"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.

[Bust Nak]

But that is not what they scales are measuring. Look back at my post and see how your changing what is being measured.

I changed it as I am proposing that my version is more accurate than your version.

Lets say there are scales. On one side of these scales is the evidence of life coming for another living being. On this side would be every birth from every animal. Every cell that divides into two.

On the other side is the evidence of life coming from nothing. On this side there is nothing on the scales because it's never been observed.

The scales are measuring evidence for things coming from living things. It's not the scales for evolution but seems to all you see and want to talk about is evolution. That is not what the topic is about. It's not what the scales are measuring. The scales are for abiogenesis. Which the thing that has any weight is life coming from life.

But live coming from live doesn't need to be on the opposite side to life coming from nothing. The whole point of abiogenesis is that life from nothing happened once and since then live comes from life. Everything on the live from live scale can also be placed on the live from nothing side - ask yourself this: A bear giving birth to a bear, is that what we could expect to see, if abiogenesis is true? Would you expect to see a bear giving birth to a bear, if a intelligent designer created bears?

Yes to both question, right? Also bear in mind that while I say life from nothing, I mean life from pre-existing non-life material.

[Clownboat]

Atheists hold the positions that there is "no God", this IS a position and so is a belief with a burden of proof as much as the position to believe in God.

I agree with one that Atheism is definitely a position and a negative one, but they deny it to avoid the burden of proof for it. They cannot give proofs, the same kind of proofs they demand from the believers, the only thing they do is to deride and ridicule the believers and their religions and put one religion against the other. Their position is position of DOUBT and uncertainty. I believe that they just leapt into the dark and they made darkness as their abode. Nevertheless, it is their choice and they are entitled to it. If one could believe in Atheism without any evidence/proof why one cannot believe in One-True-God?
Regards

Your thinking is wrong.

Believers subscribe to a god concept. Let's call your preferred god, channel 5 in this analogy. Muslims for example would prefer a different channel.

Your basically claiming that an atheists favorite channel is 'off'. You have a favorite channel, while an atheist isn't even watching TV.

[marco]

Atheist don't defend they are just masters of not answering.

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

They don't "dismiss morality". Atheists act as morally as religious folk - and frequently more so.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

They would have trouble understanding this.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

Usually truth is determined by objective means. There are occasions when subjectively we can decide on what is true. Your generalisations make little sense.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

What "capacity"? You haven't identified one. The words "intelligent design" beg the question and imply a designer. What is meant is that one can observe pattern and order.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

Your sample atheists seem to deny things in a most obscure fashion. What atheist denies some abstract concepts are true? Of course they are true.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

Again this statement is devoid of meaning. Of course if someone is a product of X, they can be a threat to X. Children kill their parents, occasionally.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend� their “animal� nature.

This is becoming ludicrous. You are talking about how many people, not just atheists, think. We are the same as animals, with legs, hearts and feelings. We deal with food in the same way and produce young in the same way. There is no contradiction. It is silly to suggest atheists believe humans have all the characteristics of, say worms or squirrels or owls. It is sillier to attribute this blunder to atheists.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism�.

You are leaping around from group to group. You are not discussing atheism but political correctness here, an illness caught by people of every conviction.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.

Why would an atheist "insist" all men are equal. Some thinkers like Rousseau advocated treating every person with humanity, saying we are all born equal. This is a sociological claim not an atheistic one.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

Yes, you've moved away from atheists to sociologists or socialists or politicians. I wonder why you bothered to print this under the guise of disputing atheism. It has as much relevance to atheists as a zebra has to a goldsmith.

Atheists DO defend when sensible claims are made. It is fun and it is interesting to do so.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 291 by marco]

marco
Atheists DO defend when sensible claims are made. It is fun and it is interesting to do so.

Though Atheism is not supported by any reasonable and positive evidence. It is just a claim without a positive reason. Right, please?

Regards

[H.sapiens]

Is Atheism such a meaningless and lifeless position/no-position ,please?

in a word, yes. Which makes it one of the easiest position to defend.

Atheist don't defend they are just masters of not answering.

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

No, morality has an evolution basis, learn something about game theory and Evolutionary Stable Systems.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

Word salad devoid of meaningful content.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

Truth can not be determined, only falsification can be.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

No, what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified. There are several guidelines however: never start out with the answer and recognize that selection applied to reproduction with variation should not be assumed to be intelligent without a clearly identified agent.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

Math and logic stand on their own and if you can reduce morality to necessary truths objectively without utilizing game theory and ESS, please do so here.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

Humans are entirely creatures of nature, all creatures of nature, by Malthusian Principles are ultimately a threat to nature and themselves if they are too successful. Just look at how the early plants poisoned themselves with oxygen.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend� their “animal� nature.

The difference between humans and many other animals lies in our evolved ability to store information extracellularly. Just as our cellular information is subject to natural selection so is our extracellular. There are times and situations where the two are contradictory and where it raises our fitness, if the extracellular wins out.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism�.

Sexuality and gender identity are not binary in any animal, they are a continuum. That is the demonstrable fact, your Bible notwithstanding.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.

Let's start with the fact that you can not demonstrate the existence of any spiritual laws ... even your 10 Commandments are on rather shaky ground. No two people are exactly equal, but we have a social contract (ESS based) that make such equality an agreed to starting place.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

I never would have expected you to take such a Marxist view. There are so many, many, human attributes that who is to say who is better and who is worse? You maybe stronger, but I may be smarter, to oversimplify. Are you so knowledgeable that you know what diversity to preserve and what to destroy in the name of some imaginary sound social system?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 292 by paarsurrey1]

Though Atheism is not supported by any reasonable and positive evidence. It is just a claim without a positive reason. Right, please?

No, not right, thank you.

Atheism arises as a result of the failure of theists to support their position by what would be considered reasonable and positive evidence. It requires no reason itself as it is the natural default position.

It is my opinion that all religious belief is the result of upbringing. Even if some people don't accept the beliefs of their parents and peers fully, the seed is still there to allow acceptance under the right conditions later on. But for those who do develop strong beliefs from an early age, there is no question that the evaluation of evidence played any part in it. The question of evidence comes into play much later when those people try to shore up their beliefs by retrofitting whatever they can muster and claim as supporting evidence.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 292 by paarsurrey1]

Though Atheism is not supported by any reasonable and positive evidence. It is just a claim without a positive reason. Right, please?

No, not right, thank you.

Atheism arises as a result of the failure of theists to support their position by what would be considered reasonable and positive evidence. It requires no reason itself as it is the natural default position.

It is my opinion that all religious belief is the result of upbringing. Even if some people don't accept the beliefs of their parents and peers fully, the seed is still there to allow acceptance under the right conditions later on. But for those who do develop strong beliefs from an early age, there is no question that the evaluation of evidence played any part in it. The question of evidence comes into play much later when those people try to shore up their beliefs by retrofitting whatever they can muster and claim as supporting evidence.

Welcome to the forum and this thread also.
Atheism as admitted here by them is a position/no-position of ignorance, so in ignorance they see things topsy-turvy and in the whimsical ways, nevertheless they are lovely people:

Belief in the One-True-God is the default position

Belief in the One-True-God is the default position; when one is off this position or derailed from the right path due to different factors one could become believer in many gods or just an atheist, not believing any gods.

Example:

Jesus was a Jew and believed in the one true G-d; he expressed this in a very clear and straightforward terms.

Yet Paul invented Trinity and made Christians believe in it; and later there were some Christian denominations that worshiped Mary also making into four deities.

Later when people in the West realized the wrong concepts of Christianity they altogether denied G-d and started becoming atheists; a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity.

Regards

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 295 by paarsurrey1]

Atheism as admitted here by them is a position/no-position of ignorance, so in ignorance they see things topsy-turvy and in the whimsical ways ...

I beg to differ. I was raised in a very Christian household and was saturated with the subject from birth until I left for college at age 18. It was Sunday school and the main service every Sunday morning, another service on Sunday night, then again on Wednesday night. We had two full weeks of "vacation bible school" in the summers, a week or so at a place called the Missionary Plantation Bible Camp in the mountains of NC each summer (where the first seed was planted in my head that something was seriously wrong with this whole idea), a prayer ("grace" or "the blessing') before every meal, more religion in the boy scouts, and on and on and on. I think before it was all over I'd read the bible through twice, and I would not call myself ignorant of Christianity by age 18 ... at least the Presbyterian/Baptist version prevalent throughout the U.S. southeast where I grew up. But there was nothing at all taught about other religions, other than that they were all "wrong."'

I eventually decided to study the different religions of the world, their origins and general beliefs, etc., and came to the conclusion that there is zero evidence for any of the thousands of gods that humans have invented in their heads over the millennia, including the Christian/Islam/Jewish flavor, or any other, having ever existed. These stories were mostly developed while humankind was scientifically illiterate and thus had no understanding of how nature worked, and gods were a convenient explanation at the time, and people in power came to realize that organized religion could be a useful tool for control of populations. So the various religions became entrenched and as has been pointed out on these forums many times most people adopt the religion of their parents or region as young children, and stay with it. Just look at a map of the distribution of religions:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

So it is not always ignorance that causes people to reject religions ideals ... just the opposite. Simple analysis of the probability that any of them are actually true shows that the probabilities are so low that it is impossible to believe them.

[marco]

[Replying to post 291 by marco]

marco
Atheists DO defend when sensible claims are made. It is fun and it is interesting to do so.

Though Atheism is not supported by any reasonable and positive evidence. It is just a claim without a positive reason. Right, please?

Regards

Paarsurrey, atheism is arrived at by a process of reasoning. You believe there exists someone called Allah, somewhere. I say you have no proof that such an entity exists: we cannot see him or detect him. I am NOT proposing an alternative deity, though indeed there may be such entities. Hence you are in the weak position of making a claim that is probably false. There is no burden on me to prove the non-existence; I simply employ logic and reason.

For example: you say God wrote a book in which he says that heaven has furniture in it, such as couches. Reason suggests this is silly. So I bring reason to the table to show your claim has no weight.

God, in his alleged book, says that corpses will be revived to have non-marital sex with girls. This seems an absurdity, given corpses don't indulge in sexual activity.

God has not mentioned that handsome young men are waiting for lady corpses. This omission seems strange. Nor is there provision for homosexual corpses.

Anyway, reason reviews the above and concludes that no such being spoke any such things. Reason is quite definitely NOT on your side since if you conjure up absurdities, you have a duty to show these are facts.

I repeat that one does NOT prove something does NOT exist. The claimant
must supply a proof. And nobody has proved Allah exists. Thankfully.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 295 by paarsurrey1]

Atheism as admitted here by them is a position/no-position of ignorance, so in ignorance they see things topsy-turvy and in the whimsical ways ...

I beg to differ. I was raised in a very Christian household and was saturated with the subject from birth until I left for college at age 18. It was Sunday school and the main service every Sunday morning, another service on Sunday night, then again on Wednesday night. We had two full weeks of "vacation bible school" in the summers, a week or so at a place called the Missionary Plantation Bible Camp in the mountains of NC each summer (where the first seed was planted in my head that something was seriously wrong with this whole idea), a prayer ("grace" or "the blessing') before every meal, more religion in the boy scouts, and on and on and on. I think before it was all over I'd read the bible through twice, and I would not call myself ignorant of Christianity by age 18 ... at least the Presbyterian/Baptist version prevalent throughout the U.S. southeast where I grew up. But there was nothing at all taught about other religions, other than that they were all "wrong."'

I eventually decided to study the different religions of the world, their origins and general beliefs, etc., and came to the conclusion that there is zero evidence for any of the thousands of gods that humans have invented in their heads over the millennia, including the Christian/Islam/Jewish flavor, or any other, having ever existed. These stories were mostly developed while humankind was scientifically illiterate and thus had no understanding of how nature worked, and gods were a convenient explanation at the time, and people in power came to realize that organized religion could be a useful tool for control of populations. So the various religions became entrenched and as has been pointed out on these forums many times most people adopt the religion of their parents or region as young children, and stay with it. Just look at a map of the distribution of religions:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

So it is not always ignorance that causes people to reject religions ideals ... just the opposite. Simple analysis of the probability that any of them are actually true shows that the probabilities are so low that it is impossible to believe them.

There is no compulsion to believe in Allah-the-One-True-God, he has given this option to every human being whether they believe in Him or not, and I am satisfied with it:

[76:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[76:2] There has certainly come upon man a period of time when he was not a thing spoken of.
[76:3] We have created man from a mingled sperm-drop that We might try him; so We made him hearing, seeing.
[76:4] We have shown him the Way*, whether he be grateful** or ungrateful^.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 76&verse=0
*the right path
**he becomes a believer
^ or denies to become a believer
OOOO
There could be others who have subsribed to Atheism and then they left it, totally disgusted with it.

I believe in one's example my sentence in the last post fits, if one doesn't mind, please :

Later when people in the West realized the wrong concepts of Christianity they altogether denied G-d and started becoming atheists; a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity.

If I may ask one:
Did one study Quran from cover to cover, please.

Regards