A question to atheists.

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

Your argument is based upon an incorrect definition of religion and belief. Religion by definition (to nearly all people) deals with supernatural explanations. Atheism surely does not. Belief in a religion the way that nearly all people understand it is a belief based upon personal faith, not evidence as it is with the atheist. They simply are very different natures of belief. Therefore atheists are doing something very different when they believe in the evidence presented to them by science as opposed to what a religious person believes in when someone reads from them in a book on Sunday.

I guess what I'm saying is that either your point is wrong because your definitions are incorrect or the point you are making is so broad as to be useless. You might as well say that shit and a chocolate bar are the same because they are both brown.

Atheists believe what they do because they believe in evidence presented by Science. Theists believe what they do because they believe in that a certain Being presented the truth to them plainly.

No matter what happens though, both sides are saying the same thing: "We're right, and you're wrong, because we have better proof."

Do you understand that the theory of evolution would turn into creationism with evidence presented, it doesn't CLAIM shit, it just describes a process, there is nothing invested in it either, it just goes with the available evidence.

Atheists don't "believe" shit, we know what we know through observation, experimentation and repetition, now if i can SEE something, i dunno, kinda helps the credability, religion is the opposite, it has the facts, this is what you are supposed to believe and damn all facts that points in a different reaction, hell, religion doesn't need no damn stinkeen facts.

I am surprised you don't get it, i think you started this thread to try to indoctrinate yourself that atheists too believe and that science is about belief, but it isn't, it's about evidence, if there is evidence to the contrary the science adopts it and incorporates them and it is added as new knowledge, if there is evidence discovered that Jesus did, in fact, not rise from his grave, it will just be discarded by Christianity because that is how religion works, it has all facts and damn all millions of proofs to the contrary.

There isn't ONE evidence that points to an existance of a god, not ONE, but there are hundreds of thousands of new evidence discovered every day that works along the model we have established for evolution, if it didn't, the model would have to change, but religion NEVER changes, not with anything, it is what it is and there is no evidence what so ever, none, zilch, zero, nada, it takes belief to believe in it, science doesn't like belief, it likes knowledge, and there is no "belief" involved.

Atheists don't believe shit.

Okay, so you don't believe in Mathematics?

Nope, i don't believe in it, i have some knowledge in it and i know that it works, that is knowledge, not belief, do you get the difference, i've spent way to many posts to make you understand this extremely simple point.

Do you believe that 1+1=2 or do you KNOW that that is the case? Answer that and you'll have my answer.

(btw, i suck at mathematics, i went into the service when i was 18)

Yes, 1+1=2. But let's suppose I asked you a mathematical question to which you did not know the answer.

Would you think it even had an answer?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts.

I would like you, Atreus21 to respond to that.

Actually I agree very much with that. We both believe in truth, but we disagree with each other in how we've found it, and the proof.

Just like religions do.

No, i believe in known truth, where you can observe the truth, like evolutin which is observable, falsifiable and to the best of our knowledge at all times, if proven wrong, it's still to the best of our knowledge, it doesn't have a basis and it doesn't draw a conclusion, it is just what it is.

That is what i like about science, it's never done, the more facts the better, as opposed to religion where the facts are known and then everyone is looking for evidence that points to the already drawn conclusion.

So while i believe in truth to the best of my knowledge, you believe in something completely different, you found your truth without a shred of evidence, in fact there are so much evidence to the contrary that it makes you make up shit to justify your own beliefs.

Now it may seem like i am attacking you but you definently have the right to your own religion whatever it may be, i defend that, but don't debate religion based on evidence, don't ever do that, it just doesn't work, at all.

If you don't believe me ask the ID people, i mean anyone who has taken a biology class can dismiss them with one sentence.

It's good advice to keep your beliefs to yourself, i keep mine to myself unless someone asks me, and i haven't even mentioned them in this thread either.

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

I don't "believe" in anything, i know what i know and others know what they know based on the scientific evidence available, i used to date a research virology scientist so i know evolution quiet well, it've even observed it myself through a nanoscope.

I do not DISBELIEVE in a god, i just have no more proof of a god any more than i have proof of the easter bunny or Santa claus, none.

And when you write your reply, i'm a born, raised and confirmed Catholic child with Catholic parents who go to church every sunday, so it's not lack of exposure either.

I just don't believe. You don't have to believe in evidence, it's either observable or it isn't, if it isn't, it's not science. So that's not a belief at all, it's knowing through observation, experimentation and repetition.

I hate to keep beating this drum but you keep proving it to me.

You're looking for proof. That means you believe that reasoning is the way to proof, and truth.

Again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists.

I've tried to explain to you in many posts that that is not the case, but either you are willfully ignorant or just stupid, i don't know which and i don't really care either.

I think it's willful ignorance because even the staunchest deniers of truth are not that stupid, not really.

Well, what do you believe in?

Nothing.

Atheism isn't about a "belief" in science, science isn't about belief, if it was it wouldn't be science, it would be religion, science handles knowledge, nothing else, the scientific theories are not beliefs, it's to the best of our current knowledge, they evolve over time as new evidence is introduced, but they never become beliefs.

You can't "believe" in evolution, you either know evolution or you don't, there is no in between in science where a belief has a place.

Why don't you get this, i've explained it in every way i can.

So i give up, have your preconcieved answers, you already had the preconcieved answers to every question you asked me and didn't even bother reading what i wrote, because anything that would actually challenge your beliefs is a threat to you.

I'd pity you but i'm too tired now.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What do atheists believe?

Atheists believe lots of different things, and it is really impossible to generalize about their positive beliefs, because atheism is not about positive belief, but lack of a particular belief.

I would assume that atheists believe in atheism, simply that there is no god.

Strictly speaking, this isn't entirely true. I do not believe there is no god, and I am an atheist.

It follows that any religion that worships a god is erroneous.

Well, I do not believe that they are true. Let's use some rigor here, okay?

If you agree with that premise, please read on.

This is where I stopped reading.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

It would appear to be a logic assumption if it wasn't a metaphysical impossibility for me to NOT be able to quantify data in a reasoned and logical manner.

The fact that I am not able to do it another way is not indicative of a belief in reasoning and logic...it is indicative of a neuro-scientific fact that I am incapable of going about life any other way.

Good response. I'm having a hard time with that one, and it'll take me some time to think through that.

But I don't see how you can know something without believing in it. How can you know that 2+2=4 without believing that Mathematics is factual and trustworthy?

See, now you moving into the world of acceptance of common terminology and not belief. I don't believe that 2+2=4 any more than I believe that the red is red and blue is blue. I accept that we have defined each as such and use the commonly accepted verbiage. But I don't believe that it is what we have defined it to be.

Maybe this is a good time to also mention that I have Asperger's Syndrome which is why I have continued my insistence on being hard wired for reason and logic and not just trained to "believe" in it.

Okay, but suppose a Christian applied the same reasoning. He says he doesn't believe in God. He KNOWS God. He's seen him in the flesh.

How would you respond?

 

[KIRBYEE]

I'm darned glad to exist. That's all I need. That's my "truth".

 

[venkman]

I don't remember who said it, but there was a popular quote (paraphraed): When you understand why you don't believe in another religion's god, you will understand why I don't believe in yours.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

Your argument is based upon an incorrect definition of religion and belief. Religion by definition (to nearly all people) deals with supernatural explanations. Atheism surely does not. Belief in a religion the way that nearly all people understand it is a belief based upon personal faith, not evidence as it is with the atheist. They simply are very different natures of belief. Therefore atheists are doing something very different when they believe in the evidence presented to them by science as opposed to what a religious person believes in when someone reads from them in a book on Sunday.

I guess what I'm saying is that either your point is wrong because your definitions are incorrect or the point you are making is so broad as to be useless. You might as well say that shit and a chocolate bar are the same because they are both brown.

Atheists believe what they do because they believe in evidence presented by Science. Theists believe what they do because they believe in that a certain Being presented the truth to them plainly.

No matter what happens though, both sides are saying the same thing: "We're right, and you're wrong, because we have better proof."

Do you understand that the theory of evolution would turn into creationism with evidence presented, it doesn't CLAIM shit, it just describes a process, there is nothing invested in it either, it just goes with the available evidence.

Atheists don't "believe" shit, we know what we know through observation, experimentation and repetition, now if i can SEE something, i dunno, kinda helps the credability, religion is the opposite, it has the facts, this is what you are supposed to believe and damn all facts that points in a different reaction, hell, religion doesn't need no damn stinkeen facts.

I am surprised you don't get it, i think you started this thread to try to indoctrinate yourself that atheists too believe and that science is about belief, but it isn't, it's about evidence, if there is evidence to the contrary the science adopts it and incorporates them and it is added as new knowledge, if there is evidence discovered that Jesus did, in fact, not rise from his grave, it will just be discarded by Christianity because that is how religion works, it has all facts and damn all millions of proofs to the contrary.

There isn't ONE evidence that points to an existance of a god, not ONE, but there are hundreds of thousands of new evidence discovered every day that works along the model we have established for evolution, if it didn't, the model would have to change, but religion NEVER changes, not with anything, it is what it is and there is no evidence what so ever, none, zilch, zero, nada, it takes belief to believe in it, science doesn't like belief, it likes knowledge, and there is no "belief" involved.

Atheists don't believe shit.

Okay, so you don't believe in Mathematics?

Nope, i don't believe in it, i have some knowledge in it and i know that it works, that is knowledge, not belief, do you get the difference, i've spent way to many posts to make you understand this extremely simple point.

Do you believe that 1+1=2 or do you KNOW that that is the case? Answer that and you'll have my answer.

(btw, i suck at mathematics, i went into the service when i was 18)

Yes, 1+1=2. But let's suppose I asked you a mathematical question to which you did not know the answer.

Would you think it even had an answer?

I'd either know the answer or not, if i can't figure it out but you offer a logical explanation based on knowledge i'd get it and then i'd know, again, it has nothing to do with belief.

If you told me that 1-1=92312 because the sky fairy says it is, then i'd KNOW you were wrong while you might BELIVE it was true.

How can you not get this?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts.

I would like you, Atreus21 to respond to that.

Actually I agree very much with that. We both believe in truth, but we disagree with each other in how we've found it, and the proof.

Just like religions do.

No, i believe in known truth, where you can observe the truth, like evolutin which is observable, falsifiable and to the best of our knowledge at all times, if proven wrong, it's still to the best of our knowledge, it doesn't have a basis and it doesn't draw a conclusion, it is just what it is.

That is what i like about science, it's never done, the more facts the better, as opposed to religion where the facts are known and then everyone is looking for evidence that points to the already drawn conclusion.

So while i believe in truth to the best of my knowledge, you believe in something completely different, you found your truth without a shred of evidence, in fact there are so much evidence to the contrary that it makes you make up shit to justify your own beliefs.

Now it may seem like i am attacking you but you definently have the right to your own religion whatever it may be, i defend that, but don't debate religion based on evidence, don't ever do that, it just doesn't work, at all.

If you don't believe me ask the ID people, i mean anyone who has taken a biology class can dismiss them with one sentence.

It's good advice to keep your beliefs to yourself, i keep mine to myself unless someone asks me, and i haven't even mentioned them in this thread either.

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

I don't "believe" in anything, i know what i know and others know what they know based on the scientific evidence available, i used to date a research virology scientist so i know evolution quiet well, it've even observed it myself through a nanoscope.

I do not DISBELIEVE in a god, i just have no more proof of a god any more than i have proof of the easter bunny or Santa claus, none.

And when you write your reply, i'm a born, raised and confirmed Catholic child with Catholic parents who go to church every sunday, so it's not lack of exposure either.

I just don't believe. You don't have to believe in evidence, it's either observable or it isn't, if it isn't, it's not science. So that's not a belief at all, it's knowing through observation, experimentation and repetition.

I hate to keep beating this drum but you keep proving it to me.

You're looking for proof. That means you believe that reasoning is the way to proof, and truth.

Again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists.

I've tried to explain to you in many posts that that is not the case, but either you are willfully ignorant or just stupid, i don't know which and i don't really care either.

I think it's willful ignorance because even the staunchest deniers of truth are not that stupid, not really.

Well, what do you believe in?

Nothing.

Atheism isn't about a "belief" in science, science isn't about belief, if it was it wouldn't be science, it would be religion, science handles knowledge, nothing else, the scientific theories are not beliefs, it's to the best of our current knowledge, they evolve over time as new evidence is introduced, but they never become beliefs.

You can't "believe" in evolution, you either know evolution or you don't, there is no in between in science where a belief has a place.

Why don't you get this, i've explained it in every way i can.

So i give up, have your preconcieved answers, you already had the preconcieved answers to every question you asked me and didn't even bother reading what i wrote, because anything that would actually challenge your beliefs is a threat to you.

I'd pity you but i'm too tired now.

But you can't believe in nothing.

If I threatened to kill you it'd turn out you believed in a right to life. If I stole from you it'd turn out you believe in property rights.

It's not possible to believe in nothing.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: venkman
I don't remember who said it, but there was a popular quote (paraphraed): When you understand why you don't believe in another religion's god, you will understand why I don't believe in yours.

Scroll up, i used that quote twice.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours

It's from Stephen Roberts.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
There is nothing to believe. The Earth is here, we are here, and that's that. Morality comes from a sense of compassion, and a foreknowledge of the consequences of ones behavior, not from a long storied guy in the sky. There is no organization, there is no anything but the reality that we exist, and knowing where we come from is a fruitless endevour.

I think that morality comes from being herd animals. Instinctually we're obligated to have varying degrees of empathy, because we don't survive as individuals. We are also instinctually bound to competition in order to preserve the replication of the species.

^^This doesn't really have anything to do with christianity, just that you don't need a book to have a genesis.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What definitions have I made incorrectly?

My argument is as follows:

Religion is a system of belief that shows the truth to be in God.
Atheism is a system of belief that shows the truth to be in Science.

It follows that Atheism and Religion seek the truth for the same reason, and as such are very similar.

I don't see how any of that is a false definition, or illogical.

You continue to confuse belief and non-belief. Believing in something is an affirmative act. Not believing in something is the default position. The list of things I don't believe in is infinite because I've made no assertion of belief. I don't believe there's a monster behind me right now. I don't believe pink talking dogs exist. I don't believe in a ton of things, but I've made no affirmative commitment to disbelieve them, the default position is not to believe until there is reason to believe. I don't have a "system" of disbelieving in god. I just don't believe in such a being along with all the other infinite other things I don't think exist, by default.

You are allowing religion/belief in god to be the default position, and disbelief to be an affirmative act. That isn't how I think at least.

 

[Red Dawn]

I don't believe in God, Christianity, Islam, Hindu or any of that because I consider the source of all that nonsense, ancient man.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

It would appear to be a logic assumption if it wasn't a metaphysical impossibility for me to NOT be able to quantify data in a reasoned and logical manner.

The fact that I am not able to do it another way is not indicative of a belief in reasoning and logic...it is indicative of a neuro-scientific fact that I am incapable of going about life any other way.

Good response. I'm having a hard time with that one, and it'll take me some time to think through that.

But I don't see how you can know something without believing in it. How can you know that 2+2=4 without believing that Mathematics is factual and trustworthy?

See, now you moving into the world of acceptance of common terminology and not belief. I don't believe that 2+2=4 any more than I believe that the red is red and blue is blue. I accept that we have defined each as such and use the commonly accepted verbiage. But I don't believe that it is what we have defined it to be.

Maybe this is a good time to also mention that I have Asperger's Syndrome which is why I have continued my insistence on being hard wired for reason and logic and not just trained to "believe" in it.

Okay, but suppose a Christian applied the same reasoning. He says he doesn't believe in God. He KNOWS God. He's seen him in the flesh.

How would you respond?

The same way that I have responded in the past.

I would go about asking about the experience and try to gather and question the event(s) and see if they jive. I would ask him to define "flesh" so that we can be sure that we are talking about the same thing (I am EXTREMELY literal and sometimes end up arguing over what some might think of as semantics but I view as paramount to the discussion). I would go through the list of 5/6 Ws (Who, what, where, when, why and sometime how)

I might even ask if he can get me an autograph next time.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21


But you can't believe in nothing.

If I threatened to kill you it'd turn out you believed in a right to life. If I stole from you it'd turn out you believe in property rights.

It's not possible to believe in nothing.

I don't believe in a right to life, i know i live and that is it, there is no automatic belief system no matter how bad you want there to be one.

I don't believe in property rights either, i know i have the right to my property, i don't believe it.

You are trying to push belief into reality but it has no place there, you take your beliefs in a young earth, a talking snake, a woman made out of a rib and so on and try to put that on the level with knowledge?

Even the staunchest believer has to see that that is just fucking daft.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What definitions have I made incorrectly?

My argument is as follows:

Religion is a system of belief that shows the truth to be in God.
Atheism is a system of belief that shows the truth to be in Science.

It follows that Atheism and Religion seek the truth for the same reason, and as such are very similar.

I don't see how any of that is a false definition, or illogical.

You continue to confuse belief and non-belief. Believing in something is an affirmative act. Not believing in something is the default position. The list of things I don't believe in is infinite because I've made no assertion of belief. I don't believe there's a monster behind me right now. I don't believe pink talking dogs exist. I don't believe in a ton of things, but I've made no affirmative commitment to disbelieve them, the default position is not to believe until there is reason to believe. I don't have a "system" of disbelieving in god. I just don't believe in such a being along with all the other infinite other things I don't think exist, by default.

You are allowing religion/belief in god to be the default position, and disbelief to be an affirmative act. That isn't how I think at least.

Well, I allow belief in ANYTHING to be the default position.

Because disbelief in something implies belief in something as a counterpart. You don't believe that there's a monster behind you implies that you DO believe there isn't a monster behind you.

I'm pretty sure it's impossible to believe in nothing.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

It would appear to be a logic assumption if it wasn't a metaphysical impossibility for me to NOT be able to quantify data in a reasoned and logical manner.

The fact that I am not able to do it another way is not indicative of a belief in reasoning and logic...it is indicative of a neuro-scientific fact that I am incapable of going about life any other way.

Good response. I'm having a hard time with that one, and it'll take me some time to think through that.

But I don't see how you can know something without believing in it. How can you know that 2+2=4 without believing that Mathematics is factual and trustworthy?

See, now you moving into the world of acceptance of common terminology and not belief. I don't believe that 2+2=4 any more than I believe that the red is red and blue is blue. I accept that we have defined each as such and use the commonly accepted verbiage. But I don't believe that it is what we have defined it to be.

Maybe this is a good time to also mention that I have Asperger's Syndrome which is why I have continued my insistence on being hard wired for reason and logic and not just trained to "believe" in it.

Okay, but suppose a Christian applied the same reasoning. He says he doesn't believe in God. He KNOWS God. He's seen him in the flesh.

How would you respond?

The same way that I have responded in the past.

I would go about asking about the experience and try to gather and question the event(s) and see if they jive. I would ask him to define "flesh" so that we can be sure that we are talking about the same thing (I am EXTREMELY literal and sometimes end up arguing over what some might think of as semantics but I view as paramount to the discussion). I would go through the list of 5/6 Ws (Who, what, where, when, why and sometime how)

I might even ask if he can get me an autograph next time.

Well, let's suppose then that his account of the event is incontestable.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Because disbelief in something implies belief in something as a counterpart. You don't believe that there's a monster behind you implies that you DO believe there isn't a monster behind you.

WRONG. You cannot logically derive "I believe not-x" from "I do not believe x"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Because disbelief in something implies belief in something as a counterpart. You don't believe that there's a monster behind you implies that you DO believe there isn't a monster behind you.

WRONG. You cannot logically derive "I believe not-x" from "I do not believe x"

/thread (I don't BELIEVE this will actually end the thread)

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21


But you can't believe in nothing.

If I threatened to kill you it'd turn out you believed in a right to life. If I stole from you it'd turn out you believe in property rights.

It's not possible to believe in nothing.

I don't believe in a right to life, i know i live and that is it, there is no automatic belief system no matter how bad you want there to be one.

I don't believe in property rights either, i know i have the right to my property, i don't believe it.

You are trying to push belief into reality but it has no place there, you take your beliefs in a young earth, a talking snake, a woman made out of a rib and so on and try to put that on the level with knowledge?

Even the staunchest believer has to see that that is just fucking daft.

I'm not trying to piss you off, dude.

I don't see how you can know something without believing it's the truth.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Atheists use reasoning to debunk Christians. Christians use God to disprove atheists.

I didn't get the impression you were attacking me. This is a very abstract argument, so I understand some miscommunication.

Still, tho. You're say you believe in evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. Once again, I have to say I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm trying to prove that if Atheists believe ANYTHING, then they're no different than a religion with a different name for their god. Atheists simply believe that their god offers the most proof.

Your argument is based upon an incorrect definition of religion and belief. Religion by definition (to nearly all people) deals with supernatural explanations. Atheism surely does not. Belief in a religion the way that nearly all people understand it is a belief based upon personal faith, not evidence as it is with the atheist. They simply are very different natures of belief. Therefore atheists are doing something very different when they believe in the evidence presented to them by science as opposed to what a religious person believes in when someone reads from them in a book on Sunday.

I guess what I'm saying is that either your point is wrong because your definitions are incorrect or the point you are making is so broad as to be useless. You might as well say that shit and a chocolate bar are the same because they are both brown.

Atheists believe what they do because they believe in evidence presented by Science. Theists believe what they do because they believe in that a certain Being presented the truth to them plainly.

No matter what happens though, both sides are saying the same thing: "We're right, and you're wrong, because we have better proof."

I think this is more a study in structuralism than anything. Clearly Atreus21 has associated very thick connotations to the word 'atheism', most of which are informed by politics and the media. When you see atheists and theists clashing in the PTA and in the courts then it's easy to assign such heavy lingual coding to the word atheism. What others are trying to point out is that atheism doesn't really mean to them what it does to Atreus21 - he's grasping at straws based on the connotations he has associated with the word and that is getting away from what most 'atheists' actually think about.

I also want to point out that science!=truth. To quote Indiana Jones, if you're looking for truth, philosophy is down the hall. I get sick of folks suggesting otherwise without realizing the gravity of the error they're making.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

It would appear to be a logic assumption if it wasn't a metaphysical impossibility for me to NOT be able to quantify data in a reasoned and logical manner.

The fact that I am not able to do it another way is not indicative of a belief in reasoning and logic...it is indicative of a neuro-scientific fact that I am incapable of going about life any other way.

Good response. I'm having a hard time with that one, and it'll take me some time to think through that.

But I don't see how you can know something without believing in it. How can you know that 2+2=4 without believing that Mathematics is factual and trustworthy?

See, now you moving into the world of acceptance of common terminology and not belief. I don't believe that 2+2=4 any more than I believe that the red is red and blue is blue. I accept that we have defined each as such and use the commonly accepted verbiage. But I don't believe that it is what we have defined it to be.

Maybe this is a good time to also mention that I have Asperger's Syndrome which is why I have continued my insistence on being hard wired for reason and logic and not just trained to "believe" in it.

Okay, but suppose a Christian applied the same reasoning. He says he doesn't believe in God. He KNOWS God. He's seen him in the flesh.

How would you respond?

The same way that I have responded in the past.

I would go about asking about the experience and try to gather and question the event(s) and see if they jive. I would ask him to define "flesh" so that we can be sure that we are talking about the same thing (I am EXTREMELY literal and sometimes end up arguing over what some might think of as semantics but I view as paramount to the discussion). I would go through the list of 5/6 Ws (Who, what, where, when, why and sometime how)

I might even ask if he can get me an autograph next time.

Well, let's suppose then that his account of the event is incontestable.

See, now you are trying to get me to "believe" in what he is telling me based on his accounts because nothing is incontestable including science.

I would then ask for it to be duplicated in a manner than can be observed and recorded. Anything that happens once, can happen again no matter the infinite odds. That wouldn't be a "disbelief" in what he is telling me, it would be a matter of quantifying one man's perception.

There are a lot of people walking the streets that have made the claim of being Jesus or XSR-4598-2 from the planet of VRTIUF*$%&&@. If a claim is made, that claim needs to be validated by more than just words.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Because disbelief in something implies belief in something as a counterpart. You don't believe that there's a monster behind you implies that you DO believe there isn't a monster behind you.

WRONG. You cannot logically derive "I believe not-x" from "I do not believe x"

What's illogical about it?

If A+B=C, then C-A=B. It seems to make sense to me.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Because disbelief in something implies belief in something as a counterpart. You don't believe that there's a monster behind you implies that you DO believe there isn't a monster behind you.

WRONG. You cannot logically derive "I believe not-x" from "I do not believe x"

What's illogical about it?

If A+B=C, then C-A=B. It seems to make sense to me.

It remains that you're wrong, because essentially, you are saying -A = +B without basis.

Look at it this way. There are a number of coins in my pocket. If you do not believe that there are a million coins in my pocket, I cannot conclude that you therefore believe there are exactly seven, yet that is precisely what you're saying.

 

[Atreus21]

Nothing is incontestable including science.

I am so freaking glad you said that.

I would then ask for it to be duplicated in a manner than can be observed and recorded. Anything that happens once, can happen again no matter the infinite odds. That wouldn't be a "disbelief" in what he is telling me, it would be a matter of quantifying one man's perception.

There are a lot of people walking the streets that have made the claim of being Jesus or XSR-4598-2 from the planet of VRTIUF*$%&&@. If a claim is made, that claim needs to be validated by more than just words.

If even science is incontestable, to me that flies in the face of the "knowledge without belief" argument. If you knew something without having to believe in it, surely that knowledge must be incontestable.

This is getting awfully, terribly abstract.

I still stick with my original assertion: That belief in something preempts knowledge of that something. You must believe something exists before you know it exists.

I'm going to take a break. I've been at work for 3 hours now and spent all of it on this thread.

Thanks for a good debate, fellas.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I will end on this also....

Gravity is not believed to but known to exist. The varying degree of accuracy WRT the amount of gravity can be argued but the statement in and of itself cannot.