The Religion of Atheism

identical language usage and application as atheists are doing, applied to theists.
you just never had anyone out here capable of effectively arguing the matter.

 

That's a creative way to excuse avoiding the English language at all costs. No, a theist is someone who believes in God. You can choose to use the letters "t-h-e-i-s-t" to mean something else, but you are no longer speaking English at that point. Just your private language.

 

you arent getting past your mental block to see the points being made.

the language does not prove that is the way atheists are using it, instead atheists totally ****ed up when they came out with weak theist and weak atheist because it proves they are using lack as a level.

You cant be 100% theist and a weak theist at the same time, any more than you can be neither (agnostic and atheist at the same time. These are insane concepts they are promoting

 

woah thar!

What I said was 100% correct in form. theists lack disbelief in God is 100% true statement.

 

You are ignoring the first half of the definition you provided of "lack." I can quote if for you if you'd like.

 

Yes. Now please learn to draw a Venn Diagram and learn the whole necessary/sufficient distinction. It is true theists lack disbelief in God. It is necessary. It is not sufficient. It is true that all baseball fans are mammals. That doesn't mean every mammal is a baseball fan. Get it?

 

you are ignoring the second half of the definition and I already quoted it for you.

 

That's what the word "or" is for. You don't need both halves. One or the other. Not necessarily both. That's what or means. One half is relevant to what atheists are saying -- it is the half you are ignoring. Do I really have to explain how the word "or" works?

 

yup and I am using the right side of the or, which is more correct than the left, still clear as mud to you I see

weak theist is less theist than total theist, hence they lack full theism,

weak theists are atheists because they lack 100% belief in theism

 

Ok, I think you got very very confused. So, I'm going to try to boil it down a little bit and try to keep simplifying. I think maybe you have difficulty with probabilities, and shades of grey. So, lets deviate a bit and try to see if we can understand and agree on some concepts in general. Tell me if you disagree with any of the following:

1) If something isn't strictly impossible, that doesn't mean that it definitely is true. Example: It is possible that you may win the lottery even if you don't play, but you almost certainly will not win even if you do play.

2) If we are 99.99999999%(or much much more) certain of thing A and .00000001%(or much much less) certain of thing B, then we shouldn't behave as if they are equally likely to be true. Example: If somebody shuffles a deck of cards, then tells you they will give you even odds. If you bet $1,000 and the cards are revealed to be in order A-K, spades, then hearts, then diamonds, then clubs, then you win $1,000. If it is anything else you loose. Then you should never take that bet, or if you are offered the opposite then you should never stop taking that bet.

Now, on to the other things.

I think you got really confused here, and to be honest, I'm not even sure how you got there.

Of course you can, you can measure it, you can observe it's effects, you can do experiments with it, etc.

It is relevant. How can you entertain the notion of god but ignore the notion of being a dream? They are essentially identical assumptions. The reasons we have to think that we exist are astronomically more than the reasons we have to think we are a dream, but reasons to believe there is a god are essentially the same as the reasons to believe we are a dream.

There is a long discussion to have about this, but the long of the short is that I wouldn't believe in math if it had no relation to the real world that we experience. If for example, I divided the number of candies I had by the number of people I was with, and the remainder didn't match up to what I actually had left over, then it would be useless. Like a religion. Or, if it only told me things that I already knew, like: If I have 3 apples and I give 2 to a friend then I started with 3 apples, which I already knew. But, in reality math tells me that that not only did I start with 3, but I now have one left, and if we perform the experiment, it turns out to be true. Math is also based on logic, which as far as we can tell perfectly maps to the real world. So, math has real world use, evidence, it can tell us things we didn't know, it can be verified in the real world... etc. A god can do nothing outside of the imagination.

And there is no method using things that are not imaginary to give any evidence of a god. Therefore it is illogical to believe in one.

But, theists have every assumption I have. Belief in a god however is an extra superfluous assumption. There is reason to believe we exist, but none that there is a god.

LOL, yes, but if you follow this thread of our discussion, you argued that theists don't believe in logic or that they exist. You may not understand that you did, and I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you did.

Lol, I think you mean fallacies (and they aren't really that either), 'logic disorders' aren't really a thing. And, I think it's pretty obvious that logic isn't really your strong suit. I haven't done either of those things, you just don't understand what I've been saying. The parts that seem illogical to you are parts you didn't understand. To illustrate this, you could explain the 'it' that I expressed and continue to express.

 

Burying the left side won't make it disappear. Try reading it. That's the side that is relevant to what atheists are talking about when they say "lack." Not sure why you want to pretend it isn't there. If you think the right side is "more correct" than the left, then you don't understand the definition or basic conventions of the English language.

 

omitting the right side wont bury it because I have just proven to you that is the side atheists are talking about.

only if you ignore weak theism lol

 

I'm not trying to bury the right side. The right side exists. It just isn't relevant in this instance because that isn't what atheists are talking about when they say a "lack" of a belief in God. They are talking about the left side. When you look at the left side (the side literally all atheists are referring to here, despite your refusal to accept reality), weak theism doesn't meet the definition of atheism. It is only when you ignore the left (the half that pertains to atheism) and focus on the right (which you are the only person in existence who applies this to atheism) that the terms get confused. Just start using the definitions native English users are using and you won't get confused like this.

 

you are

it is

there is no reality in that, its purely your imagination. Explain whatmagic code or rule book you are using that forces it strictly to the left side.

I doubt I am that good. damn it I knew there is a mortal enemy out ther e that is as good at this as I am

9 Reasons Atheists Don’t Just Lack Belief
Apologetics, Atheism, Lack of Belief |


Atheists are trying to redefine what their position is by reinventing what the word atheism means. As per the Merriam Webster dictionary, atheist means belief that there is no god, as compared to agnosticism which means a person who does not have a belief [or disbelief] in a god.

If you lack a belief [and lack a disbelief] in a god, you are an agnostic, not an atheist.

This is so obvious that even atheist bloggers recognize it (see here – language warning). Funny how atheists can’t even agree on what it is they are!

Below are nine conclusions that follow if you claim atheism is a “lack belief” in a god:

1. If atheism is just the lack of belief in God, then atheism is just a state of mind as Frank Turek points out

2. If you lack belief in god, you are just saying that I am not psychologically convinced. So what, that offers no evidence for or against God.

3. Most people lack a belief in unguided evolution, yet no atheist would say that evolution is false or claim to be a-evolutionists.

4. If atheism is just a lack of belief in God, then rocks, trees, dogs and outhouses are all atheists just because they also lack a belief in a god.

5. The atheist who proclaims a lack of belief is really trying to avoid the burden of proof.

6. If you simply lacked a belief in a god as an atheist, then why are you trying to get rid of belief in a god?

7. If lack of belief in a god means you are an atheist, then Christians are atheists since they lack belief in all other gods except one.

8. You don’t write books about things you lack belief in!

9. If atheists truly lacked belief, they wouldn’t care that other people are theists! They wouldn’t argue as vigorously as they do against the theistic position, but the fact that they do shows they do have a belief.

If you’re an atheist, come clean – you don’t believe a god exists and we know it. You are not neutral, and neither are theists. Use the skepticism you have on your own position and see how well it stands up (see this video).

Now, lets get back to discussing the reasons you’re an atheist.

well maybe not so bad, I am still better I see.

Hey I am not the one out here claiming nothing is real like your frinds!

 

Lol, you don't understand logic kramer!!

 

yer gonna have do better than that and my name is kavanaugh

 

lol, there are way too many things to explain there, and we have enough on our plate.

 

Ah backed into a corner again, still denying what you said despite my quoting it several times is top shelf fraud.

Oh and now your argument has degenerated from proof to 'probabilities'?

but you arent and this isnt about physics, neither is it about wagering bets against the odds, that is not how proof works. You need evidence to prove 'stuff', this isnt a horse race or monty.

I dont blame you for trying to disassociate with the 'nothing is real foolishness' you posted.

bullshit! no you cant, there is no way you can sense the speed of light, light speed is extrasensory which means outside your ability to naturally sense.

what evidence do you have they are identical? math is a dream then too I suppose since it too is outside the natural.

Interesting you would say that because if I understand the theists correctly that is precisely what they will tell you about their religion.

got any evidence to support that?

back to something you can touch, and throwing out that theists also are relating God to things you can touch, and it goes without saying they will argue its illogical to not to believe. So back to your merry go round.

Not for this problem they dont, they only need belief in God. You had well over 10 to disbelieve to their 1.

That may be your interpretation, doesnt make it a fact unless of course you quote it.

they sure are a thing, and logic disporders as i have described are fallacies that I described to point out your logic disorders.

well coming from someone who has been purely illogical in our discussion so far that doesnt hold much water.

I ost certainly do, you forgot that I predicted this.

I explained them you and you have no rebuttal.

all you are doing is repeating the same **** I already debunked and while watching you squirm has a certain fun aspect to it it gets boring fast.

 

your explanations have been all rewind replay repeat, your nothing is real gig and then trying to defend it while pretending you were not continuing to use it really ****ed everything up for your argument since it proved discord.

 

You not understanding what I said, is not the same as my saying what you thought I said.

First of all, everything is probabilities. Second of all, that isn't the point. Do you agree with those statements or not? And if not, why not?

I'll admit I'm confused on this one.

I don't know what to tell you, other than if that was true, you and I couldn't be having this conversation...on a computer.. on the internet. We absolutely can and have measured the speed of light, it's not even that hard.

Because there is no way to distinguish the evidence between the two. Any evidence you use to show that there is a god can equally well be applied to show that we are a dream. That isn't true of other things in life that are true, like math.

Except there is a relationship between math and the real world. And math DOES have utility in the real world, and CAN tell us things about the real world that we didn't know before. Your god can't do any of that. At least it never has.

The fact that it never has.

It isn't just touch, it's any experience whatsoever outside of the imagination.

So, to recap, I said for example that I believe logic is consistent. You said that you guys don't have that belief(which means you don't believe it), only belief that a god exists. To be fair, in a way I can kind of see the point that you guys don't believe in logic for one. But also the confusion that maybe all you are seeing and experiencing is just what god is beaming into your head or something (kind of back to the alien dream aren't we?). But even with that much charity, you still believe logic is real and consistent, you just believe god made it that way.

I can't believe it is getting old since you have started what seems like hundreds of threads wherein you simply restate the same things over and over again. That being said, I agree, we are going around in circles, which is why I try to branch out (for example with the probability statements above) and see where we can agree and find the sticking points, not just the points where one of us misunderstands.

So, to recap my position:
No statement including but not limited to 'we exist, and god does not exist' can be proven to 100%.
That does NOT repeat NOT mean that I believe we don't exist or that a god does exist.
All beliefs are not equal.
Evidence means evidence of something.

For example, there is no evidence to prove that I am not the greatest cricket player of all time. It is however a wildly inferior belief to believe that I am. And to say you are on the fence on the subject is also a wildly inferior position. And, even though I technically only believe, and don't 100% know that I am not the greatest cricket player of all time, that belief is close enough to certainty to be functionally the same as knowing.

 

Argument from ignorance

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I neither believe nor disbelieve, Im agnostic, which by definition is a religion.

there are millions of reports where people have highly religious experiences, so because you havent that is proof God doesnt exist? Based on what you just said God exists.

then what percentage is the rule to prove something according to the useless minutia you are posting? Zero? Thats what atheists have Zero. Whats the point of this nonsense?

 

Sorry, but the fact that I am willing to try and educate the irrational imaginary being believers doesn't make athiesm of overwhelming importance to me.

And there is no need for those who do not accept that god exists to prove the non existance any more than it is required to disprove any of the other fictitious creations of man. You can endlessly duck the comparison with unicorns but the simple fact is they are both creations of the human imagination and are both of equal credability.

Or you can compare god to a scientific theory that remains unproven until physical evidence is discovered.

 

Ok, lets try to drill this particular line down first. Then we will maybe try to address the others.

Do you think that it is reasonable to think that I am the best cricket player on earth?

 

which of course does not mean God does not exist, just that you have no means of finding out for sure.

there is if you wanty to come out here and argue about it.

never has been a need to duck anything, just because you dont like the answers you get doesnt mena it ducking.

impossible for me to know.

 

If a bookie had a magic box that would reveal if I was or not (keeping in mind that I have never played cricket), and you had to bet $10,000. Would you bet that I am or I am not?