Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

While the Johnny Cash version is the superior one the song is originally by Nine Inch Nails.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Have we ever had a thread on Nihilism?Is that how you'd class yourself Robin? As a Nihlist?

I know. And the Bible is originally from God. But is seems relevant to me for all that

You fit the definition of an atheist as I understand it. A believer in something other than God

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1If it doesn't play automatically then he's the first picture on the right

Yes, Charles, there is a thread called "In Defense of Nihilism."I quoted some passages from the Nihilist Bible.

Of course an atheist doesn't believe in nothing at all. I can have all sorts of beliefs about many things. But my being an atheist has nothing to do with my other beliefs. It simply denotes that there is one thing I don't believe in: gods.Being an atheist doesn't automatically make one a 'something-else-ist'. I have no need for a replacement for the gods I don't believe in. When you describe the process of seeing red, going from the outside in, once you get beyond the retina, 'wavelength' is no longer a part of the description. Whatever it is that's 'burnt' into my brain, it can't be a wavelength. At most, it's a pattern of neural firings which gets burnt into the visual cortex.Besides looking at something red and imagining seeing red, there is a third way to experience redness: when I press on my eyeballs, I get the sensation of seeing light flashes, some of them red. No memories of 'burnt-in' wavelengths are involved, nor any real light. My retinal cells fire because they are agitated by the pressure.The only way the brain can interpret the signals coming from these cells is by experiencing them as light flashes, because that's how the brain is wired: "if signals are coming from the retinal cells, light must be involved." The brain is fooled, because it doesn't know that it's not light that causes the signals, but pressure.For some people, there is even a fourth way of experiencing redness. Synesthetes are people who have their senses mixed up, so that for instance they hear colours and see tastes. They might eat a banana and experience red. It makes me wonder about the wavelength of a banana."Point being": the experience of redness is not necessarily linked to a certain wavelength of light.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

You do realize that this, like all religious proofs, is just circular reasoning.

Is atheism God-centric or is it not? Does it look towards the question of God and deny or does it simply look elsewhere and not consider God at all. It seems you can't have it both ways... This is an example of the God-centric view. Look and deny - not 'not within my frame of reference' You may not perceive it as need but I'll warrant you don't believe in nothing at all. How would one figure this out? We are exposed to red long before we can figure out other ways by which we perceive red. A banana eating reddist has visually been exposed to red. That taste links the visual burning with a banana points to crossed wires. It does not eliminate the visual burning which set code red in place.Now if a blind-from-birth synesthetist can point to red whilst eating a banana we might be getting somewhere

On a scale of degree of "believing" that has belief in active, involved gods on one end then many of us do, for all practical purposes, believe in nothing.The words are being used without any careful definition here. This discussion is a waste of time without have way clear definition of "believe", "faith" etc.

You just don't understand the meaning of the word atheism.IF you don't believe in santa claus are you a a-santaist? how about an a-toothfairyist?I don't understand why so many people just don't understand what atheism really is. It's NOT anti-theism. (although anti-theism is atheism).There are plenty of things I just don't concern myself with and most of them aren't beliefs or belief systems.

Any objective evidence relies on the observer being able to observe. What happens if a person cannot (one or more of the following) see or smell or touch or taste or hear. Is it circular to suppose no objectivity just because some cannot observe?There is nothing specifically religious about it.

That's BLASPHEMY! The NIN version is WAY better (NIN RULES)

How does one define a particular word I wonder? With other words no doubt. Very circular that.We might as well get on with it as best we can NN

You are trying to make an analogy between blindness and sight to non-belief and belief/faith/bible/etc.This is a false analogy.I can show someone with sight a red object and we can agree it's red.Two believers can't show each other their evidence even though they supposedly have it.