Bill Maher: ATHEISM IS A RELIGION LIKE ABSTINENCE IS A SEX POSTION

And a crap load of anger and bitterness, at least about religion. No wonder people who do believe don't trust atheists.

And atheists should trust "people of faith?" For what? To afford them equal rights? Equal opportunities to hold elective office? The Constitutional safeguards of not having religious dogma (especially that of one specific religion) legislated into their private and social lives(viz. abortion, contraception, gay rights, etc.)? Interesting how the vast majority (86% of all Americans) feel so angry and threatened by the 14% who choose not to believe. Could it be that those 86% look around and, in a moment of logic and reality, recognize that their own beliefs exist on a bed of intellectual quicksand?

Diff,

Theist propose that they have answers. They justify those assertions by saying "because". When it comes to analysing those, the apologies arrive en-masse as "well, someone said so and that's good enough"... And scrutiny is met with "well, you wouldn't have to ask unless you are evil".

Atheists, for the most part, assert that they have a method by which answers can be evaluated, and by which they should be accepted or rejected. And that method has, in the entire history of human endeavour, been proven to be the source of all such answers, all such progress and every manifestly tangible benefit realized.

Then, when demonstrated as such, the religious realize that their methods are illogical, and thus attempt to say "oh, yeah, well you are the same XXXX as a religion" because they are explicitly showing that the XXX property of their religion is insane. All the while, the XXX argument is always a strawman fallacy.

So, diff, can you see why you're wrong yet?

No Wonder People who do believe don't trust atheists.

So you know for sure that my wife of ten years doesn't trust me? I find that to be a very bold statement not based on any facts and only feelings.

They don't trust atheists for the same reason they trust or don't trust anything else - their church leader told them to. Why would a church leader tell them not to trust atheists? Let's face it, sowing distrust and fear is the only thing the pastor has in his bag to keep people coming to church.

atheism is a belief structure in the same fashion that OFF is a TV channel

atheism is a belief structure in the same fashion that OFF is a TV channel

Good one.

.

You obviously do...

(Since you felt the need to chime in (once again)).

But you keep pretending that you don't, K? It's adorable!

Because, unlike your meaningless drivel, Maher is hilarious and rational.

You commented, so you tell us why you cared enough about what Mr. Maher thinks to comment.

why do these types make comments on topics they claim to not care about? why do they spend time even going to the articles?

it is something like opening a collapsed comment. they just have to see what is going on and don't want to be left out. (hell yes, i do that too, and i admit to it)

they want attention, otherwise they would just read the article and go on.

And we care what Maher thinks...because?????

Because those who disagree with him on this subject cannot come up with a better response than yours.

Hey!

I've got a joke...

What do you call an "independent" that always votes 'R'?

And we care what Maher thinks...because?????

And we care what you care what Maher thinks...because?????

at least Maher says something and doesn't keep his head up his ass - unlike some

You cannot put talking snakes, magic apples and virgin births alongside molecular biology, physics and chemistry.

Of course you can. Both are accepted by the majority of their adherents on faith and the word of learned men (unless you wish to claim that everyone who believes the findings of science also have done every experiment that confirms the truth of their findings).

That said, Science isn't Atheism, neither of which are religions as such.

When someone calls it that, it just shows the desperate stupidity, and complete failure in their argument.

Not stupidity, but lack of vocabulary.

Atheism is a theological stance, but a religion isn't just a theological stance, despite the fact that's how it's used. A religion is a set of practices based on belief, a structured regimen. Atheism is not that, certainly.

But we've failed to differentiate religion from doctrine, dogma or theology and as such lump them all together under the R word.

I would argue that for some atheists, it is a faith, in that they believe that were the whole universe to be searched, no gods would be found, no matter how thorough the inspection. This is not something they can confirm themselves (unless they're omniscient, and thus a god themselves) so it must be taken on faith.

Most, if not the overwhelming majority, of atheists aren't this dogmatic. They simply don't find evidence of gods in the world and choose not believe in them.

But that said, where I agree with you is that Mr. Maher is correct; atheism is not a religion. Where I disagree with you is that terming atheism as a religion is not a sign of stupidity, but rather a misunderstanding of nuance and/or a lack of articulation.

Of course you can. Both are accepted by the majority of their adherents on faith and the word of learned men

Uh no.

Both may be accepted without actual knowledge, but things like physics, mathematics and chemistry can be proven.

Religion cannot.

2 + 2 = 4.

A seven year old can pick up two marbles, then pick up two more and understand the mathematically proven fact that they now have four marbles. Religion can never do this.

Talking snakes and magic apples cannot ever be proven to exist (because they don't) in this manner, and those myths should never be aligned with anything other than things like bigfoot and unicorns.

but rather a misunderstanding of nuance and/or a lack of articulation.

Or as I call it, stupid.

Lord Fluffy,

Actually, you've made a rather large error ...

It deals with the role of faith in science. Science is the process of the elimination of the need for faith for the acceptance of assertions.

Thus, your statement :

"Of course you can. Both are accepted by the majority of their adherents on faith and the word of learned men (unless you wish to claim that everyone who believes the findings of science also have done every experiment that confirms the truth of their findings)."

That's rather wrong, or profoundly misleading. It's not about accepting that others have done the experiments. It's that many people have done the experiments, AND that the information for the experiments can be done again, and the information provided allow each person, at any time, to replicate the process.

Thus there is no need for faith. If you want to question any aspect, you can simply re-evaluate each and every assertion.

Faith, ie., religion, is quite the opposite. You have assertions which are no only not testable, they have no mechanism of function, and (as a rule) the very act of questioning the assertion(s), or demanding proof, or scrutinizing the claims is tantamount to blasphemy/heresy/evil/etc...

In science, demanding proof, examining the claims and so on are highly encouraged (required, expected and praised).

Uh no.

Really? Grab the next person on the street and ask them if they 1) believe in sub atomic particles and 2) have ever used an electron microscope.

If the answers are yes and no, in that order, then they are taking the matter on faith.

Both may be accepted without actual knowledge, but things like physics, mathematics and chemistry can be proven

And repeatably so. But not everything that is true or real is repeatable or fits neatly into an equation.

If you doubt me, please demonstrate scientifically what you had for lunch two years ago today.

Religion cannot.

I personally disagree, but you're welcome to think otherwise.

And no, I have no interest in trying to prove it to you. I'm not here to evangelize; I simply disagree with your above statements.

2 + 2 = 4.

Yes, the hypothetical construct "2" when added to itself equals the hypothetical construct "4". Of course, there is no place you can go get a bucket of 4's to measure.

Religion can never do this.

Of course it can. It simply starts with different hypothetical constructs and then extrapolates conclusions based on the same.

Talking snakes and magic apples cannot ever be proven to exist (because they don't)....

So you take the strong atheism stance then?

And you've searched the universe, behind every atom and quark, and found neither of the above? You can state with omniscient certainty that neither talking snakes nor magic apples exist (though I actually would state that you're presenting two tenents of Christian doctrine with the same simplistic misunderstanding that those who call atheism a religion are displaying).

If not, you're taking this on belief. Belief based in verifiable empirical evidence, perhaps, but still belief.

At some level, we are all believers.

Or as I call it, stupid.

I apologize your vocabulary teachers failed you then, as that's not what the words mean.

And as this is a discussion of definitions, it would seem you'd want to get that right.

It's not about accepting that others have done the experiments. It's that many people have done the experiments, AND that the information for the experiments can be done again, and the information provided allow each person, at any time, to replicate the process.

And religion is very often about people having witnessed events, having contact with divine beings and/or reaching a state of enlightened perception and then passing that knowledge on to others.

The fact that some true things are repeatable and some are not does not rob the unrepeatable ones of truth nor does it change the fact that the person who did not witness the confirming event, be it experiment or revelation, accepts the conclusions based upon anything but faith and trust.

Thus there is no need for faith.

I respectfully disagree. Even if it's the faith that your instruments are not lying to you, on some level, it's about faith.

... the very act of questioning the assertion(s), or demanding proof, or scrutinizing the claims is tantamount to blasphemy/heresy/evil/etc...

I have not found this to be the case outside of bad fantasy movies. The whole study of theology is questioning the nature of divine and seeking proof for the things in which there is already faith.

I won't deny this can and likely has, in places, lead to confirmation bias. But I deny that it equals a taboo against asking questions or seeking justification for faith.

Really? Grab the next person on the street and ask them if they 1) believe in sub atomic particles and 2) have ever used an electron microscope.

Ask them what 1 + 1 is.

If they hold up two fingers, they have proven me right.

Ask anyone on earth to show you a snake that can talk you into eating an apple that will banish us all to eternal damnation unless we accept jesus as our personal saviour.

I'll wait.

If you doubt me, please demonstrate scientifically what you had for lunch two years ago today.

Unlike religion, I don't claim to have the indisputable answer to that question. However, if someone had some verifiable evidence that I in fact had eaten peanut butter and jelly, I'd assert that is what I'd had.

Of course, there is no place you can go get a bucket of 4's to measure.

Yes you can. If you take six empty buckets and place four beers in each one. You will have six buckets of four (otherwise known as a case).

Of course it can. It simply starts with different hypothetical constructs and then extrapolates conclusions based on the same.

Four of something is real. This blabbering nonsense about "hypothetical constructs" is a smokescreen. We did not use "hypothetical constructs" or "faith" to get a man to the moon and back.

We used math.

So you take the strong atheism stance then?

Is there such a thing as a weak atheist stance? I don't believe in an all controlling omniscient supernatural power in the judeo christian sense; or any other gods for that matter.

So I guess that makes me a strong atheist?

And you've searched the universe, behind every atom and quark, and found neither of the above? You can state with omniscient certainty that neither talking snakes nor magic apples exist

No, I can look at the evidence available and see that there is no evidence of talking snakes and magic apples.

By your logic, I must assume that you believe in anything that anyone has ever imagined because it is simply not possible to prove the nonexistence of things that are non existent.

So you must certainly believe in Zues, sasquatch, unicorns, Yehti, Santa Claus, Atlantis, the six million dollar man, Harry Potter, Speed Racer, Snow White, The Outlaw Josey Wales, etc etc etc because unless you have searched the entire universe and can prove that they unequivocally don't exist, that they must?

How is that belief in Tinkerbell working out for you?

There is equal evidence of the existence of Tinkerball as there is of god.

But hey, it must be my inability to understand those "hypothetical constructs" that make me see no difference in the two.

I have an idea, you loan me a hundred dollars. I'll pay you back two ten dollar bills and we will be square.

After all, it is just your "hypothetical construct" that I still owe you eighty bucks.

$10 + $10 doesn't really equal twenty dollars, it equals $100 because my "hypothetical construct" says that my $10 bill is the same as your $50 bill, so therefore I owe you nothing.

As you said, I cannot find buckets of twenty dollars to measure to be sure that I still owe you eighty bucks.

I apologize your vocabulary teachers failed you then, as that's not what the words mean.

In my "hypothetical construct "a misunderstanding of nuance and/or a lack of articulation equals "stupid".

Since that is what I believe stupid to mean, and you cannot unequivically prove otherwise, I must be right.

See how dumb that sounds.

Ask them what 1 + 1 is.

If they hold up two fingers, they have proven me right.

No, not really, anymore than pointing to Jerusalem on a map proves the claims of Christianity.

Ask anyone on earth to show you a snake that can talk you into eating an apple that will banish us all to eternal damnation unless we accept jesus as our personal saviour.

Why on Earth would I do that? I'm not asserting they exist. You're asserting the affirmative position that they don't, can't, never have and never will.

I.e., a belief, as there's no way you can prove that.

However, if someone had some verifiable evidence that I in fact had eaten peanut butter and jelly, I'd assert that is what I'd had.

But you miss my point: Even without evidence today, the contents of your stomach 730 days ago were no less true. Not every true thing is repeatable or verifiable with empirical evidence.

The question isn't if they had proof, would you believe but if there is no way to prove it, is it any less true today? And the answer is no, it's just as true today as it was then, repeatable or no.

Yes you can. If you take six empty buckets and place four beers in each one. You will have six buckets of four (otherwise known as a case).

No, you can't.

You will have a number of buckets that possess the quality of "4". "4" however, is an abstract concept, only definable in juxtaposition to other concepts. The symbol on the keyboard between 3 and 5 is just that, a symbol. If you cut it in half, you don't get two 2's. You get 2 half-keys.

Again, definitions are important.

We did not use "hypothetical constructs" or "faith" to get a man to the moon and back.

Mathematics teachers might disagree with you.

If you would, produce a 4. Not 4 of something, but a 4. I'd like to touch it, squeeze it in half and get two 2's.

If you can't do this for me, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your understanding of what numbers are.

Is there such a thing as a weak atheist stance?

Yes, as well as strong and weak agnosticism. I've already gone over this below.

By your logic, I must assume that you believe in anything that anyone has ever imagined because it is simply not possible to prove the nonexistence of things that are non existent.

No, but you must accept this: You cannot prove a negative without perfect knowledge of the environs in which you are attempting to exclude something. In a shoebox, it is easy to find no gods. In a house, a little less so, but well within the realm of possibility. In the world, less still.

In the whole universe, throughout all time and space? Only if you yourself are omniscient.

Of your list, incidentally, I do believe in Zeus as a deity and in all the other things as fictional characters and/or concepts. Yeti's, I think, might be real. Atlantis, too, though I find that the possibilities of it's location are dwindling.

There is equal evidence of the existence of Tinkerball as there is of god.

By your estimates, there's more, as no one is claiming Tinkerbell to be anything other than a character from a book. But those who have had direct experience with gods would disagree with you, I think.

But hey, it must be my inability to understand those "hypothetical constructs" that make me see no difference in the two.

Thank you for admitting your error and limitations.

After all, it is just your "hypothetical construct" that I still owe you eighty bucks.

And you say that you don't understand this. I think you're putting me on.

I would also argue that there's a bit of energy, a sort of power, that also exists within the debt, but that's a personal conviction that I'm exploring.

In my "hypothetical construct "a misunderstanding of nuance and/or a lack of articulation equals "stupid".

And thus you disagree with the majority of the most English speakers. Furthermore, you're failing to use the language well because you're perverting a commonly understood term to be defined by your personal preference.

Which is your right I suppose, but it doesn't make it true.

See how dumb that sounds.

Oh, I've seen how dumb much of your post sounds.

It's been real, but I don't want to be going around all day. I'll give you the floor here and not respond further in this comment thread.

ah - the "declare victory and run like hell" stance, eh?

LordFluffy

And religion is very often about people having witnessed events, having contact with divine beings and/or reaching a state of enlightened perception and then passing that knowledge on to others.

Well, there is a difference between a "spiritual" experience and a "religious." Religion is heavy on encoding the experience and defining the rules and rituals that will supposedly prepare one to re-experience it.

Lord Fluffy, you seem much more intelligent than your screen name (or presence here) would suggest.

No, the "I really don't want to go back and forth with someone who I will convince of nothing and eventually be annoyed just talking to" stance.

Look, if someone else wishes to prove that the faith the average citizen has in science is qualitatively different than that which the average citizen has in divine beings, be my guest. For that matter, if one wishes to argue that "4" is anything other than a concept or that beliveing in things you can't prove is anything other than faith (including that Jesus is not personally standing next to me right now), go ahead.

I've argued with a lot of people on the topic of Atheism on the Vine. In some discussions I've done okay, in others not so much. Either way, I've found the way that I don't just end up arguing with someone in an unenjoyable way for days on end is to know when I've said as much as I can say and let it go at that.

I said I wouldn't respond to Pablo for these reasons. The discussion is becoming more and more sarcastic and while I found it fun to play along for a while, I don't see a point in escalating or continuing. I never said I wouldn't respond to anyone else on the matter, however.

There are some concepts we differ on, down to some basic definitions. The fact of the matter is that I disagree with his initial premises, 1) That faith in science is fundamentally different for most people from faith in religion and that 2) that calling "atheism" a "religion" means one is stupid, rather than misinformed or misusing the term religion.

Nothing I say is going to convince him otherwise, though I feel I've made my case. Nothing he has to say, especially in the tone he's saying it, will convince me he has any insight or point that I've not already heard and discussed with people who were more interested in an honest exchange of ideas rather than trying to turn very complex and deep seated concepts into pithy one liners. And that's fine, but that doesn't mean I need to continue this banter.

I have other things to do. I'm not claiming victory and this isn't a game. It's a debate and one that I've ceased to enjoy. So I'm stepping away from it before I let it take up any more mental floorspace than it already is doing.

Have I encapsulated my position thoroughly enough or do you still think that I'm just rage quitting?

Lord Fluffy, you seem much more intelligent than your screen name (or presence here) would suggest.

Thanks.

I didn't give myself the nickname "Fluffy", but when I found that it was often already someone else's screen name, I added "Lord" to the front. I try to use it to remind myself not to take myself too seriously.

Of a note, there's a character on the anime Inuyasha, Lord Sesshomaru, who is known in fandom by the same name. I didn't know that until I started using the handle.

Religion is heavy on encoding the experience and defining the rules and rituals that will supposedly prepare one to re-experience it.

You have a point.

What I'm saying is that the basis for theological beliefs, which are then used to establish a religious practice, are often based upon the experiences of a few that are then passed on to many.

Much in the way that the sciences are studied by a few, but accepted by many.

While the origins are not directly equivalent, the result is that a few learned men guide many who accept their conclusions based upon trust and faith. You can argue whether or not they should have said trust and faith, but I don't think you can argue the nature of the trust and faith itself as being different because of the objects and people being trusted and in which faith is placed.

Ask them what 1 + 1 is.

If they hold up two fingers, they have proven me right.

No, not really, anymore than pointing to Jerusalem on a map proves the claims of Christianity.

Mathematical equations have been provable for centuries. Pointing out Jerusalem on a map merely points out that you know where Jerusalem is on a map. Christianity can never be proven, with or without the absence of science. But regardless of any wordsmithing mathematical formulas can be proven, repeatedly.

Again, are you really arguing that 1 + 1 does not equal 2 ?

Using smart sounding terms like "hypothetical constructs" to argue that basic math is only in your mind is a bigger stretch than 400 pound 70 year old pregnant woman.

Ask anyone on earth to show you a snake that can talk you into eating an apple that will banish us all to eternal damnation unless we accept jesus as our personal saviour.

Why on Earth would I do that? I'm not asserting they exist. You're asserting the affirmative position that they don't, can't, never have and never will.

You obviously did not read what I posted. I stated very clearly, " I can look at the evidence available and see that there is no evidence of talking snakes and magic apples"

Nowhere did I take the assertive position that you described. I am saying that I don't see any evidence of a talking snake or magic apples. Do you?

I.e., a belief, as there's no way you can prove that.

I never said that I could prove that, I simply said that there is no evidence of it, so I don't think they exist based on a complete lack of any supporting scientific evidence.

However, if someone had some verifiable evidence that I in fact had eaten peanut butter and jelly, I'd assert that is what I'd had.

But you miss my point: Even without evidence today, the contents of your stomach 730 days ago were no less true. Not every true thing is repeatable or verifiable with empirical evidence.

And you miss my point. I don't believe that I even ate lunch 730 days ago. I probably didn't (I'm not a big lunch eater). In fact, there is no verifiable evidence that I at lunch that day at all. There may be a reasonable expectation based on other facts, that I ate lunch that day, but there is certainly no proof, and it is just as likely that I did not eat at all.

And if someone who never met me came along and said that I had a magic apple for lunch, and that it has to be true because it is written in a collection of stories from long ago, I would be very suspect, as I don't recall ever seeing a magic apple, let alone having one for lunch.

I'd probably ask for some proof.

Yes you can. If you take six empty buckets and place four beers in each one. You will have six buckets of four (otherwise known as a case).

No, you can't.

You will have a number of buckets that possess the quality of "4". "4" however, is an abstract concept, only definable in juxtaposition to other concepts. The symbol on the keyboard between 3 and 5 is just that, a symbol. If you cut it in half, you don't get two 2's. You get 2 half-keys.

Again, definitions are important.

Four is not an abstract concept. It is a number.

"The symbol on the keyboard between 3 and 5 is just that, a symbol"

It is actually a symbol on a computer key. That is why you get two parts of a computer key when you cut it in half. It is not a number, or a symbol, it is a computer key. If you cut another one in half you will have four half computer keys. Four, as in one more than three and one less than five. You car does not have the abstract concept of four wheels on it. It has four wheels on it.

We did not use "hypothetical constructs" or "faith" to get a man to the moon and back.

Mathematics teachers might disagree with you.

Which explains why we are getting our butts handed to us globally in Math and Science.

If you would, produce a 4. Not 4 of something, but a 4. I'd like to touch it, squeeze it in half and get two 2's.

If you can't do this for me, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your understanding of what numbers are.

2

2 2

2

Go ahead, squeeze it in half and you will have two two's.

Seriously, you are going to argue the existence of an all powerful deity because math isn't real. I guess I'll just explain to my mortgage company that my payment is abstract, and that means it is not real. I hope they don't foreclose on my not so abstract house.

Is there such a thing as a weak atheist stance?

Yes, as well as strong and weak agnosticism. I've already gone over this below.

I would disagree. A think a weak atheist is an agnostic. But we could argue semantics all day.

By your logic, I must assume that you believe in anything that anyone has ever imagined because it is simply not possible to prove the nonexistence of things that are non existent.

No, but you must accept this: You cannot prove a negative without perfect knowledge of the environs in which you are attempting to exclude something. In a shoebox, it is easy to find no gods. In a house, a little less so, but well within the realm of possibility. In the world, less still.

Imagine that, in the huge whole universe with all of the possibility that you so smartly point out, not one person has ever found a shred of credible evidence that god exists.

Of your list, incidentally, I do believe in Zeus as a deity and in all the other things as fictional characters and/or concepts.

How is Zues less fictional than Harry Potter?

Yeti's, I think, might be real. Atlantis, too, though I find that the possibilities of it's location are dwindling.

Cool, something we agree on.

There is equal evidence of the existence of Tinkerball as there is of god.

By your estimates, there's more, as no one is claiming Tinkerbell to be anything other than a character from a book.

Nice deflection from a point that you don't have any real response to.

You have repeatedly made the assertion that someone cannot know completely and totally that there is no god.

So if I, or anyone else for that matter makes the assertion that Tinkerbell created the earth 10,000 years ago, you cannot make any more or less of a supporting or discrediting case for Tink versus god.

Again, how is the assertion that Tinkerbell created earth any less viable than that of a god story?

For that matter, any cockamamy idea that someone else dreams up should share the same validity, because as you so eloquently point out, you cannot disprove it without being omniscient.

But those who have had direct experience with gods would disagree with you, I think.

I will gladly debate this with anyone who claims to have had direct experience with gods. Do you know any?

But hey, it must be my inability to understand those "hypothetical constructs" that make me see no difference in the two.

Thank you for admitting your error and limitations.

After all, it is just your "hypothetical construct" that I still owe you eighty bucks.

And you say that you don't understand this. I think you're putting me on.

You picked up on that?

I would also argue that there's a bit of energy, a sort of power, that also exists within the debt, but that's a personal conviction that I'm exploring.

Let me know how that energy stuff works out for you. In my world, I'd just owe you eighty bucks.

In my "hypothetical construct "a misunderstanding of nuance and/or a lack of articulation equals "stupid".

And thus you disagree with the majority of the most English speakers. Furthermore, you're failing to use the language well because you're perverting a commonly understood term to be defined by your personal preference.

It is my "hypothetical construct", who are you to say I'm wrong.

Which is your right I suppose, but it doesn't make it true.

So you have searched the entire universe through each and every possibility and are certain in all omnipresence that is no tiny uncovered spot in eternity that my interpretation is not correct somewhere.

See how dumb that sounds.

Oh, I've seen how dumb much of your post sounds.

See, when you base your argument on the possibility that something exists because there is no way of knowing throughout all of the universe and time that is does/did not exist, then everything else you argue can be held as fallible because based on your own premise it is certainly possible that there is some small corner of the universe where you would be wrong that you don't know about.

Thus making you always wrong for no ther reason that you just could be, because there is some fractional cosmic possibility that you are in fact wrong.

Personally, I'll stick with $2 + $2 = $4, and 24 beers equals a case.

You can have half a computer key.

Really? Grab the next person on the street and ask them if they 1) believe in sub atomic particles and 2) have ever used an electron microscope.

If the answers are yes and no, in that order, then they are taking the matter on faith.

First of all... I'm assuming that you are talking about atomic particles vs. subatomic particles. AFAIK, subatomic particles cannot be observed via an electron microscope. I realize however, that the distinction does not necessarily in any way diminish your overall point. So let's continue...

Postulating that accepting the notion of a supernatural god or gods is in anyway comparable to accepting the fact that matter is made up of atoms is really rather ridiculous.

Whether or not I have actually seen atomic structure via an electron microscope does not in any way diminish the fact that many people that have no vested interest in the existence of atomic particles HAVE seen them and the technology of electron microscopes is universally accepted.

Furthermore, no one is saying that I will burn in hell if I don't believe in atomic structure, or that I will live forever in paradise if I do. Scientists that researched the nature of atomic structure would have everything to lose (career-wise) by deceiving the public and nothing to gain.

I have studied college-level calculus-based physics and chemistry and understand all of the math and theories that these scientific fields rely on. One can come to the conclusion that atomic structure is real even if we didn't have electron microscopes. In actuality, scientists already knew about the nature of atomic structure long before it was actually observed.

Furthermore, if I wanted to pursue the matter diligently enough I COULD gain access to an electron microscope to directly make such an observation.

Finally, none of these points that have raised would be applicable to a supernatural god...

First of all... I'm assuming that you are talking about atomic particles vs. subatomic particles. AFAIK, subatomic particles cannot be observed via an electron microscope.

Thanks for making the point.

Whether or not I have actually seen atomic structure via an electron microscope does not in any way diminish the fact that many people that have no vested interest in the existence of atomic particles HAVE seen them and the technology of electron microscopes is universally accepted.

1) Not every person who believes in deity has any vested interest in anyone else believing in a deity. Not ever person who believes in a deity has some prior bias towards believing in one or reason that believing in deity would make their life more convenient.

2) Universally accepted? The Bushmen in Africa accept the technology of electron microscopes?

No, it's accepted by people who understand the technology, by reason, and by everyone else because they have no reason to doubt it.

Again, there is no qualitative difference in the faith one has in a technology you don't understand and have never used and faith in miracles.

Furthermore, no one is saying that I will burn in hell if I don't believe in atomic structure, or that I will live forever in paradise if I do. Scientists that researched the nature of atomic structure would have everything to lose (career-wise) by deceiving the public and nothing to gain.

The religion I practice doesn't suggest I will burn in hell for anything either.

And while I could speculate on what bias and vested interest in their conclusions being confirmed, it would be no more than speculation and my argument does not in any way rest on the nature of the learned men making the claims, but on the less learned men who believe those claims based upon their trust in them.

I have studied college-level calculus-based physics and chemistry and understand all of the math and theories that these scientific fields rely on

Which puts you in the minority. You have different reasons to accept the truths than most people. And theologians have different reasons for accepting the truth of divine existence the the average parishioner.

In actuality, scientists already knew about the nature of atomic structure long before it was actually observed.

Which is irrelevant to my point, unless you are then suggesting that everyone who accepts the realities of atomic structure has done the math themselves to verify for themselves the likelihood.

Finally, none of these points that have raised would be applicable to a supernatural god...

An irrelevant point.

We're not talking about the nature of god. We're talking about the nature of belief. The original statement was this:

You cannot put talking snakes, magic apples and virgin births alongside molecular biology, physics and chemistry.

And I say you can for this reason: The grand majority of people who believe these things to be true neither have gone through the steps to confirm it themselves, but trust in people more knowledgeable on the subject than themselves (or at least perceived to be more knowledgeable).

I'm not saying that belief in the conclusions of any scientific research is irrational, though I do not think belief in the conclusions of any theological studies are irrational, either. I'm saying, simply, there is no difference in the quality of faith that one might put in science vs. the claims one might put into theology if one has not done the research personally (or the companion experiments).

I'm not saying that belief in the conclusions of any scientific research is irrational, though I do not think belief in the conclusions of any theological studies are irrational, either. I'm saying, simply, there is no difference in the quality of faith that one might put in science vs. the claims one might put into theology if one has not done the research personally (or the companion experiments).

There is. And it is based upon the motivations of said 'studies'.

Religion persists because of Death (the unknown); Science persists because it provides answers.

The grand majority of people who believe these things to be true neither have gone through the steps to confirm it themselves, but trust in people more knowledgeable on the subject than themselves (or at least perceived to be more knowledgeable).

I can accept this notion as valid. However, what separates science from other faith-only-based beliefs is that ultimately one has the avenue to explore the empirical evidence that serves as the underpinnings for scientific theory, should they so desire. The same cannot be said for the notion of supernatural gods...

Religion persists because of Death (the unknown); Science persists because it provides answers.

So no scientist has ever gone seeking answers from empirical studies because they wished to better understand, perhaps even feared Death?

You've described motivations for the learned men I've talked about to enter into deeper studies, not the reason the majority of those who accept the conclusions do so.

People get hope from the science of medicine just the same way they do from religion. And that is whether or not they've actually studied the deeper complexities of either subject; they just accept that they are taken care of because the guys in the lab coats/vestments say so.

There is no difference.

The same cannot be said for the notion of supernatural gods...

I would disagree. One is free to take up a life of pursuit, asceticism and discipline. One is free to speak to any deities who wish to reveal themselves to you.

The fact that it is a less reliable way to encounter truth is irrelevant to this.

But that's another discussion. I'm glad we could come to agreement on the one point, however. It's been enjoyable.

ambivalent

Smith Cassidy, Perhaps religion exists also because of the need for comfort.

If you mean comfort because of the unknown that is death, I would agree.

Our ancestors used to have a god for all the things they didn't understand and/or that scared them. We have since boiled it down to one and that is, I would argue, because there is 1 mystery left to us. Is it any surprise that the thing Christianity did differently from the religions that came before is to give the people hope in life after death where there was no more pain, fear, or sadness?

So no scientist has ever gone seeking answers from empirical studies because they wished to better understand, perhaps even feared Death?

You've described motivations for the learned men I've talked about to enter into deeper studies, not the reason the majority of those who accept the conclusions do so.

People get hope from the science of medicine just the same way they do from religion. And that is whether or not they've actually studied the deeper complexities of either subject; they just accept that they are taken care of because the guys in the lab coats/vestments say so.

There is no difference.

Of course, scientists are people, and they too are going to die.

Perhaps my point wasn't clear. Back to your, "you haven't seen an atom, therefore why do you believe atoms exist" argument, which I believe is a valid question. I'm simply saying the only question religion answers is that of death and all the different fears and uncertainties associated with it. If science ever cracks that nut, organized religion will rapidly fade. But spirituality will certainly remain.

I'm simply saying the only question religion answers is that of death and all the different fears and uncertainties associated with it.

I'm not sure I agree with you, though I am curious about your distinction between spirituality and religion.

I'm not sure I agree with you, though I am curious about your distinction between spirituality and religion.

Right, all of this stuff is vague... It's the nature of the subject I believe. (ugh, that word again...)

And I must admit, I think I'm starting to come around to your PoV regarding faith in the non-existence of something... It's just an atypical usage of 'faith', at least for me.

Re: spirituality and religion. I would put spirituality in a bucket with agnosticism. Do I know there is no God? No, of course not. But what I believe I know is that there is no proof for God, at least not the type of God in any of our major religions. Yet that doesn't mean I don't think there isn't something greater out there, something mysterious, some energy, chi, soul.

I always come back to Death. When someone dies, their body is still there with all the parts in place (even if they are damaged), so what left? The difference between being alive and dead is not in the body per se, but in the thing that left the body, whatever you choose to call it. And if it (soul, energy, etc.) left, where did it go?

I am of the mind that Nothing cannot exist. It's an impossibility, a paradox. As soon as you say you can think of or imagine 'nothing', it then becomes a thing. Nothing cannot exist so long as there are things in the Universe. It would be like anti-matter, only everything would be gone.

So where does that thing which leaves the body go? I don't know.

I guess I would sum up spirituality, at least for me, as believing there is a lot more to life and death than we can understand/comprehend, but I don't believe in a very human (petty, jealous, angry, willful) "God" watching over, manipulating, and finally judging us.

Thanks for the insight.

Walk easy. Peace.

Entropy and Conservation of Energy. Energy doesn't leave the system, it's just transformed.

That something greater to me is the universe and the interaction and interplay of the energy that fills it. As Bill says, Energy is neither created or destroyed but changes form. Even matter is just a specific form of energy. And all is wave in nature. So reality and existence are merely the interaction of these energy waves to produce what we perceive as reality. Yet we only perceive 3 dimensions and a form of time. Quantum suggests there are as many as 11 dimensions. What reality exists in those dimensions? The shadows of those dimensions are all we can perceive in this form. But what is the reality of those dimensions and of us in those dimensions? Is that what we call a soul, ghosts, extrasensory perceptions?

I don't know.

CONSERVAPEDIA?

Seriously?

BWAAAHAHAHAHA!

(HINT: Those things they are teaching are called "FACTS". Say it with me now... "F-A-C-T-S")

Don't you love it when some neanderthol tells you that you are not allowed to "not believe" in something without having some faith label, citing some obtuse legal precedent? Conservative - does my denial of the existence of the easter bunny have label too? Are you an aunicornist? Or do you simply just not believe in unicorns? I'm sure conservatives everywhere are cringing that you associate yourself with them.

The Seventh Court did not rule that atheism is a religion. The ruling was that atheism deserves the same legal protections as religions.

In August 2005, in a case where a prison inmate was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism, the court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Courtprecedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.^[12][13]

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., __— U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, __— L.Ed.2d __— (2005).

You say "tomato", I say "whatever the @!$%# nonsensical lies I think are going to support my argument"

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

Yes, legally atheism is considered a religion when it comes to 1st Amendment rights. However, logically and practically atheism really holds none of the characteristics that religions do.

I find it rather sad that many Christians will argue out of both sides of their mouths on this one... when they are trying to diminish a logical point that someone is making, i.e. faith vs. evidence, etc... they will state that it takes just as much faith to support the notion of atheism as it does to believe in religion, and that atheism is in all actuality a religion.

Then when it comes to denying atheist protection under the Constitution they will argue that atheism isn't a religion.

Like many things, religious folks often get this backasswards as well...

Cons, the court was ruling that the inmate was protected under the religious freedom clause oh, and because the inmate's brief explicitly stated that precise wording "that atheism is the inmate's religion".

If you'd read the actual findings of the court, you'd see that the judges did not declare atheism to be a religion.

Nice quote-mining. Mine-collapse imminent.

From that actual case opinion.

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., __— U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, __— L.Ed.2d __— (2005).

Gosh darnit ... I guess you guys are right. According to the legal system, it is now impossible to not be religious.

/sarc

I just wish you could grasp how stupid that sounds.

Okay so chemistry is a religion, medicine is a religion, physics is a religion, English is a religion, Art is a religion.

Equivalent to a religion in regards to the first amendment is not the same as a religion. What it means is that religious bigots can not pass laws restricting the rights of atheists to speech.

Whether Atheism is a religion or not, it is still necessarily and act of faith, since there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god.

Really?

Let's see it.

Don't:

Really?

Let's see it.

What?

(You need to be more careful with your use of pronouns. Thanks.)

... there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god.

There sure is - and he is a wicked bastard.

I can see that Atheism is most definitely a religion because it is a spiritual practice grounded in and governed by an existential, faith-based dogma.

That's some serious twisted non-logic. What sprititual practice or dogma can you site of atheism?

"it"=evidence

(but you already knew that)

(BTW, "that"="that I meant "it"=evidence)

Whether Atheism is a religion or not, it is still necessarily and act of faith, since there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god.

Um, no.

Not believing in a man-made fantasy doesn't make one religious.

It doesn't mean that one has "faith" that there is no god.

It's not up to atheists to prove that there is no god because the logical assumption is that there isn't one unless proven otherwise. Ergo, the burden of proof lies solely with those that do believe.

Whether Atheism is a religion or not, it is still necessarily and act of faith,

Atheism is one of two things. Either it is the stance that no deity or deities exist or it is a lack of belief. The latter would be an "act of faith" insofar as the "act" is "abstaining."

Upswing gets a few things a bit wrong...

"Whether Atheism is a religion or not, it is still necessarily and act of faith, since there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god."

Atheism doesn't assert that there is no god, it simply means that the members do not believe in a god. Do you absolutely positively believe that I have a can of Pepsi in my house? Sure, it's possible. It's even really plausible -- nothing unusual about the claim. But if you don't absolutely believe it, then you are a A-"chirmly-has-pepsi-in-his-house"-IST. By not believing it, you are not asserting that I don't have a Pepsi, it's that you simply don't believe it.

Further, there is no evidence for a god -- any god. All supernatural claims for which god has been the attributional agent have either been bogus, they have no evidence or other causes (non-supernatural) have been found. Eclipses, are not caused by god. Comets, not god. The sun is not carried through the sky by god(s). Leprosy, not god. The flood, didn't happen. Death of first-born males, didn't happen.

So, we have bold assertions of an extraordinary nature. That requires a large burden of proof. Theists have made no progress in demonstrating any manner of those claims.

Thus, there is no reason to believe that a god exist. It's like believing that a six-foot talking bunny exists because it was shown in a movie -- despite the fact that there is no evidence for it and yet there is no evidence to show that it does not exist.

If you do not absolutely believe that a god exists -- then you are an atheist.

"Personally, I can see that Atheism is most definitely a religion because it is a spiritual practice grounded in and governed by an existential, faith-based dogma."

If, by religion, you mean the collection of shared rituals, then Atheism isn't a religion.

If, by religion, you mean the shared belief in.. oh, again, all they share is a lack of belief, so again, atheism is not a religion.

If, by religion, you mean the shared acceptance of the role of supernatural entities, then atheism is not a religion.

If, by religion, you mean the shared acceptance of a doctrine, gospel or dogma, then atheism again fails the test.

Of course, atheism isn't a spiritual practice at all. It has nothing to do with any spirits of any sort. It posits no role for spirits, in fact.

hows that TV channel of OFF working out for yah upswing?

evil:

That's some serious twisted non-logic. What sprititual practice or dogma can you site of atheism?

Atheism is a belief.

Beliefs are acts of faith.

Atheism is a doctrine.

Doctrines are sets principles, positions or policies.

Thus, atheism is a faith-based doctrine.

Spirituality concerns itself with claims of non-corporeal matters and states, such as the possible existence of the soul and a metaphysical/supernatirual presence/power.

Atheism concerns itself with -- an can only exist due to -- claims of existence of god and supernatural power.

Thus, atheism is a spiritual practice.

QED:

Atheism is a faith-based doctrine, which makes it, by defintion, a dogma. --"Dogma" is a synonym for "doctrine" -- that is a spiritual practice, pursuant to its existential reliance on questions of spirituality.

Please note that, your offensive post:

That's some serious twisted non-logic. What sprititual practice or dogma can you site of atheism?

shows how your own personal dogma -- that you are right, irrespective of the truth -- leads you to the false claim that my logic is twisted and "non-logic."

Were you more intellectually honest, you would have presented your conclusion -- that my logic is twisted non-logic -- after assessing the evidence for that claim, not before.

The fact that you did not very closely resembles Maher's idiotic and dishonest frontloading of a claim with an unfounded conclusion, irrespective of the truth of that claim.

In that respect, you both pass yourself off as being intellectually authentic in your critical thinking process, when, in reality, both oof you are basically blowing hot air to give the impression that you know and understand more than you actually know and understand.

Maher's motivation for being this intellectually dishonest is to make money.

I'm curious.

What's yours?

BTW: "site" and "cite" mean different things.

Atheism is a belief

No it isn't.

My refusal to accept the existence of leprechauns or unicorns is also not a belief.

Don't:

"it"=evidence

Again, you need to clarify what you are refererring to.

This is not an idle question, since the evidence you are seeking can apply either to the existence of or non-existence of the existence of god, per:

since there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god.(but you already knew that)

***

(but you already knew that)

Obviously, if I knew it, I would not have asked for the clarifiication.

(BTW, "that"="that I meant "it"=evidence)

Then you are misusing the pronoun "that," since the "that" in this instance clearly refers to my purported knwoledge of what "it" means, not the referrent of "it" per se.

This is why you need to be more careful in your thinking and per your use of pronouns.

Let me simplify this:

Are yo seeking evidence from me that god exists, or are you seeking evidence from me that god does not exist?

Thanks.

Susan:

My refusal to accept the existence of leprechauns or unicorns is also not a belief.

It is if you are presented with relevant evidence that they do exist that you are unable to successfully and dispositively rebut, irrespective of the validity of that evidence.

I think that you and others are lazily confusing Atheism with agnosticism.

That happens often.

I'm sure that Maher knows he is committing this rhetorical sin, too, but his interest is not in investigating the existence of god (or otherwise) it is in generating publicity that he will leverage into personal wealth and public self-aggrandizement.

And he knows that the generally lazy thinking/insufficient vocabulary of most Americans -- particularly those whose dogma is either atheistic or theistic -- will allow the sin to go largely unchallenged.

Or do you think that Maher is more preacher/philosopher than comic/multi-millionaire?

Susan:

Um, no.

Not believing in a man-made fantasy doesn't make one religious.

It doesn't mean that one has "faith" that there is no god.

It's not up to atheists to prove that there is no god because the logical assumption is that there isn't one unless proven otherwise. Ergo, the burden of proof lies solely with those that do believe.

Can you support any of the bas claims above with any credible citation/evidence?

Thanks.

I think that you and others are lazily confusing Atheism with agnosticism.

No.

Agnostics claim that the existence of a god is unknowable. There is at least the implication that it is possible that there is a god.

An atheist says that god doesn't exist, period. But that doesn't mean that an atheist has "faith" that there are no gods.

There are no god(s) because it's a silly concept when you think about it. Rejection of silly concepts doesn't mean any sort of faith is involved - merely logic.

chirmly:

Atheism doesn't assert that there is no god, it simply means that the members do not believe in a god.

Wrong:

a·the·ism,

noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

SOURCE: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Please be more careful witth your claims, particualry foundational claims such as your mis-definition of "atheism," if you want to engage in this conversation.

Since this is a foundational claim, I will give you the opportunity to amend and correct it before I engage inthe rest of your post.

Also, if atheism is not a religion, what do yo mean by its "members?"

You might also want to moderate your unnecessarily confrontational tone, which, as you can see, will only backfire on you when you are wrong and it comes across as random bombast, as opposed to you expressing confidenc in a sound argument.

thelopes:

Atheism is one of two things. Either it is the stance that no deity or deities exist or it is a lack of belief.

Says who? (Apart from you.)

Can you support any of the bas claims above with any credible citation/evidence?

You totally missed my point.

It isn't up to an atheist to prove anything.

Susan:

There are no god(s) because it's a silly concept when you think about it.

And it's an even sillier concept when you don't think about it.

As Bill Maher's statement illustrates.

And it's an even sillier concept when you don't think about it.

I do think about it and that's why I'm an atheist.

Really? Your still being intellectually dishonest with the term "belief". Belief is defined as:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Atheist aren't of the "opinion" that there is no God.

Susan:

You totally missed my point.

I understand your point. I've heard it often.

And it is that:

It isn't up to an atheist to prove anything.

You argument is based on the de facto assumtion that god does not exist -- that atheism is not a matter of belief, but it is matter of fact until someone can present evidence that god exists.

But this is a circular argument, since it does not take into account the evidence presented that god does exist, irrespective of the validity of that evidence. (How valid that evidence seems to be to individuals is the basis of faith.)

For example:

Person A reads the Bible and says, "Tosh! and poppycock!" Adam, Eve, Noah, begatting, flaming swords -- what a bunch of blather.

Person B reads the same Bible and says, "I'm saved! God will give me eternal life.

When person A is challenged to support his poppcock claim, what can he point to?

Well, either he can simply say, as you have, that the claims in the Bible are just too silly to deal with.

This makes that argument circular because you are supporting your conclusion -- that the Bible is too silly to deal with-- with your "evidence," which is TA DA! that the Bible is poppycock.

Or Person A could listen to the stories about Noah and the rest, and rebut them one by one and point by point.

This would be a more legitimate rebuttal of the claim that god exists.

Simialrly, person B can either buy the claims in the Bible wholesale and without any further investigation, simply because she believes that it is true.

Or Person B can offer further supoprt for the evidence offered in the Bible that god does exist.

This means that both person A and person B are required to present evidence to supprot their respective positions based on the text -- the Bible, Koraan etc -- that purports to either support or undermine the claimed existence of god.

i.e. Believers and non-believers have the same burden of proof when it comes to supporting their respective claims regading the existence or non existence of god.

Susan:

I do think about it and that's why I'm an atheist.

i.e. It's why you believe what you believe ...

And so it goes ...

evil:

Atheist aren't of the "opinion" that there is no God.

Yes they are. That's exactly what their "opinion" is. In fact, it's such a strong opinion, that it is their doctrine/dogma.

See #12.16.

Having read #12.16, you can see how the remainder of your post supports my point.

Can't you?

thelopes:

Atheism is one of two things. Either it is the stance that no deity or deities exist or it is a lack of belief.

Says who? (Apart from you.)

Part 2 of your atheism definition.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So, what's the definition of disbelieving?

1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in

So - atheism can be either part 1 - doctrine there is no God - or part 2 - "to have no believe in" God.

Don't:

"it"=evidence

Again, you need to clarify what you are refererring to.

This is not an idle question, since the evidence you are seeking can apply either to the existence of or non-existence of the existence of god, per:

since there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god.(but you already knew that)

Keep playing dumb... It's fun to deal with.

It is if you are presented with relevant evidence that they do exist that you are unable to successfully and dispositively rebut, irrespective of the validity of that evidence.

I suppose you have "relevant evidence" of the existence of god? I'll wait...

Show me EITHER. Since the proof of either one would disprove the other. (And the ever-popular "the bible is infallible, because it says so in the bible" bull@!$%# won't cut it...)

Then again... don't waste your time, or mine... It's obvious that you keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over. So keep it.

You argument is based on the de facto assumtion that god does not exist

You can pretend that there's a circular argument but there isn't.

If the majority of humanity decided to believe that there are leprechauns that wouldn't mean that there is any faith involved in the rejection of that notion.

...atheism is not a matter of belief, but it is matter of fact until someone can present evidence that god exists.

That's exactly it!

Upswing, you should be more careful on the technicalities of the nomenclature yourself.

The term comes from A + Theism. In that term, the "A" means NOT or LACKING. The theism part means "believes in god". In simpler terms, it's a NOT believing in god.

Here is the rather definitive "lay" definition from a real dictionary (the OED) : "atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god."

You can have hard-atheism or soft-atheism, where some dictionaries use the hard-atheism definition as the assertion that god does not exist.

Generally, I think that the best people to give the definition would be that actual group -- so let's go to them : wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist

So here is how the atheists define the term :

"An atheist, in the general sense, is a person who does not believe in the existence of any gods. Atheism is the corresponding philosophical position. Atheism is not a position of faith. "

See www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html for a better definition.

Or see : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

Nice try.

thelopes:

So - atheism can be either part 1 - doctrine there is no God - or part 2 - "to have no believe in" God.

Having no belief in God is an affirmative claim: e.g. "I do not believe in god" is, by definition, a belief-centered claim.

e.g the person making the claim is not talking about disproving, scientifically, that God can not or does not exist.

Rather, ther person making the claim is expressing a belief -- that God does not exist.

Belief is a faith-based claim.

Also, you misunderstand/misapply the second definition you offer:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You present disbelief as a passive act.

Disbelief is not a passive act when it operates in opposition to evidence that supports the disbelieved claim.

e.g. If I tell you that mountains are made of Jelo, but offer you no evidnce that they are, then your disbelief would be reasonable even without supporting it with evidence of your own that they aren't.

But if I tell you that mountains are made of Jelo, and then present you with photographs that seem to show Jelo mountains, and with eye-witness testimony of people who have climbed/eaten Jelo mountains, then either you would maintain your disbelief without addressing the photos and the testimony (the evidence supporting the claim), or you would rebut the evidence and undermine the claim with a counterclaim etc.

In the first instance -- simply saying that you don't believe in Jelo mountains, even though you have been presented with evidence of them -- your disbelief would be no different than someone baldly refusing to accept that mountains were made from rock, even though they were presented photos and eye witness accounts of people who climbed them. i.e. You would not be addressing the evidence presented to you. You would simply be presenting a disbelief based on your faith that they can not possibly be made of rock.

In this instance, a disbelief is an active assertion of absence of truth of the claim, based on nothing but faith in the alleged fact that the claim can not possibly be true.

This is where the atheist is; the atheist is ignoring the mass of evidence that God exists -- be that God a "Jelo" God or a "rock" God -- while making the claim that God does not exist.

Since this claim is not based on a rebuttal of the evidence, such as it is, but on the alleged certain knowledge that good can not exist, it can not be categorized as logical, scientific or in any other way that affords it impirical credentials.

In short: it is a bald and circular claim -- a belief -- based on a faith that the atheist is right that god does not exist.

Your reading of definition 2, however, relies on disbelief being a passive state, even though it occurs in opposition to -- and needs to actively reject -- evidence presented to support the claim that God exists.

Your error here is in trying to shoe-horn the context of different definitions into an argument that simply does not acommodate them in any sensible and/or authentic manner.

Disproving evidence presented to support a belief -- a scientific process -- is not the same thing as simply deciding to disbelieve something -- a faith-based process, and the process that underlies the Athist religion.

Don't:

I'm not sure why you've gone into the rhetrical loop that you have -- you seem to be having a public disagreement with yourself regarding whether or not to engage in this exchange -- but I will try to unpick your point, which I will take to be this:

Show me EITHER. Since the proof of either one would disprove the other. (And the ever-popular "the bible is infallible, because it says so in the bible" bull@!$%# won't cut it...)

While I understand that you are frustrated by my insistence that you be more careful in your use of words, I have no other option here than to remind/inform you that "proof" and "evidence" are very different things.

If you don't understand the difference, then it is impossible for me to continue an exchange with you that is exculsively about evidence, and nothing to do with proof, as this exchange is.

I would also point out that it is a sign of weakness in an argument when you try to preemptively exclude by way of anger and/or threat particular responses from your interlocutor, as you do per your threat:

(And the ever-popular "the bible is infallible, because it says so in the bible" bull@!$%# won't cut it...)

Why do you think that you have the power to restrict your interlocutor's responses and arguments? Either you are open to her argument, or you are not. And, if you are not, then why are you arguing with her? Simply to exert your power or to claim dominance?

As I mentioned, since this exchange/seed has nothing to do with "proof," the content of your threat is immaterial. (i.e. It would be a non-secquitur for me to offer "proof" of anything.)

But the fact that you seem to believe that bullying is a form of reasoned argument is, I will admit, a little troubling and very disappointing.

I hope that you can:

1. Be more careful in your choice of words.

2. Moderate your tone, so that you are not threatening.

3. Open your mind to the opposing thought and perspective that your invitation to argument warrants.

If you can address these issues, Iwill be happy to continue this exchange with you.

Thanks.

Evil:

...atheism is not a matter of belief, but it is matter of fact until someone can present evidence that god exists.

That's exactly it!

Ok.

Now you're questioning the existence of atheism?

I'm not sure where you're going with this line of reasoning, but I'm fascinated to hear more.

Personally, I actually know some atheists, and I've read a bunch of Atheistic writings, so I have no doubt that atheism exists. But I'm open to be proven wrong.

upswing, disbelief as an act contrary to presented evidence.. ok, sure, if you show me evidence for a mountain, then my disbelief would be active.

To date, there has been absolutely, positively no evidence for any of the gods.

And, in fact, all the supernatural claims for which there were assertions of god as the causative agent, all have been found either without evidence, or have been discovered to have non-supernatural causes.

chirmly:

Thanks for correcting and retracting your previous post, which you have now replaced with your newest claim.

Unfortunately, despite admitting your previous post was wrong and amending your claim, you're not quite there, yet.

Upswing, you should be more careful on the technicalities of the nomenclature yourself.

The term comes from A + Theism. In that term, the "A" means NOT or LACKING. The theism part means "believes in god". In simpler terms, it's a NOT believing in god.

Please see #12.30, where I've already dealt with this erroneous reading of the definition.

Generally, I think that the best people to give the definition would be that actual group

So, presumably, the best person to define a crime is an inmate in federal prison? Well, that would certainy sharply reduce the crime figures in the nation.

And you do realize that the link you offer:

wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist

is to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a scholarly source, largely because, as in the instant case, it is so easily manipulated by groups with an agenda to promote their agenda.

For instance, the sanitizing of biographies to exclude embarrassing incidents and the politically-driven listings regarding global warming etc.

And, in this case, the agenda is obviously to present a particular misrepresentation of Atheism that resembles your newest misrepresntation of atheism.

Give me enough time (and desire) and I can have a wiki page up stating that Atheism is the same thing as squirrel sh*t.

Your other link that seems to be offering scholarship that emanates from Cambridge University is more interesting, particularly since it highlights your own misrepresentation of the etymology of the word A-"Theist."

It offers this:

This is held to follow from its etymology: it stems from the Greek adjective atheos, deriving from the alpha privative a -,'without, not', and 'theos', 'God'.

This analysis clearly offers a one-to-one relationship between the person and his relationship/non-relationship with god.

Whereas your own Wiki-speak analysis:

The term comes from A + Theism.

alters this to present a person's relationship with a system of belief in god: i.e. Theos = God, Theism = a system of belief in God.

Atheism is, by definition, a system of (active) disbelief in God.

So, which analysis are you actually relying on: the A-"Theism" analysis, or the A-"Theos" analysis?

Also, what evidence can you offer that the link that cites the Cambridge University article actually offers an article from Cambridge University?

Upswing, you should be more careful on the technicalities of the nomenclature yourself...

Nice try.

Obviously, and as you can now see, my nomenclature was just fine.

As for the "nice try" comment ... I'm not sure what you're your referring to here, but I am certainlly grateful that you chose to retract your initial post and at least attempt to present a second, better-Googled argument.

Please don't let the fact that you haven't quite provided a solid argument deter you from doing Googling further until you are able to scare up some more, even if only nominal, support for your claim -- although, fyi, I'm not going to pay much attention to Wikipedia sources, as, btw, neither should you.

This is where the atheist is; the atheist is ignoring the mass of evidence that God exists -- be that God a "Jelo" God or a "rock" God -- while making the claim that God does not exist.

Fallacy. There is no evidence for god, first error. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that the natural explains the universe and everything in it. To continue your analogy. We are standing on a mountain of rock and you are presenting photos and ancient testimony that the mountain is made of Jello.

Susan:

You can pretend that there's a circular argument but there isn't.

This is another circular argument.

Respectful suggestion: You might enjoy reading up on rhetoric, partiularly as it pertains to logical fallacies.

Tim:

There is no evidence for god, first error.

And Chirmly:

To date, there has been absolutely, positively no evidence for any of the gods.

I think you are both confusing evidence with proof.

What do you think?

Thanks.

chirmly:

And, in fact, all the supernatural claims for which there were assertions of god as the causative agent, all have been found either without evidence, or have been discovered to have non-supernatural causes.

I can't begin to imagine how you could support such a sweeping statement, but I'm all ears ...

Atheism is, by definition, a system of (active) disbelief in God.

Okay - so what does disbelief mean.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

And disbelieving?

transitive verb

: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe

intransitive verb

: to withhold or reject belief

So - I actively *not believe* - or actively withhold belief.

Upswing:

I have to disagree with you on this point: Atheism includes both active and passive disbelief. There's weak atheism, i.e. "I find no reason to believe in god, so I don't" and strong atheism, i.e. "I believe there is no god".

A lot of the discussion I've been having in this thread with people has been about that distinction. The majority of atheists I've discussed this with fall into the former, more logically consistent position.

I'd like to add my 2-cents worth on this subject. I think one can be a mixture of agnostic and/or strong/weak atheist.

IMO, it really all comes down to knowledge and probability. How much do I know about the proposed god and given my level of knowledge what do I think the probability is of said god actually existing.

In my case I would say for the vast majority of ancient gods my knowledge is EXTREMELY limited. So would have to say that for these gods I must consider myself agnostic.

Since I was raised as a Christian, I have had ample opportunity to examine all sides of the notion of the Abrahamic-god. While I cannot absolutely place the probability of the existence of this god at zero, it is so low, it could virtually be considered to be zero. So for the case of this god I would consider myself to be a strong atheist or a "virtual strong atheist." Just to throw anther classification in there to confuse everyone a little more! :)

thelopes:

So - I actively *not believe* - or actively withhold belief.

In either case, it would be a choice.

The point is what is it that you will base that choice on?

Science?

Faith?

And, if science, you need to consider evidence.

Atheism does not consider evidence. It simply states that there is no God.

Claims that do not consider evidence -- or that summarily refute or ignore evidence -- are faith-based claims.

Atheism is a faith-based claim.

And the fact that it is systematized via dogma among a particlular faction of society makes it a religion.

In either case, it would be a choice.

So, is your requirement for 'atheism' that the person must first have been presented with the idea to then choose not to believe?

Is the qualm that it isn't the "lacking belief because it was never first presented" state?

It simply states that there is no God.

We just went over this - it is a disbelief which can be the rejection of something as untrue 'or' a lack of belief.

Atheism does not consider evidence.

"to hold not worthy of belief" would be a consideration of the presence of or lack of evidence.

It lacks evidence, therefore I don't believe the concept.

I don't have to say it is untrue to just not believe in it.

darwin:

I think one can be a mixture of agnostic and/or strong/weak atheist.

I see the intuitive sense in your claim, but I'm not sure that even a "weak" atheism can accommodate agnosticism, which, by definition, is not atheism.

Weak atheism, (strong, too) as it is presented, is still restricted to being a form of atheism, and it can not be agnosticism, imo, anyway.

I think that your post highlights the general lack of self-reflection among many of the posters here regarding why they believe what they believe, and what distinguishes those beliefs from fact.

Lord Fluffy:

I have to disagree with you on this point: Atheism includes both active and passive disbelief.

Disagreement welcome! :-)

Then, what, in your opinion, would differentiate one from the other?

Weak atheism requires no proof, as it is a statement of personal opinion: "Nothing has convinced me there is a god and I therefore do not believe in one".

Strong atheism is an extraordinary claim: "There is no god anywhere in the universe."

The former is a passive position, the latter is active.

There was an example I gave earlier that got little response, but I'll give it here again.

Say I make the claim that Jesus is standing next to me, right now, sipping a Coke.

If you argue that I need to demonstrate this with evidence, you're just being reasonably critical.

If you say that you find this claim unlikely and that, even were I to show you the picture, you'd need more to convince you, then you're likely a weak atheist.

If you say that it's impossible that Jesus is standing next to me, because Jesus doesn't exist, then you're a strong atheist.

Note, this is not to say that the Judeo Christian incarnation is the only god one need not believe in to be an atheist, but He is a convenient example.

thelopes:

So, is your requirement for 'atheism' that the person must first have been presented with the idea to then choose not to believe?

I don't have any "requirement" for atheism.

However, regarding your question, it would be impossible to choose not to believe an idea UNLESS a person were presented with the "idea" in the forst place

That's the fallacy behind this notion of "passive" atheism: it presupposes a natural state of disbelief in god, which:

a. Can exist a lifetime without ever being introduced, and

b. If it is never introduced will continue to exist as disbelief.

Point a is impossible beyond someone living either a very short or a very restriictive life, since we are all mired in religion and questions of supernatural engagement, so we can not avoid the question.

And point b is impossible, because I can not disbelieve something that I am entirely unaware of.

For instance, until right now, you could not disbelieve the propostion that I just threw my cat through the window, because you were entirely unaware of that proposition.

Now, however, with just my word to go on, let me ask you this: Did I just throw my cat out of the window?

I don't have to say it is untrue to just not believe in it.

Again, it depends on what evidence of its truth you have been presented with.

Your statement here describes agnosticism -- which essentially steps back from the argument -- not atheism, which, whether it is passive, strong, black or blue -- engages in the argument regarding the existence of god.

You can't logically both step back from an argument AND engage in it.

That's the fallacy behind this notion of "passive" atheism: it presupposes a natural state of disbelief in god

Why do you say it presupposes a natural state of disbelief?

I'm fine with atheism being an *after idea is presented* concept, and I guess you'd have to call the *per-presentation* something like a 'blank slate' condition.

However, I don't see why someone can't go from lacking belief before presentation to a lack of belief post-presentation.

Your statement here describes agnosticism -- which essentially steps back from the argument -- not atheism, which, whether it is passive, strong, black or blue -- engages in the argument regarding the existence of god.

But agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, while atheism is relevant to belief.

Lord Fluffy:

Weak atheism requires no proof, as it is a statement of personal opinion: "Nothing has convinced me there is a god and I therefore do not believe in one".

But, even this level of "disbelief" is an engagement in an argument that can only end in one of two ways per belief in the existence of a god:

Either:

1. I do believe in god's existence.

Or

2. I do not believe in god's existence.

This is true irrespective of how weak or strong that belief is.

The fact that someone engages in the argument at all requires that they either believe or disbelieve in god's existence.

The third option is agnosticism, in which someone acknowledges that there is an argument regarding the existence of god, but who then refuses to engage in that argument, often citing lack of sufficient information per your "more evidence" Jeuss scenario.

And agnostic is not an atheist.

Okay, taking your Jesus example, which I think is a good one.

When you say:

If you say that you find this claim unlikely and that, even were I to show you the picture, you'd need more to convince you, then you're likely a weak atheist.

What you are saying here is that you might be an atheist or you might not, depending on the evdence produced.

Saying you might or might not be something is the exact opposite of saying you definitely ARE something, but only weakly or mildly that thing.

So that, me deferring my judgment regarding whether or not Il believe that Jesus is standing next to you is not an atheistic claim in itself, since it allows for the possibility that he IS standing next to you.

However, when you say:

If you say that it's impossible that Jesus is standing next to me, because Jesus doesn't exist, then you're a strong atheist.

You are, in effect, declaring your atheism. It's not weak or strong, because you can not "weakly" say god does not exist, just like you can not weakly be pregnant.

It is simply there.

The entire notion of weak and striong atheism appears to me to be a postmodernist ploy to allow people to believe themselves to be a little bit pregnant, because, in some circumstances being pregnant helps, and in other circumstances being pregnant hinders.

Of course, either you are pregnat or you are not.

Upswing, you do a nice job of dancing around the issue and have yet delivered no "evidence" or "Proof" there is a God as described by modern day Christianity.

Please remember to take into account the spiritual "evidence" or "Proof" offered by the Greeks, or Romans, or Egyptians as that has turned out to be as useful as yours is.

I am not confusing the terms you can provide either evidence or proof as long as you identify it as such before it is presented.

The sun sets in the evening and rises in the morning is not evidence nor is it proof that it rides on the back of a god (just an example)

I got all warm inside and a rush of energy covered me and I felt at peace (again not evidence nor proof) (I feel the same way after an orgasm)

Hope you understand the task before you. I have made it clear enough for an 10 year old to understand. Any attempt to further delay the your answering will provide "evidence" that you are disingenuous and will provide "proof" that you do not have the answer after so casually thrust into the debate as if it were readily available

thelopes:

Why do you say it presupposes a natural state of disbelief?

If nobody presents you with an idea, but you are able to "disbelieve" it, then you must have been born with it.

But agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, while atheism is relevant to belief.

BINGO!

And that's what makes Atheism a religion: it is existentially grounded in a belief structure, not a knowledge structure. Without belief -- or disbelief -- atheism can not exist.

Oh what a crock!

If nobody presents you with an idea, but you are able to "disbelieve" it, then you must have been born with it.

I'm not sure where you're getting this - who said you are able to disbelieve something without having it been presented to you?

And that's what makes Atheism a religion: it is existentially grounded in a belief structure, not a knowledge structure.

It is a religious choice, but it isn't a religion itself.

Like take the choice to abstain from eating dinner. It is a choice grounded in the idea of "eating." However, it is not a meal.

Without belief -- or disbelief -- atheism can not exist.

Right - without hair you can't define bald, without volume you can't define empty, without motion you can't define stationary.

And that's what makes Atheism a religion: it is existentially grounded in a belief structure, not a knowledge structure. Without belief -- or disbelief -- atheism can not exist.

Incorrect. Atheism is grounded in its refusal to partake of a belief structure. It is the non-recognition of that for which there is no evidence. If there were no belief structures, this statement would still be true, if irrelevant.

Either:

1. I do believe in god's existence.

Or

2. I do not believe in god's existence.

And this is the same overly simplistic attitude that permeates all areas of human endeavor and @!$%#s us over continuously. The FALSE DICHOTOMY. The either or without the possibility of an infinite number of nuanced intermediates or the paradigm shift.

1. Total government take over of the economy or total free for all.
2. Either for unlimited, even forced abortion or a total ban
3. For continual state of war or opposed to war under all circumstances.
4. All powers to the states or all power to the federal government.
5. No taxes or all taxes are the same as taxing at 100%.

I could go on, but it should be clear that this type of black and white thinking is insane, at best.

And this is the same overly simplistic attitude that permeates all areas of human endeavor and @!$%#s us over continuously. The FALSE DICHOTOMY.

Unfortunately, I all too often see supposed atheists supporting it by taking up the position as being a disbelief in God. When the choice is defined by the assumed existence of a diety that is either believed or disbelieved, the atheist has already lost the debate.

The debate should be the acceptance of religion vs the rejection of religion. If the former, then belief can enter into the conversation.

CPO:

Oh what a crock!

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Harvard or Yale?

thelopes:

I'm not sure where you're getting this - who said you are able to disbelieve something without having it been presented to you?

It was a response to your question:

Why do you say it presupposes a natural state of disbelief?

i.e. If nobody presents you with a claim that you can disbelieve, then how else can you be aware of that claim to disbelieve it unless you are born aware of it? Where else can it come from?

It is a religious choice, but it isn't a religion itself.

Like take the choice to abstain from eating dinner. It is a choice grounded in the idea of "eating." However, it is not a meal.

But atheism isn't a statement about religion, as eating isn't a claim about the idea of food.

Rather, Atheism accepts that religion exists, but argues that there are no mashed potatoes, or broccoli, or soup ladels, or cooks etc in the kitchen.

i.e. we know we're here, alive/i.e. in the dining room,

ready to eat/i.e. ready to discover why/how we're here

but we don't know if what's in the kitchen/i.e. what's in store for us after we die

is mashed potatoes/i.e. eternal life,

or an empty plate/i.e. oblivion.

Right - without hair you can't define bald ...

Right.

Atheists have to decide if they are bald or not. They can not reasonably decide that baldness does not exist, just because they haven't seen it.

So that, if/when they do decide that baldness does not exist, because they haven't seen it, they are engaging in an act of faith that it does not exist.

Think about this:

Is it logical to summarily declare a disbelief in something that you claim does not exist when confronted with evidence -- however dubious -- that it does exist?

In that instance, your disbelief wouldn't be a dispositive proof that the thing does not exist.

Rather, it would be a statement that the evidence provided to you does not support its existence.

But what grounds can you have for saying that the evidence is insufficient?

That you haven't seen the thing yourself?

That it doesn't make sense for the thing to exist?

That the person who told you it existed is a liar?

Even if all of those things are true, none of them factually and dispostively rebuts the evidence presented to you for the existence of that thing.

Absent a factual rebuttal, your only ground left for "disbelieving" that the thing exists is simply that you don't believe it exists, and nobody has yet convinced you that it does exist.

That is not an argument.

Nor does your disbelief magically create a universal truth that the thing does not exist.

Rather, it is an expression of your personal faith that your belief is accurate, and that the thing CAN NOT (as opposed to might not) exist until someone convinces you that it does exist.

What else would you be comfortable declaring, as a cast-iron truth, did not exist simply because you have not seen it for yourself, or because it didn't make sense for it to exist, or because the person who told you it existed was a liar, even after you had been presented with evidence of its existence?

How big is existence, per se?

What cetainty do we have that we understand and experience all or even any of its forces across every possible plane?

I think part of the problem with these kinds of arguments is that people tend to develop a fish bowl-type of perspective, in which they -- Maher -- are so used to bumping up against an invisible wall when they try to swim in any drection other than around in familiar tight circles, theat they don't even consider the oceans outside the fishbowl.

You are infinite, in that there is nothing in you -- that you are made of -- that won't last for ever.

And you are massive, in that you embody all that is.

There is no way to prove this, nor to disprove this.

Yet, there is also no way to say the question of whether this is true or not does not exist, when presented with evidence -- however flimsy -- that that question does exist.

You can only either believe that you are eternal and massive, or not believe it.

Either way, you are expressing an act of faith.

Richard:

Atheism is grounded in its refusal to partake of a belief structure.

i.e. it is a choice that is grounded in the acknowledgment that religions exist.

It is the non-recognition of that

You can not not-recognize something that does not exist. e.g. I can declare independence from the US, and you can choose to not recognise that. But you can not choose to not recognise my iclaim of independence from the US if I don't make that claim.

You can choose to state that I am not independent of the US whether or not I make that claim.

But that is forces you to recognize that there is such a thing called indepencence from the US.

In that same vein, you can claim that God does not exist, but that forces you to recognie that there is such a thing as God.

for which there is no evidence.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. You say it yourself when you cite:

...a belief structure

i.e. The "structure" you refer to is religion. And its dogma, texts, artifacts, iconography, ritual etc is all evidence (not proof) for the existence of God.

What you are actually saying is that you find the evidence you have seen to be insufficient to support the claim that God exists.

On what basis do you find that evidence to be insuffucient?

If there were no belief structures,.

If there were no "belief structures" then it would be illogical to claim that"

this statement would still be true, if irrelevant.

Truth is, by definition, a function of belief.

I think you mean to say that if religion did not exist, then Atheists could still refuse

to partake of

it.

Obviously, this is impossible, since you can not refuse to partake of something that does not exist.

For example, you can not choose to not drink a cup of coffee that does not exist.

You can choose to claim that coffee, per se does not exist.

just like an atheist can claim that God does not exist.

But how do you then explain that yummy smell coming out of the kitchen in the morning?

Tim:

And this is the same overly simplistic attitude that permeates all areas of human endeavor and @!$%#s us over continuously. The FALSE DICHOTOMY.

LOL!

NEWSFLASH!!

Not every either-or choice is a false one.

For instance, there are only two choices as to whether you are pregnant or not.

Right?

So your oversimplistic claim that every single either-or choice is a false dichotomy offers little to the conversation other than evidence that:

a. You Google faster than you comprehend

b. You have no idea what a "False Dichotmy" is.

c. Both of the above.

I'm going with "c."

Here's why:

When you say:

The either or without the possibility of an infinite number of nuanced intermediates or the paradigm shift.

and you apply it to:

1. Total government take over of the economy or total free for all.
2. Either for unlimited, even forced abortion or a total ban
3. For continual state of war or opposed to war under all circumstances.
4. All powers to the states or all power to the federal government.
5. No taxes or all taxes are the same as taxing at 100%.

you are quite correct.

These choices have unaddressed nuance to them

But the obvious question then arises:

What do your 1-5 have to do with the existence or non-existence of God?

Are you saying that there is

an infinite number of nuanced intermediates or the paradigm shift(s)

regarding the existence of God?

Are you saying that there are degrees of God's existence that I have overlooked when establishing my either-or premise?

Are you saying that God can exist just a little bit, and in some nuanced fashion, and simultaneously not exist at the same time?

And what paradigmatic acrobatics would I need to scare the world with to allow for there to be a nuanced existence of God?

Here's the thing:

I need you to come up with a third option to the choice that either God exists or he doesn't exist before you can claim that this is a False Dichotimy.

You won't be able to.

But the effort of trying will at least give you a shot at better understanding the rhetorical device that you are so ridiculously misapplying.

I could go on,

Depressing, but true.

but it should be clear that this type of black and white thinking is insane, at best.

That's right.

Only sane people believe that God can exist just a little bit.

Richard:

The debate should be the acceptance of religion vs the rejection of religion.

I take one look at the Vatican and Mecca and I think that the "debate" over.

Don't you?

If Catholicism and Islam aren't "religions," what are they?

i.e. If nobody presents you with a claim that you can disbelieve, then how else can you be aware of that claim to disbelieve it unless you are born aware of it?

I still have no idea where you're going with this.

I don't know who is claiming a person can disbelieve something without being presented with it through communication.?

Rather, Atheism accepts that religion exists, but argues that there are no mashed potatoes, or broccoli, or soup ladels, or cooks etc in the kitchen.

You keep making this claim that all atheism rejects something's existence.

I will keep disagreeing as "disbelieving" can be to simply "not believe" it without taking any stance on it's existence.

Atheists have to decide if they are bald or not.

I don't know why they'd "have" to decide anything. They can see people with hair (belief), styling their hair (picking their religion), and notice they don't have any hair (belief) to style.

Even if all of those things are true, none of them factually and dispostively rebuts the evidence presented to you for the existence of that thing.

What determines if something has been "factually rebutted?"

Absent a factual rebuttal, your only ground left for "disbelieving" that the thing exists is simply that you don't believe it exists, and nobody has yet convinced you that it does exist.

This is absurdly circular as "disbelieving" is "you don't believe it exists."

You literally just said "the only ground left for disbelieving that the thing exists is simply that you disbelieve the thing exists."

That is not an argument.

Who said it was an argument?

It is a position on the question of belief. "Do you believe in this?" "No."

Nor does your disbelief magically create a universal truth that the thing does not exist.

Do people claim it does?

Rather, it is an expression of your personal faith that your belief is accurate, and that the thing CAN NOT (as opposed to might not) exist until someone convinces you that it does exist.

Sigh - disbelief in something does not equal belief the thing is impossible or nonexistent.

What else would you be comfortable declaring, as a cast-iron truth, did not exist simply because you have not seen it for yourself

You're putting words into mine, or someone's, mouth here. I don't believe I've ever declared anything of the sort.

On what basis do you find that evidence to be insuffucient?

The evidence thus far has not been shown to be objectively verifiable or the claims repeatable. It is subjectively defined and thus subjectively dismissed.

wow.

That was an awful lot of keystrokes to say abso-@!$%#ing-lutely nothing.

good job.

are you trying to win a contest or something?

thelopes:

I don't know who is claiming a person can disbelieve something without being presented with it through communication.?

My responses in this regard originate with your statement that:

So, is your requirement for 'atheism' that the person must first have been presented with the idea to then choose not to believe?

You keep making this claim that all atheism rejects something's existence.

I will keep disagreeing as "disbelieving" can be to simply "not believe" it without taking any stance on it's existence

I keep making the claim because it's impossible to "not believe" an idea, claim, thought whatever that you have not been presented with.

Thus, you can only disbelieve claims that are made apparent to you.

i.e. either you choose to beliee it or you choose to disbelieve it.

As soon as yo make that choice, you have precluded your option to stand back and to not take

any stance on it's existence

In short: You can't be an atheist without first entertaining the idea tha that God exists.

And, once you've entertained that idea, and have been presented with evidence that God exists, you can not stand back from the idea -- deem yourself and agnostic -- when you are using that standing back to declare that "God does not exist because I'm not entering into this debate."

Bottom line:

Are you an Atheist -- someone who has faith in their beleif that God does not exist?

Or ar you an agnostic, who chooses to not commit either way?

It is impossible for you to be both.

Don't:

wow.

That was an awful lot of keystrokes to say abso-@!$%#ing-lutely nothing.

good job.

are you trying to win a contest or something?

A little overwhelmed by all this thinking?

Brain on "Tilt"?

No shame in that. Abstract thought obviously isn't your thing.

Here's something to keep your mind occupied while the grown-ups chat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ichQOqbewA

thelopes Continued:

You literally just said "the only ground left for disbelieving that the thing exists is simply that you disbelieve the thing exists."

I'm citing the circular argument that your claim relies on. I'm not making that argument.

Sigh - disbelief in something does not equal belief the thing is impossible or nonexistent.

How can disbelief in something not equal a claim that it does not exist?

It is subjectively defined and thus subjectively dismissed.

i.e. it is a belief.

You seem to not understand that what you have said at least twice now is that Atheism represents a belief system.

With respect, I don't think that the problem here is so much that you aren't following what I'm saying.

Rather, I think it's that you aren't following what you are saying.

ambivalence:

Please, can we not have a continued discussion without all this condescension? It verges on COH violations.

Technically, I'm not sure we can say that Don't You People is actually having a conversation with anybody.

But I do see what you are trying to say here.

I think it's time for me to move along, anyway. I'll wait to read a response from thelopes and others, as a matter of courtesy, and then I'll be detracking.

Interesting seed, though.

Thanks for putting it up.

I'll simplify this response.

Are you an Atheist -- someone who has faith in their beleif that God does not exist

...

How can disbelief in something not equal a claim that it does not exist?

This is not the definition of atheist - and I don't know how many times I have to say that.

Oxford English Dictionary (you may not have access to the OED, but I do) - atheism

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/12449?redirectedFrom=atheism#eid

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

I can't help but notice the "or." It isn't both, it can be one thing or another in relation to the existence of God.

So, let's go deeper - disbelief

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/53602?redirectedFrom=disbelief#eid

The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief.

and again - disbelieve

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/53603?redirectedFrom=disbelieving#eid6670921

1.trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to:

3.intr. with in: Not to believe in; to have no faith in:

and unbelief

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/209688?redirectedFrom=unbelief#eid

Absence or lack of belief; disbelief, incredulity.

So, let's connect the dots.

We have disbelief. Disbelief is "positive unbelief" or "an act of disbelieving." These agree with you in that the person needs to be presented with it.

So what are 'positive unbelief' or 'an act of disbelieving?'

Positive unbelief would be a choice to "lack belief."

An act of disbelieving would be a choice to "not believe or credit."

Neither of these are the positive statement that a deity is impossible, or does not exist. These are simply choices to "not believe."

i.e. it is a belief.

It doesn't have to be. You can choose to accept something and believe it. You can choose to directly reject something and believe otherwise.

Or you can choose 'positive unbelief' or to 'disbelieve' something - not believe or credit / have no faith in it.

Atheism happens to encompass both the rejection and disbelief options.

Rather, Atheism accepts that religion exists, but argues that there are no mashed potatoes, or broccoli, or soup ladels, or cooks etc in the kitchen.

Atheism accepts the existence of the mashed potatoes, broccoli, soup ladles and cooks. It doesn't accept that you absorb the life essences of the food you eat. That eating the heart of your opponent will imbue you with their strength and virtues, their life's energy and their wisdom.

Are you saying that there is

an infinite number of nuanced intermediates or the paradigm shift(s)

regarding the existence of God?

Yes I am. One of those nuances is the possibility that God exists only as a personification of an idea of perfection that we should strive for. This is totally different than existing as an entity. So there is more than 2 ways of looking at the question.

I need you to come up with a third option to the choice that either God exists or he doesn't exist before you can claim that this is a False Dichotimy.

You won't be able to.

Guess you were wrong on this. I had no problem coming up with a 3rd possibility. Don't worry, I know you won't give this any merit, after all it conflicts with your one dimensional view of reality, where everything fits nicely on a single line or as 2 points.

upswing:

Atheism recognizes the existence of belief. If someone says that they belief in a God, it's rather pointless to try to argue. There is no debate as to whether religions exist - that would be equally pointless.

This is not the same as acknowledging the existence of deities, nor is it the same as partaking of a belief structure.

Without further ado:

i.e. it is a choice that is grounded in the acknowledgment that religions exist.

No argument.

You can not not-recognize something that does not exist. e.g. I can declare independence from the US, and you can choose to not recognise that. But you can not choose to not recognise my iclaim of independence from the US if I don't make that claim.

There is ample evidence of claims of the existence of God, but nothing to lend that claim scientific validity. Therefore, there is no need for an Atheist to recognize the existence of any deities. Analogously, there would be ample evidence for your claim of independence, but no call to recognize its actual existence.

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. You say it yourself when you cite:

...a belief structure

i.e. The "structure" you refer to is religion. And its dogma, texts, artifacts, iconography, ritual etc is all evidence (not proof) for the existence of God.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of any deities (my apologies - I thought the word 'scientific' was implied and will be more careful in the future). The existence of religious texts is not scientific evidence for the existence of any actual deity. If you have an argument to the contrary, I would be fascinated to hear it.

If there were no "belief structures" then it would be illogical to claim that"

this statement would still be true, if irrelevant.

Truth is, by definition, a function of belief.

That is a gross mischaracterization of the word 'true'. To say that a statement is true is not the same as saying a statement is truth.

Obviously, this is impossible, since you can not refuse to partake of something that does not exist.

At no time did I claim that religion does not exist. I stated that Atheism is the non-recognition of that for which there is no [scientific] evidence. Is there scientific evidence that religions exist? I don't think anyone would argue the point. The existence of a religion does not presuppose the existence of a deity.

I take one look at the Vatican and Mecca and I think that the "debate" over.

Don't you?

Not at all. The recognition of the existence of a religion and the acceptance of that religion are two different things. If one does not accept that religion is based in reality then there is no need to talk in terms of belief.

That is a gross mischaracterization of the word 'true'. To say that a statement is true is not the same as saying a statement is truth.

I've seen this statement many times. There seems to be a thought that belief can manipulate truth; ie belief can change reality. There is no evidence of this. What the evidence points to is that the truth is immutable. It's our understanding of truth that changes. People tend to get the two concepts confused. Driving to New York is not the same as being in New York.

Is there scientific evidence that religions exist? I don't think anyone would argue the point. The existence of a religion does not presuppose the existence of a deity.

Some Atheist's believe this, but by definition the Atheist believes there are no deities. This statement cannot be backed up by science or logic because you cannot prove a negative, especially when the definition you are dealing with is not well defined. When you make the statement God does not exists. You have just presented an argument that you MUST back up. This is where the Atheist fails and becomes yet another religion. This argument cannot be backed up by logic, and requires faith.

However, the Atheist is not totally wrong, they have simply made a leap of logic that they can't. The Atheist can say that there is no proof that any deity exists, therefore you cannot use the premise of a deity to make social decisions that the rest of society must follow. The problem is the Atheist goes one step further and makes the claim that a deity does not exist, and at that point they must support their assertion and their message becomes muddied. I can easily make a case that a deity could exist outside of space and time that created the universe and invented all the physical laws that make evolution work. Once he did this, he then became uninvolved and let evolution take its course. You cannot disprove this statement until you can step beyond the Big Bang and show what happened. I cannot prove this statement for the same reason. So while it's great for philosophical fodder, it could never be used as a "fact" to guide our social direction. The argument stops there. You never have to prove my statement false.

thelopes:

Thanks for taking the time to put your response together.

Your definitions are fine as cited, so I don't see any value in reposting them.

I think the issue is their application.

Since your conclusion is:

Atheism happens to encompass both the rejection and disbelief options.

I need only address that.

Where, in this claim, (and your underlying reasoning) do you account for any evidence presented to support the choice to disbelieve/reject the claim?

Don' forget that my claim is that:

Whether Atheism is a religion or not, it is still necessarily and act of faith, since there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god. (#12)

So, if you tell me that Jesus is standing right next to you, then:

1. I have received your claim, so I can make the choice to believe/accept or disbelieve/reject it.

2. And I can base that choice on:

i. the strength of the evidence you present that Jesus is standing next to you

ii. whether I can independently produce evidence that Jesus is standing next to you.

iii. Whether or not the claim that Jesus standing next to you satisfies my gut sense that Jesus COULD be standing next to you. (i.e. Is it a credible claim based on my general perception of the world?)

If I go down path "i" then I must await your evidence and will believe/accept or disbelieve/reject accordingly.

So, does reserving that judgment make me a presumptive "atheist" regarding the claim that Jesus is or is not standing next to you?

I say that it does not, because I have not yet expressed an opinion either way.

Continuing:

If I go down path "ii" then I am in exactly the same position as going down path "i" except that I am weighing evidence that I have independently garnered, rather than evidence that you have provided me with.

At this point, I have still not come down one way or the other regarding believing/accepting or not believing/rejecting your claim that Jesus is standing next to you.

i.e. I have still NEITHER expressed a disbelief NOR chosen to reject your claim.

Since these are both the unique states that you describe as being definitvely Atheistic, then, according to your own reasoning, I am not yet an Atheist.

Of course, I could simply refuse to participate in the question entirely -- to simply walk away from investigating the Jesus claim -- but, if I did, I would not be rejecting the content (subject matter/evidecne) of the argument, I would be rejecting engaging in the argument entirely.

Walking away from the argument per se is not (in a Western culture) a statement on the content of the argument, and it can not reasonably result in a rejection OR a disbelief of the subject matter of that argument.

So, again, by your own reasoning, I am not yet an Atheist because I have neither accepted/believed nor rejected/disbelieved the Jesus claim.

The other path I could go down is path "iii":

iii. Whether or not the claim that Jesus is standing next to you satisfies my gut sense that Jesus COULD be standing next to you. (i.e. Is it a credible claim based on my general perception of the world?)

This is not an evidenced-based claim, but it can result in an affirmative expression of belief/disbelief and/or acceptance/rejection of the claim.

Either way, however, it is an engagement with the Jesus argument.

So, we have four possible responses to the Jesus claim, three of which involve engagement with the argument's subject matter -- i.e. a rejection or acceptance of the evidence offered to support the Jesus claim -- either by reason or gut feeling.

These choices all necessarily result in an affirmative claim of belief/disbelief and/or acceptance /rejection, but only after the evidence has been weighed.

These fully consumated options can ONLY produce believers/disbelievers and/or accepters/rejecters and/or "undecideds" per the Jesus claim. all based on evidence.

The believers/accepters produced by this evidence-based process would be those who were convicned by the evidence that Jesus was there, beside you. The faithful.

The disbelievers/rejecters produced by this evidenced-based process would be those who were unconvinced by the evidence that Jesus was standding next to you. These are the Athiests who have all weighed exactly the same evidence that the believers weighed, but came to an opposite conclusion.

And there are those who are still unsure regarding whether or not the evidence presented supports or does not support the claim that Jesus is next to you. These are the agnostics.

The fourth option -- to simply refuse to engage in the Jesus argument -- makes no statement at all regarding whether or not Jesus is actually standing next to you, so, effecetively, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Jesus is standing next to you.

It is THIS condition that you are describing as being Atheist, even though it makes no statement at all -- neither acceptance/belief, nor rejection/disbelief -- regarding whether or not Jesus is standing next to you.

Simply put:

A refusal to engage in an argument is not a rejection of the subject matter of the argument, unless that refusal to engage is, itself, based on an a priori assessment of its subject matter.

Tim:

Atheism accepts the existence of the mashed potatoes, broccoli, soup ladles and cooks. It doesn't accept that you absorb the life essences of the food you eat. That eating the heart of your opponent will imbue you with their strength and virtues, their life's energy and their wisdom.

You're not following the metaphor properly.

Please re-read it and get back to me.

Thanks.

Yes I am. One of those nuances is the possibility that God exists only as a personification of an idea of perfection that we should strive for.

So, a fantasy is reality?

Hmmm....

Seems like a contradiciton in terms to me.

This is totally different than existing as an entity.

LOL!

i.e. Existing as a fantasy is different than existing as a reality?

Okey dokey.

So there is more than 2 ways of looking at the question.

You got me there.

I was assumiing that you'd realize I meant coherent and reasonable ways of looking at the question, since you were randomly tossing around logical fallacies.

I will concede that there is an infinite number of fantastical and nonsensical ways of looking at any question, including ways that involve, squirrels, mountains, milk bottles and sperm, and whatever other random thoughts come to mind.

Tim, please take a little more time to construct your responses before posting them if you would like a response from me.

If you don't want a response, that's fine, too.

Just let me know.

Thanks.

ambivalent:

upswing, you are welcome; I admire your stamina under pressure, lol.

LOL!

It's all good, clean fun! :-)

Richard:

Thanks for your response.

There is ample evidence of claims of the existence of God, but nothing to lend that claim scientific validity. Therefore, there is no need for an Atheist to recognize the existence of any deities. Analogously, there would be ample evidence for your claim of independence, but no call to recognize its actual existence.

You are illogically mixing-and-matching terms and standards and systems of belief.

e.g. In the above paragraph, you are directly and baldly equating scientists with atheists, thus making your argument circular, and begging the question of whether Atheism is a scientific and/or a spiritual belief system.

There is ample evidence of claims of the existence of God, but nothing to lend that claim scientific validity. Therefore, there is no need for an Atheist to recognize the existence of any deities.

By doing this, you are also presenting an a priori truth/bald caim that the standard of belief for an atheist is the same as the standard of belief for a sceintist.

This is no small point, since it strikes at the heart of the question: What, if any, system of belief do Atheists draw on and/or conform to in arriving at their Atheism?

To be internally consistent, and to avoid this bias, your paragraph might read:

There is ample evidence of claims of the existence of God, but nothing to lend that claim scientific validity. Therefore, there is no need for A SCIENTIST to recognize the existence of any deities.

This fundamental misuse of terms renders your analogous conlcusion:

Analogously, there would be ample evidence for your claim of independence, but no call to recognize its actual existence.

moot, since you have not established the grounds on which to reach that conclusion.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of any deities (my apologies - I thought the word 'scientific' was implied and will be more careful in the future). The existence of religious texts is not scientific evidence for the existence of any actual deity. If you have an argument to the contrary, I would be fascinated to hear it.

Again, I think an unpicking of terms -- specifically Atheist and Scientist -- are in order here. After all, Einstein was a scientists and he believed in God, so there is obviously a distinciton between the two.

However, addressing your question as is, there are various scientific supports for various segments of verious religious texts.

e.g. Historical records of floods, famine etc as pesented in religious and historical texts, as well as in geological artefacts.

And there are personal, sometimes contemporaneous, testimonies as to how these events occurred, how people responded to them (arks, seas parting etc).

Whether we can consider this evidence to be "scientific" is a genuine matter of debate.

However, I would consider them no more nor less scientific than, say, rainfall readings taken by "volunteers" across the world and over the ages that inform our perception of global rainfall patterns.

They are all verbal testimonials.

So, is Genesis scientific evidence of the Creation of the world? Personally, I doubt it. And, were that the only evidence that I had to go on to epxlain the creation of the world and for the existence of God, then I would reject it AND the Theistic underpinnings it relies upon.

However, Genesis is one part of one particular religion, and, just as a rain drop falling in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean two thousand years ago can not prove or disprove whether there will a hurricane blowing in Kansas two thousand years from now, that one text/piece of evidence, can not be considered dispositive of any larger question regarding the existence or non-existence of God.

Rather, it is the aggregate of the evidence -- verbal or otherwise -- regarding the existence or non-existence of God in its entirety that needs to be deemed "scientific" or not.

After all, many scientific conclusions are drawn on quantitative bases.

For example, scientific diagonses of illnesses can be deduced by applicaiton of the "syndrome" model -- the presence of a number of syptoms occurring. If the syndrome requires that 6 of 10 symptoms be present for an accurrate diagnosis, and only five are, then the diagnosis fails.

So, why would it not be scientific to acknowledge a similar, quantitative measure of what is and isn't sceintific evidence to Thesitic claims?

The only argument I can see against this parity is a presupposition that the null hypothesis is that theism is, by definition, unsupportable as a truth.

That is a gross mischaracterization of the word 'true'. To say that a statement is true is not the same as saying a statement is truth.

Why not?

The existence of a religion does not presuppose the existence of a deity.

Again, you are making an implicitly cricular argument when you offer this as support for the claim that Atheism is not a religious belief.

Specifically:

The existence of a religion DOES presuppose the existence of a belief in a diety or supernatural force.

These believers are Theists.

It is against this Theism that Atheists exist -- i.e. A-theists "absent God".

Without Theists -- the belief in deities as opposed to the actual existence of deities --there could be no Atheists, since Theism itself would not exist.

So what you are effectively saying when you claim:

The existence of a religion does not presuppose the existence of a deity.

is that a belief -- i.e. a religious dogma -- would have to prove the existence of a deity for Atheists to buy that belief as being a truth.

But the only evidence you allow to construct the proof is "scientific" evidence, which, as I've already stated, you summarily equate with Atheism.

This, as circular arguments do, brings us back to the original fault line: that implicit claim that all scientists are Atheists.

It is this general misapplication of evidence -- scientific or otherwise -- that underlies my original claim that:

Whether Atheism is a religion or not, it is still necessarily and act of faith, since there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god. (#12)

Not at all. The recognition of the existence of a religion and the acceptance of that religion are two different things. If one does not accept that religion is based in reality then there is no need to talk in terms of belief.

I think you mean to say the acceptance of the dogma that creates that religion.

Let me know if this is incorrect.

Atheism happens to encompass both the rejection and disbelief options.

I need only address that.

Where, in this claim, (and your underlying reasoning) do you account for any evidence presented to support the choice to disbelieve/reject the claim?

Why would it need to account for any evidence presented? Only the idea or concept itself needs to be presented.

So, does reserving that judgment make me a presumptive "atheist" regarding the claim that Jesus is or is not standing next to you?

I say that it does not, because I have not yet expressed an opinion either way.

I'm going to stop you there, because you are still using a definition of disbelieving that isn't what I presented.

Disbelief is a lack of belief. I identified that in 12.68. Your examples are lovely - but the question at the end of each isn't "why are you choosing, putting off the question/whatever" - the question is "Do you believe in the presented concept."

If the answer is no, regardless of whether you then reject the possibility of that concept, you're an atheist.

The fourth option -- to simply refuse to engage in the Jesus argument -- makes no statement at all regarding whether or not Jesus is actually standing next to you, so, effecetively, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Jesus is standing next to you.

It is THIS condition that you are describing as being Atheist, even though it makes no statement at all -- neither acceptance/belief, nor rejection/disbelief -- regarding whether or not Jesus is standing next to you.

That statement 'is' disbelief.

Read back to 12.69. Disbelief is "not to believe or credit." Not answering is not giving the answer credit. Unbelief - absense or lack of belief. Hearing a concept and choosing not to believe is *positive unbelief.*

A refusal to engage in an argument is not a rejection of the subject matter of the argument, unless that refusal to engage is, itself, based on an a priori assessment of its subject matter.

Disbelief doesn't require rejection. It requires a lack of belief or rejection.

I'm talking in circles, I presented the definitions of the words, and I still don't understand why you require disbelief to equal rejection. Please tell me what you see as wrong in my reading of the definition of the words/concepts in question: atheism, disbelief, positive unbelief.

Please tell me why you don't see disbelief as being: hearing a concept, deciding not to believe in it.

thelopes:

Why would it need to account for any evidence presented? Only the idea or concept itself needs to be presented.

Because my claim is:

Whether Atheism is a religion or not, it is still necessarily and act of faith, since there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god. (#12)

***

Disbelief is a lack of belief.

Absent any reference to the evidence that seeks to support that belief?

That's not disbelief. It's gainsaying or denial.

"Do you believe in the presented concept."

Concepts aren't to be believed or disbelieved.

The claims that emanate from those concepts are.

The claim that emanates from the Theist concept is that God exists.

Atheist reject that claim.

They do not reject the concept of God, which they have to entertain before rejecting that claim.

Not answering is not giving the answer credit.

I'll assume that you mean not giving the "concept" credit.

If so, then you can not logically refuse to give credit to a concept.

You can only refuse to give credit to the claims generated by that concept.

As I keep pointing out, you are conflating the concept of the existence of God with the claims of the existence of God.

The concept of the existence of God requires no evidence.

The claims of the existence of God require evidence.

Thus, any belief/disbelief and/or rejection/accpetance of those claims are, necessarily, evidence-based, even in the deliberate and summary rejection of the evidence.

The Atheist claim is a negative (including rejection of) engagement with the evidence presented that God exists.

Disbelief doesn't require rejection. It requires a lack of belief or rejection.

You previously separated disbelief and rejection in your definition, so I tried to keep them separate in my response for your convenience

However, for my claim to be addressed, they are the same thing, since Atheists either disbelieve or reject the claim that God exists based on the available evidence that they are offered that God exists.

So, in this case, the distinction you make between disbelieve and reject is moot.

You are arguing two poitns that I have a problem with:

1. that Atheists can disbelieve a claim without hearing the evidence presented to support it, and/or

2. that Atheists can reject a claim by rejecting the concept from which that claim emanates.

However, it is impossible to entertain a claim -- that God exists -- that comes from a non-existent (rejected) concept -- the possibility that God exists.

You can not say that aa bathtub is or is not filled without entertaining the concept of bathtubs.

Please tell me why you don't see disbelief as being: hearing a concept, deciding not to believe in it.

Because we believe and disbelieve claims, not concepts.

Claims are evidence-based, and disbelieving them requries engagement with the evidence.

Concepts are not evidence-based until a claim emanates from them, and so can not be disbelieved.

Concepts can be rejected, but, again, not until they generate claims, which are evidence-based.

So, if an Atheists says: "I reject the concept of even the posiibility that God even might exist," then how can he explain the Theism that allows him to be an A-Theist?

Whether Atheism is a religion or not, it is still necessarily and act of faith, since there is as much evidence supporting the existence of a god as there is supporting the non-existence of a god. (#12)

So... the agnostic who, as you put, 'decides not to be engaged' - after having been presented with the evidence/concept/claim/whatever - would also be making an act of faith?

So, in this case, the distinction you make between disbelieve and reject is moot.

... rejection would be, as in the OED definition I put, denial of the existence of God. This is a positive claim about something.

Disbelief or "positive unbelief" would merely be the positive choice not to deny or believe in the existence of God.

The distinction doesn't seem like it could ever be moot.

You are arguing two poitns that I have a problem with:

1. that Atheists can disbelieve a claim without hearing the evidence presented to support it, and/or

... way back in post 12.47 I said:

I'm fine with atheism being an *after idea is presented* concept, and I guess you'd have to call the *pre[sic]-presentation* something like a 'blank slate' condition.

And so, a person starts out not being presented with the idea - he has a *natural* lack of belief.

The idea is presented - he has 3 ways to go.

One is belief in it (for God, theism).

One is to deny the possibility/existence idea (one part of atheism).

The third is just to continue to not believe it without going so far as to deny the existence - to continue lacking belief in it (the other part of atheism).

2. that Atheists can reject a claim by rejecting the concept from which that claim emanates.

What precisely differentiates a concept and the claims that originate from that concept?

I'm being honest here - I cannot think of concept that has no claims intrinsically with it.

Because we believe and disbelieve claims, not concepts.

Claims are evidence-based, and disbelieving them requries engagement with the evidence.

Concepts are not evidence-based until a claim emanates from them, and so can not be disbelieved.

Concepts can be rejected, but, again, not until they generate claims, which are evidence-based.

Please, as an example - what is the concept of God without any claims?

thelopes:

So... the agnostic who, as you put, 'decides not to be engaged' - after having been presented with the evidence/concept/claim/whatever - would also be making an act of faith?

Not in my opinion, since he has not engaged at all in the claim, he has merely engaged in the concept of God existing.

That's what I've been saying.

The agnostic will walk away saying: "I'm still not sure if God exists." i.e. He is open to the concept that God exists. He has rejected nothing. But he can not support a CLAIM either way.

The Atheist will walk away saying: "I don't believe in God." Or, "God doesn't exist."

... rejection would be, as in the OED definition I put, denial of the existence of God. This is a positive claim about something.

Disbelief or "positive unbelief" would merely be the positive choice not to deny or believe in the existence of God.

The distinction doesn't seem like it could ever be moot.

Here's how I would rewrite these paragraphs so that they are consistent with my thinking, and with the OED definition:

Per the Claim that God Exists:

... rejection [of the claim that God exists] would be, as in the OED definition I put, denial of the [claimed] existence of God. This is a positive claim about something.

Disbelief or "positive unbelief" [in the claim that God exists] would merely be the positive choice not to deny or believe in the [claimed] existence of God.

Per the Concept that God could exist:

... rejection [of the concept that God could exist] would be, as in the OED definition I put, denial of the [concept of the] existence of God. This is a positive claim about something.

Disbelief or "positive unbelief" [in the concept that God could exist] would merely be the positive choice not to deny or believe in the [concept of the] existence of God.

The distinction doesn't seem like it could ever be moot.

The distinction becomes moot when an ATHEIST says "I do not believe in God." Or "God does not exist."

This is because, if he has investigated the evidence on the claimed existence of God, he CAN NOT then reject the concept of God AND make a positive claim (and, "I do not believe in God," is a claim of his belief that would have to correspond with his negative analysis of the evidence.") regarding God's existence.

Just like he can not both deny that there is any water in the tub unless he accepts the concept of the tub.

This means that the "rejection" OED definition, when applied to the Atheist, can ONLY apply to him rejecting the claim that god exists, not the concept that Go exists.

This means that this reworked phrase:

... rejection [of the concept that God could exist] would be, as in the OED definition I put, denial of the [concept of God] existence of God.

effectively becomes exactly the same as this reworked phrase:

... rejection [of the concept that God could exist] would be, as in the OED definition I put, denial of the [concept of God] existence of God. This is a positive claim about something.

i.e. The Atheist, who is convicned that he is rejecting the concept that God exists, and therefore is not making any claim about the existence of God, is actually referrencing and rejecting the evidence supporting the claim that God exists.

In short, the Atheist, who is seeking to stand back from the argument and maintain his disinterest in the argument, and then use that purported disiniterest as support for his A-Theism, is equivocating.

The Bible even addresses this equivocation, although it alludes to, rather than explicitly references, Atheism:

Rev 3:15-4:1 "I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish you were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, I will spit you out of my mouth! Source: http://www.poemsforchrist.com/id156.html

****

One is to deny the possibility/existence idea (one part of atheism).

The third is just to continue to not believe it without going so far as to deny the existence - to continue lacking belief in it (the other part of atheism).

When you say

not believe it ...

are you saying that he hasn't yet been convinced, or he is saying that it isn't true?

What precisely differentiates a concept and the claims that originate from that concept?

Concept: Love

Claim?

Concept: Technology

Claim?

Concept: Happiness

Claim?

Concept: Up

Claim?

While it is difficult to engage with a concept -- an idea -- without making ANY claim at all, it is far easier to acknowledgge that a concept exists, without making ANY PARTICULAR claim.

So, I can acknowledge that technology exists as a concept, and leave it there.

Or, I can acknowledge that technology exists, and claim that it has increased life expectancy for human beings over the past 100 years.

This whole concept/claim thing is actually inherent in the OED definitions you offer.

Specifically, the definition allows for there to be a conceptual version of "disbelieve" and a "specific" version of disbelieve:

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/53603?redirectedFrom=disbelieving#eid6670921

1.trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to:

3.intr. with in: Not to believe in; to have no faith in:

The "trans" and "intr" refer to the verb being transitive or intransitive.

i.e., either the term "disbelieve" needs to be applied to an object or not, whether or not it is transitive or intransitive.

So, I can disbelieve a tale of derring do: A transitive use, since it modifies the object "a tale of derring do."

Or, I can just "disbelieve" generally: An intransivitive use, since there is no objet attached to it that I actually disbelieve in. This would be the concept of "disbelieve" wihout any claim (object) attached to it.

This whole notion of concept and claim goes as far back as Plato, with his idealized forms, and it persists with Jung with his archetypes.

But that's for another thread, I think...

Please, as an example - what is the concept of God without any claims?

Wow!

What an excellent and difficult question!

My best answer would have to be:

Existence, and the impossibility of nothingness that existence assures us all.

Thelopes, I think it's time for me to stand back a little an digest the excellent info/argument you've presented and to reassess some of my own. So please don't be offended if I don;t respond to any future posts any time soon. (I'm actually in the middle of filing an appeal to the federal court of appeals, and, not being a lawyer, it's taking a looooooooong time.

These philosophical distractions are wonderful -- I love 'em -- but they are a luxury that I can't really afford to continue to indulge myself in right now.

But I very much appreciate you giving me the opportunity too reflect on and share some of my wild and crazy thoughts with you, and for you sharing your thoughts with me, too.

I'm going to split this into the bit we can probably move past, and the big that's more important to the conversation, I think. First, the part we can move past.

i.e. The Atheist, who is convicned that he is rejecting the concept that God exists, and therefore is not making any claim about the existence of God, is actually referrencing and rejecting the evidence supporting the claim that God exists.

Okay - and I'll take credit for getting us muddied up in the waters of concepts and claims.

Everywhere I've used "concept" - for me, the concept of God, carries, intrinsically, that the 'being' / 'deity' / 'whatever' exists.

So, anywhere I've used "not believe in the concept," I have not meant that the person is choosing not to believe the word, phrase, or idea for communication's sake doesn't exist, but the implications presented alongside that idea.

Does that clear it up?

For example:

Concept: Love Claim? Concept: Technology Claim? Concept: Happiness Claim? Concept: Up Claim?

For me, the emotions carry the claim, inherently, that they are able to be felt by an individual. Up would carry the claim that it is a direction that can be traversed in space. Technology would carry the claim that there exists some 'thing' able to be categorized as 'technology.'

Please, as an example - what is the concept of God without any claims?

Wow!

What an excellent and difficult question! My best answer would have to be: Existence, and the impossibility of nothingness that existence assures us all.

The way my mind looks at your answer immediately looks to "the impossibility of nothingness" as a claim.

The part I think is more important to the core of the conversation:

The agnostic will walk away saying: "I'm still not sure if God exists." i.e. He is open to the concept that God exists. He has rejected nothing. But he can not support a CLAIM either way.

The Atheist will walk away saying: "I don't believe in God." Or, "God doesn't exist."

Why doesn't this agnostic fall into the "I don't believe in God" category for you?

For me - they still don't believe in God. They've been presented with the claim of a God's existence, and chosen not to believe. They neither believe in, or deny the possibility of, but they 'not give credence to' (disbelieve) a God.

I don't see how their answer is not "disbelief."

and, "I do not believe in God," is a claim of his belief that would have to correspond with his negative analysis of the evidence."

A claim of what belief?

Does he have a belief about himself - that he has chosen not to believe in God?

If so, does a person who believes in God have the same double-level belief? A belief that they've chosen to believe?

You're not following the metaphor properly.

I followed the analogy just fine. It is a lousy analogy. The food in it is material, physical. The "life essence" is mystical, supernatural. The analogy is do you need a supernatural entity to still have benefit from the practical value of social concepts and actions? Or are those physical characteristics sufficient without the idea of a supernatural component?

So, a fantasy is reality?

That is what we are asking you. As for compassion, empathy, mercy, cooperation, love, peace, etc., are you claiming these concepts are fantasy? It is your position that these attributes don't exist? You can't see where all the Gods are the result of anthropomorphizing human emotions and ignorance into a supernatural archetypes? Or that that is as real as anything you can offer up as "proof"?

I have no need to read any more of your posts given that closed minded, defensive posturing. You have made up your mind and your very sense of self relies on your dedication to that conclusion. To accept any question of its validity is a threat to your very confidence in your existence and sense of self.

I've seen this statement many times. There seems to be a thought that belief can manipulate truth; ie belief can change reality. There is no evidence of this. What the evidence points to is that the truth is immutable. It's our understanding of truth that changes.

I think you are erroneously equating 'truth' with 'reality'. They are not really synonyms. Truth is more the domain of philosophy than it is a description of the physical world. I am staying away from philosophy in an effort to simplify the conversation. I used the word 'true' to denote an statement that is accurate, nothing else.

That said, I don't think you're wrong - to an extent. Truth can vary from person to person and from experience to experience. I am very skeptical of the concept of universal truth. I find that it attempts to create a standard of experience among all humanity that doesn't really exist.