A question to atheists.

[BradAtWork]

Text

 

[tfcmasta97]

With circular logic like that, I got dizzy enough to puke just reading that crap

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Atreus21
But it's not enough to simply say what does not exist.

Actually for me that is enough. I don't believe in god he doesn't exist.

Well, once you define why you don't believe in god, you must define what you do believe.

That's the contradiction, to me.

I didn't go any further in this thread than here, but, sorry OP, your bolded is disjunctive reasoning:

It does not follow that if you don't believe in God that you must define or believe in anything.

You're either a troll or an idiot. Either way, meh.

Btw, I am NOT an atheist. I just don't much like mush heads like yourself.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Atreus21
But it's not enough to simply say what does not exist.

Actually for me that is enough. I don't believe in god he doesn't exist.

Well, once you define why you don't believe in god, you must define what you do believe.

That's the contradiction, to me.

I didn't go any further in this thread than here, but, sorry OP, your bolded is disjunctive reasoning:

It does not follow that if you don't believe in God that you must define or believe in anything.

You're either a troll or an idiot. Either way, meh.

Btw, I am NOT an atheist. I just don't much like mush heads like yourself.

Thanks for the insult.

I don't see how any of the reasoning is disjunctive. When you say you don't believe that God exists, you simultaneously say that you believe that God does not exist.

Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Thanks for the insult. You're welcome. And thanks for the triple insult to my intelligence below.

I don't see how any of the reasoning is disjunctive. Your reasoning is disjunctive because your premise does NOT require the conclusion you say it does.

When you say you don't believe that God exists, you simultaneously say that you believe that God does not exist. No, one doesn't.

Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it. No, it doesn't. In fact, this last statement of yours is a classic case of disjunctive reasoning.

 

[BradAtWork]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Atreus21
But it's not enough to simply say what does not exist.

Actually for me that is enough. I don't believe in god he doesn't exist.

Well, once you define why you don't believe in god, you must define what you do believe.

That's the contradiction, to me.

I didn't go any further in this thread than here, but, sorry OP, your bolded is disjunctive reasoning:

It does not follow that if you don't believe in God that you must define or believe in anything.

You're either a troll or an idiot. Either way, meh.

Btw, I am NOT an atheist. I just don't much like mush heads like yourself.

Thanks for the insult.

I don't see how any of the reasoning is disjunctive. When you say you don't believe that God exists, you simultaneously say that you believe that God does not exist.

Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it.

What the hell are you smoking? That is the most retard statement I've ever heard.

I don't beleive in Santa Clause, so that means I have to beleive in somthing else?

Also, Atheists don't "believe" there is no god, they understand there is no god.

Based on the current information availible the only resonable position to take is that there is not god. If information changes then we will change our stance.

Newtonion physics seemed perfect until reletivity came along, that doesn't mean people believed in newtonion phsyics. They just understood it too be correct until something more accurate came alsong.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't see how any of the reasoning is disjunctive. When you say you don't believe that God exists, you simultaneously say that you believe that God does not exist.

Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it.

You seem to think that if A is a belief and B is a belief, then A and B are somehow equivalent in "truth value", regardless of the specifics of A and B.

You seem to think, for example, that if someone "believes" in the English language - as apparently everyone participating in this thread does - then that has no more or less validity than a belief in God, because "both are beliefs."

And because there's an element of "faith" - however minuscule - in observing/measuring the physical universe, you reduce "empirical evidence" to being a "a belief" like a belief in God.

What you fail to take into account is "how much" faith underlies a belief. Every day, I hear my alarm go off; I see the green, red, and yellow traffic lights; I taste the sandwich I eat for lunch and notice how after I finish it I'm less hungry. I notice that when I communicate with people I "believe" to be around me, things happen consistent with what I "believe" has been communicated. And this happens day after month after year after lifetime.

I have a "belief" in the cause and effect of everyday existence because it produces reasonably reliable "results" for me and everyone I know and know of. I have a direct experience of it that's palpable beyond a purely imaginary realm. And since science - which is a process, not a pre-packaged set of unvarying truths - depends on the same interaction with the physical universe that I do, I also have faith in the PROCESS, and therefore in the results of science.

With religion, there's no process that's equivalent to my everyday existence. There's no basis for me to conclude that the "results" of religion are tied to reality. Religion is just statements of claimed truth not tied to any system of verification. Thus, the size of the "faith" involved in religion is many, many orders of magnitude beyond the amount of faith involved in believing in the process of science.

You can claim all you want that I've replaced a "faith in God" with a "faith in everyday existence," but even YOU depend on everyday existence and faith in the reliability of the physical universe to live your life. Even you "believe" that if that car going 100 miles an hour doesn't stop before it hits you, you'll be toast. Thus, even you believe in the foundations of science. And the reason is that that belief is directly tied to repeatable phenomena that can be experienced by the senses of you and everyone else. So, in a sense, you're carrying out science in your everyday life.

If you want to claim that that's equivalent to believing in God, go right ahead. But even you must know you're just fooling yourself.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I don't see how any of the reasoning is disjunctive. When you say you don't believe that God exists, you simultaneously say that you believe that God does not exist.

Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it.

I already refuted this nonsense in a post that you have heretofore, presumably, ignored.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: hopeless74

were talking about existance of a creator, not religion..

religion is just a path to Gd. we come from different directions, but end up in the same place.

like the old saying, all paths lead to rome

Careful. You are implying that all religions lead to the same destination and that they are all correct. That would then infer that god has either willfully pitted religions against each other which negates his benevolence or didn't have the foresight to see the outcome of his actions which would negate his omnipotence.

No, it doesn't. It just means that people are sometimes selfish, stupid, error-prone, and generally haven't been prepared to think about and deal with this possibility.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Either way, god then becomes fallible which negates all religions' belief that there version is the "one true" religion.

No, it means that religion is fallible. It's an important difference, but is obviously true, although religions are obviously disinclined to admit and deal with this.

The atheistic argument of "one true religion" is a position which is ignorant of some facts to the contrary, but is of course true in part, and in particular against many holders of a single religion who are born into one and thereby gain some faith in that due to circumstances, for whom the question of "why not that other religion of circumstance to so many other people instead?" applies. However, while this line of argument might have been valid in part in the 5th century, but we are better able to see past it these days.

Even "5th century" is an understatement. You can indeed see a commonality of religion argument in religions which predates that by thousands of years. Even Jesus said something to the effect "other sheep I have too, who are not of this fold".

So I believe in the partial validity of multiple religions, and even in atheists.

Cheers.

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't see how any of the reasoning is disjunctive. When you say you don't believe that God exists, you simultaneously say that you believe that God does not exist.

Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it.

No matter how many times you say this, it still isn't true. You can't prove your point with false reasoning. Atheists simply don't accept that everything in the world happens by magic.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you don't believe / disbelieve in Greek Mythology.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Atreus21
But it's not enough to simply say what does not exist.

Actually for me that is enough. I don't believe in god he doesn't exist.

Well, once you define why you don't believe in god, you must define what you do believe.

That's the contradiction, to me.

I didn't go any further in this thread than here, but, sorry OP, your bolded is disjunctive reasoning:

It does not follow that if you don't believe in God that you must define or believe in anything.

You're either a troll or an idiot. Either way, meh.

Btw, I am NOT an atheist. I just don't much like mush heads like yourself.

Thanks for the insult.

I don't see how any of the reasoning is disjunctive. When you say you don't believe that God exists, you simultaneously say that you believe that God does not exist.

Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it.

No, I do not have a belief hole that requires filling. So the deficiency seems to exist only in you. And you are judging others by your own measure.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

But you can't believe in nothing.

If I threatened to kill you it'd turn out you believed in a right to life. If I stole from you it'd turn out you believe in property rights.

It's not possible to believe in nothing.

You are incorrect. I don't "believe" in a right to life. I simply don't want to die because it's an instinct that I was born with, and I don't want to kill other people because I don't want a society where it's okay to kill me.

I don't believe in property rights. If I aquired something that is useful to me, I simply desire to keep it. I don't take from others because I don't want a society where it's okay for others to take from me.

My stances are guided by feelings and instincts I was born with, not by belief in abstract ideas. I am certainly capable of debating abstract ideas, but I recognize that it's just intellectual exercise.

 

[datalink7]

* I only read the OP's post and not the rest of the thread so this might have already been covered.

Right off the bat I don't agree with your premise. I don't belive in atheism. Atheism isn't a belief. It is simply, in my mind, a logical conclusion. It isn't that I believe that no god exists, it's that I don't believe a god exists as I haven't seen any evidence for his existance.

It's like, to me, the tooth fairy. You don't actively disbelieve in the existance of the tooth fairy. You simply don't believe she exists. You don't think about it.

With that being stated, you can't categorize atheism into a belief system because it simply isn't one. Therefore, you can't say "assuming atheists do belive" or "if atheists are atheists" because there really is no strict category of atheism. Atheists have a pletora of belief systems, or lack there of, because there is no atheist book, atheists tenants, or atheists systems of living. There are, in effect, no "atheists", only individual "atheist."

As for me, I put my trust mostly in empirical knowledge. And, if something shows that what I thought was true was in fact false, I change to fit the new truth. That doesn't sound like a religion to me.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it.

I nearly fell to the floor when I read that.

 

[Taejin]

Why is this thread still here?

The guy obviously wants to frame the opponent's argument the way he frames his own little world, so he can handily disprove it. We've spend 7 pages of him trying to characterize atheists as something they are not, and he won't stop.

Like others have said, he's either a troll or an idiot.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What do atheists believe?

I would assume that atheists believe in atheism, simply that there is no god.

It follows that any religion that worships a god is erroneous.

If you agree with that premise, please read on.

But it's not enough to simply say what does not exist. What do atheists truly believe in? What do they propose gives order to the universe? I would expect science and reason. I wouldn't expect an atheist to say he or she believes in nothing, because atheists tend not to be nihilists, and nihilism doesn't really exist anyway.

Assuming atheists do believe that rational, scientific reasoning is the only way to discern truth, then it follows that atheism must be a religion unto its own, simply with a different god. When I think about it, people engage in a religion generally out of a search for the truth, and they find God. An atheist engages in the same thing for the same reason, and finds reason and logic.

That's my point. If atheists are atheists because they seek the truth about order to the universe, then they're behaving just as religions behave, although atheism has no organization like the Papacy or such.

I'll put in another way that's not as convoluted.

In my opinion, religions don't worship God. They worship Truth, and to them, that truth is God. How are atheists any different, except that they name their God something else?

I hope not to ignite any tempers.

Nothing. Faith/belief is foolish.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Disbelief in something requires belief in something contradictory to it.

I nearly fell to the floor when I read that.

Yeah, besides the fact that atheists don't so much as disbelieve in God as they just simply don't believe in him. A marked difference.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Nothing. Faith/belief is foolish.

Eh, I have no problem with the thought of some force that created the universe. What I find foolish is what Einstein thought foolish, namely the belief that if such a being exists, he gives a crap what you wear, who you marry, what you eat, whether you're bad or good, whether you pray, and what you do after you die, i.e. the "personal god." The world we live in that we see every day reported on tv, the evils we contemplate and bear witness, the pointless murders, rapes, and tortures of millions of innocents, are not compatible, IMO, with the existence of a benevolent holy being who watches over us but no longer intervenes to save anyone now that we have recording equipment. Believing in that apathetic jerk is not something I'm capable of. Nor am I amenable to joining an organization dedicated to extolling the purported virtues of obedience to the whims of such a being.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: datalink7
* I only read the OP's post and not the rest of the thread so this might have already been covered.

Right off the bat I don't agree with your premise. I don't belive in atheism. Atheism isn't a belief. It is simply, in my mind, a logical conclusion. It isn't that I believe that no god exists, it's that I don't believe a god exists as I haven't seen any evidence for his existance.

It's like, to me, the tooth fairy. You don't actively disbelieve in the existance of the tooth fairy. You simply don't believe she exists. You don't think about it.

With that being stated, you can't categorize atheism into a belief system because it simply isn't one. Therefore, you can't say "assuming atheists do belive" or "if atheists are atheists" because there really is no strict category of atheism. Atheists have a pletora of belief systems, or lack there of, because there is no atheist book, atheists tenants, or atheists systems of living. There are, in effect, no "atheists", only individual "atheist."

As for me, I put my trust mostly in empirical knowledge. And, if something shows that what I thought was true was in fact false, I change to fit the new truth. That doesn't sound like a religion to me.

No offense, and I'm not religious, and I couldn't care less about the OP and his argument, but this is a ridiculous straw man, and a horrendous "logical conclusion." Posts like this are why I avoid these discussions here anymore.

You actually do have an active disbelief in the Tooth Fairy (as do I) because you (and I) know for a fact that it's not the Tooth Fairy that puts the money under the pillow. Same thing with Santa Claus -- he didn't put the presents under the tree, I did.

As I already explained before in this thread, religion and God are entirely separate. Completely so. IF God exists, then he does so fully independent of religious belief or lack thereof. Same thing vice versa if He doesn't exist. Likewise, a person may believe or not believe in God independent of involvement in any religion.
Most atheists, when using Tooth Fairy examples and explaining their absence of belief, are speaking in regards to religious belief. And I agree. I as well do not believe in ANY religion. I as well put my trust mostly in empirical knowledge, and have disdain for the dogmatism of religions. But that is NOT the same thing as being an atheist. Your God then is objective reality, and your religion science.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Nothing. Faith/belief is foolish.

That's fine, I don't believe in you either.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What do atheists believe?

I would assume that atheists believe in atheism, simply that there is no god.

It follows that any religion that worships a god is erroneous.

If you agree with that premise, please read on.

But it's not enough to simply say what does not exist. What do atheists truly believe in? What do they propose gives order to the universe? I would expect science and reason. I wouldn't expect an atheist to say he or she believes in nothing, because atheists tend not to be nihilists, and nihilism doesn't really exist anyway.

Assuming atheists do believe that rational, scientific reasoning is the only way to discern truth, then it follows that atheism must be a religion unto its own, simply with a different god. When I think about it, people engage in a religion generally out of a search for the truth, and they find God. An atheist engages in the same thing for the same reason, and finds reason and logic.

That's my point. If atheists are atheists because they seek the truth about order to the universe, then they're behaving just as religions behave, although atheism has no organization like the Papacy or such.

I'll put in another way that's not as convoluted.

In my opinion, religions don't worship God. They worship Truth, and to them, that truth is God. How are atheists any different, except that they name their God something else?

I hope not to ignite any tempers.

There is one dramatic flaw in your argument. God is not the search for truth, God is a search for meaning. To believe in God is to put meaning to truth. To be an athiest is to search for truth but not looking for meaning in God.

There are plenty of religious scientists out there discovering the same "truths" as their athiest counterparts. The difference is that the religious scientists will find a different meaning in their discovery (God's good work). Religion and science are two entirely different endeavors although there are certainly religious leaders that would like to claim their meaning is scientific. Those are fundamentalists. They take religious texts (meant to convey meaning) and try to extrapolate truth only to be proven wrong by reality.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821
Nothing. Faith/belief is foolish.

That's fine, I don't believe in you either.

I think you're misunderstanding my comment.

Faith is believing in something without evidence. There is NO REASON to believe in something without evidence. It does nothing for you other than make you feel better about an unknown. I personally do not fear the unknown, I welcome it as a challenge. I love for the chance to figure something new out, and then being able to say "this is true" rather than "I have faith in it".

I have theories, evidence for theories, and ideas. Of-course, this makes ideas the most powerful thing I can think of, because they can become anything, or they can become nothing.

I will never subscribe to faith, however. It's pointless. It's a tit for people to suckle, and I don't need it to be happy or feel like I have meaning because the meaning I personally give to myself is enough.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821
Nothing. Faith/belief is foolish.

That's fine, I don't believe in you either.

I think you're misunderstanding my comment.

Faith is believing in something without evidence. There is NO REASON to believe in something without evidence. It does nothing for you other than make you feel better about an unknown. I personally do not fear the unknown, I welcome it as a challenge. I love for the chance to figure something new out, and then being able to say "this is true" rather than "I have faith in it".

I have theories, evidence for theories, and ideas. Of-course, this makes ideas the most powerful thing I can think of, because they can become anything, or they can become nothing.

I will never subscribe to faith, however. It's pointless. It's a tit for people to suckle, and I don't need it to be happy or feel like I have meaning because the meaning I personally give to myself is enough.

And you misunderstand my comment.

It is impossible to believe in ANYTHING without faith because at the heart of everything lies a lack of evidence. Including EVERY scientific theory. You can only go so far with everything until you come against something unknowable and unprovable.
This concept is known as a priori. At the basis of all knowledge lies an assumption that is considered to be self-evident. IOW, all your "this is true" moments are taken on faith. It is the faith of "it is so because it must be so," but it is faith nonetheless.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Uh...I think that you are going about this with false presumptions and a serious logical fallacy.

Me: I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy
Atreus21: What do you believe in then?
Me: Nothing
Atreus21: If you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, surely you must believe in an alternate "thing".
Me: Actually, no I don't have to believe in anything else. I just don't believe that there is a Tooth Fairy.
Atreus21: Why not?
Me: Because you are insane. A lack of belief in one thing does not necessitate a belief in something in place of that thing.

It's impossible to believe in nothing. Otherwise why do you do anything? Why do you even argue against me if you don't believe that I'm wrong?

You're using reasoning to argue that I'm wrong.

So you must believe in reason too.

Not worth discussing this with somebody painfully illogical.

It's always fun to see religious people try to be open minded but not realizing the fences and comfortable boundaries they set for themselves.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What do atheists believe?

I would assume that atheists believe in atheism, simply that there is no god.

It follows that any religion that worships a god is erroneous.

If you agree with that premise, please read on.

But it's not enough to simply say what does not exist. What do atheists truly believe in? What do they propose gives order to the universe? I would expect science and reason. I wouldn't expect an atheist to say he or she believes in nothing, because atheists tend not to be nihilists, and nihilism doesn't really exist anyway.

Assuming atheists do believe that rational, scientific reasoning is the only way to discern truth, then it follows that atheism must be a religion unto its own, simply with a different god. When I think about it, people engage in a religion generally out of a search for the truth, and they find God. An atheist engages in the same thing for the same reason, and finds reason and logic.

That's my point. If atheists are atheists because they seek the truth about order to the universe, then they're behaving just as religions behave, although atheism has no organization like the Papacy or such.

I'll put in another way that's not as convoluted.

In my opinion, religions don't worship God. They worship Truth, and to them, that truth is God. How are atheists any different, except that they name their God something else?

I hope not to ignite any tempers.

If that's how you define "God," then I'm perfectly comfortable being described as religious. Unfortunately, it seems as though if you don't believe there's an old guy in a flowing robe sitting on a cloud somewhere hurling lightning bolts and damning us to hell, you're an atheist. If your definition of faith is believing in things (anything, "higher" power or not), then we're all quite religious.
I wish more people had your outlook.