A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[KWED]

And the other side of this - that many drawn to religious beliefs will tend to be driven by emotion or intuition, even when reason might be against such?

The numbers of such people are statistically irrelevant.
The vast majority are simply indoctrinated during childhood, and childhood indoctrination is very hard to break.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The numbers of such people are statistically irrelevant.
The vast majority are simply indoctrinated during childhood, and childhood indoctrination is very hard to break.

It's an assumption I would make too but I haven't seen any figures as to either.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you accept that your belief in gods is illogical, biased and ignorant?
Well, that's refreshingly honest.
However, my position that there is no evidence or rational argument for the existence of any of the gods of religion is entirely logical, balanced and informed.

Yeah and so what? I have come across no human what can be in effect objective and only use external sensory evidence, And that includes me.

 

[KWED]

I would say he's profoundly agnostic.

And how is one "profoundly uncertain"?

 

[KWED]

So what need might atheism be fulfilling

The need to not be credulous and delusional?

 

[KWED]

You use one form of skepticism. I use another.

But according to your own position, you cannot accept your own position as reliable or logical. So why do you keep presenting it?

 

[KWED]

The lack of expected evidence for bigfoot can be considered evidence for the lack of bigfoot

Ah, so you accept absence of evidence as evidence of absence?
Cool.

because it's a very narrow and closed set of evidence to look for. Fortunately, or unfortunately,this is clearly not so for the question of God's existence.

Unfortunately - for you.
If you are looking for evidence for something and that evidence exists in many forms and many places, it should be easier to find than something that has only one piece of evidence on one place.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But according to your own position, you cannot accept your own position as reliable or logical. So why do you keep presenting it?

Simple:
There are a lots of opinion of what the world is and parts of it as they are common to humans.
A lot of them are contradictory like different version of God. I have found no way to be totally logic in the strong sense, so I admit that I am not.
The same for metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. I have found no objectively strong rational single methodology. Neither in science, philosophy or religion.

As for reliable. It seems that the everyday world is consistent in a limited sense.

 

[Sheldon]

Okay, so you don't use evidence and all that in this thread.

Is that a question?

You only use in other threads and what you do in this thread is not connected to evidence and so on. Okay.

Not really, and again your point escapes me sorry? Generic comments like these without citing specifically what I've posted, are hard to offer any response to as I don't know what you're making your claim about, or what your point is?

Do you expect me to go back through the entire thread and re-read every post I've made to see if there is any evidence offered or if indeed I made any claims that warranted it?

I've already explained that when I cited a dictionary definition, linked it for reference and quoted it, in order to evidence my claim that I was using the that primary definition of those words, is demonstrating objective evidence for that claim. So again why you'd make such an obviously false claim I'm not sure, or are you saying that dictionary definitions are based on my subjective opinion, rather than common usage? Are you saying dictionaries are not a reference tool, or that they don't reflect common usage?

 

[PureX]

Except none of those words or phrases mean exactly the same thing as atheism, and even if one of them did, have you never heard of synonyms?

If I claim that by using the word "red" I really mean any color with red in it, like orange, pink, and purple, then the word red isn't going to mean anything, anymore. If I say atheism means "I don't believe gods exist" but also means "I don't know if gods exist or not" and also means "I believe no gods exist" and also means I can choose to have faith in the existence of gods even though I don't know if they exist or not, then the word "atheism" really doesn't mean anything, anymore. The truth is that we all know full well that the word "atheism" refers to the belief that gods don't exist. And the only reason atheists keep insisting that it means all those other things is because they know they can't logically justify their believing that gods don't exist, even as they keep demanding that the people who do believe gods exist MUST prove it to them. So the bold truth is that all this BS about atheism meaning "unbelief" and belief at the same time is just that: BS. It's just some idiotic sophistry intended to hide from and deny the hypocrisy of demanding proof from others about their beliefs while having none for your own.

Ya'll believe that gods don't exist but you can't prove it, even though you reject the theist's belief that gods do exist because THEY can't prove it.

The way around this foolishness is to simply base your beliefs on something other than proof. Like functionality. And some atheists, here, have done so with admirable honesty and reason. The rest of you are just shouting the BS excuses louder and louder in hopes that it will mask the hypocrisy behind it. But it won't, and it doesn't.

 

[PureX]

Umm, no. Theism is the belief in existence of god(s).
I lack that belief, and so I am an atheist.

Some theists also lack that belief. So do nearly all agnostics. So do the real atheists. So do those who never heard of "God". Which is why your chosen "definition" of atheism is essentially meaningless nonsense.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ya'll believe that gods don't exist but you can't prove it, even though you reject the theist's belief that gods do exist because THEY can't prove it.

Atheist will say that the evidence overwhelmingly points (5.99 in Sigma 6) to the non-existence of any God. Bowing to functionality is a compromise. It is no more a search for truth.

 

[Sheldon]

If I say atheism means "I don't believe gods exist" but also means "I don't know if gods exist or not" and also means "I believe no gods exist" and also means I can choose to have faith in the existence of gods even though I don't know if they exist or not, then the word "atheism" really doesn't mean anything, anymore.

You could try using a dictionary, then beyond that lack of belief let atheists tell you what they do and do not believe.

That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

Yes yes, I read it....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I've already explained that when I cited a dictionary definition, linked it for reference and quoted it, in order to evidence my claim that I was using the that primary definition of those words, is demonstrating objective evidence for that claim. So again why you'd make such an obviously false claim I'm not sure, or are you saying that dictionary definitions are based on my subjective opinion, rather than common usage? Are you saying dictionaries are not a reference tool, or that they don't reflect common usage?

Common usage is not a case of objective in the strong sense. It is a case of a version of shared subjective understanding, but that doesn't have to be objective.

 

[PureX]

Atheist will say that the evidence overwhelmingly points (5.99 in Sigma 6) to the non-existence of any God. Bowing to functionality is a compromise. It is no more a search for truth.

All human "knowledge" is ultimately based on observed functionality. "Objective proof/truth" is a delusion. It's why no human can ever be logically certain of anything.

 

[PureX]

You could try using a dictionary, then beyond that lack of belief let atheists tell you what they do and do not believe.

That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

Yes yes, I read it....

Why, dictionaries don't define words. They only record the way people commonly use them. Homosexuals aren't any more or less "gay" than anyone else. But you'll find homosexuality as one of the definitions of the word "gay" in the dictionary. And these days it's the most common definition intended when people use that word. Because most people are not being logical much of the time when they're using words. Which is why words are so often being misused. Just as you are trying to misuse the word "atheist" to imply atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, ignorance, and disinterest all at the same time.

Why no just use the terms that already designate each of those conditions? I know why not. And I know why you aren't going to stop blindly auto-defending this nonsensical misuse of the word.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some theists also lack that belief. So do nearly all agnostics. So do the real atheists. So do those who never heard of "God". Which is why your chosen "definition" of atheism is essentially meaningless nonsense.

Theists lack belief in god(s)? That doesn't make sense.

Again, agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Theism is a belief claim. This isn't as difficult as you're trying to make it out to be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why, dictionaries don't define words. They only record the way people commonly use them. Homosexuals aren't any more or less "gay" than anyone else. But you'll find homosexuality as one of the definitions of the word "gay" in the dictionary. And these days it's the most common definition intended when people use that word. Because most people are not being logical much of the time when they're using words. Which is why words are so often being misused. Just as you are trying to misuse the word "atheist" to imply atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, ignorance, and disinterest all at the same time.

Why no just use the terms that already designate each of those conditions? I know why not. And I know why you aren't going to stop blindly auto-defending this nonsensical misuse of the word.

So you don't like the dictionary definitions of words, and you don't like when atheists (or theists) explain the usage of the these words.
This seems like a rather futile conversation then.

 

[ratiocinator]

If I claim that by using the word "red" I really mean any color with red in it, like orange, pink, and purple, then the word red isn't going to mean anything, anymore.

Except that nobody apart from you is trying to change the generally accepted meaning of a word. If there was a word for "any colour with red in it", it would have a perfectly good meaning (assuming we're talking the RGB model of colour) and if you stamped your foot and insisted it could only mean a certain specific shade of magenta, then you'd look as silly as you do with atheism.

If I say atheism means "I don't believe gods exist" but also means "I don't know if gods exist or not" and also means "I believe no gods exist" and also means I can choose to have faith in the existence of gods even though I don't know if they exist or not, then the word "atheism" really doesn't mean anything, anymore.

Nobody is claiming it does mean all those things. It means disbelief or lack of belief in god or gods. It isn't at all complicated or difficult to grasp.

What's more, even if there was a word that covered all those possibilities, it still wouldn't be meaningless.

The truth is that we all know full well that the word "atheism" refers to the belief that gods don't exist.

Simply untrue.

And the only reason atheists keep insisting that it means all those other things is because they know they can't logically justify their believing that gods don't exist, even as they keep demanding that the people who do believe gods exist MUST prove it to them.

Also simply untrue, in every respect. Not only do I not believe that no gods exist, I don't demand that anybody should prove anything. All I ask is that people who make a claim that some god or other exists as an objective reality, and want other people to accept their claim, then they should provide some reason to take their claim seriously.

Ya'll believe that gods don't exist but you can't prove it, even though you reject the theist's belief that gods do exist because THEY can't prove it.

The way around this foolishness is to simply base your beliefs on something other than proof. Like functionality. And some atheists, here, have done so with admirable honesty and reason. The rest of you are just shouting the BS excuses louder and louder in hopes that it will mask the hypocrisy behind it. But it won't, and it doesn't.

*Sigh* I think the sad fact is that the only person you're even trying to convince by your misrepresentation, repeated falsehoods, and all this ranting, is yourself.

I'm perfectly comfortable with what I believe and don't believe, and if you want to believe on the basis of some perceived benefit to yourself, rather than on evidence and reasoning, then please feel free to do just that. It's just that you can't expect the rest of us to accept the same beliefs or, as you seem intent on trying to get us to do, arrive at our beliefs in the same way. And you certainly don't have any right to redefine the language or tell other people what they believe, when they've repeatedly told you that you're wrong.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Objective proof/truth" is a delusion. It's why no human can ever be logically certain of anything.

That is true, I was going to make the same point about someone else's post. Certainty is a percentage (or Sigma). There is sure a difference between 99% and 3%.