Atheism isn't a belief?

Demonstrate? Look at everybody in the world.A 10 year old can be convicted of a crime he has never been told about by his parents (or anyone else) based on the fact that he is considered to be in possession of a knowledge of natural law - that is, he is presumed to have a conscience equal to that of everyone else (unless there are obvious grounds for diminished responsibility)There is no way to demonstrate that his conscience is equal to everyone elses but it is assumed that it is. Guilty until proven otherwise in this respect. Factors such as upbringing may be taken into consideration but wrong he considered to have done. He cannot claim ignorance due to parenting because ignorance of a law is not considered a defence. You are presumed to be able to have known about it regardless of upbringing.Neither could we use Evolution as a defence "M'lud. My clients mutational makeup has all the evidence (circumstantially) of being one which is slightly other than average - as phenomenon which has been proven by Evolution Theory. This theory poses that advancement will occur due to this very same mutational advantage allied with a process know as survival of the fittest. M'lud, he killed the driver of that vehicle in order to claim the vehicle from it's 'owner' purely on the basis of a mutational makeup outside his control. He pleads innocence based on totally diminished responsiblity and requests that the charge of murder be dropped"Where did conscience come from? From whence this natural law? It is absolutely and undeniably present. Evolution may have a theory for it but this theory won't stand up in a court dealing with right and wrong. A non absolute theory cannot explain something which is considered by the vast majority (even if they haven't actively consider it as such) as being absolute. Calling it natural law doesn't change things one iota.That's just a man-made title not an explaination.

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

I never said it was. But he needs to show that the borders within he CHOSES to investigate are the only borders there are. And he can't. Thus he doesn't know what borders there may be. Thus he doesn't know. Thus athiesm via belief that the borders he has are the only borders there are.

Well spotted. I'm humbled

I was only ribbing you PY. Is that why you looked at my absolute statement so carefully. Tit-4-tat?? Mieeooooooow This is the argument in a nutshell. An athiest doesn't belief nothing he believes something. We are agreed on that. And what he does believe is that Nature Is everything or that Nature Is Most Likely Everything - No God Is Needed To Explain AnythingThe atheist needs to show reasonably, that the borders within he CHOSES to investigate are the only borders there are. And he can't. Reasonably thus, he doesn't know where the true borders may lie. Thus atheism is rationalised only via a belief that the borders he works within are the only borders there are.Thus atheism is a belief. Which contradicts the title of this thread.edited to insert the word 'reasonably' twice and to tidy upThis message has been edited by iano, 26-Aug-2005 04:07 PM

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

True. But if you have no belief in anything then you stop dead at a-anything not at atheism.Investigation or no, the atheist weak or otherwise will point to no evidence of God AND evidence of nature. At least the atheists here have - including you at various points. No one to my recollection has said they are a-anytings .If I were to re-phrase the above and ask you the question: "do you believe that science has the potential to eventually address everything" - what would you say? (remember a 'yes' answer brings in belief and if any other answer which says the same thing - remember Occams Razor)

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

I wouldn't use the word 'literally', I would just use the word true. True is just true, it needs no support (although it can be characterised possibly by saying that it is absolute, unchanging, intolerant of falsehood). If we assumed for example that God exists then:God exists is true. It is true for everybody - whether they believe it or not. God is true does not depend on iano's knowing, Purpleyoukos knowing not (or believing not) or anything anyone else knows. God exists is just God exists. God would exist if there was no one to know. True is independant of any of this. There will be something about True which differs from something which isn't true. If a person comes to know what is true it will be because of this difference. It will be this difference, this flavor - which lets them know that what they know is true. But they won't be able to explain it to others to convince others. This difference is something one would have to experience for themselves to understand.The Bible speaks of unbelievers of being blinded.- how do you explain to a blind man what 'red' is?
- how do you explain to someone who can't smell what roses smell like?
- how do you explain to someone who doesn't know true what knowing true is like?The only what to know any truth is to experience between not knowing and knowing for yourself. I suggest that the 'difference' is not at all unlike 'red' or 'smell'. That's how different true is from not true, maybe true, I believe, I think, Science says....and all the rest of itCan I tell you what the difference is. No. You'd have to know it for yourself. And maybe you do(p.s. Not that we should worry about never finding answers. Death is not a theory. Death is true. Death, the (true) democracy will provide the answer for each and every body - whether they know it or not...)

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

The existance of atheism relies completely on there being atheists. No atheists then no atheism. So lets look at the building blocks without which there is no church.religion
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Meriam Websters online dictionary)Every adherent to atheism is a believer in something by faith - other that God. The doctrine of Atheism is: 'No God ...because of something else'. This, because it's the people (who all don't believe God 'because of something else') who form the doctrine 'No God'. Like, 'No God' didn't come out of mid-air. The people who formed the doctrine just forgot to insert the 'because of something else' when they were doing it. No harm, just a typo. Nothing changes by inserting it now - it was always the case anyway.Now. Atheism is held to with ardor and it's doctrine includes faith in something. Thus atheism is a religion.(there are no athesists who don't believe (by faith) in something else. If they don't believe something else then they are a-anythings - not atheists)I don't want to go on and on about it PD, if your're prepared to concede that every atheist follows a religion but that which they follow isn't itself a religion - then I'm prepared to meet you half way and let it go at that. Talk about turning the other cheek This message has been edited by iano, 26-Aug-2005 07:05 PM

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Athiests don't sit in a vacuum. Their NO GOD isn' arrived at in a vacuum - much as many would like to argue that it is. If NO GOD then I ask why? Lets deal with you again. What did you say again was your means of arrival at this conclusion. Do you remember the push factors at all? The 'no objective evidence' and 'the push of science' if I remember correctly. No vacuum PY, No vacuum.And I can't see how you can say anything either way about babies either. It has indeed. And I've yet to hear an atheist say they arrived at the conclusion with no push in the direction. That they haven't formed the conclusion by a pull/push from something else. No vacuums mentioned yet. Except theoretically. But vacuum = a-anything. And I've yet to meet one of those here. The rationale has been remarkably consistant throughout: "No objective evidence for God" (push) and "Objective evidence for something else". (pull) I'm sorry your frustrated. Don't think that I haven't been a bit too at times. This has been a long haul for everyone. Please remember though that I have largely been on my own here and have had plenty come at me from you, ds, pd,cp,pe,omiv. I'm not looking for sympathy but do grant me a little slack will you"One central feature".... you pose a causeless position. I'm afraid that everything in the world has been shown to have a prior cause PY. So much so that I have to take this position with a pinch of salt. Nothing happens for no reason. Nothing. You yourself mentioned push factors earlier. I can't just let you retract them because it's convenient for you now. Remember, I helped you come up with a defintion of SA with it's push factors and all. You were happy with that definition. Now we've come a full circle.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Whatever it is that happens to float your boat ds. You don't believe in God. So what do you believe in then? If it's nothing then you are a-anything not a-theist. If its anything else then its 'something' and you have a religion. It matters little what it is so long as it keeps on meeting your needs.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Told maybe, showed definitely not. If you are a naturalist then you have a basis, a reason for atheism. Whether you started there or were pulled there matters not. You have a reason for atheism. A somethingIf you are not a naturalist or have no other reason to be an atheist then you rest in a position for no reason other than that you are just there. If someone comes along and says Goddidit you have no reason to disbelieve them so you should immediately become a theist. If the Goddidit, (a push), is not sufficient to move you from your position then it must be that something resists the force. Something. And it doesn't matter what that something is. Something has resisted. You have a reason not to move. Insufficent evidence, science explains it...whatever. It matters not.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

That neat logic diagram didn't copy 'n paste very well. Point being. You believe that logic is a way to arrive at objective truths. (I agree). Thus, you are not belief-less. Athiesm is not 'lack of belief in God' - period. It is 'lack of belief' + 'some other belief'.The trickery of trying to say athiesm is not a position that "believes there is no God" but is a position the "lacks belief in God" is somewhat undermined by the fact the latter statement cannot be falsified or verified. Thus it is a statement about nothing at all.Every athiest in fact believes something (at least every atheist on here does), but just not God. Athiesm is thus a belief system.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

athiesm describes someone who has no theistic beliefs but has athiestic beliefs. As thiest describes someone who has theistic belief and has no athiestic beliefs

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

The Bible tells us (Romans 1 19-23) that everyone is aware of God but choses to deny the awareness. The Nile isn't just a river in Egypt...de-nial of God and doing everything in our power to figure out ways to deny him is the natural state of mankind. Take science for example. How many mis-appropriate what it does (reveals how Goddidit) and claim that Science disproves God (God of the ever-diminishing gaps). They turn a tool called Science into a belief system (Scientism) - (which is predicted in Romans 1: 22-23). Scientism is no different than Golden Calfism.Except we've all got consciences. If we hadn't then a first year law student would be able to get us off on the Day of Judgement.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Materialism, determinism, humanism, scientism - are a couple that spring to mind. I imagine any belief which commoents on the question of 'where it all came from' - but which exclude God as the reason.(edit) An athiest will have one or other of these (or something along those lines) which gives them the basis for saying no God. Like I said earlier, an athiest doesn't make his statement in a vacuum. He had a reason for being able to state it.In case you miss the post to dominionseraph above: This message has been edited by iano, 29-Aug-2005 01:43 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 29-Aug-2005 01:46 PM

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking , correcting and training...." Paul told Timothy at 2 Timothy 3:16. The NT is considered to be scripture - incl Romans. If you feel it's not (and some would argue that it isn't), then fair enough - but whether it is or isn't is most definitely a topic for another thread.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14