• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Would you just lack belief in my claims or would you go as far as saying absolutely no way is any of that reality? If not, why not?

I have no reason to believe or disbelieve your claim. I'm not even skeptical. It's simply of no particular consequence to me.

Totally evading the point of the entire argument. And completely ignoring what I was asking of you. I give up unless you want to try explaining what I asked you to explain.

I answered your question honestly and directly. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.

That's what you call an honest and direct answer?

An honest and direct answer would be, "I would lack a belief in your claims because [whatever your reason]." You never got to the second half of that. You didn't answer his second question. And since you didn't, inquisitive and analytical people will speculate on why. Why did you decide to not give your reasons? The likeliest explanation is that you sensed that it could be shown that if you gave a reason, it would be the same reason your god claims aren't believed by skeptics - there's no reason to believe them. Nor could you say, "I have no reason." So, you just acted like the question wasn't there.

I've explained to you before how these kinds of answers undermine your ethos, which I've mentioned refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

In this case, why is he evading questions? It's certainly not because you have a sound argument that you could have articulated, but decided to ignore the question anyway. You don't shy away from the game when you think you have an answer. So, I conclude that you have no confidence in your ability to answer the question, and thus don't really understand your argument, either.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Neither are they remotely honest descriptions of what many unbelievers actually think.

It's what I think, I don't believe in any deity or deities, nothing more nothing less. Your claims are not an accurate representation of my atheism. I am also an agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims. You can deny this ad infinitum, but I'll keep posting the truth, as I know what I think.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I answered your question honestly and directly. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.
That's too bad for you, I guess.
I understand it better than you do: that your claim of "unbelief" is completely irrelevant, AND dishonest. Believing that every theist you've ever met or heard or read about is wrong is not "unbelief". Believing that no gods exist unless they can be proven to you to exist is also not "unbelief". These aren't even examples of skepticism. And it's questionable to claim agnosticism when you ignore your lack own of knowledge.
"I understand your position better than you do!"

Hilarious.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It's not much fun being lied to over and over and over and over, either.

I know, I've been reading your posts. :rolleyes:
No, what it leads to it the belief that theism is false.

Theism isn't even a single proposition. Yet again: nobody has yet made a case for any theist proposition that I find in the least bit convincing. That means I have no reason to accept them, which is not the same as knowing they are wrong. It's possible for somebody to be entirely right for very bad reasons, just by chance. It's also possible that there is some form of theism that comes with some convincing reason to take it seriously, and I haven't yet encountered it or its reasons. In addition, it's possible that some being or beings exist that deserves the title god or gods but that has provided no means by which humans can know about it or them.

Since I do no deny these possibilities, I am an agnostic atheist, somebody who sees no reason to accept the existence of any gods but accepts the aforementioned possibilities, as has been explained to you by many people now. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling us all dishonest.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
You believe every theist you've ever encountered or heard of is wrong.

No, my atheism is not a belief, I believe I've mentioned this once or twice. I just don't believe their claims for any extant deity.

You believe you are right about them all being wrong because they can't prove to you, to your satisfaction, that they're right.

No, atheism is not a belief, and my atheism is not based on a belief.

You believe there is no evidence

No, I have never seen any theist ever demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence, so I don't believe them when they keep making the bare claim they have evidence.

you have no idea what evidence to look for.

It's not my belief, so it's idiotic to expect me to tell the person who holds the belief what evidence they should demonstrate. They should know what the most compelling evidence or reason is for their belief, but it always turns out to be pure assumption and subjective opinion.

you are not an "unbeliever" at all

I am an atheist, because I don't believe in any deity or deities.

you are just as adamant about your own completely unproven beliefs as any theist I've ever met is about his.

I only believe ideas that are supported by sufficient objective evidence, and I hold no belief that i won't revise or abandon if the evidence requires it.

Your ball, champ.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
That's what you call an honest and direct answer?

An honest and direct answer would be, "I would lack a belief in your claims because [whatever your reason]."
No, that's the answer he wanted to hear. The honest answer is that asking about 'belief' is irrelevant where there is none. Just as making silly statements about one's 'unbelief' is irrelevant because there is none.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Just as making silly statements about one's 'unbelief' is irrelevant because there is none.
Ahdaboy, now you're getting it, there is no belief in unbelief, as you say..."there is none"..

Well done, it took a while but I think you got there.
 
o_O

Disbelief
noun
  1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
I don't think disbelief is a belief?

A belief is a cognitive position you take on an issue.

Refusal to believe something is true is such a position. It's not the absence of such a position.

Whether you believe it true or you believe it untrue it's still a belief.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
A belief is a cognitive position you take on an issue.

Refusal to believe something is true is such a position. It's not the absence of such a position.

Whether you believe it true or you believe it untrue it's still a belief.

A belief is a belief, well yes, but disbelief is not a belief, that's manifest in the definition, I posted it above. Refusing to believe something does not mean you believe the opposite.

Disbelief is defined as inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

I also see the word or in the definition, so it is not just a refusal, that is one possibility, it can also be an inability to believe something is true. I am unable to believe a deity exist, because no one can demsonrate any objective evidence to support the claim. So my atheism is demonstrably not a belief, but it is a disbelief.
 
Refusing to believe something does not mean you believe the opposite.

There is no practical difference between believing something doesn't exist and refusing to believe that it does exist (regardless of whether or not one wants to quibble a grammatical difference)



I am unable to believe a deity exist, because no one can demsonrate any objective evidence to support the claim. So my atheism is demonstrably not a belief, but it is a disbelief.

Adopting the cognitive position that something is not true due to insufficient evidence is a belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top