An experiment in Atheism

[S.A.M.]

Whatever the assigned definition is. If, for example, you stated that 'god' was an entity that lived under and was visible under every buttercup I would argue non-existence on the basis that I had looked under buttercups and found no such thing, (dependant upon further definition - i.e a blue, six armed, elephant headed dude).

If you want to impress me give me your definition and we can work from there.

Nope, this is an experiment in atheism, not a debate on my concept of God.

So basically although you have no concept of God, you argue against their concept because er, you cannot find agreement with it.

 

[GeoffP]

What sort of evidence would you require of God?

How about a "hullo, this is the number 42. Pretty much explains everything; have a look, will you?" Seriously though, surely we should be able to see His works on the earth and whatnot.

Anyway, don't atheists lack a belief in God and embrace theism since they have no concept or whatever the au courant definition is?

No idea what that meant. I'm just a poor country evolutionary biologist.

 

[(Q)]

Nope, this is an experiment in atheism, not a debate on my concept of God.

That's quite the experiment. You don't define the very parameters required for testing.

Could you be anymore vague?

 

[Carcano]

So basically although you have no concept of God, you argue against their concept because er, you cannot find agreement with it.

Everyone 'knows' concepts of God picked up from the cultural evironmental, but this is different than 'having' or believing in a concept of God.

No one is precluded from disagreeing with a concept simply because they believe in none themselves.

 

[S.A.M.]

That's quite the experiment. You don't define the very parameters required for testing.

Could you be anymore vague?

Ya, I'm testing if its possible for atheists to define their beliefs without debasing theists. You already flunked that course way way back, buster. :bugeye:

You get an F

 

[S.A.M.]

How about a "hullo, this is the number 42. Pretty much explains everything; have a look, will you?" Seriously though, surely we should be able to see His works on the earth and whatnot.

I've heard religion comes to some people like lightning, to others like a slow sweet song that gets into your veins and never leaves. Or maybe that was love.

No idea what that meant. I'm just a poor country evolutionary biologist.

42 it is then.

 

[S.A.M.]

Everyone 'knows' concepts of God picked up from the cultural evironmental, but this is different than 'having' or believing in a concept of God.

No one is precluded from disagreeing with a concept simply because they believe in none themselves.

On what basis?

 

[Carcano]

I'm testing if its possible for atheists to define their beliefs...

Atheism is not a belief, but an absence of belief.

In the same way that darkness is not something, but an absence of something...light!

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheism is not a belief, but an absence of belief.

In the same way that darkness is not something, but an absence of something...light!

Yeah, so would I be right in saying I have a lack of belief in light? Considering that I'd have to know of it to have any sort of opinion on it?

 

[Carcano]

On what basis?

On the basis of the neccessity of having reasons for believing in concepts.

 

[S.A.M.]

On the basis of the neccessity for having reasons for believing in concepts.

Even in the absence of one?

 

[Carcano]

Yeah, so would I be right in saying I have a lack of belief in light? Considering that I'd have to know of it to have any sort of opinion on it?

A person blind from birth would certainly be justified in saying they dont believe in light...considering they have no experience of it.

This does not prove that there is no light.
But atheists are usually not trying to prove that there is no God...merely that there is no proof of God.

 

[S.A.M.]

A person blind from birth would certainly be justified in saying they dont believe in light...considering they have no experience of it.

This does not prove that there is no light.
But atheists are usually not trying to prove that there is no God...merely that there is no proof of God.

How does saying there is no proof translate to lack of belief? Belief does not require proof.

 

[Carcano]

Even in the absence of one?

The absence of reasons is neccessity unfulfilled.

 

[S.A.M.]

The absence of reasons is neccessity unfulfilled.

Its like an alternate universe.

 

[Carcano]

Belief does not require proof.

Thats right, but true knowledge does.

 

[SnakeLord]

Nope, this is an experiment in atheism, not a debate on my concept of God.

Surely you must understand that 'atheist' in itself doesn't even exist without your concept of god?

You're a theist. You assert the existence of a [specific, defined] god.

I am an atheist. By definition I am 'without' belief in that [specific, defined] god.

Without the definition I simply cannot be 'a' to it. That's the way it is, there's no plausible argument you can give.

So basically although you have no concept of God, you argue against their concept because er..

Pay attention to your own words.. "their concept". Notice anything?

--

Let it be said that from the outset you have made the most fatal of blunders. You ask if being an atheist is better when the very question is moot. How is a belief or lack thereof 'better'? Better than what? You assert a positive: "leprechauns exist". An aleprechaunist lacks a belief in that which you positively assert. Is it better? It's not a valid question.

 

[GeoffP]

I've heard religion comes to some people like lightning, to others like a slow sweet song that gets into your veins and never leaves. Or maybe that was love.

You're confusing that with heroin.

Sweet, sweet skag.

 

[S.A.M.]

Surely you must understand that 'atheist' in itself doesn't even exist without your concept of god?

You're a theist. You assert the existence of a [specific, defined] god.

I am an atheist. By definition I am 'without' belief in that [specific, defined] god.

Without the definition I simply cannot be 'a' to it. That's the way it is, there's no plausible argument you can give.



Pay attention to your own words.. "their concept". Notice anything?

--

Let it be said that from the outset you have made the most fatal of blunders. You ask if being an atheist is better when the very question is moot. How is a belief or lack thereof 'better'? Better than what? You assert a positive: "leprechauns exist". An aleprechaunist lacks a belief in that which you positively assert. Is it better? It's not a valid question.

I agree with this, but the reason was given at the outset, viz. discuss what advantages atheism confers that theism does not possess.

 

[Carcano]

Its like an alternate universe.

People who want to live in a world of belief certainly DO live in an alternate universe...from those who want to know.