Is Atheism a logical belief?

It does not matter how accurate yhe mbti is, your boy admitted that he refused to cite it not because it was invalid in any way but because his reputation would be hurt due to prejudicial academic snobbery. Similar to your position.

 

I think they hope nobody will answer, and then they can think they have defeated the evil atheists and put them in their place. When an atheist does answer, and not with hostility but with logic and reason and civil discourse, then people like our fellow here in the OP get upset and eventually hurl insults and when that doesn't work, they retreat.

I would also like to be very careful to point that this is only one very vocal minority of theists. Most theists are not this way.

 

In that video, Jung looks a lot like George Castanza.

Also, I never found that worked for me and now I know why. It’s like astrology.
Also, the idea that some people are visual learners and others kinesthetic etc has all been found to be bunk too.

 

Jefferson picked the best word to sum up religion:

Faced with a growing need to secure peaceful coexistence between competing religious groups, the newly independent American states enshrined constitutional provisions for maintaining an exclusivist secular system. A key step in this direction was section 16 of the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, overseen by Thomas Jefferson, which stated that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.”

https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/...0228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-898

That was nothing short of brilliant.

 

I have yet to retreat from any thread I started

 

There is nothing inconsistent about not knowing if there is or is not a God, and then saying absent sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of one, I won't be believing in one any time soon.

I am an agnostic who recognizes that I don't know and cannot know if there is a God. I am an atheist who does not happen to believe in the existence of any God. Its that easy.

 

I can't believe anyone contributed without the requisite 'magic man in the sky' put-down...

There were a couple of others some pages back, but far less than there ought to be.

Thank you!

 

I have trouble personally believing in an afterlife, in beings or in miracles based on faith. But I have no concerns or problems whatsoever with those who do not have trouble believing in the aforementioned based on faith. I think there is a fundamental distinction to be made between an atheist, and an atheist who is also anti-theist, and opposes the belief in God, and see in theism inherent dangers and harm that outweighs potential value. I come to no such conclusion.

 

Even though some Christians and some Christian groups make Christians look like nutters I constantly defend Christianity from people who are bigoted against it. To me, one of the terrible things about the internet era is that extreme members of any group of people are over-represented in the media and social media causing people to judge the entire group as though the extremists are the norm.

That happens to all groups whether it’s religious groups, ethnic minorities, fans of a type of music, Transgender people, etc etc

In the end, most people are pretty decent and we should think carefully about how we talk to them and about them. Saying that all atheists are murderers because of Stalin is as wrong as saying all Christians are genocidal because of Ferdinand and Isabella expelling and killing Jews from Spain or all white people are racist because of slavery.

 

Its all about fighting stereotypes based on faith or its lack, fighting bigotry/discrimination based on faith or its acts, and holding people accountable for what they say or do regardless of faith or its lack.

 

Insufficient evidence of God prevents you from believing that God exists. not a problem.
Your error is that agnostics in addition recognize there is insufficient evidence to believe God does not exist.

you are an agnostic period.

yup only if you dismiss the other half of the equation, and without evidence God does not exist, you choose not to blieve in the existence of God anyway.

 

Had phone call missed the edit window

If your reason is based in you do not know, then its not logical to choose either position, because you dont have sufficient evidence either way, like I said that in itself makes you an agnostic.

Hard evidence (threfore knowing) is an absolute 'requirement' for an agnostic, not an atheist.

Like a theist, atheists can simply believe for the sake of believing.

If you want to be honest with yourself, neither do you have sufficient evidence to choose God does not exist, therefore you cant be an atheist using that premise.

Agnostics have far more strict rules that must be adhered to before accepting either side. We need to see your facts not your beliefs to accept either side.

 

LOL, You are funny. I like an assertion made, to have a little proof behind it. I see the existence of God or heaven or hell or reincarnation as a series of positive assertions that people make, so any lack enough proof behind them for my comfort level, leads to a non belief in me. I do therefore choose to declare publicly that I do not to believe in them absent that evidence. It all becomes pretty inevitable for me once I decide which is the positive assertion and what tends to get me to 'belief' when I see one of those. ( its also true that there was a time when I tried to do this believing in God thing for years, to see if any of this faith stuff would rub off. It didn't. I am just not someone to suspend my disbelief in anything I perceive as supernatural or paranormal ) You can call all this a choice if you like. I don't much care.

Are you going to keep trying to turn me into either an agnostic or an atheist consistent with your agenda, because I have never had any interest in converting you or telling you what you are or are not, or pin any labels on you or rip them off. I let you define you.

 

Just see the post above. I can say you are really invested in this business of forcing this position on agnostic atheists. Its not going to work.

 

There is such a thing as proportioning your belief to the evidence. To give equal credence to both sides is a bit disingenuous. If I said the moon was made of hairballs prior to our visiting it, the claim does not hold equal plausibility with the claim that the moon is not made of hairballs. If I say the Easter bunny or the Smurfs are real does not mean that the probability that they exist is equal to the probability that they don’t exist. It’s also not a religion when I say they don’t exist.

If you make a claim with no evidence to support it, write that claim down and create a thousand generations of followers the claim will be no more valid afterward.

And look, we all proportion our belief to evidence. There is no evidence that the earth won’t stop turning. We see no evidence that it is going to stop turning so we plan our future accordingly. You are not stupid for believing that you should continue planning your life. There is no evidence that we will receive a return on the stock market or real estate market but we plunge forward anyway. Now if some evidence comes along that says the Earth is slowing down or that the market is going to crash we evaluate that evidence and proportion our belief to its validity.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as Carl Sagan said.

 

Arrrgh I meant to edit.

 

I will say that believing in something like this based just on faith, in the absence of clinical, observable or tangible evidence ain't a bad idea, like God or or Heaven or reincarnation as long as it brings you personal happiness or provides you some contentment or focus or emotional support. Its about what the belief does for you, or induces you to do with that faith. Faith in God is not an excuse for what you do, its not a justification for what happens and its not to be blamed for what someone does with it. That is a choice!

 

charles manson too?

fair enough, and I can see you are really invested in contradicting your self.

if thats the case then everyone shouldbe theists, since theist have far more evidence than atheists, who have exactly zero.

 

You are contradicting yourself again. It’s not surprising though. You do all kinds of mental gymnastics to promote your bigotry toward “neoatheists”.

 

Did you notice that nobody said "magic man in the sky" until you got aggressive? People will mock you when you act like an ass. That's just what people do.

 

I suppose if something as juvenile as reading a dictionary is gymnastics to neoatheists then I am.

What’s The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?

Atheist vs. agnostic

There is a key distinction. An atheist doesn’t believe in a god or divine being. The word originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). 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 that it’s impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/

Wow, thats a new one! Proving atheists are irrational is now bigotry according to neoatheist reason and logic! Bravo!

 

Yes the essential fiction of the neoatheist dram world is far more exciting than facts.

 

There is a lot more to it that that.
Types[edit]
Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."[30][31][32]
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[30][31][32]
Apathetic agnosticism
The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not."[33][34][failed verification][35]

I represent the 'views' in red.