Is Atheism a logical belief?

I already gave him a link to a study about belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. He chose to ignore it.

I'd have fun if it was a tangled mess, but it's just a straight line of the same predictable semantic games over and over and over and over again. Boring.

 

and I gave you direct quotes from bertrand russel (you know the guy you cited?) countering the nonsense theory you posted, and correcting your errors.

I look forward to the time when neoatheists stop playing semantic word games so its not so boring.

Neoatheist MO, if there is no distinction pretend there is and if there is a distinction pretend there isnt.

So hows your atheist-theist working out for you? You know? What follows? the logical conclusion of your theory? That theists would also have to be atheist since they are atheist to thousands of G/gods and believe in one G/god, therefore they are atheist-theists? Hows that working for ya?

yeh all I had to do is quote bertrand russel from your cite, very boring indeed.

 

Semantic games indeed. I didn't even read the original text he is referring to here, and even then, I am pretty certain I know what was meant and what he pretends to misunderstand. And I am pretty sure theists do as well, even those who pretend to be agnostic.

And Pisa, he won't read your link, or give direct answers to any questions, because he cited an irrelevant quote. So there!

 

Admit you cant explain how there is a difference:
Not only did I say it I proved it!
that is semantic, period!
so stop dodging and cough up the difference or concede!

you peeps wonder why it boring, its because some people have no clue what they are posting and cant explain their lack of reasoning for posting what they post.

 

Atheists might say the first spark came from another dimension.

There is equally as much evidence that no supreme being created the universe as there is evidence that a supreme being did create the universe...Which is to say no evidence and both atheist and deist theories of the creation of the universe are based on ideology (certainly not science).

 

I was not asking myself the question.

The point is that people are stating their beliefs, and other people seem to get angry when they do, and the issue, whether you believe in God or "another dimension," is that there is something out there that is a trillion billion times greater than any man, which is the core teaching of Christian religions.

I believe that Jesus was light-years ahead of his, or our, time, and he knew this. All anyone has to do is ignore the rest of The Bible, and read only Jesus's words. Then come back here and tell me that Jesus's words do nothing but teach people to be good.

To use the common parlance of today - if Jesus was here he would preach: don't be a dick.

 

You're correct. Atheists aren't steeped in any more logic and science than deists.
Which seems to be the false narrative that atheists want to portray: That atheists are scientific and logical, for example, rather than the ideological beings they are.

 

Far 'worse', just look at all the crazy **** they post!

Im still waiting for him to tell us how far back we are allowed to go to meet his criteria, poof gone!

He did not supply 'definitions', there is no dictionary on the planet has agnostic-atheist in it!

I guess I am quite effective at proving the neoatheology is nutterville incarnate to get such high honors bestowed on me.

He pretends a nonreligious use of the word agnostic applies to religion, and commits both an LNC and LEM logic violations.

Then steals the agnostic reasoning and applies it to atheism to pretend agnostics are atheists.

Then of all things claims that 'I' a hard core agnostic is not agnostic because I dont join the neoatheist nonsense bandwagon! (Which is of course is part of what makes me an expert) lol

Neoatheists when challenged either double down piling more nonsense on top of nonsense, or they simply POOF and run off to find low hanging fruit.

 

Imagine how much more peaceful Christian history would be if that's all there was to it.

Depends on which words. His sermon on the mount was certainly very good.

I wish more Christians envisioned hippy sermon on the mount peace and love Jesus than fire and brimstone only-through-me Jesus.

Hippy Jesus is undeniably cool, and under that version of Jesus, you could even be a Christian Atheist.

 

Indeed. And there is nothing stopping atheists from believing in the supernatural, ghosts, healing crystals, Scientology, extreme nationalism, etc. Just because a person doesn't have one ideology not grounded in science doesn't mean they don't have a different one just as lacking in such grounding.

 

Some secular theories are based on Science as far as it can see. The problem here is that on this question science can not see very far at all. And yes, any atheist who thinks she has the answer with the same confidence that theists think they have the answer is much more based on ideology than science. But my question at that point is how many atheists are so certain? I don't know any. Hawking wasn't.

 

of course the moment they "CHOOSE" to believe anything supernatural they are theists.

 

Interesting, you are known to make up your own definitions, but how is believing crystals have magical powers makes one a theist?

 

Easy question. Did a god do it or not or don't know?

 

Imagine that each atom in the visible universe is a separate universe and that will give you a tiny idea of how many universes there are.

 

Thats right claim its not semantic yet NEITHER you NOR swensson has even attempted to counter the proof I posted that it is semantic. Clearly neither of you are capable of rebuttal therefore concede by default.

BTW correct grammar for that statement is neither/nor. Neither believe there are Gods Nor believe there are no Gods

 

Who said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.....a theologian?

 

Science IS purely secular. Period. Let's at least remember that.

Religion, certainly Christianity, demands that gods be taken on faith, not evidence. And, that's certainly not something that science allows for.

So, yes. Science has no way to include the supernatural, and states "I don't know" when that is the correct answer.

Attempting to measure level of certainty about god is totally silly, is it not? What could that possibly mean?

 

BTW according to Jesus' last words, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” he didn't seem to know he was talking to himself.

 

I especially like Matthew 25:31 to end.

He charges his own followers to seek out and help those in need - in hospitals, the poor, those in prison.

And, he states hell as the penalty for Christians who fail in that duty.

According to the Bible, Jesus did walk the walk. And, regardless of any religious opinion, his philosophy is worthy of attention.

 

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

 

Who said a supreme being couldn't have created the universe since there's no proof of a supreme being while at the same time having no answer as to how the universe was created or ignoring the creation of the universe...an atheist.

 

Saying "I don't know" because you lack the knowledge is a legitimate response to a mystery. To make an extraordinary claim without proof to solve that mystery is what, theological but not a logical response. God of the gaps.

 

FALSE on its face!
There is no way to falsify the big bang, therefore it is not a 'material fact'.
The big bang is a secular 'religious' belief.

Science demands the big bang be taken on 'faith'.

There is no requirement for 'religion' to be restricted to the supernatural, there is no requirement for theists to be restricted to the supernatural, however there is a requirement for atheists and secular to be restricted to the 'natural' or they cease to be atheist and it ceases to be secular.

 

Please define "falsifiability". Me thinks you don't know what that means. Me also thinks you're confusing the big bang theory with the inflation theory.

Prove it.

Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Atheism is not defined as lack of belief in the supernatural.