[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

[Obscurity]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Theistic Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in genital mutilation of newborn babies.

This is enough to not believe, because it is disgusting, grotesque, hideous, evil wickedness.

I am sad there is no hell for them to rot in for doing this to how many newborns.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Christianity literally has no better arguments than strawmen such as was posted. Their best arguments for the existence of their god are hundreds of years old, and have all been thoroughly debunked.

So this is what they're reduced to, sophistry.

Christianity did not start this thread. Your post is desperately confused and you're enjoying your confusion way too much.

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Theistic Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in genital mutilation of newborn babies.

This is enough to not believe, because it is disgusting, grotesque, hideous, evil wickedness.

I am sad there is no hell for them to rot in for doing this to how many newborns.

Not true of Christians...circumcision is not a requirement...Acts 15:6-29...

“Circumcision does not mean a thing, and uncircumcision means not a thing, but observance of God’s commandments does.”​ 1 Corinthians 7:19

Circumcision is a matter of culture...

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Theistic Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in genital mutilation of newborn babies.

This is enough to not believe, because it is disgusting, grotesque, hideous, evil wickedness.

I am sad there is no hell for them to rot in for doing this to how many newborns.

Off topic. Get a grip.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I'm fine with the Stanford entry, which begins thus:

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).


What's new about the New Atheism is that the New Atheists try to get around what is bolded above.

Perhaps you should be writing too Dawkins directly? He seems to be the center of your hand waving whining comments about atheism. And why the hell does it matter to you anyways what atheists think? Does it threaten your faith in your god?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Good link. :thumbs:

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Good link. :thumbs:

But it's a false authority fallacy! :roll:

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Perhaps you should be writing too Dawkins directly? He seems to be the center of your hand waving whining comments about atheism. And why the hell does it matter to you anyways what atheists think? Does it threaten your faith in your god?

There's a cobweb in the corner of my living room near the window by the bookcase that matters to me a million times more than what atheists think matters to me.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

So, what is the god you believe exists? Does it have any particular characteristics? If it does not, you are merely a theist with a belief that means nothing but that you think a thing you call god exists. And you cry about atheists who claim no such belief.

And of course once again you take the low road with insults. Your over inflated ego is showing. Your juvenile use of Shakespeare reveals it.

How can one refrain from criticizing posts like this one -- criticism which you apparently find insulting? This post makes no sense at all. Because the God I argue philosophically for is generic my criticism of bad faith atheism is undermined? Please try to formulate clearer thoughts for your posts.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

How many of these identical threads threads do we have to wade thru? If it's the same discussion, can't that continue in one of the myriad previous identical threads? Holy cow.


OM

Nuances, no?

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

To believe, or not to believe, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The fools and frauds of delusional godlessness,
Or to take manure fork to a pile of horse flops,
And by tossing clean out the barn:
--William Shakespeare, The Cockalorum of Chester, Act 2, Scene 1

He didn't remember his Shakespeare.

It's because of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

We ought to follow Queasto's example and block him.

Angel is a prime example of an equivocating theist. He knows that once he commits to a particular god he is open for criticism. So he sticks with the ambiguous god and is guilty of the very thing he falsely accuses atheists of.

An almost infinite number? I've already pointed out that it's the religious fanatics that make virtually every thread in this forum because they're looking for attention, then they complain when we respond, like our responding proves them right. I wish people would stop taking the bait.

Christianity has been using the same tired, debunked, arguments for God's existence for hundreds of years. Maybe she's hoping for a miracle, and that a winner is going to emerge from all the fail?

In this lesser-known tragedy Shakespeare creates one of his great comic figures, the Cestrian Duke Dimmesdale whose unrequited love for a vulgar tavern wench proves his undoing. The titular cockalorum, the Duke, like many of Shakespeare's most memorable characters, is singularly devoid of self-awareness, the very soul of conceited foolishness, and his delusional pursuit of the slatternly Athea while his dukedom falls to shambles stands with Shakespeare's finest creations. Some scholars read in the story of the Duke's fall a cautionary tale about the dangers of a facile atheism.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Nuances, no?

About as nuanced as the Code of Federal Regulations.


OM

 

[Quag]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I can assure you that for myself and the atheists I know it has nothing to do with bad faith and everything to do with not wanting to make claims that we can't back up. For me it's very simple. I can't defend the position that there is no god, therefor I don't claim it. I would think someone as astute as yourself on these issues would agree wholeheartedly with me that if I can't defend a position I shouldn't hold it correct?

If a person said "I lack belief" and then denied that "I don't believe" then he'd be incorrect by definition. Can you quote someone here that has said he lacks belief in god but backs down form saying "I don't believe in god"?

I think you are stepping around the issue a great deal. What you really are upset about, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that atheists won't come out and say "I believe there is no god" rather than "I don't believe in a god". Do I have that right? And id so, why do you think atheists should make a claim like "I believe there is no god" if that's not what they believe?

Thanks for your response.

Edit: I put "good" faith instead of "bad" faith on accident. Apologies.

What Angel is trying (and failing) to do is make atheism a belief with a belief system to make it equal to theism and theistic belief systems, then accuse atheists for being hypocrites

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

What Angel is trying (and failing) to do is make atheism a belief with a belief system to make it equal to theism and theistic belief systems, then accuse atheists for being hypocrites

Belief, yes; system, no. You're making that up. I think you call that a straw man.
Atheism is a belief, or disbelief, or it's a crock.

 

[roughdraft274]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Belief, yes; system, no. You're making that up. I think you call that a straw man.
Atheism is a belief, or disbelief, or it's a crock.

I think the belief itself is more important than what we call it. We must defend our beliefs, not our labels.

If you want to define atheism as someone who claims there is no god, then I'm not an atheist by your definition. But I will continue calling myself one regardless.

If it makes it easier to discuss, for arguments sake I will refer to my beliefs as sninkerdopperism.

sninkerdopperism = one who does not believe (disbelieves) in a god but does not claim to know there is no god.

I fail to see how all of this moves along the argument at any rate. I'm not even entirely sure I understand it. I'm still not sure what you think I'm trying to wiggle out of.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

But it's a false authority fallacy! :roll:

Not to me. I evaluate links and decide what merit to attribute them. The "holy link" dismissal thing is someone else's.

 

[ataraxia]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The Equivocation of Ambiguity​

Do you remember your Shakespeare?

To believe, or not to believe, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The fools and frauds of delusional godlessness,
Or to take manure fork to a pile of horse flops,
And by tossing clean out the barn:
--William Shakespeare, The Cockalorum of Chester​

This thread was inspired by post exchanges with "I Lack Belief" Atheists in this forum.

Amphiboly​

Logical Fallacy: Amphiboly

Thesis

To have a belief is to believe.
To lack a belief is not to believe.
To believe or not to believe. That is the question.
Think.

The "I Lack Belief" Atheist is merely equivocating with an ambiguity in order to avoid commitment
This is Bad Faith Atheism
Shun it.​

So if I am not sure parallel universes exist, is that a Bad Faith belief too? I have to know for sure one way or the other and commit to it, no matter how scant the evidence? Is it OK to just say I lack belief in them until better evidence comes along?

 

[Quag]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Belief, yes; system, no. You're making that up. I think you call that a straw man.
Atheism is a belief, or disbelief, or it's a crock.

Your strawman is a crock

 

[PTF]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

If my son comes to me and says he's a atheist I'll physically remove him. Btw Angel this is a good thread.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I think the belief itself is more important than what we call it. We must defend our beliefs, not our labels.

If you want to define atheism as someone who claims there is no god, then I'm not an atheist by your definition. But I will continue calling myself one regardless.

If it makes it easier to discuss, for arguments sake I will refer to my beliefs as sninkerdopperism.

sninkerdopperism = one who does not believe (disbelieves) in a god but does not claim to know there is no god.

I fail to see how all of this moves along the argument at any rate. I'm not even entirely sure I understand it. I'm still not sure what you think I'm trying to wiggle out of.

I'm not talking about certainty of belief; I'm talking about commitment to a belief, however certain or uncertain.
If as a sninkerdopperist you own your sninkerdopperism and don't try to pass off your sninkerdopperism as a default position or as anything other than a disbelief arrived at by you after your consideration of the matter, then we have no quarrel. Then I respect your sninkerdopperism.

.
.

 

[JustHanging]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

In this lesser-known tragedy Shakespeare creates one of his great comic figures, the Cestrian Duke Dimmesdale whose unrequited love for a vulgar tavern wench proves his undoing. The titular cockalorum, the Duke, like many of Shakespeare's most memorable characters, is singularly devoid of self-awareness, the very soul of conceited foolishness, and his delusional pursuit of the slatternly Athea while his dukedom falls to shambles stands with Shakespeare's finest creations. Some scholars read in the story of the Duke's fall a cautionary tale about the dangers of a facile atheism.

LOL, why would I possibly care what Shakespeare had to say about atheism? He sounds quite ignorant on the subject.

 

[Quag]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

If my son comes to me and says he's a atheist I'll physically remove him. Btw Angel this is a good thread.

Then you would be a terrible Christian, a terrible parent and a terrible person.
All of Angels threads are fails

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

So if I am not sure parallel universes exist, is that a Bad Faith belief too? I have to know for sure one way or the other and commit to it, no matter how scant the evidence? Is it OK to just say I lack belief in them until better evidence comes along?

Unsureness is not a belief or a disbelief. It's an agnostic position. Perfectly respectable. You lack both belief and disbelief.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

LOL, why would I possibly care what Shakespeare had to say about atheism? Quite possibly he was a coward like so many Christians, too afraid of the boogieman to logically question his beliefs.

So be it, I know far more than he about Christianity and religion than he.

Priceless!

 

[PTF]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Then you would be a terrible Christian, a terrible parent and a terrible person.
All of Angels threads are fails

I would be a terrible person if I didn't change the locks.