The Folly of Atheism, part 2

It is what it is and I stand by my post just like you obviously stand by yours no matter how you want to characterize it.

Nope, that still doesn't change my point.

I'm not, you are. We can do this all day long, it changes nothing.

Ok, if it makes you feel more comfortable about your beliefs.

I once was convinced there was a Santa Claus and a Tooth Fairy too. We are told all sorts of stories as children, some of us grow up though.

Thanks but no thanks, I'm not interested in trying to prove the negative to a myth, which is what you're really looking for me to do.

Or those who try to peddle their religion or religious beliefs. That works for all humans, we are all "peculiar creatures".

 

No, it isn't. It is typical of the strawman arguments that you constantly make.

Show one post, by an atheist, stating "science has proved there is no god".
Show one post, by an atheist, stating "only stupid religious people have beliefs".
Show one post, by an atheist, stating "beliefs don't have evidence."

The only way you can "win" arguments is to play both sides. It's like playing checkers with yourself and proudly proclaiming "I always win".

Now you will probably get pissed that I parsed your argument. Oh, well.

 

Please show some examples of atheists trying to force Christianity underground.

Or is just another example of the strawman arguments that you constantly post.

 

Theism is an attempt to explain the unknown aspects of natural phenomena by attributing them to supernatural entities. (AKA GodDidIt)
Atheism is the rejection of supernatural entities.

 

You believe that the theory of abiogenesis has been tested, repeated, & evidenced, scientifically? It has been attempted many times, in the lab, but it has never been observed. So, no, as a theory, abiogenesis has NOT been shown to be 'evidenced'. It has not been demonstrated, & has no supporting evidence. It relies completely on conjecture & belief.

You should check these things out, before making statements like this. I don't like to bash anyone, over their beliefs, especially since they are indoctrinated from birth in our culture. But my challenge remains: Can you provide ONE bit of empirical evidence that supports the claim of naturalism for the origin of life & the universe?

 

It doesn't seem like you got any of my points, so there is probably not much to talk about. I am very open tolerant of other people's beliefs, & am not threatened or offended by other's opinions.

“I don’t believe in astrology; I’m a Sagittarius and we’re skeptical.” ~Arthur C. Clarke

 

That's something we can agree on.

Your initial response suggested otherwise IMO.

 

What matters, of course, is what you understand - which I'm pretty sure amounts to nothing.

No. Now do me a big favor and get lost.

Yes.

I don't. I just see it.

Haven't got one, and don't need one, obviously.

I have no idea what that is. Pretty sure you don't either, any more than you know what speiciation is.

 

The lab can't replicate millions of years of repeated experiments in the span of a couple decaDes. Experiments have shown that under the conditions of the early Earth, self-replicatable protein chains he are the basic building blocks of life can form.

The universe per the laws of physics cannot have an origin.

 

The first quote is from the post by usfan and the second is my response.

 

Do you actually know anyone who claims to be religious who actually lives his life in accordance with the teachings of his religion?

 

The need to equate asserting a belief in god with not asserting a belief in god is just plain silly. If you want to assert a belief in god you are tequired to provide the proof. It s not required that one proves a lack of belief in a god.

 

Like I said, you have nothing but pointing at things and saying they look designed. You have nothing.

 

I used to know many (to various degrees of orthodoxy) but haven't been in touch for decades.

 

No? Then what did you mean when you said 'He is the "whence"' in response to my question 'From whence cometh the intelligent designer'?

Surely you understood the meaning of "whence" in my question. You even used it in your response.

Now you try to deny that you stated He created Himself. Why?

If He didn't create Himself...From whence did the intelligent designer cometh ?

Why would you want me to go away? Do you have a problem with people challenging you when you make self contradictory statements?

 

Ahh, I went back and looked at your post:

I'm beginning to think that the angst & irrational thinking displayed by some atheists is merely a 'cry in the dark', for Something of substance in their life.

That is probably a better description of the need theists have for an imaginary friend.​

I didn't realize that "I'm beginning to think..." was USFAN's

 

It is unfortunate and perplexing that Christians(primarily) seem to think they know Atheism better than Atheists. Equally strange would be the belief that "Atheists" are some homogenous clump of people vs. millions of individuals who all think differently. Perhaps if they just began thinking of us as Christians that do not believe in the Christian God?

Christians all believe in one thing that ties them together but, each one believes differently, thus the many denominations and churches. Atheists all disbelieve in one thing that ties them together but each is different. If I as an Atheist cannot claim to know the beliefs of any other, how can they.

 

In my experience, the main reason people argue that atheism isn't a belief is in response to religious people arguing that it is. In theory, I agree, it doesn't matter much, I have even started threads questioning why people debate it. In this particular case, you were the one who brought it up, so if you ask me or anyone else in this thread, it will probably be due to that.

Either way, if you draw conclusions based on one interpretation and get different conclusions than others get, then it's obviously an important distinction.

 

I'm sure if you switch 'atheist' and 'theist' in your statement, the idea is the same.

..doesn't matter to me. I find the logophobia an interesting social commentary, but it makes little to no practical difference. I get the 'belief system' of someone, even if they deny it. It becomes pretty evident after a few lines of text.

And really, i am not offended by other people's beliefs.. even when they don't have them..

I enjoy the logic of philosophical debate, & am always perplexed by irrational displays of anger & indignation by some. They are all just beliefs, right? Nobody has any empirical proof of anything.. whether it be naturalism or supernaturalism. I'm very interested in evidence.. that is what intrigues me the most. And when i begin to realize there isn't much in the way of evidence for any speculation about the Big Questions of the Universe, everything falls into place.

When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. ~Mark Twain

 

..not sure what my 'initial response' was...

 

Nobody understands those laws well enough to draw such a conclusion.

Yeah, well I'll take my "nothing" over everything you think you have, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Figure it out. Or go fly a kite in a thunderstorm. Don't make me no difference.

Because I did no such thing, obviously.

The rules won't let me answer that, sorry for any inconvenience.

Seeing in over a decade and a half of debating atheists I can't recall ever being accused of that ere this, and seeing the charge is here leveled falsely, it's not a question I can answer from experience.

 

These hundreds of millions have lost both the ability to think critically or independently. It is a scary thing to contemplate.

 

.....uh.....that what I just said there spiffy.

 

The secular position is often that naturalism and some kind of lack of non-belief should be the default in the case where we can't figure out the real truth (which seems to be the case in practice). In that phrasing, non-belief does not mean that we believe no gods exist, but merely an absence of belief in any way. That is why the difference between belief and non-belief is important, non-belief is what is left over when everybody fails to convince everybody else, which is the present case.

Note that this is the no-belief position, not the "I believe there are no gods", which would require evidence. It is true that those two positions are often consistent, but that doesn't mean we have to be able to defend one in order for the other to be valid.

I think I have provided enough argument to show that the interest in definitions isn't just an irrational fear of words.

 

Indoctrination is a powerful tool, for many it suppresses the ability to think critically or independently. Religious cults are a prime example (e.g. Peoples Temple - the infamous Jim Jones sect). All it takes sometimes is one charismatic authority figure.