Atheist, are you one?? - Page 51

**howerd** · June 20th, 2014, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Some people can and some people can't. I don't remember specifying that people have to be anything.

Sure but the Bible & Torah & Koran all do. Atheists refer to the books people put their faith in because that's ultimately where they got their beliefs from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But there is a unifying theme to both atheism and to faith. There may be a variety of reasons why people disbelieve, but the act of disbelief is a constant. It is a conscious act, assessing the world and drawing a conclusion;

Wrong, very very wrong. Why do you say 'there may be a variety of reasons why people disbelieve' when there is basically just one?' No verifiable evidence. That's it. Period. Finiteo. - It's exactly the same reason why you don't believe in pixies, mermaids or hobgoblins, because you've never seen such things & even if someone told you in all seriousness they had you still wouldn't believe them because extraordinary claims demand truly extraordinary evidence of which there is none. Am I wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

No one has to believe in gravity or in the oxidisation of metal; these things are proven.

Yep! - And this is precisely why beliefs with no verifiable supporting evidence are called 'unsupportable beliefs' rather than 'supportable beliefs.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

As for why life was created, it is a subjective judgment whether there is a reason at all; and that was my point. Science measures objectively. Faith goes beyond objective measurement.

Again yes but again you are adding spin to your admission in two ways: No. 1, Suggesting there is a 'why' issue, when you said earlier a 'why' cannot be presumed. No. 2 You cannot support a belief in a god by simply asserting 'Faith goes beyond objective measurement.' as if that makes faith into something more profound than simply pretending to have escaped from the requirement to justify your claim rationally. i.e. you are attempting to make out that it makes sense to have faith in faith itself. It doesn't. It's merely circular reasoning - I know it's valid because I know it's valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Can you objectively and factually prove that God does not exist? If you can't, and yet you believe God does not exist, you are making a leap of faith.

Can you objectively and factually prove that mermaids don't exist? If you can't, and yet you believe mermaids don't exist, you are making a leap of faith. - Seriously?!

Faith is the excuse people give for believing in things they have no way of justifying. No one needs to have 'faith' in their wife if their wife can be seen to exhibit some trustworthiness so they simply have trust. Don't confuse trust with faith which is alway blind by definition.

**howerd** · June 20th, 2014, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

VERY good question. I can not really answer the question except to say that I do believe and even with all the apparent faults, problems, and questions it still comes down to a matter of faith. I just believe, I can't say more than that.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing in things they have no way of justifying. This is not an insignificant short coming of 'faith'.

**howerd** · June 20th, 2014, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

The Bible also says that ALL will be judged for their actions. It is quite possible that many who think they are saved will not be. Who knows what lurks in the hearts of, The Shadow.

Yes who knows? Nobody! So why pretend to?! Science is certain of nothing & requires proof of everything. Religion is certain of everything & requires proof of nothing!

**howerd** · June 20th, 2014, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meini Hirion

So why and more importantly, WHAT, is ATHEISM ?

Disbelief of claims about deities. - God knows [i.e. nobody knows] why we need a word for a lack of belief when 'unbeliever' says everything you need to know! I'd bet it's a word the believers cooked up so they can pretend it means more than 'disbelief'.

darthwiggum2000 · June 20th, 2014, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howerd

No verifiable evidence. That's it. Period. Finiteo. - It's exactly the same reason why you don't believe in pixies, mermaids or hobgoblins,

But there's no verifiable evidence that life exists on other planets, space aliens and such, yet plenty of people believe in it.

The reason why people don't believe in mermaids is because mermaids are supposed to live in the oceans -- but there are no mermaids in the oceans. It is absolutely verifiable.

**howerd** · June 20th, 2014, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darthwiggum2000

But there's no verifiable evidence that life exists on other planets, space aliens and such, yet plenty of people believe in it.

The reason why people don't believe in mermaids is because mermaids are supposed to live in the oceans -- but there are no mermaids in the oceans. It is absolutely verifiable.

Well to believe that aliens may exist isn't unsupportable because we exist & that is concrete evidence that life may well be sustainable somewhere else too. But what verifiable example has anyone ever been able to present to make some god - any god plausible? You won't be able to present anything which is independently verifiable. For this reason all gods are as notional as mermaids!

darthwiggum2000 · June 20th, 2014, 04:57 AM

So in other words, you're moving the goal post from "scientifically verifiable" to "plausibly supportable."

And by the way, what you personally deem "plausible" may not be universally shared by others. In the same way you conclude that life on earth makes life elsewhere plausible, people of faith stake equal claim that our existence IS the concrete evidence of God's existence.

Naturally, you reject their conclusion -- just as they reject yours.

See how pointless this is?

**cicciobuki** · June 20th, 2014, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meini Hirion

Does your term "Atheist" refer, as in the Huxley era of "bohemian culture" to a CHRISTIAN God ?
Or does it include a Muslim, Sikh, Bhuddist..even a voodoo GOD ?
Does "Atheism" mean "anti-Any-God" ?

Not "anti" per se, but indeed "none", the language is pretty clear though:

Poly-theism: belief in many gods
mono-theism: one god
a-theism: no god(s).

**cicciobuki** · June 20th, 2014, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darthwiggum2000

So in other words, you're moving the goal post from "scientifically verifiable" to "plausibly supportable."

And by the way, what you personally deem "plausible" may not be universally shared by others. In the same way you conclude that life on earth makes life elsewhere plausible, people of faith stake equal claim that our existence IS the concrete evidence of God's existence.

Naturally, you reject their conclusion -- just as they reject yours.

See how pointless this is?

Could you explain the bold part for me, please?

By the way: life elsewhere in the universe is very plausible because it seems that the laws of physics etc are the same here as well as somewhere else. And we have solid proof of life existing here on earth. So with similar conditions, similar things can happen. That's a logical conclusion. Not proven fact (yet), but "plausible".

rincewind209 · June 20th, 2014, 10:59 AM

Religion made a lot of sense 1000 years ago, kept everyone in line and offered a reason for the awfulness of existence. Even 500 hundred years ago it was still that warm comfy blanket for most people. But gradually since then, science came along and showed everyone that lots of things that religion taught us were just not true. Now I know there is still no definitive answer of how we got here, but you have to be pretty blinkered to think that any religion is anything but bunkum. All the major religions have more divisions than there are colours in the rainbow. Nobody actually adheres to what their wonderful sacred relics actually say. They just interpret them in ways that suit themselves. Open your eyes people.

June 20th, 2014, 04:57 AM	#507
darthwiggum2000 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 28 Thanks: 4,034 Thanked 235 Times in 27 Posts	So in other words, you're moving the goal post from "scientifically verifiable" to "plausibly supportable." And by the way, what you personally deem "plausible" may not be universally shared by others. In the same way you conclude that life on earth makes life elsewhere plausible, people of faith stake equal claim that our existence IS the concrete evidence of God's existence. Naturally, you reject their conclusion -- just as they reject yours. See how pointless this is?

June 20th, 2014, 10:59 AM	#510
rincewind209 Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 11 Thanks: 83 Thanked 83 Times in 10 Posts	Religion made a lot of sense 1000 years ago, kept everyone in line and offered a reason for the awfulness of existence. Even 500 hundred years ago it was still that warm comfy blanket for most people. But gradually since then, science came along and showed everyone that lots of things that religion taught us were just not true. Now I know there is still no definitive answer of how we got here, but you have to be pretty blinkered to think that any religion is anything but bunkum. All the major religions have more divisions than there are colours in the rainbow. Nobody actually adheres to what their wonderful sacred relics actually say. They just interpret them in ways that suit themselves. Open your eyes people.