Something I find typically annoying with atheists.

[lreal]

Regardless of whether they were intended or not, I'm not trying to hide from what I did.

I just didn't expect my comments (yes, even the ones you pasted above) would actually cause a person some kind of mental distress. I expected them to simply be glossed over by the reader, not actually taken to heart.

Again, mistake on my part.

Edit: @Kikyo of course

 

[Serah]

I don't think it particularly caused him mental distress. I think that's a bit of an over-exaggeration. We just ask that you all respect each other here. That's all really. Now, if you guys would like to further discuss this, I ask could you please take it to PM so we can keep the thread on topic? It's much appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Six]

=/ What a weird topic...

Believe in what you want, leave others be. Like there's not enough 'YOU SHOULD BE LIKE THIS' shit going on already.

I don't consider myself atheist. I consider myself someone who doesn't believe in any God. Which I don't. Sure, there might be something out there, right? Who knows. But even so, I don't believe in it. I don't care for it.

I'm a person, making my own decisions, mistakes, take my own paths, follow my own directions. I'll be damned not to be allowed to do something 'cause it's in some book that has been re-written like a billion times.

I'm not religious, I'm not an atheist.

Call it what you will.

I just don't believe.

 

[Stoic Hero]

I'm a Christian, though I don't attend church religiously (get it?). The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is very outdated as it applies to a society that existed thousands of years ago. However, it shouldn't be overlooked simply because of its age. A man named Jesus claimed to be God and did many miracles, then was killed for saying he was God. Funny thing is, he predicted it would happen. In fact, the Old Testament, which took place long before Jesus was born, predicted Jesus would die. Many many more prophesies came true from Old to New Testament (science has proven that the Old Testament is, in fact, older than the New Testament). This means the man Jesus was either a) God or b) a lunatic. Supposedly, he rose from the dead. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the Bible and its credibility, historical records have shown that the tomb of Jesus was indeed empty on the day that he said he would rise from the dead. Now keep in mind that there was a gigantic boulder guarding the tomb, as well as a few soldiers. Very unlikely for the disciples to have moved the body themselves.

Jesus is the only man to have claimed to be God and not just a prophet. He performed many documented miracles. Can I prove that Jesus is God? No, I cannot. However, there are many unsolved mysteries in this world. How did we get here? Why do we have good and evil? Why do we die? Where do we go after we die? As much as I'd like science to find these things out, it never can. That means I either wait it out and hope science finds an answer before I die, or I look toward an eternal being. There is no other option, believe or disbelieve. I chose to believe, as waiting seems illogical at this point and Jesus has too much going for him. His greatest commandments were to love and forgive. Even someone who doesn't believe can agree that those are honorable goals, no? To love and forgive everyone. You don't have to agree with me, and I'm not really trying to convince anyone. This is just my perspective, and why I believe.

 

[der Astronom]

We have already gone over the fact that I'm not Christian or religious and have other beliefs but it is so annoying when 90% of posts are like

"God can't be real because of *****" The stars being some random part of the Bible being picked apart and what seems like an obvious discrepancy in the book being picked apart. You can not simply pick apart one small section of the Bible and think you are proving anything or even poking a hole in it. It's not possible. One reason is because most intelligent Christians I've come across, and I'll admit there numbers don't seem staggering, adhere to the belief that the Bible has been handled by men for so long and not only translated but was actually published and written and re-written by a man. Only the very first copy came directly from the mouth of God. The majority of Christians now do not believe the Bible is infallible, but that God himself is.

The only reason it is necessary to address these points is because someone made that point to begin with--and it's usually a Christian fundamentalist. Usually some false (and bold) statement about atheists, evolution, or even morality. I doubt most "normal", respectful Christians would bother to point those things out. And another thing. A man must never use the bible to support points in arguments; the bible is too subjective to provide supports for arguments.

It also seems that when atheists try to prove the Bible wrong they take the words in it even stricter then you average Christian. Some religious sects of Christianity do believe that the Bible is not meant to be taken figuratively but has to be taken literally, but even in those sects a large portion of the following does not believe that. Even the ones they do question who is capable of actually determing what the literal meaning of some of the more ambiguous sections are to say what the literal meaning is.

Then how should a man read the bible? Once again, it's useless. Nobody can agree on what the bible actually says--you can't make a good argument out of it because you can usually find a statement elsewhere that contradicts the other, or the original supporting statement is so vague as to be nothing more than metaphor, and can be twisted to be whatever you want it to be. How does a man determine which parts of the bible should be read a particular way? Might I suggest secular humanism, which operates independently of religion?

I know this sounds like a ramble, but when I first got into debating I expected that atheists would be logical and reasonable, but what I found was that they leaned on atheism as if it was their belief system and blindly followed it with a level of ignorance that rivaled that of even the most close-minded religious folk. Has anyone else noticed this?

If you mean because of its infallible nature, it is appealing. It is rational, and makes sense. If atheism were to be treated as a belief system, then that would mean that there's really no reason to be an atheist, when in fact, the default (not believing from lack of evidence) makes more sense. What kind of arrogance or ignorance is that? When there is no evidence, a man must choose not to believe.

Aristotle said " It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it". I believe that.

That's skepticism, a characteristic many atheists have.

Another point about atheism being a religion: Atheism is actually the lack of religion. If you don't believe in any religion, then there's a default position, which is atheism. It's not agnosticism because agnosticism, in its truest definition, means that you don't believe it's possible to know if god exists, which means you are asserting a statement about god. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you think god doesn't exist. It means you don't believe he exists; and a man usually has no reason to believe in him--a man who does not know anything about god has no reason to believe him. Similarly, a man who does not know about the fairies at the bottom of the garden does not have a reason to believe in them.

 

[CassinoChips]

Another point about atheism being a religion: Atheism is actually the lack of religion. If you don't believe in any religion, then there's a default position, which is atheism. It's not agnosticism because agnosticism, in its truest definition, means that you don't believe it's possible to know if god exists, which means you are asserting a statement about god. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you think god doesn't exist. It means you don't believe he exists; and a man usually has no reason to believe in him--a man who does not know anything about god has no reason to believe him. Similarly, a man who does not know about the fairies at the bottom of the garden does not have a reason to believe in them.

Atheism isn't a religion, no. But it's a belief system that can entrench just as strongly in the mind and act along many of the same lines as a religion.

And to this specifically: "a man who does not know anything about god has no reason to believe him. Similarly, a man who does not know about the fairies at the bottom of the garden does not have a reason to believe in them."

Atheism is defined as a doctrine that there is/are no god/s, or the disbelief in God. You cannot disbelieve in something of whose existence you are not aware.

 

[Ewan]

Atheism is defined as a doctrine that there is/are no god/s, or the disbelief in God. You cannot disbelieve in something of whose existence you are not aware.

Atheism does not assume the nonexistence of a god, an atheist just doesn't believe there is one/are any. Not believing and making a positive statement that they don't exist are 2 different things.

Also, where can I find the 'atheist doctrine'? The only two things that will tie 2 atheists together is the lack of belief in a god and that's it.

And finally; let's say there is a being X. If you don't know about it's existence, do you believe it exists or doesn't exist? Belief is a binary position. You either believe or don't believe. How can you not disbelieve something that you don't know exists?

"Atheism isn't a religion, no. But it's a belief system that can entrench just as strongly in the mind and act along many of the same lines as a religion. "

I agree. Strong atheists are often as crazy as fundamentalist theists.

 

[der Astronom]

I neglected to notice this, but...

I'm a Christian, though I don't attend church religiously (get it?). The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is very outdated as it applies to a society that existed thousands of years ago. However, it shouldn't be overlooked simply because of its age. A man named Jesus claimed to be God and did many miracles, then was killed for saying he was God. Funny thing is, he predicted it would happen. In fact, the Old Testament, which took place long before Jesus was born, predicted Jesus would die.

All men must eventually die. Why is that a prophecy?

Jesus is the only man to have claimed to be God and not just a prophet. He performed many documented miracles. Can I prove that Jesus is God? No, I cannot. However, there are many unsolved mysteries in this world. How did we get here? Why do we have good and evil? Why do we die? Where do we go after we die? As much as I'd like science to find these things out, it never can. That means I either wait it out and hope science finds an answer before I die, or I look toward an eternal being. There is no other option, believe or disbelieve. I chose to believe, as waiting seems illogical at this point and Jesus has too much going for him. His greatest commandments were to love and forgive. Even someone who doesn't believe can agree that those are honorable goals, no? To love and forgive everyone. You don't have to agree with me, and I'm not really trying to convince anyone. This is just my perspective, and why I believe.

A man does not use science to determine good or evil. A man uses science to understand how reality works, not morality.

To love and forgive is not exclusively brought on by Jesus. If he never existed, loving and forgiving others can still exist.

 

[CassinoChips]

Atheism does not assume the nonexistence of a god, an atheist just doesn't believe there is one/are any. Not believing and making a positive statement that they don't exist are 2 different things.

A-theos-ism. No-gods-belief. It is an active mental state.

Also, where can I find the 'atheist doctrine'?

The dictionary.

a-the-ism/ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/[ey-thee-iz-uh

m]


–noun 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

And finally; let's say there is a being X. If you don't know about it's existence, do you believe it exists or doesn't exist? Belief is a binary position. You either believe or don't believe. How can you not disbelieve something that you don't know exists?

Let's say there's argument X. If you don't know about it's existence, can you agree or disagree with its premise? How can you make an active statement about something that does not cross your consciousness?

 

[der Astronom]

A-theos-ism. No-gods-belief. It is an active mental state.



The dictionary.

a-the-ism/ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/[ey-thee-iz-uh

m]


–noun 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

A doctrine whose only statement is that god (probably) doesn't exist isn't much of a doctrine to begin with.

As explained already, there should be a distinction between strong-atheism and agnostic-atheism, the latter category of which most people fit into--the people who don't know if god exists, but don't believe in god. Whether or not a man says he doesn't believe in god or he believes there is no god, the statement is still a negative, and logically, a man cannot believe in something that does not exist.

Let's say there's argument X. If you don't know about it's existence, can you agree or disagree with its premise? How can you make an active statement about something that does not cross your consciousness?

A man who does not know its existence, by default, would have to disagree. In order to prove something true, a man requires evidence, and without it, he would have to concede that it is not true. At least until the required evidence appears (and even then, it can still remain false).

 

[Ewan]

Atheism and theism refer to one claim. "There is a God". You either believe or disbelieve this. It doesn't follow that an atheist believes there are no gods because this is a different claim altogether.
In fact, those are strong atheists and they are completely different.

Also, can you please show me this doctrine that the dictionary has defined?

I'll respond to your last point later. I want some time to word it properly.

 

[CassinoChips]

A doctrine whose only statement is that god (probably) doesn't exist isn't much of a doctrine to begin with.

Also, can you please show me this doctrine that the dictionary has defined?

You realize that 'doctrine' doesn't have to refer to a codified system of thought, right? In this case, it's simply a synonym for a belief.

A man who does not know its existence, by default, would have to disagree. In order to prove something true, a man requires evidence, and without it, he would have to concede that it is not true. At least until the required evidence appears (and even then, it can still remain false).

No. If you don't know of its existence, you cannot take a side. Because you have no evidence toward either side, positive or negative.

 

[der Astronom]

You realize that 'doctrine' doesn't have to refer to a codified system of thought, right? In this case, it's simply a synonym for a belief.

A man cannot believe in negatives.

No. If you don't know of its existence, you cannot take a side. Because you have no evidence toward either side, positive or negative.

A man cannot prove a negative. It is logically impossible. Therefore, it is pointless to find evidence for it. Taking the negative side does not mean a man knows anything about the existence of the object in question; it means he does not know, cannot prove the negative, has no evidence for the positive, and has no choice but to pick the negative, or he does know the negative is true.

 

[CassinoChips]

A man cannot believe in negatives.

But he can disbelieve in positives.

A man cannot prove a negative. It is logically impossible. Therefore, it is pointless to find evidence for it. Taking the negative side does not mean a man knows anything about the existence of the object in question; it means he does not know, cannot prove the negative, has no evidence for the positive, and has no choice but to pick the negative, or he does know the negative is true.

That's not the point.

You can't pick a side of a battle you're not aware exists. If there's a civil war going on in Uzbekistan right now, I'm not aware of it. As such, I can't say who is right or who is wrong. Logically, I can't claim to believe or disbelieve either side until I have evidence supporting one side or other. To have that evidence, I must be first made aware of the presence of the conflict. Without awareness, I have no side in the matter.

 

[der Astronom]

But he can disbelieve in positives.

A man must disbelieve in positives if there is insufficient evidence.

That's not the point.

You can't pick a side of a battle you're not aware exists. If there's a civil war going on in Uzbekistan right now, I'm not aware of it. As such, I can't say who is right or who is wrong. Logically, I can't claim to believe or disbelieve either side until I have evidence supporting one side or other. To have that evidence, I must be first made aware of the presence of the conflict. Without awareness, I have no side in the matter.

A man must not use sophistry to win an argument. An atheist is aware of the concept of god existing. He is entitled to believe if god exists or not; the only thing he does not have is evidence that god exists.

 

[Ewan]

Sorry for the late reply.

You realize that 'doctrine' doesn't have to refer to a codified system of thought, right? In this case, it's simply a synonym for a belief.

I have to say I've never seen doctrine defined that way. If you use the word doctrine in a discussion like this then that confusion will probably occur seeing as a theism is typically a 'doctrine'.

A-theos-ism. No-gods-belief. It is an active mental state.

No 'god belief' or without 'god belief' from the word 'atheos'. Not the belief that there is NO god.

At the end of the day, it's just a label. I think you'll agree that what's more important is what each person believes. If we are to accept your definition, then you would need to come up with a word to describe people who simply don't believe in a god (the majority of 'atheists' in my experience). Different dictionaries seem to give different definitions.

Let's say there's argument X. If you don't know about it's existence, can you agree or disagree with its premise? How can you make an active statement about something that does not cross your consciousness?

You do not agree with the premise. You can do this by thinking about it and choosing whether or not you believe it to be true or you can simply not know about it.
I'm not saying that you believe that is it wrong, I'm saying you are without agreement.

Like I said before, did you, CassinoChips, believe that I had a cat 3 weeks prior to this post?
You did not believe that I had NO cat, you simply did not believe that I had a cat. You were 'not believing' that I had a cat because you did not know about it.


Eh, confusing stuff. I hope I worded that properly.

 

[CassinoChips]

Like I said before, did you, CassinoChips, believe that I had a cat 3 weeks prior to this post?
You did not believe that I had NO cat, you simply did not believe that I had a cat. You were 'not believing' that I had a cat because you did not know about it.

I was making no conscious decision about believing whether you had a cat or not. Your cat, or lack thereof, never crossed my consciousness, so I could not make a value judgment in any direction.

Did I believe you had a cat? No.
Did I believe you didn't have a cat? No.
Did I disbelieve in your cat's existence? No.
Did I believe in your cat's existence, even though you may not have owned it? No.
Did I believe in the possibility of your having a cat? No.
Did I disbelieve in that possibility? No.

I made no active mental process toward your cat in any fashion. Thus, I cannot be considered to have any system of belief in regards to your cat.

 

[Ewan]

What were you 3 weeks before then if you didn't disbelieve in my cat? Are saying that you were not without the positive belief that my cat exists?

You don't require any mental process to be without a belief. The very fact that you don't have said mental process by default means you are without said belief.

 

[CassinoChips]

What were you 3 weeks before then if you didn't disbelieve in my cat?

Nothing. I was nothing to your cat, your cat, or lack of cat, was nothing to me. The two objects are mutually exclusive, neither being aware of the other's presence. I cannot believe or disbelieve in something of whose presence you are not aware.

The very fact that you don't have said mental process by default means you are without said belief.

I agree, but it also means I am without disbelief. I have neither belief nor disbelief.

 

[Ewan]

How can you be nothing?

You either have the belief or you don't. What middle ground is there?
Is nothing the middle ground?

If it is, the nothing is still being in the position of 'without the positive belief'.