Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

[1AOA1]

So you're talking about using God as a metaphor and not literal belief in a literal god?

I was talking about the use of the word God as a reference to something from a particular source.

There are many things we didn't understand before we understand now. There are many things we were wrong about before that we have later corrected. Acceptance of supernatural explanation was not necessary for any of that.

The more you traverse the environment with the conditions of the observer and the instrument, the more explanations reflective of those conditions you will find.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was talking about the use of the word God as a reference to something from a particular source.

Meaning what? Is that source a literal god or not?

 

[Nakosis]

I didn't know that reality and physical were separated seems circular. interesting. Sort of hard to point to reductionism (supernatural) to justify reductionism without being circular which supernaturalism is actually.

I only meant you need to know the mechanics of how to cause something to happen. If you can do that great. I'm not one to argue against consistent results.

 

[Nakosis]

The more you traverse the environment with the conditions of the observer and the instrument, the more explanations reflective of those conditions you will find.

What would you suggest?

 

[1AOA1]

Meaning what? Is that source a literal god or not?

If literal is a reference to their source then yes.

 

[gnostic]

True, but if there was, I mean, if atheism was a belief system just like Christianity or Islam then the religious folk could chalk it up to being just another belief system, and an inferior one at that!

As far as I can tell, atheism is not a "belief system".

It would seem that an atheist is just a person, by personal choice, who don't believe in the existence of any deity...be they be "one" or "many"...

The term "system" would suggest that it has many different parts (or many different teachings) that are linked or connected in some ways together as a whole.

I am not sure that I am making sense in what I am saying above.

So to rethink what I am saying, the average atheists would simply state that "I don't in God". These wouldn't need to say or believe in anything else, other that it is his choice to "not to believe".

These atheists don't require to follow any champion of atheism. He doesn't require a "system" of teaching to make his own decision. These atheists don't require to follow any teaching of atheism from atheist teachers, or he doesn't need to follow any philosophy of atheism from philosophers.

Truth be known, I don't think much about philosophers, because a philosopher have the tendency to overthink what atheism is.

Either a person believe or don't believe, he doesn't need philosophy to be an atheist. He can, but it is really not necessary.

To give you an example. One of my cousins is atheist. He doesn't read any book about atheism, written by an atheist. He doesn't watch YouTube video about people discussing what atheism is. He doesn't attend lecture or convention for atheists. He doesn't care what other atheists have to say about atheism.

A "belief system" sounds like following certain protocols, learning about teachings about atheism from other atheists. And even having a "leader" among atheists.

I hoped that make sense...but when I think about what I have written, I don't think I make sense at all.

Oh, dear.

 

[David T]

I only meant you need to know the mechanics of how to cause something to happen. If you can do that great. I'm not one to argue against consistent results.

That is a something I actually just so happen to be extremely good at, it's developed through the thinking process called reverse engineering. Reverse engineering requires an external perspective to be valid. In context to certain aspects such as reality, cosmos, physical, the brain, etc there is no external point to observe from. In contemporary religion it tends to have a what? An external reality, god, that gives rise to reality. That is completely false and is pure reductionism. So religion in it's modern form.is just reductionism if only understood intellectually. What's interesting is someone can be a rabid atheist and at the same time believe we live in virtual reality. Because the terminology is different, and the structure appears different, they believe they are not like religious folks when in fact it's identical. They do in fact live in a virtual reality factually, it's created in their brain by them it is their reality. Like being insane but functional.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

As far as I can tell, atheism is not a "belief system".

It would seem that an atheist is just a person, by personal choice, who don't believe in the existence of any deity...be they be "one" or "many"...

The term "system" would suggest that it has many different parts (or many different teachings) that are linked or connected in some ways together as a whole.

I am not sure that I am making sense in what I am saying above.

So to rethink what I am saying, the average atheists would simply state that "I don't in God". These wouldn't need to say or believe in anything else, other that it is his choice to "not to believe".

These atheists don't require to follow any champion of atheism. He doesn't require a "system" of teaching to make his own decision. These atheists don't require to follow any teaching of atheism from atheist teachers, or he doesn't need to follow any philosophy of atheism from philosophers.

Truth be known, I don't think much about philosophers, because a philosopher have the tendency to overthink what atheism is.

Either a person believe or don't believe, he doesn't need philosophy to be an atheist. He can, but it is really not necessary.

To give you an example. One of my cousins is atheist. He doesn't read any book about atheism, written by an atheist. He doesn't watch YouTube video about people discussing what atheism is. He doesn't attend lecture or convention for atheists. He doesn't care what other atheists have to say about atheism.

A "belief system" sounds like following certain protocols, learning about teachings about atheism from other atheists. And even having a "leader" among atheists.

I hoped that make sense...but when I think about what I have written, I don't think I make sense at all.

Oh, dear.

Well, yes. It's pretty basic right?

My post was satirical of course, but truthful in that the combatively religious minded prefer a narative that pits atheism as an unequal opposite to faith base beliefs, which is of course totally ridiculous..Yet here we are.

 

[Augustus]

These atheists don't require to follow any champion of atheism.

I think, Richard Dawkins, the champion of atheism, should have to fight the champion of each religion in a battle for worldly dominance. God will obviously grant power to the holder of the truth so we will have an objective answer once and for all.

I think Buddhism will win as their champion knows kung-fu, although Hinduism has a chance if they use Dhalsim out of Streetfighter 2

The Pope and Dawkins are outsiders at 500-1 and 1000-1 respectively and will be praying for a miracle.

 

[Nakosis]

That is a something I actually just so happen to be extremely good at, it's developed through the thinking process called reverse engineering. Reverse engineering requires an external perspective to be valid. In context to certain aspects such as reality, cosmos, physical, the brain, etc there is no external point to observe from. In contemporary religion it tends to have a what? An external reality, god, that gives rise to reality. That is completely false and is pure reductionism. So religion in it's modern form.is just reductionism if only understood intellectually.

How is this reductionism if mental constructs such as God are still employed?

What's interesting is someone can be a rabid atheist and at the same time believe we live in virtual reality. Because the terminology is different, and the structure appears different, they believe they are not like religious folks when in fact it's identical. They do in fact live in a virtual reality factually, it's created in their brain by them it is their reality. Like being insane but functional.

Sure, it seem obvious that most people have a difficult time separating the virtual reality that the brain is capable of creating from physical reality. Being an atheist doesn't make one immune from this.

 

[paarsurrey]

Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

Arguing against Atheism is both reasonable and wise, though not essentially needed.
Regards

 

[ArtieE]

Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

Arguing against Atheism is both reasonable and wise, though not essentially needed.
Regards

Don't you find it a tad hypocritical to argue against atheists for not believing in the existence of gods when you don't believe in the existence of 99.99% of all gods yourself?

 

[Fire_Monkey]

There's nothing to arguing against.


Edited* Unless you can bring scientific evidence of any god's existence to the table.

Damn Skippy.



See....Atheism is actually our default position in life. We are borne atheists and since there is course is no God wd will remain atheist for our entire lives. Unless we are indoctrinated or deluded into becoming godists. Almost all godists are only that way because they were taught to believe. Usually as children. Since God cannot show Himself since he doesn't exist, and cannot offer up even a trace of his existence...Since, again...He does not exist....The only way for somebody to know about him is to be told. This fact is proven every day when kids are born in places where they're not brainwashed. Keep a child away from media or books or others who speak of God and then when he is, say, 13, ask him about God in his life. He will go.......Who?

LOL

 

[David T]

How is this reductionism if mental constructs such as God are still employed?



Sure, it seem obvious that most people have a difficult time separating the virtual reality that the brain is capable of creating from physical reality. Being an atheist doesn't make one immune from this.

How is this reductionism if mental constructs such as God are still employed?



Sure, it seem obvious that most people have a difficult time separating the virtual reality that the brain is capable of creating from physical reality. Being an atheist doesn't make one immune from this.

How is this reductionism if mental constructs such as God are still employed.
That was answered about 2600 years ago interestingly.
In regards to virtual reality I just refer to the 2,600 year old quote.

 

[Falvlun]

Damn Skippy.



See....Atheism is actually our default position in life. We are borne atheists and since there is course is no God wd will remain atheist for our entire lives. Unless we are indoctrinated or deluded into becoming godists. Almost all godists are only that way because they were taught to believe. Usually as children. Since God cannot show Himself since he doesn't exist, and cannot offer up even a trace of his existence...Since, again...He does not exist....The only way for somebody to know about him is to be told. This fact is proven every day when kids are born in places where they're not brainwashed. Keep a child away from media or books or others who speak of God and then when he is, say, 13, ask him about God in his life. He will go.......Who?

LOL

Our default position, should there be one, is ignorance: it's not understanding or considering the concepts of belief or god or existence. Once we have considered those concepts, and have taken a stance, whether that be yay, nay, or neither, we are no longer in our default position.

 

[ArtieE]

Our default position, should there be one, is ignorance

Don't change the subject. We are not talking about ignorance, we are talking about whether one is a theist or not a theist. Having taken a stance or not having taken a stance. It's just between those two. We start off not theists, not believing gods exist. Then when we learn about gods we can take the stance that gods exist but until then we stay not theists as we always were.

 

[1AOA1]

Keep a child away from media or books or others who speak of God and then when he is, say, 13, ask him about God in his life. He will go.......Who?

LOL

Materialistic practice was still in the room.

Don't change the subject. We are not talking about ignorance, we are talking about whether one is a theist or not a theist. Having taken a stance or not having taken a stance. It's just between those two. We start off not theists, not believing gods exist. Then when we learn about gods we can take the stance that gods exist but until then we stay not theists as we always were.

The conditions depicting materialistic phenomena had to be selected.

 

[ArtieE]

The conditions depicting materialistic phenomena had to be selected.

A month old infant hasn't "selected" anything. He's just not a theist and won't be until he has started believing in the existence of god(s).

 

[paarsurrey]

Don't you find it a tad hypocritical to argue against atheists for not believing in the existence of gods when you don't believe in the existence of 99.99% of all gods yourself?

Doesn't one find it tad hypocritical of the atheism people to argue against believers whereas the atheism people never had even a single positive argument for "non-existence of God"?They only find fault with others.

Any from Atheism people , please.
Regards

 

[ArtieE]

Doesn't one find it tad hypocritical of the atheism people to argue against believers whereas the atheism people never had even a single positive argument for "non-existence of God"?They only find fault with others.

Any from Atheism people , please.
Regards

OK... give us some positive arguments for the non-existence of all the thousands of gods you don't believe in. Or can you only find fault with others?