Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

This whole conversation with you, would go much better if you left emotions out of it, and accusations.

---

What emotions? Remember: You don't know what my personal beliefs are. I have never revealed them to you and it would behoove you to avoid trying to psychoanalyze me over the internet.As for accusations, well, when you make statements like: Which is a direct contradiction of what actual atheists tell you, what is the logical conclusion? Are we not to trust atheists to understand their own philosophy? We've already seen that you are willing to misquote your own source with regard to what atheism is. Why on earth should we not expect you to misrepresent what atheists actually say about themselves?When an atheist tells you that their philosophy is based on the lack of belief and not the belief of lack, who are you to tell them otherwise?

quote:

---

I cannot judge if someone is a liar, because I cannot see into their hearts.

---

Then why do you think you know more about atheism than atheists? Why did you say: That is in direct contradiction to what atheists and your own source say atheism is. Do you have a justification for why your claim of what atheism is has been disavowed by actual atheists? Why is your claim more valid?

quote:

---

Let's stick with the word belief, as hobbys are not beliefs.

---

A hobby is a belief as it is an emotional connection to a concept. People are motivated to engage in the activity as it provides emotional benefits they find desirable.So do please respond to the issue: How is the lack of something proof positive of its presence? If not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, how is not holding the position that god exists a belief? The entire concept of "god" is something that can only be defined by theists, not atheists. Ergo, how can atheists possibly have a "belief" about it that isn't necessarily a reaction to something theists create? "God" is not within the realm of atheistic thought. If there weren't any theists around, it would never occur to atheists to consider the matter in the first place just as you have no reason to consider the matter of the object on my bathroom counter. Until I brought it up just now, you had no reason to consider it. But now that I have brought it up, do you have a "belief" about it? After all, the only thing you know about it is what I have told you and why on earth should you believe anything I say about it? For all you know, I don't have a bathroom let alone a counter in it or an object to be upon it.Have you suddenly developed all the trappings of a religion simply because you've had a thought introduced to you by somebody else?If not, then why does your special concept of "god" get to be different from the object on my bathroom counter? If you can avoid things like "belief" and "religion" over this other thing, why are atheists incapable of getting the same results?But if so, if you do now have a "belief," then that necessarily means you are a massive polytheist regarding every random thought you ever have. Is that what you're arguing? That you actually worship multiple religions simultaneously?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

riVeRraT responds to Theodoric:

quote:

---

I am sure an atheist wrote that.

---

Ah, there you go again calling atheists liars. See, you keep saying you don't mean that, but then you say things that indicate you seem to think you know better than actual atheists as to what atheism is. Please tell us, what was the point of your sneering little comment if not to say that this "atheist" who wrote that was trying to be something other than completely honest?

quote:

---

In other words, they believe no God exists.

---

Atheists deny that. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

quote:

---

I'll make it very simple:

​

Theist: someone who believes in the existence of a god
Atheist: someone who believes there are no gods.

---

Atheists deny that. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

quote:

---

You see, theism, and atheism are antonyms.

---

Yes, but you are applying the negation to the wrong part. Instead of applying it to the noun, you need to apply it to the verb. Atheism is lack of belief, not belief of lack.

quote:

---

Belief, is faith.

---

And atheists have no faith. That's the entire point. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

quote:

---

Atheism IS a faith. It doesn't have a religion, but it is a faith.

---

And atheists deny that. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

quote:

---

But I bet you if I started a web-site called atheism.com, a bunch of people would join, and it could become religious in a way.

---

And thus, you equate religion with football. Is that what you're arguing? Belief in Jesus Christ is the same thing as Fantasy Football?

quote:

---

Try to understand something, I am not putting down atheism by saying it is a belief.

---

Who said anything about "putting down" anything? Do not project your personal emotional reaction to being told you are wrong onto others. The reaction you are getting has nothing to do with anybody feeling insulted. It is simply because you have made a factual error, akin to you claiming that black is white. That is hardly an "insult" to the color white to say so. It is simply factually wrong.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

You don't believe in gods. That definition works for purposes of this conversation. What are you guys getting all huffy about?

---

Because you are equivocating "don't believe in god" with "belive in no god."Those are not the same thing.

quote:

---

Do atheist think there is a possibility of god or not?

---

Will you accept their answer or tell them that they don't understand their own philosophy?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Okay, so:Well, sure, if you want to use that version of what atheism means, you could claim that. But, if you want to know what we, actual atheists think you might be better listening to us.Now would you care to respond to the point?

Can't you deal with my points? It would seem not.But maybe you could try: can't you see any way that humans, through attempts to deal with unexplained events, could have developed superstitions, shamans, and ultimately full-blown religions?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Well, I don't think that way, or speak that way, and neither did Jesus. Don't confuse trust with faith, or belief.I think Jesus taught us a bunch of things, and if you can see the truth in those things, then you are on your way to faith.

I really hate when atheists do just what you did. There has to be a name for it, something like, lying?Jesus doesn't stop us from doing anything, only you can, by following His ways. If you follow His ways, you are believing in Him, if you are not, then you are not believing in Him. You can say whatever you want with your mouth, that doesn't mean crap. Yes and no. Where does the sense of right and wrong come from? This "right thing". I've heard it all too much in this forum.Tell me one thing that Jesus suggested that is the "wrong thing".Even when I was not a believer, I have a problem with the concept of science dictation all of what is right or wrong. Especially since science can change when better data becomes available. So my concept of right and wrong can change with it? One day wine is no good for you, the next day a few glasses is good for you. Come on dude, that sometimes sounds more crazy that believing in a god. In a way science can be like the wind, and we should just take it for what it is worth, and not make science into our god. Be realistic about it, is what I am saying.

That is because of many reasons, and probably why apologetics exist.
Also, there is no absolute "Christian idea of God". That is why there is so many religions. I used to have a problem with that, but I've changed. I realize that different people, need different ways of believing. I think God is ok with that, but that is just my opinion. Where people make a mistake is in their tolerance of other religions.

Yea, define "0". "0" assumes we know everything, and we don't. "0" is subjective.

There is tons of evidence. The evidence is old, hence now subjective. Current evidence is subjective. The words of Jesus are objective evidence. You have to choose whether or not it means there is a God.I keep telling you guys, and we have been through this in another thread, lack of objective evidence does not proof the non-existence of something. It only enforces your belief that it doesn't exist.Sometimes in life the greatest discoveries start with subjective evidence.

LOL, hypocrite. I have not mis-quoted anything. I said in a narrow sense. Some people have graciously explained what that means. You haven't. People get definitions wrong all the time. Because you cannot dis-prove the existence of God. I am challenging it. It is my problem with atheists. I was an atheist for 38 years. (by definition) What??? A hobby is not a belief.
a belief is:
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.There is nothing true or false about stamp collecting. Stamp collecting is not a proposition.Hobbies, are not beliefs. Stop making invalid comparisons. Something you always do. It would be nice if you could explain it, without relating it to something completely different. So your analogy isn't worth responding to.

Yes that is the entire point, which you have stated wrongly. Atheists do have faith, and beliefs.There is no "default position", the default position is not "0", since "0" cannot be defined or proven.There is no such thing as lack of belief, as we have already determined through several conversations on the subject. We are humans, not computers.

I, as an atheist, agree.Instead of making this about belief vs. non-belief perhaps we could use a different word. Atheists are not convinced that there is evidence for a deity. IOW, we are skeptical of these claims. I think this captures the situtation much better because it does leave open the possibility that we can be convinced further down the line if new evidence comes to light. Then comes the hard part, getting the objective evidence to back it up.

Addressing the point: Yes, I can describe myself as being that, it would be 100% accurate.

When someone asks you what your religious beliefs are do you list off the thousands of gods you don't believe in? Or do you tell them about the god that you do believe in?