A question to atheists.

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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.

Well there are things that are just not known, so we don't know how, so what? Eventually this god of the gaps that has been supported for so long will be diminished to nothing, as the gaps close.

I don't need an explanation for what we don't know, it will probably not be presented in my lifetime and i'm ok with that.

And i am perfectly fine with dying and becoming absolutely nothing, not going anywhere, not doing anything, just dead, that is fine by me.

I would think that humankind is driven by the thirst for answers. The existence of religion and science is testament to that, I think.

No, religion already has the answers and need nothing more, it's done, religion is NOT looking for answer, don't say it is, it's preconcieved truth and damn all evidence to the contrary, you KNOW that.

Science works the other way around, ok, we don't know everything, but we will keep working on it, we have no preconcieved truth in science, the truth is what the results show, nothing more, nothing less, it doesn't take a belief to know that HIV virus is evolving, it can be observed, and the stupid shit about macro and micro evolution is just that, stupid, macroevolution is just microevolution+time.

I'm sorry if i went off on a tangent there, but i hope you understand my point, religion doesn't change because there are evidence to the contrary while science always does, religion has the answers and everything that points in another direction is discarded.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

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.

My first reaction when reading your response was literally a verbal "Oh geez, oh whiz!"

I will take the bait and "argue that you are wrong" that belief in one thing (or a lack of belief as it may be) necessitates a belief in something else.

I absolutely believe in logic and reason. I can openly and readily admit that because it is true. Now here is where you are blurring the lines. Because I believe in logic and reason does not define that my belief or disbelief in a god is based on my belief in logic and reason. I could simply just choose to believe or not believe based on any number of alternate reasons.

It reminds me of a joke that I heard a short while back:

Q: Why are the youth today so ignorant and apathetic?
A: I don't know and don't care!

Basically, I could choose not to believe out of laziness or out of pure apathy towards religion in general. Either of which would define my lack of belief as non-existent yet neither would require me to have an alternate belief.

Okay then we have no argument. You say that you believe in logic and reason out of a search for truth. Christians believe in God out of a search for truth. Christians call Atheists deluded, and Atheists call Christians deluded.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that my belief in reason and logic is out of a search for truth. It is more that it is hard wired in the schematic of my brain. I lack the ability to not think logically and with reason. I am physically unable to not question what doesn't follow a known pattern.

That isn't a search for truth, it is an inability to convince myself to believe in something purely based on feelings or faith.

If I were to define a reason for religion, I think that I would call it just as you did above...A search for truth. I wouldn't call those that follow religions deluded however. I would say that they just stopped looking once they reached a certain way station and decided to not get back on the train to see if any other tracks might lead to a more truer explanation.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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.

Well there are things that are just not known, so we don't know how, so what? Eventually this god of the gaps that has been supported for so long will be diminished to nothing, as the gaps close.

I don't need an explanation for what we don't know, it will probably not be presented in my lifetime and i'm ok with that.

And i am perfectly fine with dying and becoming absolutely nothing, not going anywhere, not doing anything, just dead, that is fine by me.

I would think that humankind is driven by the thirst for answers. The existence of religion and science is testament to that, I think.

No, religion already has the answers and need nothing more, it's done, religion is NOT looking for answer, don't say it is, it's preconcieved truth and damn all evidence to the contrary, you KNOW that.

Science works the other way around, ok, we don't know everything, but we will keep working on it, we have no preconcieved truth in science, the truth is what the results show, nothing more, nothing less, it doesn't take a belief to know that HIV virus is evolving, it can be observed, and the stupid shit about macro and micro evolution is just that, stupid, macroevolution is just microevolution+time.

I'm sorry if i went off on a tangent there, but i hope you understand my point, religion doesn't change because there are evidence to the contrary while science always does, religion has the answers and everything that points in another direction is discarded.

Well, my point was that religion wouldn't exist if men were entirely complacent about truth. Neither would science.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Atreus21 is looking for a deeper meaning when there is no deeper meaning.

Silly human.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

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.

My first reaction when reading your response was literally a verbal "Oh geez, oh whiz!"

I will take the bait and "argue that you are wrong" that belief in one thing (or a lack of belief as it may be) necessitates a belief in something else.

I absolutely believe in logic and reason. I can openly and readily admit that because it is true. Now here is where you are blurring the lines. Because I believe in logic and reason does not define that my belief or disbelief in a god is based on my belief in logic and reason. I could simply just choose to believe or not believe based on any number of alternate reasons.

It reminds me of a joke that I heard a short while back:

Q: Why are the youth today so ignorant and apathetic?
A: I don't know and don't care!

Basically, I could choose not to believe out of laziness or out of pure apathy towards religion in general. Either of which would define my lack of belief as non-existent yet neither would require me to have an alternate belief.

Okay then we have no argument. You say that you believe in logic and reason out of a search for truth. Christians believe in God out of a search for truth. Christians call Atheists deluded, and Atheists call Christians deluded.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that my belief in reason and logic is out of a search for truth. It is more that it is hard wired in the schematic of my brain. I lack the ability to not think logically and with reason. I am physically unable to not question what doesn't follow a known pattern.

That isn't a search for truth, it is an inability to convince myself to believe in something purely based on feelings or faith.

If I were to define a reason for religion, I think that I would call it just as you did above...A search for truth. I wouldn't call those that follow religions deluded however. I would say that they just stopped looking once they reached a certain way station and decided to not get back on the train to see if any other tracks might lead to a more truer explanation.

If you're using reasons to prove me wrong, then it follows that you must believe in reasoning, and that you must believe that reasoning is the only way to the truth.

That seems to me a logical assumption, because why would you use reasoning if you did not believe it?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Atreus21 is looking for a deeper meaning when there is no deeper meaning.

Silly human.

Once you say what IS true, as in "there is no deeper meaning," you've fallen into the trap of believing something.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

Your argument is based upon an incorrect definition of religion and belief. Religion by definition (to nearly all people) deals with supernatural explanations. Atheism surely does not. Belief in a religion the way that nearly all people understand it is a belief based upon personal faith, not evidence as it is with the atheist. They simply are very different natures of belief. Therefore atheists are doing something very different when they believe in the evidence presented to them by science as opposed to what a religious person believes in when someone reads from them in a book on Sunday.

I guess what I'm saying is that either your point is wrong because your definitions are incorrect or the point you are making is so broad as to be useless. You might as well say that shit and a chocolate bar are the same because they are both brown.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts.

I would like you, Atreus21 to respond to that.

Actually I agree very much with that. We both believe in truth, but we disagree with each other in how we've found it, and the proof.

Just like religions do.

No, i believe in known truth, where you can observe the truth, like evolutin which is observable, falsifiable and to the best of our knowledge at all times, if proven wrong, it's still to the best of our knowledge, it doesn't have a basis and it doesn't draw a conclusion, it is just what it is.

That is what i like about science, it's never done, the more facts the better, as opposed to religion where the facts are known and then everyone is looking for evidence that points to the already drawn conclusion.

So while i believe in truth to the best of my knowledge, you believe in something completely different, you found your truth without a shred of evidence, in fact there are so much evidence to the contrary that it makes you make up shit to justify your own beliefs.

Now it may seem like i am attacking you but you definently have the right to your own religion whatever it may be, i defend that, but don't debate religion based on evidence, don't ever do that, it just doesn't work, at all.

If you don't believe me ask the ID people, i mean anyone who has taken a biology class can dismiss them with one sentence.

It's good advice to keep your beliefs to yourself, i keep mine to myself unless someone asks me, and i haven't even mentioned them in this thread either.

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

I don't "believe" in anything, i know what i know and others know what they know based on the scientific evidence available, i used to date a research virology scientist so i know evolution quiet well, it've even observed it myself through a nanoscope.

I do not DISBELIEVE in a god, i just have no more proof of a god any more than i have proof of the easter bunny or Santa claus, none.

And when you write your reply, i'm a born, raised and confirmed Catholic child with Catholic parents who go to church every sunday, so it's not lack of exposure either.

I just don't believe. You don't have to believe in evidence, it's either observable or it isn't, if it isn't, it's not science. So that's not a belief at all, it's knowing through observation, experimentation and repetition.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

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.

My first reaction when reading your response was literally a verbal "Oh geez, oh whiz!"

I will take the bait and "argue that you are wrong" that belief in one thing (or a lack of belief as it may be) necessitates a belief in something else.

I absolutely believe in logic and reason. I can openly and readily admit that because it is true. Now here is where you are blurring the lines. Because I believe in logic and reason does not define that my belief or disbelief in a god is based on my belief in logic and reason. I could simply just choose to believe or not believe based on any number of alternate reasons.

It reminds me of a joke that I heard a short while back:

Q: Why are the youth today so ignorant and apathetic?
A: I don't know and don't care!

Basically, I could choose not to believe out of laziness or out of pure apathy towards religion in general. Either of which would define my lack of belief as non-existent yet neither would require me to have an alternate belief.

Okay then we have no argument. You say that you believe in logic and reason out of a search for truth. Christians believe in God out of a search for truth. Christians call Atheists deluded, and Atheists call Christians deluded.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that my belief in reason and logic is out of a search for truth. It is more that it is hard wired in the schematic of my brain. I lack the ability to not think logically and with reason. I am physically unable to not question what doesn't follow a known pattern.

That isn't a search for truth, it is an inability to convince myself to believe in something purely based on feelings or faith.

If I were to define a reason for religion, I think that I would call it just as you did above...A search for truth. I wouldn't call those that follow religions deluded however. I would say that they just stopped looking once they reached a certain way station and decided to not get back on the train to see if any other tracks might lead to a more truer explanation.

If you're using reasons to prove me wrong, then it follows that you must believe in reasoning, and that you must believe that reasoning is the only way to the truth.

That seems to me a logical assumption, because why would you use reasoning if you did not believe it?

It would appear to be a logic assumption if it wasn't a metaphysical impossibility for me to NOT be able to quantify data in a reasoned and logical manner.

The fact that I am not able to do it another way is not indicative of a belief in reasoning and logic...it is indicative of a neuro-scientific fact that I am incapable of going about life any other way.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

Your argument is based upon an incorrect definition of religion and belief. Religion by definition (to nearly all people) deals with supernatural explanations. Atheism surely does not. Belief in a religion the way that nearly all people understand it is a belief based upon personal faith, not evidence as it is with the atheist. They simply are very different natures of belief. Therefore atheists are doing something very different when they believe in the evidence presented to them by science as opposed to what a religious person believes in when someone reads from them in a book on Sunday.

I guess what I'm saying is that either your point is wrong because your definitions are incorrect or the point you are making is so broad as to be useless. You might as well say that shit and a chocolate bar are the same because they are both brown.

Atheists believe what they do because they believe in evidence presented by Science. Theists believe what they do because they believe in that a certain Being presented the truth to them plainly.

No matter what happens though, both sides are saying the same thing: "We're right, and you're wrong, because we have better proof."

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: judasmachine
There is nothing to believe. The Earth is here, we are here, and that's that. Morality comes from a sense of compassion, and a foreknowledge of the consequences of ones behavior, not from a long storied guy in the sky.

Okay, but you contradict yourself. You say there is nothing to believe, then you tell me what IS. You've told me what you do believe in. You're using reasoning, and that means you believe in reasoning.

Okay then I guess I believe in reason. I don't fault anyone for what they believe, or how they get by, I can only describe the way I think.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

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.

My first reaction when reading your response was literally a verbal "Oh geez, oh whiz!"

I will take the bait and "argue that you are wrong" that belief in one thing (or a lack of belief as it may be) necessitates a belief in something else.

I absolutely believe in logic and reason. I can openly and readily admit that because it is true. Now here is where you are blurring the lines. Because I believe in logic and reason does not define that my belief or disbelief in a god is based on my belief in logic and reason. I could simply just choose to believe or not believe based on any number of alternate reasons.

It reminds me of a joke that I heard a short while back:

Q: Why are the youth today so ignorant and apathetic?
A: I don't know and don't care!

Basically, I could choose not to believe out of laziness or out of pure apathy towards religion in general. Either of which would define my lack of belief as non-existent yet neither would require me to have an alternate belief.

Okay then we have no argument. You say that you believe in logic and reason out of a search for truth. Christians believe in God out of a search for truth. Christians call Atheists deluded, and Atheists call Christians deluded.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that my belief in reason and logic is out of a search for truth. It is more that it is hard wired in the schematic of my brain. I lack the ability to not think logically and with reason. I am physically unable to not question what doesn't follow a known pattern.

That isn't a search for truth, it is an inability to convince myself to believe in something purely based on feelings or faith.

If I were to define a reason for religion, I think that I would call it just as you did above...A search for truth. I wouldn't call those that follow religions deluded however. I would say that they just stopped looking once they reached a certain way station and decided to not get back on the train to see if any other tracks might lead to a more truer explanation.

If you're using reasons to prove me wrong, then it follows that you must believe in reasoning, and that you must believe that reasoning is the only way to the truth.

That seems to me a logical assumption, because why would you use reasoning if you did not believe it?

It would appear to be a logic assumption if it wasn't a metaphysical impossibility for me to NOT be able to quantify data in a reasoned and logical manner.

The fact that I am not able to do it another way is not indicative of a belief in reasoning and logic...it is indicative of a neuro-scientific fact that I am incapable of going about life any other way.

Good response. I'm having a hard time with that one, and it'll take me some time to think through that.

But I don't see how you can know something without believing in it. How can you know that 2+2=4 without believing that Mathematics is factual and trustworthy?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: judasmachine
There is nothing to believe. The Earth is here, we are here, and that's that. Morality comes from a sense of compassion, and a foreknowledge of the consequences of ones behavior, not from a long storied guy in the sky.

Okay, but you contradict yourself. You say there is nothing to believe, then you tell me what IS. You've told me what you do believe in. You're using reasoning, and that means you believe in reasoning.

Okay then I guess I believe in reason. I don't fault anyone for what they believe, or how they get by, I can only describe the way I think.

And that's perfectly reasonable.

I'm not trying to say atheists are wrong, or that theists are right. I just want to prove that atheists go about their beliefs out of the same motivation that theists do, and that makes atheism a system of belief, just like Christianity, or any other religion.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

Your argument is based upon an incorrect definition of religion and belief. Religion by definition (to nearly all people) deals with supernatural explanations. Atheism surely does not. Belief in a religion the way that nearly all people understand it is a belief based upon personal faith, not evidence as it is with the atheist. They simply are very different natures of belief. Therefore atheists are doing something very different when they believe in the evidence presented to them by science as opposed to what a religious person believes in when someone reads from them in a book on Sunday.

I guess what I'm saying is that either your point is wrong because your definitions are incorrect or the point you are making is so broad as to be useless. You might as well say that shit and a chocolate bar are the same because they are both brown.

Atheists believe what they do because they believe in evidence presented by Science. Theists believe what they do because they believe in that a certain Being presented the truth to them plainly.

No matter what happens though, both sides are saying the same thing: "We're right, and you're wrong, because we have better proof."

No, you are implying equivalence where none exists. As I said before, this is because you are using definitions improperly. Proof is 'the establishment or denial of a fact through evidence'. The two sides are not equal if one side has painstakingly researched something and through logical deduction based upon empirical evidence determined something to be true, and the other side just decides it is so because of some god they decide to believe in.

Your argument is either that, which is simply wrong, or it is that all people in the world have a belief that things exist. As I said before, the first one is incorrect and the second one is so broad as to have no meaning.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts.

I would like you, Atreus21 to respond to that.

Actually I agree very much with that. We both believe in truth, but we disagree with each other in how we've found it, and the proof.

Just like religions do.

No, i believe in known truth, where you can observe the truth, like evolutin which is observable, falsifiable and to the best of our knowledge at all times, if proven wrong, it's still to the best of our knowledge, it doesn't have a basis and it doesn't draw a conclusion, it is just what it is.

That is what i like about science, it's never done, the more facts the better, as opposed to religion where the facts are known and then everyone is looking for evidence that points to the already drawn conclusion.

So while i believe in truth to the best of my knowledge, you believe in something completely different, you found your truth without a shred of evidence, in fact there are so much evidence to the contrary that it makes you make up shit to justify your own beliefs.

Now it may seem like i am attacking you but you definently have the right to your own religion whatever it may be, i defend that, but don't debate religion based on evidence, don't ever do that, it just doesn't work, at all.

If you don't believe me ask the ID people, i mean anyone who has taken a biology class can dismiss them with one sentence.

It's good advice to keep your beliefs to yourself, i keep mine to myself unless someone asks me, and i haven't even mentioned them in this thread either.

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

I don't "believe" in anything, i know what i know and others know what they know based on the scientific evidence available, i used to date a research virology scientist so i know evolution quiet well, it've even observed it myself through a nanoscope.

I do not DISBELIEVE in a god, i just have no more proof of a god any more than i have proof of the easter bunny or Santa claus, none.

And when you write your reply, i'm a born, raised and confirmed Catholic child with Catholic parents who go to church every sunday, so it's not lack of exposure either.

I just don't believe. You don't have to believe in evidence, it's either observable or it isn't, if it isn't, it's not science. So that's not a belief at all, it's knowing through observation, experimentation and repetition.

I hate to keep beating this drum but you keep proving it to me.

You're looking for proof. That means you believe that reasoning is the way to proof, and truth.

Again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

Your argument is based upon an incorrect definition of religion and belief. Religion by definition (to nearly all people) deals with supernatural explanations. Atheism surely does not. Belief in a religion the way that nearly all people understand it is a belief based upon personal faith, not evidence as it is with the atheist. They simply are very different natures of belief. Therefore atheists are doing something very different when they believe in the evidence presented to them by science as opposed to what a religious person believes in when someone reads from them in a book on Sunday.

I guess what I'm saying is that either your point is wrong because your definitions are incorrect or the point you are making is so broad as to be useless. You might as well say that shit and a chocolate bar are the same because they are both brown.

Atheists believe what they do because they believe in evidence presented by Science. Theists believe what they do because they believe in that a certain Being presented the truth to them plainly.

No matter what happens though, both sides are saying the same thing: "We're right, and you're wrong, because we have better proof."

Do you understand that the theory of evolution would turn into creationism with evidence presented, it doesn't CLAIM shit, it just describes a process, there is nothing invested in it either, it just goes with the available evidence.

Atheists don't "believe" shit, we know what we know through observation, experimentation and repetition, now if i can SEE something, i dunno, kinda helps the credability, religion is the opposite, it has the facts, this is what you are supposed to believe and damn all facts that points in a different reaction, hell, religion doesn't need no damn stinkeen facts.

I am surprised you don't get it, i think you started this thread to try to indoctrinate yourself that atheists too believe and that science is about belief, but it isn't, it's about evidence, if there is evidence to the contrary the science adopts it and incorporates them and it is added as new knowledge, if there is evidence discovered that Jesus did, in fact, not rise from his grave, it will just be discarded by Christianity because that is how religion works, it has all facts and damn all millions of proofs to the contrary.

There isn't ONE evidence that points to an existance of a god, not ONE, but there are hundreds of thousands of new evidence discovered every day that works along the model we have established for evolution, if it didn't, the model would have to change, but religion NEVER changes, not with anything, it is what it is and there is no evidence what so ever, none, zilch, zero, nada, it takes belief to believe in it, science doesn't like belief, it likes knowledge, and there is no "belief" involved.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I hate to keep beating this drum but you keep proving it to me.

You're looking for proof. That means you believe that reasoning is the way to proof, and truth.

Again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists.

Seriously man, there isn't much else that can be said to you at this point other then your definitions of the words you are attempting to use and their application are simply wrong. This is why you're running into the idea that atheism and theism are the same thing.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

Your argument is based upon an incorrect definition of religion and belief. Religion by definition (to nearly all people) deals with supernatural explanations. Atheism surely does not. Belief in a religion the way that nearly all people understand it is a belief based upon personal faith, not evidence as it is with the atheist. They simply are very different natures of belief. Therefore atheists are doing something very different when they believe in the evidence presented to them by science as opposed to what a religious person believes in when someone reads from them in a book on Sunday.

I guess what I'm saying is that either your point is wrong because your definitions are incorrect or the point you are making is so broad as to be useless. You might as well say that shit and a chocolate bar are the same because they are both brown.

Atheists believe what they do because they believe in evidence presented by Science. Theists believe what they do because they believe in that a certain Being presented the truth to them plainly.

No matter what happens though, both sides are saying the same thing: "We're right, and you're wrong, because we have better proof."

Do you understand that the theory of evolution would turn into creationism with evidence presented, it doesn't CLAIM shit, it just describes a process, there is nothing invested in it either, it just goes with the available evidence.

Atheists don't "believe" shit, we know what we know through observation, experimentation and repetition, now if i can SEE something, i dunno, kinda helps the credability, religion is the opposite, it has the facts, this is what you are supposed to believe and damn all facts that points in a different reaction, hell, religion doesn't need no damn stinkeen facts.

I am surprised you don't get it, i think you started this thread to try to indoctrinate yourself that atheists too believe and that science is about belief, but it isn't, it's about evidence, if there is evidence to the contrary the science adopts it and incorporates them and it is added as new knowledge, if there is evidence discovered that Jesus did, in fact, not rise from his grave, it will just be discarded by Christianity because that is how religion works, it has all facts and damn all millions of proofs to the contrary.

There isn't ONE evidence that points to an existance of a god, not ONE, but there are hundreds of thousands of new evidence discovered every day that works along the model we have established for evolution, if it didn't, the model would have to change, but religion NEVER changes, not with anything, it is what it is and there is no evidence what so ever, none, zilch, zero, nada, it takes belief to believe in it, science doesn't like belief, it likes knowledge, and there is no "belief" involved.

Atheists don't believe shit.

Okay, so you don't believe in Mathematics?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts.

I would like you, Atreus21 to respond to that.

Actually I agree very much with that. We both believe in truth, but we disagree with each other in how we've found it, and the proof.

Just like religions do.

No, i believe in known truth, where you can observe the truth, like evolutin which is observable, falsifiable and to the best of our knowledge at all times, if proven wrong, it's still to the best of our knowledge, it doesn't have a basis and it doesn't draw a conclusion, it is just what it is.

That is what i like about science, it's never done, the more facts the better, as opposed to religion where the facts are known and then everyone is looking for evidence that points to the already drawn conclusion.

So while i believe in truth to the best of my knowledge, you believe in something completely different, you found your truth without a shred of evidence, in fact there are so much evidence to the contrary that it makes you make up shit to justify your own beliefs.

Now it may seem like i am attacking you but you definently have the right to your own religion whatever it may be, i defend that, but don't debate religion based on evidence, don't ever do that, it just doesn't work, at all.

If you don't believe me ask the ID people, i mean anyone who has taken a biology class can dismiss them with one sentence.

It's good advice to keep your beliefs to yourself, i keep mine to myself unless someone asks me, and i haven't even mentioned them in this thread either.

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

I don't "believe" in anything, i know what i know and others know what they know based on the scientific evidence available, i used to date a research virology scientist so i know evolution quiet well, it've even observed it myself through a nanoscope.

I do not DISBELIEVE in a god, i just have no more proof of a god any more than i have proof of the easter bunny or Santa claus, none.

And when you write your reply, i'm a born, raised and confirmed Catholic child with Catholic parents who go to church every sunday, so it's not lack of exposure either.

I just don't believe. You don't have to believe in evidence, it's either observable or it isn't, if it isn't, it's not science. So that's not a belief at all, it's knowing through observation, experimentation and repetition.

I hate to keep beating this drum but you keep proving it to me.

You're looking for proof. That means you believe that reasoning is the way to proof, and truth.

Again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists.

I've tried to explain to you in many posts that that is not the case, but either you are willfully ignorant or just stupid, i don't know which and i don't really care either.

I think it's willful ignorance because even the staunchest deniers of truth are not that stupid, not really.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I hate to keep beating this drum but you keep proving it to me.

You're looking for proof. That means you believe that reasoning is the way to proof, and truth.

Again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists.

Seriously man, there isn't much else that can be said to you at this point other then your definitions of the words you are attempting to use and their application are simply wrong. This is why you're running into the idea that atheism and theism are the same thing.

What definitions have I made incorrectly?

My argument is as follows:

Religion is a system of belief that shows the truth to be in God.
Atheism is a system of belief that shows the truth to be in Science.

It follows that Atheism and Religion seek the truth for the same reason, and as such are very similar.

I don't see how any of that is a false definition, or illogical.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts.

I would like you, Atreus21 to respond to that.

Actually I agree very much with that. We both believe in truth, but we disagree with each other in how we've found it, and the proof.

Just like religions do.

No, i believe in known truth, where you can observe the truth, like evolutin which is observable, falsifiable and to the best of our knowledge at all times, if proven wrong, it's still to the best of our knowledge, it doesn't have a basis and it doesn't draw a conclusion, it is just what it is.

That is what i like about science, it's never done, the more facts the better, as opposed to religion where the facts are known and then everyone is looking for evidence that points to the already drawn conclusion.

So while i believe in truth to the best of my knowledge, you believe in something completely different, you found your truth without a shred of evidence, in fact there are so much evidence to the contrary that it makes you make up shit to justify your own beliefs.

Now it may seem like i am attacking you but you definently have the right to your own religion whatever it may be, i defend that, but don't debate religion based on evidence, don't ever do that, it just doesn't work, at all.

If you don't believe me ask the ID people, i mean anyone who has taken a biology class can dismiss them with one sentence.

It's good advice to keep your beliefs to yourself, i keep mine to myself unless someone asks me, and i haven't even mentioned them in this thread either.

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

I don't "believe" in anything, i know what i know and others know what they know based on the scientific evidence available, i used to date a research virology scientist so i know evolution quiet well, it've even observed it myself through a nanoscope.

I do not DISBELIEVE in a god, i just have no more proof of a god any more than i have proof of the easter bunny or Santa claus, none.

And when you write your reply, i'm a born, raised and confirmed Catholic child with Catholic parents who go to church every sunday, so it's not lack of exposure either.

I just don't believe. You don't have to believe in evidence, it's either observable or it isn't, if it isn't, it's not science. So that's not a belief at all, it's knowing through observation, experimentation and repetition.

I hate to keep beating this drum but you keep proving it to me.

You're looking for proof. That means you believe that reasoning is the way to proof, and truth.

Again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists.

I've tried to explain to you in many posts that that is not the case, but either you are willfully ignorant or just stupid, i don't know which and i don't really care either.

I think it's willful ignorance because even the staunchest deniers of truth are not that stupid, not really.

Well, what do you believe in?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

Your argument is based upon an incorrect definition of religion and belief. Religion by definition (to nearly all people) deals with supernatural explanations. Atheism surely does not. Belief in a religion the way that nearly all people understand it is a belief based upon personal faith, not evidence as it is with the atheist. They simply are very different natures of belief. Therefore atheists are doing something very different when they believe in the evidence presented to them by science as opposed to what a religious person believes in when someone reads from them in a book on Sunday.

I guess what I'm saying is that either your point is wrong because your definitions are incorrect or the point you are making is so broad as to be useless. You might as well say that shit and a chocolate bar are the same because they are both brown.

Atheists believe what they do because they believe in evidence presented by Science. Theists believe what they do because they believe in that a certain Being presented the truth to them plainly.

No matter what happens though, both sides are saying the same thing: "We're right, and you're wrong, because we have better proof."

Do you understand that the theory of evolution would turn into creationism with evidence presented, it doesn't CLAIM shit, it just describes a process, there is nothing invested in it either, it just goes with the available evidence.

Atheists don't "believe" shit, we know what we know through observation, experimentation and repetition, now if i can SEE something, i dunno, kinda helps the credability, religion is the opposite, it has the facts, this is what you are supposed to believe and damn all facts that points in a different reaction, hell, religion doesn't need no damn stinkeen facts.

I am surprised you don't get it, i think you started this thread to try to indoctrinate yourself that atheists too believe and that science is about belief, but it isn't, it's about evidence, if there is evidence to the contrary the science adopts it and incorporates them and it is added as new knowledge, if there is evidence discovered that Jesus did, in fact, not rise from his grave, it will just be discarded by Christianity because that is how religion works, it has all facts and damn all millions of proofs to the contrary.

There isn't ONE evidence that points to an existance of a god, not ONE, but there are hundreds of thousands of new evidence discovered every day that works along the model we have established for evolution, if it didn't, the model would have to change, but religion NEVER changes, not with anything, it is what it is and there is no evidence what so ever, none, zilch, zero, nada, it takes belief to believe in it, science doesn't like belief, it likes knowledge, and there is no "belief" involved.

Atheists don't believe shit.

Okay, so you don't believe in Mathematics?

Nope, i don't believe in it, i have some knowledge in it and i know that it works, that is knowledge, not belief, do you get the difference, i've spent way to many posts to make you understand this extremely simple point.

Do you believe that 1+1=2 or do you KNOW that that is the case? Answer that and you'll have my answer.

(btw, i suck at mathematics, i went into the service when i was 18)

 

[theeedude]

There is a big difference between Truth and God. Mainly that truth is true
There is no order to the universe, BTW, our existence is a random event.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

It would appear to be a logic assumption if it wasn't a metaphysical impossibility for me to NOT be able to quantify data in a reasoned and logical manner.

The fact that I am not able to do it another way is not indicative of a belief in reasoning and logic...it is indicative of a neuro-scientific fact that I am incapable of going about life any other way.

Good response. I'm having a hard time with that one, and it'll take me some time to think through that.

But I don't see how you can know something without believing in it. How can you know that 2+2=4 without believing that Mathematics is factual and trustworthy?

See, now you moving into the world of acceptance of common terminology and not belief. I don't believe that 2+2=4 any more than I believe that the red is red and blue is blue. I accept that we have defined each as such and use the commonly accepted verbiage. But I don't believe that it is what we have defined it to be.

Maybe this is a good time to also mention that I have Asperger's Syndrome which is why I have continued my insistence on being hard wired for reason and logic and not just trained to "believe" in it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts.

I would like you, Atreus21 to respond to that.

If I may respond, I would say that I believe in one fewer god that you or Roberts. I don't believe in the gods of others or godlessness you and Roberts believe in.

God is a conscious state that lies at the core of being, a state of certainty that is arrived at by a science that is a secret, a fact and methodology that is completely hidden by belief and disbelief. It is why the meek inherit the earth and gain the kingdom of heaven. They have been reduced to such egolessness they can't hold on to anything. Because they are empty of self they are full of God. The believers and doubters have a different reward. They have the egotistical satisfaction of their smug belief or doubt. Belief and doubt are the two faces of pride.

Except as you are a little child you will not enter the Kingdom.

How does the ego become humble when the ego's first trick is to be proud of it's humility?

When the self sees the hopelessness of its situation, that there is nothing the self can do, that there is nothing left it can try, there is no escape, no exit, that all thought leads nowhere, sometimes one disappears in surrender and God who was always there appears.

Real religion is the science of killing the ego and belief and doubt are there to support it, the ego that is.