Is Atheism a logical belief?

I am amazed that you have convinced yourself that this thread proves anything whatsoever. It was nothing but a strawman presented by you, corrected by others, and then some bickering from Koko about what "agnostic" means.

You have not proved that such belief is a choice. You have also not shown that nobody can say if there is a God or not. There COULD be somebody out there who KNOWS there is a God, because God actually revealed special knowledge to them. All we know about that is that they haven't been able to share that and prove it. We have also shown you numerous times that many conceptions of God are self-contradictory and therefore false. You didn't respond to any of this.

Far more theists refuse to admit they don't know than atheists. Did you see even one atheist in this thread say they know for certain there are no Gods?

You started with childish insults. You don't get to hide behind this now, when you got some in return. Many here TRIED to engage you in good faith dialog and you resorted to mud slinging, so we followed your lead. That's on you, not anybody else.

 

I am not obligated to reply to anyone here - in spite of what they might think. If I find an argument boring, or see that it contradicts itself within the very same post, I ignore it.

I admit that I lack the patience and demeanor of say a Mitt Ryan or a yabberrefugee.

 

No, you're not. And nor is anyone here obligated to engage you further. That's why the thread was so easily hijacked by Koko. People saw what you wrote, answered you directly and politely, you had nothing but insults to say in return, branding yourself as some sort of intellectual superior digusted with the mediocrity of us plebs, so we all considered you done, and people moved on. Most would expect that. Yet somehow you don't.

 

Except you?

 

Consider it a kindness to you. You were complaining that people were off topic from the thread. I asked if you had anything to say on topic, to address what people said and you ignored. That would have gotten the thread back on topic. You then pointed out that you don't have to answer anything and are free to dodge, and this is true. But if you have nothing more to say, then you have little standing to complain about the thread being taken off a topic you yourself are done with.

 

I said what I wanted to say: no one can say, with scientific certainty, that there is, or is not, a God. Therefore, it can only be a belief, that a person chooses, in either case.

There is nothing else to say about it.

 

There are a few problems with this.

First, you can't know that nobody can say. There COULD be somebody out there that God has revealed herself to with scientific proof that hasn't been shared with the rest of us. We can also prove self-contradictory conceptions of Gods to be false because they self-contradict.

Second, you have not even attempted to prove that people choose to believe in God or not. You merely asserted this, and it conflicts with my own experience. I can no more choose to believe in Bible God than I can choose to believe I am an elephant. I can pretend, sure. But actually believe it? No. Can you choose to believe you are an elephant? For that matter, if you are a theist, can you choose to believe God does not exist, and actually believe that? I doubt it.

Somebody else brought up that same point and you declined to engage it, hence declining to prove what you now claim you proved. So you proved nothing. You just made some assertions you didn't back up.

 

By default, "I don't know," in the context of this thread, means, there could be a God.

 

Yes. And it means YOU don't know. That doesn't mean everybody else doesn't know. I have no reason to think that anybody else knows, but it is possible that somebody does.

 

Try not to tell me who my hero is. He's not my hero. Next, I am completely disinterested in what anyone said 60+ years ago about the definition of agnosticism, theism or atheism. Words change meanings, grow new meanings, and develop connotations and nuance over time. Its a new day, a new dawn and a new century. I have already told you that the agnostic movement has grown substantially, over the last half century. It has not stayed stagnant and you need to keep up. The definitions I supplied are accurate, and I have plenty of citations where mine came from.

You do not get to pick one out that works for your anti-atheist agenda and shove it at me or anyone else on this forum.. Unlike you, I am an agnostic because I don't know if God exists or not, and I do not believe it is knowable . I am an atheist because I don't believe in anything supernatural, or paranormal without evidence or proof, including any deities. Since you are neither.an agnostic or an atheist, and certainly no expert here, I will pick a definition myself thanks!

 

I realize you hate me, but here you are again making up **** about me. btthegreat was the first off topic post not me. Try once in your life to post facts instead of bullshit.

 

I am NOT responding to those posts in this thread, apparently you have no respect for the OP.

I realize that very complicated for some people to understand and probably because I posted it in such small print.

 

Koko, I take it back. Please, post as you like.

Sincerely

 

So you have two questions. The first to believe in a god you must first believe in the supernatural. There has never been objective evidence of the supernatural so believing in it would be illogical. It can be a hope or a wish but believing something is concrete fact without any evidence of is existence is just illogical. Okay, that is an argument for agnosticism, but atheism goes further. Man has thought of maybe millions of gods through the centuries and each were thought to be true. Yours is no better than theirs and you say theirs are false, don't exist and I say yours doesn't either, just another in a series of human constructs. You are an atheist in regards to all the other gods but your own and he ain't mine.

Man hasn't answered first cause, but you seem to need an answer now. You can say a God did it, then what did God? You can say God is everlasting, so why then can't the universe be everlasting?

 

I think you're spot-on about him; a theist in agnostic clothing.

 

Belief in god(s) is not a choice, and atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the lack of belief. It's one of the types of non-belief, actually.

Unlike agnostics, I think it's fairly easy to prove gods don't exist. Looking back at human history, we find thousands of former gods who lost their worshipers and disappeared from minds and hearts. Where are they? "False gods", claim Christians. Sure, but looking back at the Christian god we also see different stages, very different ways of worship, throughout time and civilizations. Which one is the real god? The primitive fertility god YHWH depicted on a stone with a very long reproductive organ (or a tail) and a goddess at his side? Or the one who demands chastity? The god who chased Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden because he didn't want them to become immortal, or the one who died on the cross to bring back humans to the Garden of Eden offering them eternal life?

Define your god.

I disagree with sweeping generalizations like "atheists hate Christians". For many, Christians are family, friends, co-workers, hair stylists, Who would hate their hair stylist?

If you wish to talk about attitudes toward Christians and Christianity, you should have put your thread in the Political Opinions section.

You're asking from others to become perfect in order to be worthy to interact with you. That's impossible, not to mention patronizing and insulting. No human being is above fault.

I'll check this out, but know that Hawking is not my god and his work is not my gospel, so what if he said?

 

I get that same vibe. If he was legit agnostic he wouldn't be so defensive about it or so cryptic and self conflicting.

 

I've posted several issues with direct aim at the questions at hand which haven't been addressed.

I seem to recall posting this:

At the end of the day, we know very little about what happened around the beginning of the universe (as well as the beginning of life). [...] The beginning of the universe is unintuitive to humans, and much of it is simply unknown. (source)​

and then this:

I don't think atheists as a whole have committed to any particular source of the universe, we simply don't know. (source),​

both without any insults or "crying".

Where do you get the idea that nobody does this, or that it would be "admitting" something? The atheist position isn't that we have a specific alternative theory, but that the fact that alternative theories exist means that theism's/Christianity's failure to provide any evidence leaves us without justification to believe in theism/Christianity.

Maybe they do it because you don't seem to entertain any of the polite responses.

Proposing something happened is not the same as claiming that we properly know that something happened. And more to the point, so what? Let's say Hawking turns out to be wrong, as he well may be, then what?

 

This last is a problem. Nobody is going to change anyone's religion here, so just berateing a religion is counterproductive. However, I would suggest there IS plenty of justification for keeping religion separate from science.

You're WAY off the mark on Hawking. He had lots of ideas, some that turned out to be true. Some that didn't. He did NOT present his ideas as truth. He presented them as what he thought the answers might be, which provided guidance concerning where to look.

In science, the process is to come up with possible answers and then test them.

Claiming that his ideas are justification for seeing him as having no humility is an ad hom attack on him.

 

All patient, reasonable responses Willreadmore....and Last American's response?
Saying the unanswered questions of science can be answered by "God did it" is intellectually lazy. I'm less patient.

 

Fair enough,

so how far back do you accept?

59 years 11 months 30 days maybe?

If we are to have a fruitful discussion that becomes an important factor.

So how far back is valid according to your standards, or do you have a citation proving anything beyond 60 years is outdated and materially unusable?

I couldnt find them in any dictionary though. Please cite the dictionary those definitions came from.

we shall see.

Now there is a long walk off a short plank! lol
really? how does that work? The bird has been spewing that nonsense too, a quick glance in the interweb tells me that is the latest crazy **** going around. Ironically no one has come up with an arguable explanation for it. (and never will frank.ly) LOL

 

What is "arguable explanation"?

Did you chose your beliefs? If so, how?

 

I never said God did it - you are ASSUMING that I did from reading my signature lines - your reading comprehension skill are breathtakingly lacking AND intellectually lazy.

 

an explanation you or any one else is capable of defending.

 

He told me I can choose to believe I am an elephant, and wouldn't believe me when I said I can't. Make what you will of that one.

He also said that "I do not believe there are Gods" is exactly the same meaning as "I believe there are no God's" AND claimed to neither believe there are Gods or believe there are no Gods, and refuses to see any contradiction in that.

Have fun with this tangled mess.