Is Atheism a logical belief?

You have now equated lacking a belief to having no beliefs? Really?

 

I see no evidence of that. And your shouting it in block caps isn't evidence either.

No. I think I can understand my own mind and my own thoughts better than you understand my mind and my thoughts. I think I'm more likely to know if I can choose to believe I am an elephant. You are the one shouting in block caps people can. Speaking for yourself would be one thing, but you're projecting this onto Flew, me, and others. Did you do a drive by reading of psychology now?

Prove that. Right now you may believe you are safe, but if a man with a gun suddenly jumped before you and pointed it at you, I bet you would change your mind and believe you are in danger, regardless of what you'd prefer to believe. That's not a choice.

 

You're totally overrating that as an issue. In fact, it's a deflection from your own dedication to attempting to confuse people about atheism and agnosticism. So, why are you deflecting from your own direction?

Besides that, this kind of change isn't very common. The common direction is for humans to adhere to the beliefs of their parents - pretty much without any regard to what that happens to be.

In the case of Flew, he seems to have decided that there must have been a god in order for the universe to be created and also because he didn't think there was enough time for abiogenesis to work without help from a god.

But, he didn't see that god as having anything to do with the religions of today. And, as a Deist his view of god is highly disconnected from the lives of humans. One could even point out that the primary elements of what we think of as religion really don't exist.

 

again

 

No, I'm not. I can work with either definition, as I just proved. I just wrote that under your preferred definition of "atheist", it and your preferred definition of "agnostic" are mutually exclusive, and they are.

I'm also aware that there is another common definition of "atheist", that does not conflict with your preferred definition of agnostic, under which agnostic is a subcategory of atheist.

I'm also aware that there is another popular definition of "agnostic" (that has been used here on this forum), which doesn't deal with state of belief, but with if we can know.

You are the one that keeps insisting on a particular definition, and then pretending others share it, even though they made it clear they don't, in an attempt to put words into their mouths, only confusing yourself. in the end.

Yes, we know what definition you demand.
You refuse to acknowledge that others don't use that same definition, leading to confused garbage like:

Yeah DUH! You can't. And you aren't if you are an atheist by the other definition you refuse to acknowledge.

Swensson very patiently and politely tries to show you your own confusion, and YOU run around in an eternal circle. That isn't on him. That's entirely on you.
Swensson has had absolutely amazing patience with you.

 

NONRESPONSIVE, I accept your concession!

oh, how so?

Yeh its UNEQUIVOCALLY right out of the dictionary, you are the only one making demands to apply it incorrectly contrary to the dictionary, and its definition, and of course blaming me to pretend its about me when in fact you are the one doing the dirty.

First its not logically provable, and its being incorrectly applied because few people understand how to apply it. (Oh no no I wont tell, thats your problem)
I am the one who has been patient letting him push the goal posts all over the map, and more patient with the spam you post, most of which I ignore btw.

Its change, it proves the point.

yes deciding the opposite is a choice.

Its a god nonetheless, atheist to god like it or not, I guess he was not hatched with the acclaimed 'no choice' gene.

 

LMAO! That one legit made me laugh out loud.

You have to be trolling, right? When you realize you have no sensible response, and are backed into a corner, just write this!

Yeah, its out of a dictionary. Wow. So is the other definition that you dare not acknowledge.

You have not proved, or made any effort to prove that he made a choice to believe in his deist God. And you conveniently ignore that even you yourself have beliefs you don't choose. Unless you really can will yourself to believe that you are an elephant or that a gun pointed at you doesn't put you in any danger. And if you really can do that, then again, I am amazed at your powers of self-delusion.

 

One person doing something does NOT prove anything at all.

If you want to show something about human behavior, a study of one carefully hand picked individual means absolutely NOTHING.

 

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

glad to see you now say you agree....

 

There is nothing careful about it wil, its claimed to be his lacker definition that is in the dictionary, and he stabbed you all in the back! No better choice in the world, it only takes on person one time to prove something, its ridiculous denial to claim otherwise.

 

Id have to go back to see what I was referring to but I never disagreed with that. I disagree with neoatheists who claim because they dont have every neoatheist running lockstep with each other that its not a religion. They constantly try to bamboozle by hook or crook their way into a position of no accountability for their nuthouse theories.

 

neoathiest believe in no religion, not theist religions, not against religions, they are anti-religion

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neoatheist

"A member of the vocally anti-religious movement that came to prominence in the early 2000s."

 

I posted a citation that teaches the existence of 'secular religion', and that applies to atheists.
They can believe in whatever they want, deity believers believe in G/gods, does not mean they exist, any more than the neoatheists believing they are not a religion.

 

Do you not understand what we are talking about? Do you not understand the question? DISBELIEF in religion is NOT a BELIEF in religion.

Your argument is bonkers. Believing in something that cannot be seen is NOT LOGICAL. Disbelieving in something that cannot be seen is LOGICAL.

 

Your suspicion is well founded. As Flew himself admitted in letters to Richard Carrier, he was strongly influenced by theist scientists, particularly Gerald Schroeder. He also was over 80 at the time of his "conversion", and he'd been oscillating for years between atheism and belief in the existence of some kind of “noninterfering God of the people called Deists — such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.” (quote from a letter to Carrier). Flew never became a Christian though.

 

Obviously they made a better case than flew could find or come up with by himself so HE CHOSE to believe in god. He was not one of the lucky ones to have the "no choice" neoatheist gene like the bird, who is just crying in his soup that his hero betrayed him and all the rest of the neoatheists on the planet.

 

religion does not mean deity, in its simplest terms its the philosophy you practice.

Secular religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities. Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are capitalism, nationalism, internationalism, Nazism, fascism, feminism, communism, Maoism, Juche, progressivism, transhumanism, Religion of Humanity, Jacobinism, and the Cult of Reason and Cult of the Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution.


If you disbelieve in religion you are disbelieving your own beliefs

Like air?

 

Interesting that Koko thinks an atheist would be another atheists' "hero" simply for being an atheist. I've never once commented on what I thought of Flew.

Complete nonsense.

 

Goo-goo!

Yes. Like air.

 

some atheists maybe, I could post some beliefs of some theists, does that mean it applies to all theists?

 

They probably mean that one is born without religion. And barring any peculiar insight to the contrary, it would appear to be so. And that belief in this or that God is learned and adopted, rather than brought with us into life. To me, Atheism is a reaction and resistance to the quackery that surrounds us. As such, theirs is more of an orthodox fidelity to that which dwells within them, than a naive embrace of unverified and unqualified religious dogma from elsewhere. Who can blame Atheists in the marketplace of the world, where souls are captured, bought and sold, funneled here and there as if it were to distant lands and strange places, by the multitudes of religions and denominations of belief, fat with willing captives.

 

afaik everyone is born without religion and no knowledge/position of any Ggod. religion comes later in life when the babe takes on the baggage of a belief system, and starts acting in accordance with those beliefs. Religion is an outward expression of your beliefs and that can only be observed by observing your actions.

 

Unless your beliefs have nothing to do with imaginary characters.

 

religion is typically filed under 'worldview' as it applies to atheists, its not locked into deity belief like neoatheists pretend, though it was historically most often 'applied' that way to indicate people with strongly held beliefs and tradition, and of course monks most closely fit that bill in ancient times, but it applies to everyone.

religion means 'that to which one is bound'. In other words what you believe regardless of label, and resulting actions.

neoatheists on the other hand are trying hard to rewrite everything in life, so nothing applies to them, at least in their mind.