Atheism is a belief.

[Tht1Gy!]

You are dangerously close to outright lying here. Please post the exact sentence where I said that.

Or, conversely, you can post the numerous sentences where I said I do not believe* in god(s).

If you actually can't see the difference between the two statements, and suffer from some kind of mental impairment, then I apologize. No offense meant.
Bullshit!

I have no uncertainty regarding god(s) since I don't believe in them* at all.
*Emphasis added T1G!

I see the difference. Then again, maybe I don't see a difference between "I have no uncertainty..." (which is cut and pasted from your post), and "I am certain..."
My point is either you believe a higher power/overseeing consciousness/god exists (theist), or, you believe it doesn't exist (atheist), OR you aren't sure/don't know if such a thing exists (agnostic).

"You are dangerously close to outright lying here." "...Then we are back to square one with you being certian that god does not exist..." was intended as a flippant remark. I just figured you'd make the leap. Besides I think the position you (and others in this thread) are espousing is a bullshit linguistic trick designed to create wiggle room 'cuz, 'Nothingness forbid' you admit to having a belief.

On a side note: In complete sincerity, I gotta give you 'props' for sticking with this. I am not being flip or sarcastic.
Just watch the "personal" remarks, thx.
Like attacking my sentence structure or "suffer from some kind of mental impairment". Cuz I ain't buying the "No offense intended" disclaimer.

 

[superluminal]

Fine.

I still don't see how you extract that I have a belief, from anything I've said, when all I keep saying is that I don't have a belief (which is umm... not a belief). I consciously make the distinction between "believing that X is not..." and "Not believing in X..." because in the case of god(s), stating categorically that there is no god or that I believe there is no god puts me in the position of having to provide evidence for a negative assertion regarding something for which I have no belief in to begin with. How silly would that be?

You can call me whatever you want and say that I'm playing semantic games to get "wiggle" room, but I'm trying to be as honest and straightforward here as is posible.

I absolutely will not categorically state that god(s) do not exist. Note that this in no way implies any uncertainty regarding the existence of god(s). I simply do not believe the proposition at all. It's very much a null proposition for me.

Sorry about the not-so-subtle attack on your comprehension skills.

 

[S.A.M.]

You just can't get past your own conditioning. I don't "deny" any of it. I just don't believe it.

This seems like a sublety a first grader could grasp, especially after being told as often as the people here.

So you do not believe ANYTHING without evidence?

 

[iceaura]

So you do not believe ANYTHING without evidence?

That's trolling,SAM. It's been answered many times, and it was never more than a rhetorical trick anyway.

Lots of things are reasonably believeble without evidence for or lack of evidence against. Few if any gods are, however.

I don't believe in Hank, for example, regardless of lack of evidence against Him: http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

 

[superluminal]

So you do not believe ANYTHING without evidence?

Not without some reasonably compelling evidence, no. Since I'm a science type, let's take dark matter. You can't see it, we have no idea what it is, only guesses. But I believe that there is something called "dark matter". Why?

Because we can directly see its effects in several different and dramatic ways. We can tell how much of it there is.

Now, why do I say I "believe" there is dark matter? Because there is a slight chance that it isn't matter. It could be something entirely different, like a flaw in our understanding of gravity or spacetime.

I know for a fact that there is something causing uncorrellated gravitational lensing and flat galactic rotation curves. I believe, based on observed facts and our best physical evidence so far is that dark matter exists.

So, why do you believe in a god again? Because, like the overwhelmng correllation proves, you were raised that way?

 

[S.A.M.]

Not without some reasonably compelling evidence, no. Since I'm a science type, let's take dark matter. You can't see it, we have no idea what it is, only guesses. But I believe that there is something called "dark matter". Why?

Because we can directly see its effects in several different and dramatic ways. We can tell how much of it there is.

Now, why do I say I "believe" there is dark matter? Because there is a slight chance that it isn't matter. It could be something entirely different, like a flaw in our understanding of gravity or spacetime.

I know for a fact that there is something causing uncorrellated gravitational lensing and flat galactic rotation curves. I believe, based on observed facts and our best physical evidence so far is that dark matter exists.

So, why do you believe in a god again? Because, like the overwhelmng correllation proves, you were raised that way?

Who said anything about science?

Science is based on a consensus of perception, something that changes as the tools that define and refine perception change. The goalposts keep moving and if it does not fit a current theory, we change the theory.

I asked you if you ever take anything on faith.

Though one may argue that all conclusions are based on the fact that we have a faith in natural laws and an expectation that everything happens for a reason.

 

[(Q)]

So you do not believe ANYTHING without evidence?

The indoctrinated cultist is unable to comprehend the concept of evidence. Evidence, although bantered around when it suits their agenda, is a subject cultists know little about and try to avoid. They are flabbergasted when others ask for it and cannot fathom how such a requirement is necessary in understanding the world around them.

If we looked to scriptures, we would not find a single instance where the word 'evidence' appears or even an instance where evidence is used to support a tenet or doctrine.

 

[S.A.M.]

The indoctrinated cultist is unable to comprehend the concept of evidence. Evidence, although bantered around when it suits their agenda, is a subject cultists know little about and try to avoid. They are flabbergasted when others ask for it and cannot fathom how such a requirement is necessary in understanding the world around them.

If we looked to scriptures, we would not find a single instance where the word 'evidence' appears or even an instance where evidence is used to support a tenet or doctrine.

No we would not. Because evidence is a construct of science, not life.

 

[superluminal]

Who said anything about science?

Science is based on a consensus of perception, something that changes as the tools that define and refine perception change.

It was just an example. And science is hardly as willy-nilly changing like the wind as your statement above would seem to be implying.

I asked you if you ever take anything on faith.

No, you asked if I believe anything without evidence. And I said no.

Though one may argue that all conclusions are based on the fact that we have a faith in natural laws.

Ugh.

Gravitation is a natural law. Explain how it requires faith to know that if I drop a ball it will fall, possibly on my foot?

You are seriously conflicted on the definitions of faith vs observed, repeatable, measurable, quantifiable physical laws.

Here's your thesis:

The understanding of gravitation is equivalent to faith.

Please expound.

 

[(Q)]

Who said anything about science?

Science is based on a consensus of perception, something that changes as the tools that define and refine perception change.

Science, like evidence, is another subject cultists avoid and will attempt to use from their arsenal of triggered responses fallacious arguments and twisted definitions that only serve to demonstrate their intellectual dishonesty. They have no interest in understanding science whatsoever as the explanations from science will conflict with their indoctrination.

 

[S.A.M.]

Science, like evidence, is another subject cultists avoid and will attempt to use from their arsenal of triggered responses fallacious arguments and twisted definitions that only serve to demonstrate their intellectual dishonesty. They have no interest in understanding science whatsoever as the explanations from science will conflict with their indoctrination.

That certainly explains why you avoid all requests for peer reviewed evidence for your theories.

 

[S.A.M.]

It was just an example. And science is hardly as willy-nilly changing like the wind as your statement above would seem to be implying.

Tools are willy nilly?

No, you asked if I believe anything without evidence. And I said no.

That is the definition of faith

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Gravitation is a natural law. Explain how it requires faith to know that if I drop a ball it will fall, possibly on my foot?

So you believe that all planets have gravity?

You are seriously conflicted on the definitions of faith vs observed, repeatable, measurable, quantifiable physical laws.

Do they (the physical laws) hold up under all circumstances?

Here's your thesis:

The understanding of gravitation is equivalent to faith.

Please expound.

Whats your understanding of gravitation rely on?

 

[(Q)]

No we would not. Because evidence is a construct of science, not life.

The vain attempts of cultists at supporting their indoctrinations are comical at best. Their deceptions are based on redefining terms and complaining of semantics.

 

[S.A.M.]

The vain attempts of cultists at supporting their indoctrinations are comical at best. Their deceptions are based on redefining terms and complaining of semantics.

Don't be silly. Provide me with evidence that you exist.

 

[(Q)]

That certainly explains why you avoid all requests for peer reviewed evidence for your theories.

Indoctrination demands hypocrisy, at every turn. It is as natural to a cultist as the air they breathe, and they are just as oblivious to it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Indoctrination demands hypocrisy, at every turn. It is as natural to a cultist as the air they breathe, and they are just as oblivious to it.

Still waiting on the peer reviewed evidence to support your thesis.

Feel free to back up your statements at any time.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1687384&postcount=129

:m:

 

[(Q)]

Don't be silly. Provide me with evidence that you exist.

Questions from indoctrinated cultists that are ridiculous in the extreme are not meant for discussion, but are merely last ditch efforts of triggered responses. They are meant for the discussion to be derailed and diminished.

In the context of the above request, we wonder just how far the cultist will go to demonstrate their hypocrisy as they have yet to demonstrate anything else, and yet will demand demonstrations that people do in fact exist. Absurd.

 

[S.A.M.]

Questions from indoctrinated cultists that are ridiculous in the extreme are not meant for discussion, but are merely last ditch efforts of triggered responses. They are meant for the discussion to be derailed and diminished.

In the context of the above request, we wonder just how far the cultist will go to demonstrate their hypocrisy as they have yet to demonstrate anything else, and yet will demand demonstrations that people do in fact exist. Absurd.

So do you exist? I demand EVIDENCE!!!!

Say, do you atheists believe that all people on this forum are real?

 

[(Q)]

So you believe that all planets have gravity?


Do they (the physical laws) hold up under all circumstances?


Whats your understanding of gravitation rely on?

Not a single question is meant to generate discussion, but are merely attempts to derail the discussion away from topic.

 

[(Q)]

So do you exist? I demand EVIDENCE!!!!

Say, do you atheists believe that all people on this forum are real?

As the cultist continues with their barrage of nonsensical rhetoric and hypocrisy, their thinly veiled motives to derail the discussion are clearly evident.