Atheists Admit Defeat - Video Atheists don't want you to see

[Free]

Well, I think part of the problem in this discussion is that atheism, as a non-belief system, is essentially a complete belief system, a worldview, just as Christianity is a complete belief system. The examples you gave are sinlge ideas, not belief systems, that both theists and atheists can agree on. To make your argument you would have to provide another non-belief system and show that it is treated differently than atheism.

Explain why you feel those non-beliefs are any different than the non-belief in God(s). That is what I am getting out.

Because non-belief in God completely changes one's worldview, where the other non-beliefs do not. All those other non-beliefs can be parts of one's belief system or none of them may be; they may have a major impact on one's worldview or they may have no impact at all.

But atheism is an overall belief system, it has a major influence on how one looks at the world, at life, and at themselves. And like theism, it can contain all those other non-beliefs, or it may not.

 

[wavy]

Because non-belief in God completely changes one's worldview, where the other non-beliefs do not. All those other non-beliefs can be parts of one's belief system or none of them may be; they may have a major impact on one's worldview or they may have no impact at all.

But atheism is an overall belief system, it has a major influence on how one looks at the world, at life, and at themselves. And like theism, it can contain all those other non-beliefs, or it may not.

This is simply false. Firstly, every single non-belief listed by Vault could change one's worldview if there were certain other beliefs associated with them.

What does not believing in a god or god/s entail? Depends on what sort of 'god' we're talking about. You're only concerned with your version, namely, the Christian god--that he gave us a certain purpose that should be realized, interferes in our affairs, and punishes us or rewards us for complying or for not complying. Your belief in this kind of god does not make atheism an alternative wordview or 'complete belief system' on equal footing. In fact, this 'belief system' of ours only allegedly exists because yours does.

What about a deist god? Atheists don't believe in those either and yet doubtless our outlook on life would be little different from that of a deist (deists don't believe this god has a purpose for us, punishes or rewards us, or interferes in our affairs).

Now let's take the example of non-belief in ghosts. What if some one believed that the fate of all humans was a ghost-like existence, to wander the earth forever haunting and scaring people? This holds implications for how one views themselves in the world (including supernaturalism). But if you contrast this with some one who does not believe in ghosts, does this mean that non-belief in ghosts, which we'll call 'a-specterism', is somehow a 'belief' system'? No. It's not an equal and separate 'worldview' or 'belief system'. The very concept of it existing is only there because there are people who believe in ghosts.

The same with your version of the concept of god. You believe certain things about your god while I generally don't believe in any of them. The beliefs you associate with your god (purpose, etc.) does not make my lack of belief in them a 'belief' like yours that I somehow choose as an alternative to yours. My atheism is the negation of your theism, not an alternative or equal worldview or counterpart to your theism. There are people who believe in 'monsters'. My non-belief in monsters is not a 'worldview'. It's the negation of belief in monsters. It's default, and if there is anyone who wants to persuade me that mythical monsters exist, the burden of proof is on them. If anyone wants to persuade me that god/s exists, the burden of proof is on them. The extra baggage associated with your belief in god (purpose, etc.) deviates from the default position (no objective purpose, etc.). Atheism is default, just like 'a-specterism' is default or 'a-unicornism' is default, or any other 'a-ism'.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[VaultZero4Me]

There is no central world view change atheism causes one to have. There are no central world view that atheism has.

To me, it is like arguing that not believing in aliens is a belief system because it changes your world view. A believer in alien life forms see the world as not unique, and human life forms insignificant to a far superior being.

A non-believer would not share that same pov.

But I doubt you would argue that non-belief in aliens is that dramatic as you argue atheism is. And you might cite because alien life form has not been established evidentually, the believer in aliens are acting on faith.

Atheists and religious alike agree that supernatural beings are not evidentually established, and many argue that you can not. It is an act of faith. Atheism is not an action, it is a non-action of not taking that faith.

It does not change any world view, religion is a change of a world view from what we can measure and support with evidence (the natural world) to what we cannot see or measure.

 

[wavy]

There is no central world view change atheism causes one to have. There are no central world view that atheism has.

To me, it is like arguing that not believing in aliens is a belief system because it changes your world view. A believer in alien life forms see the world as not unique, and human life forms insignificant to a far superior being.

A non-believer would not share that same pov.

But I doubt you would argue that non-belief in aliens is that dramatic as you argue atheism is. And you might cite because alien life form has not been established evidentually, the believer in aliens are acting on faith.

Atheists and religious alike agree that supernatural beings are not evidentually established, and many argue that you can not. It is an act of faith. Atheism is not an action, it is a non-action of not taking that faith.

It does not change any world view, religion is a change of a world view from what we can measure and support with evidence (the natural world) to what we cannot see or measure.

And not to mention, the effect any given lack of belief upon one's 'worldview' is quite irrelevant to whether or not that lack of belief can legitimately be called a 'belief system' that needs to be defended. One's 'worldview' is a factor that doesn't even matter.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[dadof10]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

You wrote:

Most athiests hold to MANY positive propositions, whether formalized or not, so therefore must defend them.

What followed was:

"Scripture contains errors."
"The world would be better off without organized religion."
"Religion was invented to help people deal with death."

These are just a few of the positive statements I've heard through the years, and must be defended.

You made it specifically clear that atheists needed to defend these propositions. I showed you that these propositions were not peculiar to atheists, therefore you were wrong.

Do I have to break down each sentence so my words aren’t corrupted?

"Most athiests hold to MANY positive propositions, whether formalized or not, so therefore must defend them.â€Â

That means MOST, not all, atheists hold MANY positive positions. Whether FORMALIZED OR NOT, that means, to a person without an agenda, that even though an atheist may hold no FORMAL propositions, they still have to defend the positive propositions they hold. The mere fact that the words “formalized or not†are in the sentence, should have been a clear enough to dispel any thoughts of this being a definition of anything, at least to an open minded person.

Then I listed three examples, WHICH I HAVE NOT ASKED YOU PERSONALLY TO DEFEND and said:

"These are just a few of the positive statements I've heard through the years, and must be defended."

That sentence means these three statements are “just a few of the positive statements I've heard through the yearsâ€Â, not a definition of atheism. If you hold these, or some others like them, you must defend them. In other words, you can’t claim “I believe in nothing and therefore don’t have to defend anything because you can’t prove a negativeâ€Â.

This was the context of this argument, and when you first accused me of defining atheism, I clarified it with this statement (which was conveniently left off the strawman you posted above): “These were just examples of "statements I've heard through the years", I wasn't trying to define atheism. That's your Atheist organization's job, which they did.â€Â

Even if there was some ambiguity in my words (which there was not), I should have at least been given the benefit of the doubt, or asked to further clarify. It is, after all, MY VIEW.

i) Your *hastily generalization* is fallacious no matter how many times you ask this silly question. Got that? *Hasty generalization*. It is a named logical fallacy and therefore wholly irrelevant as an argument.

I didn’t know you were giving me a formal “logical fallacy†when you claimed “hasty generalizationâ€Â. I’ve never heard that term before, so I looked it up (I used Yahoo this time :D ). I am, however, familiar with the concept “unrepresentative sampleâ€Â, which is it’s synonym. Thanks for being so patient, got that?

Let me give you 2 examples of “hasty generalizationâ€Â:

“There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions.â€Â

“iii) Atheism in the general sense is lack of belief in gods, not denial that they might exist, and that's all being an atheist entails.â€Â

What I did by quoting AA was not EVEN CLOSE to an unrepresentative sample. That’s a laugher.

You claimed “There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositionsâ€Â. You also specifically challenged me to provide them "That is, until you can actually tell me what the 'doctrine' of atheism is." I simply showed you your error by quoting AA. How is that a "hasty generalization"? So you are wrong, as you admit here:

“As you can plainly see, some atheists codify their beliefs and make positive assertions about there beliefs specific to their atheism...and others do not."

So, there is “such a thing†as the doctrine of atheism, right Eric, at least to “some atheists�

ii) What the 'AA' says does not apply to me, nor to many atheists (daresay most) for the simple fact that I don't agree with it and you can't make me or any other atheist accept it no matter how much you want it to apply to us. My analogy with Mormonism stands.

Irrelevant. I never claimed it applied to you personally, nor that ALL atheists must hold these doctrines. I merely claimed there is "such a thing" as atheistic doctrine, therefore your "analogy" is meaningless.

Your childish, endeavored ridicule does not and cannot obscure your fallacious arguments, nor the fact that I've exposed them and dispelled them to the wind. 'LOL' all you like. It's only you who loses in the end on account of a closed mind.

First of all, lighten up, this is supposed to be fun. Secondly, let’s see how open your mind is now that I’ve shown you that your OP is false and you readily admit it.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Let me give you 2 examples of “hasty generalizationâ€Â:

“There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions.â€Â

“iii) Atheism in the general sense is lack of belief in gods, not denial that they might exist, and that's all being an atheist entails.â€Â

What I did by quoting AA was not EVEN CLOSE to an unrepresentative sample. That’s a laugher.

Those two are definately not hasty generalizations (unrep samples).

The first could be argued to beg the question. The second could be argued to be bare assertion.

That are the only logical errors that COULD be argued there (although I do not think they fall into those errors actually).

An unrepresentative sample would need some reference to a sample in the argument. There are none in Wavy's two statements.

AA represents the sample in your argument, and I took it to mean that you claim they represent atheism in general. That certainly would be a hasty gen, as you are pulling a small sample (2,500), and arguing that they represent the whole, without support WHY they do.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Irrelevant. I never claimed it applied to you personally, nor that ALL atheists must hold these doctrines. I merely claimed there is "such a thing" as atheistic doctrine, therefore your "analogy" is meaningless.

Claiming there is an atheistic doctrine is entirely different than saying that an atheist has beliefs on certain matters. That is where I believe your logical error is derived.

Here is the wiki on doctrine:

Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a code of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.

Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine. In some organisations, doctrine is simply defined as 'that which is taught', in other words the basis for institutional teaching of its personnel about its internal ways of doing business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine

 

[BobRyan]

What does not believing in a god or god/s entail? Depends on what sort of 'god' we're talking about. You're only concerned with your version, namely, the Christian god--that he gave us a certain purpose that should be realized, interferes in our affairs, and punishes us or rewards us for complying or for not complying. Your belief in this kind of god does not make atheism an alternative wordview or 'complete belief system' on equal footing. In fact, this 'belief system' of ours only allegedly exists because yours does.

The only part of that statement that is true - is that atheists only exist because of the Christian God who created all life on earth.

But no amount of "hand waving and mirrors" can cover the glaringly obvious fact that the atheist religion is an entirely different world view from the one defined in the Bible.

Bob

 

[francisdesales]

But no amount of "hand waving and mirrors" can cover the glaringly obvious fact that the atheist religion is an entirely different world view from the one defined in the Bible.

I was thinking more in line with "hand-wringing" than "hand-waving". :P

These conversations are typical of atheists. You can't even pin them down on what atheism even means - much less what they actually believe.

By vaguely defining themselves, they presume they have nothing to defend. The supposed "non-sequitar" argument is then thrown out at anyone who attempts to discourse with them.

Unfortunately, they do not heed an historical axiom...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Yet, atheists KNOW that God does not exist, which is what atheism is - an active denial of god or gods, NOT a decision to deny evidence. Denying evidence or being unconvinced of evidence alone is merely agnosticism. Active beliefs rely on evidence, and none have been yet provided for the philosophical stance of atheism.

Words have meaning, except for those who do not want to defend their propositions.

Regards

 

[wavy]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Even if there was some ambiguity in my words (which there was not), I should have at least been given the benefit of the doubt, or asked to further clarify. It is, after all, MY VIEW.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then if that's what you want. Fine, you weren't trying to define atheism.

Let me give you 2 examples of “hasty generalizationâ€Â:

“There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions.â€Â

“iii) Atheism in the general sense is lack of belief in gods, not denial that they might exist, and that's all being an atheist entails.â€Â

Vault has already dealt with your misapplied use of hasty generalization. You won't acknowledge your own (see below), but erroneously charge me of committing it.

You claimed “There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositionsâ€Â. You also specifically challenged me to provide them "That is, until you can actually tell me what the 'doctrine' of atheism is." I simply showed you your error by quoting AA. How is that a "hasty generalization"? So you are wrong, as you admit here:

“As you can plainly see, some atheists codify their beliefs and make positive assertions about there beliefs specific to their atheism...and others do not."

So, there is “such a thing†as the doctrine of atheism, right Eric, at least to “some atheists�

You don't get it. My point was that there are atheists who might hold their own personal 'doctrines' and apply it to their atheism. That does not mean those doctrines apply to the concept of atheism in general. They're 'doctrines' of the individuals who hold them...not of atheism in general since atheism is simply non-theism.

This is so simple:

There are 'doctrines' of atheists...not 'doctrines' of atheism.

Irrelevant. I never claimed it applied to you personally, nor that ALL atheists must hold these doctrines. I merely claimed there is "such a thing" as atheistic doctrine, therefore your "analogy" is meaningless.

Now you're shifting the goal posts. You most certainly googled AA 'doctrine' because you thought they knew better than me and could define atheism for me. You made that clear with these statements:

Why won't you accept the AA definition? Why won't you at least accept the dictionary definition that atheism is a doctrine? You know more than everyone else including 2200 other atheists (the AA membership)? Aren't you relatively new to atheism, converted within the last year? What makes you think your definition is more accurate than AA's?

You can deny it if you want, but you know the real reason you brought up the AA was because when you were challenged to provide the 'doctrines of atheism' (which you were so sure existed) you thought quoting 'AA' doctrine proved your case (though it only proved the point for the atheists that comprise the AA).

You were told over and over again that the burden of proof does not lie with atheism to disprove God's existence, despite your erroneous assertion that it did. So you first listed 'propositions' to show that the burden of proof was with atheists. That list was debunked (you now deny that you really meant anything by it, but then why mention it in the first place if it was irrelevant?) Then you appealed to the dictionary definition. That appeal was shown to be misleading.

Still you were intent to find *something* that disproved my statement that I don't need to defend atheism, since the burden of proof does not lie upon me to disprove God's existence (as you thought). So your next move was to google the internet and find something that elaborated on the dictionary's use of 'doctrine'. You found that in the AA, and as my quotation of your words above proves, you wanted that to apply to both me and atheism is general because the whole time you wanted to find a way that you could make me defend something. That was shown to be hasty generalization (which you still haven't acknowledged).

And here finally you're trying to mitigate your mistakes by claiming that your whole purpose the whole time was to quote the AA to prove that some atheists do have doctrines! Something which I never denied in the first place, as it was me who originally stated that there are some atheists who say 'there is no god' as an absolute statement and I told you that I believed that was philosophically incorrect from the outset.

The progression of this dialogue is clear. Now you're credibility is lessened because you're back-peddling and refuse to admit to your mistakes.

First of all, lighten up, this is supposed to be fun. Secondly, let’s see how open your mind is now that I’ve shown you that your OP is false and you readily admit it.

Pshh. Hardly. (cf. your logical fallacies, smokescreens, denials, and shifting of goal posts as demonstrated above).

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

I was thinking more in line with "hand-wringing" than "hand-waving". :P

These conversations are typical of atheists. You can't even pin them down on what atheism even means - much less what they actually believe.

By vaguely defining themselves, they presume they have nothing to defend. The supposed "non-sequitar" argument is then thrown out at anyone who attempts to discourse with them.

Unfortunately, they do not heed an historical axiom...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Yet, atheists KNOW that God does not exist, which is what atheism is - an active denial of god or gods, NOT a decision to deny evidence. Denying evidence or being unconvinced of evidence alone is merely agnosticism. Active beliefs rely on evidence, and none have been yet provided for the philosophical stance of atheism.

Words have meaning, except for those who do not want to defend their propositions.

Regards

It's true that the line drawn between 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' is not really clearly defined.

But you've made yourself out to be a joke when you say things like 'atheists KNOW that God does not exist'. That's just a lie, plain and simple. You can repeat it till your fingers bleed, but it remains untrue. Besides, even if atheists said 'God does not exist anywhere, ever' (which is, admittedly, impossible to prove since we don't know how big 'anywhere' is, nor can we determine 'ever') that still doesn't mean that God exists so it does nothing to help your case.

So at best, atheists who 'know' God does not exists are in denial about the limitations of our knowledge and theists are still left with a god unproven.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[VaultZero4Me]

But no amount of "hand waving and mirrors" can cover the glaringly obvious fact that the atheist religion is an entirely different world view from the one defined in the Bible.

I was thinking more in line with "hand-wringing" than "hand-waving". :P

These conversations are typical of atheists. You can't even pin them down on what atheism even means - much less what they actually believe.

By vaguely defining themselves, they presume they have nothing to defend. The supposed "non-sequitar" argument is then thrown out at anyone who attempts to discourse with them.

Unfortunately, they do not heed an historical axiom...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Yet, atheists KNOW that God does not exist, which is what atheism is - an active denial of god or gods, NOT a decision to deny evidence. Denying evidence or being unconvinced of evidence alone is merely agnosticism. Active beliefs rely on evidence, and none have been yet provided for the philosophical stance of atheism.

Words have meaning, except for those who do not want to defend their propositions.

Regards

We have established what the definition of atheism means. No assertion of faith in a deity.

The whole point of this thread was for someone to show how they can redefine it to be untennable, yet not do the same for EVERY other non-belief.

A point in which anyone has failed to address.

Explain why "I do not believe in god(s)." is any different than "I do not believe in ghosts."

Does anyone care to address that issue?

 

[wavy]

Claiming there is an atheistic doctrine is entirely different than saying that an atheist has beliefs on certain matters. That is where I believe your logical error is derived.

Thank you again. 'dadof10' was trying to prove atheism (not just certain atheists like the AA) holds doctrine that requires defense. After shown to be incorrect, he changed up his argument by claiming that he was just trying to prove that certain atheists hold doctrines which wasn't the point of this entire conversation anyway.

Compare 'dadof10's sweeping statements:

Lying is the only way to get people to believe the laughable doctrine of Atheism. It definitely can't stand on it's own, people have to be indoctrinated with no opposing arguments or it'll fall.

You [that is, me, wavy] told me you were an athiest, therefore hold to the propositions of athiesm

I eventually asked him: That is, until you can actually tell me what the 'doctrine' of atheism is.

He then proceeded to quote the AA in reply and said:

This is a far cry from your vague "Atheism is lack of belief in god/s.


This is proof that he was trying to define atheism, not just show that there are 'atheistic doctrines', or that there are atheists who hold doctrines. I just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

We have established what the definition of atheism means. No assertion of faith in a deity.

The whole point of this thread was for someone to show how they can redefine it to be untennable, yet not do the same for EVERY other non-belief.

A point in which anyone has failed to address.

Explain why "I do not believe in god(s)." is any different than "I do not believe in ghosts."

Does anyone care to address that issue?

Actually, 'Free' tried to address it (to his/her credit) by claiming that one has implications for 'worldview'. That's really irrelevant, however, and doesn't make 'I don't believe in god/s' a 'belief system' that needs to be defended, as 'Free' attempted to say.

Anyone else?

Thanks,
Eric

 

[francisdesales]

It's true that the line drawn between 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' is not really clearly defined.

Yes, they are. The dictionary clearly states the former has a firm conviction that there is no divine being/beings, the later is unconvinced of the "evidence.

Now. Again, what evidence do you have to provide for your "firm conviction"? Or are you actually NOT an atheist?

But you've made yourself out to be a joke when you say things like 'atheists KNOW that God does not exist'. That's just a lie, plain and simple.

What does the "a" as a prefix mean? It is the opposite of theism, the belief in God, right? It is not the "lack of evidence", a suspension of conviction until further evidence arrives... It is a belief in no gods/god. Atheism PROPERLY defined is the knowledge of a lack of divinity. That the world is simply materialistic.

Your entire argument is based upon a logical fallacy...

Argument from ignorance.

Feel free to "google" that, if it doesn't cut into your busy schedule of making fun of everyone who has a different view than you do because you can't separate the definition of atheism and agnosticism.

Enough said.

 

[francisdesales]

We have established what the definition of atheism means. No assertion of faith in a deity.

That's the definition of agnosticism. You have established nothing except that you disagree with the definition of atheism. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief in god/gods. Thus, the former is a conviction of no gods exist, the later is a firm conviction of gods/god existing.

It sounds to me that you are agnostic, that you do not agree with the evidence provided. However, to make the statement that 'God does not exist" based on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy:

Argument from ignornance.

Regards

 

[wavy]

Yes, they are. The dictionary clearly states the former has a firm conviction that there is no divine being/beings, the later is unconvinced of the "evidence.

Now. Again, what evidence do you have to provide for your "firm conviction"? Or are you actually NOT an atheist?

Let me lay this out for you...

Firstly, it's not as simple as a dictionary definition. For example, see atheism here from wikipedia. (if I recall, Vault already posted this).

Secondly, having a strong opinion (or 'firm conviction') is not the equivalent of saying that you 'know'. So in that regard you were clearly wrong. What you said is either a refusal to acknowledge this or you're intentionally being dishonest.

Third and finally, I don't need to have 'evidence' for the existence of my opinion (that's self-evident otherwise I wouldn't even waste time engaging you). That's simply a personal fact. That's like me asking you to provide 'evidence' that you believe in God as opposed to evidence that he exists (two different things).

Now if you're asking me to 'disprove' God's existence, that's another matter and a request that's futile because I cannot disprove God's existence. That would be trying to prove a universal/infinite negative (how many times do I need to repeat this?). In any event, I'm 'firmly convinced' that God does not exist because I see no reason to believe that he does (that's your job to tell me where to look, which is why the burden of proof rests on you). That's as simple as it gets.

What does the "a" as a prefix mean? It is the opposite of theism, the belief in God, right? It is not the "lack of evidence", a suspension of conviction until further evidence arrives... It is a belief in no gods/god. Atheism PROPERLY defined is the knowledge [1] of a lack of divinity. That the world is simply materialistic [2].

You're confusing atheism with philosophical naturalism (red highlight [2] above). Anyway, I never denied that I don't have a conviction. I don't believe gods exist (which is what makes me an atheist). But can I say with 100% certainty that they do not? No, I can't. You appear to believe that that's what atheism is (red highlight [1] above)...but it isn't, and you've confused 'knowledge' with 'conviction'. They're not the same hing.

I'm trying to be patient with you (beyond my normal threshold) until it sinks in, because nowhere have you provided any source (dictionary or otherwise) that says atheists are generally defined as those who 'know' god/s don't exist. If there are atheists who do believe that (and there are, to my knowledge) I disagree with them wholeheartedly because that is not something you can 'know'. Not unless you've scoured all possible types of existence and found no god.

You're doing nothing but erecting a straw man, and it's not even a good one because your request that follows from it is futile (see above).

Your entire argument is based upon a logical fallacy...

Argument from ignorance.

Feel free to "google" that, if it doesn't cut into your busy schedule of making fun of everyone who has a different view than you do because you can't separate the definition of atheism and agnosticism.

Enough said.

What, have I started the fallacy train now? Unless you can show me where in the world I've built my case on an 'argument from ignorance', I must assume you're just parroting rhetoric that you don't even understand. It would have applied if I said 'we don't know God exists therefore his existence is false'...but I never said that. In fact, I've made it clear that God's existence is always possible. Please read:

'There is no god' is a strictly philosophical fallacious position to take' (click).

You're erecting another straw man, and I'm starting to think that you're just being pugnacious and hostile to atheists, not really wanting to understand or dialogue.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

That's the definition of agnosticism. You have established nothing except that you disagree with the definition of atheism. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief in god/gods. Thus, the former is a conviction of no gods exist, the later is a firm conviction of gods/god existing.

It sounds to me that you are agnostic, that you do not agree with the evidence provided. However, to make the statement that 'God does not exist" based on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy:

Argument from ignornance.

Regards

Case in point:

i) Being unconvinced of the evidence does not mean you're not an atheist. You're pulling that straight from thin air.

ii) Your definition of atheism--that we say we 'know' god/s don't exist--is a straw man, because you've confused the conviction that god/s don't exist with the absolute 'knowledge' that they don't.

iii) A lack of belief in gods is really the same thing as saying 'I don't believe god/s exist'. If you believe god/s don't exist, you lack belief in them (apparently). That may dispel much of the confusion here. However, lack of belief in gods, or the belief that they do not exist should not be confused with the absolute assertion that they do not, i.e., saying 'God's existence is false' or 'God does not exist'. Two different things. One is a conviction, something you're inclinded towards, strongly or weakly. The other is an absolute statement. This seems to be the basis of your confusion, straw men, and self-devised definitions.

iv) Your misapplied fallacy (appeal to ignorance) has been dealt with in my previous post, and stems from the misunderstandings of the things listed in point iii above.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[dadof10]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then if that's what you want. Fine, you weren't trying to define atheism.

2 posts later...

This is proof that he was trying to define atheism, not just show that there are 'atheistic doctrines', or that there are atheists who hold doctrines. I just wanted to clear that up.

You probably see no contradiction here. Just nuance, right. :

“There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositionsâ€Â

“As you can plainly see, some atheists codify their beliefs and make positive assertions about there beliefs specific to their atheism...and others do not."

Or here either.

"So, there is “such a thing†as the doctrine of atheism, right Eric, at least to “some atheists�

It's a yes or no question.

This is so simple

 

[wavy]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

2 posts later...

You probably see no contradiction here. Just nuance, right. :

I was referring to the sum of your arguments here, not that specific list of propositions (ya know, which is why I summarized the whole dialogue and drew that conclusion).

Or here either.

"So, there is “such a thing†as the doctrine of atheism, right Eric, at least to “some atheists�

It's a yes or no question.

I answered this. Perhaps in your dishonest attempt to point out a contradiction you somehow overlooked it:

You don't get it. My point was that there are atheists who might hold their own personal 'doctrines' and apply it to their atheism. That does not mean those doctrines apply to the concept of atheism in general. They're 'doctrines' of the individuals who hold them...not of atheism in general since atheism is simply non-theism.


Thanks,
Eric