Contradiction in Atheism?

Believing something is not the same as asserting with certainty that it's true. If I say I believe I have enough petrol enough to get me to my destination, it goes without saying that I could be wrong but I base the belief on simple math not faith. I look at the gauge and knowing the distance I have to travel and the milage my vehicle gets I do a calculation. If the result is that I should be able to reach my destination with a couple miles left over I say I "believe" I can make it. But I recognize of course, and again not based on faith, that I might have made a mistake or maybe something fails and the fuel leaks out and stops me short. The point is, the belief has nothing to do with faith even though I don't have definitive proof. It's based on experience and logic.

Likewise when I say I don't believe a god exists, I base it on evidence. I simpy don't have any evidence that justifies the proposition to my mind that a god does exist. Am I absolutely certain? No, but it isn't a faith based belief any more than the fuel belief above.

Now I'm sure you're going to say it's still faith. That's fine with me but it just tells me that you use the word faith differently than I do.

 

In either case V, someone must support their conclusion - whether that is to definitive point of proof (i.e. scientific and testable) or merely preponderance. Both require something to support.

What does not work is simply saying, "Gee, the evidnece that I am not presenting and the case that I am not making are not convinvcing to me." No offense, but isn't that somewhat self evident?

There should be an explainable course of logic, as atheists deny that atheism is a faith, etc., that leads to atheism.

Remember V, atheism cannot be disproven - much like God, but that does not mean it has the same evidential footing as religions founded in historical persons and events. Nor indeed does it deliver a message on morality and ethics. Why choose no God, if all things being equal in terms of evidence ... it leads to nothing?

 

And I'm more certain that there is no god, because gods are just so obviously a product of the human imagination and an evolution of older animistic/spiritual ideas. Gods are a great lie.

 

How is evidence-based belief a choice? It's not, apart from choosing to be honest with one's self and others.

 

Well, for starters, since we are debating, I am going to click "not like" on your side of the debste just so I can ensure you know how much I dsagree with you.

And, kiddo, please bear i mind that it is your side screaming that its evidenced based and definitely not a faith ... and then producing no evidence. How is that honest?

bear in mind that my myth, prone to genocide and slavery as it is, states that lying/dishonesty is a bad thing. What about yours?

 

Obviously, vapid propoganda is now scientific fact ... no sense countering dogma and blind adherence to propganda with a case - reminding you once again that there is plenty of siggestive evidence for a God. Could remind you again tha most scientists are theists, but what would be the point? Why bother with evidence in the face of blind faith and absolute convinction?

Where is that dislike button ...

 

ya you would have to build your own sense of what’s right and wrong. with out the convenience of that being decided for you by a god, that quite possibly doesn’t exist, who may not be anything special when it comes to morality even if it exists, or by other people who made up morality for you. who could ever not want that?
And with god you never have to doubt your actions as long as you believe you’re on god’s side. once you got a consistent theological story your practically infallible when it comes to moral judgments

 

no just most of them honest and um most of the interpretations of the one that actually exist um i swear

 

not possible for one reason:

if god existed, evidence would be inconsequential. the existence of god is a place where only proof of his existence has any merit, while proof against his existence cannot possibly exist. it's pretty simple really, god, if he existed, can discredit proof.

it is for this reason that there is absolutely no proof against god's existence. unfortunately, even though it is possible, there is also no proof that supports his existence either, just conjecture and wishful thinking.

nobody knows, and even thinking you know, or guessing, or leaning one way or the other is an act of foolishness.

 

The proposition before us is that a god exists, the null hypothesis is that no god exists. Logically, if I don't have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis it stands. I don't have enough evidence, therefore I don't believe in a god or gods.

You continually want to push the burden of proof on those who don't believe in god. Good logic doesn't work that way. The default position for any existential claim is that it is false and it remains false unless and until enough evidence is found to make that position untenable. You seem to think in reverse at least when it comes to god. You assume a god exists and will cling to that position until evidence points you the other way. But as it is not possible to find evidence supporting the nonexistance of anything, evidence is not relevant. My bet is when it comes to fairies or leprechauns or unicorns or Bigfoot etc. you use normal logic. You default to the position that they don't exist and will maintain that position pending evidence.

Now again, you will say that you do have evidence and that is where we separate again. The evidence that apparently convinces you doesn't even come close to convincing me. So there you have it, the circle is complete. We are never going to agree, so what's the point?

 

Faith is absent. It's a lack of belief. Neither is it a myth. One can live by the Golden Rule without theism, which is not a faith either. You are purposely conflating incompatibles.
Faith is inherently dishonest in that it requires the faithful to ignore the evidence and believe in spite of it.

 

Because it's just flat out wrong.

 

Not having a given set of morals it means that each atheist has his cultural , national , personal or all three combined.
The purpose of atheism is not to teach some kind of behaviour , actually atheism doesn't teaches anything.
There could be contradictions if there was a cannon , there is no cannon .
We don't believe in god and we don't follow a religion , there is nothing more to it .

 

No, I am applying logic and for some reason thaty makes you angry?

#1 - if it is not faith, then it requires evidence. Proof. You present none, deny faith, and charge others as being dishonest?

Your are purposesly making excuses. Apparently, debating your faith is something that makes you mad. Noted, not gioing to call my faith dishonest because it makes you mad.

That would be another example of illogic.

 

Nope, all we have is the hoard of atheists making completely contradictory statement about what it is and is not.

 

It does NOT require evidence to NOT believe in an existential claim. Does it require evidence to NOT believe in the tooth fairy? Does it require evidence to NOT believe in Bigfoot? You're still trying to shift the burden of proof of YOUR claim in the existence of god to those who don't accept it. It doesn't work!

You claim god exists... I don't believe you. Deal with it!

I am not asserting that there is no god. If I were then I would bear some burden of proof. Why is this so hard for you?

 

No Null, everyone else gets it without having create different definitions to attempt to avoid the burden of proof and slide the disbelief that there is no God into a different category of atheism.

So, like I said, I am now a gnostic-agnostic- buddhist- general type theist -Christian.

The fact that I believe Jesus is the Son of God obviously doesn't do my faoth ustice in all of its nuances, nor does the ability to offer up little points of clarity offer any kind of transmission of information.

This stands in stark contrast those, such as yourself, who act like striong atheists, declare atheism to be just the belief in no Gods (not a faith mind you, just no evcidence either) only it deals in dhades of improbability and is actually "We don't know." (All of these 'clarifying' statement have been made by atheists within the last 24 hours).

And people think that is a statement of logic rather than pure obfuscation?

No, the problem is that no one but atheists understand atheism? The deliberate comportment of simplicity itself makes everyone who disagrees with an obvious set of excuses just mean ... and atheism is a victim again.

 

One who practices atheism is an atheist: If atheism has no set of moral codes, then the adherent to atheism (the atheist) has no set of moral codes to follow. If the atheist does have a set of moral codes, then according to mutmekep that set of moral codes came from religion. Therefore; the atheist who claims to have a set of moral codes is a follower or adherent of some religion wherein the moral code came from.

Attacking the messenger rather than the message is a personal attack.

 

Morals do not require a religion.

 

Do you practice not believing in Bigfoot? Do you practice not collecting stamps? The premise of your entire post is flawed. One does not practice atheism. The idea that one does makes no sense.

 

Perhaps not, as atheism magically makes one moral by default, as evidenced by their lower representation in prison, correct?

 

Yep.

However, I certainly don not go ouit of my way to go into Big Foot discussion to tell everyone who does believe what utter and complete morons they are. Ergo, perhaps my practice of not believing is not as highly refined as atheisms total lack of action in its non-belief.

Whatever are you doing in a religion forum if your non-belief equates to non-pactice?

 

I believe you have fallen upon his specialist area of expertise.

 

You do? It must keep you very busy practicing all the things you don't believe in. Please tell us what it is you do to practice each of the following non beliefs:

Bigfoot
Leprechauns
Fairies
Lock Ness Monster
Ogopogo
Chupracabra

I could go on but I think the point is made. You don't practice non belief in these things. You were being dishonest. My bet these things rarely even cross your mind other than in passing. As far as I'm concerned your credibility is failing fast!

 

I have a question to atheists.

Why can you NOT commit to 100% certainty,that a Creator God does not exist ?

I'm simply wondering why there is any doubt in your minds about your non-belief in a deity. What makes you hold onto that 1% of belief ? (or less)

I can't help but to think from everything I have read on these forums,that in your mind, belief in God or gods is an absolutely ridiculous idea to you. So why not be at 100% in your life,seems most logical. Is there a percentage of superstition that exists or what is it exactly?

(not intended as flame bait or insult)