Atheism

[Daisy]

One has to be an absolute mental midget to despise/hate others simply because their worldview is different than someone else's.

True but unfortunately there are too many mental midgets in this world...

 

[Logician Man]

True but unfortunately there are too many mental midgets in this world...

And as equally, if not more important, too many haters.

 

[RAMOSS]

My claim is that there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

I would modifiy that, and put it as 'no objective and tangible', since personal experiance is subjective evidence for a specific person, It's 'private' evidence they can not show someone else.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I was born an atheist, 3 generation atheist. My mother too was born an atheist. And it is very easy to make my case. If your parents are and you are written into the basic administration of the government as an atheist, then you were born an atheist.

If you think about it, everybody is born an atheist. They only become believers when they're old enough to get indoctrinated into the religion of their parents.

 

[Omega Man]

I was born an atheist, 3 generation atheist. My mother too was born an atheist. And it is very easy to make my case. If your parents are and you are written into the basic administration of the government as an atheist, then you were born an atheist.

So instead of a "blank slate", you emerged from the womb with a mindset of disbelief?


OM

 

[tecoyah]

Is everyone born an theist ? Why or why not? Make your case.

Everyone is born Atheist, then they begin to think or decide not to.

 

[Peter King]

So instead of a "blank slate", you emerged from the womb with a mindset of disbelief?


OM

Hey, if it is true that children can hear in the womb/have been to church in the mother's womb every week/day/Saturday/Sunday, why not say it has been "exposed to" faith? If the mother is catholic and has had her sip of wine and piece of Jesus's body every week, well that means that through the umbilical cord that child has also partaken in the blood and body of Christ. And if a mother prays several times a day (meal, before bed) then the child is also exposed to those prayers/hears those prayers even if it cannot understand them.

Also young children are baptized when they are babies. I saw yesterday that 2 centuries ago priests would have traveling baptismal font so to baptize children at risk of dying shortly after birth. To make sure they were blessed by Christ.

In the past (ending about 25 years ago so still valid for most of my generation/people), that when you had a child, you had to register it within 3 days of birth and one of the things you had to declare for your child was religion. So while I was registered at birth as an atheist, most of my generation were registered catholic, protestant, jewish, muslim. That was the norm until 24 years ago. So for me it was logical to assume a child was born with the parents faith, hence my answer.

 

[Omega Man]

Hey, if it is true that children can hear in the womb/have been to church in the mother's womb every week/day/Saturday/Sunday, why not say it has been "exposed to" faith? If the mother is catholic and has had her sip of wine and piece of Jesus's body every week, well that means that through the umbilical cord that child has also partaken in the blood and body of Christ. And if a mother prays several times a day (meal, before bed) then the child is also exposed to those prayers/hears those prayers even if it cannot understand them.

Also young children are baptized when they are babies. I saw yesterday that 2 centuries ago priests would have traveling baptismal font so to baptize children at risk of dying shortly after birth. To make sure they were blessed by Christ.

In the past (ending about 25 years ago so still valid for most of my generation/people), that when you had a child, you had to register it within 3 days of birth and one of the things you had to declare for your child was religion. So while I was registered at birth as an atheist, most of my generation were registered catholic, protestant, jewish, muslim. That was the norm until 24 years ago. So for me it was logical to assume a child was born with the parents faith, hence my answer.

Unborn children "hearing in the womb" are not ideologically discerning anything.


OM

 

[Peter King]

Unborn children "hearing in the womb" are not ideologically discerning anything.


OM

Neither are baptized children of a few weeks, they are still seen as "religious" of some church.

 

[Daisy]

Neither are baptized children of a few weeks, they are still seen as "religious" of some church.

People can do anything and call it right, but if the Bible does not support their actions, it is a lie, regardless...people deceive a lot of people, including themselves but they cannot deceive God...

 

[Omega Man]

Neither are baptized children of a few weeks, they are still seen as "religious" of some church.

Precisely; so they too are neither "believers" or "atheists".


OM

 

[gfm7175]

I think for most of our beliefs, we are either convinced or we are not convinced and choice has very little to do with it.

Convinced or not convinced seems to be 'acceptance' or 'rejection', and that seems to be a choice that is made, because one can always choose to believe something else if they want to.

For example, I believe in black holes.

Perfect. You accept, as a true, that black holes exist.

But I can’t think of a moment when I chose to believe in them. I can think of the moment when I chose to watch about a hundred hours of astronomy lectures, and somewhere along the way I was convinced by the presentation of the evidence for black holes.

I don't think that your memory failing you has any effect on to your choice to believe in it, nor your choice to continue to believe in it.

But choice really only factored into my initial decision to get more information on astronomy.

I don't think that your choice against remaining ignorant about that particular topic has any effect on your choice to believe in it, nor your choice to continue to believe in it.

From there it all depended on how well they presented the evidence and how well that fit with my previous understanding of physics.

Yup, but you still chose to believe in black holes, and choose to remain believing in black holes.

Two days ago a Christian told me to read Habermas on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection... so I spent 6 hours reading it.

Splendid. You made a choice to not remain ignorant about the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

I can make a choice to expose myself to new information or new arguments,

Correct. You made a choice to not remain ignorant about the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

but I cannot help that I was able to spot huge logical and factual flaws in Habermas’ book.

I'm not familiar with his book, so there may or may not be logical fallacies contained therein... There is no such thing as a "factual" flaw, since facts can't be flawed. Facts are assumed predicate; that's all facts are.

Given everything else I know, I could not have just chosen to believe what I read.

You could have done so, but you instead chose not to, since you didn't happen to find the evidence contained therein to be convincing (for various reasons, including what you already know [accept as truth]).

In this way, I think we’re all products (prisoners?) of our experiences.

Interesting... I can generally agree here... I'd have to think about 'prisoners?' more, but we do seem to be products of our experiences, in which those experiences are part of what shapes our individual models of the universe and how it works (aka "reality")

There may be people who can choose to believe something for utilitarian reasons. We could look at the surprising number of people willing to switch religions in order to marry a spouse, for example.

Yup, that's one possible reason behind making that particular choice.

To me that is totally alien.

To me too...

But maybe for some people, picking beliefs has to do with social factors and could be... akin to picking a favorite sportsball team or favorite band. It’s about picking a community or some such.

Certain people do seem to make certain belief choices based on social factors and pressures ("fitting in", and etc.)...

But there was never a moment when I chose to be an atheist.

You have no control over your atheism?

In fact, I fought kicking and screaming against my own deconversion. I really didn’t want to be wrong... and given how much of my personal and professional life had been spent on my religious convictions, it was an extremely humbling and painful process to come to the conclusion that I had deluded myself.

Isn't that making a choice to believe a certain way?

But I did make a choice to expose myself to arguments outside the faith echo chamber I’d been living in... and to do so repeatedly. As far as I can tell, that was the only choice I made.

So you chose to not remain ignorant, but you did not choose to believe nor choose to not believe?

In fact, I didn’t call myself an atheist until after a number of my Christian friends held a little intervention, pulled me aside and told me I was an atheist!

So, your atheism is as uncontrollable as your eye/hair/skin color is?

 

[gfm7175]

You missed a lot of claims. For example, the god concept is completely made up by man claim.

That falls under "god(s) do not exist"

 

[gfm7175]

There's your error/fudge.
Atheism need not accept a "god doesn't exist" claim since the non-existence of god is the default position.

There is no "default position"... God either exists or he doesn't, therefore one either chooses to believe that he does, that he doesn't, or that we have yet to find a way to know either way. Those three choices are referred to as Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism.

The atheist need only reject the unsupported notion that god exists. They lack a belief.

Bolded is a Redefinition Fallacy (evidence>proof).
They reject the belief that god(s) exist, but they accept the belief that god(s) do not exist. It is agnosticism which lacks a belief [they reject both beliefs]. They instead believe that we don't currently have any way of knowing either way.

Their hair color is bald.

Non sequitur... Bald is not a color.

 

[gfm7175]

There really isn’t a ‘paradox’ in the definitions you’re arguing against. The paradox results from you applying your definition of agnosticism to their definition of atheism. But if you compare their definition of agnosticism to their definition of atheism, there isn’t a problem. Indeed, you might like it, given what I read to be your appreciation of other binary distinctions.

In their view, theism/atheism is a position on gods, while gnosticism/agnosticism is a position on knowledge. Therefor there’s no conflict in being both an atheist and an agnostic, under their definitions. And if it suffers the problem of telling some self identifying agnostics that they are in fact (also) atheists, it also tells some atheists that they are in fact (also) agnostics.

God either exists or he does't...

Claim 1: god(s) exist(s).
Claim 2: god(s) do(es)n't exist.

Theism: Accepts #1 and rejects #2
Atheism: Accepts #2 and rejects #1
Agnosticism: Rejects #1 and #2, asserts that we yet have a way to know either way [ie, sits on the sidelines].

A particular group of Atheists want to redefine Atheism to the following:
Rejects #1 and no acceptance or rejection of #2

 

[Manc Skipper]

There is no "default position"... God either exists or he doesn't, therefore one either chooses to believe that he does, that he doesn't, or that we have yet to find a way to know either way. Those three choices are referred to as Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism.


Bolded is a Redefinition Fallacy (evidence>proof).
They reject the belief that god(s) exist, but they accept the belief that god(s) do not exist. It is agnosticism which lacks a belief [they reject both beliefs]. They instead believe that we don't currently have any way of knowing either way.


Non sequitur... Bald is not a color.

Gods existence is the claim. Until that claim is proven, then non-existence remains the default, the starting point. Why claim something which is accepted as already existing? It's nonsen
sical.
The "bald" statement is a telling joke on the stupidity of the claim that atheism is a belief.

 

[Manc Skipper]

God either exists or he does't...

Claim 1: god(s) exist(s).
Claim 2: god(s) do(es)n't exist.

Theism: Accepts #1 and rejects #2
Atheism: Accepts #2 and rejects #1
Agnosticism: Rejects #1 and #2, asserts that we yet have a way to know either way [ie, sits on the sidelines].

A particular group of Atheists want to redefine Atheism to the following:
Rejects #1 and no acceptance or rejection of #2

There is no need for claim 2 till claim 1 is shown to be valid.

 

[DarthPedant]

God either exists or he does't...

Claim 1: god(s) exist(s).
Claim 2: god(s) do(es)n't exist.

Theism: Accepts #1 and rejects #2
Atheism: Accepts #2 and rejects #1
Agnosticism: Rejects #1 and #2, asserts that we yet have a way to know either way [ie, sits on the sidelines].

A particular group of Atheists want to redefine Atheism to the following:
Rejects #1 and no acceptance or rejection of #2

Now you’re just repeating yourself. But it doesn’t seem like you’ve considered my comments on how your definition of agnosticism introduces another claim about knowledge... and how that claim about knowledge is really central to agnosticism... you’re just repeating yourself with no engagement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gfm7175]

Gods existence is the claim.

It is one claim. God's non-existence is the other claim.

Until that claim is proven,

Religion is impossible to prove. Proof only exists in closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics.

then non-existence remains the default, the starting point.

There is no 'starting point'... Either or could be true in actuality. Having a 'starting point' ends up committing the circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism)...

Why claim something which is accepted as already existing? It's nonsen
sical.

No idea what you're babbling about here...

The "bald" statement is a telling joke on the stupidity of the claim that atheism is a belief.

Do you accept, as a true, the claim that no god(s) exist(s)? Do you believe that no god(s) exist(s)?

 

[gfm7175]

There is no need for claim 2 till claim 1 is shown to be valid.

Claim 1 is a logically valid claim; it commits no fallacy. There, it has now been shown to be valid... or was this rather an attempt to redefine the word valid to the word true on your part, of which case is a redefinition fallacy?

Now, what's your answer to claim #2...

 

[gfm7175]

Now you’re just repeating yourself. But it doesn’t seem like you’ve considered my comments on how your definition of agnosticism introduces another claim about knowledge... and how that claim about knowledge is really central to agnosticism... you’re just repeating yourself with no engagement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't have time to get to it... I will get to it now though...

 

[devildavid]

I would modifiy that, and put it as 'no objective and tangible', since personal experiance is subjective evidence for a specific person, It's 'private' evidence they can not show someone else.

Thoughts in our heads are not evidence of anything other than the thoughts themselves. Statements we make are not evidence of anything but the expression of thoughts.

Hallucinations and delusions are not evidence of the content of the hallucination or delusion. If someone says they saw pink elephants it is not evidence of pink elephants.

We don't exist in a courtroom, where evidence has a specialized legal definition.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Precisely; so they too are neither "believers" or "atheists".


OM

It depends on how academic you want to get. In philosophy there are types of atheism. Hard/strong atheism is when somebody believes god/s don’t exist. Soft/weak atheism is when one lacks a belief that god/s exist. So a baby would be a soft/weak atheist, philosophically speaking.

 

[devildavid]

That falls under "god(s) do not exist"

No, it does not.

 

[devildavid]

It depends on how academic you want to get. In philosophy there are types of atheism. Hard/strong atheism is when somebody believes god/s don’t exist. Soft/weak atheism is when one lacks a belief that god/s exist. So a baby would be a soft/weak atheist, philosophically speaking.

Philosophy is wrong about atheism.