If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Ross Dolan]

"The fact that you are doing exactly the same thing theists are doing..."

I'm not. I don't believe in gods because I have never seen one, spoken to one, have seen no miracles performed by one, etc. So, I have specific evidence to support my belief.

Unfortunately, you ARE doing exactly what the theists are doing. You are making a guess that no gods exist...and then back storying it with this "I have never seen blah, blah, blah. You certainly can "not believe in gods" and not use the self-descriptor "atheist"...but you do not. You use it. Why?

It is apparent that you are doing a good deal more than just "I don't believe in gods." You seem, to me, to be "believing that there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

The theist argument isn't one based on if's and shaky, at best, evidence.

Correct. I agree with you. And neither is the atheistic one...not even the rather questionable "all an atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods"...which almost is always rendered as, "I do not believe in God."

Using the theist view, there's reason to believe in Santa Clause. St. Nick was a real person, just like Jesus. There are stories written about St. Nick and subsequent stories about Santa Claus.

Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?

I do not believe in Santa Claus because I do not do "believing" at all. In fact, if I could, I would erase the term "believe in" from the English language. It is not needed...and using realistic language to express the thoughts expressed with it makes more sense.

 

[Into the Night]

Is there anything you know to be true to the point that faith isn't required or are you trying to say that everything is faith because there are no knowns?

Mathematics does not require faith. It simply exists. This is a closed functional system where its boundaries are set by rules (called axioms).
Logic does not require faith. It simply exists. This is a closed functional system where its boundaries are set by rules (called axioms).

Science does not require faith. It simply exists. This is an open functional system consisting of a set of falsifiable theories. Each theory begins as a circular argument (which is never possible to prove True), but a theory of science can be tested proving it to be False, and utterly destroying the theory. As long as that theory can withstand tests designed to destroy it, it is automatically a theory of science and will remain so until it is falsified.

Religion (the general term) does not require faith. It simply exists. Each religion is based on some initial circular argument, or argument of faith. Therefore, each religion is itself based entirely on faith. Religion (the general term) is simply a set of religions (the specific term). English as a language is a bit weak here, thus the two meanings for 'religion'.

A set of objects requires no faith. Only logic.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I don't believe you are.

Atheism is super simple but for some reason you need to expend tons of contorted mystical phrases which only have meaning to you in order to denigrate atheism.

I am not trying to denigrate atheism.

I am suggesting very strongly that using "atheist" as a self-descriptor is not helpful...and may, in fact, harm some causes I think are important.

And Cypress is 20X worse with his fake "agnosticism" while he desperately tries to demonize atheism with every single turn.

I do not demonize atheism. I just think the word is so ambiguous...means so many different things to different peoplel...the thought being conveyed should be conveyed using other words.

You two are completely lost in the discussion because you can't understand one simple concept: a failure to believe something is not an active belief.

I understand that completely. What on Earth makes you think I do not?

But I do not think your use of the word "atheist" is based on what you do not believe...but rather on what you do believe.

We can discuss that.

Just like (wait for it) "NOT collecting stamps is NOT a hobby".

Oh, please. Not atheism 101.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep. I mentioned St Nick in a previous post.

So you agree that it's possible that Saint Nick could have been elevated to a supernatural being, like Jesus, and the books about Santa Claus, people seeing Santa Clause, people interacting with Santa Claus, etc are evidence of that, so it would be reasonable to believe in Santa Claus, right?

Some people do, particularly children.

 

[Into the Night]

I am not trying to denigrate atheism.

I am suggesting very strongly that using "atheist" as a self-descriptor is not helpful...and may, in fact, harm some causes I think are important.


I do not demonize atheism. I just think the word is so ambiguous...means so many different things to different peoplel...the thought being conveyed should be conveyed using other words.


I understand that completely. What on Earth makes you think I do not?

But I do not think your use of the word "atheist" is based on what you do not believe...but rather on what you do believe.

We can discuss that.

Oh, please. Not atheism 101.

You are still confused what atheism is.

Atheism is not a religion. It is not a belief. It simply is.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Be what you are. That's the point. When someone doesn't understand atheism it doesn't mean atheists are wrong. It just means you don't understand atheism.

NOnsense. Atheists are all over the place. It is impossible to tell what a person's stance on the question is from just the use of the word "atheist."

Some people use the word to denote that anyone who does not "believe in God" IS AN ATHEIST. I have had atheist who insist that since I do not believe in any gods...I am perforce, an atheist. I have had atheists who insist that every baby, toddler, or mentally incompetent...is an atheist by dint of definition.

That is nonsense on a galactic scale.

How on earth would YOU know that?

Because of the many discussions I have had on the Internet with folk like you. This discussion is already getting heated...and non-rational.

Sure. Let me know when someone with more than one functioning brain cell comes on JPP to discuss it.

I have more than one functioning brain cell. Discuss it with me.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Call it whatever you will. It's simply a position that doesn't accept either belief as true.

And you are saying that blindly guessing and accepting that one is true...is superior to just acknowledging the truth...that I do not know???

I can do that for you, if you want. But what good would that do?

 

[gmark77]

I am not trying to denigrate atheism.

I am suggesting very strongly that using "atheist" as a self-descriptor is not helpful...and may, in fact, harm some causes I think are important.


I do not demonize atheism. I just think the word is so ambiguous...means so many different things to different peoplel...the thought being conveyed should be conveyed using other words.


I understand that completely. What on Earth makes you think I do not?

But I do not think your use of the word "atheist" is based on what you do not believe...but rather on what you do believe.

We can discuss that.

Oh, please. Not atheism 101.

Atheism is literally nothing more than a failure to believe what a believer claims is evidence for God.

There's literally nothing else to it.

How it could require as much hand wringing as you and Cy make over it is beyond me. So obviously it appears you are either scared of it or don't understand simple language.

Neither one makes for a good "discussion".

 

[ZenMode]

Some people do, particularly children.

Would it be reasonable, based on the available evidence, for an adult to believe in Santa Claus? Not just St. Nick, but the being he became after being elevated to a supernatural being.

 

[gfm7175]

What is your definition of "faith"?

In terms of logic, "faith" is a circular argument. Many indoctrination centers incorrectly "teach" that a circular argument (in and of itself) is a fallacy (it is not).

 

[gmark77]

Would it be reasonable, based on the available evidence, for an adult to believe in Santa Claus? Not just St. Nick, but the being he became after being elevated to a supernatural being.

One must be "agnostic" about Santa Claus. Someone once wrote about Santa Claus so we must treat that as "evidence" for Santa Claus and that means there's at least a 50% chance that our local "agnostics" will have to assess that indeed he may exist.

Such is the life of the "agnostic" on JPP. Same goes for the Easter Bunny.

But not "invisible fairies", those are silly.

 

[Cypress]

I don't believe in gods because I have never seen one, spoken to one, have seen no miracles performed by one, etc. So, I have specific evidence to support my belief.
Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?

Your mind has severely restricted your knowledge and understanding to strictly the realm of audio-visual perception. Empiricism (sense perception) is only one kind of knowledge. Rationality and logic are another type of knowledge.

You've never seen, touched, or heard infinity, dark energy, transfinite numbers, or extraterrestrial life. But you can use logic and reasoning to understand them or make informed guesses about them.

 

[gfm7175]

Is there anything you know to be true to the point that faith isn't required

Yes.

or are you trying to say that everything is faith because there are no knowns?

No. There are knowns.

 

[ZenMode]

Mathematics does not require faith. It simply exists. This is a closed functional system where its boundaries are set by rules (called axioms).
Logic does not require faith. It simply exists. This is a closed functional system where its boundaries are set by rules (called axioms).

Science does not require faith. It simply exists. This is an open functional system consisting of a set of falsifiable theories. Each theory begins as a circular argument (which is never possible to prove True), but a theory of science can be tested proving it to be False, and utterly destroying the theory. As long as that theory can withstand tests designed to destroy it, it is automatically a theory of science and will remain so until it is falsified.

Religion (the general term) does not require faith. It simply exists. Each religion is based on some initial circular argument, or argument of faith. Therefore, each religion is itself based entirely on faith. Religion (the general term) is simply a set of religions (the specific term). English as a language is a bit weak here, thus the two meanings for 'religion'.

A set of objects requires no faith. Only logic.

E

One must be "agnostic" about Santa Claus. Someone once wrote about Santa Claus so we must treat that as "evidence" for Santa Claus and that means there's at least a 50% chance that our local "agnostics" will have to assess that indeed he may exist.

Such is the life of the "agnostic" on JPP. Same goes for the Easter Bunny.

But not "invisible fairies", those are silly.

Exactly and apparently all evidence is nearly equal, so it's equally reasonable, and require a similar amount of faith, to believe in Santa as it is to believe is Jesus/God.

 

[gfm7175]

And you are saying that blindly guessing and accepting that one is true...is superior to just acknowledging the truth...that I do not know???

Nope, I'm not saying that.

I can do that for you, if you want.

I don't want you to do that. I want you to be honest about your present viewpoint, and if your present viewpoint is "I don't accept either belief as true", then that's what I want you to say.

But what good would that do?

It doesn't do any good to lie. Honesty is the best policy.

1) It is true that God exists.
2) It is true that God DOESN'T exist.
3) I don't believe #1 or #2 ... "I don't know either way", "I don't care either way", etc.

If #3 is your honest view on the matter, then I want you to express #3. As far as I can tell, you've already expressed this.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Atheism is literally nothing more than a failure to believe what a believer claims is evidence for God.

YOU do not get to decide that, Mark. And it most "literally" is not that. I am not sure what it is...neither are most atheists...but it is not that.

Most of the atheists I have debated on line...insist that "anyone who does not 'believe in God' is an atheist."

I am not bullshitting you there. That absolutely is the truth about my interactions with atheists.

There's literally nothing else to it.

That is not so. You are simply unilaterally deciding what the word means to suit your argument.

How it could require as much hand wringing as you and Cy make over it is beyond me.

I understand that...and it is beyond me why you cannot see the importance of clearing this up.

The meaning of the word "atheist" is a jumble. You claim it means one thing...and are insisting "there's literally nothing else to it"...when I have been debating atheists (and theists) on the Internet for about 25 years...and in ten or fifteen years before that in op ed articles and back and forth arguments in newspapers.

So obviously it appears you are either scared of it or don't understand simple language.

I am not scared of atheism or atheists...and if you need that kind of nonsense to make you feel powerful...try it on someone else.

And I certainly understand simple language.

If you are disputing that there are atheists out there who disagree with your rendition of the atheist's song...you are dead wrong.

Neither one makes for a good "discussion".

We can have a good discussion. When you make a reasonable point...I will acknowledge that you have. When you make a point where I dispute it...I will provide why I dispute it. We then can discuss the disagreement. I hope you would do the same.

Can we start...without you deciding what atheism means...because it is obvious to me that there are atheists who would say it means something else?

I will ask you this question to start: Are you telling me that you do not believe that no gods exist...and that you also do not believe that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?

(I only ask that question because you seem unwilling to comment on that issue...which is an integral part of the discussion. It is my contention that ANYONE who uses "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor does so primarily because he/she has one of those two "beliefs.")

 

[gmark77]

Exactly and apparently all evidence is nearly equal, so it's equally reasonable, and require a similar amount of faith, to believe in Santa as it is to believe is Jesus/God.

That's the part of our local JPP "Agnostics" that I don't understand. Everyone, no matter who they are, can easily use the "atheistic" approach to any given fantastical claim. If I told you an invisible blue genie lived in my coat closet at home you would be perfectly rational to say "I don't believe it".

But what we are, instead, told by our local "Agnostics" is that since they can't "disprove" that the invisible blue genie exists that they must consider it at least plausible that it does. They are on the fence as to whether there is an invisible blue genie in my coat closet.

But we all know that NONE of them would actually do that. ALL of them would immediately dismiss my claim and say they fail to believe such a thing exists.

This is why I find our JPP "agnostics" to be less than wholly rational about the debate. They will never cop to what their position entails neither will they allow the alternative position to exist.

 

[gmark77]

YOU do not get to decide that,

Yeah, I do. Because that's how it's defined. Sure there are a couple different flavors of atheism, but my definition (which you will find in just about any definition of atheism) is absolutely 100% perfect in every way.

 

[gfm7175]

Atheism is literally nothing more than a failure to believe what a believer claims is evidence for God.

It's a tad bit more than that. It is:
1) "Failure" (idk if I'd use that particular word) to believe that God exists.
2) "Failure" to believe that God DOESN'T exist.

If you "fail" #1, but "don't fail" #2, then you are a Church of No God member.
If you "fail" #2, but "don't fail" #1, then you are a theist of some sort (e.g. Christian).
If you "fail" both #1 AND #2, then you are an atheist.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Nope, I'm not saying that.

I don't want you to do that. I want you to be honest about your present viewpoint, and if your present viewpoint is "I don't accept either belief as true", then that's what I want you to say.

It doesn't do any good to lie. Honesty is the best policy.

1) It is true that God exists.
2) It is true that God DOESN'T exist.
3) I don't believe #1 or #2 ... "I don't know either way", "I don't care either way", etc.

If #3 is your honest view on the matter, then I want you to express #3. As far as I can tell, you've already expressed this.

Okay, I will be truthful with you. (I have done this at least 6 times in this forum already, but...here it is again.)

On the issue of whether there is at least one god or if there are none:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...nor do I see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about which is more likely…so I do not guess on either of those things.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Now if you are telling me that my explanation of my position as stated is somehow inferior in logic or reasoning to you saying, "I am an atheist"...I would appreciate you telling me why you think that.