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

[francisdesales]

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).

Wikipedia. Oh, yea, the dictionary that people can change and add to it as they see fit... Wonderful. How about if I go there and change the defintion, and then post it...

Let me lay this out for you...

The prefix clearly defines what "atheism" is... The OPPOSITE of theism. If theism is a conviction of the existence of god, how is "atheism" merely a lack of belief???

NOT HAVING AN OPINION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ACTIVE DISBELIEF

You are confusing agnosticism with atheism again.

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.

Really? What is the difference between "I know" and having a "firm conviction"? Another of those "differences without distinctions" presented earlier. If I knew something, I have a firm conviction of it, and vice versus... More sophisms.

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).

Naturally. People have opinions for absolutely no reason at all...

Perhaps it is YOUR "personal fact", but people generally have reasons for such large questions in life, rather than "because".

Not sure on your analogy, either. It is perfectly fair game to ask me to provide "evidence" for my belief - OR evidence of His existence. Again, another "distinction without difference"...

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?).

I happen to agree with you, so repeat it again, if you want... This VERY THING is WHY you cannot BE an atheist by definition. Unfortunately, this has escaped your comprehension...

One cannot be an atheist AND logical at the same time. It is a belief in something that is "unprovable", as you said!

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.

Reason has nothing to do with the existence of something or not. The uninitiated has no reason to understand why butterflies exist, and yet, they do. Your inability to "see a reason" makes no difference to the existence of another independent being, God or not.

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.

Yes, I note that you are being patient beyond your normal self, and I do appreciate it. I hope that you can understand MY point of view, as well.

Very well, if the word "conviction" is better for you, you may use it. "Knowing" something and having a conviction of an existence is synonymous for this conversation. We aren't talking about absolute knowledge, since NO ONE can have that knowledge of ANYTHING except their own existence. I have already said I am not entering into that whirlwind of philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

I "know" or have a firm conviction that my car will start tommorrow. I "know" or have a firm conviction that China is a country. Choose either word, it matters not to me. But they mean the same in this conversation.

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.

Yawn. More of your ad hominem and refusal to see that your argument is BASED upon "not accepting the evidence" as proof, which IS "argument from ignorance. I even gave you an historical axiom, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..."

And yet, you continue on this "I don't belief in God because of the lack of evidence"...

What more do you want to show your logical arguments are fallacious?

Eric, may I suggest you just call yourself 'agnostic" and that would end this discussion very quickly and allow you to save face? It is a logically acceptable argument, albeit one I disagree with. Atheism, properly defined, is an illogical position.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

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).

Of course, more "nuance". Everyone else contradicts and lies, you explain.

Since you can question my integrity and define my words, I can do the same.

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

THIS IS THE OP.

"No such thing" means something. That means it DOESN'T EXIST. You are claiming "doctrine of atheism" doesn't exist, and it definately does, at least to some atheists, the ones in AA. That's a fact. which you acknowledge below. Stop obfuscating.

“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."

"...some atheists codify their beliefs and make positive assertions about there beliefs specific to their atheism" also means something. According to the WIKI definition posted by Vault: "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."

It means that to some atheists there is such a thing as atheist doctrine, which is my point in the very beginning of this fiasco. You are not telling the truth.

If you don't want to acknowledge these FACTS it speaks to your credibility, which you are always attacking in everyone else.

 

[wavy]

Wikipedia. Oh, yea, the dictionary that people can change and add to it as they see fit... Wonderful. How about if I go there and change the defintion, and then post it...

It conveyed my point well enough and quotes sources that convey my point. But if you don't feel the least bit dishonest about doing that, go right ahead. ;-)

The prefix clearly defines what "atheism" is... The OPPOSITE of theism. If theism is a conviction of the existence of god, how is "atheism" merely a lack of belief???

This was explained to you:

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.

NOT HAVING AN OPINION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ACTIVE DISBELIEF

You are confusing agnosticism with atheism again.

That's quite a daft statement. All opinions are 'active'. They don't come from thin air. And I haven't confused anything. See above (and below).

Really? What is the difference between "I know" and having a "firm conviction"? Another of those "differences without distinctions" presented earlier. If I knew something, I have a firm conviction of it, and vice versus... More sophisms.

I guess I've started the 'sophism' train too...

Anyway, if you don't know the difference between a 'conviction/belief' and making a bald, absolute assertion based on presumed 'knowledge', then there's really nothing we can discuss here. Example:

Interlocutor A: 'Do you believe you'll get to work tomorrow alive?'
Interlocutor B: 'Yes, I believe I will.'

Interlocutor A: 'Can you say for certain that you'll get to work tomorrow alive?'
Interlocutor B: 'No, I can't say I know for certain because there's always a chance that I might die'.

See the difference?

And while we're on the fallacy train, I want to point out another one of yours (refer to red highlight above). I'm not one to believe that we can have absolute knowledge of anything. That's just my personal opinion (another topic), but for the sake of your argument I'll agree that we can.

Knowing something automatically entails that you have 100% conviction of it, which is a pretty strong conviction, I would say. ;-)

However, having a conviction of something does not mean that you know it, since a conviction is not absolute (100%) by default. There's always room for doubt, no matter how slim (cf. hypothetical dialogue between A/B above). And it goes without saying that convictions can be proven false.

Saying 'If I know then I have a conviction, and if I have a conviction then I know' is a logical fallacy, namely, the commutation of conditionals.

Naturally. People have opinions for absolutely no reason at all...

Your sarcasm only makes you look silly because I gave you the reasons for my opinion that god/s do not exist: In any event, I'm 'firmly convinced' that God does not exist because I see no reason to believe that he does

You attempted to discount this below, which will be addressed when I get there.

Not sure on your analogy, either. It is perfectly fair game to ask me to provide "evidence" for my belief - OR evidence of His existence. Again, another "distinction without difference"...

There is a difference and you continue to fail to acknowledge it. Asking some one why they believe something and asking them to disprove its antithesis is not the same thing. Illustration:

Interlocutor A: 'Why do you believe you'll make it to work tomorrow and not die?'
Interlocutor B: 'Because probability favors that I will. It's right next door'.

Interlocutor A: 'Disprove that you won't die before you make it to work'
Interlocutor B: 'I cannot disprove that I won't die...because there's a chance that I could'.

Did you catch that yet?

I happen to agree with you, so repeat it again, if you want... This VERY THING is WHY you cannot BE an atheist by definition. Unfortunately, this has escaped your comprehension...

One cannot be an atheist AND logical at the same time. It is a belief in something that is "unprovable", as you said!

Problem:

Your assertion here is based off of your straw man definition that an atheist is some one who positively asserts (absolutely) that 'God does not exists'. This in turn is based off of your equvication of the words 'conviction' and 'knowledge', which makes your definition untrue. Please show me that definition somewhere that applies to the concept of atheism in general (hint: you can't). Besides, you'd think if that were true then some one, other than some random Christian guy on a message board (no offense), would have figured it out by now...

Reason has nothing to do with the existence of something or not. The uninitiated has no reason to understand why butterflies exist, and yet, they do. Your inability to "see a reason" makes no difference to the existence of another independent being, God or not.

Uh...yes it does. Give me one example of anyone who believes in the existence of something without a reason. The reason may be personal, based on observation, based on indirect experience, or completely illusory, but there is never lack of a reason.

Very well, if the word "conviction" is better for you, you may use it.

I 'may' use whatever words I like, whether you approve of them or not....

"Knowing" something and having a conviction of an existence is synonymous for this conversation.

We aren't talking about absolute knowledge, since NO ONE can have that knowledge of ANYTHING except their own existence. I have already said I am not entering into that whirlwind of philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

I "know" or have a firm conviction that my car will start tommorrow. I "know" or have a firm conviction that China is a country. Choose either word, it matters not to me. But they mean the same in this conversation.

So you're intentionally equivocating (another fallacy)? The distinction is vital because you're drawing conclusions that don't recognize the distinction. That makes those conclusions false. Since saying 'I know God does not exist' and saying 'I have a conviction God does not exist' is, strictly, not the same thing (see example above) then it doesn't matter whether you want it to be just for 'this coversation' or not.

Yawn. More of your ad hominem

More misapplied use of logical fallacies. Ad hominem is an attempt to avoid an argument by slander. I have addressed your argument point by point with negative criticism. Negative criticism is not ad hominem.

[1]and refusal to see that your argument is BASED upon "not accepting the evidence" as proof, which IS "argument from ignorance. [2]I even gave you an historical axiom, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..."

Notice that I divided the above into two segments. I'd like to address them separately.

[1] That is not what an appeal to ignorance is. An example of an appeal to ignorance would be: 'We don't know God exists therefore his existence is false'. I made no such assertion. The fact that I said that I'm unconvinced by the 'evidence' doesn't mean the same thing as saying: 'God's existence is false'. It just means his existence has not been established as true.

[2] This legal axiom is true. To violate its principle is an appeal to ignorance. I never denied that principle. You haven't understood that yet or don't want to. But at the same time, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of *presence* either (that is the second form of an appeal to ignorance, i.e., that because something is not known it is assumed to be true). The defense cannot say the absence of evidence means absence (e.g.: 'We know the defendant wasn't at the crime scene because currently there's nothing placing him there') and the prosecution definitely cannot say that the absence of evidence means presence (e.g.: 'We know the defendant was at the crime scene because there's no evidence placing him there' [?!])

So whose burden is it? Is it the defense's burden to prove he wasn't there in the absence of evidence? Or must the prosecution present evidence that he was there first that the defense has to refute?

This is what this dialogue is about. I am the defense. You are the prosecution. I am not saying I know God isn't there because of the absence of evidence. I'm just saying I don't believe he is there. If you don't first present the evidence placing God at the scene, then I have nothing to 'disprove'.

Guess what happens in court if the prosecution doesn't present the evidence for their case? Nothing. The accused goes free.

And yet, you continue on this "I don't belief in God because of the lack of evidence"...

What more do you want to show your logical arguments are fallacious?

No, my arguments are not fallacious (see point by point rebuttals above with illustrations).

Eric, may I suggest you just call yourself 'agnostic" and that would end this discussion very quickly and allow you to save face? It is a logically acceptable argument, albeit one I disagree with. Atheism, properly defined, is an illogical position.

Problem: the 'properly defined' portion is only in your head because you're equivocating with 'belief/conviction' and 'knowledge'. That's a fallacy.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Of course, more "nuance". Everyone else contradicts and lies, you explain.

Since you can question my integrity and define my words, I can do the same[1].

How many trains have I started here by now? Anyway, whatever makes you feel better.

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

THIS IS THE OP.

"No such thing" means something. That means it DOESN'T EXIST. You are claiming "doctrine of atheism" doesn't exist, and it definately does, at least to some atheists, the ones in AA. That's a fact. which you acknowledge below. Stop obfuscating.

“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."

"...some atheists codify their beliefs and make positive assertions about there beliefs specific to their atheism" also means something. According to the WIKI definition posted by Vault: "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."

It means that to some atheists there is such a thing as atheist doctrine, which is my point in the very beginning of this fiasco. You are not telling the truth.

If you don't want to acknowledge these FACTS it speaks to your credibility, which you are always attacking in everyone else [2].

What I said was true. There is no such thing as the 'doctrine of atheism'. The doctrines of a few atheists (specific) is not equivalent to this fancied 'doctrine of atheism' (general). I made that clear.

You'll notice I highlighted in red two portions of your post, [1], and [2]. From these statements I must infer that you're only trying to 'get back' at me by unjustly rebounding what I said to you and are not really listening to what I'm saying. That's rather childish, and I'm inclined to ignore you as a result.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Francis, you said:

NOT HAVING AN OPINION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ACTIVE DISBELIEF

You are confusing agnosticism with atheism again

I replied:

That's quite a daft statement. All opinions are 'active'. They don't come from thin air. And I haven't confused anything. See above (and below).

I misunderstood what you wrote here. I overlooked that 'NOT' part, somehow. Sorry for the confusion this may have caused. I'll answer again:

Agnostics are noncommittal (they say it can't be known). Atheists don't believe god/s exist. Both lack belief in god/s, whether it's active or noncommittal. That's why there's a thin line, and that was my point and the link illustrated that. Both are distinct from 'I know' one way or the other, however.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[dadof10]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

That's rather childish, and I'm inclined to ignore you as a result.

Thanks,
Eric

One more shot before you go. Whatever makes you feel superior.

 

[dadof10]

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).

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.

The unrepresentative samples are assumed.

1) I get off the airplane in SLC Utah.
2) Everyone I meet is Mormon (unrepresentative sample).
3) I call my wife and say "there are only Mormons in SLC".

Because I didn't explain 1 & 2, doesn't make 3 any less of a "hasty generalization". Just because my wife doesn't know the varibles that lead to my conclusion doesn't make my conclusion any more valid.

Wavy's comment: "There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions", came from somewhere. He didn't just pull it out of the air. By definition he had to have some sample to compare, and the atheists who DO hold a doctrine were, by definition, unrepresented, because he said "no such thing".

AA represents the sample in your argument,

Right. The unrepresented sample in Wavy's hasty generalization.

and I took it to mean that you claim they represent atheism in general.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I simply tried to show the OP to be false.

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.

That's not the case. Wavy didn't seem to accept the AA "doctrine" as valid. Contrary to what's been said, I never meant it to be a blanket statement applicable to all atheists, only proof that there is "such a thing" as atheistic doctrine.

That's why my quoting AA was not a HG.

God Bless, Mark

 

[VaultZero4Me]

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

I truly suggest you study and learn what argument from ignorance actually is, because you do not appear to show a proper use of such term

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Wavy: “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."

Dadof10: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.

A brief look at the link from wiki on doctrine will allow you to understand the difference he is pointing out.

Atheism has no stated position, and atheists having stated positions INDIVIDUALLY is the point at which there is no doctrine for atheism.

Here is a brief example. The belief in aliens has no doctrine, while the religion of scientology has doctrine based off the belief in aliens, and the followers of that religion teach and learn that very doctrine. That may be a poor example, but it is the best I could come up with.

*edited for another example:

Forms of Buddhism is fairly atheistic, and Buddhists follow the doctrines of buddhism.

 

[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).

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.

The unrepresentative samples are assumed.

1) I get off the airplane in SLC Utah.
2) Everyone I meet is Mormon (unrepresentative sample).
3) I call my wife and say "there are only Mormons in SLC".

Because I didn't explain 1 & 2, doesn't make 3 any less of a "hasty generalization". Just because my wife doesn't know the varibles that lead to my conclusion doesn't make my conclusion any more valid.

Wavy's comment: "There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions", came from somewhere. He didn't just pull it out of the air. By definition he had to have some sample to compare, and the atheists who DO hold a doctrine were, by definition, unrepresented, because he said "no such thing".

[quote:14v6hlpm]AA represents the sample in your argument,

Right. The unrepresented sample in Wavy's hasty generalization.

and I took it to mean that you claim they represent atheism in general.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I simply tried to show the OP to be false.

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.

That's not the case. Wavy didn't seem to accept the AA "doctrine" as valid. Contrary to what's been said, I never meant it to be a blanket statement applicable to all atheists, only proof that there is "such a thing" as atheistic doctrine.

That's why my quoting AA was not a HG.

God Bless, Mark[/quote:14v6hlpm]

Asserting it is a that particular fallacy does not hide the fact that is not.

There is not even an assumed sample.

If you say there is a doctrine, the weight is upon you to show what that doctrine is for us to believe you that it does actually exist. You used the sample of the AA and we assumed (though you made clear you were not) you meant to expand that to the population (ie. all atheists). That would be a hasty generalizations. You used an invalid sample to incorrectly represent the population.

When he and I claim that there is no doctrine, we are not basing that on any particular sample, real or imagined. We are basing it on definition alone. A lack of belief. Doctrine and the lack of belief just do not mix, and studying the term "doctrine" would help explain that.

Now, people can use atheism to create a doctrine. For example, the AA. They use their non-belief to create a doctrine.

Someone more sinister could say that since they do not believe in a god, they are the most powerful sentient being in the universe and it is therefore their responsibility to expand their base of power and conquer the earth, and the rest of the visible universe. They may then write things such as "We believe it is our responsibility to eradicate genetic defects through forced abortions to better the species."

But that of course would not be a doctrine of atheism, because "I do not believe the evidence for supernatural beings to be strong enough to warrant my belief." does not lead to that conclusion.

The unrepresentative samples are assumed.

1) I get off the airplane in SLC Utah.
2) Everyone I meet is Mormon (unrepresentative sample).
3) I call my wife and say "there are only Mormons in SLC".

Because I didn't explain 1 & 2, doesn't make 3 any less of a "hasty generalization". Just because my wife doesn't know the varibles that lead to my conclusion doesn't make my conclusion any more valid.

True, but when we are speaking on the actual fallacy committed if you said to the wifey, "Everyone in Utah is Mormon.", she could not accuse you of making a hasty generalization unless you said "Because everyone I met at the airport in Utah was mormon, the entire state is." or she read your mind and knew you were basing your entire conclusion on that unrepresentative sample. For all she knows you could have been making a bare assertion and not have even seen anyone or talked to anyone at the airport. She could only charge you with bare assertion (which was my point earlier).

If you charge a fallacy when the claim is not even in the form that would allow that fallacy, then your charge is incorrect.

Hope that clears that fallacy up for you.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

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.

That was well articulated and the last paragraph is how any non-belief system BESIDES atheism is treated.

What is needed, again, is someone to expand upon where free was leading in trying to show the reasoning behind the differing treatment. Otherwise the disparity is irrational.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Francis: Wikipedia. Oh, yea, the dictionary that people can change and add to it as they see fit... Wonderful. How about if I go there and change the defintion, and then post it...

Let me lay this out for you...

The prefix clearly defines what "atheism" is... The OPPOSITE of theism. If theism is a conviction of the existence of god, how is "atheism" merely a lack of belief???

NOT HAVING AN OPINION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ACTIVE DISBELIEF

You are confusing agnosticism with atheism again.

That is like saying “asexuals†are actively not sexual. It makes absolutely no sense, yet I do dare to guess you would not correct a biology teacher who states that asexuals lack sexual attraction. Or would you?

Yet, if I say atheism lacks a belief in god(s) I am attempting to rewrite some definition in order to not need to defend anything.

That's not a consistent standard.

So to correct your usage of the prefix "a" it typically is used to denote "not", which has different implications of "opposite".

I am not German and I am opposite from German are completely different right? The second hardly makes any sense.

I am not tall and I am the opposite of tall. One says that you are not tall, the other implies you are short.

I believe gods exist, I do not believe gods exist. Theism and atheism. (not a theist)

I d believe gods do not exist. <-- entirely different and is the whole point.

 

[dadof10]

If you say there is a doctrine, the weight is upon you to show what that doctrine is for us to believe you that it does actually exist.

Now, people can use atheism to create a doctrine. For example, the AA. They use their non-belief to create a doctrine.

So there is a "doctrine" of atheism? I don't think you have to believe it or defend it, unless you hold to some of their particular positive propositions, but at least admit it exists.

"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."

"Atheism is a doctrine that states..."

"The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows."

The definition of doctrine applies to this group of atheists. There doesn't have to be a set number of people who hold these "code of beliefs", only that there are some who do.

Therefore the OP is false ("There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions.)

We have solved absolutely nothing and I'm getting tired of the merry-go-round. With the kids going back to school and football and soccer gearing up, I don't have the time to respond to even a few of your and wavy's points.

God bless, Mark

 

[BobRyan]

Atheists believe "by faith alone" that "there is no God".

Agnostics believe "with a bit less faith" that it does not matter what they believe about God -- IF there is such a thing as God.

But BOTH of them agree on their religious opposition to the bible being anything other than a fictitious variation of Aesop's fables.

And BOTH agree that Darwinist evolutionism is the support-group for their church.

Where is the "news" here?

However - as I already stated in response to the OP the fact that Atheists and agnostic storytelling get's stumped at some point in the far distant past is not a good argument against them.

Bob

 

[francisdesales]

Eric,

I see you have attempted to answer me in several different posts. I don't know if you are changing your mind, taking new tacts, or thinking up more ways to say the same thing, but I don't have time to read all of the nuances, so I'll just address this one post. Forgive me if I missed something in your following posts, I just don't have the time to look over them all.

Wikipedia. Oh, yea, the dictionary that people can change and add to it as they see fit... Wonderful. How about if I go there and change the defintion, and then post it...

It conveyed my point well enough and quotes sources that convey my point. But if you don't feel the least bit dishonest about doing that, go right ahead. ;-)

You are missing my point. Anyone can find something at Wikipedia that suits their own personal definition. I can go and change a definition, and then subsequently cite my own definition. I am not saying you are dishonest, I am saying that Wikipedia is not the best unbiased source of data.

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.

Self-devised definitions seems to be more down your alley, considering your definition of atheism disagrees with the dictionary AND the AA's own definition. Words have meaning, Eric. You explain your beliefs, but then you call them something else. I do not define Catholicism. My beliefs are Catholic in the sense that I adhere to THEIR stated beliefs as a system or set of principles. While atheism does not have a center of gravity, per sec, there are a set of defining principles that the individual does not set himself. Atheism is the active disbelief in divine beings. Simple as that. Withholding belief is not actively disbelieving.

Lack of belief IS different than the conviction of non-existence. A lack of belief is properly defined as agnosticism. The doubter withholds an active "no" to the question. Otherwise, atheism and agnosticism would have identical meanings. They don't, Eric, despite your continued attempt to toss out lists of logical fallacies without seeing my point...

NOT HAVING AN OPINION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ACTIVE DISBELIEF

That's quite a daft statement. All opinions are 'active'. They don't come from thin air. And I haven't confused anything. See above (and below).

Another ad hominem. Again, in your rush to judgment and to make another condescending statement, you miss the point... I suppose you need to feel good about yourself by putting the other person down. How sad. It would be much better if you could distance yourself from such emotional statements when debating.

All opinions are active, but they are not active in the sense of DECIDING one way or the other. I can have an opinion of not being sure... Hence, the difference of the definitions of agnosticism and atheism...

Anyway, if you don't know the difference between a 'conviction/belief' and making a bald, absolute assertion based on presumed 'knowledge', then there's really nothing we can discuss here. Example:

Interlocutor A: 'Do you believe you'll get to work tomorrow alive?'
Interlocutor B: 'Yes, I believe I will.'

Interlocutor A: 'Can you say for certain that you'll get to work tomorrow alive?'
Interlocutor B: 'No, I can't say I know for certain because there's always a chance that I might die'.

See the difference?

Of course, and I already said that we don't have absolute knowledge! Maybe you skipped over that part of my post while thinking of witty things to say... The difference I have been trying to state - and which you seem to refuse to understand - is that a person can have the opinion of uncertainty. Having a conviction or knowing something to be true is NOT one of uncertainty. It is an active opinion, a deciding between two polar opposites. Do you belief in God? There are three answers. Yes. No. I am not sure.

Please. Try to wrap your mind around this concept, as I tire of explaining it over and over.

And while we're on the fallacy train, I want to point out another one of yours (refer to red highlight above). I'm not one to believe that we can have absolute knowledge of anything. That's just my personal opinion (another topic), but for the sake of your argument I'll agree that we can.

What fallacy? That no one can have absolute knowledge? I never said you did, so I don't know what the heck you are talking about. Try reading what I actually write. Is this another ramble so you can conjure up another "fallacy" again?

Knowing something automatically entails that you have 100% conviction of it, which is a pretty strong conviction, I would say. ;-)

However, having a conviction of something does not mean that you know it, since a conviction is not absolute (100%) by default.

No one has said that "knowing something" means it is 100% absolute. That is your invention to redirect the conversation into senseless rambling.

Saying 'If I know then I have a conviction, and if I have a conviction then I know' is a logical fallacy, namely, the commutation of conditionals.

Good for you, you found the google site that lists logical fallacies.

Now, go ahead and read the one for "red herring". Or "non-sequitar". I never said that knowing something meant someone did not have ANY doubts or was absolutely certain of their position.

Your sarcasm only makes you look silly because I gave you the reasons for my opinion that god/s do not exist:

No, you haven't. All you said was "I don't accept the evidence". That is not a reason that explains how one concludes there is not divine being.

The best one could say, logically, is that the evidence does not convince me of God's existence, I remain in doubt".

Again, you are basing your "reasoning" on a logical fallacy of "argument by ignorance". And yet again, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Now, if you were to say "I don't believe in God because of evil in the world", we might have something to discuss. That would be a positive reason for denying God's existence based on supposed knowledge of what God would do in a situation. But "I don't accept the evidence" is a logical fallacy.

There is a difference and you continue to fail to acknowledge it. Asking some one why they believe something and asking them to disprove its antithesis is not the same thing. Illustration:

Interlocutor A: 'Why do you believe you'll make it to work tomorrow and not die?'
Interlocutor B: 'Because probability favors that I will. It's right next door'.

Interlocutor A: 'Disprove that you won't die before you make it to work'
Interlocutor B: 'I cannot disprove that I won't die...because there's a chance that I could'.

Did you catch that yet?

A wonderful non-sequitar, because that is not what I compared and contrasted. Throw something that makes sense. Your first statement is fine. The second one makes no sense. No one is asking you to predict the future. And we all know you cannot disprove God, which makes the whole idea illogical.

Your assertion here is based off of your straw man definition that an atheist is some one who positively asserts (absolutely) that 'God does not exists'.

Your strawman is that you insert words that I never used. Check your parenthesied word. Absolutely. When did I say that? I even denied that one could know anything absolutely, except their own existence. Now, you build strawmen and accuse me??? Oh, the irony...

Give me one example of anyone who believes in the existence of something without a reason. The reason may be personal, based on observation, based on indirect experience, or completely illusory, but there is never lack of a reason.

First of all, you are twisting my words. I said people have a reason for believing what they do. I said that NOT UNDERSTANDING A REASON FOR SOMETHING'S EXISTENCE makes no difference in that independent being's existence. In other words, just because you don't believe there is a reason for God's existence doesn't make it so.

And to your misdirect, atheists that I have met on this thread...

I discount "arguments from ignornance" as a reason for actively disbelieving. From your list of reasons, none of them apply to you.

I 'may' use whatever words I like, whether you approve of them or not....

[/quote]

yes, and I notice you change the definition of words when you see fit. As such, further conversations with you will probably be a continued source of frustration.

Words have meaning independent of you, but you choose not to accept that. I guess you define what words mean. You also change and twist the meaning of what I write. I have tried to explain my point of view, but apparently, I am unable to convey my thoughts to you effectively so that we can at least understand the other and "agree to disagree".

As I have said before, I may have missed some further explanations in your following posts, but I only have so much time to devote to this forum. I apologize if I missed a future clarification. Perhaps you could post to me in one post in the future, if you deem me worthy of continued conversation.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

That is like saying “asexuals†are actively not sexual. It makes absolutely no sense, yet I do dare to guess you would not correct a biology teacher who states that asexuals lack sexual attraction. Or would you?

You are confused on what "sexual" or "asexual" refers to. It has nothing to do with being actively persuing sex.

So to correct your usage of the prefix "a" it typically is used to denote "not", which has different implications of "opposite".

I am not German and I am opposite from German are completely different right? The second hardly makes any sense.

Point taken. However, in the question of divine existence, there are not 10 answers, so in our discussion, atheism is the opposite answer to the theistic answer. Thus, they are opposite. One believes that God exists. The other believes that God does not exist.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

That is like saying “asexuals†are actively not sexual. It makes absolutely no sense, yet I do dare to guess you would not correct a biology teacher who states that asexuals lack sexual attraction. Or would you?

You are confused on what "sexual" or "asexual" refers to. It has nothing to do with being actively persuing sex.

So to correct your usage of the prefix "a" it typically is used to denote "not", which has different implications of "opposite".

I am not German and I am opposite from German are completely different right? The second hardly makes any sense.

Point taken. However, in the question of divine existence, there are not 10 answers, so in our discussion, atheism is the opposite answer to the theistic answer. Thus, they are opposite. One believes that God exists. The other believes that God does not exist.

Regards

I am not confused to what asexual means, maybe you are so I will expalin it again. It means not sexual.

If I say I am asexual, it means I lack sexual desire. If I say that species reproduces asexually, it reproduces non-sexually. It reproduces without sex, or with a lack of sexual means.

As you know, context really defines what you mean, and asexual can mean various things depending on context. But the pure definition without context means "not sexual".

Hopefully that clears that up for you.

Now, again, it never means opposite. Opposite contextually carrys a different meaning than lack of.

If you go to the right, and I do the opposite, I am going to the left. Would you ever take this statement "John went to the right, and I did the opposite." to mean I did not go either direction?

What about "John fell while walking, and I did not." what would "John fell while walking, and I did the opposite." mean? Does it make sense? There are only two options, falling or not falling, yet opposite does not fit. Not falling is not an action.

How about amoral. does that mean immoral? The opposite of acting with moral is held to mean immoral, therefore amoral and immoral should mean the same thing by your reasoning. Yet there are significant differences between amoral and immoral right?

Opposite means an action of some sort. It stems, obviously, from the word "opposing" which is by any measure some sort of act against, or in conflict with another.

It is slightly irrelevant how many options there are in the correct application of "opposite" Not a lack of action (in reference to the German example and your reply). For example, take an electron, a proton, and a neutron. We have 3 subatomic particles here. The electron has an opposite charge of the proton. The neutron is not the opposite of either. It has no net charge.

Therefore I can say the electron has an opposite charge than the proton, but in no case can i say the neutron has an opposite charge of the proton or electron.

If you say God exists and I do the opposite, I would be saying he does not exist. Which we agree is not tennable.

There is another position, which is that I do not believe that God or gods exist. I am not taking your affirmation, but I am not taking the position that I can know 100% that God does not exist.

I am just not taking your action of faith.

You are going right, I am not going left (the opposite), I am just not moving.

atheism - the lack of faith in God, god, or gods.

If you do not accept that then you are forced to answer how someone can not believe in aliens, yet not hold the untennable position that they are 100% sure aliens do not exist.

explain why this particular non-belief has to be defended more than the non-belief in anything else.

 

[francisdesales]

atheism - the lack of faith in God, god, or gods.

If you do not accept that then you are forced to answer how someone can not believe in aliens, yet not hold the untennable position that they are 100% sure aliens do not exist.

explain why this particular non-belief has to be defended more than the non-belief in anything else.

Let me make this as succinct as possible, since you are going off on a tangeant again...

You say atheism = lack of faith in gods/god.

Does the word "agnostic" mean the same thing as "atheism"?

When you see the difference between these two words, you will begin to comprehend what I am saying - I hope. For IF atheism and agnosticism have different meanings, your definition of atheism is inadequate and incorrect, since agnostics ALSO have lack faith in god/gods...!

I ask you to sit back and think about this for a minute before firing off another post. The difference between the two words - rather than being the same meaning - clearly points out the failure of your point.

I have tried mightily to make this understood by my atheist interlocuters. If they refuse to see that difference by now, then further conversation is just white noise and has no hope of reaching the atheist's mind.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Eric,

I see you have attempted to answer me in several different posts. I don't know if you are changing your mind, taking new tacts, or thinking up more ways to say the same thing, but I don't have time to read all of the nuances, so I'll just address this one post. Forgive me if I missed something in your following posts, I just don't have the time to look over them all.

Wikipedia. Oh, yea, the dictionary that people can change and add to it as they see fit... Wonderful. How about if I go there and change the defintion, and then post it...

It conveyed my point well enough and quotes sources that convey my point. But if you don't feel the least bit dishonest about doing that, go right ahead. ;-)

You are missing my point. Anyone can find something at Wikipedia that suits their own personal definition. I can go and change a definition, and then subsequently cite my own definition. I am not saying you are dishonest, I am saying that Wikipedia is not the best unbiased source of data.

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.

Self-devised definitions seems to be more down your alley, considering your definition of atheism disagrees with the dictionary AND the AA's own definition. Words have meaning, Eric. You explain your beliefs, but then you call them something else. I do not define Catholicism. My beliefs are Catholic in the sense that I adhere to THEIR stated beliefs as a system or set of principles. While atheism does not have a center of gravity, per sec, there are a set of defining principles that the individual does not set himself. Atheism is the active disbelief in divine beings. Simple as that. Withholding belief is not actively disbelieving.

Lack of belief IS different than the conviction of non-existence. A lack of belief is properly defined as agnosticism. The doubter withholds an active "no" to the question. Otherwise, atheism and agnosticism would have identical meanings. They don't, Eric, despite your continued attempt to toss out lists of logical fallacies without seeing my point...

NOT HAVING AN OPINION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ACTIVE DISBELIEF

That's quite a daft statement. All opinions are 'active'. They don't come from thin air. And I haven't confused anything. See above (and below).

Another ad hominem. Again, in your rush to judgment and to make another condescending statement, you miss the point... I suppose you need to feel good about yourself by putting the other person down. How sad. It would be much better if you could distance yourself from such emotional statements when debating.

All opinions are active, but they are not active in the sense of DECIDING one way or the other. I can have an opinion of not being sure... Hence, the difference of the definitions of agnosticism and atheism...

Anyway, if you don't know the difference between a 'conviction/belief' and making a bald, absolute assertion based on presumed 'knowledge', then there's really nothing we can discuss here. Example:

Interlocutor A: 'Do you believe you'll get to work tomorrow alive?'
Interlocutor B: 'Yes, I believe I will.'

Interlocutor A: 'Can you say for certain that you'll get to work tomorrow alive?'
Interlocutor B: 'No, I can't say I know for certain because there's always a chance that I might die'.

See the difference?

Of course, and I already said that we don't have absolute knowledge! Maybe you skipped over that part of my post while thinking of witty things to say... The difference I have been trying to state - and which you seem to refuse to understand - is that a person can have the opinion of uncertainty. Having a conviction or knowing something to be true is NOT one of uncertainty. It is an active opinion, a deciding between two polar opposites. Do you belief in God? There are three answers. Yes. No. I am not sure.

Please. Try to wrap your mind around this concept, as I tire of explaining it over and over.

And while we're on the fallacy train, I want to point out another one of yours (refer to red highlight above). I'm not one to believe that we can have absolute knowledge of anything. That's just my personal opinion (another topic), but for the sake of your argument I'll agree that we can.

What fallacy? That no one can have absolute knowledge? I never said you did, so I don't know what the heck you are talking about. Try reading what I actually write. Is this another ramble so you can conjure up another "fallacy" again?

Knowing something automatically entails that you have 100% conviction of it, which is a pretty strong conviction, I would say. ;-)

However, having a conviction of something does not mean that you know it, since a conviction is not absolute (100%) by default.

No one has said that "knowing something" means it is 100% absolute. That is your invention to redirect the conversation into senseless rambling.

Saying 'If I know then I have a conviction, and if I have a conviction then I know' is a logical fallacy, namely, the commutation of conditionals.

Good for you, you found the google site that lists logical fallacies.

Now, go ahead and read the one for "red herring". Or "non-sequitar". I never said that knowing something meant someone did not have ANY doubts or was absolutely certain of their position.

Your sarcasm only makes you look silly because I gave you the reasons for my opinion that god/s do not exist:

No, you haven't. All you said was "I don't accept the evidence". That is not a reason that explains how one concludes there is not divine being.

The best one could say, logically, is that the evidence does not convince me of God's existence, I remain in doubt".

Again, you are basing your "reasoning" on a logical fallacy of "argument by ignorance". And yet again, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Now, if you were to say "I don't believe in God because of evil in the world", we might have something to discuss. That would be a positive reason for denying God's existence based on supposed knowledge of what God would do in a situation. But "I don't accept the evidence" is a logical fallacy.

There is a difference and you continue to fail to acknowledge it. Asking some one why they believe something and asking them to disprove its antithesis is not the same thing. Illustration:

Interlocutor A: 'Why do you believe you'll make it to work tomorrow and not die?'
Interlocutor B: 'Because probability favors that I will. It's right next door'.

Interlocutor A: 'Disprove that you won't die before you make it to work'
Interlocutor B: 'I cannot disprove that I won't die...because there's a chance that I could'.

Did you catch that yet?

A wonderful non-sequitar, because that is not what I compared and contrasted. Throw something that makes sense. Your first statement is fine. The second one makes no sense. No one is asking you to predict the future. And we all know you cannot disprove God, which makes the whole idea illogical.

Your assertion here is based off of your straw man definition that an atheist is some one who positively asserts (absolutely) that 'God does not exists'.

Your strawman is that you insert words that I never used. Check your parenthesied word. Absolutely. When did I say that? I even denied that one could know anything absolutely, except their own existence. Now, you build strawmen and accuse me??? Oh, the irony...

Give me one example of anyone who believes in the existence of something without a reason. The reason may be personal, based on observation, based on indirect experience, or completely illusory, but there is never lack of a reason.

First of all, you are twisting my words. I said people have a reason for believing what they do. I said that NOT UNDERSTANDING A REASON FOR SOMETHING'S EXISTENCE makes no difference in that independent being's existence. In other words, just because you don't believe there is a reason for God's existence doesn't make it so.

And to your misdirect, atheists that I have met on this thread...

I discount "arguments from ignornance" as a reason for actively disbelieving. From your list of reasons, none of them apply to you.

I 'may' use whatever words I like, whether you approve of them or not....

yes, and I notice you change the definition of words when you see fit. As such, further conversations with you will probably be a continued source of frustration.

Words have meaning independent of you, but you choose not to accept that. I guess you define what words mean. You also change and twist the meaning of what I write. I have tried to explain my point of view, but apparently, I am unable to convey my thoughts to you effectively so that we can at least understand the other and "agree to disagree".

As I have said before, I may have missed some further explanations in your following posts, but I only have so much time to devote to this forum. I apologize if I missed a future clarification. Perhaps you could post to me in one post in the future, if you deem me worthy of continued conversation.

Regards[/quote]

Excellent post, Francis. Too bad all your words will be twisted in the next reply.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

So there is a "doctrine" of atheism? I don't think you have to believe it or defend it, unless you hold to some of their particular positive propositions, but at least admit it exists.

"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."

The forming of this question leads me to believe you are missing the relevant point in the discussion of the ability to form a doctrine based on your life experience and atheism, versus the existence of a doctrine within atheism alone.

I tried to convey that very point with mentioning the doctrine of scientology versus pure belief in the existence of aliens.

I also tried to convey it in the doctrine of buddhism.

There are atheists who form doctrines, and use atheism within the context of their doctrines, but there is no universal doctrine of atheism. If that were the case than ALL atheists would have a commonly shared doctrine.

A doctrine is a body of teachings. You have yet to show a body of teachings which are universal to atheism. You provided the AA. That is all.

Now unless you have something new to bring up, the issue is dead. Just posting that some how I am agreeing that there is a doctrine for atheism, when it is obvious that I am not does not add to any discussion.