Is Atheism a logical belief?

True - we certainly see nurture play a major role in choice of religion.

If people choose to believe there is a god/gods, they almost never choose a god or gods other than those of their parents or similar immediate system.

It's not as if people study the various religions and then make their educated choice.

 

Submerged in enough religious indoctrination from birth, and with genetic proclivity not to question and to value group belonging and trust authority, some theists have little opportunity to see through the lies. But some especially inquisitive, stubborn, anti-authoritarian people raised in such an environment still do. I admire them.

And the genetic proclivities are not strictly theist vs Atheist. A lot of the groupish, authoritarian and/or unskeptical and suggestible folks are atheists pushing all sorts of woo.

 

Atheism is not the negation of theism. It's lack of theism.

There were exactly four New Atheists. Only three remain today. Yet you talk about them as if they're a huge global organization.

Of course we can't decide what we want to believe.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262619303860

How can we choose what we want to believe if we're not even aware of the thought processes that lead to the formation of beliefs?

What we can choose is to educate ourselves. New, accurate information will have a positive impact on the thought processes themselves. We can't choose what the end result of those thought processes will be.

I never noticed any reference to an atheist gene in his posts though. Citation?

Define G/god(s).

Not necessarily. Withholding judgment is an option. Or are you saying that agnostics don't really exist?

 

Also, note how Koko has now suddenly switched from "choose what we believe" to "choose what we want to believe". He is clearly trying to build in some added wiggle room for himself.

It gets better. Koko is about to tell you he IS an agnostic, and neither believes there is/are Gods nor believes that there are no Gods. Immediately after telling you that you must either believe there are Gods or believe there are no Gods. He sees no contradiction in that.

 

Let's not forget that the religious tend to have the problem that their woo doesn't always match what we find by examining this universe.

That sets up an actual conflict that is sure to make it easier to discount expert opinion in any field of study. "If they oppose something in my religion, how can I believe them when they say anything else?"

We end up with the religious all too often seeing our universities, medical science, etc., as the enemy, the hotbeds of evil. One can see that every day on this board. But, it also permeates US policy making.

Whether one calls it woo or not, that is a serious problem when one considers our future.

Atheists can certainly fall for woo, but it isn't caused by not believing in some god.

 

Im not sure what your problem is but lacker theory does not negate theism.
What's The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?
https://www.dictionary.com › ... › Mixed-up Meanings
Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god. However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert ...

etymology fallacy, it was true when you were living in the stone age not in todays contemporary society.

Not so, ask any die hard neoatheist they dont believe the negation they simply lack all beliefs, but then so do people in a coma, rocks, and dead people.
Clearly we are supposed to conclude atheists are incapable of concluding a belief in the negative

as predicted moving the goal posts, from not able to compelled,hence a "choice" as I said. LMAO

ah so your biological analogy was another falsification goal post moving red herring! Yep now the truth comes out.

Not according to you, its in our genetics according to your neoatheist atheology.

Shhh dont blow their minds with facts, we are all supposed to believe it only applies to theists and neoatheists get a free pass!

but you do, you and swensson both have tried to overwrite agnostic out of exitence to cover up the fact the lacker atheology is a fails logic 101.

 

simple clarification, now if you think that you do not choose to believe something feel free to prove it,

Here you go folks! That will NEVER HAPPEN he will not respond to prove up the claim because the claim of no choice is total bullshit and he knows it! LOL

 

It remains that people use the word this way, which is what I wrote. No amount of demands on your part changes that. Nor does any amount of pretending they mean something else by the word change that. Your equivocation does not alter reality.

I never said agnostics don't exist. Neither did Swensson as far as I am aware.

And for somebody who often talks down to me saying my grasp of my second language, English, is poor, it's pretty funny seeing you write "atheology is a fails logic".

 

I don't find this interesting.

This difference you want to try to support doesn't identify a difference in how decisions are made, one's actions, what one DOES believe in, etc.

It just doesn't add any insight.

What does it really matter whether someone is actually an agnostic vs. being an atheist?

THIS one is not just uninteresting, but just plain silly.

Atheism does NOT mean having no beliefs. It means not accepting that there is a god or gods.

 

I like how Koko takes a claim he made, that people choose what they believe, and not only tries to reverse the onus of proof when I tell him I don't agree, but also tries to gaslight me into questioning my own experiences of mind. I am pretty confident that I know my mind better than he knows my mind. I am pretty sure I can't make myself believe that I am an elephant.

I can't say whether or not Koko can make himself believe he is an elephant. If he can, then he has a very impressive ability that I lack.

 

you're wrong, Buddhist are Atheists, Atheists have differing beliefs, same as theists

be like saying all theists have the same beliefs

 

no one is interested in data that proves how crewed up their theories are wil LOL

decisions are a fact wil,

choice
1 : the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilies

The claim people do not choose between 2 or more alternatives is beyond idiocy if there is such a thing

 

nonconnected response

address pisas and the birdsw opposition to the dictionary

What's The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?
https://www.dictionary.com › ... › Mixed-up Meanings
Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god. However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert ...

I agree that Buddhist are Atheists, Atheists have differing beliefs, same as theists, its the neoatheists that disagree

But then why do neoatheists claim they have no beliefs? Are they dealing with a full deck?

 

I didn't suggest people don't chose between various alternatives.

 

well then address the contents of the post, no one gives a **** how interested you are.

Oh that right the bird is the one with the no choice gene in his dna.

 

they are not related, agnostics REJECT atheism

It adds facts, if you want insight go to night school.

yes rejection is a negative belief

Rejection of both atheist and theist premise is agnostic.
Now the bird wants to convince us that atheist reject themselves by combining agnostic with atheist. Self rejection!

 

400+20 = 420 = pot
People use 420 a lot too, clearly using atheology it is no longer applicable to the number line and is pot.

I am not broadsweeping you are, nice 'equivocal' projection.

autocorrect wrote that
Not so good at reading typonese either LOL
atheology fails logic, are you happy now?

 

YES, I know for a fact believing G/gods exist is a choice, same as believing G/gods do not exist is a choice.



Antony Flew
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind Paperback – November 4, 2008
by Antony Flew (Author), Roy Abraham Varghese (Author)

The Turning of an Atheist - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › magazine › 04Flew-t
Nov 4, 2007 — The British philosopher Antony Flew was one of the West's most influential atheist... “He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific ...

everyone on the planet but you thinks its a choice.
Ok Q up the next round of neoatheist embarrassment.

 

They don't. Where did you ever see anybody say they have no beliefs?

 

Rejection is rejection - not belief.

Agnostics and atheists reject the possible existence of a god as being a valid foundation for their own decision making.

 

The above confusion is just more of your equivocation. Under your demanded definition of "atheist", it is mutually exclusive from your demanded definition of "agnostic". Under the other common definition of atheist, it is not mutually exclusive from your demanded definition of agnostic, and agnostic is a subcategory of atheist. You are only confused because you keep insisting on your equivocation.

 

Another pointless derail pretending to be an argument. Nothing in what you posted above regarding Flew says anything about his change from atheist to theist being a choice or not. In fact, you cut it off and I have not read the full blurb, but it says "based on scientific...". And I strongly suspect it it says something about him being convinced by evidence or argument, and not him choosing to believe and willing his belief into being.

 

yeh dont you read the forum? They say they lack belief all the time. Its not possible to lack belief, ever. The only possibility to to exchange what you believe, you either believe the affirmation or its negation

 

sorry, FLEW CHOSE TO BELIEVE IN A GOD AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF NOW BELIEVING IN A GOD! Changing from atheist to theist is a choice.

You seem to think you can do a drive by reading of psychology now and come out here and debate, all you have is blind denial.

Changed mind proves choice, feel free to offer a valid rebuttal to 'try' and prove otherwise!

sorry that does not fit your nonsense narrative.

 

No it goes no further than more of YOUR confusion.

You are the one demanding YOUR DEFINITION, I posted the definitions from the dictionary and other sources.

Repeat 100,000 times: AGNOSTICS REJECT ATHEISM,
if you still cant see how ****ed up it is to claim agnostic is a subset of atheist then continue repeating it as necessary.

YOU CANT ****ING BE PART OF WHAT YOU REJECT! DUH!

Swensson tries to logically prove it for pages in my thread, between your spam, and all he does is run around in an eternal circle.

I try to be nice and simply tell you that you dont understand the logic, I post references and charts but you are not teachable.