Atheism isn't a belief?

You apparently didn't read the bit in the hypothetical prayer along the lines of "God, if you exist....".The act of faith that is required is an act which offers onesself to him, offers up control of ones own life to his control, offers to let the designer, for the first time ever, determine what's best for the designed (which, if he exists, would be an eminently logical thing to do). An offer made to him - "if you exist". It's not an act of blind belief. Like, who can believe in something they don't know exists. That would be irrational...That would be blind belief - the very irrational behaviour I'm arguing lies at the bedrock of athiesm. If my belief was blind then that'd would be me, the pot, calling the kettle, the athiest, black.Its an act of faith DS - like a doggie rolling over on it's back is a signal that it's defences are completely down, is an act of faith. An act of (oh...how this word will be hated)...submission.Belief comes afterwards. Belief is a gift of confirmation that the act has been accepted. Belief is God giving the doggie a scratch on the belly rather than a kick in the head. Belief doesn't see everything clearly at once, the designed will tend to want to grab the steering wheel back from the designer (and the designer will permit this - worse luck). But once the deal is done - that's it. There ain't no going back - no even if one wanted to (which one probably wouldn't)Belief is anything but blind. do you remember the words to the hymn Amazing Grace: "..was blind but now I see"? A disbeliever disbelieves based on some blind assumption or other (which we have so far failed to see countered here). A beleiver believes because the blindness has been lifted...and only because the blindness has lifted. They see....Seeing is the same as believing. The offer is open to everybody. It's free. But you gotta take that step. All you gotta do is ask...from the heart.The word Gospel means Good News. The Good News is that it's simple. You don't have to be a General Relativist to get it...relatively.This message has been edited by iano, 18-Aug-2005 05:22 PM

Um... what's the A stand for in AIPU?

I think PY means it as "without," "not," etc... The same as the "a" prefix in "atheist."

Thanks a bundle for pointing that out dude.
I am SO glad that I didn't glorify the IPU since she so obviously thinks I am a shithead.From this point on you can all consider me a strong A-IPUist since I now avow that the IPU does not exist (out of spite).And yes, as Tony said, the A in AIPU is just like the A in Atheist.

DUH!
Isn't that what I have been telling you all along?

As for the 'how', you have 'magical poofing', which is the same as saying, "He did it somehow."
As for the 'why', you have any of a near-infinite number of possible reasons from which to choose.Such a malleable God will fit into any gap. It should never be placed into any gap, though; as doing so removes the impetus for finding what is really in there. It's the end to all inquiry -- an arbitrary stopping point. "It fits. There, I'm done."No thanks. I'll just scoop out your God and continue, as I want to find what is really there. Only after every possible solid explanation has been tried and failed is one of the permutations of 'God' acceptable, as we'd be left with only nonfalsifiable hypotheses, so one is just as good as any other. (Given equal complexity)

In order for it to be 'from the heart', belief is a prerequisite.
If you can manage to make a heartfelt call to Superman, I'll stand corrected. To whom?
To those who don't believe, that 'him' only points to various concepts. It doesn't point to any actual person. And even with proper nouns/pronouns that refer to an actual person, a response from a concept certainly can't be trusted to be the same as from the actual person, or coming from them at all. I mean, if you ask me to offer myself to Jennifer Love Hewett, and I use my imaginary one, I'll get some pretty nice results. Now, as 'Jennifer Love Hewett' also refers to an actual person, I could figure out a way to offer myself to that one (I know who it refers to), but the results would likely be completely different. The psychological parasite cannot gain a foothold with the BS detector in place.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-18-2005 02:42 PM

Thought so. Thanks for the confirmation.

If your saying that atheism is irrational because it believes without knowing then, no, you haven't been saying it all along. If your saying believing in God is irrational then no, you haven't been saying it all along either...Whilst athiesm maybe irrational (your implication I hasten to add, I'd call it 'religion' - that doesn't sound so bad ) belief in God is not irrational if God has revealed himself to you. You might not have any basis to prove it to others but they can't disprove the proof given that your proof is supernatural so can't be dispproven naturally. That is different to the athiests position - which may be disproven if any proofs are posed for which there is no scientific (natural) evidence.

Except you've just demonstrated that you're an IPUist, as you must believe in her to believe she thinks you're a shithead. So, you're just an IPUist who hates the IPU (mhhnbs).

Hope would do just a well, as would desperation, as would longing, as would fear.... To who/whatever it was that the hope/despair/longing/fear made it seem. I don't suppose it matters given, as you say, there is no prior knowledge as to 'it's' character/motivation/m.o.. I imagine its the heart behind that counts. At least that, reasonably, would seem to be the best we have to offer - if he/it/she/them exists.We could do no more...than ask heartfeltly. If the p.p. you refer to is God and he exists then it may well be that he would chose not to come in where he is not wanted. "Thy will be done" he might well say. If the p.p. is me...then I forgive you the slight...given that I try to take his lead on such things

PurpleYouko...your language. My, My I am shocked...

I have not said that weak atheism is irrational because does not mean believing anything and certainly doesn't mean "knowing" something
But I have said that Strong Atheism is irrational because a belief that god does not exist is included in it. (I can look up the posts if you like but it will take a while) If you really think that then you aren't observant as I thought you were. I have repeatedly stated that the only rational position is weak atheism. (possibly agnosticism too but I didn't actually state that) Again, I can find the posts if you really want me to. WTF???
What the heck does this actually mean? You might want to reword some of this because either your brain is fried or mine is. I can't make any sense out of it!I will have a go at breaking it down. No it isn't!! unless you mean the kind that actively believes that god does not exist Maybe not to you. How do you know it isn't just self delusion based on your need to fill a percieved void in your percieved soul? Plenty of people claim that God has spoken to them. Most of these people are now in the funny farm wearing nice padded jackets (I'm not suggesting that you are nuts by the way. ) I'm not even going to attempt this one. Now this is just plain wrong on so many levels. First off, the whole point of the weak atheist's position is that it CAN be overturned by proof.
However there CANNOT EVER BE a proof which is not based on scientific (natural) evidence. If it isn't scientific then it isn't (by definition) a proof!
Anything else is just heresay or unsupported assertions with no more meaning than me telling you that I have the infamous IPU in my back yard.

Saying, "I felt something," would not be irrational, as it would be true. Identifying the source of that feeling as an external entity, with no evidence that such an external entity exists, would be irrational; as it's a near-certainty that that feeling was internally-generated. The evidence of such is that as soon as you gain any distance from the common sources that are various holy books, what is purported to have been 'revealed' differs widely. That's evidence that these 'revelations' are not coming from a common source, as the hallmark of a common source is commonality. (Duh)

Oh crap! You rumbled me.