belief is that radio waves don't exist. Before you get to the radio waves, you skip over radar, you dodge voices on the radio and squirm under voices on the cell phone. Then you say you have a lack of beliefs in radio waves. Before you continue, look behind you, and see what you've just circumvented.

 

[pgp_protector]

Two can play this game...

so this is just a game to you?

 

[Greg1234]

Two can play this game...

Precisely.

 

[Jig]

Well we all know you wouldn't lie, after all that's an abomination to the Lord right?
So where did you find that definition?

This is the one I've seen from Theism | Define Theism at Dictionary.com

the·ism   
1. the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

Doesn't this imply I "lack a belief" in the non-existence of God?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

That's the point, they can't understand. They literally cannot conceive of someone lacking the intuition of god that they possess. It's fascinatin'

I do not think it is a comprehension issue as such. It is a will issue. People believe what they want to believe. This is an emotional brain thing rather than a cognitive brain thing. The emotional brain dominates conscious beliefs.

Take YEC. In purely cognitive terms this is a ridiculous belief system. One might reasonably conclude that the person lacks even basic cognition skills. However, we observe that the person demonstrates sophisticated and functional cognition in other areas. For example, they can safely drive a car. They can make complex decisions in the work environment. So one must conclude that the cognition function is generally ok but that in certain circumstances it is either disabled or ignored. IMO it is ignored, subconsciously.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The belief that 86%-atheists do have is a commitment to the idea that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge that should be committed to.

This is a belief in the theistic sense.

So now it comes down to a debate about whether strict empirical belief is better or worse than theistic belief (theistic belief is a mix of the two, and sometimes a violation of empirical belief).

Now, which is better depends on the consequences for individuals and societies and one's prejudices.

Do you have actual source for that 86% number? And it's not a belief in the theistic sense. It's a recognition of pragmatic utility. We have no good reason to believe in immaterial entities. So we don't bother do.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Doesn't this imply I "lack a belief" in the non-existence of God?

No. One is a belief about an ASSERTION. The other is a belief about an ENTITY.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Doesn't this imply I "lack a belief" in the non-existence of God?

You seem to be confused.
A person can be committed to an idea, they can be indifferent to it, or they can doubt the idea.
Belief is being committed.

You seem to be committed to the idea that God exists. Therefore you have a belief in God. Others have no such commitment and therefore no belief.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Do you have actual source for that 86% number?

86% = 6/7th. I.e. 6 out of 7 on the 'Dawkins Scale.' FWIW

 

[Jig]

We have no good reason to believe in immaterial entities. So we don't bother do.

What good reason is there? How is it possible to prove only the natural realm exists? Methodological Naturalism is self-limiting. It cannot and does not account for the supernatural and therefore cannot and does not determine if the supernatural realm exists or not. You must be basing this assumption on philosophical grounds.

 

[Jig]

You seem to be confused.
A person can be committed to an idea, they can be indifferent to it, or they can doubt the idea.
Belief is being committed.

You seem to be committed to the idea that God exists. Therefore you have a belief in God. Others have no such commitment and therefore no belief.

I don't think you read my post correctly. I said I "lack a belief" in the NON-existence of God.