Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)

The second NIV passage makes no mention of whether they were in agreement or not. They may or may not have been. So your conclusion above is incorrect.Agreement over what anyway? The KJV gives no indication. As followers of 'the way' they are likely to have agreed over some things and disagreed over other things like we all do and therefore the word accord is redundant. The translators of the KJV have adopted an overkill strategy that doesn't read or translate as nicely as the NIV.

Which couldn't possibly be due to them living in 1610 and the NIV translators in the 1960's.What does the Greek say? Which copy of the Greek says it?

Setting aside questions of translators' fidelity to the text, and setting aside the question of whether either Bible makes any coherent sense to modernity, the King James Bible appeared during a foundational era of English literature.Both common and aristocratic authors and readers were in possession of a language that could reach high and low alike. Part of Shakespeare's genius, for example, was the genius of his time.The NIV reads like an insurance policy in comparison to the KJV.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

But the goal of the KJV bible was more that it be politically correct than biblically accurate.James I & VI had a problem.Christianity was the single biggest threat to both the new Nation of Great Britain and to the rule of Monarchy. He had full knowledge of just how serious that problem was based on the History of Edward, Mary, Elizabeth and of course his mother Mary. The fighting and terrorism between Protestant and Catholic and between Protestant sects had to be stopped, and one major problem was the proliferation of Protestant Bibles and Roman Catholic Bibles.He needed a compromise, politically correct bible that could be imposed on all without overly offending anyone. His answer was the KJV, a bible that toned down the anti-Romanist rhetoric and supported the "Divine Right of Kings" a concept he invented and promulgated.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

LOL, hypocrite.

---

(*chuckle*)I think I still have my quote file on you lurking on one of my old computers. Do you really want me to post your history here?Let it go.

quote:

---

I have not mis-quoted anything.

---

Then why were you called out on it? Why did someone else have to provide the full Wikipedia quote? Or are you saying you provided the full Wikipedia quote?

quote:

---

I said in a narrow sense. Some people have graciously explained what that means. You haven't.

---

That's because you and I aren't speaking in a vacuum. We have a long history of discussion on this topic and it would be helpful if you would not play dumb. Since my very first post to you in this discussion was detailing the concept that a lack of belief is very different from a belief of lack, I am wondering why you are pretending that you're hearing something new.

quote:

---

People get definitions wrong all the time.

---

Indeed. But since all of the atheists here have told you that you're definition is wrong and since your own source contradicted you as to what atheism is, don't you think that perhaps you should reconsider?

quote:

---

Because you cannot dis-prove the existence of God.

---

Why not? It certainly isn't because "you can't prove a negative." Of course you can. We do it all the time. It's how science works: You can never prove something to be true. You can only prove something to be false. And if you prove enough things false, what is left becomes more and more accurate.Now, that requires a solid definition of "god," which always seems to be difficult to provide, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.But even so, that's irrelevant. It is not up to the atheist to prove that god doesn't exist. That's the default position. The null-hypothesis is always true until information comes along that shows it to be false. It is up to those who claim that god exists to show that he does just as we demand those who claim that light is carried by photons show their work, that gravity is curvature of space-time show their work, that the atom is more like a solar system than a plum pudding show their work, etc., etc.It is not enough to simply observe that something happened. You have to show that it was "god" that did it.

quote:

---

I am challenging it. It is my problem with atheists.

---

Then your problem is not with atheists but rather with the nature of reality: Atheism is the default position for which you have to provide evidence to counter it. Atheism does not need to prove the non-existence of god.

quote:

---

I was an atheist for 38 years. (by definition)

---

OK. And did you go around consciously thinking, "I don't believe in god"? Or did you just life your life without giving it any thought at all unless somebody else brought it up?

quote:

---

What??? A hobby is not a belief.

---

I didn't say it was. I said that hobbies are carried out due to the emotional connection they have to the person who engages in them. But at any rate, you're missing the point:The absence of something is not equivalent to its presence. "Not collecting stamps" is not a "hobby" because a "hobby" requires you to actively engage in an activity. When you have a lack of engagement, then you do not have a "hobby" despite the fact that you may talk about "hobbies" and pontificate about their value.Similarly, "not believing in god" is not a "belief" because a "belief" requires you to actively engage with the concept. When you have a lack of engagement, then you do not have a "belief" despite the fact that you may talk about "beliefs" and pontificate about their value.

quote:

---

There is nothing true or false about stamp collecting. Stamp collecting is not a proposition.

---

I never said it was. I said a hobby was an activity.Just as a belief is an activity.If you do not engage in the activity, then you do not have the trait that engaging in the activity implies.Do you "believe" that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Or do you have a lack of belief in the existence of Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy? The Easter Bunny? The Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHH)? The dragon sneaking up behind you right now? Because if you are going to say that those are "beliefs," then you are insisting that everybody is a massive polytheist.Is that what you're saying?

quote:

---

Hobbies, are not beliefs. Stop making invalid comparisons.

---

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is invalid. A hobby is an activity. You cannot be said to "have a hobby" unless you engage in the activity. If you have a distinct lack of engagement in the activity, then you do not have it as a "hobby." So unless you are saying that everybody has absolutely everything as a "hobby" because the lack of engagement is just as much of a "hobby" as the active engagement is, then it is the same with a "belief": A "belief" is an activity. You cannot be said to "have a belief" unless you engage in the activity. If you have a distinct lack of engagement in the activity, then you do not have it as a "belief."Are you saying everybody is a massive polytheist since every concept necessarily carries a "belief"? God is the same as Fantasy Football?

quote:

---

It would be nice if you could explain it, without relating it to something completely different.

---

Perhaps, but the problem is not the comparison but rather your dislike of the implication. You have a need for atheists to be just like you so that you can try to turn their criticisms of your position around on them. You need for them to have a "belief" so that their analysis of your "belief" applies equally to them and you can call them hypocrites.But reality doesn't bend itself to your wishes. The lack of something is not evidence of its presence.Atheism is the lack of belief.How can the lack of belief be a "belief"?

quote:

---

So your analogy isn't worth responding to.

---

Read, "I don't know how to respond, so I won't."

---

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 me:

quote:

---

Atheists do have faith, and beliefs.

---

Then why have all the atheists here been denying that?Are they incapable of understanding their own position?

quote:

---

There is no "default position", the default position is not "0", since "0" cannot be defined or proven.

---

Except there is: Non-existence is the default position. Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Since the people who have a belief in the existence of god are the ones making the claim, it is there responsibility to justify it. Atheists have no such burden because they aren't the ones claiming something.I do not need to show that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that 2 + 2 <> 5.

quote:

---

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.

---

And yet, the atheists here are telling you that you're wrong.Why do you think you know better than they do what they do or do not believe?

---

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.

onifre writes:

quote:

---

What religion do suicide bombers come from?

---

All of them.Or have you forgotten about Pearl Harbor, the IRA, the various Christian terrorists here in the US, the war between India and Pakistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, etc.Or do Shinto, Catholics, Protestants, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. count as "Muslim" in your eyes?Was Andrew Joseph Stack III a Muslim?Were the German pilots of the Leonidas Squadron Muslim?

---

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.

>It's how science works: You can never prove something to be true. You can only prove something to be false.Falsification is not the same as proving a negative, though.You can disprove a positive claim that something exists, but you can't prove the claim of the nonexistence of something.

Then how do you know when to make a beer run?

nator responds to me:

quote:

---

You can disprove a positive claim that something exists, but you can't prove the claim of the nonexistence of something.

---

I most certainly can.There is no largest prime number.Assume there is one. We'll call it p_n.Because there is a largest prime, we can create a list of all prime numbers (Sieve of Eratosthenes will do):2, 3, 5, ... p_{n - 2}, p_{n - 1}, p_nWe can then construct a new number, q:q = 2 * 3 * 5 * ... * p_{n - 2} * p_{n - 1} * p_n + 1Now, is q prime?Well, we have a list of all the primes. If q is not prime, it should be divisible by one of them and yet, it always leaves a remainder of 1.Now, this doesn't prove that q is prime (after all, if p_n = 13, then 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 + 1 = 30031 = 59 * 509), but since q > p_n, this means that either q is prime or there is a number between p_n and q that is.And thus, right before your very eyes, I have proven the non-existence of something.Now, this requires well-defined objects behaving in well-defined ways. I never said it was easy to prove the non-existence of something. Not all objects avail themselves of systematic methods of disproof but instead, given our current abilities, would only be amenable to brute force methods such as direct observation of all possibilities which is prohibitive.But that doesn't deny the fact that you can prove a negative. The problem when it comes to "god," from what I have seen, is that there is no good definition of what "god" is. But all that means is that just as it is difficult to prove the non-existence of something that cannot be defined, it is at least as hard to justify the claim of its existence.

---

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.

quote:

---

But that doesn't deny the fact that you can prove a negative. The problem when it comes to "god," from what I have seen, is that there is no good definition of what "god" is. But all that means is that just as it is difficult to prove the non-existence of something that cannot be defined, it is at least as hard to justify the claim of its existence.

---

You are twisting examples to sure your own point. Math is one of the only hard sciences you can prove anything in, and so it is an exception to the "cant prove a negative."As it pertains to the discussion, you cannot prove the lack of existence of am omnipotent entity. Done. There is no logical, philosophical way to do it. If you choose to argue against this, you're not of a different opinion, you are WRONG.

quote:

---

Atheism is the lack of belief.

​

How can the lack of belief be a "belief"?

---

Because you believe there is no omnipotent entity. By not having a belief in a god of any flavor, you form a belief pertaining to a lack of god.You are arguing silly semantics. An atheist holds to the belief that theistic conclusions are wrong, and therefor holds to the belief that there is no god. The definition does not detail this, but this must follow from the definition.You cannot have an opinion about something and not have a belief about it.ABE: from dictionary.com:

quote:

---

atheism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
—noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

---

Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

or

quote:

---

Atheism, defined most inclusively, is the absence of belief in the existence of any deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In its narrowest sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

---

linkTrying to find a consensus regarding the meaning of 'atheist' is easier said than done.

quote:

---

In its narrowest sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

---

I take "in its narrowest sense" to mean at its most fundamental. Taking the position that there are no deities is a belief.I again state that this a silly conversation about semantics. An atheist knows what he or she believes, or what he or she does not believe in. What is the point of picking straws? Its a worthless point to quibble over in the grand argument.-I believe there is no god.
-I no not believe in god
-I do not believe in theistic conclusions
-I believe only the physical world existsThese are all ideas an atheist may have, and none of them are exclusive, even thought the first two express disbelief and belief about the same topic in equal measures.

I suggest you watch Hooah's video (in Message 1) again.
Since you replied to that post with...

quote:

---

One of the best statements of belief i may have ever heard.

---

...I guess that you didn't understand it.
It very clearly explains the position of atheism not being a belief.e.g. As an atheist: gods do not feature amongst the things I believe.
I look at my beliefs, and I see nothing relating to gods. Then why are you trying to tell atheists what they believe?
You are the one making the claim that atheists believe that god doesn't exist.
If the point is not important to you, then stop argueing it.
I, personally, feel the distinction is important enough to require a response to claims of the contrary.I am making the point that my atheism is not a belief.
Being an atheist does not require a belief in a lack of gods - it requires a lack of belief in gods.
This is also in agreement with what Rrhain (and others) are saying.

You're right. I missed how that related to this conversation.I also understand what you mean. I suppose me being what the video refers to as a "strong" atheist led me to gloss that part over. The point is important to me because i feel that any atheist challenged based on their label is something of a misdirection. You may have an utter lack of belief in any gods, and i may have a belief that no gods exist. If a theist were to challenge either of us based on that, our conversation with him/her would have no impact on our belief or our current religious debate. It is, again, a semantic argument.That the video refers to people that believe there are no gods as "strong" atheists is a telling point. If the word atheist had no connotations that related to believing there is no god(s), then a strong atheist would simply be an atheist that decidedly has no belief, not one with a counter belief. Instead, a strong atheist has a decidedly pronounced rejection of gods. This is part of the word, as evidenced by the conflicting definitions. I agree. But having a belief in lack of gods does not disqualify you from being an atheist. Some would call it strong atheism, as the video, or fundamental atheism, as the source you referenced, or may even list it as the first quality for atheism, as the dictionary reference i posted.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.