I admire atheists for devoting time for "God"

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe in atheism?

Atheism is not a claim, so there is nothing there to believe OR reject.
Atheism is a single position on a single issue. It simply the label used for people who do NOT believe the claims of theism.

Atheism is not a claim. It is a position on a claim. And the claim is found in theism.

A belief, ie., to be true, that God does not exist, right?

No. As I have explained multiple times now.

But where you got that argument from, that there is no God?

I don't make that argument.
Theists are the ones with the argument / claim. Atheism is simply a response to that.

Let's have another analogy: the salesman analogy.
The theist is the one that comes to your door trying to sell you something.
The atheist is simply a person who's not buying. The atheist isn't trying to sell something.

You need to believe a specific something to qualify as a theist.
You are an atheist by default if you do NOT believe that specific something.
Atheism is not a claim. Theism is the claim. Atheism is only the rejection of that claim.

I can't say theism is "just a label for when one does not hold" atheistic belief

Indeed you can't. Because theism is a positive belief in a claim.
Atheism is the opposite. Atheism is when you do NOT have that belief in that same claim. It's not a claim of its own.

because my argument would not have a basis to begin with, right?

Exactly. And atheism is the opposite.[/quote]

 

[Truthseeker]

I obviously don't know the details of the spiritual experiences you have had, but can't help wondering, why you think these are specifically proving that Baha'u'llah were a manifestation of God?

Christians have spiritual experiences as well, which they assign to Jesus and Muslims would most likely relate it to Allah.

Most religions have accounts of communications with Gods or spiritual beings, yet it always seem to be the exact beings they themselves believe in.

Native Americans believed that spirits caused the harsh weather of the Plains, as well as illness. They thought that 'medicine men' could speak to these spirits, and ask for their help.

------

The most common interaction between the gods and humans happened through ritual sacrifice, the cornerstone of Norse religious practice. The pragmatically-minded Norse didn't only worship their gods out of a sense of wonder or love. They also usually wanted to get something in particular from the gods.

So given that fact, there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding going on in general. Most people will agree that the Norse Gods weren't real, because hardly anyone believe them anymore, yet they believed they could communicate with their gods as well. Most people will probably also agree that the Native americans can't really talk to spirits either. The Mayans, the Aztecs were probably also wrong in regards to their communication.. and the list go on.

Yet, Christians, Muslims and you as a Bahai are convinced that your experiences are real and proof of what you believe in, just like they did. Lets not forget that many of these ancients beliefs were so convinced that they sacrificed humans to these gods.

Because from a logical point of view, when looking at the evidence, from your personal point of view of the spiritual experience you have had... then clearly the majority of cultures and religions throughout time, must have been wrong about their claims of spiritual experiences, meaning that they assigned them to wrong gods. Again, underlining that this is purely when looking at it from your perspective as a Bahai. A Christian or Muslim, would or ought to assume that you are making a wrong judgement, because they do not share your belief in Baha'u'llah.

So do you see why I as an atheist, is rather sceptical when people claim that their experiences are proof of their specific belief? Because it seems very common that people of different religious beliefs, reach these conclusions, which simply are contradictory when put into perspective.

There is no contradiction for me if Christians and Muslims had spiritual experiences. There's no reason for some Native Americans to not have spiritual experiences either. A lot of Native Americans believed in one God.

But never mind. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You can't verify anything for yourself by my experiences. It only convinces me.

 

[Neb]

Atheism is not a claim, so there is nothing there to believe OR reject.
Atheism is a single position on a single issue. It simply the label used for people who do NOT believe the claims of theism.

Atheism is not a claim. It is a position on a claim. And the claim is found in theism.

so atheism is a "position" or a state of mind but why use ISM if ISM is a proposition. Now if athe-ISM is a proposition then it can't be a state of mind or a "position" therefore it has a claim, just like the-ISM, and it can be tested, right? So, you, as an atheist, what is your claim so we can argue reasonably?

 

[ppp]

so atheism is a "position" or a state of mind but why use ISM if ISM is a proposition. Now if athe-ISM is a proposition then it can't be a state of mind or a "position" therefore it has a claim, just like the-ISM, and it can be tested, right?

You are going through some absurd contortions to turn a word meaning not accepting the claim that a god exists into a proposition of its own. You know that atheism just means not having the position of theism, right?

 

[Neb]

You are going through some absurd contortions to turn a word meaning not accepting the claim that a god exists into a proposition of its own. You know that atheism just means not having the position of theism, right?

You could join a movement like Marxism and not entirely knowledgeable about what the movement is all about, you know, like a sheep following a leader where ever it takes you and feeds you with misunderstood literature and then you call yourself a Marxist because you adhere to marxism ideology or proposition. If you say you are just a Marxist without adhering to marxism then you can call it a position but that is not possible because no identity politics will recognize you, you are a closeted Marxist.

By nature, man is an atheist, not the LITERAL ATHIEST under ATHEISM, or NO God, but that doesn’t mean he is a LITERAL atheist or he is against THEISM and that is a position because he does not have a proposition why he does not have a god. His position can not be tested by reason because he does not have one, it’s just like talking to a wall when you ask him: why you don’t have a god? You get different answers contradicting each one every time.

It is impossible to argue with this guy because he does not have a principle or law he could follow to engage in an argument.

When you use the prefix ISM then it becomes a proposition and not just a position on theism anymore, but a proposition or a claim against theism proposition's or claim that "there is God".

Your proposition, not position, is: “There is NO God".

I can argue from the Bible that God exists, but what is your arguments that God does not exist?

Let’s be pair that in every argument both sides must have a proposition so the burden of proof does NOT lie on ONE side only.

I can prove to you metaphysically that based on the Bible there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD, ie., the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

How do you prove, in whatever literature you have, that “there is NO God".

You can’t, because you don't have one, do you?

IOW, you, as an atheist, your position or state of mind on theism can not be tested by reason because it's all metaphysical or state of mind. Now if you define yourself under the term atheism then you must have a specific set of rules or law that you must follow every time you engage in an argument and this then can not be a position anymore but as a proposition because you have sets of rules or law that governs you.

There are ONLY two answers in this debate, a YES or a NO.
My proposition is "YES" there is God.
Your proposition is “NO God"

 

[ppp]

There are ONLY two answers in this debate, a YES or a NO.
My proposition is "YES" there is God.
Your proposition is “NO God"

Incorrect. The theist position is that there is at least one god. My position is that theists have not made their case,

 

[Neb]

Incorrect. The theist position is that there is at least one god.

My position is that theists have not made their case,

if all you need is proof or evidence then there is a possibility you will believe that there is God, then you must be an agnostic and not an atheist. Not even science is absolute.

 

[ppp]

if all you need is proof or evidence then there is a possibility you will believe that there is God, then you must be an agnostic and not an atheist.

That is just your religious indoctrination talking. I was taught much the same thing when I was a Christian. The reason that they taught us that atheists only take the "its impossible that any gods exists" position is because it is easier to deride. It is easier to make snarky sound bites when you ignore nuance.

I don't believe any of the god claims that have been presented to me. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Not even science is absolute.

Science does not claim absolute knowledge. Anyone who does is a fool.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so atheism is a "position" or a state of mind but why use ISM if ISM is a proposition

I don't know. You can complain about the word all you want, it's not going to make a difference.

Now if athe-ISM is a proposition then it can't be a state of mind or a "position" therefore it has a claim, just like the-ISM, and it can be tested, right? So, you, as an atheist, what is your claim so we can argue reasonably?

I have just spend quite some time explaining to you how it's not a claim.
So you're just going to ignore everything I said and instead just proceed with this misrepresentation?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You could join a movement like Marxism and not entirely knowledgeable about what the movement is all about, you know, like a sheep following a leader where ever it takes you and feeds you with misunderstood literature and then you call yourself a Marxist because you adhere to marxism ideology or proposition. If you say you are just a Marxist without adhering to marxism then you can call it a position but that is not possible because no identity politics will recognize you, you are a closeted Marxist.

Marxism indeed is an ideology / doctrine.
Atheism isn't. As has been explained to you at length.

By nature, man is an atheist,

Correct, because nobody is born believing in gods.
Because that is all what atheism is: not believing in gods.
It is NOT the claim that there are no gods.

Remember the gumball analogy? Or the court room analogy?

Not accepting that X is true, is NOT THE SAME as asserting that X is false.
I'm really sorry if you can't seem to comprehend that.

not the LITERAL ATHIEST under ATHEISM, or NO God, but that doesn’t mean he is a LITERAL atheist

A "literal" atheist?
Now, you're just making stuff up.

I don't understand why you do this.
An atheist is explaining to you what his atheism is all about. And here you are, trying to tell that atheist that is wrong about what he believes, or better said: doesn't believe.
When somebody explains their own position to you, you should accept that as that person's position because you don't not know better then that person what that person believes and doesn't believe.

or he is against THEISM and that is a position because he does not have a proposition why he does not have a god. His position can not be tested by reason because he does not have one, it’s just like talking to a wall when you ask him: why you don’t have a god? You get different answers contradicting each one every time.

You aren't making any sense.
And it all starts with refusing to understand what atheism actually means.

When you use the prefix ISM then it becomes a proposition and not just a position on theism anymore, but a proposition or a claim against theism proposition's or claim that "there is God".

Your semantic argument is just that: a semantic argument.
And it's not even valid.

Your proposition, not position, is: “There is NO God".

I don't make that claim, nore is that claim an inherent part of the position of not believing theistic claims.
I will only repeat it so many times.

I can argue from the Bible that God exists, but what is your arguments that God does not exist?

1. i don't make the argument that god does not exist, because it's meaningless. i don't make arguments that undetectable unicorns don't exist for the same reason. existence is what requires demonstration. non-existence does not - and is logically impossible to do when it concerns unfalsifiable entities.

2. i don't accept your argument that a god exists, because all you have is a story with no evidence, so I see no justifiable reason to believe your story.

Let’s be pair that in every argument both sides must have a proposition so the burden of proof does NOT lie on ONE side only.

The positive claim has a burden of proof. And here, the positive claim is that a god exists.
I don't accept that claim as true, exactly because it can't meet its burden of proof.

I can prove to you metaphysically that based on the Bible there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD, ie., the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I can prove to you "metaphysically" that an undetectable dragon is following you everywhere you go.

How do you prove, in whatever literature you have, that “there is NO God".

One doesn't need to prove claims that one doesn't make.

You can’t, because you don't have one, do you?

1. that claim indeed can't be proven. And the reason is that it's logically impossible to disprove unfalsifiable things. Go ahead and disprove the undetectable dragon.

2. one doesn't need to prove claims that one doesn't make.

IOW, you, as an atheist, your position or state of mind on theism can not be tested by reason because it's all metaphysical or state of mind. Now if you define yourself under the term atheism then you must have a specific set of rules or law that you must follow every time you engage in an argument and this then can not be a position anymore but as a proposition because you have sets of rules or law that governs you.

You are truelly engaging in mental gymnastics in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

There are ONLY two answers in this debate, a YES or a NO.
My proposition is "YES" there is God.
Your proposition is “NO God"

Those aren't answers. Those are claims. And they are two different claims.

First there is the claim that a god exists.
Then there is the claim that a god does NOT exist.

We are only discussing the first claim.
You make that claim.
I don't believe that claim.

That doesn't mean that I'll automatically believe the other claim.

Remember the gumball analogy? Not accepting that the number is even, does not mean that you'll accept as true that the number is odd.

Remember the courtroom analogy? Ruling the defendant "not guilty" does not mean that he's proven innocent. It JUST means that the evidence FOR GUILT is insufficient to rule guilty.


The sooner you understand this, the better.

But it doesn't look like you will any time soon.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if all you need is proof or evidence then there is a possibility you will believe that there is God, then you must be an agnostic and not an atheist.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is not some third position in between theism and atheism.
They are different answers to different questions.

One pertains to knowledge and the other to belief.

 

[Neb]

I don't know. You can complain about the word all you want, it's not going to make a difference.

you “don’t know” but you are practicing atheism [belief or opinion]. A Marxist without Marxism in practice is a Capitalist. An atheist without atheism in practice is a naturalist and not necessarily against theism at all.

 

[Neb]

I have just spend quite some time explaining to you how it's not a claim.
So you're just going to ignore everything I said and instead just proceed with this misrepresentation?

”Not a claim”? So why are we debating about it, if it’s not a claim? In order for you, as an atheist, to debate against theism, you gotta have a claim and that is a proposition. Do understand what a proposition means? Your side of claim against thiesm is what you called “ATHEISM” and atheism is a proposition therefore it is a claim, do you understand this?

I say there is God but you disagree and say there is NO God.

So for you to disagree you must present an argument, a proposition, so we could fairly debate whether my claim is TRUE, ie., there is God, and yours is TRUE also, ie., there is NO God, but logic will dictate both can’t be TRUE, right? It’s either my claim is TRUE or FALSE or your claim is FALSE or TRUE.

 

[Neb]

Marxism indeed is an ideology / doctrine.
Atheism isn't. As has been explained to you at length.

Atheism is a doctrine and both theism and atheism has metaphysical claim and I based mine on the Bible, you know, the cause and the effect of my metaphysical claim. My knowledge of God came from the Bible or the Bible was the caused that effected true knowledge of God and that is my metaphysical claim. Now, what is yours? Nothing! You can’t even tell what group you belong to but here you are arguing and since you can’t explain where you coming from then your caused is without knowledge therefore it is ineffective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you “don’t know” but you are practicing atheism [belief or opinion].

Nobody "practices" atheism.
Atheism is just a word for people who do NOT practice theism.
Atheism isn't a practice. Theism is the practice.

How many times must it be repeated?

A Marxist without Marxism in practice is a Capitalist.

It is not.
Marxism is an actual doctrine on its own.
Atheism is not. How many times must it be repeated?

An atheist without atheism in practice is a naturalist and not necessarily against theism at all.

An atheist without atheism, is a theist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody "practices" atheism.
Atheism is just a word for people who do NOT practice theism.
Atheism isn't a practice. Theism is the practice.

How many times must it be repeated?
...

Many, because everybody doesn't follow your command:
Home | American Atheists
Our Vision | American Atheists

Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

”Not a claim”?

Correct.

So why are we debating about it, if it’s not a claim?

We aren't. Instead, you are insisting on misrepresenting things and we are merely correcting you.
There is no debate. There is only your misunderstanding (and unbelievable stubbornness).

In order for you, as an atheist, to debate against theism, you gotta have a claim and that is a proposition.

And that claim is the theistic claim "god exists". That's the claim that is being debated.
Theists believe that claim. Atheists don't.
Theism is the belief.

Do understand what a proposition means?

I do.

Do you understand that not accepting a proposition, is not by itself a proposition?
From the looks of it, you really don't.

Your side of claim against thiesm is what you called “ATHEISM”

Theism is the claim.

and atheism is a proposition therefore it is a claim, do you understand this?

Atheism is not a claim.
Theism is the claim.

How many times more?

I say there is God but you disagree and say there is NO God.

I don't say that and have explained multiple times by now how I don't say that.

Remember the gumball analogy? Not believing it's even doesn't mean that you claim, or would agree with the claim, that it's odd.
Remember the courtroom analogy? Not believing the defendant guilty does not mean that you claim, or would agree with the claim, that he's innocent.

How many times more before it will sink in?

So for you to disagree you must present an argument, a proposition

I absolutely do not.
Just like in the gumball analogy: not accepting the claim that it's even IN NO WAY means that I have to claim or demonstrate that it's odd. Not in a million years. Or more.

, so we could fairly debate whether my claim is TRUE, ie., there is God, and yours is TRUE also,

A debate is about a single claim, not claim against claim.
The claim being discussed, is the claim of theism: a god exists.
THAT is the claim under discussion.

"God does not exist" is a separate claim. A claim which I don't make - as I have told you plenty of times already.

ie., there is NO God, but logic will dictate both can’t be TRUE, right? It’s either my claim is TRUE or FALSE or your claim is FALSE or TRUE.

Logic also dictates that there is either an even OR odd amount of gumballs.
Logic also dictates that a defendant is either guilty OR innocent.


But it seems both these analogies went completely over your head.[/QUOTE]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism is a doctrine

It is not. It has been explained to you how it's not.
I don't know what else to tell you.

Apparently you really really really insist on being incorrect.

and both theism and atheism has metaphysical claim

No. Theism has that claim. Atheism is only the non-acceptance of that claim.

I've only explained it like a 100 times.

and I based mine on the Bible

And I respond by saying that your claim hasn't met its burden of proof and therefor I don't believe it. And that, and ONLY that, makes me an atheist by default. THAT is what defines my atheism: not believing your theistic claims. My atheism isn't defined by anything else. NO claims are included.

Instead, just the disbelief of your theistic claims. That's it. How many times must it be repeated?

, you know, the cause and the effect of my metaphysical claim

There is no cause and effect in metaphysics.

My knowledge of God came from the Bible or the Bible was the caused that effected true knowledge of God and that is my metaphysical claim. Now, what is yours? Nothing!

Exactly. Nothing. No claim.
My atheism consists entirely of pointing out that there is no justifiable / rational reason or evidence to believe your faith based religious claims.

You can’t even tell what group you belong to

I'm an agnostic atheist. And that's not a "group". It's a label more then anything else.

but here you are arguing and since you can’t explain where you coming from then your caused is without knowledge therefore it is ineffective.

I've explained it dozen of times already.
Your stubbornness and unwillingness to understand it, doesn't change the fact that I did explain it multiple times. And not just me. Others in this thread have told you the exact same.


Clearly you aren't willing or able to see your error.

I don't think it is of any use to continue this.
If you still didn't get it by now, there's little chance you will in the future. At this point, all I can do is repeat myself. But clearly it's in one ear and out the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many, because everybody doesn't follow your command:
Home | American Atheists
Our Vision | American Atheists

That website completely ignores that there are atheists who aren't materialists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That website completely ignores that there are atheists who aren't materialists.

Correct and atheists never treat religion as only strong fundamentalistic theists of the Abrahamic family.