"Atheists believe there is no God"

[Talishi]

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.

[benchwarmer]

Good points. If atheists ask theists to prove their position with the science then how can some atheists believe in ghosts when they would have to apply the same criteria to their position about ghosts?

Well, you will have to ask for evidence to back up their claims next time an atheist who believes in ghosts makes such a claim. Note again that the label atheist has nothing to do with ghosts (or leprechauns, fairies, ogres, pixies, wookies, or any other thing there is no evidence for). I could not find a single word that means "believes in ghosts", but we can make one up temporarily to show what I'm talking about. Let's use "casperist" based on Casper the ghost to denote belief in ghosts. So then someone who doesn't beleive would be an acasperist. In this case it's possible to be one of the following:

1) A theist and a casperist
2) A theist and an acasperist
3) An atheist and a casperist
4) An atheist and an acasperist

The people you are describing are number 3 above. Take it up with them to provide evidence.

So those atheists who take the position that there are definitely no deities would have to support that position with some sort of evidence.

Agreed. If they are making a positive claim "There are no gods", then they have the burden of proof.

Can an atheist who takes this definite position then believe in ghosts?

Why not? It's two different things. By your own logic theists have the same issue. Most theists believe in only one of the many thousands of god concepts. How can they believe in Zeus, but not in Allah? Or Jehovah, but not Vishnu?

You are basically arguing that if you posit no gods exist then you must also posit no other imaginary beings exist. Taken the other way this logically leads to the argument that if you believe in one god concept then you must also believe in all of them (as well as ghosts apparently).

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 178 by William]

I'm in the subset of atheists who reject theism.

You lack belief in gods and also reject theism.
Well that's a start.

That's correct: I lack a belief in gods and goddesses, and I reject theism.

But it's not where I start.. it's my CONCLUSION, so it's the end.
Atheism is the label for the conclusion at the END of the investigation, not the start.

I have to reject theism because I don't believe in any gods or goddesses, as theism is a belief in gods or goddesses.

What do you mean when you say you reject theism?

I don't accept the claims that theism makes because they haven't met their burden of the proof.

When you say that do you mean all types of theism?

That's right.
I don't believe in any kind of gods or goddesses. If I did, I'd be some kind of a theist.
Name a god or a goddess, and I don't believe in it.

Theism is a very general term... it includes all kinds of gods and goddesses.

Do you repudiate theism because theism doesn't lack belief in god(s) or are there other reasons?

I began to lose my belief in God because of learning how to think well... The more I did that, the less the claims of religions made sense.

Do you repudiate everything else which isn't theism but exhibits any other things which you [might] have reason to also reject theism for?

I use skepticism, so any claim which does not have enough evidence for, I simply do not believe. I can't pretend to believe what logic dictates that I have no justification for. I make a lot of mistakes, and that's USUALLY due to believing too much. I usually find out that a belief I thought was TRUE.. turned out to be false. That's always a little humbling.

When I correct a mistake like that, I call it an instance of learning.There are lots of ways of learning, but that's a great one. A false belief gets in the way of learning.

Do you repudiate theism for all that it injects into human society regardless of any good it may be doing?

I think that theism has it's share of good results. Religions are made up of people, and some people are fantastic. I attribute the good that religions do to the GOOD PEOPLE involved, not to any particular theology.

Good people would use just about ANY THEOLOGY for good.

But of course, the opposite is also true. Bad people can use just about any theology to justify bad things up to, and including war.

When they say that "Islam is the religion of peace", for example, I think it's true of the PEACE LOVING people in Islam. War loving people use Islam to justify war.

It's the people that matter.. not the particular religion.
I recall that there were Buddhist terrorists... if you want, I can look it up.

_________________

So, basically, you will find me arguing about these subjects in here:

1. Logic.. if the theist isn't making sense, I will point it out and explain why. Just because someone is a theist, it doesn't mean they make sense. In fact, I often argue with an atheist if I think his logic fails.
2. Facts. We just gotta have facts. If we are talking about something fictional, I lose interest in a hurry, so I ask for evidence and sources, etc... Some people think that their opinions are facts, and that's just another logical error. I point those out.
3. Morality. And that's a shame. Religions claim that their system is the best morality there is... and that's simply not true. It's shocking, but it isn't. I think that in the past, it used to be ASSUMED that it was true. Now, we can use skepticism to tell the difference. When it comes to moral thinking, times have changed since the Bible was written, and changed FOR THE BETTER. I'm always pointing out how the Christian god is an insane evil psychopath, for example. Believers have a real hard time with that one, but all I do is to point to the Bible stories.
________________

[William]

[Replying to post 181 by Blastcat]

Reply to this post - I have placed in the "Theists don't ask questions" thread, here

[Clownboat]

I would like to examine this claim of yours to see if it reflects the reality that I observe.

Perhaps get back to me when you have found out which type(s) of atheist you represent in relation to what approach you are taking in regard to argument re Ideas of GOD.

If you are going to make me jump through hoops, just to hear this claim of yours so I can examine it. I am no longer interested, nor do I believe at this time that you have anything to propose. Up to you to show that I am wrong.

Person A) You want to know my claim? First! Dance monkey.
Person B) Exits stage left.

Q: Do you have any belief in the existence of any gods whatsoever?

A: No. I am an atheist.

Okay then. Nothing to debate here folks...move along...

False, we could debate the harm that some religions cause for just one example.

[Clownboat]

If that is the case then what is the purpose of atheism.

Atheism is not purpose driven.
It is a stance in relation to god and goddess claims.

From my experience, the only people (and I was one of them) that think atheism is purpose driven are the religious and cults trying to create an Us vs Them attitude to help create unity within the said cult.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 184 by Clownboat]

Atheism is not purpose driven.
It is a stance in relation to god and goddess claims.

And what's the purpose to make a stance in relation to God and Goddess claims?

Every action is purpose driven even if people are not conscious of what it is that drives, but a honest person should be able to find the true purpose of what drives their actions since we are the author of them.

This is one of few points I actually happen to agree with Freud on

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 184 by Clownboat]

Atheism is not purpose driven.
It is a stance in relation to god and goddess claims.

And what's the purpose to make a stance in relation to God and Goddess claims?

I can't identify one besides for 'label' reasons. Can you?

Every action is purpose driven

Full stop. Show that this is true.
For example, the action of a snowflake being formed. It's just chemicals reacting to their properties, or... just doing what they do.

Where is the purpose in the action of a snowflake being formed?

This is one of few points I actually happen to agree with Freud on

Cool. So the purpose of a snowflake being formed is?
You or Freud may answer.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 186 by Clownboat]

I can't identify one besides for 'label' reasons. Can you?

Sure I could label many, but I asked you and the answers or purposes may be very individual.

I can give you 5 now.

1. To remove doubt and fear of uncertainty from not knowing if there is a God or not
2. To remove any authority which might tell us that we are wrong morally
3. To question and be skeptical about everything in hope of finding truth (this reason may unfortunately not exist with atheism any more, i hope to be wrong)
4. To appeal to the public and join the voice of least resistance, to remove the responsibily of burden of proof and accountability of actions.
5. To create a fictional illusion of a shue which fits all and a world without right or wrong.

I said:
Every action is purpose driven

You said:

Full stop. Show that this is true.
For example, the action of a snowflake being formed. It's just chemicals reacting to their properties, or... just doing what they do.

First I can not show you EVERY ACTION and its drive, but this is a very logical scientific claim supported by most scientists such as Freud Drive theory and Newton's third law of motion "every action has a reaction", it is also a obvious observation to the honest that you do not act unless you wish to achieve something with that action.

If there is no reason to get out of bed, then you have to invent one or you will not get out of bed. You don't eat if you are not hungry, you don't drive unless you have a destination to drive to or reason to keep the car running.

This is easily proven, but it will take a heck of a long time to do if you can not see this logic and have not studied this science yourself already.

I don't have the time to teach you 20 years of schooling here, so this is about as far as I am willing to educate you on this point.

If you are still confused my advise to you is to think deeply of if there is anything you have ever done or ever do, which has no drive or desire behind it.

Keep in mind a drive can be anything from fear, pleasure, truth, money, security, acceptance and physical needs to emotional or even metaphysical desires.

Cool. So the purpose of a snowflake being formed is?
You or Freud may answer.

Eh Freud is long dead and to my knowledge he has not met Tia Dalma

Snow flake is not alive. It does not act, it is acted upon that is very different so that is a poor example eventhough there may actually be an answer of snowflakes having a purpose we don't know of...it likely would if you believe in God.

But this is not what I said. I said ACTION and purpose DRIVEN.

So for your example you have to find something which can act on its own, then it has a drive.

A bird, a shark, a baby, a worm even a plant has the capability of doing actions and they all have drives which may be something as simple as food, reproduction, sun-light etc..the drive to survive.

I thought everyone who believed in evolution knew this.

[Kapyong]

First I can not show you EVERY ACTION and its drive, but this is a very logical scientific claim supported by most scientists such as Freud Drive theory and Newton's third law of motion "every action has a reaction", it is also a obvious observation to the honest that you do not act unless you wish to achieve something with that action.

If there is no reason to get out of bed, then you have to invent one or you will not get out of bed. You don't eat if you are not hungry, you don't drive unless you have a destination to drive to or reason to keep the car running.

A person's drive to get out of bed has NOTHING to do with the purpose of a snow-flake being formed.

I don't have the time to teach you 20 years of schooling here, so this is about as far as I am willing to educate you on this point.

You don't appear to have any schooling at all - apart from creationism.
But you still manage to abuse and insult everyone for being ignorant here in most of your posts.

You only came here to abuse 'evolutionists' and preach creationism.


Kapyong

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 186 by Clownboat]

I can't identify one besides for 'label' reasons. Can you?

I can give you 5 now.

1. To remove doubt and fear of uncertainty from not knowing if there is a God or not

I reject this because fearing something you don't believe exists is just a silly explanation. How much do you fear Vishnu?

2. To remove any authority which might tell us that we are wrong morally

Cart before the horse here. FIRST, an authority must be shown to exist. You could use the genocidal murdering god of the Bible if you could show it exists, but that is not a morality I, nor my neighbors would appreciate.

3. To question and be skeptical about everything in hope of finding truth (this reason may unfortunately not exist with atheism any more, i hope to be wrong)

Rejected. Anyone can be skeptical. I'm skeptical and I'm not an atheist.

4. To appeal to the public and join the voice of least resistance, to remove the responsibily of burden of proof and accountability of actions.

Not sure how, 'I don't find god or goddess claims as credible' would appeal to the public, but whatever.
Not believing claims that believers of god concepts make does not incur a burden of proof. I know you wish it did, but there is no positive claim being made when someone says, "I don't believe you". You might as well be claiming that 'off' is your favorite TV channel. Or not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.

5. To create a fictional illusion of a shue which fits all and a world without right or wrong.

Your going to have to expand on this one for me.

First I can not show you EVERY ACTION and its drive, but this is a very logical scientific claim supported by most scientists such as Freud Drive theory and Newton's third law of motion "every action has a reaction", it is also a obvious observation to the honest that you do not act unless you wish to achieve something with that action.

Great! Now what is the purpose of the action of a snowflake being formed?

If there is no reason to get out of bed, then you have to invent one or you will not get out of bed. You don't eat if you are not hungry, you don't drive unless you have a destination to drive to or reason to keep the car running.

I get these, but I'm still questioning the claim that EVERY action is purpose driven. You see, I'm aware that chemicals just react to their properties. They do what they do and sometimes this doing can form snowflakes for example. I just don't see this purpose that you claim is there.

This is easily proven, but it will take a heck of a long time to do if you can not see this logic and have not studied this science yourself already.

Quiet you. Just deal with the snowflake for now please. No need to take a heck of a long time.

I don't have the time to teach you 20 years of schooling here, so this is about as far as I am willing to educate you on this point.

Pride comes before a fall.

If you are still confused my advise to you is to think deeply of if there is anything you have ever done or ever do, which has no drive or desire behind it.

Snowflake! I fully admit that all or most of my actions are purpose driven. I reject your claim at this time that all actions are purpose drive. For example, the action of a snowflake being formed.

Keep in mind a drive can be anything from fear, pleasure, truth, money, security, acceptance and physical needs to emotional or even metaphysical desires.

And they have what to do with the action of a snowflake being formed?

Cool. So the purpose of a snowflake being formed is?
You or Freud may answer.

Snow flake is not alive.

Straw man. Who here claimed a snowflake was alive?

It does not act, it is acted upon that is very different so that is a poor example eventhough there may actually be an answer of snowflakes having a purpose we don't know of...it likely would if you believe in God.

Do you retract your claim yet that all action is purpose driven?

But this is not what I said. I said ACTION and purpose DRIVEN.

Post 187:
I said:
Every action is purpose driven.

So for your example you have to find something which can act on its own, then it has a drive.

Chemicals react to their properties. They do what they do without any purpose or drive that I'm aware of. I'm open to be shown this drive/purpose if you are able.

A bird, a shark, a baby, a worm even a plant has the capability of doing actions and they all have drives which may be something as simple as food, reproduction, sun-light etc..the drive to survive.

I thought everyone who believed in evolution knew this.

You assume to much.

Making a statement and then concluding with 'I thought everyone knew this' is not evidencing your statement, just evidencing a sense of wonder that you personally have.