My observation: atheists are anti-creativity

[Balerion]

Do what? Follow a religion that its adherents claim isn't a religion?

Please tell me what about atheism makes it a religion.

Like I keep saying, claiming you don't believe something, requires that you know what it is, right? How can you possibly believe or not believe something you know nothing about?

Know nothing about? So you're saying that I know nothing about Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam? Now you're guilty of what you claim I'm doing--making judgments despite not knowing the facts.

Atheism is therefore as much a following as any religion. You can say you don't believe God exists until you turn blue, since to believe that requires that you know what this "God" thing (that doesn't exist) actually is.

We don't claim to know what a creator would have to be. We know of it what your religion tells us, and we don't believe it. So is there something beyond your scripture that you've been holding out on us?

The only way you can lack belief, is to lack knowledge

Really? So where is this secret knowledge available? I've read the Bible...is there a sequal?

 

[Vkothii]

Please tell me what about atheism makes it a religion.

OK:
it has a group of followers; it has a doctrine; it proselytises. That's 3 things so far.

Know nothing about? So you're saying that I know nothing about Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam? Now you're guilty of what you claim I'm doing--making judgments despite not knowing the facts.

But you're guilty of blatantly misreading what I said (you're the one saying you "know nothing about...". I did not say that you know nothing about those things you list, did I?). So just how can someone believe, or not, something they've never heard about, or seen?
That's the question, can you answer it?

We don't claim to know what a creator would have to be. We know of it what your religion tells us, and we don't believe it. So is there something beyond your scripture that you've been holding out on us?

You don't know anything at all about "my religion". You can't find a reference in anything I posted about a "creator", you made that part up all by yourself.

Really? So where is this secret knowledge available? I've read the Bible...is there a sequal?

Yes, really. You really, really have absolutely zero possibility of belief in something, if you don't know (see, hear or read about) the something. Is that too much for you to take in all at once?

Perhaps you think an atheist has to jump to conclusions constantly??

 

[Balerion]

OK:
it has a group of followers; it has a doctrine; it proselytises. That's 3 things so far.

OK, a couple of problems: First, what exactly is the doctrine? Second, (and I really apologize for this) I have no idea what a proselytises is. Remember, I'm young. And third, it does not have a group of followers. You can't follow a non-belief.

I won't say there aren't people that believe there is no God. I'm not stupid. The problem is that I don't view them as atheists. I see them as anti-theists. Atheism is not the active belief that there is no god, it is the lack of belief in god. Again, and this has been the crux of our disagreement, there is a difference.

But you're guilty of blatantly misreading what I said (you're the one saying you "know nothing about...". I did not say that you know nothing about those things you list, did I?). So just how can someone believe, or not, something they've never heard about, or seen?
That's the question, can you answer it?

But I lack belief in God, so when you say that in order to lack belief one must be ignorant of the facts, you are in turn saying that I am ignorant of the facts.

Again, I have never once said that there is no creator. But God with a big G is the God of Abraham, and having read the authoritative text on the subject, I do not believe in its existence. I'm not saying there isn't some big bug-eyed aliens that seeded this universe, I'm saying that I simply do not believe in the God of Abraham.

Or are you saying that I don't know what the God of Abraham is?

You don't know anything at all about "my religion". You can't find a reference in anything I posted about a "creator", you made that part up all by yourself.

I assumed from your position that you were a theist. I was apparently mistaken.

Yes, really. You really, really have absolutely zero possibility of belief in something, if you don't know (see, hear or read about) the something. Is that too much for you to take in all at once?

Then what god are you talking about? If you're not talking about the Abrahamic God, then we're not talking about the same thing. I never claimed to know that any god wasn't real, but the only one I thought we were talking about was the Abrahamic God.

Perhaps you think an atheist has to jump to conclusions constantly??

No, not at all. You've been intentionally vague the entire time.

 

[Vkothii]

First, what exactly is the doctrine?

So you know nothing about any atheist ideas, opinions, beliefs at all? There are none?
Or let's assume you do know about them; in that case you know what the atheist doctrine is, or you know there is a doctrine. That's what doctrine is - a set of beliefs, generally.

Second, (and I really apologize for this) I have no idea what a proselytises is.

Proselytise: spread the good word.

And third, it does not have a group of followers. You can't follow a non-belief.

So you don't follow any atheist group, there is no group of atheists? What do you call the people who call themselves atheists, if not "a group of atheists"?

But I lack belief in God

No, you have a belief in the non-existence of God. You don't lack belief, that implies you know nothing about the subject, but you do (don't you?)

Sorry if this is vague, but: you cannot have any belief in something (let's call it "God") if you don't know anything about it. This just doesn't happen. So to have a belief (which you do have), means you must know something about it. How is that vague? (Never mind, I'll just assume you need to improve your reading comprehension).

 

[Balerion]

So you know nothing about any atheist ideas, opinions, beliefs at all? There are none?
Or let's assume you do know about them; in that case you know what the atheist doctrine is, or you know there is a doctrine. That's what doctrine is - a set of beliefs, generally.

See, that's where you're wrong. Atheism isn't an ideal, it isn't a movement, it isn't a shared set of beliefs. It is a word that describes people that do not believe in a god. It's like being a war veteran, or a victim of a crime, or a lottery winner; sure, you can use this term to group us if you like, but it in no way defines us. It is not the opposite of Christian, or Muslim, or Jew, contrary to what you might believe.

Proselytise: spread the good word.

There are like four national figures that are outspoken against theism. Compare that to the two dozen you can view on any one religion-based network on DirecTV. Being atheistic does not mean you are for a cause or part of any group or set of shared ideals or beliefs.

So you don't follow any atheist group, there is no group of atheists? What do you call the people who call themselves atheists, if not "a group of atheists"?

There may be a group of atheists that get together and fight for a certain cause, but in no way does being an atheist imply that you belong to any group. Contrast that to Christianity, which actually does demand that you "spread the good word". There is no such doctrine in atheism, because atheism is not an institution or a religion. It is nothing more than a word.

No, you have a belief in the non-existence of God.

Again, false. To say that I believe God does not exist is to imply that I have some knowledge of this. I don't. I simply do not believe in God. Perhaps of the Christian God there is some circumstantial evidence that would make me wonder if such a thing really exists, but that in no way rules out the possibility of a supreme being or creator.

Sorry if this is vague, but: you cannot have any belief in something (let's call it "God") if you don't know anything about it. This just doesn't happen. So to have a belief (which you do have), means you must know something about it. How is that vague? (Never mind, I'll just assume you need to improve your reading comprehension).

I see a pattern here. Some of you on this forum resort to insults when you're losing an argument.

I do not have a belief. Apparently you aren't going to accept that, and that's your business, but you're wrong.

One thing, however, you have yet to answer is which part of this God do I not know about?

 

[Vkothii]

in no way does being an atheist imply that you belong to any group.

Well, I'm sorry, but calling yourself an atheist, puts you in the group of atheists.
Like having European ancestry means you belong in a certain racial group. Or being a student at a university means you're "a student".

To say that I believe God does not exist is to imply that I have some knowledge of this. I don't.

So you believe there is some thing, that you have "no knowledge of"? How is that possible? Either you know about it or you don't. If you don't, why are you able to say anything about it? Or even spell it?
Sorry, but once again, you can't believe something if you have no knowledge of it. For the nth time.

I simply do not believe in God

See? You do believe something about this after all, despite your claims to the contrary. How can you not believe in God, if you "have no knowledge" of what "God" is, as you say above? This is not logical??

If you don't believe "in" the subject, how does that not imply you believe the subject does not exist? Obviously you have some knowledge, since you could not possibly form any belief otherwise, could you?

You believe that the belief you have about God, based on what you know about that subject, is that there is no such thing, right? Or not?

Maybe you can think of an example of something you know nothing about, but I don't think it's possible (or makes any sense).

I do not have a belief.

So you're claiming that you believe you don't have a belief? It looks like one, though..? Can you say: "I don't believe I believe anything", just to see how nice and illogical it sounds?

 

[Vkothii]

claiming you don't believe something, requires that you know what it is, right? How can you possibly believe or not believe something you know nothing about?

So just how can someone believe, or not, something they've never heard about, or seen?

You really, really have absolutely zero possibility of belief in something, if you don't know (see, hear or read about) the something.

You cannot have any belief in something if you don't know anything about it.

See? At least 4 previous unequivocal statements. What's hard to understand with this?

 

[Balerion]

Well, I'm sorry, but calling yourself an atheist, puts you in the group of atheists.
Like having European ancestry means you belong in a certain racial group. Or being a student at a university means you're "a student".

But being a part of any of those groups does not mean we share ideals, beliefs, or doctrine, which is what you seem to fail to understand.

So you believe there is some thing, that you have "no knowledge of"?

Where did you get this from? Where in my response did you get that? You're pulling these meanings from my words that weren't there. How is saying "I have no knowledge of the existence of a god" the same as saying "I believe there is something I have no knowledge of"? How?

Sorry, but once again, you can't believe something if you have no knowledge of it. For the nth time.

And that's why I don't believe. For the nth time.

See? You do believe something about this after all, despite your claims to the contrary. How can you not believe in God, if you "have no knowledge" of what "God" is, as you say above? This is not logical??

You are having a hell of a time with the English language here. I'm going to break this down for you...read it slowly.

1) God (big G)= Abrahamic God; I have a working knowledge of that deity, and I do not believe in it.

2) god (little g)= deity, supreme being, creator; I have no clue if there is a creator. I do not believe in one.

3) Not believing in something is not the same as believing one does not exist. It isn't, and I don't know why you can't understand that. Maybe you skipped some English courses, I don't know...whatever the case is, not believing in something is not the same as believing it does not exist.

4) What is the alternative? If you say that there is a god of tomato soup that lives on Neptune, I would have no way of knowing if one did or didn't...so what do you propose my stance be on the subject? Would I believe or not believe? I'd have to take one position or the other, so which is it? And how could I justify that position, according to your logic?

So you're claiming that you believe you don't have a belief? It looks like one, though..? Can you say: "I don't believe I believe anything", just to see how nice and illogical it sounds?

There is a marked difference between belief and knowledge. It seems you can't differentiate the two, and I'm sorry for that--you should try to clear up that dilemma before you attempt to debate anyone else on this forum--but it's really not my problem.

Again, you have simply ignored most of my comments. You ignore the fact that when I say God (big G) we're talking about the Abrahamic God, and you still haven't corrected that distinction in your argument. Well, it's either that or you are insisting that it is impossible to have knowledge of the Abrahamic God, and for that I must direct you to your local library.

And finally, you haven't conceded that I was never talking about a potential deity other than the Abrahamic God that has been presented to me. Why have you simply ignored this? Is it because you don't think it is possible to have knowledge of that particular deity, or is it simply that you can't refute it and prefer to throw out white noise when you're losing?

See? At least 4 previous unequivocal statements. What's hard to understand with this?

There's nothing hard to understand about them. The problem is that none of them have any bearing on the discussion. Again, what god are you talking about? Meh, what's the use? You'll just ignore this, too!

 

[Vkothii]

And that's why I don't believe.

So your belief is that there is no God to believe in, then. The Abrahamic-only god you don't believe exists, is the only one you know anything about. I have no idea why you believe you need to restrict the concept to Abraham, but it's your belief.

Not believing in something is not the same as believing one does not exist.

So you do believe a god exists, you just don't believe "in" that god?

If you "don't believe in something" doesn't that imply you have no faith in it's existence, you don't trust the idea? I was sure that's what "believe in" meant.
So you don't actually know what you believe? But whatever it is, it has nothing to do with a god, of course.

The difference between belief and knowledge, that you claim I can't "differentiate", is moot; you simply cannot, for the 6th or 7th time now, believe (or disbelieve) unless you have knowledge.
If you know that a car needs fuel, do you believe a car needs fuel? What's this difference you say is "marked"? Marked by what?

What god am I talking about? Which one would you like?
Abraham, Buddha, Moses, who gives a shit? I'm not talking about who or what it is, I'm talking about belief, knowledge of WTF it is. You're the one being illogical.

P.S. being in a group, means you're in a group; you're in a group because you share something with it. In the case of atheism, you share a belief, and a doctrine; you have common ideas.

P.P.S. Do you believe anything, or in anything? Do you believe atheism is logical? Do you believe it's a belief in or a knowledge of something? Or do you believe that belief is different from knowledge, in which case how is it different?

 

[Balerion]

So your belief is that there is no God to believe in, then.

:bugeye: Wow, dude. Just wow. I mean, is it that you can't read, or that you don't read? I mean, after all this time, the fact that you could still possibly take that out of what I've said, you really shouldn't be here. I mean, you really shouldn't.

So you do believe a god exists, you just don't believe "in" that god?

Again, :bugeye:

When did I ever say that a god exists? I have only said I have no idea if a god exists.

And once again, you have completely ignored direct questions that I have posed at you, all the while completely misrepresenting my actual stance. I don't know if you just can't understand what I'm writing, or what, but I just can't go on with this. Since you ignore my questions, I'm going to hereby ignore yours.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Vkothii]

I have only said I have no idea if a god exists.

Which must be complete bullshit.
If you have no idea, what is it you believe about it (this non-existent idea)?
You really should try to be a little more logical; you can claim you "have no idea", but you must have some idea (so you're bullshitting, or deliberately deceiving yourself). How can you know about something you have no idea about?

You're an idiot, dude. I'm glad (seriously) you've decided to stop contributing all this confused, obviously deluded belief you claim you don't have??

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I wouldn't try to put limits on stupidity but I suspect someone's having fun frustrating people.

 

[superluminal]

Which must be complete bullshit.
If you have no idea, what is it you believe about it (this non-existent idea)?
You really should try to be a little more logical; you can claim you "have no idea", but you must have some idea (so you're bullshitting, or deliberately deceiving yourself). How can you know about something you have no idea about?

You're an idiot, dude. I'm glad (seriously) you've decided to stop contributing all this confused, obviously deluded belief you claim you don't have??

If I may,

It's not the idea that is non-existent. You've certainly warped the poor fellow's words around. Look at it this way. A concept was presented. God. We chew on it for a while and conclude that the concept has no merit, for whatever reasons. Just like the infamous celestial teapot.

Saying he has no idea if a god exists or not is a simple truth. I don't see any logical problem or self-deception there. If you want to call it a belief that god(s) don't exist, fine. Who cares? For the typical atheist, the whole concept of god(s) is a kind of null thing. Like a teapot orbiting the sun.

Most atheists are pretty certain that a god, as portrayed by conventional religions, is a load of mythological crap. Not based on any positive supporting evidence (like it's hard to find evidence that santa doesn't exist) but based on a complete lack of anything credible to support it. What I believe about god(s) is that they are a creation of the human mind in an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Prove me wrong.

Why not accept this and at leas try to base your philosophy on something a bit more concrete that can actually be tested?

Actually. I have no fucking clue what you believe, or don't. Whatever.

 

[Vkothii]

Yes, it does seem to hinge, quite often, on what atheists, and others believe a 'belief' is.
Either it's an idea, or it isn't; either it's based on an idea of something, or it isn't.

How can an idea be based on 'no idea'?
I know it's a figure of speech, but it doesn't add up. If you arrive at some belief or other, you cannot logically claim that it's "not a belief", or that you have "no belief". That's a belief in itself - you believe you have no good reason to believe something.

"Most atheists are pretty certain that a god, is a load of mythological crap". That's a belief isn't it? (yes, it is)
If gods are a creation of the mind, do we believe or disbelieve our own ideas then? (yes, we do). Disbelief is not 'lack of' belief.

It does not make sense (to me) for someone to claim they have no belief, when they have an idea which they must either believe or disbelieve, there is no such thing as 'non-belief', but there is such a thing as ignorance (i.e. no-idea).

 

[superluminal]

Well, it seems to come down to semantics, dosen't it? My argument goes this way:

There is a concept called the "celestial teapot". I give it zero credence. Does this mean that I do "not believe" in the CT? Would that not imply that I believe that it does not exist? Or that I have no beliefs regarding the CT at all?

In my mind, belief is an active thing. So, I don't actively believe that there is no CT, I just have a complete lack of belief altogether.

It's a subtle shade of linguistic coloring I admit, but there it is nevertheless. And I've had this debate with others ad nauseum.

 

[Vkothii]

Interesting, I believe I can take your example apart and demonstrate that you're using language in an inconsistent way.

You believe that belief is an active thing. You don't however, actively believe there is no CT, presumably you also don't actively believe there is a CT?
So this belief you claim is 'a complete lack of belief', what is it then? Is it also a lack of ideas - you've never had, or are having, any ideas about this CT thing?

Nope, that doesn't add up at all.

 

[superluminal]

Interesting, I believe I can take your example apart and demonstrate that you're using language in an inconsistent way.

Go for it!

You believe that belief is an active thing. You don't however, actively believe there is no CT, presumably you also don't actively believe there is a CT?
So this belief you claim is 'a complete lack of belief', what is it then? Is it also a lack of ideas - you've never had, or are having, any ideas about this CT thing?

Nope, that doesn't add up at all.

Maybe not. Here's a question. Does any possible concept that arises in the mind immediately invoke a state of belief or disbelief? Is it possible to entertain a concept without lending it the weight of belief or disbelief?

Can I, for example, read a work of fiction and just experience it without assessing it in terms of belief or disbelief?

Again, you can dismantle my statements regarding "belief" only if you apply your own subtlety of definition to it and disregard my own.

Is it valid for me to answer the question from you "Do you believe I live in Hoboken, New Jersey?" with "I neither believe nor disbelieve it without further investigation. I take no stance either way."

Isn't this the essence of the "lack of belief" that many atheists claim?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Ad nauseum makes me sick.

 

[superluminal]

Ad nauseum makes me sick.

Ad infinitum makes me dizzy.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

LOL
Strawmen are stuffed shirts.