On my conversion from atheism

[Lursa]

Yes, I know the New Atheist Playbook. But it's nonsense.
If atheism is not based on a reason to disbelieve, it is irrational nonsense.
There is no default position for human thought. This is New Atheist propaganda.

I said 'belief.' And who says? Please source what I bolded.

You just wrote that I posted nonsense, but not why it's nonsense. Dismissiveness is not an argument.

 

[Rich2018]

This is New Atheist nonsense -- literally nonsense -- it makes no sense....

What is there not to get ?

Atheism is a lack of belief in god (or any god)

That's ALL Atheism means

It doesn't mean you believe in evolution
It doesn't mean you believe in the Big Bang
It doesn't mean you believe in anything

It just means you do not believe in any god.

INCLUDING YOURS

...I'm saying that the so-called "lack of belief" is in fact a belief...

If you want to twist lack of belief in god, go ahead, I'm still good with that

An Atheist believes that no god exists

BUT when an Atheist says he/she believes no god exists, they mean they "think" no god or gods exist.

They're not stating it as absolute fact.

 

[Angel]

I said 'belief.' And who says? Please source what I bolded.

You just wrote that I posted nonsense, but not why it's nonsense. Dismissiveness is not an argument.

Read the British empiricists. I don't know what to tell you. New Atheism makes up some bogus concept about a default thought concerning the existence of God so that it can avoid responsibility for its disbelief and I'm supposed to source what exactly?

A belief is the mental acceptance of an idea. If one has no reason to believe, one's belief is irrational.
If atheism is rational, then it has a belief and it has a reason for believing.

What is it that you as an atheist believe or disbelieve?
What reason do you have for that belief or disbelief?

The rest is equivocating bad faith.

 

[Angel]

What is there not to get ?

Atheism is a lack of belief in god (or any god)

That's ALL Atheism means

It doesn't mean you believe in evolution
It doesn't mean you believe in the Big Bang
It doesn't mean you believe in anything

It just means you do not believe in any god.

INCLUDING YOURS





If you want to twist lack of belief in god, go ahead, I'm still good with that

An Atheist believes that no god exists

BUT when an Atheist says he/she believes no god exists, they mean they "think" no god or gods exist.

They're not stating it as absolute fact.

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God. Atheism is the belief that god does not exist.

If we agree on this, then we agree.

 

[Lursa]

Read the British empiricists. I don't know what to tell you. New Atheism makes up some bogus concept about a default thought concerning the existence of God so that it can avoid responsibility for its disbelief and I'm supposed to source what exactly?

A belief is the mental acceptance of an idea. If one has no reason to believe, one's belief is irrational.
If atheism is rational, then it has a belief and it has a reason for believing.

What is it that you as an atheist believe or disbelieve?
What reason do you have for that belief or disbelief?

The rest is equivocating bad faith.

There is no default thought 'about God.' Not for, not against. It's nothing, a vacuum.

There is no belief, period. Someone would have to introduce the concept of God to a person. Or introduce any belief.

And why on earth would anyone be concerned that they 'have to' or 'should' believe? The idea of some 'responsibility' to do so is ludicrous. It's the "assumption" that your belief is right that's all.

There's no way for you to prove your beliefs, so you attack those that dont believe in fantasy :doh

 

[Good4Nothin]

No reason is needed.

The status quo, the default, is atheism.

To believe in 'something,' is to develop, learn, investigate, experiment, etc.

One has to be introduced to an idea of 'something' to take up that interest to learn and believe.

Now, someone can also create a philosophy around atheism as well, but to be an atheist does not require any such foundation.

So if you have not experienced something, then you feel it makes sense to say it isn't real. If you have never been to China, then you should say China is not real, in your experience, so it can't be real in anyone else's experience.

Rather than be an atheist, why not just say "I have not experienced anything that could be described as divine, and I have no need of any divine experiences" and leave it at that?

Why do atheists go on to deny there is anything that anyone could experience as divine or beyond our sensory world?

You also have not directly experienced many discoveries. You have not personally gone to the moon. Do you deny that any human beings went to the moon? Or do you trust that, although you did not experience it personally and directly, someone else did?

So if someone tells you they experienced something divine or spiritual, why can't you accept that they did? Why do you say it had to be a hallucination or delusion? Even if millions of people in all times and places had that sort of experience, you will still insist it had to be delusional.

What I have said here should prove to you that atheism is not simply lack of belief. It is the personal lack of experience, combined with denial of the experiences of others.

 

[Lursa]

So if you have not experienced something, then you feel it makes sense to say it isn't real. If you have never been to China, then you should say China is not real, in your experience, so it can't be real in anyone else's experience.

Where did I write that? I wrote discover, learn, investigate, as well. Those things dont have to be first-hand.

So your conclusion fails.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Where did I write that? I wrote discover, learn, investigate, as well. Those things dont have to be first-hand.

So your conclusion fails.

Read what I wrote again.

 

[Lursa]

Read what I wrote again.

No. Read what I wrote again.
Btw, I am a practicing Christian.

 

[Good4Nothin]

No. Read what I wrote again.
Btw, I am a practicing Christian.

I think we should differentiate between atheism and lack of interest in religion or spirituality. A lot of people, maybe the majority, have no spiritual drive. They should not be labeled as atheists.

 

[Angel]

There is no default thought 'about God.' Not for, not against. It's nothing, a vacuum.

There is no belief, period. Someone would have to introduce the concept of God to a person. Or introduce any belief.

And why on earth would anyone be concerned that they 'have to' or 'should' believe? The idea of some 'responsibility' to do so is ludicrous. It's the "assumption" that your belief is right that's all.

There's no way for you to prove your beliefs, so you attack those that dont believe in fantasy :doh

The responsibility of a rational human being is to be rational in her beliefs or disbelief, i.e., to have a reason or reasons to believe or disbelieve.
You misconstrue with your "responsibility to believe" -- I never said that.

The concept of God has been introduced. It is off that concept that theism and atheism are defined.
If there were no concept of God, there wouldn't be any theists or atheists.
Without the concept of God, atheism is not atheism.

 

[Lursa]

I think we should differentiate between atheism and lack of interest in religion or spirituality. A lot of people, maybe the majority, have no spiritual drive. They should not be labeled as atheists.

Has nothing to do with 'interest.'

If there's *nothing there, nothing to discover* then no one will be interested in it.

When people are introduced to concepts of religion, belief, then there is something to consider, explore, be interested in, etc.

 

[Lursa]

The responsibility of a rational human being is to be rational in her beliefs or disbelief, i.e., to have a reason or reasons to believe or disbelieve.
You misconstrue with your "responsibility to believe" -- I never said that.

The concept of God has been introduced. It is off that concept that theism and atheism are defined.
If there were no concept of God, there wouldn't be any theists or atheists.
Without the concept of God, atheism is not atheism.

Oh well then atheists are right, hands down.

There is no rational reason to believe in God. There is no proof. Again, the default unless made aware of it, is atheism, absence of belief.

My Christian beliefs are based on faith. Period. I dont claim that belief is rational.

 

[Lursa]

I think we should differentiate between atheism and lack of interest in religion or spirituality. A lot of people, maybe the majority, have no spiritual drive. They should not be labeled as atheists.

btw, millions of "Christians" in America have no spiritual drive. They just identify as Christians.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Has nothing to do with 'interest.'

If there's *nothing there, nothing to discover* then no one will be interested in it.

When people are introduced to concepts of religion, belief, then there is something to consider, explore, be interested in, etc.

They don't have to be introduced. Some people are naturally spiritual.

 

[Lursa]

They don't have to be introduced. Some people are naturally spiritual.

Proof? Sources?

It may be true that individuals feel a spiritual connection to things (all sorts of things) naturally...there's no reason atheists cant do so as well.

Feeling a connection to something and personal feelings about that connection, are not the same as a belief or religion, altho one can certainly imagine a particular type of individual turning such a spiritual connection INTO a religion or philosophy.

All humans have the capacity to imagine, fantasize, etc.

 

[Angel]

Oh well then atheists are right, hands down.

There is no rational reason to believe in God. There is no proof. Again, the default unless made aware of it, is atheism, absence of belief.

My Christian beliefs are based on faith. Period. I dont claim that belief is rational.

Atheists may or may not be right about their disbelief in God, but atheists who deny that they have a belief or disbelief on the question of God and who talk about "default position" are talking nonsense.

There are rational reasons to believe in God. There is no proof, but there are reasons and good ones to believe.
"Absence of belief" is atheist equivocation. That "absence of belief" is based on a reason or reasons to disbelieve.

I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about theism and atheism. Your Christian faith is just that, faith. As is my Christian faith. As is a Hindu's faith or a Buddhist's faith.
Faith in a particular religious doctrine and what that doctrine asserts about the nature of God is one thing; the belief in God, beyond this or that religious doctrine, is another.

 

[Lursa]

"Absence of belief" is atheist equivocation. That "absence of belief" is based on a reason or reasons to disbelieve.

Ridiculous! What a joke. It is indeed a vacuum, absence of belief. Once you ASK someone (an atheist) about God, for example, THEN they have to consider and decide to believe or not.

But if not introduced to such a concept, no such belief or disbelief exists.

 

[Angel]

Ridiculous! What a joke. It is indeed a vacuum, absence of belief. Once you ASK someone (an atheist) about God, for example, THEN they have to consider and decide to believe or not.

But if not introduced to such a concept, no such belief or disbelief exists.

Maybe some boy in a bubble completely protected from the contamination of all cultural concepts does not think ever about God -- maybe -- but that boy is neither theist nor atheist, and so not an argument for the atheist shibboleth you are trying to defend.
There is no vacuum and there is no "absence of belief" that is not at bottom a belief or disbelief.
And if we carry on in this vein, please maintain the distinction between a doctrinal God and the pure concept of God. Atheist rejection of the former does not an atheist make.

 

[Daisy]

There most certainly is rational reason when referring to one's belief...

“Present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.”

With taking in knowledge of God's Word, much more is involved than simply learning isolated Scripture texts...it must also involve learning the Bible’s grammar...we need to grasp how scriptures relate to one another and how they serve as principles that can be applied in daily life...only by doing so can we thus become “fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”​ 2 Timothy 3:17...perhaps that is what is lacking in those who call themselves "Christian" but actually fail to have the actions that go along with that label...

 

[RAMOSS]

There most certainly is rational reason when referring to belief...

“Present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.”

With taking in knowledge of God's Word, much more is involved than simply learning isolated Scripture texts...it must also involve learning the Bible’s grammar...we need to grasp how scriptures relate to one another and how they serve as principles that can be applied in daily life...only by doing so can we thus become “fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”​ 2 Timothy 3:17...perhaps that is what is lacking in those who call themselves "Christian" but actually fail to have the actions that go with that label...

There is a difference between a claim is it of the power of reason, and it actually being the power of reason. Do you understand the difference. There is a differnece between reasoning and rationalizing.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Ridiculous! What a joke. It is indeed a vacuum, absence of belief. Once you ASK someone (an atheist) about God, for example, THEN they have to consider and decide to believe or not.

But if not introduced to such a concept, no such belief or disbelief exists.

Concepts of god or gods, or spirits, came from people who experienced communication with them. In all pre-modern human societies, there were individuals who communicated with and intervened with the spirit worlds. There were shamans, witch doctors, healers, prophets, etc. The concepts of God from the Old Testament came from prophets.

You're saying people won't believe in any god unless they are taught. But that means you are saying the whole concept is a fiction, that does not originate in any kind of reality.

 

[RAMOSS]

Concepts of god or gods, or spirits, came from people who experienced communication with them. In all pre-modern human societies, there were individuals who communicated with and intervened with the spirit worlds. There were shamans, witch doctors, healers, prophets, etc. The concepts of God from the Old Testament came from prophets.

You're saying people won't believe in any god unless they are taught. But that means you are saying the whole concept is a fiction, that does not originate in any kind of reality.

That is their belief. However, there is one thing for people who have an intense experience that they interpret as being in contact from God, and them being able to show that is the case.

 

[Daisy]

There is a difference between a claim is it of the power of reason, and it actually being the power of reason. Do you understand the difference. There is a differnece between reasoning and rationalizing.

Not really, since the phrase 'power of reason' is translated from the Greek word logikosʹ, which means 'rational' or 'intelligent'...

 

[Good4Nothin]

That is their belief. However, there is one thing for people who have an intense experience that they interpret as being in contact from God, and them being able to show that is the case.

And you don't have to show that it isn't the case. You can just state that they are delusional, and you don't need any evidence.