If religion isn't a motivator for violence...

[S.A.M.]

Atheism
A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Belief
Noun
A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
i.e. requiring no evidence.

Lack
Noun
1. The state of needing something that is absent;

Verb
1. Be without;

e.g. one who lacks brains- indicates absence thereof.

so lack of belief due to absence of evidence is an indication that the lack follows the evidence.

Hence absence of evidence is taken as evidence of absence.
A logical fallacy.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Hence absence of evidence is taken as evidence of absence.

how so, you make no such connection.
your logic is faulty.
absence of evidence is taken as, no evidence to prove or dis-prove, from where do you get evidence of absence, if theres no evidence either way, how can you say it's evidence of absence, you can only say you cant be sure.

 

[S.A.M.]

how so, you make no such connection.
your logic is faulty.
absence of evidence is taken as, no evidence to prove or dis-prove, from where do you get evidence of absence, if theres no evidence either way, how can you say it's evidence of absence, you can only say you cant be sure.

Try to comprehend this sentence:
so lack of belief due to absence of evidence is an indication that the lack follows the evidence.

 

[The Devil Inside]

haha

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Try to comprehend this sentence:
so lack of belief due to absence of evidence is an indication that the lack follows the evidence.

comprehended the first time round, how does that indicate evidence of absence.
your logic is extremely flawed.

Comprehend this (he says biting his tongue)"absence of evidence is taken as, no evidence to prove or dis-prove"a thing.

 

[audible]

you first have to show a thing to exist, before you can show that it's absent, dont you.

 

[S.A.M.]

comprehended the first time round, how does that indicate evidence of absence.
your logic is extremely flawed.

Comprehend this (he says biting his tongue)"absence of evidence is taken as, no evidence to prove or dis-prove"a thing.

You are talking about agnosticism which is a view rather than a belief or lack thereof. The lack of a belief is fixed. i.e. there is no evidence of God (premise), hence an atheist denies the existence of God (conclusion).

Or are you claiming that an atheist does not deny the existence of God?

Agnostics may claim that it is not possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge.

Atheist-Someone who denies the existence of god.
Agnostic-Uncertain of all claims to knowledge about God
Believer-. A supporter who accepts something as true.

 

[(Q)]

Atheist-Someone who denies the existence of god.
Agnostic-Uncertain of all claims to knowledge about God
Believer-. A supporter who accepts something as true.

Theist - Someone who believes the existence of god without any evidence to support the existence.

In other words, a theist, or anyone else, can claim something exists, like a god, for example, and then makes the same claim as you:

"Hence absence of evidence is taken as evidence of absence.
A logical fallacy."

 

[S.A.M.]

Theist - Someone who believes the existence of god without any evidence to support the existence.

In other words, a theist, or anyone else, can claim something exists, like a god, for example, and then makes the same claim as you:

"Hence absence of evidence is taken as evidence of absence.
A logical fallacy."

Its the definition of belief (Q)

 

[wsionynw]

Its the definition of belief (Q)

I think I speak for most atheists when I say that we don't believe in a God because we have no reason at all to believe in a God. It's not something we pursue, analyse or try to make others understand, it's just us. Atheists only feel the need to fight back when we are attacked by the religious majority, and words like faith and belief, sometimes, smack of ignorance and delusion.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think I speak for most atheists when I say that we don't believe in a God because we have no reason at all to believe in a God. It's not something we pursue, analyse or try to make others understand, it's just us. Atheists only feel the need to fight back when we are attacked by the religious majority, and words like faith and belief, sometimes, smack of ignorance and delusion.

And words like rational and logical smack of utilitarianism.
edit: when applied to religion.

 

[Godless]

And words like rational and logical smack of utilitarianism.

Now that does not make any sense.

Unless you were to agree that you are a "utilitarinist" also, cause you yourself are trying to use logic, "though faulty" and "reason" though not much of it, to conclude that a god exist. However you have no knowledge of "what god is" or if it even exists. Furthermore you believe cause of adpopulance, so many support your view, that you have "faith" The assumptions of the many, and belief, "totally disregard of reason" that you are right! though you have no way to provide any evidence of what it is that you believe exist as a supernatural power.

 

[S.A.M.]

Now that does not make any sense.

Unless you were to agree that you are a "utilitarinist" also, cause you yourself are trying to use logic, "though faulty" and "reason" though not much of it, to conclude that a god exist. However you have no knowledge of "what god is" or if it even exists. Furthermore you believe cause of adpopulance, so many support your view, that you have "faith" The assumptions of the many, and belief, "totally disregard of reason" that you are right! though you have no way to provide any evidence of what it is that you believe exist as a supernatural power.

If there was a point in there, it was very cleverly hidden.

 

[Godless]

If there was a point in there, it was very cleverly hidden.

Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. It is a form of consequentialism. Wiki..

"And words like rational and logical smack of utilitarianism"

So what's your point?

Everyone claims they use "reason" they do to certain extent, unless it dwells in the "unknown" to this you accept others assertions without evidence or you question them and their motives.

The atheist has questioned theistic nonsense, and we already know their motives.

Everyone claims they use logic, though as seen and demonstrated by "yourstrully; Samy" not everyone has a good grasp of logic, thus they make faulty logical desicions, like believing in supernatural crap, gods, and the such without any conclusive evidence of their existence.
The atheist, assumes no roll, he/she only denies theistic assertions pending on further evidence, sicne non has been presented in thousands of years, we conclude by "observation" that theistic claims are irrationa, and ilogical.

Godless

 

[S.A.M.]

Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. It is a form of consequentialism. Wiki..

"And words like rational and logical smack of utilitarianism"

So what's your point?

Everyone claims they use "reason" they do to certain extent, unless it dwells in the "unknown" to this you accept others assertions without evidence or you question them and their motives.

The atheist has questioned theistic nonsense, and we already know their motives.

Everyone claims they use logic, though as seen and demonstrated by "yourstrully; Samy" not everyone has a good grasp of logic, thus they make faulty logical desicions, like believing in supernatural crap, gods, and the such without any conclusive evidence of their existence.
The atheist, assumes no roll, he/she only denies theistic assertions pending on further evidence, sicne non has been presented in thousands of years, we conclude by "observation" that theistic claims are irrationa, and ilogical.

Godless

I don't like the slippery slope of utilitarianism.

It can be used to rationalize anything

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism (yū-tĭl'ĭ-târ'ē-ə-nĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.


Utilitarians are not committed to commonsense moral rules. (By commonsense moral rules I mean the rules that we unreflectively accept; "don't lie," "don't injure the innocent," etc.)

This means that they will recommend, in fact, require, actions and policies that will strike most of us as morally wrong. Many people regard that as an objectionable feature of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism has also been criticized for leading to a number of conclusions contrary to 'common sense' morality. For example, it might be argued that it is 'common sense' that one should never sacrifice some humans for the happiness of other humans. Utilitarians, however, argue that 'common sense' has been used to justify many positions on both sides of controversial issues and varies greatly from individual to individual, making it an unsuitable basis for a 'common' morality. Regarding the example, it is equally 'common sense' that one must sacrifice some soldiers and civilians in a defensive war.

same goes for the sale of arms to non-democratic governments
providing aid, arms as well as crushing debts to third world countries.

The value of everything is based on its utility.
I don't like it.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

You are talking about agnosticism which is a view rather than a belief or lack thereof.

no I'm talking about an atheist, albeit weak atheism, you seem to thing everybodys a strong atheist these are few and far between.
please read the forums FAQ on the subject here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

The lack of a belief is fixed. i.e. there is no evidence of God (premise), hence an atheist denies the existence of God (conclusion).

Or are you claiming that an atheist does not deny the existence of God?

of course an atheist, does not deny the existence of a god, an atheist does not deny at all, to deny the existence of a thing it must have first existed, as there is no evidence to that fact, it is simply unreasonable to believe one does, but we can never be sure. however disbelief is not uncertainty.

 

[S.A.M.]

"to deny the existence of a thing it must have first existed, as there is no evidence to that fact, it is simply unreasonable to believe one does, but we can never be sure."

Do atheists usually think like this?

 

[pavlosmarcos]

read the FAQs

Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

weak atheist:
"I do not believe there is a God." (i.e. lack of a positive belief in non-existence, but not necessarily a negative belief).

read the FAQs

 

[S.A.M.]

So now atheism is a sliding scale?

I do not believe there are pink unicorns is not a negative belief?

Looks like you guys are just as screwed up as theists.

And guess what?

I'm almost pregnant.

 

[audible]

how is it a sliding scale you got it wrong, looks like your almost intelligent then too.