Why Not Believe? Reasons Why Atheists Don't Believe in Gods
-------From Austin Cline


Multiple Gods and Religious Traditions:
It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other. Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

Contradictory Characteristics in Gods:
Theists often claim that their gods are perfect beings; they describe gods, however, in contradictory and incoherent ways. Numerous characteristics are attributed to their gods, some of which are impossible and some combinations of which are impossible. As described, it's unlikely or impossible for these gods to exist. This doesn't mean that no god could possibly exist, just that the ones theists claim to believe in don't.

Religion is Self-Contradictory:
No religion is perfectly consistent when it comes to doctrines, ideas, and history. Every ideology, philosophy, and cultural tradition has inconsistencies and contradictions, so this shouldn't be surprising — but other ideologies and traditions aren't alleged to be divinely created or divinely sanctioned systems for following the wishes of a god. The state of religion in the world today is more consistent with the premise that they are man-made institutions.

Gods Just Don't Matter:
Theism means believing in the existence of at least one god, not that one necessarily cares much about any gods. In practice, though, theists typically place a great deal of importance on their god and insist that it and what it wants are the most important things a person can be concerned with. Depending upon the nature of a god, however, this isn't necessarily true. It's not obvious that the existence or desires of gods should matter to us.

Gods and Believers Behave Immorally:
In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality. For most believers, their religion represents an institution for promoting perfect morality. In reality, though, religions are responsible for widespread immorality and gods have characteristics or histories which make them worse than the most vile human serial killer. No one would tolerate such behavior on the part of a person, but when with a god it all becomes laudable — even an example to follow.

Evil in the World:
Closely associated with taking action that should be considered immoral is the fact that there is so much evil in the world today. If there are any gods, why don't they act to eliminate it? The absence of substantive action against evil would be consistent with the existence of evil or at least indifferent gods, which is not impossible, but few people believe in such gods. Most claim that their gods are loving and powerful; the suffering on Earth makes their existence implausible.

Faith is Unreliable:
A common characteristic of both theism and religion is their reliance on faith: belief in the existence of god and in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or science. Instead, people are supposed to have faith — a position they wouldn’t consciously adopt with just about any other issue. Faith, though, is an unreliable guide to reality or means for acquiring knowledge.

Life is Material, not Supernatural:
Most religions say that life is much more than the flesh and matter we see around us. In addition, there is supposed to be some sort of spiritual or supernatural realm behind it all and that our "true selves" is spiritual, not material. All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon. All evidence indicates that who we really are — our selves — is material and dependent upon the workings of the brain. If this is so, religious and theistic doctrines are wrong.

There is No Good Reason to Bother Believing:
Perhaps the most basic reason for not believing in any gods is the absence of good reasons for doing so. The above are decent reasons for not believing and for questioning — and eventually leaving — whatever theistic and religious beliefs a person might have had in the past.

Once a person gets beyond the bias in favor of belief, though, they may realize something critical: the burden of support lies with those claiming that belief is rational and/or necessary. Believers fail to meet this burden, though, and thus fail to provide good reasons to accept their claims. As a consequence, those who don't already believe and/or who are not biased in favor of belief aren't given a reason to start.

Since the burden of support lies first and foremost with those making the positive the claim — the theistic, religious believers — non-believers don't need reasons not to believe. They may help, but they aren't particularly necessary. Instead, what is required are reasons to believe.

The question "Why don't you believe?" is a request for justification from the nonbeliever; the response "I haven't seen any good reason to bother believing" returns the need for justification back where it belongs: with the believer. Too often, believers fail to realize that their position is the one needing defense and this may help them understand that.

Theists should think of a god they don't believe in and ask why they don't believe in it. Some may answer that their religion teaches them not to. Others, however, will respond in a way similar to the above — they have no reason to bother and/or they have good reasons to think that that god does not or cannot exist.

Well, atheists don't believe for the same sorts of reasons — they just don't make an exception for the theist's god. Theists and atheists aren't always so far apart; more important is the methodology used to arrive at those conclusions. Why does the theist disbelieve in all other gods except for the one or few in their belief system?

Yet with all those reasons, atheist and theist alike, do indeed, overwhelming believe. The trick to the question isn’t in what they say they believe, but what is said by what it is they say they believe and do not believe.

Yet with all those reasons, atheist and theist alike, do indeed, overwhelming believe.

BZZZZZZZZT.

Wrong, as far as it concerns atheists.

Atheism is not defined by belief.......but instead by a lack of belief.

Shadowwalker, you are confusing a belief with a claim to knowledge.

Theists both believe in and may or may not claim to know that God exists.

Atheists do not believe in, but claim to know that God does not exist.

Agnostics do not believe in, or claim to know anything regarding a higher power.

Mystics do not believe in, but claim to know that God (or whatever) exists.

Nihilists believe in nothing, but claim to know all sorts of things they have no business claiming.

Shadowwalker, you are confusing a belief with a claim to knowledge.

Theists both believe in and may or may not claim to know that God exists.

Atheists do not believe in, but claim to know that God does not exist.



Excuse me for butting in...but I think you are making an error in stating that --"Atheists do not believe in, but claim to know that God does not exist."

Atheists do not -- *claim to know that God does not exist*.

We simply acknowledge that we do not possess a belief in this "god" entity that theists believe in.

__________________________________________________ __

If one believes in a god, then one is a Theist. If one does not believe in a god, then one is an A-theist -- he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely, exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God

Free, there are two types of atheism, strong atheism and weak atheism.

Strong one's say there is no god. Weak atheists simply claim a lack of belief.

I think the weak atheists are pansy pussies.

Why Not Believe? Reasons Why Atheists Don't Believe in Gods
-------From Austin Cline


Multiple Gods and Religious Traditions:
It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other. Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
This is, by no means, a reason not to believe.

Contradictory Characteristics in Gods:
Whos god? The Abrahamic God? Ya, that guy is weird.
Religion is Self-Contradictory:
No religion is perfectly consistent when it comes to doctrines, ideas, and history. Every ideology, philosophy, and cultural tradition has inconsistencies and contradictions, so this shouldn't be surprising — but other ideologies and traditions aren't alleged to be divinely created or divinely sanctioned systems for following the wishes of a god. The state of religion in the world today is more consistent with the premise that they are man-made institutions.

No duh. All religions are man made ways to understand the divine. With jillions of believers, I would be absolutly shocked to not find inconstistances.
[B]Gods Just Don't Matter:
Theism means believing in the existence of at least one god, not that one necessarily cares much about any gods. In practice, though, theists typically place a great deal of importance on their god and insist that it and what it wants are the most important things a person can be concerned with. Depending upon the nature of a god, however, ->this isn't necessarily true<-. It's not obvious that the existence or desires of gods should matter to us.
'Nuff said.
Gods and Believers Behave Immorally:
In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality. For most believers, their religion represents an institution for promoting perfect morality. In reality, though, religions are responsible for widespread immorality and gods have characteristics or histories which make them worse than the most vile human serial killer. No one would tolerate such behavior on the part of a person, but when with a god it all becomes laudable — even an example to follow.
Hey, lets assume the Abrahimic religions represent all theism! Sounds like a great idea!
Evil in the World:
Closely associated with taking action that should be considered immoral is the fact that there is so much evil in the world today. If there are any gods, why don't they act to eliminate it? The absence of substantive action against evil would be consistent with the existence of evil or at least indifferent gods, which is not impossible, but few people believe in such gods. Most claim that their gods are loving and powerful; the suffering on Earth makes their existence implausible.
Oh really? Maybe God wants people to fix their own mess? People can overcome their apathy and help relieve the suffering of others. I've seen it done.
True evil is the result of conscious decision. We cuase evil.
Faith is Unreliable:
A common characteristic of both theism and religion is their reliance on faith: belief in the existence of god and in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or science. Instead, people are supposed to have faith — a position they wouldn’t consciously adopt with just about any other issue. Faith, though, is an unreliable guide to reality or means for acquiring knowledge.
Indeed.
Life is Material, not Supernatural:
Most religions say that life is much more than the flesh and matter we see around us. In addition, there is supposed to be some sort of spiritual or supernatural realm behind it all and that our "true selves" is spiritual, not material. All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon. All evidence indicates that who we really are — our selves — is material and dependent upon the workings of the brain. If this is so, religious and theistic doctrines are wrong.
Or, the spiritual and supernatural are perfectly natural things that we have yet to explian in scientific terms.
There is No Good Reason to Bother Believing:
Perhaps the most basic reason for not believing in any gods is the absence of good reasons for doing so. The above are decent reasons for not believing and for questioning — and eventually leaving — whatever theistic and religious beliefs a person might have had in the past.
Correct. (didn't expect that, did ya?)
In summery, I'm trying to convert people to athiesm
Riddle me this, why are you posting on a board that is largely athiest/agnostic? Shouldn't you be off raging on a Christian forum?

Gods and Believers Behave Immorally:
In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality. For most believers, their religion represents an institution for promoting perfect morality. In reality, though, religions are responsible for widespread immorality and gods have characteristics or histories which make them worse than the most vile human serial killer. No one would tolerate such behavior on the part of a person, but when with a god it all becomes laudable — even an example to follow.
This is one of the ethical philosophy topics I really like. To judge god requires an existing set of morality--our morality. So it is kind of a paradox to think of god as the ultimate source of morality. Certainly barring an act of miracle when a person chooses a religion some kind of judgment was made on the religion and/or god and it was found agreeable before the the person becomes a believer. In other words, my morality still comes first. Very interesting.

you forgot to say that if there is an all powerful god why doesnt he just force everyone to believe in him?

Multiple Gods and Religious Traditions:
It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other. Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

This is, by no means, a reason not to believe.


We disagree.

I direct you to the words --"They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong".

Since we know that logically, not all the claims for "god" can be correct --since there are so many different gods-- that a number of them >1 are absolutely false.

Since we know beyond any doubt that an infinite number of them are false, it seriously calls into question the validity of ALL of them.

Gods and Believers Behave Immorally:
In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality. For most believers, their religion represents an institution for promoting perfect morality. In reality, though, religions are responsible for widespread immorality and gods have characteristics or histories which make them worse than the most vile human serial killer. No one would tolerate such behavior on the part of a person, but when with a god it all becomes laudable — even an example to follow.



Hey, lets assume the Abrahimic religions represent all theism! Sounds like a great idea!

A blatant display of intellectual dishonesty.

There is NO mention in the quote you attempt to refute of the 'Abrahamic religions'. No mention of them, and no implied reference to them.

Riddle me this, why are you posting on a board that is largely athiest/agnostic? Shouldn't you be off raging on a Christian forum?

Riddle me this, what possible business or concern is it of yours where I post or do not post?

_______________________________________________

Oh senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm, and yet will make Gods by the dozens. --- Michel de Montaigne

Despite all the stuff posted.. all the reasons.. i still believe...

I can understand WHY someone wouldn't believe.. that's their choice...

Atheists deny the existence of God. Agnostics say they do not know whether God exists or not.
Let's not change the dictionary definition of words too much.

Atheists deny the existence of God. Agnostics say they do not know whether God exists or not.
Let's not change the dictionary definition of words too much.

The word "deny" can be used to mean "fail to accept the truth of." In that sense only, atheists 'deny' the existence of God.

They are not "in denial" in any sense of the wilfull ignoring of evidence.....nor do all of them necessarily positively assert the nonexistence of God.

Mystics do not believe in, but claim to know that God (or whatever) exists.
Some mystics do believe in God.

BZZZZZZZZT.

Wrong, as far as it concerns atheists.

Atheism is not defined by belief.......but instead by a lack of belief.


It is right concerning anything human, because it is part of the human condition. And specifically with ‘atheist’, they are defined by ‘theist’. So no theist, no atheist. You would be hard pressed to convince me that you do not ‘believe’.

Take your avatar as an example. It expresses a belief. Specifically something in regards to a negate quality about Bush. Is this not something you believe? How did you come to the point of this belief?

Shadowwalker, you are confusing a belief with a claim to knowledge.

Theists both believe in and may or may not claim to know that God exists.

Atheists do not believe in, but claim to know that God does not exist.

Agnostics do not believe in, or claim to know anything regarding a higher power.

Mystics do not believe in, but claim to know that God (or whatever) exists.

Nihilists believe in nothing, but claim to know all sorts of things they have no business claiming.


No, knowledge, knowing, claims of something related, are all consequences of believing.

I you want to nit pick, you could nit pick over the concept of ‘God’. It is not ‘God’ that people have an argument about, but rather the concepts related to the word ‘God’. Consider for a moment that if you defined an ‘atheist’ as someone who does not believe in ‘God’, then every single religious person should be considered an atheist. Why, because the knowledge proceeds not only from the belief, but also the common presumptions. Hence, if there are common presumptions, does that not constitute belief?

I always find it intrigue that people always want to know the how’s, whys, and when’s of religion, but few delve into the ‘why’. For example, does it really matter whether or not the ‘Bible’ is a document of fact, or fiction? Seriously, does it change it’s purpose?

you forgot to say that if there is an all powerful god why doesnt he just force everyone to believe in him?


Why would you say ‘he’? Nix, that, why did you say ‘he’?

Sal, they may claim to believe in God, but a mystic tries to experience God, not merely believe in him.

No, knowledge, knowing, claims of something related, are all consequences of believing.

To think that you would have to be a solipsist. It's not good logic to hand to an atheist to tell him, "See, you really do have beliefs!" You are making the claim here that nothing exists, and that we only believe that the things we see around us exist, they don't actually do. A strange argument. Consider the following exchange:

Socrates: Look, a table!

Jesus: You just made a claim to know that is a table! You believe the table is there! See, we're not so different, you and I.

Why, because the knowledge proceeds not only from the belief, but also the common presumptions.

Another strange argument. So, we only call it knowledge when a majority of the population believes the same thing?

Hence, if there are common presumptions, does that not constitute belief?

You're putting the cart before the horse here. Explain how these common presumptions are inextricably tied to our idea of knowledge first.

Despite all the stuff posted.. all the reasons.. i still believe...

I can understand WHY someone wouldn't believe.. that's their choice...

Respectfully, Decka, a person cannot just *choose* to believe in something or to not believe in it. Not really.

If that were true, you or I could, right this minute, **choose** to believe, with all our heart, in the existence of ......well,.....whatever. We could **choose**, for instance, to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

We cannot force such a belief, however,.........because it does not seem reasonable to us that such a being could exist.

The same is the case for me as it concerns the Christian's (and all other's) god. I simply cannot *believe* in such a supernatural entity, when said existence seems impossible to me in every sense of the word. I cannot force myself to "believe", no matter how hard I try, in the Tooth Fairy and I cannot "believe" in gods or demons.

Why would you say ‘he’? Nix, that, why did you say ‘he’?

:comphit:

Respectfully, Decka, a person cannot just *choose* to believe in something or to not believe in it. Not really.

If that were true, you or I could, right this minute, **choose** to believe, with all our heart, in the existence of ......well,.....whatever. We could **choose**, for instance, to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

We cannot force such a belief, however,.........because it does not seem reasonable to us that such a being could exist.

The same is the case for me as it concerns the Christian's (and all other's) god. I simply cannot *believe* in such a supernatural entity, when said existence seems impossible to me in every sense of the word. I cannot force myself to "believe", no matter how hard I try, in the Tooth Fairy and I cannot "believe" in gods or demons.

Its called free will freethinker, you dont have to believe in anything. God doesnt want to force you to love him, he wants you to choose too, because we all know forced love is not real love

We disagree.

I direct you to the words --"They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong".

Since we know that logically, not all the claims for "god" can be correct --since there are so many different gods-- that a number of them >1 are absolutely false.

Since we know beyond any doubt that an infinite number of them are false, it seriously calls into question the validity of ALL of them.
But thats just stupid. You've basically just said that a person shouldn't believe something just becuase they might be wrong. You and I could be wrong about almost anything. Is that a reason to completely give up and not believe anything? Hardly.
A blatant display of intellectual dishonesty.

There is NO mention in the quote you attempt to refute of the 'Abrahamic religions'. No mention of them, and no implied reference to them.
Ha! That paragraph is a perfect description of OT God and his fundie followers.
Riddle me this, what possible business or concern is it of yours where I post or do not post?
:@@:

hell, liberalism itself is a form of religion. They have total faith in something that will never happen, that bieng pretty much all the fluff they believe. Ask any true commie, they will say true communism has never been tried and never will, yet they still base their life on its teachings.

Yet with all those reasons, atheist and theist alike, do indeed, overwhelming believe. The trick to the question isn’t in what they say they believe, but what is said by what it is they say they believe and do not believe.

Atheists, by the very definition of the word, do NOT believe in a higher power.

Some mystics do believe in God.

What is a mystic?

It is right concerning anything human, because it is part of the human condition. And specifically with ‘atheist’, they are defined by ‘theist’. So no theist, no atheist. You would be hard pressed to convince me that you do not ‘believe’.

Take your avatar as an example. It expresses a belief. Specifically something in regards to a negate quality about Bush. Is this not something you believe? How did you come to the point of this belief?

When you say that someone 'believes' with regards to religion, you are taking the religious meaning of the word, not the standard reason. To 'believe' with regards to religion, means to believe in a god. Atheists do not 'believe' in that sense.

hell, liberalism itself is a form of religion. They have total faith in something that will never happen, that bieng pretty much all the fluff they believe.
Religion is belief in a greater being - it does not mean something that will never happen.

Ask any true commie, they will say true communism has never been tried and never will, yet they still base their life on its teachings.
True - go and compare Marx's writings to the 'communism' that was attempted. Of course, true communism would fail horribly for a myriad of reasons.

To think that you would have to be a solipsist. It's not good logic to hand to an atheist to tell him, "See, you really do have beliefs!" You are making the claim here that nothing exists, and that we only believe that the things we see around us exist, they don't actually do. A strange argument. Consider the following exchange:

Socrates: Look, a table!

Jesus: You just made a claim to know that is a table! You believe the table is there! See, we're not so different, you and I.



Another strange argument. So, we only call it knowledge when a majority of the population believes the same thing?



You're putting the cart before the horse here. Explain how these common presumptions are inextricably tied to our idea of knowledge first.


Knowledge is based upon an assumed upon set of precepts. For example, if I say 1+1=2, it is only considered ‘knowledge’ if both you and I agree. Or more to the point, our collective cultures, and body of knowledge. However, ‘knowledge’ doesn’t encompass reality, it is simply a subset. For further clarification, I could have said 1+1=10, or a number of other things. Then, again, it is considered knowledge, again, if we both agree. Yet, whether or not we choose to agree, or for that matter, anyone at this site, 1+1=10 because of reality, not because of ‘acceptance’. Any atheist or theist could challenge the statement, and even adamantly deny belief in the fact that 1+1=10, yet, they still accept it as fact, even ironically in a willing fashion.

Atheists, by the very definition of the word, do NOT believe in a higher power.


Yes, but would you also not agree that by their very definition they are defined by a belief in ‘God’?

Yet, aside from the semantic foolery, do they really disbelieve in ‘God’, or do they, more to the point, disbelieve in the current stated concepts applied to the word ‘God’, as have been pushed upon us?

Take for example, the age old story of ‘Jesus’ turning water into wine, with the classical atheist challenge of the preservation of matter. Doesn’t their argument suggest an inherent belief if the literal story of the water turning into wine? In other words, they accepted a version of the story within which to frame their counter argument. I mean did they challenge the story as presented by say a Gnostic Christian? One in which not only did the water stay water, and the wine stay wine, but any spectacle created by such a preposition, is render totally irrelevant, and contrary to the plot outlay.

I’m not one to throw quotes out, but seeing as you are a fan:

be you king or street sweeper, sooner or later you dance with the reaper. (Useless 80’s trivia)

When you say that someone 'believes' with regards to religion, you are taking the religious meaning of the word, not the standard reason. To 'believe' with regards to religion, means to believe in a god. Atheists do not 'believe' in that sense.


Yes, but that was one of the plot points, did I ever say that I used the word ‘believe’ within context of ‘religion’, or was that an assumption. And, would assumptions by the masses, not constitute a ‘belief’ that does indeed mirror that of ‘religious belief’?

What is a mystic?
I would say someone who consciously tries to experience or commune with God or some outside energy source.

Hey Nap! Back to spice things up a little?
I think the weak atheists are pansy pussies.I'm not a pansy pussy.

I'm just in touch with my feminine side, that's all...

hell, liberalism itself is a form of religion."Liberalism is just as crap my beliefs."They have total faith in something that will never happen, that bieng pretty much all the fluff they believe."Liberal opinion is just as unfounded as mine."Ask any true commie, they will say true communism has never been tried and never will, yet they still base their life on its teachings."Commies are no better than me."

Convincing stuff, Trav.

Hey Nap! Back to spice things up a little?
I'm not a pansy pussy.

I'm just in touch with my feminine side, that's all...

Good to see you too, Blob!

Never figured you for a weak atheist... Actually I'm gathering data for my new philosophy. Gonna have a website, followers, business cards, a book deal and all that jazz. Hopefully I'll get rich and get laid like all the other gurus out there.

Never figured you for a weak atheist...Atheist terminology isn't something I get hung up on. But put a gun to my head and demand I declare myself weak or strong and I'd probably go for weak.
Actually I'm gathering data for my new philosophy. Gonna have a website, followers, business cards, a book deal and all that jazz. Hopefully I'll get rich and get laid like all the other gurus out there.Sounds like a life, though I would hope you are not going to prey too mercilessly on the weak minded.

Yes, but would you also not agree that by their very definition they are defined by a belief in ‘God’?
No... Atheists are defined by a disbelief in any god.

Yet, aside from the semantic foolery, do they really disbelieve in ‘God’, or do they, more to the point, disbelieve in the current stated concepts applied to the word ‘God’, as have been pushed upon us?
They disbelieve in a higher power, which our current definition of God falls into.

Take for example, the age old story of ‘Jesus’ turning water into wine, with the classical atheist challenge of the preservation of matter. Doesn’t their argument suggest an inherent belief if the literal story of the water turning into wine?
Not at all. I do not beleive that Jesus turned water into wine, and further support that by using the preservation of matter - nowhere in there do I even suggest that I believe in the literal story.

In other words, they accepted a version of the story within which to frame their counter argument.
No we didn't. Your logic is flawed.

Yes, but that was one of the plot points, did I ever say that I used the word ‘believe’ within context of ‘religion’, or was that an assumption.
You did say 'believe' in the context of religion.
You were responding to FT's remark on atheists being defined by lack of belief - and if you look at the definition of atheist it means lack of belief in a greater being, aka a god.

And, would assumptions by the masses, not constitute a ‘belief’ that does indeed mirror that of ‘religious belief’?
The religious belief that we had been discussing earlier, the belief in a god, IS an assumtion by the masses - but there can be any number of assumptions by the masses. Where are you going with this?

You did say 'believe' in the context of religion.
You were responding to FT's remark on atheists being defined by lack of belief - and if you look at the definition of atheist it means lack of belief in a greater being, aka a god.


The religious belief that we had been discussing earlier, the belief in a god, IS an assumtion by the masses - but there can be any number of assumptions by the masses. Where are you going with this?


We could do this for a really long time, as in the chicken and the egg. Yet, ultimately, if you don’t define a ‘theist’, then you cannot define an ‘atheist’. ‘Atheist’, as you say, disbelieve in any ‘God’ as per ‘our’ definition. But, who is to say that ‘our’ definition, correctly defines the concept of ‘God’.

Unlike Cartman, I don’t consider myself psychic, so I can’t claim to know what you believe or do not believe. The comment was with the context of an ‘atheist’ challenging the story of ‘Jesus’ turning water into wine, via the scientific concept of preservation of matter. For that ‘atheist’, they have to first acknowledge the ‘possibility’ of the story, less, why would they even waste their time? Yet, more to the point, they acknowledge a specific version of the story, to frame their counter point. Hence, they have to accept that such an interpretation is ‘correct’.

I don’t think my logic is flawed; perhaps we are simply not walking on the same path.

I make ever effort to not chart a course for on-line discussions, I find them for more enjoyable when they do as they like.

I make ever effort to not chart a course for on-line discussions, I find them for more enjoyable when they do as they like.I think you just like to string words together and hope they form sentences. :)

Excellent characterization, sedan!

I think you just like to string words together and hope they form sentences. :)


Take compliment to have devious a I Should as my a that insult to ability more ? as an intent or

Excellent characterization, sedan!


Perhaps, but I feel cheated, I thought I was supposed to get a hand drawn picture when someone does a caricaturization, opps, did I just prove the point ;)

Well, a characterization doesn't typically involve cartoons, but since you asked for one...

http://i7.tinypic.com/4hri72p.gif

Yes, I can see the irony in my cartoon, it's there on purpose, no need to point it out...

Sounds like a life, though I would hope you are not going to prey too mercilessly on the weak minded.

Maddox and Tucker Max seem to be getting on well enough doing just that...

True, and some of the more insightful moments don’t come from cartoons either, like that little kid saying “I I I see dead people”, later spoofed by Marlon Wayans with “I I I see white people.”. Namely, because if you think about it, it’s not in what is projected, but in what is received. See, Dr. Crowe is projected in the movie as being seeable, but no matter what he did, it was all about what was actually seen. The same with the racial slur of Wayans. Have Rush say the same exact statement in a movie, and it turns from comedic, to vile. It’s not in what is written or said, but in what is read, and taken in.

Your going to have to do much better, if you truly want me to see you as an ‘ignorant asshole Bum’, I see much more. (Although, you could have given me a nose.)

No nose for you!

"Liberalism is just as crap my beliefs.""Liberal opinion is just as unfounded as mine.""Commies are no better than me."

Convincing stuff, Trav.

WTF are you talking about? I am not even religious.

BZZZZZZZZT.

Wrong, as far as it concerns atheists.

Atheism is not defined by belief.......but instead by a lack of belief.

If Atheism is defined by a lack of belief, does that mean Atheist are completely viod of belief?

In everything there is to believe in.

WTF are you talking about? I am not even religious.
This is news. Have you stopped attending church, or am I mixed up and you never went?
If Atheism is defined by a lack of belief, does that mean Atheist are completely viod of belief?
Void of belief in God is what makes one atheist, however, some atheists do believe in the supernatural or the afterlife, and other things religion entails. There is no agreed upon platform by all atheists except lack of belief in a deity.

But, on these boards, the atheists, such as myself, seem to reject the vast majority of things religions entail, if not all.

If Atheism is defined by a lack of belief, does that mean Atheist are completely viod of belief?

Use your head.

Void of belief in God is what makes one atheist, however, some atheists do believe in the supernatural or the afterlife, and other things religion entails. There is no agreed upon platform by all atheists except lack of belief in a deity.

But, on these boards, the atheists, such as myself, seem to reject the vast majority of things religions entail, if not all.


Then Atheism is defined by the belief that there is no God?

Then Atheism is defined by the belief that there is no God?

For some, atheism is defined by the belief that there is no god.

For others, atheism is defined by the lack of belief that there is a god.

Although I doubt you'll grasp the difference.

For some, atheism is defined by the belief that there is no god.

For others, atheism is defined by the lack of belief that there is a god.

Although I doubt you'll grasp the difference.


Is it set in moral values?

If Atheism is defined by a lack of belief, does that mean Atheist are completely viod of belief?

In everything there is to believe in.
No, like others said the term atheist applies to only either a lack of belief in god or a belief in the lack of god. Like the term Christian is applied to people with somewhat differing point of view, the term atheist is thus vulnerable to confusion.

What you mentioned is someone that would be called a strong Skeptic. His disbelieve or lack of belief extends beyond religion and into perception, knowledge, etc.

No nose for you!


Two can play at that game.

Never thought I'd meet a fellow who could beat me in the image posting game.

You aiight, ShadowWalker.

Anyone who says ai'ight, ain't ai'ight....

aiight? Isnt that double speak? or is it lazy speak? or is it "i want to be cool speak"?... aight.. whateva playa.. i gotchu dawg..

No, like others said the term atheist applies to only either a lack of belief in god or a belief in the lack of god. Like the term Christian is applied to people with somewhat differing point of view, the term atheist is thus vulnerable to confusion.

What you mentioned is someone that would be called a strong Skeptic. His disbelieve or lack of belief extends beyond religion and into perception, knowledge, etc.


Wait. You just said understanding makes an Atheist.
Thats funny. I really did lol

Its almost as if youre holding an intellect umbrella over your head and calling it Atheism.

Well, IQ is pretty heavily negatively correlated with religious belief...

Well, IQ is pretty heavily negatively correlated with religious belief...


Thats funny to.
I am going back to school, because I thought I needed to understand more.
I scored high on every test so far. That was before the class even started.
Those were placement test.
Turns out I was smarter then I thought, praise the Lord.

I wanted to understand Atheism, because places like this one seemed to state repeatedly that atheist were smarter then religious folk.

You know the best description I have seen so far for an Atheist.

Its the following.

"They dont want to be fucked with"

That seems to be their whole motivation in learning anything.

Thats funny to.
I am going back to school, because I thought I needed to understand more.
I scored high on every test so far. That was before the class even started.
Those were placement test.
Turns out I was smarter then I thought, praise the Lord.

Test scores, school performance, or even going to school at all cannot tell you or make you intelligent.

"They dont want to be fucked with"

That's about right. When I was in basic training and at tech school in the military, I was hounded mercilessly because of my atheism. Eventually my sharp tongue drove them off. I don't want "learn anything" about what the bible says about my apostism, or anything Jesus Christ did for me two thousand years ago. There are certain things that are worth learning, and the rest just aren't.

Test scores, school performance, or even going to school at all cannot tell you or make you intelligent.

Doesnt it dictate I.Q?

"designed and selected because they are found to be predictive of later intellectual development, such as educational achievement."



That's about right. When I was in basic training and at tech school in the military, I was hounded mercilessly because of my atheism. Eventually my sharp tongue drove them off. I don't want "learn anything" about what the bible says about my apostism, or anything Jesus Christ did for me two thousand years ago. There are certain things that are worth learning, and the rest just aren't.

All that says, is that youre unwilling to know more then you want to.
That doesnt really make you more insightfull then anyone else.

Doesnt it dictate I.Q?

That's a big huge negative. I.Q. factors can be correlated with academic achievement, but causation is not the same as correlation.

All that says, is that youre unwilling to know more then you want to.

Yes. I have little desire to know precisely the 40,000 different shades of dirt that exist in the world. Insight is not in knowing more, it's in knowing what's important.

That's a big huge negative. I.Q. factors can be correlated with academic achievement, but causation is not the same as correlation.

Eh, I'll go along with that. For the sake of arguement.



Yes. I have little desire to know precisely the 40,000 different shades of dirt that exist in the world. Insight is not in knowing more, it's in knowing what's important.

That still doesn't say youre more insightful then anyone else. That just says you dont have interest in different shades of dirt.

That still doesn't say youre more insightful then anyone else.

Why should I say that I am?

Wait. You just said understanding makes an Atheist.
Are you replying to the wrong person? When did I say that?

Why should I say that I am?


Thats my point.

Are you replying to the wrong person? When did I say that?

I apologise if I misquoted you.

What does this mean?

"His disbelieve or lack of belief extends beyond religion and into perception, knowledge, etc"

Thats my point.

Make a better one.

Make a better one.

Theres no better point to make then to say, no one is better then anyone else?

Theres no better point to make then to say, no one is better then anyone else?

There's plenty. Use your noggin.

There's plenty. Use your noggin.


Dont let indifference separate you from everyone else?

Is that a question or a sentiment?

Is that a question or a sentiment?


More of a question.

One man is no better then the next. It means we all have something we can learn from each other.

It means we all have something we can learn from each other.

Sure. But who are you to decide for another person what they should be learning?

Never thought I'd meet a fellow who could beat me in the image posting game.

You aiight, ShadowWalker.

Well, I can’t fairly say if my skills match yours, I haven’t conversed enough with you, but thanks for the compliment. I just noticed you have a blog site, so I’ll check it out in return.

Anyone who says ai'ight, ain't ai'ight....


Sure, put the gun down, and let’s see if you will still say that :p

There's nothing of note in my blog, and I don't update very often, but it might provide a few hours of entertainment.

Well, I can’t fairly say if my skills match yours,

No need to go that far, but you did beat me this time.

IQ is one thing, but I think passion will always trump. I have meant a lot of high scoring individuals on any number of standardized tests from college exams, graduate exams, IQ, etc… But so far, I can universally say, that when someone has a passion for something, they can achieve far greater things. So while some might point to stereo typical figures of Einstein, Franklin, Tesla, and Hawking as power house intellectuals, they often overlook the passion they had for their life’s work. Or you could take the flip side and have a look at Matt Hoffman, who’s only credit would be his recklessness, or his then infamous statement “pain is fleeting, glory is forever’.

There's nothing of note in my blog, and I don't update very often, but it might provide a few hours of entertainment.



No need to go that far, but you did beat me this time.


Nothing, is sometimes the best thing to find.

Sure. But who are you to decide for another person what they should be learning?


No one, which is another point I am making.

What does this mean?

"His disbelieve or lack of belief extends beyond religion and into perception, knowledge, etc"
This means that an atheist is not necessarily a strong skeptic. When you asked the question,

"If Atheism is defined by a lack of belief, does that mean Atheist are completely viod of belief?

In everything there is to believe in."

I wanted to say that someone who fits that description would be a strong skeptic, who certainly would also be an atheist. But the reverse may or may not be true. So...when I saw your reply saying

"You just said understanding makes an Atheist."

it was very confusing. It is not understanding that separates an atheist from a strong skeptic, or from a theist, or whatever. It's an epistemological choice, and ultimately pretty personal. What I mean by epistemological choice can be explained by an example. Say, the belief that a green elephant exists. One person can hold that certain sources are reliable and if it is from these sources that he was told a green elephant exists, he is satisfied. Another person may keep this claim in doubt until he sees one such elephant. Yet another person may, after seeing one such elephant, find additional reasons and causes (eg. it's a trick, etc.) to doubt even this personal experience.

So you see understanding was not a factor here. It is what a person sees as acceptable knowledge. Hopefully you see how this example can be translated to religious beliefs.

This means that an atheist is not necessarily a strong skeptic. When you asked the question,

"If Atheism is defined by a lack of belief, does that mean Atheist are completely viod of belief?

In everything there is to believe in."

I wanted to say that someone who fits that description would be a strong skeptic, who certainly would also be an atheist. But the reverse may or may not be true. So...when I saw your reply saying

"You just said understanding makes an Atheist."

it was very confusing. It is not understanding that separates an atheist from a strong skeptic, or from a theist, or whatever. It's an epistemological choice, and ultimately pretty personal. What I mean by epistemological choice can be explained by an example. Say, the belief that a green elephant exists. One person can hold that certain sources are reliable and if it is from these sources that he was told a green elephant exists, he is satisfied. Another person may keep this claim in doubt until he sees one such elephant. Yet another person may, after seeing one such elephant, find additional reasons and causes (eg. it's a trick, etc.) to doubt even this personal experience.

So you see understanding was not a factor here. It is what a person sees as acceptable knowledge. Hopefully you see how this example can be translated to religious beliefs.

In other words, all we are is the sum of our likes and dislikes.

In other words, all we are is the sum of our likes and dislikes.
I would say that that's over-simplifying a bit. There are other factors such as how you are brought up, the culture you live in and people you interact with that affect your epistemological stand point. You might even be forced to accept certain things. You might accept certain things due to convenience ie. utilitarian reasons. There are many things to consider.

But, forget all that. Bottom line is that we have two pretty widely accepted definition of atheism here. And neither describes a person who is void of all beliefs, just the belief in god.

We could do this for a really long time, as in the chicken and the egg. Yet, ultimately, if you don’t define a ‘theist’, then you cannot define an ‘atheist’. ‘Atheist’, as you say, disbelieve in any ‘God’ as per ‘our’ definition. But, who is to say that ‘our’ definition, correctly defines the concept of ‘God’.
Ok, I see where you are going with this. Yes, the word atheist would not exist if there was no concept of a god (not God).

The concept of God and the word God are both created by man. One defines the other. I don't see where you're going with this one.

Unlike Cartman, I don’t consider myself psychic, so I can’t claim to know what you believe or do not believe. The comment was with the context of an ‘atheist’ challenging the story of ‘Jesus’ turning water into wine, via the scientific concept of preservation of matter. For that ‘atheist’, they have to first acknowledge the ‘possibility’ of the story, less, why would they even waste their time?
No, they would not have to acknowledge the possibility of the story. You can argue about something that you know does not exist. By the logic of your arguement, if I debated against the existence of invisible flying goblins then I believe there is a possibility that they exist. I don't believe that there is a possibility that they exist.

Yet, more to the point, they acknowledge a specific version of the story, to frame their counter point. Hence, they have to accept that such an interpretation is ‘correct’.
They do not acknowledge the validity of any story by arguing against it.

I don’t think my logic is flawed; perhaps we are simply not walking on the same path.
Your claim was that in order to argue against a story, you must accept the story as truth.

'In other words, they accepted a version of the story within which to frame their counter argument.'

That simply is not the case. You can argue against something without admitting that you believe anything at all. If someone claims that they ran a marathon in 5 minutes in Boston, and I tell them that it is physically impossible for a person to run 26 miles in 5 minutes, I am not admitting that they ran the marathon in 5 minutes or that they were even in Boston.

That is why the logic in the arguement you used is flawed.


I enjoy the nonscripted debates more as well.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
For some, atheism is defined by the belief that there is no god.

For others, atheism is defined by the lack of belief that there is a god.

Is it set in moral values?

Is what "set in moral values"....? Atheism?

If it is atheism you're refering to when asking , "Is it set in moral values?", the answer is "no".

Atheism is simply a word used to describe those who do not have a belief in a "god".

It is not concerned with the existence of "moral values" nor a lack of "moral values".

On that topic though, "moral values" is a construct of the human mind.

Whatever a certain grouping of humans decide is "moral".....IS "moral"........for them.

For some societies, it was within the bounds of "moral" behavior for them to consume other humans for food.

For some societies, picking up a stick on the "wrong" day was such an "immoral" or wrongful act that the punishment was death.

For some societies, it is "morally" acceptable that they send their invincible army around the globe to murder a million people in antoehr nation in order to protect their unfettered access to petroleum resources.

Anything can be (and has been) rendered "moral" or "immoral" in the mind of man.

If Atheism is defined by a lack of belief, does that mean Atheist are completely viod of belief?I believe so. ;)

WTF are you talking about? I am not even religious.You should convert. You've got the arguments down pat.

Ok, I see where you are going with this. Yes, the word atheist would not exist if there was no concept of a god (not God).

The concept of God and the word God are both created by man. One defines the other. I don't see where you're going with this one.


No, they would not have to acknowledge the possibility of the story. You can argue about something that you know does not exist. By the logic of your arguement, if I debated against the existence of invisible flying goblins then I believe there is a possibility that they exist. I don't believe that there is a possibility that they exist.


They do not acknowledge the validity of any story by arguing against it.


Your claim was that in order to argue against a story, you must accept the story as truth.

'In other words, they accepted a version of the story within which to frame their counter argument.'

That simply is not the case. You can argue against something without admitting that you believe anything at all. If someone claims that they ran a marathon in 5 minutes in Boston, and I tell them that it is physically impossible for a person to run 26 miles in 5 minutes, I am not admitting that they ran the marathon in 5 minutes or that they were even in Boston.

That is why the logic in the arguement you used is flawed.


I enjoy the nonscripted debates more as well.


I am simply trying to go down a path which suggests that there are multiple levels of belief, one which is stated, and one which is underlining or assumed. The concept of atheism stems from a disbelief in a stated belief. Yet, it begs the underlying assumption, what makes the first stated belief the correct one that should not be believed?

Exclude for a moment those individuals which are raised in a culture completely devoid of all concepts of religion. A person is presented with religious concepts which are applied to the word ‘God’. Atheists within this culture, then decide that they do not believe in ‘God’, and theists within the culture agree that they do believe in ‘God’. Yet, if we step outside of that closed culture, the belief and disbelief are dependent upon the initial concepts applied to the word ‘God’. And here is the what if. What if, that initial concept was incorrect? Wouldn’t both the belief and disbelief system be incorrect?

See, in that example, I’m not suggesting that the atheist would believe that they theist are correct, but they would agree, on one level, that they theist have the only version of the initial assumption.

That probably still doesn’t make any sense, but at least think of it this way if you are a theist or atheist. Most beliefs, indifferent to what they are, revolve around external things. Yet, throughout history, it would seem, that now and then, great things happen when those beliefs spring forth from within.