[W: 418] What all atheists believe

[Quag]

Re: What all atheists believe

Harvey, my invisible 6' tall drunk invisible rabbit ate all the invisible tobacco yesterday. Haven't had time to resupply. And when I do, I don't know if I'll be able to get it past Harvey.

That is a conundrum.
Have you tried distracting Harvey with an invisible Jessica Rabbit?

 

[OldFatGuy]

Re: What all atheists believe

That is a conundrum.
Have you tried distracting Harvey with an invisible Jessica Rabbit?

I think he might be gay or onanistic? I am not certain, but no kiddie invisible rabbits are around. He's a very strange rabbit. All he does is eat, drink and release methane, playing pranks on the unsuspecting.

 

[JustHanging]

Re: What all atheists believe

There is no way I have any imaginary friends...or "beliefs" in any.

Here is my position:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

The above works equally well if we substitute "Harry Potter" for "god".


I do not know if Harry Potter exists or not;
I see no reason to suspect Harry Potter CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of Harry Potter is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that Harry Potter MUST EXIST...that Harry Potter is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.


Personally, I lean heavily towards Harry Potter, like a god, not existing. If I saw some good evidence that such a being existed, that would change. So far none has been presented.

Do you use the same logic when you're contemplating if Harry Potter exists?

 

[Quag]

Re: What all atheists believe

I think he might be gay or onanistic? I am not certain, but no kiddie invisible rabbits are around. He's a very strange rabbit. All he does is eat, drink and release methane, playing pranks on the unsuspecting.

Perhaps you need an invisible Elmer J Fudd to get rid of the rabbit, but dont get your hopes up they tend to be very poor hunters

 

[zyzygy]

Re: What all atheists believe

Perhaps you need an invisible Elmer J Fudd to get rid of the rabbit, but dont get your hopes up they tend to be very poor hunters

Elmer only hunts wabbits.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Re: What all atheists believe

You haven't defined god, or gods. You may want to start there.

An entity (entities) existing that "created" everything else that exists. A creator god.

You haven't defined your position of whether there are any gods or not. You might want to start there.

Says the blind guesser.

I do blindly guess on occasions. I call my blind guesses...blind guesses.

You've basically restated the law of excluded middle, then claim literally that you are certain, that all assertions about your undefined "gods" being true, or false, are a guess, and cannot be reasoned.
You've not only given no *reasons* to back your claim that "no one can know if its true or false and thus are all blind guessers", you appear to be confused about the fact that reality can in fact, be observed...by definition.

What I have done is to state that anyone who asserts that there are no gods...is doing the same thing as someone who asserts there are no gods...making a blind guess about REALITY.

That seems to be annoying you. Let's discuss that.

What thing are you referring to that you know exists, but can't in principle be observed?

There may be more that exists that cannot be observed by humans...than exists that that can be.

There may be dimensions of existence that we cannot even conceive of. If you think that humans, and what humans can perceive or otherwise sense, is all that can exist...not much I can do about that.

The old Frank "possibility" confusion.
No Frank, you provide us with no evidence that dimensions of existence that cannot be observed, *may exist*.
You cannot back your claim with anything other than pleading...its rejected.

Okay. So go discuss something else with someone else.

Agreement is irrelevant.

See above.

How is this not clear?
Definition: Mog: I am making up an imaginary entity that doesn't exist.
Claim: A Mog does not exist.
Question: Is the above claim, a claim *about* reality?

The claim is either about reality, or its about not. Which is it Frank? You have the definition, and the claim, don't be frightened, you can correct yourself if all that occurs is an error.

See above.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: What all atheists believe

Elmer only hunts wabbits.

Unless it's duck season.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Re: What all atheists believe

The above works equally well if we substitute "Harry Potter" for "god".


I do not know if Harry Potter exists or not;
I see no reason to suspect Harry Potter CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of Harry Potter is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that Harry Potter MUST EXIST...that Harry Potter is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.


Personally, I lean heavily towards Harry Potter, like a god, not existing. If I saw some good evidence that such a being existed, that would change. So far none has been presented.

Do you use the same logic when you're contemplating if Harry Potter exists?

So you are saying there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess about whether or not Harry Potter exists.

Interesting.

There is for me.

The analogy is absurd.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: What all atheists believe

I know what all Hindus believe.

 

[Mach]

Re: What all atheists believe

An entity (entities) existing that "created" everything else that exists. A creator god.

If you have no evidence*, it's an imaginary, not real, concept. Fictional writers create imaginary concepts all the time, why is this so strange to you?
*Knowledge of reality ultimately requires evidence/observation of that reality. You have none, thus, its currently just an imaginary concept.

You haven't defined your position of whether there are any gods or not. You might want to start there.

Why should I? It's not critical to showing you the errors in your claims.
Most classic concepts of gods of gods are based on evidence/observation of reality. They are all imaginary concepts. Imaginary things are by definition, not real. Simple right?
Those that are based on reality, become indistinguishable from real things...the Sun, the Moon, the Nature, etc. And that's just semantics.

There may be more that exists that cannot be observed by humans...than exists that that can be.

I will repeat. What thing are you referring to that you know exists, but can't in principle be observed? You can't name it, because it's not real.
If you cannot identify such a thing from reality, then you are offering us yet another imaginary concept (not based on reality). Imaginary things don't exist Frank.

There may be dimensions of existence that we cannot even conceive of. If you think that humans, and what humans can perceive or otherwise sense, is all that can exist...not much I can do about that.

Where is the evidence of this "other dimension" concept? If there is no evidence, it's again...imaginary.
Or did you mean to claim these "others dimensions of existence" are real, and you can prove them?
Which is it Frank? If you don't know, then leave it to those who do, right?

Why do you keep running from a simple philosophy question Frank? Third time, trying to get you to respond without running:

Definition: Mog: I am making up an imaginary entity that doesn't exist.
Claim: A Mog does not exist.
Question: Is the above claim, a claim *about* reality?

The claim is either about reality, or its about not. Which is it Frank? You have the definition, and the claim, don't be frightened, you can correct yourself if all that occurs is an error.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: What all atheists believe

If we cannot perceive these extra dimensions and we are not aware of them because they do not affect us then who cares?

 

[ArtemisBarca]

What all atheists believe.

In philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist.
Thus, an atheist believes God does not exist.

This of course, assumes proper use of language.

Anyone is free to say, "I am an atheist because (any reason under the sun)." They are just creating a special meaning for the word.
They would not reasonably be free to say "

As it turns out, he is the one who does not seem to understand what the words mean.

As SEP representative Eve Keneinan says, "An atheist who goes by [theresidentskeptic] is one of many atheists who have demanded that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy change its definition of atheism to their preferred one, namely, the dishonest "lack of belief" definition."
He makes his case, consistent with the American Atheist position, and gets a reply from the authoritative source.

"While the term "atheism" is used in a variety of ways in general discourse, our entry is on its meaning in the philosophical literature. Traditionally speaking, the definition in our entry that "atheism" means the denial of the existence of God is correct in the philosophical literature. Some now refer to this standard meaning as "positive atheism" and contrast it with the broader notion of "atheism" which has the meaning you suggests that "atheism" simply means not-theist.
In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted that he was using an etymological argument to try to convince people *not* to follow the *standard meaning* of the term. His goal was to reframe the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand "atheism" as a default position.
Not everyone has been convinced to use the term in Flew's way simply on the force of his argument. For some, who consider themselves atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to water down a perfectly good concept.For others, who consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" a term they rejected."

Eve quotes Flew, who in 1972 wrote "I argue that we should give an established term a totally new definition, because doing so would have the advantage of making the position that I happen to hold (in 1972, l may change my mind later) a distinct rhetorical (but not substantive) advantage in arguments and debate about the subject."


So there you have it, from the source who is credited with starting the movement to rebrand the term "atheism". Such an argument is rhetorical, not substantive.

In a separate blog, Eve provides more insight.
Is Atheism Merely a Lack of Belief in God? Not According to the Best Scholarly Sources.
by Eve Keneinan "...it is nevertheless highly significant that the "lack of belief" definition of atheism has really made very little headway among professional scholars , except when they note it as a variant definition, which is highly contentious, and thus usually used only by those who are ideologically motivated in their arguments.

I do not agree with the paper... well unless they are losing me in the swap over to focusing on the philosophical definition.. I’m not sure how “philosophical “ changes the fundamentals of the definition..

In reality the vast majority of atheists believe there is zero evidence for any of the gods proposed, and quite a bit of evidence against it..


The difference comes in the fact that if undeniable proof of god were to surface, then relatively every atheist on the planet would instantly convert..

Where with religions all evidence against the existence of a god is dismissed as a trick of the devil or a test of faith by god..

It is that refusal to even consider the other option that define a religion imho..


So by that definition, atheism would be a religion in the , I think rare cases where someone is claiming to know for sure there is no god or that a god is impossible..

I guess one could make the claim that everyone that is being honest is really agnostic.. , but imho agnostic kinda pretends that the chance of a god is 50/50..

If you think there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god, then are you still agnostic?!?!


I don’t think so..


The only reason it is considered so is it is being compared to the all or nothing mentality of religious. Hi


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Re: What all atheists believe

If we cannot perceive these extra dimensions and we are not aware of them because they do not affect us then who cares?

There is reason to care... who knows what that knowledge might lead to . Since we would better understand the nature of reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Re: What all atheists believe

If you have no evidence*, it's an imaginary, not real, concept. Fictional writers create imaginary concepts all the time, why is this so strange to you?
*Knowledge of reality ultimately requires evidence/observation of that reality. You have none, thus, its currently just an imaginary concept.


Why should I? It's not critical to showing you the errors in your claims.
Most classic concepts of gods of gods are based on evidence/observation of reality. They are all imaginary concepts. Imaginary things are by definition, not real. Simple right?
Those that are based on reality, become indistinguishable from real things...the Sun, the Moon, the Nature, etc. And that's just semantics.


I will repeat. What thing are you referring to that you know exists, but can't in principle be observed? You can't name it, because it's not real.
If you cannot identify such a thing from reality, then you are offering us yet another imaginary concept (not based on reality). Imaginary things don't exist Frank.


Where is the evidence of this "other dimension" concept? If there is no evidence, it's again...imaginary.
Or did you mean to claim these "others dimensions of existence" are real, and you can prove them?
Which is it Frank? If you don't know, then leave it to those who do, right?

Why do you keep running from a simple philosophy question Frank? Third time, trying to get you to respond without running:

Definition: Mog: I am making up an imaginary entity that doesn't exist.
Claim: A Mog does not exist.
Question: Is the above claim, a claim *about* reality?

The claim is either about reality, or its about not. Which is it Frank? You have the definition, and the claim, don't be frightened, you can correct yourself if all that occurs is an error.

I think a better question would be to ask , “how those extra dimensions and such are evidence for his specific flavor of religion??”

He is right in the over-all concept of a creator god..

If this is all a simulation in a computer program and we are all just 1’s and 0’s in some gigantic version of WOW. Then the programmers would be gods.. even able to adjust reality at their whims..


But that isn’t the kinda god those who post this stuff are looking for..

In the west , They want the Christian god usually..

And that is oh so easily debunked.... every testable claim the Bible makes has been debunked..

There was no global flood in human history.

Noah’s family did not spawn humanity through incest..


There was no Roman census requiring everyone to travel back to their ancestral home of a thousand years before.. (this one might be the silliest of them all lol!! Just imagine if in the modern world , with planes and trains, trying to get everyone to return to where their family was from 1,000 years before?!?!)

Sodom and ghamora






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Frank Apisa]

Re: What all atheists believe

If you have no evidence*, it's an imaginary, not real, concept. Fictional writers create imaginary concepts all the time, why is this so strange to you?
*Knowledge of reality ultimately requires evidence/observation of that reality. You have none, thus, its currently just an imaginary concept.


Why should I? It's not critical to showing you the errors in your claims.
Most classic concepts of gods of gods are based on evidence/observation of reality. They are all imaginary concepts. Imaginary things are by definition, not real. Simple right?
Those that are based on reality, become indistinguishable from real things...the Sun, the Moon, the Nature, etc. And that's just semantics.


I will repeat. What thing are you referring to that you know exists, but can't in principle be observed? You can't name it, because it's not real.
If you cannot identify such a thing from reality, then you are offering us yet another imaginary concept (not based on reality). Imaginary things don't exist Frank.


Where is the evidence of this "other dimension" concept? If there is no evidence, it's again...imaginary.
Or did you mean to claim these "others dimensions of existence" are real, and you can prove them?
Which is it Frank? If you don't know, then leave it to those who do, right?

Why do you keep running from a simple philosophy question Frank? Third time, trying to get you to respond without running:

Definition: Mog: I am making up an imaginary entity that doesn't exist.
Claim: A Mog does not exist.
Question: Is the above claim, a claim *about* reality?

The claim is either about reality, or its about not. Which is it Frank? You have the definition, and the claim, don't be frightened, you can correct yourself if all that occurs is an error.

I can see you are like that other guy...more interested in insults than discussion.

I'll give you one more chance to get serious...and stop with the insults and insinuations.

You asked me to define what I meant by "god" or "gods" in my agnostic position statement.

I responded...reasonably and intelligently.

Now that you know...if you have something to say about my position...say it. We can discuss it amicably and reasonably.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Re: What all atheists believe

Perhaps you need an invisible Elmer J Fudd to get rid of the rabbit, but dont get your hopes up they tend to be very poor hunters

Elmer was never successful. If it weren't for the gas, I'd be fine with Harvey. Between him and Dog, open windows are must even in the winter, not that I am a slouch in that department according to my wife, kids and grandkids. Frankly air fresheners and scented candles aren't enough, nor a few lit matches on occasions of greater flatulence.

 

[Quag]

Re: What all atheists believe

Elmer was never successful. If it weren't for the gas, I'd be fine with Harvey. Between him and Dog, open windows are must even in the winter, not that I am a slouch in that department according to my wife, kids and grandkids. Frankly air fresheners and scented candles aren't enough, nor a few lit matches on occasions of greater flatulence.

Sorry I am out of ideas to help you.
I feel (smell?) your pain

 

[William Rea]

Re: What all atheists believe

No, as I don't have nearly the volume of errors that you do so by your rules you would win. Funny how that works, the one with the lies wins, but that is how you like it.

And it is very Trump like behaviour. In fact, if Trump were an agnostic, I suspect that that is exactly what he would look like.

 

[William Rea]

Re: What all atheists believe

We know enough about the planets around stars to know that the number of planets to meet the conditions for life is relatively small. And I didn't say that they all fell out of those ranges. I said that the evidence points to it being more likely that those planets are uninhabited than not. You might find the Drake Equation interesting. Google it.



Or, perhaps you are so dogmatic in your answer that it's a fifty-fifty shot, you're not willing to concede anything different.
Above, I explained about infinite sets and that given any particular belief in the world, that belief is much more likely to be false rather than true. I've seen nothing to dispute that and you simply threw up your hands and said that you don't understand it. That's fine. But don't pretend that what I'm saying is just a "guess" because you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
The same is true of your aliens example. You really don't want to listen to the fact that we do have some reasoning for why we believe that life on other planets is relatively rare. IMO, I would be a fool not to take it into consideration all of the relevant data and to simply say, "I can't know for sure either way, so one guess is as good as another".



Again, it's not logic. It is willfully ignoring relevant data to come to a preconceived conclusion that you have.



So, you CAN give relative truth values to unknowns. Good.
Now, I think you can see how we can apply those same relative truth values to things like life on other planets.

I would also suggest that some of the reason why you choose to not be so neutral on the existence of the Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy is because those are incredible claims. They involve magical beings that don't follow the rules of the universe as we understand them. Wouldn't you agree that an incredible claim takes much more reason to believe than a mundane one? If I tell you that I have a pencil on my desk, is that just as believable to you as that I have a bag of magic beans on my desk?

Tell me...how incredible is the claim of a God or set of gods?

It's an incredibly Trump like response of, 'both sides' where you know that what is really meant is that, 'the side I dislike is right but, I'll just blag it'.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Re: What all atheists believe

Sorry I am out of ideas to help you.
I feel (smell?) your pain

There's no hope. I'm stuck with Harvey. Could be worse, I hear the fairies are plain evil, known to drop deposits of a foul kind in untended shoes.

 

[Arjay81]

Re: What all atheists believe

Still no specific.

Okay. I figured as much.

If you had bothered to try to comprehend the word ALL or had even looked it up in the dictionary, you would see how false your statement truly is.

I demand an apology, which you claim to be so good at and have made plenty of other errors to cause them.

 

[Mach]

Re: What all atheists believe

I can see you are like that other guy...more interested in insults than discussion.
I'll give you one more chance to get serious...and stop with the insults and insinuations.
You asked me to define what I meant by "god" or "gods" in my agnostic position statement.
I responded...reasonably and intelligently.
Now that you know...if you have something to say about my position...say it. We can discuss it amicably and reasonably.

We're way past that Frank, I've already refuted your argument in a number of ways, and shown where your definition leads.

You haven't been able to refute it, and refuse to answer simple, direct questions. You're not debating, therefore I accept your forfeiture.

Note: When I claim you're running from a direct question, that's not an insult, that's reality. You have avoided that simple question three times, own it Frank.
Your position is so weak (not an insult, a fact), that you neither refute my refutations, nor answer simple questions.
Instead, you claim I'm insulting you, and then you repeat your position.

That's forfeiture, by any other name.

 

[Mach]

Re: What all atheists believe

I think a better question would be to ask , “how those extra dimensions and such are evidence for his specific flavor of religion??”

So you too have enough evidence of these "extra dimensions" to believe that it's reasonable to accept them as true, and then just look for the links between that and religion?
No, that's still not reasonable. You can't proceed to use this concept of "extra dimensions", until we know what it means, unless you're positing it as true/false to show where it leads to show its false/contradictory.
If you'd like to describe how you *know* about these "extra dimensions", please do so. Otherwise, you don't get to use them in a statement and act like it has meaning.

He is right in the over-all concept of a creator god..

It's mumbo-jumbo like the rest.

If this is all a simulation in a computer program

Sounds like dreams and imagination to me. Unless you have evidence from reality to back it.

This isn't about religion, it's about reasoning. Either it's reasonable, or not. His position has been evidenced to be not reasonable.
If you'd like to refute my points, do so, quote them, show the error, I'd love to see it, I love this stuff. You can remove [god] from all this, it's irrelevant.

 

[Mach]

Re: What all atheists believe

If anyone wants to take a crack at it, since one poster refuses to, be my guest:


Definition: Mog: I am making up an imaginary entity that doesn't exist.
Claim: A Mog does not exist.
Question: Is the above claim, a claim *about* reality?

I'd love to explore this reasonably, with anyone willing to discuss it, even if its just devil's advocate.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Re: What all atheists believe

If you had bothered to try to comprehend the word ALL or had even looked it up in the dictionary, you would see how false your statement truly is.

I demand an apology, which you claim to be so good at and have made plenty of other errors to cause them.

You claimed I would not be able to say I made a mistake.

I just gave you two instance where I actually have done so.

Therefore, you are mistaken.

Let me see you acknowledge that I was right...you wrong...and offer an apology.