Atheism

Author: RaymondSheen
Atheism

Posts

Total: 302
Topic's author
#61
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You're not listening to me. 

1. A god is anything that is venerated. The Hebrew word el, translated god, comes from a root word that means mighty/strong. 
2. You are conflating all gods with "God" of the Bible. Atheism lacks belief in God and gods - who are the gods? The Bible says have no other gods before me. Who are the gods? The Bible says Satan, Moses, Jesus, the judges of Israel, the Summerian King Tammuz (Nimrod) were gods. You don't get to limit the definition to "Supernatural, omni etc. Bible sky magician." That's stupid. 
3. The Bible says to the Egyptians, Pharoahs were gods. I.e. they were gods. God simply means venerated. 
4. A god doesn't need to exist be a god so saying gods don't exist is stupid. Because a) they don't have to and b) many of them do.  
5.  People calling themselves atheist are claiming statues aren't gods. They're wrong. 
5. You deny the dictionary definition of the word god in order to rationalize your ignorance of the thing you claim doesn't exist in the name of science which can't determine whether it does or not. 
Topic's author
#62
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Mall
Like Laveyan Satanists how? Not sure what you were responding to. 
Topic's author
#63
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
maybe try asking a few actual people who actually call themselves atheists
I was an atheist for my first 27 years. All my family and friends are atheists and I've been debating atheists online since 1996.

they will tell you that their atheism is definitely not a CLAIM that no possible definitions of god(s) could ever qualify as extant.
That doesn't even make sense to me. Could you explain? 

it is simply a lack of belief in any specific god that cares about what humans do
You keep moving the goalposts. Look at the Oxford dictionary and tell me how each one of the examples are gods. 

for example

spinoza wrote a logical proof of god and spinoza's god certainly exists by definition alone   

but since spinoza's definition of god didn't match the general common colloquial defintion of YHWH

he was declared an atheist

because he didn't believe in the "one-true-god"
By who? Irrelevant. Were the worshipers of Dagon, Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth etc. atheists? No. 

 

Topic's author
#64
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@FLRW
The case of Adragon De Mello is a really interesting one to me. I had never heard of it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Poor kid. Sounds like a hollywood kid whose parents live vicariously through their child. They want the kid to be the star they themselves never were but the kid doesn't really want that. Kit Culkin. 
#65
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Like I suggested, it's how we arrange words.

Or more accurately how we arrange/rearrange acquired data, and output relevant learned and recognisable sounds or other perceivable narratives.

In doing so, we appropriately apply meaning or significance to said data.

Appropriate in terms of how we have previously been conditioned to apply significance to previously acquired and established data.


In short, you and I, see or here the word "Atheism" and respond accordingly.


#66
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
There are two assertions most atheists make.

1) The Burden of Proof is on the Theist.
2) Assertion number 1 is not an assertion.
think of it this way

do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator of all things ?

why not ?

are you perhaps UNconvinced ?

or are you just an evil mean spiteful person who hates NANABOZHO ?

have you spent your entire life thinking about how NANABOZHO can not possibly exist ?

or do you rather simply not care if NANABOZHO is real or not ?


furthermore,

if someone told you that all morality and goodness can only come from NANABOZHO and without NANABOZHO the world would be pure chaos

would you think that person is probably insane ?
#67
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
He accomplished nothing afterwards.
which simply proves how intelligent they really are

Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman refused the million-dollar Millennium Prize for solving the Poincaré conjecture.

Girgori Yakovlevish Perelman, the 4th smartest person alive, spends his time in a field picking mushrooms. When he could be a high-paid professor at Harvard or Cambridge (he did have his choice)
#68
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
1. A god is anything that is venerated. The Hebrew word el, translated god, comes from a root word that means mighty/strong. 
2. You are conflating all gods with "God" of the Bible. Atheism lacks belief in God and gods - who are the gods? The Bible says have no other gods before me. Who are the gods? The Bible says Satan, Moses, Jesus, the judges of Israel, the Summerian King Tammuz (Nimrod) were gods. You don't get to limit the definition to "Supernatural, omni etc. Bible sky magician." That's stupid. 
3. The Bible says to the Egyptians, Pharoahs were gods. I.e. they were gods. God simply means venerated. 
4. A god doesn't need to exist be a god so saying gods don't exist is stupid. Because a) they don't have to and b) many of them do.  
5.  People calling themselves atheist are claiming statues aren't gods. They're wrong. 
5. You deny the dictionary definition of the word god in order to rationalize your ignorance of the thing you claim doesn't exist in the name of science which can't determine whether it does or not. 

perhaps you aren't aware of how dictionary definitions are determined

a lexicographer surveys editors of newspapers and magazines

and then documents the results

this is why definitions evolve over time

a dictionary is just a survey

it's not written in stone by the hand of god

it is not authoritative, it is merely designed to be generally informative

now

if you really want to know what an atheist thinks "a god" is, try asking a few atheists, you're likely to get a variety of answers

but i've never encountered anyone who denies the concept of "a god" exists in the same way that bigfootspacealienslochnessmonsters exists, purely in the abstract

are you perhaps an "atheist" relative to bigfootspacealienslochnessmonsters ?

do you spend even the slightest fraction of your obviously impressive brain-power contemplating the immense significance of bigfootspacealienslochnessmonsters ?


do you even care if bigfootspacealienslochnessmonsters exist as a concrete noun or not ?
Topic's author
#69
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think I quite understand your point on the arrangement of words. While I agree with it there has to be some agreement on what words mean. The meaning changes and even varies upon interpretation. For example, in epidemiology isolation means something specific that differs from the common use. Hell means something different to a Buddhist, traditional Christian and myself. The word has changed over time, like the word queer. But even then, they have to fit within the parameters of some colloquial fashion. So, the dictionary gives the common use that may not in fact be correct in the colloquial application. Etymology will give the history of the word. (See my OP on the immortal soul) In this thread the words god and atheism are in question.

While we may "appropriately apply meaning or significance to said data" and "how we have previously been conditioned to apply significance to previously acquired and established data." is relevant we are still bound by that colloquial fashion according either to a common or specific model. It's acceptable if they are at odds but the "data" has to abide by the agreed upon principles. Sometimes the common use is either wrong, or misapplied. God for example, in every language known to man, has always meant something or anyone that is venerated. Jehovah told Abraham that he would become their (Israel's) God. Jehovah told Moses to be God to Aaron and Pharaoh and said the judges of Israel were gods. The Christian Greek scripture said "Satan is the God of the world." Modern day theist and atheists think, wrongly, that God is more a name than a title, like King, and that god means godlike. That's wrong, and the dictionary or encyclopedia, Wikipedia will tell you that's wrong but in a way that allows for the common error. People "arrange" the data in an erroneous fashion.
#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
they will tell you that their atheism is definitely not a CLAIM that no possible definitions of god(s) could ever qualify as extant.
That doesn't even make sense to me. Could you explain? 
for example

i've had conversations with atheists who easily admit that if you redefine something like "the big bang"

if you decide to call "the big bang" = "god"

then sure, "the big bang" has enough evidence to qualify as extant

and if you want to call it "god" or whatever

that's really not a big deal

and it doesn't really change anything in the grand scope

and then they'll clarify, that they are an "atheist" specifically relative to theistic versions of gods that demand humans obey them

in other words,

NOT a THEIST
#71
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RaymondSheen
In which part of the definition of atheism is entity, creator or all powerful mentioned? 
Look up the definition of god.

Regardless, these are the concepts typically associated with a god, which is where theism comes from, which is where atheism comes from. Sure, you can define god inn any way you want but at that point you are no longer communicating with us, just playing silly semantic word games. Exactly zero people read the title of this thread and thought it was referring to people who don't believe in sex.

atheism doesn't have a clue any more than science.
Atheism isn't supposed to "have a clue" because that's categorically not what it is. Atheism isn't a world view, it's a response to theism. You claim there is a God, I don't accept your claim. That's it. Anything else is something else.

Atheism doesn't reject anything anyway. It can't reject what it can't understand. 
One does not need to understand a claim in order to reject it, in fact rejection is the only possible position in that circumstance.

I'm using the word reject as in "to not accept". To not accept a claim does not mean you must accept the claims negation. One can reject a claim as unproven and thereby remain neutral on the issue.

Atheists don't have evidence
Rejecting ones claim doesn't require evidence, the burden of proof falls into the side that is making the claim. Atheism isn't a claim, it's a response to a claim (theism).
#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
By who? Irrelevant. Were the worshipers of Dagon, Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth etc. atheists? No. 
for example,

Early Christians were atheists! At least, that’s how some people of the time viewed them in the earliest centuries, and it’s not difficult to see why. Most importantly, they refused to worship the traditional gods. But also, judged by Roman-era criteria, they didn’t even seem to practice a recognizable form of religion.


it's a little weird that you want to apply the BROADEST POSSIBLE definition to "god(s)"

but you insist on the most specific and inflexible definition of "atheist"
#73
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Atheism isn't a world view
bingo
Topic's author
#74
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@ebuc
Thats because you comment above makes clear, empirical evidence from observations is not your priority in regards to questions regarding atheism.
My problem is I don't understand your argument. Your problem is, perhaps, the same. You need to explain to me why you are (if you are) at odds with my statement that science doesn't test the supernatural and the God of occidental culture, YHWH of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Christian Greek scriptures, Jehovah is supernatural and therefore not falsifiable. In other words, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God, angels, Satan, ghosts, because they are supernatural. That is the point you must (seem to) argue against. Your previous efforts haven't done that - maybe, I don't know - because I don't understand your argument. Explain it if you would please. Don't just rattle off ambiguous terms about supermarkets and superman without explaining them. From a theological perspective they make no sense to me. Science isn't my forte so if you are making a scientific argument you have to explain to me the theological relevance.

Topic's author
#75
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I know this post wasn't a response to me but I'm going to address the points being made as if it were, if you don't mind. 

think of it this way

do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator of all things ?
I do not. 

why not ?

are you perhaps UNconvinced ?
Correct. I'm completely ignorant of NANABOZHO. 

or are you just an evil mean spiteful person who hates NANABOZHO ?
Uh, yes. I'm human and therefor xenophobic. 

Joking. No, I simply don't know NANABOZHO. 

have you spent your entire life thinking about how NANABOZHO can not possibly exist ?
I have not, simply because I am ignorant. However, from this day on I will speak out against - this, this, this - myth, this fable in the name of almighty science! Notice how I do so in abject ignorance? Mocking atheism to make a point.)

or do you rather simply not care if NANABOZHO is real or not ?
I do not. (I'm not seeing the point. Keeping in mind I have stated clearly in this thread that the existence of a god is not always relevant to the adherent of that god. Shinto Amaterasu was given as an example. Luck. Fertility gods)


furthermore,

if someone told you that all morality and goodness can only come from NANABOZHO and without NANABOZHO the world would be pure chaos

would you think that person is probably insane ?
I would, but I think humanity itself is "insane." I've heard more insane things than that. Evolution, for example. But you've made my point. Atheism isn't simply the absence of gods, or the disbelief, or about theology as atheists often claim it is. It has very little to do with God, Allah, the Bible or theology, in my opinion. As I've repeatedly said in this thread, it is really only about a sociopolitical frustration of a minority (atheist, especially militant atheists) in a quasi-theocratic state. Muslim or Christian. Occidental culture. Not so much in Muslim culture because it'll get you killed there. 



#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
it is really only about a sociopolitical frustration of a minority (atheist, especially militant atheists) in a quasi-theocratic state.
we seem to be in general agreement on this particular point
#77
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
YHWH of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Christian Greek scriptures, Jehovah is supernatural and therefore not falsifiable.
the claims and definitions of YHWH are falsifiable with LOGIC
#78
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
However, from this day on I will speak out against - this, this, this - myth, this fable in the name of almighty science! Notice how I do so in abject ignorance? Mocking atheism to make a point.)
perhaps if 100% of your government officials told you they worship NANABOZHO and the teachings of NANABOZHO are the guiding principle of their moral compass

then you might be at least slightly concerned
Topic's author
#79
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
A response to post # 68. I'll try, as always, believe it or not, to minimize verbosity as much as possible. 

I pretty much agree with your sentiments on dictionary definition, and addressed this in response to @zedvictor4 in post # 69 prior to reading your post which I'm responding to here. 

if you really want to know what an atheist thinks "a god" is, try asking a few atheists, you're likely to get a variety of answers
Someone (I'm new here and unfamiliar) maybe you? has made this point and I've responded. I've done it and I disagree that a variety of answers are given. That just isn't my extensive experience.  

I don't think I quite understand your point with the bigfoot etc. references. I just think you aren't listening to me and you are basing your argument on anything other than from the perspective of an ideologue. From an atheist world view. And I believe it is only a world view. 

Many gods exist in a literal sense. Many gods don't exist in a literal sense. It isn't necessary for a god to exist, so the question becomes which ones are alleged to and which ones aren't.

I don't know. Going over your argument in the thread I'm at a loss. I don't know if we are at cross purposes or not.   

In my post # 61 I laid out a point-by-point clarification and I don't think you've addressed a single one of those except for perhaps (I'm not sure) an ambiguous sort of ideological knee-jerk response. Then I go over your posts again and I say "Okay, we agree here, and here, etc."

Address these: If your only response is it's irrelevant, that's okay, but give me something. 

1. A god can be anything or anyone.
2. God is a term for a specific deity in occidental culture. Jehovah. Atheism rejects that specific God's existence. A completely rational position.  
3. Atheism in general, also rejects the literal existence of all other gods. If a god can be extant how can an atheist reject its existence? 

#80
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@RaymondSheen
Don't just rattle off ambiguous terms about supermarkets and superman without explaining them. From a theological perspective they make no sense to me. Science isn't my forte so if you are making a scientific argument you have to explain to me the theological relevance.

YOur the person using ambigous term of 'super'natural, and I was very clear  early on that, Universe is the top dog when it comes to being supernatural.

The other words that use prefix super are analogies to help you grasp that just sticking the word super in front of word natural doesnt mean anything unless you can define it clearly what it is your talking about.

Is Superman supernatural? Yes, because, tho fictional the concept is he is j man from another planet whose molecular design makes him supernatural by earth man standards.

Is a super-market super-natural? No, tho it is super-duper by al previous markets on Earth.

Is a super sale at a super market super-natural?  Depends various factors, ex if the market manager looses money, then it becomes un-natural to have such a sale where you loose money. Maybe the owner just made a mistake is un-natural due to sickness in head and body.

Earth is natural planet. --being of nature--  So is Venus, Jupiter etc. We have super this and super that in our super-natural Universe.
The ultimate super-natural is finite, occupied space Universe.

So until you can define your super-natural, as Ive have done clearly twice for you, then your lost in your own mind game, that no one else knows what your going on about. Please be clear and define your supernatural whatever.
Topic's author
#81
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Response to post 70

and then they'll clarify, that they are an "atheist" specifically relative to theistic versions of gods that demand humans obey them

in other words,

NOT a THEIST
I comprehend and recognize. What you seem to be saying is that atheists think that theism is silly and pointless in a sense and theists think the same of atheism and I agree, but the sort of argument I'm making in the OP is that theists and atheists may be really confused on elements - data - regarding theism. A couple of points that are sort of relevant in a supplementary fashion to the OP.

1. The vast majority of atheists are apathetic rather than militant. They don't care to discuss the subject for a minute, they don't care about prayer in school, the 10 commandments at the courthouse, the separation of church and state, evolution vs. creation, in the schools or elsewhere, they don't march in atheist parades, put up billboards, have bumper stickers, identify with atheistic group think, or politicize abortion or homosexual rights. They may have differing opinions on those subjects but don't politicize them. Militant atheists, like on forums such as this, do those things to a greater or lesser extent or at least feel compelled to express contempt for theism. They are a very small minority comparatively speaking. Though you wouldn't think so online because the internet provides them with a means of expression and they gather. All of that, both apathetic and militant, is fine with me. I support both approaches and I have enjoyed debating with the militant for about three decades.

2. Atheism, at least militant, is a form of theism. A position of a theological nature, antithesis of theism, but theological nonetheless.

3. Biblical study is the study of what the Bible says. Theology is, put simply, the study of what the Bible (or other theistic texts, i.e. Koran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc.) means. Interpretations vary but are (allegedly) dependent upon the source. Allegedly because, for example, religions are syncretistic. Like history, facts become legends, myths, and intertwine and mingle. Good examples are Christianity and Taoism because they are most obvious. A "Christ-myth" theorist will make references to similarities between pagan mythology and Christian mythology which exist, but not with the source. They intermingled later. They aren't contemporaneous with the source.

So, you can say "atheists believe in this" or "atheists believe that" but that doesn't necessarily mean that those beliefs comport with the source. The same goes for theism, thus the great debate. You have to acknowledge the source as well as the theological. What you are I believe is one thing, an argument on what the source says another thing. Every source, in every religion and every language as well as the common use of the word god has been the same. It doesn't always make that clear and so there is often confusion. Ironically or not, often unbeknownst to the theist or atheist because they see or are influenced by that syncretism.

That's what the OP is about, using the points of contention it presents. So that we can reevaluate them.

#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
I've done it and I disagree that a variety of answers are given. That just isn't my extensive experience.  
fair point, my sample is clearly different than yours
#83
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
I don't think I quite understand your point with the bigfoot etc. references.
an atheist thinks about god(s) the same way you think about bigfootspacealienslochnessmonsters

sure

you can't "prove they don't exist" - the claims are mostly "unfalsifiable" (although, with a rigorous definition, there might be provably false)

but you also don't spend any of your time hunting for them

and you probably don't take the numerous claims of "eye witnesses" very seriously
#84
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
There are two assertions most atheists make.

1) The Burden of Proof is on the Theist.
2) Assertion number 1 is not an assertion.
think of it this way

do you believe NANABOZHO is the one true creator of all things ?

why not ?

are you perhaps UNconvinced ?

or are you just an evil mean spiteful person who hates NANABOZHO ?

have you spent your entire life thinking about how NANABOZHO can not possibly exist ?

or do you rather simply not care if NANABOZHO is real or not ?


furthermore,

if someone told you that all morality and goodness can only come from NANABOZHO and without NANABOZHO the world would be pure chaos

would you think that person is probably insane ?
That is quite the non-sequitur, what is the point of this mess, and what does it have to do with the subject of Burden of Proof.
#85
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
the burden of proof falls into the side that is making the claim. 
Is this assertion a claim you are making?
#86
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
Is this assertion a claim you are making?
Yes
Topic's author
#87
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Double_R
Look up the definition of god.
Oxford Dictionary definition of God:
1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate.
3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
4. Informal: the gallery in a theater.

Regardless, these are the concepts typically associated with a god, which is where theism comes from, which is where atheism comes from. 
Yes. 

Sure, you can define god in any way you want but at that point you are no longer communicating with us, just playing silly semantic word games.
Which is what atheism does. 

Exactly zero people read the title of this thread and thought it was referring to people who don't believe in sex.
That's nonsense. Sex isn't God, sex can be a god. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God or gods. Gods defined above. Note, not just God, but gods. What gods? Your narrow silly semantic and limited definition which is redundant. God and gods aren't the same. Which gods? Presumably any gods. 

Atheism isn't supposed to "have a clue" because that's categorically not what it is.
Dumb. Atheism denies the existence of gods but it is clueless or decides what gods are which isn't in line with theism or definition or it's just a xenophobic imitation of what it denies. The product of ignorant and hypocritical ideologues. Just a socio-politically motivated sort of class struggle. It's about control because theism has wrongly appointed itself as arbiter of global morality. The motivation is, in my opinion, justified, but the methodology is stupid and hypocritical. Control. World view. Ideological fixation. Xenophobia. For some reason I've never understood why we can't all get along even though we disagree. Without having to make everyone else think like us. So, abortion and homosexuality are against Christian practice. That don't mean you (Christians) make laws secularly or that you (atheists) have to protest and reform Christianity. Just do whichever you want to do. Both of you without interfering with the other.  

Atheism isn't a world view, it's a response to theism. 
A worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. Theism is a worldview. How is atheism, as a response to that, not a worldview? What are you denying? Commonality? You can't train a cat? Disorganization? First of all, the commonality is - well, I would say stupidity but that is prevalent in theism and humanity at large (not excluding myself) so that would be moot, but a specific stupidity (willful ignorance) regarding what it criticizes or protests. And it does. But also, commonality in the simple fucked up basic tenet. Can't train a cat? Go to a circus, see a lion tamer. Disorganization due to lack of commonality? Nonsense. Minorities don't all have to think alike and anyway atheists do but seem to be oblivious to it. 

It isn't a good argument. 

You claim there is a God, I don't accept your claim. That's it. Anything else is something else.
You (collectively) just don't have an argument because you don't even understand what it would be. I'm fine with and completely empathetic to the argument against the claim of the existence of God. It's a completely rational one. Faith requires just that. Faith. What I object to is the ambiguity if not complete willful ignorance of the gods part of atheism. You just reject it because you conflate God with gods. That doesn't make sense. Tell me the difference. And not one you made up in your limited worldview group think I saw at a PTA meeting recently! (PTA reference source GTA VC Maurice Chavez Pressing Issues for my own odd approach to humor and entertainment)

Ya' know it?

One does not need to understand a claim in order to reject it, in fact rejection is the only possible position in that circumstance.

[Laughs] It's so obvious. It doesn't matter what theists think, what they think is untrue because their thinking gets in our way - not of thinking, who cares about that, it doesn't exist along with the God we know nothing about. It's about telling me what to do. We want the power. This is a democracy! Yeah, majority MOB rules and you aren't it! That's what it's about. When an atheist says theism is stupid and false they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. That's what it's all about. Do you see? What could possibly be the reason for obfuscating the obvious actual intent? Only ignorance or deception.

I'm using the word reject as in "to not accept". 
And the word god in any arbitrary fashion as well. Wow. Obtuse. Rejecting is not the same as accepting if you perceive the acceptance to be mandatory. That isn't a claim that isn't even an offer. You aren't rejecting the claim in a reasonable manner which is totally acceptable, you are distorting the claim for the same reason the theists distort it. Power struggle. The claim isn't even relevant so why argue the OP without actually arguing or even addressing the claim? Ideologues coming out of the proverbial woodwork.



#88
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
Is this assertion a claim you are making?
Yes
Please provide proof of your claim that "the burden of proof falls into the side that is making the claim".
#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RaymondSheen
Address these: If your only response is it's irrelevant, that's okay, but give me something. 

1. A god can be anything or anyone.
2. God is a term for a specific deity in occidental culture. Jehovah. Atheism rejects that specific God's existence. A completely rational position.  
3. Atheism in general, also rejects the literal existence of all other gods. If a god can be extant how can an atheist reject its existence? 
(1) sure, but this broadest of all possible definitions is NOT the one that most (if any) atheists are subscribed to

(2) the term "rejects" is a loaded term - remains UNconvinced is more accurate

(3) depending on which specific definition of "god(s)" the speaker and the audience are entertaining, "god(s)" may be either unfalsifiable or logically incoherent - if a definition of "god(s)" has sufficient empirical evidence, for instance if one were to rename "the big bang" "god" then, in my experience, the atheist would explain that they are not an atheist in that specific case
#90
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@RaymondSheen
P1: It is reasonable/rational to withhold belief in an unfalsifiable entity.
P2: God is an unfalsifiable entity.
P3: Atheists withhold belief in God.
C: It is reasonable/rational to be atheist.