Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

There is evidence for clouds and walls. There is zero evidence for Zeus and Yahweh.

 

forget walls, use clouds, sun etc, there is no way in hell you can prove to a blind person that clouds or the sun exists, any more than a theist can prove Gods exist.

 

The sun and clouds affect the planet. Gods do not.

 

there you go, that will work

 

I am an atheist. I lack belief.

 

yes we know, right up there with rocks, they lack belief too!

 

I don't need to 'prove' it. I can use evidence to explain why the best explanation for rain is clouds and the water cycle; It is then up to the blind person to either accept or reject that evidence, if they reject it then it would be useful to understand why they reject it. If I can present no meaningful evidence then the blind person is free to lack belief in clouds. It will still rain either way just how life goes on when I lack belief in absurd assertions made without evidence.

I enjoyed your dodge and evasion around your own example of the wall. That was funny.

 

Yes, and you have yet to explain why that is a problem even though I have asked you several times and other posters have given good explanations of why there is a difference between conscious an unconscious atheism. I guess learning when to stop using absurd bumper sticker phrases is beyond some people, particularly theists pretending to be 'agnostic'.

 

If it doesn't help to explain it for them then the problem most likely isn't that the person is blind, it's more likely that person is religious or nominally agnostic.

 

theists use their evidence which shows that the best explanation is God, a blind person has no more reason to accept that than any atheist does, why they reject it is irrelevant to assign an appropriate a label.

Not a dodge, it was inapplicable to the example I used after it. Nice to to spin is as a dodge.

you cant lack belief in, out or otherwise. you can disbelieve, believe not as was explained to you countless times but you cant lack belief as a foundation for a conclusion.

 

so why continue to use lack belief?
ah dead people are atheists too!
yep there you go, just wiped out 4 more words out of the dictionary!
yes I see it now, unconsciously lacking belief yields unconscious atheists.

 

nah more like a thoughtless atheist in denial.

 

so why continue to use lack belief?
ah dead people are atheists too!
yep there you go, just wiped out 4 more words out of the dictionary!
yes I see it now, unconsciously lacking belief yields unconscious atheists.
But if you have an unconscious atheist how does he know if he is an atheist if he is unconscious and lacking belief? Seems we have yet another atheist paradox.

 

Nah, you just waved walls aside with no explanation because you realised that it was a dumb argument, even for a theist. No spin required.

Theists don't have any evidence to demonstrate anything about their delusion. The best they can argue is that they have faith, which is belief without evidence and sometimes in spite of the evidence and for some, faith is a central theme of their religion.

The blind person can understand the water cycle and I can give evidence for it, religious people cannot provide any evidence beyond their personal delusion, that is what it boils down to.

But hey, it matters not a jot how many times this is explained to you, you will be the contrarian for effect which is what I hope is the case and which I hope is indicated by you dropping the walls argument because you were at least smart enough to realise how dumb it is. That is my hope.

 

Hmmm, when dealing with a theist pretending to be agnostic, I don't think I'll be taking you that seriously, smacking you down has become trivial.

 

Explain why it is a problem.

It is not a problem to me, the rock lacks belief, so what? That changes nothing about my lack of belief. You seem to think that this is some kind of monumental gotcha and I could not be any more indifferent to it. You might as well say that a rock is a cripple because it lacks mobility, it just is beyond trivial and infantile but, I'm sure that it is entertaining you just like monkeys entertain themselves by masturbating openly in the zoo.

I guess we should not expect any better from theists pretending to be agnostics.

By the way, I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

Why would that be a contradiction? You don't lack *any* conclusion, you just lack the conclusion that there is a god.

Either way, this doesn't seem to be an answer to the argument I'm giving. I'm saying even if you were to convince everyone of your argument, the arguments against religion will remain the same. If you managed to call atheism a religion, then we'd just have to change the arguments to speak about "religion (except atheism)" instead of "religion".

You're just repeating your point again. I know what your argument is, I don't need you to repeat it, I need you to justify it, in particular in response to the criticisms I present. We've gone on for pages about different definitions and when you're justified in using which one, did you really think that just repeating your definition again would resolve our disagreement?

So, if someone says "I think the colour orange is pretty", would you accept the following rebuttal?

"No they would not, as I explained again, above, and additionally to be a orange one must be a fruit or they are not an orange, hence even if [some condition], you would still need to be a fruit to be an orange."

Is the original person not justified in choosing the definition which makes the argument they're trying to make?

 

Actually there is a way to prove that clouds exist. Let a blind man walk through heavy fog. Fog is a type of cloud and a blind man can experience the sensation of being in the cloud. The cool, moist feeling one feels in a fog is the same as being in a cloud.

And yes I speak from personal experience. I've been on mountains when a cloud wafted into us. It feels the same as fog.

 

What I'm wondering is why? Why do you feel the need to define others by your viewpoint? Why can't you simply allow others to be what they are without trying to force your beliefs onto us?

 

This may be why (repeat of my post)

I wonder why it's important to some theists that atheists have to 'believe' that there is no god, rather than the real situation, that they've looked at the proof and found none?

It's not a big deal for most atheists; we're comfortable with the concept of there being no god.

I wonder if the fantasy that atheists somehow have a 'belief' validates the theist's own belief system, and removes a 'threat' to their belief, which is of course being threatened by science and logical reasoning, and the spread of athiesm, particularly in the US. (I would post a recent article from SciAm but it's behind a paywall.)

The best solution would be for the people concerned to analyse their motives in starting threads like this.

 

nothing to do with that what so ever but its a nice hiding place for atheists, blame someone for something rather than understand the fallacies of their logic.

 

it would be proof to you not the blind person.

philosophy. these guys are wiping out several words and their black hole definition is designed to include me, as an atheist, and I am not.

 

as I said above, your black hole definition is designed to wipe out several variants of belief including agnostic, not to mention that atheist is the antithesis to theist which your crazy definition also wipes out. IOW there is no longer atheist/theist, like black/white, like dark/brite, instead you are trying to sell us on some backwards assed logical mumbo jumbo.

 

please stop telling me what I believe and trying to put me under the same umbrella as you with your black hole definitions, sinking like the titanic is not smacking anyone down

 

You're running away again.