Is atheism a belief?

[Augustus]

Quite right. The imaginary atheists that you invented and reside only in your head are much more representative of reality.

It is very much representative of reality to consider it more probable that something is not an outlier rather than considering it is going to be an outlier.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is very much representative of reality to consider it more probable that something is not an outlier rather than considering it is going to be an outlier.

And I'm sure your imaginary atheists agree with you on this point, too.

 

[Augustus]

And I'm sure your imaginary atheists agree with you on this point, too.

Interesting that you think it is 'imaginary' to apply a widely accepted general principle regarding large, diverse groups to a large, diverse group, but whatever floats your boat...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting that you think it is 'imaginary' to apply a widely accepted general principle regarding large, diverse groups to a large, diverse group, but whatever floats your boat...

I have no doubt that the hypothetical atheists you've assumed are a large and diverse group.

 

[j1i]

Believe it or not, I am enjoying our conversation. I like the challenge of expressing my thoughts cogently and in defense of particular positions. I believe it helps hone my capabilities as a conversationalist/debater/etc., and without competing ideas, I would stagnate.
Another problem I have here - I am not even talking about science. Note that in my last reply I didn't even mention science or the scientific method. Not once. I only talked about adhering to the evidence.
As much as you may deny this, IT DOESN'T MATTER that the "first creation" cannot be explained by science. In fact, it does not matter if it can be explained at all! I challenge you to come up with even ONE reason that we must have knowledge of the beginnings of life on this planet (or in the universe) in order to live our lives here. Name ONE reason we simply "have to" know. I already know you can't come up with a reason - because the knowledge, while interesting, is not at all a necessity. And so, I would argue that unless we find out some way come to this knowledge of the start of life/the-universe by examining our universe and coming to conclusions WITH EVIDENCE, until that happens WE HAVE NO BUSINESS making ANY claims at all about how life began. We can hypothesize, sure - but claiming to have knowledge? Claiming that you know? At this point that is a fool's errand. You can't know. And if you do have the evidence to back up the position (again, not just assertions made by you or made in some book, and not what you hope the case to be, and not thought-experiments that make huge leaps to get you to your goal) then by all means, please present it. If you have the kind of evidence I am talking about, then you will change the world.
The atheist mostly just wants to see a compelling reason to believe. None of what you have brought forward in our conversation is compelling. It doesn't take much effort at all to deny it and inform you where you are thinking incorrectly about your assumptions. For that is what you are doing - simply assuming God, assuming that there "must have been" a creator, assuming everything you believe, which is why you are blind to any valid way by which you might actually convince a skeptic. It's all "so obvious" to you... and so your imagination dies in the attempt to even fathom what it would mean if there were no God. And so you can't see it from the other side, and mainly for that reason you will never be able to even understand what would constitute proper, compelling evidence.
So many people want to just be able to state that evolution is a "myth" - but this flies in the face of so much evidence - REAL, tangible, substantial evidence in our reality, capable of being witnessed and detected, measured and communicated. My goto evidence for evolution is ERVs - Endogenous Retroviruses. Within a DNA sequence, they are capable of being present if the examined cell has previously been infected by a virus, or if the sequences are passed onto you from your ancestors due to their cells (sperm or egg) having been infected. We share a common placement AND exact virus RNA/DNA sequencing in over 100,000 locations between our DNA and the DNA of other ape species. Over 100,000 same-viruses in the same relative locations. To deny this as evidence of common descent (ape to man) is to deny the ways in which the natural world functions. To deny this is to delude oneself. This is exactly the type of evidence that has never, ever been presented for God. Again - I don't even think any theist has thought long enough about what it looks like for there to be "no God" in order to even come up with places/parts to look for this type of evidence from. You've already assumed your stance to be correct, regardless the evidence - which is a philosophically precarious position to put yourself in.
Even if scientists make some statements about understanding that there must be something fundamental underlying all of our existence, they MAKE NO CLAIMS about what that IS. You DO. Do you see your error there? How do you know? And if the best of what you have as evidence is what you have already provided to me in this conversation, then I'm sorry, but it is nowhere near good enough. It is not convincing, it is not compelling, it is based on a shaky foundation of assumption and circular reasoning.

And because of that fact it somehow means YOU KNOW what created everything? Seriously? You don't come out and say that, obviously, because you don't want to directly embarrass yourself. But you may as well come out and say exactly that, because that is the only logical end result of what you are saying here. You are saying: "Because inanimate objects cannot create themselves it gives me the ability to say that I know what did create them."

I wouldn't agree with this. Not when, within lab conditions, they have produced molecular chains that, given a "soup" of raw materials to exist within, will reproduce themselves. And that is just based on the natural processes of the materials of the universe at work. So I can't say one way or the other, but with crystals that grow "by themselves" and chemical reactions constantly happening on their own throughout the universe, all I do know is that there is A LOT of activity, and we haven't yet witnessed the majority of it. Which makes it even more ridiculous when you say that you "know."

But the scientists within the labs you speak of have mountains more realistic and present data/observation to work with than ANYONE does for ANY god concept. This is something you simply cannot deny.

Nope. This is a huge and unwarranted leap. You may have deceived yourself into thinking you know this for good reasons... but you don't. Especially given the types of evidence you have been giving.

Once again... you just don't have compelling evidence. You don't. End of story. I don't care about scripture, I don't care about "the failings of science." You don't have proper, compelling, inter-subjectively verifiable evidence for your claims. You don't.

What do you mean? Based on all available evidence, it is the correct interpretation of the diversity of life NOW.

First of all, thank you, my friend, for the reply and I appreciate what you wrote and opened the door for me to talk

I toke Omega 3+5+6+7+9+12 and vitamin B1+2+3+4+5+6+12

Do you want me to agree with you on the wrong rule! ?
Could you please tell me about the rule that you use for dialogue with you
How do you build your ideas, relativity and evidence right?
Well, science is a tool to fetch evidence and police use it closely to bring charges
How do you say that science and knowledge are not important when you say that you are looking for evidence, finding evidence requires knowledge gained from experience or from someone else
Please do not contradict I want you to be clearly defined so I can argue with you

Thou
shalt say that there is neither God, nor Creator, and the origin of nothingness
We found life to live and suffer and tired and educate children and we make a great effort and then throw in the pit, which is the tomb for no reason??

just eat and defecate and enjoy as if found in the amusement park while other organisms more successful and smarter where it see it created to do certain tasks noblest like environmental balance
how atheist and agnostic contributes to balance Environmental
(Eating, defecation and physical sanctuaries including sex, drugs and play online) sony PlayStation maybe

The fact of God's existence is not a huge leap, but it is a fact that the mechanisms of direct proof have disappeared because it was for the first generation.

The fact of existence and the Creator of God is transmitted from the first source, which is what calls Adam to our ancestors through the generations.
I believe that the first source gave very important information that we created and that there is a creator and this thing we have passed on through generations and that it is very effective and the evidence that religious practices are associated with human history

Historically an atheist thought did not exist, because they knew the truth of the existence of the god and worshiped them, but they differed in the content of who is the true God

For example, if a group of people took a space plane to Mars and lived almost 1000 primitive in the absence of previous knowledge of the origin of our existence, the dispersed ideas will be activated, and many will deny its true source, and will appear atheists theories of our existence from nothing, denial of existence and creator
Because the transfer of information stopped like a person who used the Internet and the Internet was cut off for 500 years and then returned in 500 years absent facts and information and forgotten facts and information, he made false explanations wrong because of the lack of full awareness

We carry out data transfer (knowledge) after we have completed the growth process which is after many years and in this period,We may not get care, because the newborn baby does not receive the right information, it is a human crime because he was neglected intellectually feeding the truth that we passed from Adam

It led me to invent drunk theory
When a person is an atheist, like a drinker, he fades out of consciousness and then tries to understand the world without complete consciousness. this is the stage of adolescence atheism, is a complex stage of his life, or like a hot cup of coffee that no one can drink until it got cool down a little
Atheist at an stage of very complex dialogue with him and the best thing is to leave it until the facts are automatically followed soon after a period of time

It led me to invent the drug user theory
Is a theory that drives you to steal money to buy drugs, but you in fact defend your ideas to steal ideas to buy a delusional fun There is a disease called addiction atheism

Led me to invent the smoker theory
Is the desire to invest the wrong idea knows its end in advance because you will throw it, but the experience is fun and saturates the desire to harm the physical and mental health

There is a theory invented by her name anal taste
He sees very carefully that the vagina of women is the main tool of sexual relationship and reproduction
But by following the way you think, which is evidence and relativism, you see that anal sex is a fun and convincing tool, even if there is no pregnancy and childbirth, but the other party feels pain and no pleasure just to let you enjoy it.

So you are now trying to say that there is a fact Enjoy this dirty cave and you know you enjoy and feel it, but wrong do Not productive does not bring children

Do not throw me money on the ground and ask me to water it is not seeds

Know what seeds are first

The place to invest money to propagate it must be in an economic financial environment either seeds in an agricultural and irrigated environment

Thanks for reading and wait for the answer
Tell me first about the stationary base where your rockets are fired

 

[Augustus]

I have no doubt that the hypothetical atheists you've assumed are a large and diverse group.

Now you think that real-world atheists are 'hypothetical', unless you weren't actually referring to the post you replied to that is

Even stranger is that you've frequently argued that atheists are a diverse group who have nothing in common except a lack of belief in gods, and now you seem to think it's a ridiculous thing to assume

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now you think that real-world atheists are 'hypothetical', unless you weren't actually referring to the post you replied to that is

I'm talking about the atheists in the hypothetical scenario you gave here:

If you asked a large number of atheists "do you believe no gods exist?" most would say yes.

Unless you've actually done this, the atheists you're relying on are hypothetical atheists that you've imagined.

Even stranger is that you've frequently argued that atheists are a diverse group who have nothing in common except a lack of belief in gods, and now you seem to think it's a ridiculous thing to assume

I think you realize how you're misrepresenting things there.

 

[Augustus]

I'm talking about the atheists in the hypothetical scenario you gave here:

Unless you've actually done this, the atheists you're relying on are hypothetical atheists that you've imagined.

Ok, so your reply had nothing to do with the post you quoted. Would be better to quote the post you were actually replying to.

I think you realize how you're misrepresenting things there.

I think you are completely unaware of how you have misrepresented things in your last few posts.

Never mind, it was unlikely to be a fruitful discussion anyway.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

First of all, thank you, my friend, for the reply and I appreciate what you wrote and opened the door for me to talk

I toke Omega 3+5+6+7+9+12 and vitamin B1+2+3+4+5+6+12

Not quite sure what the vitamin listing is about, but you're welcome.

Do you want me to agree with you on the wrong rule! ?
Could you please tell me about the rule that you use for dialogue with you
How do you build your ideas, relativity and evidence right?
Well, science is a tool to fetch evidence and police use it closely to bring charges
How do you say that science and knowledge are not important when you say that you are looking for evidence, finding evidence requires knowledge gained from experience or from someone else
Please do not contradict I want you to be clearly defined so I can argue with you

I didn't say science wasn't important... I merely pointed out that I hadn't invoked science in any of my points. "Science" DOES NOT have a monopoly on gathering, assessing and utilizing evidence. If you think it does, then that's yet another mark against your thinking processes, honestly. I also came nowhere near saying that knowledge isn't important. I believe knowledge to be extremely important. All I have been claiming is that there are certain pieces of knowledge YOU claim to have that I do not believe you to have. And that's where you providing evidence that warrants your claim to knowledge comes in - which I also believe that you cannot do!

Thou
shalt say that there is neither God, nor Creator, and the origin of nothingness
We found life to live and suffer and tired and educate children and we make a great effort and then throw in the pit, which is the tomb for no reason??

You're mischaracterizing my position. I didn't say "there is no God" - what I said is that there isn't enough information either way, and so, until there is, I choose not to believe. And my position, not believing in a god comes with absolutely no consequences, as far as I can tell.

just eat and defecate and enjoy as if found in the amusement park while other organisms more successful and smarter where it see it created to do certain tasks noblest like environmental balance
how atheist and agnostic contributes to balance Environmental
(Eating, defecation and physical sanctuaries including sex, drugs and play online) sony PlayStation maybe

This is a bit hard to follow, but it sounds like what you're saying is that you believe that without belief in a god, a person just does whatever they want to, and are not a productive citizen of the world. This is false. Perhaps this can be witnessed in some anecdotal, individual cases... but this idea CANNOT be applied to all agnotics/atheists. To do so without knowledge of ALL agnostics/atheists (who are all individuals, and different in their thinking on many other topics) is to display further mistakes in your thinking. It is a childish mind which paints all people of one type with such a broad brush. Talking in percentages or probabilities is one thing, or even adding a qualifier like "most" and indicating that it is most of that type of person that you have encountered or have experience with. But making sweeping generalizations about everyone of a certain group without any qualifiers, stating it as if it is just a fact of their persons - that's just a poor mode of thinking.

The fact of God's existence is not a huge leap, but it is a fact that the mechanisms of direct proof have disappeared because it was for the first generation.

And that seems to me like nothing more than an excuse. Do you have any evidence that demonstrates that "direct proof" was only for the first generation? Do you have any explanations as to why that would be the case? And, ultimately, do you feel that it is rational to expect that EVERYONE ELSE who was not of the first generation, and therefore was not given direct proof should still believe to the same degrees? Do you think it would be rational for god to expect this?

The fact of existence and the Creator of God is transmitted from the first source, which is what calls Adam to our ancestors through the generations.
I believe that the first source gave very important information that we created and that there is a creator and this thing we have passed on through generations and that it is very effective and the evidence that religious practices are associated with human history

Now here's something you might actually be able to gather evidence for: the benefit or detriment of religion to the human condition. There should be much, much more available, real evidence for something like that than there ever has been for God. Interesting that, isn't it?

Historically an atheist thought did not exist, because they knew the truth of the existence of the god and worshiped them, but they differed in the content of who is the true God

Simply not true AT ALL. This is a HUGE mistake in reasoning that ignores blatantly obvious facts about what you, yourself are talking about here. The Norse men believed in Odin, Thor, Freya, etc. - and they believed those were the "true gods". Do you think EVERYONE believed in those gods/godesses during that time, but just didn't believe they were the ones requiring worship? No. No they didn't. Plenty of people who chose not to worship the Norse gods DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THEM. How about the Greek pantheon of gods? If the Romans believed in those gods, but just disagreed with the Greeks as to who is the "true" god, then why is it the Romans decided to plagiarize the whole canon and mostly just change names (Zeus=Jupiter, Ares=Mars, Aphrodite=Venus, etc.) - trying to make them into their own set of gods? So, you easily - EASILY - see that non-belief in gods/deities has been ENTIRELY COMMMON throughout ALL of human history. People who don't believe in any number of gods (even if they believe in one of their own choosing) have been found throughout all of human history. So how about it - do YOU believe in the Greek pantheon of gods? Based on what YOU said, you should only be able to acknowledge that you DIFFER in your belief about who the "true god" is... that's what YOU said. So you should believe in ALL gods, you just disagree with who is a "true" god. Right??! This is ridiculous.

We carry out data transfer (knowledge) after we have completed the growth process which is after many years and in this period,We may not get care, because the newborn baby does not receive the right information, it is a human crime because he was neglected intellectually feeding the truth that we passed from Adam

This is you admitting that knowledge of God does not come automatically to people. It is not something people "just know." And in that admission you also mention needing to "pass on" the knowledge to keep it going. And you know what THAT is an admission of? It is an admission that the ONLY source of information about God comes down to OTHER PEOPLE. That's all you have... because you HAVE NOTHING BETTER. No better evidence, no better reason to believe. Just "because someone else said so."

It led me to invent drunk theory
When a person is an atheist, like a drinker, he fades out of consciousness and then tries to understand the world without complete consciousness. this is the stage of adolescence atheism, is a complex stage of his life, or like a hot cup of coffee that no one can drink until it got cool down a little
Atheist at an stage of very complex dialogue with him and the best thing is to leave it until the facts are automatically followed soon after a period of time

It led me to invent the drug user theory
Is a theory that drives you to steal money to buy drugs, but you in fact defend your ideas to steal ideas to buy a delusional fun There is a disease called addiction atheism


Led me to invent the smoker theory
Is the desire to invest the wrong idea knows its end in advance because you will throw it, but the experience is fun and saturates the desire to harm the physical and mental health

There is a theory invented by her name anal taste
He sees very carefully that the vagina of women is the main tool of sexual relationship and reproduction
But by following the way you think, which is evidence and relativism, you see that anal sex is a fun and convincing tool, even if there is no pregnancy and childbirth, but the other party feels pain and no pleasure just to let you enjoy it.

Sorry... but this reads like a bunch of crap to me. Just a bunch of useless junk influenced by your poor opinion of atheists. As you even admitted - you "invented" these "theories." And as we all know, not all inventions are helpful or worthwhile. These "inventions" of yours are pure garbage. Junk thinking - no good, and not helpful in any way. Unless you count you and your theist buddies sitting around high-fiving one another and building mutual respect in probably the ONLY space you are able. You may count that as a benefit... I call it sad.

Thanks for reading and wait for the answer
Tell me first about the stationary base where your rockets are fired

I already told you. The basis is evidence. Everything flows from there.

 

[j1i]

Not quite sure what the vitamin listing is about, but you're welcome.

I didn't say science wasn't important... I merely pointed out that I hadn't invoked science in any of my points. "Science" DOES NOT have a monopoly on gathering, assessing and utilizing evidence. If you think it does, then that's yet another mark against your thinking processes, honestly. I also came nowhere near saying that knowledge isn't important. I believe knowledge to be extremely important. All I have been claiming is that there are certain pieces of knowledge YOU claim to have that I do not believe you to have. And that's where you providing evidence that warrants your claim to knowledge comes in - which I also believe that you cannot do!

You're mischaracterizing my position. I didn't say "there is no God" - what I said is that there isn't enough information either way, and so, until there is, I choose not to believe. And my position, not believing in a god comes with absolutely no consequences, as far as I can tell.

This is a bit hard to follow, but it sounds like what you're saying is that you believe that without belief in a god, a person just does whatever they want to, and are not a productive citizen of the world. This is false. Perhaps this can be witnessed in some anecdotal, individual cases... but this idea CANNOT be applied to all agnotics/atheists. To do so without knowledge of ALL agnostics/atheists (who are all individuals, and different in their thinking on many other topics) is to display further mistakes in your thinking. It is a childish mind which paints all people of one type with such a broad brush. Talking in percentages or probabilities is one thing, or even adding a qualifier like "most" and indicating that it is most of that type of person that you have encountered or have experience with. But making sweeping generalizations about everyone of a certain group without any qualifiers, stating it as if it is just a fact of their persons - that's just a poor mode of thinking.

And that seems to me like nothing more than an excuse. Do you have any evidence that demonstrates that "direct proof" was only for the first generation? Do you have any explanations as to why that would be the case? And, ultimately, do you feel that it is rational to expect that EVERYONE ELSE who was not of the first generation, and therefore was not given direct proof should still believe to the same degrees? Do you think it would be rational for god to expect this?

Now here's something you might actually be able to gather evidence for: the benefit or detriment of religion to the human condition. There should be much, much more available, real evidence for something like that than there ever has been for God. Interesting that, isn't it?

Simply not true AT ALL. This is a HUGE mistake in reasoning that ignores blatantly obvious facts about what you, yourself are talking about here. The Norse men believed in Odin, Thor, Freya, etc. - and they believed those were the "true gods". Do you think EVERYONE believed in those gods/godesses during that time, but just didn't believe they were the ones requiring worship? No. No they didn't. Plenty of people who chose not to worship the Norse gods DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THEM. How about the Greek pantheon of gods? If the Romans believed in those gods, but just disagreed with the Greeks as to who is the "true" god, then why is it the Romans decided to plagiarize the whole canon and mostly just change names (Zeus=Jupiter, Ares=Mars, Aphrodite=Venus, etc.) - trying to make them into their own set of gods? So, you easily - EASILY - see that non-belief in gods/deities has been ENTIRELY COMMMON throughout ALL of human history. People who don't believe in any number of gods (even if they believe in one of their own choosing) have been found throughout all of human history. So how about it - do YOU believe in the Greek pantheon of gods? Based on what YOU said, you should only be able to acknowledge that you DIFFER in your belief about who the "true god" is... that's what YOU said. So you should believe in ALL gods, you just disagree with who is a "true" god. Right??! This is ridiculous.

This is you admitting that knowledge of God does not come automatically to people. It is not something people "just know." And in that admission you also mention needing to "pass on" the knowledge to keep it going. And you know what THAT is an admission of? It is an admission that the ONLY source of information about God comes down to OTHER PEOPLE. That's all you have... because you HAVE NOTHING BETTER. No better evidence, no better reason to believe. Just "because someone else said so."

Sorry... but this reads like a bunch of crap to me. Just a bunch of useless junk influenced by your poor opinion of atheists. As you even admitted - you "invented" these "theories." And as we all know, not all inventions are helpful or worthwhile. These "inventions" of yours are pure garbage. Junk thinking - no good, and not helpful in any way. Unless you count you and your theist buddies sitting around high-fiving one another and building mutual respect in probably the ONLY space you are able. You may count that as a benefit... I call it sad.

I already told you. The basis is evidence. Everything flows from there.

Thanks for the reply
The origin of the belief in God guided us aware of senses
I feel my presence, and I feel the existence of God, must be found for me

This universe from behind, which I see from the mountains and planets and and this must have existed and can not deny this and I challenge you to deny that this effect has no effect
Besides the news, the existence of a creator from the first source through generations, even if it was wrong, but at the very least 0.000001% indicate the existence of a creator

you have made a big mistake. What you claim also has no evidence
You want me to deny everything stupidly too, this is childish
Only a ridiculous attitude says I do not know stupidly and based on denial on the pretext that it not brings physical evidence

Convincing my idea should not be stupid. One point of blood in the laboratory reveals the person's history and history.
Or by foot you understand that there is a living organism passed by the footprint he left
We live in a vast world, not as narrow as what you live
We should not bring you evidence on a plate of gold and tell you please I beg you to believe the evidence
We live in a balanced and complex world and it is very stupid to deny it on the pretext I don't know
At least the belief that someone created it

Being an atheist or even if you are uncertain about the existence of God does not give you the right to tell others that they are childish or useless because they lack the proof you want.

I see the evidence of what I see the heavens, stars and dynamic rotations and that show me the result that there is founder

And I can experience that I know that this who founder us cares about us and the evidence of the presence of sensitivities in the event of something that hurts our bodies I am not stupid and do not strangle myself until you push me to dialogue with you through the needle hole

Surprised put obstacles so as not to explain the concept that contradicts your demands interpretation !!!!

Regarding the Gods
Do you claim that the Greeks or Odin, Thor, Freya, etc are the oldest human beings?
All you read are human propaganda
You just want me to see a bunch of statues like the Japanese games for robots (Kandam) you want me to believe in them as gods.
Have you seen American movies and how to make a fake Scenarios of gods
As well as historical media through art in sculpture, drawings and writing fiction
It is a forgery of reality and I am not willing to believe in Gundam
It is not scientific, theoretical, cognitive and sensory
The earth is the not center of the universe, it is a drop in the sea
How will a enter sun in the egg then will say that founder in universe (creator) is here

Denying almost everything has no reason other than to love the opposition and to love controversy

I challenge you now
Is the presence of pain in objects when we are exposed to something that may harm us and destroy our parts is proof that the Creator is genius?
This will say the result of evolution
prove to me the result of self-development
give me to evidance that everything is self-evolving

You have told me that objects are created in laboratories without reproduction
Well now you admit that there is someone who makes it

Notice how many weaknesses you have, and grow up on them

The most important question and I challenge you to resist me and deny it
The existence of all these things in the universe of stars and planets and on the ground of rivers, mountains and rain it was not sane arrangement
If you speak the evidence must have an existing deny this evidence
This is scientific evidence that these techniques that we see from dynamic rotations indicate the existence of genius and sophisticated

Do you want me to see this unique system in the world and high technologies in the system of filtering and the production of oxygen and night and day and stars and rotation exist without sire (founder)

If you deny that this system exists without a mastermind and the founder source, then you are exist without mind reason, Do not argue with denying the existence mastermind or founder source

Do not demand evidence believing yourself as an object that has a mind, then accuse the universe not to have a sane source mastermind or founder source

You speak foolishly, you want to prove yourself and that you have a mind in the dialogue, and you want to deny the existence of a mastermind and existent of the stars and creatures and the cosmic system and organization

atheism and agnostic wants to be the beacon of discoveries that have been discovered, but with his desire Haha

I'm done here
I offer my condolences to you for your defeat

 

[j1i]

Not quite sure what the vitamin listing is about, but you're welcome.

I didn't say science wasn't important... I merely pointed out that I hadn't invoked science in any of my points. "Science" DOES NOT have a monopoly on gathering, assessing and utilizing evidence. If you think it does, then that's yet another mark against your thinking processes, honestly. I also came nowhere near saying that knowledge isn't important. I believe knowledge to be extremely important. All I have been claiming is that there are certain pieces of knowledge YOU claim to have that I do not believe you to have. And that's where you providing evidence that warrants your claim to knowledge comes in - which I also believe that you cannot do!

You're mischaracterizing my position. I didn't say "there is no God" - what I said is that there isn't enough information either way, and so, until there is, I choose not to believe. And my position, not believing in a god comes with absolutely no consequences, as far as I can tell.

This is a bit hard to follow, but it sounds like what you're saying is that you believe that without belief in a god, a person just does whatever they want to, and are not a productive citizen of the world. This is false. Perhaps this can be witnessed in some anecdotal, individual cases... but this idea CANNOT be applied to all agnotics/atheists. To do so without knowledge of ALL agnostics/atheists (who are all individuals, and different in their thinking on many other topics) is to display further mistakes in your thinking. It is a childish mind which paints all people of one type with such a broad brush. Talking in percentages or probabilities is one thing, or even adding a qualifier like "most" and indicating that it is most of that type of person that you have encountered or have experience with. But making sweeping generalizations about everyone of a certain group without any qualifiers, stating it as if it is just a fact of their persons - that's just a poor mode of thinking.

And that seems to me like nothing more than an excuse. Do you have any evidence that demonstrates that "direct proof" was only for the first generation? Do you have any explanations as to why that would be the case? And, ultimately, do you feel that it is rational to expect that EVERYONE ELSE who was not of the first generation, and therefore was not given direct proof should still believe to the same degrees? Do you think it would be rational for god to expect this?

Now here's something you might actually be able to gather evidence for: the benefit or detriment of religion to the human condition. There should be much, much more available, real evidence for something like that than there ever has been for God. Interesting that, isn't it?

Simply not true AT ALL. This is a HUGE mistake in reasoning that ignores blatantly obvious facts about what you, yourself are talking about here. The Norse men believed in Odin, Thor, Freya, etc. - and they believed those were the "true gods". Do you think EVERYONE believed in those gods/godesses during that time, but just didn't believe they were the ones requiring worship? No. No they didn't. Plenty of people who chose not to worship the Norse gods DIDN'T BELIEVE IN THEM. How about the Greek pantheon of gods? If the Romans believed in those gods, but just disagreed with the Greeks as to who is the "true" god, then why is it the Romans decided to plagiarize the whole canon and mostly just change names (Zeus=Jupiter, Ares=Mars, Aphrodite=Venus, etc.) - trying to make them into their own set of gods? So, you easily - EASILY - see that non-belief in gods/deities has been ENTIRELY COMMMON throughout ALL of human history. People who don't believe in any number of gods (even if they believe in one of their own choosing) have been found throughout all of human history. So how about it - do YOU believe in the Greek pantheon of gods? Based on what YOU said, you should only be able to acknowledge that you DIFFER in your belief about who the "true god" is... that's what YOU said. So you should believe in ALL gods, you just disagree with who is a "true" god. Right??! This is ridiculous.

This is you admitting that knowledge of God does not come automatically to people. It is not something people "just know." And in that admission you also mention needing to "pass on" the knowledge to keep it going. And you know what THAT is an admission of? It is an admission that the ONLY source of information about God comes down to OTHER PEOPLE. That's all you have... because you HAVE NOTHING BETTER. No better evidence, no better reason to believe. Just "because someone else said so."

Sorry... but this reads like a bunch of crap to me. Just a bunch of useless junk influenced by your poor opinion of atheists. As you even admitted - you "invented" these "theories." And as we all know, not all inventions are helpful or worthwhile. These "inventions" of yours are pure garbage. Junk thinking - no good, and not helpful in any way. Unless you count you and your theist buddies sitting around high-fiving one another and building mutual respect in probably the ONLY space you are able. You may count that as a benefit... I call it sad.

I already told you. The basis is evidence. Everything flows from there.

In short, you made allegations from a far-off place
you want to show me that you are an organism that has the ability to explore and find facts and thinks you understand and distinguish.
then you take away from this universe the simplest rights of the existence of a reasonable founder, but think that you have your mental abilities and understanding and research that they outweigh the idea of a founder

We humans create tools that help us to develop our skills to survive, but there is no evidence to prove that your genius in claiming stupidity and childhood,
The world does not exist from a reasonable or founder

See how you snob yourself and show yourself that you are a scientist analyst looking for evidence
While you deny that these capabilities do not have only you?

Creation out of nowhere huh how ridiculous it is

You are mindless

 

[corynski]

In short, you made allegations from a far-off place
you want to show me that you are an organism that has the ability to explore and find facts and thinks you understand and distinguish.
then you take away from this universe the simplest rights of the existence of a reasonable founder, but think that you have your mental abilities and understanding and research that they outweigh the idea of a founder

We humans create tools that help us to develop our skills to survive, but there is no evidence to prove that your genius in claiming stupidity and childhood,
The world does not exist from a reasonable or founder

See how you snob yourself and show yourself that you are a scientist analyst looking for evidence
While you deny that these capabilities do not have only you?

Creation out of nowhere huh how ridiculous it is

You are mindless

Others are 'mindless' are they? But there is no evidence for any god that 'created' this world or anything else. Would you create a world where every living creature must eat another living creature, just to survive, just to stay alive? I suggest that no 'god' could create anything as stupid as this world......

It is humans who create gods, in fact, each human group creates its own god, which serves as the belief center of that group. Read the anthropology texts for the mechanisms involved. Notice how each human now is brainwashed from birth by priests and parents, long before their reasoning powers begin.

Atheism means only one thing, that we have found no evidence that a god exists. No, the gods won't and don't 'show up'. But after thousands of years of evolution, we now have arrived at the point where we have a tool, the scientific method, which provides us with a way to understand what is real and what is not. Whether you choose to use it or not is your decision......... but there is simply no evidence of any supernatural power in the universe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One person believes there IS a God and another person believes there is NO God. Neither has real proof. Why are they not both beliefs?

They are both beliefs. Most atheists hold neither. I don't. Both positions are insufficiently supported by evidence to hold. Only agnostic atheism is justifiable. Although they might, there is no reason to believe that gods exist absent compelling evidence to the contrary, but also not enough evidence to rule the possibility out.

But notice that that is also true regarding vampires and leprechauns. I'll bet you're an avampirist and an aleprechaunist. So am I, and an atheist as well. But I make no assertion that such creatures do exist, or that they can be ruled out with some experiment, observation, or algorithm. So, I have no beliefs regarding any of them, but live as if they don't exist. I don't wear garlic, I don't search for pots of gold under rainbows, and I don't pray or go to church.

Don't forget the middle ground between belief and active disbelief - agnosticism. Consider meeting somebody for the first time about whom you know nothing. Do you say he can be trusted? Probably not, since you have no reason to believe that at this time. He may be very trustworthy, but you lack evidence of this, which comes from experience with him and talking to his friends.

Likewise, you cannot say that he is untrustworthy for the same reason. Thus, your only rational position is agnosticism for now. You neither believe that the person is trustworthy nor untrustworthy. That's where the rational (agnostic) atheist regarding gods - no belief either way.

Of course, it is wise to treat this person as untrustworthy until we have an answer. We probably wouldn't just give him our kids, for example.

Are you of the opinion that disbelief and lack of belief are two different opinions?

Yes. See above.

Are you of the opinion that there is no difference between positively asserting that the belief is false and being agnostic about the claim as I described above, neither asserting that the belief is true nor false as I have just described above? I call the first lack of belief, and the latter disbelief, sometimes called not believing versus believing not. The former is not a belief, the latter is.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Not unless a conscious agent is present to convert sound waves into sound and apprehend them.

If a body emits outside of the visible spectrum, is there light? No. It remains dark for that individual. Same thing.

 

[ArtieE]

Don't forget the middle ground between belief and active disbelief - agnosticism.

That's no middle ground. You can have both agnostic theists and agnostic strong atheists.

Likewise, you cannot say that he is untrustworthy for the same reason. Thus, your only rational position is agnosticism for now. You neither believe that the person is trustworthy nor untrustworthy. That's where the rational (agnostic) atheist regarding gods - no belief either way.

Except that there are agnostic theists and agnostic strong atheists.

Are you of the opinion that there is no difference between positively asserting that the belief is false and being agnostic about the claim as I described above, neither asserting that the belief is true nor false as I have just described above? I call the first lack of belief, and the latter disbelief, sometimes called not believing versus believing not. The former is not a belief, the latter is.

I can't follow your reasoning in these sentences please rewrite.

 

[ArtieE]

ArtieE said: ↑
Are you of the opinion that disbelief and lack of belief are two different opinions?

Yes. See above.

How can they be two different opinions when they are synonyms? The first thing that comes up when I search for "disbelief definition" in Google is

"disbelief
/dɪsbɪˈliːf/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
   "Laura shook her head in disbelief"
   synonyms: incredulity, incredulousness, lack of belief"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thanks for the reply
The origin of the belief in God guided us aware of senses
I feel my presence, and I feel the existence of God, must be found for me

You've use a key phrase within this reply "for me." I haven't experienced these things you talk about. Do you understand that? I do not feel the "Existence of God." And this does not necessarily need to be "found" for me. I don't see the point at all.

This universe from behind, which I see from the mountains and planets and and this must have existed and can not deny this and I challenge you to deny that this effect has no effect

I don't deny that the mountains and planets exist. What does this have to do with God?

Besides the news, the existence of a creator from the first source through generations, even if it was wrong, but at the very least 0.000001% indicate the existence of a creator

I am not sure what this means. Why are you using numbers to represent your ideas? I am quite sure you have not made any actual calculations, nor do you understand or have you researched any of the probabilities.

you have made a big mistake. What you claim also has no evidence

And what claim did I make? All I keep saying is that I don't see/experience/feel "God" and I don't believe your claim that such a being exists. If you want me to believe, then you must provide compelling evidence. Simple as that. I don't have to believe you. You understand this, correct?

You want me to deny everything stupidly too, this is childish

I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO. But if you want to convince me then you'd better bring some serious evidence to the table, otherwise it is YOU who appears childish.

Only a ridiculous attitude says I do not know stupidly and based on denial on the pretext that it not brings physical evidence

Why is skepticism ridiculous to you? How about this? I have a BRIDGE that I want to sell you. Unfortunately, I cannot provide any physical evidence that I own this bridge, however, based on your outlook and ideas, it would be RIDICULOUS for you to deny that I own this bridge just based on the fact that I can't produce evidence. Right? So how about it? Will you buy my bridge? Only $25,000! A real bargain. Don't be RIDICULOUS now! Remember? That was YOUR word... "ridiculous."

Being an atheist or even if you are uncertain about the existence of God does not give you the right to tell others that they are childish or useless because they lack the proof you want.

I can tell you whatever the hell I want to. And you can do the same to me. And if I want to tell you that I don't believe you, and that your evidence for your claim isn't good enough, then that's where you and I stand. You can then ignore me and go try and convince someone else with your crappy evidence, but you aren't going to get me. And you'd better be willing to live with that, just as I am willing to live with you walking around saying you know about how the universe started. Again... I may call you out on it, and question you, and even ridicule you... but these are only WORDS. You are free to continue in your pursuit to "educate" everyone about the beginnings of the universe... while I will always appear to be the more honest party while claiming that "I don't know."

Surprised put obstacles so as not to explain the concept that contradicts your demands interpretation !!!!

According to you, your God gave me the tools I use to interpret things. And your God left things open to interpretation. And your God let's me interpret it all as I wish. So that's where we are. Regardless whether your God exists or not, I AM ABLE TO INTERPRET "the universe" or "the planets" or "the mountains" as nothing more than they sincerely appear to be.

Regarding the Gods
Do you claim that the Greeks or Odin, Thor, Freya, etc are the oldest human beings?
All you read are human propaganda
You just want me to see a bunch of statues like the Japanese games for robots (Kandam) you want me to believe in them as gods.

Is this seriously what you got from me listing these gods? I was pointing out that THESE ARE GODS YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN, and THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DID NOT BELIEVE IN THROUGHOUT HISTORY. AND SO - NONBELIEF HAS BEEN AROUND AS LONG AS BELIEF. Even believers don't "believe everything." And if you claim that you do... then SHAME ON YOU.

I challenge you now
Is the presence of pain in objects when we are exposed to something that may harm us and destroy our parts is proof that the Creator is genius?
This will say the result of evolution
prove to me the result of self-development
give me to evidance that everything is self-evolving

What you're talking about here sounds more like "abiogenesis" - or the idea that life came from non-living material. This is not a hypothesis that I subscribe to because THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE. So I don't know whether or not life came from non-life. I do not know this. Do you understand now why I say that I am more honest than you are? Do you?

You have told me that objects are created in laboratories without reproduction
Well now you admit that there is someone who makes it

Someone helped along the building of the original molecule chain before it self-replicated, yes. I admit this. However, they attempted to do so using only naturally occurring steps. Things that have happened or are plausible within nature alone. The main point is that chemical reactions happen CONSTANTLY throughout the entire universe, and they happen without any guiding hand. This is a chemical reaction that happens to reproduce itself and then continue on after that, the replicas going on to make more replicas. They even witnessed the molecules getting it a little "wrong" and coming out "mutated" from the original, because the exact pairings of elements within the molecule weren't duplicated, because other stable configurations happened first or preempted others. This is a sort of evolution-type diversity happening with non-living materials. But again - "abiogenesis" is not a hypothesis that I subscribe to, pending more evidence. But I can tell you that I expect that this area of study will produce more compelling evidence before religious apologists and adherents come up with anything more compelling (or even anything new).

Notice how many weaknesses you have, and grow up on them

All I am saying is that I don't know how the universe began and I don't believe your claim about how it did. Where is there weakness in that position? Because I don't claim to know something I don't like YOU DO? Give me a break.

I offer my condolences to you for your defeat

That's it bud. Run away now. Be sure to tuck that tail between your legs. Oh wait... that's right... humans evolved to not have tails millions of years ago. Just run away then... that'll work.

 

[Thief]

my tailbone hurts

I believe God is tying to tell me something

 

[j1i]

You've use a key phrase within this reply "for me." I haven't experienced these things you talk about. Do you understand that? I do not feel the "Existence of God." And this does not necessarily need to be "found" for me. I don't see the point at all.
I don't deny that the mountains and planets exist. What does this have to do with God?
I am not sure what this means. Why are you using numbers to represent your ideas? I am quite sure you have not made any actual calculations, nor do you understand or have you researched any of the probabilities.
And what claim did I make? All I keep saying is that I don't see/experience/feel "God" and I don't believe your claim that such a being exists. If you want me to believe, then you must provide compelling evidence. Simple as that. I don't have to believe you. You understand this, correct?
I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO. But if you want to convince me then you'd better bring some serious evidence to the table, otherwise it is YOU who appears childish.
Why is skepticism ridiculous to you? How about this? I have a BRIDGE that I want to sell you. Unfortunately, I cannot provide any physical evidence that I own this bridge, however, based on your outlook and ideas, it would be RIDICULOUS for you to deny that I own this bridge just based on the fact that I can't produce evidence. Right? So how about it? Will you buy my bridge? Only $25,000! A real bargain. Don't be RIDICULOUS now! Remember? That was YOUR word... "ridiculous."
I can tell you whatever the hell I want to. And you can do the same to me. And if I want to tell you that I don't believe you, and that your evidence for your claim isn't good enough, then that's where you and I stand. You can then ignore me and go try and convince someone else with your crappy evidence, but you aren't going to get me. And you'd better be willing to live with that, just as I am willing to live with you walking around saying you know about how the universe started. Again... I may call you out on it, and question you, and even ridicule you... but these are only WORDS. You are free to continue in your pursuit to "educate" everyone about the beginnings of the universe... while I will always appear to be the more honest party while claiming that "I don't know."
According to you, your God gave me the tools I use to interpret things. And your God left things open to interpretation. And your God let's me interpret it all as I wish. So that's where we are. Regardless whether your God exists or not, I AM ABLE TO INTERPRET "the universe" or "the planets" or "the mountains" as nothing more than they sincerely appear to be.

Is this seriously what you got from me listing these gods? I was pointing out that THESE ARE GODS YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN, and THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DID NOT BELIEVE IN THROUGHOUT HISTORY. AND SO - NONBELIEF HAS BEEN AROUND AS LONG AS BELIEF. Even believers don't "believe everything." And if you claim that you do... then SHAME ON YOU.
What you're talking about here sounds more like "abiogenesis" - or the idea that life came from non-living material. This is not a hypothesis that I subscribe to because THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE. So I don't know whether or not life came from non-life. I do not know this. Do you understand now why I say that I am more honest than you are? Do you?
Someone helped along the building of the original molecule chain before it self-replicated, yes. I admit this. However, they attempted to do so using only naturally occurring steps. Things that have happened or are plausible within nature alone. The main point is that chemical reactions happen CONSTANTLY throughout the entire universe, and they happen without any guiding hand. This is a chemical reaction that happens to reproduce itself and then continue on after that, the replicas going on to make more replicas. They even witnessed the molecules getting it a little "wrong" and coming out "mutated" from the original, because the exact pairings of elements within the molecule weren't duplicated, because other stable configurations happened first or preempted others. This is a sort of evolution-type diversity happening with non-living materials. But again - "abiogenesis" is not a hypothesis that I subscribe to, pending more evidence. But I can tell you that I expect that this area of study will produce more compelling evidence before religious apologists and adherents come up with anything more compelling (or even anything new).

All I am saying is that I don't know how the universe began and I don't believe your claim about how it did. Where is there weakness in that position? Because I don't claim to know something I don't like YOU DO? Give me a break.

That's it bud. Run away now. Be sure to tuck that tail between your legs. Oh wait... that's right... humans evolved to not have tails millions of years ago. Just run away then... that'll work.

Hello my friend
I would like to make a greeting first

I didn't say I wanted to convince you
Do not forget that you began to respond to I am on the defensive, not an attack

You have the freedom to think
But not by stupid way

Know that the car is a way to connect passengers (a basic means)
It is absurd to explain that the car used it as a bucket engine to fetch water from the well or use its engine as a sewing engine.
(Curvature, narrow and biased)

You said to me
abiogenesis" - or the idea that life came from non-living material

And the non-living material from where it came (don't make me laugh, brother)
hahahahha

Life came from nothing
Life came from inanimate substances and chemical reactions
Do you think that Avicenna or Dmitri Mendeleev made chemical mixtures in heaven to create our universe

I try to understand the way atheists think and agnosticism
And how to defend their ideas and try to market it

There must be an exquisite maker
An agnostic wants to deny it on the pretext of lack of evidence
Did you know that the prophets were doing miracles to encourage people to believe
They asked Muhammad peace be upon him to split the moon into two pieces and the moon split in half when the moon was full moon
They thought he was a magician or a sorcerer when people came to travel from the Levant
They asked them, did you see the moon splinter halves
They said yes and did not believe and continued denial and Lying to him

The issue is that your heart is dead does not want to come to life, the field of ratification stems from the heart

You have many senses such as hearing, sight and taste
When you see someone who offers you (roses) an expression of love, but in your heart you feel this person is malicious wants to play with my feelings
The most important piece in a human being is the heart, if your heart is dead you will not be able let you to believe even if you come with all the evidence
This makes all believers feel tired in trying to talk to them because they see no point in doing so

Now you have a basic idea that the universe was created from dead materials and that you confidently say that dead materials existed and no one had produced them
And I say it is impossible to have something out of nowhere
If we are out of nowhere we are nothingness
If we exist, there is a way out of existence, the Creator

To revive the heart I advise you to do good deeds and you will see the truth
You will say there is no physical evidence
The result is psychological comfort. It is a subconscious state that delights the body and there is no need to bring physical evidence that you are happy

god bless you my brother
can i hug you
dont be ridiculous

 

[j1i]

Others are 'mindless' are they? But there is no evidence for any god that 'created' this world or anything else. Would you create a world where every living creature must eat another living creature, just to survive, just to stay alive? I suggest that no 'god' could create anything as stupid as this world......

It is humans who create gods, in fact, each human group creates its own god, which serves as the belief center of that group. Read the anthropology texts for the mechanisms involved. Notice how each human now is brainwashed from birth by priests and parents, long before their reasoning powers begin.

Atheism means only one thing, that we have found no evidence that a god exists. No, the gods won't and don't 'show up'. But after thousands of years of evolution, we now have arrived at the point where we have a tool, the scientific method, which provides us with a way to understand what is real and what is not. Whether you choose to use it or not is your decision......... but there is simply no evidence of any supernatural power in the universe.

the non-living material from where it came ?
Life came from nothing
Life came from inanimate substances and chemical reactions

I try to understand the way atheists think and agnosticism
And how to defend their ideas and try to market it
There must be an exquisite maker

It does not mean people differ in understanding God because of the absence of truth this means a marketer to deny it

We try to decipher the gas pyramids and every scientist puts his imagination, but does not mean to deny the pyramids

What evidence there is no maker

There is no evidence that all of these objects came from scratch
And if it came from scratch, who Find it is or who the created

It is not fair to deny the powerful force that brought about existence

This superpower brought existence
the superpower who created water
And from the water that is like a painting, he draw any object he want and make it alive

 

[ratiocinator]

the non-living material from where it came ?
Life came from nothing
Life came from inanimate substances and chemical reactions

I try to understand the way atheists think and agnosticism
And how to defend their ideas and try to market it
There must be an exquisite maker

It does not mean people differ in understanding God because of the absence of truth this means a marketer to deny it

We try to decipher the gas pyramids and every scientist puts his imagination, but does not mean to deny the pyramids

What evidence there is no maker

There is no evidence that all of these objects came from scratch
And if it came from scratch, who Find it is or who the created

It is not fair to deny the powerful force that brought about existence

This superpower brought existence
the superpower who created water
And from the water that is like a painting, he draw any object he want and make it alive

Where did this "maker" or "superpower" come from?

Nobody knows why all the stuff that exists does exist, but positing some amazing maker or designer doesn't actually go any way at all towards solving that mystery. A reality with some amazing, cosmic designer is no less strange and unexplained than one without one.

This is the problem with all theist arguments that are based on the idea that what we see around us "can't have come about from nothing" or "for no reason" or "must have been designed" and so on - as soon as they've constructed their excuse for believing in their favourite species of god, then all the questions about how come this god just happens to exist, for no reason at all, magically disappear.

In short, such arguments are logically short-sighted and involve double standards.

Many atheists simply say that they don't know why things exist (and neither do theists) and have not been persuaded by any of the arguments for any of the thousands of gods humans believe in, or have believed in.

It is (in many cases) not a belief that there is definitely "no maker", just being unconvinced that there is one. As such, it requires no evidence to support it - except the total lack of any convincing evidence for any gods.