What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

[MehGuy]

Such charming discussions here.. lol.

 

[Freodin]

How about concluding that "All atheists believe there are insufficient reasons to believe in God." That's something else that all atheists have in common, and it actually excludes rocks, dogs, and infants, unlike your strange definition. Again:

Inconclusive.
Belk's definition might not include it, but it is still implied. I did include it in my definition. "Someone who does not believe in deities." - meaning "a person". That would still include infants - and, yes, I think that apathists count as atheists - while rocks and dogs are correctly excluded.

Your definition though would exclude atheists of the kind of "those who believe that are sufficient reasons to reject the existence of God, topping sufficient reasons to believe in God". So, not all atheists would have that in common.

 

[bhsmte]

"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.

Maybe you shouldn't post, in the areas of the site non believers are allowed, if it causes you distress.

 

[Freodin]

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly." I have already bent the heck right out of that rule. But no more.

"Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes."

I love how Christians pick and choose from their Holy Word of God.
But what can you expect if these words of wisdom give directly contradicting advice in two successive verses."

 

[Belk]

How about concluding that "All atheists believe there are insufficient reasons to believe in God."

Nope. Not something that is included in the definition. It is quite possible to lack belief but to feel others have sufficient reason to believe.

That's something else that all atheists have in common, and it actually excludes rocks, dogs, and infants, unlike your strange definition. Again:

Feel free to argue that with someone who thinks you are are the person who gets to define atheism.

 

[quatona]

If you don't consciously and intentionally hold your belief of atheism,

Atheism isn´t a belief, so the rest of your post is obsolete.
Most of it were just ad hominems and insinuations anyway, so this conversation has run its course.

 

[zippy2006]

Your definition though would exclude atheists of the kind of "those who believe that (sic) are sufficient reasons to reject the existence of God, topping sufficient reasons to believe in God". So, not all atheists would have that in common.

Presumably you meant "who believe there are."

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.

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

 

[zippy2006]

Atheism isn´t a belief, so the rest of your post is obsolete.

I addressed that at length in my first post to you. You utterly failed to respond.

Most of it were just ad hominems and insinuations anyway, so this conversation has run its course.

Since this is apparently as close as you will come to an actual argument, it would seem that the conversation has indeed run its course. (Apparently yours was a bluff indeed; smoke, mirrors, and assertions)

 

[zippy2006]

Nope. Not something that is included in the definition. It is quite possible to lack belief but to feel others have sufficient reason to believe.

This is a strawman. The claim was not that there are insufficient reasons for others to believe, but that there are insufficient reasons for the atheist to believe.

Feel free to argue that with someone who thinks you are are the person who gets to define atheism.

Right, because you are Webster himself. How could I have missed your towering authority?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes. My explanation is the only thing that covers all atheists. All atheists lack belief in a deity. Beyond that there is nothing that you can conclude all atheists have in common.

Thanks. For some reason I was convinced I didn't know the true definition, but I guess I did.

 

[Kenny'sID]

An atheist is someone who does not believe in deities. That covers all those who do believe there are no deities, those who reject deities, those who do not have a belief in deities... find me any atheist who doesn't fall under this definition.

Sounds right to me, and thanks.

 

[just a believing guy]

That your lack of understanding of what an atheist is results in you asking questions that are nonsensical. Further, you do not seem to care to gain understanding.

OK, let's consider for just one minute that you are right...how do you explain the fact that the Bible is the most selling book of all times?

 

[The Times]

.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

My best friend up until he died last winter was not Christian. Liking is based upon the recipient. Love is based upon the giver. God wants all to belong to him. But if you don't, there's isn't anything left for you or to you. It is God's love that makes us all who we are because his love makes us free to choose. I can honor your choice. But all choices come with results. No one escapes that.
MG I know these others are but are you entirely unfamiliar with the bible?

I am quite familiar with the Bible, have read it 'cover to cover' twice, hear Bible readings at Church weekly and have for much of my life, still do reading on my own,and have even had coursework in both New and Old Testament studies. I've also done reading on how the Bible came to be. So, I would say I'm more familiar than some.

 

[Belk]

This is a strawman. The claim was not that there are insufficient reasons for others to believe, but that there are insufficient reasons for the atheist to believe.

Still not indicated in the definition. It is possible that there is sufficient evidence but they still do not believe.

Right, because you are Webster himself. How could I have missed your towering authority?

I never claimed authority. I simply pointed out my view of your lack of authority.

 

[Belk]

Thanks. For reason I was convinced I didn't know the true definition, but I guess I did.

It helps when people are on the same page.

 

[Belk]

OK, let's consider for just one minute that you are right...how do you explain the fact that the Bible is the most selling book of all times?

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

 

[zippy2006]

Still not indicated in the definition. It is possible that there is sufficient evidence but they still do not believe.

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Why do you think atheists are irrational?

 

[archer75]

Athiests are many times found to use false religions of the world to attack Christianity through subversive means.

For example an Athiest will say that why must the other gods of other religions be ruled out in favour of the Christian God.

I don't see how asking "why should the gods of other religions be ruled out in favor of the Christian God" is "subversive." Isn't it just a question?

Also, I have to say, I think it's a legitimate question. Not everyone has to ask it explicitly, and not everyone will give the same answer. Some Christians give answers that I find not convincing. But I don't see why asking this question is somehow underhanded.