Is atheism a belief?

[Ouroboros]

I'm saying it has to know the exact detail of all our deeds, and our nature. Do you disagree?

Yes. I disagree.

There's nothing in reality that suggests that it's a necessary thing.

 

[Link]

Have you heard of "begging the question"?

It's not begging the question although it's a tautology, that God by definition is the most valuable thing to search and is the most worthy thing to search, whether it exists or not, it's worth the search. It's part of the definition of "God".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The term is folk, though, and carries no philosophical sense. And, practically speaking, since the modifier adds nothing to the word it is modifying, it is redundant.

It does add to the word.
It tells you that next to not believing in gods, the person is also actively claiming to believe / know that there is no god.

It's essentially the difference between strong and weak atheism.

 

[Link]

Yes. I disagree.

There's nothing in reality that suggests that it's a necessary thing.

As explained, if we aren't an illusion or we aren't basing our assumption of who we are on fantasy, then we have an exact precise value. That precise value has to be constructed and seen by an absolute vision that is precise to who we are and sees us exactly as we are.

Otherwise, all concepts of who we are is chasing of the wind.

 

[Ouroboros]

As explained, if we aren't an illusion or we aren't basing our assumption of who we are on fantasy, then we have an exact precise value. That precise value has to be constructed and seen by an absolute vision that is precise to who we are and sees us exactly as we are.

The "if" gives it away as a non-proof. You have to make assumptions that aren't totally agreed on, so it doesn't prove much. It's only a proof for those who agree with the assumptions

Otherwise, all concepts of who we are is chasing of the wind.

Then I go with the "otherwise". All concepts of who we are is chasing after the wind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, I can share. Who we are is not a physical construct. If we assume Naturalism is true (nothing beyond physical world), at most we are idea/program generated by the brain.

However, in either case, we require perception and to be perceived to exist.

Now to have an exact reality and not to be an illusion of having an exact reality, we must exist in perfect sight or vision or judgment or a perfect witness must be generating us and accounting us for our deeds.

To show this is easy, just reflect on yourself and see that you are estimating who you are, but that it relies on the assumption you have an exact reality. If there was no exact reality, it would be chasing the wind and nothing to see and base the construct on.

Like a child drawing an airplane, he doesn't know all the fine tune details that go the airplane, we know so little about ourselves and how we are who we are, despite witnessing ourselves our whole lives, it's akin to the drawing a picture of the real thing, but not knowing how the real thing really is.

The true reality of who we are, how we exist, then needs perfect wise and fair judge to account us for who we are. And think about what gives you value, it's the eyes of love. So the Perfect Loving Being is the only accountable perfect judge and vision to who we are. It's what knows who you are perfectly and better then all other potential witnesses.

In fact, we also must somehow be connected to this witness and vision, but perceive it and borrow it's vision from a lesser viewpoint, or else we can't be accountable for who we are.

This proves God, the witness, the guidance, etc... the metaphysical spiritual nature of who we are.

There are more proofs, but this one is pretty strong and I find it very intuitive and easy to recall and see God through.

Nonsense. No rational person consider his perception of reality, or the self for that matter, as being "perfect".

In fact, that's why we have things like the scientific method. Because we actually know that our perceptions are innaccurate at best.

And no, humans not having a "perfect" perception of reality does not in any way, shape or form "prove" the existance of supernatural super duper beings.

 

[Link]

The premise "we aren't an illusion" can be argued for. Is this the one you are disputing then?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Every human being born is born on instinct

Instinct that the old fathers knew God

Just look at the terribly inept/unintelligible state of your words here. "Instinct" that "the old fathers knew." The problem here should be obvious to anyone who isn't deluded beyond comprehension (something I am suspicious of YOU being held victim of to be honest). "Instinct" necessarily means a thing in-born, and NOT REQUIRING CONSCIOUS THOUGHT. And here you are, claiming that instinct can include THE THOUGHTS/KNOWLEDGE OF DEAD PEOPLE. Try again.

The idea of atheism is also a poisonous idea held by generation after generation

As theists like to point out quite often, atheism is a stance held by a small minority. Do you really believe it is this small minority that is injecting "poison" into our world? Can you really make that claim when there are far more theists, and therefore far more theists are criminals, far more theists are corrupt politicians, far more theists are uncaring leaders of corporations, far more theists influence the formation of governments, far more theists are the people you interact with on a daily basis.

I mean, do you want to tell me that atheism was born of individual ideas or influenced by the ideas of others?

Why the hyperbolic dichotomy? Some people come to, or even start out as atheist (like myself), and some people are influenced by others. I would tell you people come to atheism BOTH ways. Is this an issue for you or something?

Atheism is a thought that attracts those who lie down and have no desire for work, diligence and sincerity

This is just prejudice and bigotry here. Where do you even get these ideas? Your theistic brethren, if I were to hazard a guess. But we all know: "Theism is a thought that attracts those who dreadfully fear reality and have no desire to act or react to anything in the world with any amount of responsibility whatsoever." See what I did there? I can say completely stupid, inane bullcrap just as easily as you can.

 

[Link]

Nonsense. No rational person consider his perception of reality, or the self for that matter, as being "perfect".

In fact, that's why we have things like the scientific method. Because we actually know that our perceptions are innaccurate at best.

And no, humans not having a "perfect" perception of reality does not in any way, shape or form "prove" the existance of supernatural super duper beings.

It proves we don't see who we are, so our brain is not what sees us exactly as we are, so it's something else. And yes it's God that sees us exactly as we are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because God is the greatest thing that can be known and by definition, is more valuable then all else, it's worth the search, even if you don't find anything.

"by definition" indeed. That's all you have concerning gods. "defintions", that are even indistinguishable from statements anyone can pull out of thin air.

 

[Link]

"by definition" indeed. That's all you have concerning gods. "defintions", that are even indistinguishable from statements anyone can pull out of thin air.

I have many proofs for God, and I don't doubt God's existence at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not begging the question although it's a tautology, that God by definition is the most valuable thing to search and is the most worthy thing to search, whether it exists or not, it's worth the search. It's part of the definition of "God".

In order to search for X, you first need to properly define X in such a way that it's actually searchable.

Good luck with that.

 

[Link]

In order to search for X, you first need to properly define X in such a way that it's actually searchable.

Good luck with that.

So you want to give up. Go ahead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have many proofs for God

As so many believers (also from religions that are mutually exclusive with YOURS btw) claim, yet not a single one can demonstrate.

, and I don't doubt God's existence at all.

Off course you don't. You're a theist.

Tom Cuirse doesn't doubt the existance of his immortal inner Thetan either.
The muslim doesn't doubt Mohammed's revelations.
The hindu doesn't doubt Shiva.
The alien abductee doesn't doubt his abduction with the weird sex experiments performed on them.

They can't all be right.

They can all be wrong though.
And given as all of them make the same species of claims, with the same kind of "supportive evidence" for it, it is very likely that indeed all are wrong.

 

[Link]

As so many believers (also from religions that are mutually exclusive with YOURS btw) claim, yet not a single one can demonstrate.



Off course you don't. You're a theist.

I've demonstrated one proof so far in this thread. It's proven already in this thread, and you aren't even asking for more proofs, that I potentially have.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's not begging the question although it's a tautology, that God by definition is the most valuable thing to search and is the most worthy thing to search, whether it exists or not, it's worth the search. It's part of the definition of "God".

The problem (well, just one of the problems) with this is that there are a limitless number of "things" you could define as being the "most valuable thing to search for" - including versions versions god or gods, or some state of bliss, or whatever else you care to dream up.

There is no reason to think that any of them are real just because being the "most valuable thing to search for" is part of the definition. And the fact that you can imagine more than one of them would tend to undermine any attempt to search for "it".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you want to give up. Go ahead.

???

No. I challenged you to define this God of yours in such terms that it is actually searchable and findable.
But you can't.

How you jumped from that to me supposedly "giving up" (on what exactly, btw?) is a mystery.

 

[Link]

So you want to stick to petty things and not search things that potentially can be God or the most valuable thing to be sought. It's really up to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've demonstrated one proof so far in this thread.

You demonstrated nothing at all.
You made some bizar claims and then plugged in a baseless assertion that it somehow proves god.

It's proven already in this thread, and you aren't even asking for more proofs, that I potentially have.

So was that the best you've got?
Colour me unimpressed (and unsurprised).

 

[Link]

???

No. I challenged you to define this God of yours in such terms that it is actually searchable and findable.
But you can't.

How you jumped from that to me supposedly "giving up" (on what exactly, btw?) is a mystery.

I can not only show it's searchable, I can prove it exists and more then that that you rely on it's knowledge of it's existence whether you recognize that or not, acknowledge it or not, you rely on it everyday to love others.