It has prophets (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens). It has faith (in "science will explain one day"). It has dogma ("There is no God. Trust the experts.") It has evangelists (Reddit, Twitter atheists).
I don't like any church or religion (atheism included), they all promise to deliver something, but fail miserably. Classical art and philosophy give me the satisfaction I need.
Philosophy as a broad exploration can look beyond the constraints present in religion, true. There are certain things considered axiomatically true in religions.
But, you will find that some religions are open to encouraging people to contemplate other schools of thought. The concept being that the proponents are confident that you will eventually settle on that school of thought as the true answer to the situation. A prime example is Thomas Aquinas' approach to the question of Christianity in Summa Theologica. One of his opening premises is that you should take each argument in their strongest form and then feel it out for yourself to see where you feel the truth lands.
Not all Christian philosophers are the same, but in any form of thought there can be the substance of curiosity and openness to new information.
The out of africa one is funny: it boils down to since cars are painted white sometimes, and some planes are painted white, this is clear proof an airplane is a car. And because some doors are painted white, this is proof a mechanical item like a car is related to a non mechanical item like a door. To show you how right we are we will silence any dissent and throw anyone who disagrees with us in jail and destroy their lives
I don't know who you are, I am guessing. I admit this freely, it changes nothing.
Don't you think it might be important to always tell the truth? If one has a choice, and must or desires to speak, shouldn't the bare minimum guideline be that what is said should be true?
Why would one willingly join the deceptive world, when it is so easily avoided?
If a christian can be a pedophile what does that tell you about your stupid religion and god too watching all of that happen is his house... he must be jerking to it.
It was a response to the op about atheism. I'm not ok with any pedos duhh.
Not all of your post condemn pedos so you're ok with them ? is that how it works ? retard
The catholic church is known for the innumerable number of pedophiles in theirs ranks, and churches predate schools. Yes there are pedos everywhere. Religion doesn't make you immune to it though, seems to attract them even.
It’s a religion because it’s faith based. It denies the existence of something it can’t possibly disprove. The exact same way religion claims the existence of something it can’t possibly prove.
Non-theism on the other hand, most definitely isn't and doesn't have any of that shit.
Non-Theism is the notion that any deities, good bad or indifferent, are all FICTION. So instead if saying "there is no god" one might say "there are no gods at all"
So, the question remaining is only whether or not you believe in magic. I maintain that I do not believe in magic, ritualistic or otherwise.
I don't think that particular line, if I were to deploy it, would be disingenuous, but it would be clumsy.
I can show evidence for all 3 of my statements, so they are hardly beliefs, furthermore, anyone can test each. Perhaps lack of proof cannot prove an absence, but presence of proof proves all sorts of shit.
Non-Theism is the notion that any deities, good bad or indifferent, are all FICTION
Nah, that enters into the territory of a religious belief. You are essentially proposing that the true nature of reality is mutually exclusive to the existence of deities (lower case "gods" as well as an all-God).
I am proposing that the true nature of reality does not involve magical zombies and sky daddies. Accurate.
But you wanna believe in karma and paybacks, black cats, broken mirrors, avoiding ladders and turning the lights on and off exactly 3 times so charlie doesnt die.
click-click-click ... I mean.. it's working so far... better be safe.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with coming to a conclusion. We all do that based on the information we have at hand and to the best of our abilities. It is only with new information and an openness to reevaluate that we come to change our mind.
The important part is realizing why you believe the way you do. OP's description of atheistic belief being religious comes from the premise that some people are accepting opinions of speakers as doctrine rather than as a result of their own critical thinking and analysis. The parallel being to the stereotypes and caricatures of traditional organized religions.
am proposing that the true nature of reality does not involve magical zombies and sky daddies. Accurate.
And that position in itself is fine, but it is a metaphysical claim not based in science. So long as you understand that, no problem. It is making claims on the same level as someone that claims there is a God.
Nothing wrong with your position, so long as you understand that it is just as extraordinary a claim as a theistic one.
I would oppose the notion that it is "just as extraordinary a claim as a theistic one".
The statement I must support was "reality does not involve magical zombies and sky daddies" Both those things can be easily defined by a layman, who can obtain historical evidence of a sincere lack of both in the world. Literally anyone with a brain, would have to ask why, unless they adhere to the mind virus, in which case they are generally prohibited from asking why.
Listen, you're not off to a great start with your other comments, but I'll entertain this one for now. You're no philosophy or logics major, so buckle up and pay attention.
statement I must support was "reality does not involve magical zombies and sky daddies"
Let's streamline it for now. I get that you are pointing at "magic zombies" for the resurrection of Christ and others. Baby steps. Let's first look at only the concept of an all-God that influences the way that waveforms collapse (i.e. "God determines how the dice land"). Put aside every kind of warping of the cosmological fabric of the universe that would be seen through supernatural miracles. Let's suppose the concept we are evaluating is strictly a non-localized all-God that performs naturalistic miracles.
Are you with me so far? I have a bad habit of overestimating the language skills of others. If you aren't following, I can break it down further.
Assuming you are following, we are looking at the question of whether a God exists that influences the world through natural means. You flip a coin, God can influence the outcome of the flip.
With this model, so long as something is even improbably possible, it is something that this entity could make happen. A 10E-99999 chance a specific thing could happen? God could make it so. A meteor crashes into a mountain in such a way that the top of it falls into the sea? This model of God can make it happen.
Do you follow the concept so far? Young aspiring students do, so I hope you get the premise too.
So what premise are we really asking with this model? Part of what we are asking is whether consciousness is an irreducible part of reality. And that this consciousness has an omnipotent power over the way all probabilistic events unfold. Let's call it a naturalistic God for the sake of ease of conversation.
My proposition is "There is nothing that would contract or render necessarily false the concept that a naturalistic God exists. This is to say, I propose a naturalistic God is possible"
So then you acknowledge it is a reasonable position to accept ideas as possible without measured evidence, so long as there isn't a basic conflict such as a logical contradiction.
This means that without evidence, the default position is that all things are possible, including opposite possibilities.
Any claim beyond "it is possible" therefore bears a burden of proof. Any claim on likelihood. Any claim on necessity or impossibility.
The claim "God does not exist" therefore carries the burden of proof. Even the comment "God is not likely" carries the burden of proof.
The mechanistic reductionist materialism underpinning atheism is in trouble because it turns out that atoms are too small. Engineers design heat engines using pressure, temperature, and entropy. Sure, there are molecules rushing about, bumping into pistons and each other, but there are too many to count, too many to design with.
We want to know why "the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;". In theory molecular biology tells us the answer; in practice, no, that doesn't help at all.
I don't believe in the concept of "non-belief". It contradicts what we know in modern science dealing with theory of mind.
The consequence of this is that you have no proof that someone can reject a claim without a worldview or ideology. No such thing.
Rejection is a belief state.
That has always been the fatal of new age atheism movements, they try to slip in a flawed and antiquated theory of mind and hope you don't notice or question it.
[ - ] Reunto 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 05:58:46 ago (+3/-2)
Rejection necessitates belief according to modern cognitive science. Atheism is a belief. The concept that it is an absence of belief is based on a flawed theory of mind.
I reject your definition of atheism because I reject your implied theory of mind.
[ - ] UncleDoug 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 06:14:03 ago (+2/-1)
Rejection necessitates belief
There are no faeries, so therefor you think faeries must be true if you don't believe in them?
I reject your definition
Its not my definition of atheism, it is what atheism means. Not the general consensus, not a collective edit, it means absence of belief. From the Greek 'A' (Without) 'theos' (God), so without god or in tard terms, someone who doesn't believe in deities.
Where is the burden of proof now?
The burden of proof exists for any assertion you claim to be true. If you are telling me there are leprechauns, then show me, simple AF. You have an IQ of 200, prove it. You have a trillion dollars, prove it.
There are no faeries, so therefor you think faeries must be true if you don't believe in them?
The default is uncertainty with mixed belief (unless you have preconceptions leading the way). That's what the science says.
Its not my definition of atheism, it is what atheism means
We're getting into the weeds of lexicography. Lexicography (dictionary making) is a descriptive process based on general consensus.
You can have talking heads like Dawkins defining whatever to mean anything. But he is talking about it from the context of a specific theory of mind. One that is antiquated.
In the same fashion that you could claim "antisemitism" means anything you want it to mean, those definitions are still founded in a school of thought that isn't going to be shared by everyone. Sure, your definition will be correct within that school of thought, but you're missing the big picture that the school of thought itself is contested territory.
When you remove the faulty theory of mind, the only remaining definition is that atheism means the belief against the existence of God/gods.
A theos
You have to mindful about the difference between etymological origin versus modern usage. Even from the Greek origin, "a theos" was not describing a person without an expressed opinion. There is no evidence to suggest that usage.
The burden of proof exists for any assertion you claim to be true.
Assuming that application of burden of proof, that would include inferred claims such as the theory of mind proposed by your definition of atheism.
Even "burden of proof" is its own interesting and contested territory. People use it differently depending on the context. Many try to express that the burden of proof falls on those moving away from the status quo. The status quo being highly subjective. It's basically an open challenge for someone to present evidence to convince another that their worldview is wrong in respect to an item of discussion.
When two people have two different concepts of what is status quo, the burden reasonably falls on both parties to convince eachother of their perspectives.
So you have asserted that science proves the existence of faeries. Show me the data.
I am discussing etymology not lexicography. Besides dictionary definitions standardised the language. If you are arguing any word can mean whatever you want it to mean then I can discredit everything you just write and make up my own interpretation to mean you agree with me.
The burden of proof is cut clear and dry, there is no point in reiterating it all over again. Also I am richer than Elon Musk, believe me?
So you have asserted that science proves the existence of faeries.
Where? Not the case. I essentially stated that science does not support the idea that mental rejection somehow isn't itself a belief state.
Atheism is a belief. Modern science is consistent with that statement.
Besides dictionary definitions standardised the language
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Institutions push for standardization. What I'm saying is that "atheism" by a definition of an "absence of belief" presupposes that an "absence of belief" can exist at all.
If you are arguing any word can mean whatever you want it to mean
That's not how lexicography works.
The burden of proof is cut clear and dry
It is pretty cut and dry. The burden of proof is on both parties. The first thing to weigh is theory of mind. You can argue against the position that atheism is a belief, but you would be arguing against the science.
If I told you I’m 8m tall would you believe me just because I said so?
I can make a decision based on the available evidence that it is highly unlikely and therefore esteem the claim to not be true. An 8m tall guy would be a world record breaker. That conclusion isn't based on nothing. It's not an "absence of belief", it is a belief against the premise based on a built up understanding of the world.
But there is a fundamental difference between a claim about an 8m tall guy and the existence of an entity that manipulates how waveforms collapse.
"God determines how the dice fall"
God isn't something you can put in a test tube or rummage through population data to gauge.
At it's most fundamental form it boils down to the question of whether consciousness is an irreducible property of reality. You can't test that, you can only speculate.
A theist answers yes to the question, an atheist answers no. An agnostic answers "I don't know" (which can either be dissonant or ambivalent). It's not a question like Russel's teapot that you can answer with statistics and known manufacturing practices.
That's besides the point because we were discussing theory of mind and the fact that "absence of belief" isn't a real state for someone to be in according to modern science. Someone that rejects the concept of God is doing so due to a built up understanding of the world and not as a default state.
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 5 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 01:20:42 ago (+5/-0)*
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 05:52:16 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 3 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 11:09:40 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 16:05:17 ago (+1/-1)
But, you will find that some religions are open to encouraging people to contemplate other schools of thought. The concept being that the proponents are confident that you will eventually settle on that school of thought as the true answer to the situation. A prime example is Thomas Aquinas' approach to the question of Christianity in Summa Theologica. One of his opening premises is that you should take each argument in their strongest form and then feel it out for yourself to see where you feel the truth lands.
Not all Christian philosophers are the same, but in any form of thought there can be the substance of curiosity and openness to new information.
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 5 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 00:22:49 ago (+8/-3)
Everything from big bang, to black holes, nuclear powered suns and out of africa theory are made up nigger shit.
[ + ] DivineLight2
[ - ] DivineLight2 6 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 07:15:58 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] BeholdTheLight
[ - ] BeholdTheLight 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 09:05:44 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 weeksApr 10, 2025 07:41:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 4 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 00:24:47 ago (+8/-4)
Satanic worship symtoms include:
Hedonism. Aka instant gratification aka never finishing what they started.
Feminism.
Porn and video game addictions.
Sudden outbursts of aggression.
Depression/anxiety and suicidal thoughts or self harm.
Faggotry
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 6 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 09:55:45 ago (+6/-0)
If you had the cure, your church wouldn't be full of deviants.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 2 monthsFeb 21, 2025 05:57:56 ago (+0/-1)
Live or die; that is the matter of faith.
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 0 points 2 monthsFeb 21, 2025 06:54:36 ago (+1/-1)
You lie to strangers about weed, friar love.
Call me a devil, but I don't have to lie.
I know this world too well, to not recognize you.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 2 monthsFeb 21, 2025 13:51:05 ago (+0/-1)
What did I say?
How's your reading comprehension?
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 04:19:29 ago (+0/-0)
I admit this freely, it changes nothing.
Don't you think it might be important to always tell the truth?
If one has a choice, and must or desires to speak, shouldn't the bare minimum guideline be that what is said should be true?
Why would one willingly join the deceptive world, when it is so easily avoided?
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 04:42:49 ago (+0/-0)
Yes. And what I am saying is true.
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 05:39:56 ago (+0/-0)
You know that, yet you imply otherwise.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 08:04:26 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 17:36:13 ago (+1/-0)
This realm is satans.
Any organization that threatens his domain gets subverted.
You know this
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 19:31:53 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 19:41:27 ago (+0/-0)
Satan doesn't create, only corrupts.
The 'light' he brings is that of the angels who have fallen into this system.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 19:57:57 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 19:59:47 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 21:51:36 ago (+0/-1)
Conflating the two is a historical error.
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 17:38:31 ago (+1/-1)
Your analysis is flawed. Depression strikes all types.
Non depressed people suffer addictions, hedonism.
Can you not admit that you are wrong?
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 19:31:13 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 19:48:25 ago (+0/-1)
Everyone is flawed.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 19:57:11 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 19:59:04 ago (+0/-1)
You left the implication that any depression is a 'flaw' and to 'KYS'.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 20:03:51 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 20:04:54 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 1 point 2 monthsFeb 21, 2025 06:44:10 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] GodDoesNotExist
[ - ] GodDoesNotExist 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 10:09:48 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 16:23:50 ago (+2/-0)
You can get bad apples anywhere. Not all priests are pedophiles.
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 17:34:16 ago (+1/-1)
You are fine with that.
Ps synagogue of satan subverted Catholicism from the very beginning.
Organised churches are not God, you fucking pro pedophilia retard.
[ + ] GodDoesNotExist
[ - ] GodDoesNotExist 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 22:07:47 ago (+2/-1)
You think satan is real too ? are you 12 ?
If a christian can be a pedophile what does that tell you about your stupid religion and god too watching all of that happen is his house... he must be jerking to it.
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro -1 points 2 monthsFeb 21, 2025 18:03:01 ago (+1/-2)
Because you called out the mice of catholic-satanist priests while ignoring the public school teacher elephant of pedophilia.
I bet you would send your kids to a public school without a single thought towards their chances of being rapes by teachers
[ + ] GodDoesNotExist
[ - ] GodDoesNotExist 1 point 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 01:42:02 ago (+1/-0)*
Not all of your post condemn pedos so you're ok with them ? is that how it works ? retard
The catholic church is known for the innumerable number of pedophiles in theirs ranks, and churches predate schools. Yes there are pedos everywhere. Religion doesn't make you immune to it though, seems to attract them even.
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 3 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 02:02:03 ago (+5/-2)
It denies the existence of something it can’t possibly disprove.
The exact same way religion claims the existence of something it can’t possibly prove.
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 3 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 01:31:01 ago (+4/-1)
Non-Theism is the notion that any deities, good bad or indifferent, are all FICTION.
So instead if saying "there is no god" one might say "there are no gods at all"
So, the question remaining is only whether or not you believe in magic.
I maintain that I do not believe in magic, ritualistic or otherwise.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 03:49:36 ago (+2/-2)
Now you have denominations! LOL
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 09:54:41 ago (+2/-0)
Hair length doesn't affect muscle mass.
No one comes back from the dead.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 19:20:26 ago (+1/-2)
Queue the inevitable "So you're saying whales don't have stomach acid?" dis-ingenuousness.
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 04:16:35 ago (+0/-0)
I can show evidence for all 3 of my statements, so they are hardly beliefs, furthermore, anyone can test each.
Perhaps lack of proof cannot prove an absence, but presence of proof proves all sorts of shit.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 05:50:30 ago (+2/-2)
Nah, that enters into the territory of a religious belief. You are essentially proposing that the true nature of reality is mutually exclusive to the existence of deities (lower case "gods" as well as an all-God).
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 09:48:51 ago (+1/-0)*
Accurate.
But you wanna believe in karma and paybacks, black cats, broken mirrors, avoiding ladders and turning the lights on and off exactly 3 times so charlie doesnt die.
click-click-click ... I mean.. it's working so far... better be safe.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 16:19:22 ago (+1/-2)
The important part is realizing why you believe the way you do. OP's description of atheistic belief being religious comes from the premise that some people are accepting opinions of speakers as doctrine rather than as a result of their own critical thinking and analysis. The parallel being to the stereotypes and caricatures of traditional organized religions.
And that position in itself is fine, but it is a metaphysical claim not based in science. So long as you understand that, no problem. It is making claims on the same level as someone that claims there is a God.
Nothing wrong with your position, so long as you understand that it is just as extraordinary a claim as a theistic one.
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 04:23:39 ago (+0/-0)
The statement I must support was "reality does not involve magical zombies and sky daddies"
Both those things can be easily defined by a layman, who can obtain historical evidence of a sincere lack of both in the world. Literally anyone with a brain, would have to ask why, unless they adhere to the mind virus, in which case they are generally prohibited from asking why.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 06:12:16 ago (+0/-0)
Let's streamline it for now. I get that you are pointing at "magic zombies" for the resurrection of Christ and others. Baby steps. Let's first look at only the concept of an all-God that influences the way that waveforms collapse (i.e. "God determines how the dice land"). Put aside every kind of warping of the cosmological fabric of the universe that would be seen through supernatural miracles. Let's suppose the concept we are evaluating is strictly a non-localized all-God that performs naturalistic miracles.
Are you with me so far? I have a bad habit of overestimating the language skills of others. If you aren't following, I can break it down further.
Assuming you are following, we are looking at the question of whether a God exists that influences the world through natural means. You flip a coin, God can influence the outcome of the flip.
With this model, so long as something is even improbably possible, it is something that this entity could make happen. A 10E-99999 chance a specific thing could happen? God could make it so. A meteor crashes into a mountain in such a way that the top of it falls into the sea? This model of God can make it happen.
Do you follow the concept so far? Young aspiring students do, so I hope you get the premise too.
So what premise are we really asking with this model? Part of what we are asking is whether consciousness is an irreducible part of reality. And that this consciousness has an omnipotent power over the way all probabilistic events unfold. Let's call it a naturalistic God for the sake of ease of conversation.
My proposition is "There is nothing that would contract or render necessarily false the concept that a naturalistic God exists. This is to say, I propose a naturalistic God is possible"
What is your response to this proposition?
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 23:02:58 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 06:42:22 ago (+0/-0)
So then you acknowledge it is a reasonable position to accept ideas as possible without measured evidence, so long as there isn't a basic conflict such as a logical contradiction.
This means that without evidence, the default position is that all things are possible, including opposite possibilities.
Any claim beyond "it is possible" therefore bears a burden of proof. Any claim on likelihood. Any claim on necessity or impossibility.
The claim "God does not exist" therefore carries the burden of proof. Even the comment "God is not likely" carries the burden of proof.
The onus is on you.
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 06:54:51 ago (+0/-0)
You've said nothing and proven nothing, and now we know you're a cunt.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 08:56:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] happytoes
[ - ] happytoes 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 14:27:22 ago (+0/-0)
The mechanistic reductionist materialism underpinning atheism is in trouble because it turns out that atoms are too small. Engineers design heat engines using pressure, temperature, and entropy. Sure, there are molecules rushing about, bumping into pistons and each other, but there are too many to count, too many to design with.
We want to know why "the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;". In theory molecular biology tells us the answer; in practice, no, that doesn't help at all.
[ + ] GodDoesNotExist
[ - ] GodDoesNotExist 2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 10:00:49 ago (+2/-0)
atheism = non belief in a deity. thats it, nothing else.
religious people make the claim gods exist, atheist people say since there is no evidence I dont believe your claim.
there is no worldview or ideology attached to it.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 16:58:32 ago (+1/-2)
The consequence of this is that you have no proof that someone can reject a claim without a worldview or ideology. No such thing.
Rejection is a belief state.
That has always been the fatal of new age atheism movements, they try to slip in a flawed and antiquated theory of mind and hope you don't notice or question it.
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 2 points 2 monthsFeb 22, 2025 02:44:59 ago (+2/-0)
You cant fix stupid.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 2 monthsFeb 23, 2025 07:12:06 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 04:13:04 ago (+0/-0)
You think I'm an idiot, and I think you're an idiot.
This is not uncommon, but it doesn't aid either argument.
but you're the one who has to decide... who sent me?
I am free of such considerations.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 11:09:04 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 02:21:43 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] oyveyo
[ - ] oyveyo 2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 02:47:22 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 03:02:30 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] oyveyo
[ - ] oyveyo 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 03:26:30 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan [op] 2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 03:44:58 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] oyveyo
[ - ] oyveyo 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 04:45:41 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] DivineLight2
[ - ] DivineLight2 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 07:14:25 ago (+2/-2)
It's a fake religion for, mentally ill, obese, soy, 'people'. Perfect slave religion.
The jews really went to town with it and it worked.
I feel dirty knowing I once owned the blind watchmaker.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 02:07:33 ago (+3/-3)
A theism = a rejection of the assertion that there is a god/gods (the exact opposite of a religion)
Agnosticism = the view that god or gods are ultimately unknown or unknowable
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 05:58:46 ago (+3/-2)
I reject your definition of atheism because I reject your implied theory of mind.
Where is the burden of proof now?
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 06:14:03 ago (+2/-1)
There are no faeries, so therefor you think faeries must be true if you don't believe in them?
Its not my definition of atheism, it is what atheism means. Not the general consensus, not a collective edit, it means absence of belief. From the Greek 'A' (Without) 'theos' (God), so without god or in tard terms, someone who doesn't believe in deities.
The burden of proof exists for any assertion you claim to be true. If you are telling me there are leprechauns, then show me, simple AF.
You have an IQ of 200, prove it. You have a trillion dollars, prove it.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 06:41:21 ago (+1/-2)
The default is uncertainty with mixed belief (unless you have preconceptions leading the way). That's what the science says.
We're getting into the weeds of lexicography. Lexicography (dictionary making) is a descriptive process based on general consensus.
You can have talking heads like Dawkins defining whatever to mean anything. But he is talking about it from the context of a specific theory of mind. One that is antiquated.
In the same fashion that you could claim "antisemitism" means anything you want it to mean, those definitions are still founded in a school of thought that isn't going to be shared by everyone. Sure, your definition will be correct within that school of thought, but you're missing the big picture that the school of thought itself is contested territory.
When you remove the faulty theory of mind, the only remaining definition is that atheism means the belief against the existence of God/gods.
You have to mindful about the difference between etymological origin versus modern usage. Even from the Greek origin, "a theos" was not describing a person without an expressed opinion. There is no evidence to suggest that usage.
Assuming that application of burden of proof, that would include inferred claims such as the theory of mind proposed by your definition of atheism.
Even "burden of proof" is its own interesting and contested territory. People use it differently depending on the context. Many try to express that the burden of proof falls on those moving away from the status quo. The status quo being highly subjective. It's basically an open challenge for someone to present evidence to convince another that their worldview is wrong in respect to an item of discussion.
When two people have two different concepts of what is status quo, the burden reasonably falls on both parties to convince eachother of their perspectives.
Is that not a reasonable approach?
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 16:01:13 ago (+0/-0)
Show me the data.
I am discussing etymology not lexicography. Besides dictionary definitions standardised the language. If you are arguing any word can mean whatever you want it to mean then I can discredit everything you just write and make up my own interpretation to mean you agree with me.
The burden of proof is cut clear and dry, there is no point in reiterating it all over again.
Also I am richer than Elon Musk, believe me?
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 16:34:08 ago (+1/-2)
Where? Not the case. I essentially stated that science does not support the idea that mental rejection somehow isn't itself a belief state.
Atheism is a belief. Modern science is consistent with that statement.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Institutions push for standardization. What I'm saying is that "atheism" by a definition of an "absence of belief" presupposes that an "absence of belief" can exist at all.
That's not how lexicography works.
It is pretty cut and dry. The burden of proof is on both parties. The first thing to weigh is theory of mind. You can argue against the position that atheism is a belief, but you would be arguing against the science.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 17:04:44 ago (+0/-0)
Absence of belief essentially means “I don’t believe you”.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 17:09:19 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 21:07:46 ago (+0/-0)
Then again based on the rules you are engaging by, you would be a self proclaimed tard.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 23:32:04 ago (+1/-2)
I can make a decision based on the available evidence that it is highly unlikely and therefore esteem the claim to not be true. An 8m tall guy would be a world record breaker. That conclusion isn't based on nothing. It's not an "absence of belief", it is a belief against the premise based on a built up understanding of the world.
But there is a fundamental difference between a claim about an 8m tall guy and the existence of an entity that manipulates how waveforms collapse.
"God determines how the dice fall"
God isn't something you can put in a test tube or rummage through population data to gauge.
At it's most fundamental form it boils down to the question of whether consciousness is an irreducible property of reality. You can't test that, you can only speculate.
A theist answers yes to the question, an atheist answers no. An agnostic answers "I don't know" (which can either be dissonant or ambivalent). It's not a question like Russel's teapot that you can answer with statistics and known manufacturing practices.
That's besides the point because we were discussing theory of mind and the fact that "absence of belief" isn't a real state for someone to be in according to modern science. Someone that rejects the concept of God is doing so due to a built up understanding of the world and not as a default state.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 23:00:01 ago (+0/-0)
Absence of belief essentially means “I don’t believe you”.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 23:35:14 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 09:50:22 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto -2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 16:36:46 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] Trope
[ - ] Trope 0 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 00:08:01 ago (+1/-1)
They’re like vegans in this way.
South Park did a fantastic job making a religion of agnosticism which is an episode I have yet to watch.
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack -1 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 02:36:48 ago (+3/-4)
[ + ] GodDoesNotExist
[ - ] GodDoesNotExist 2 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 10:02:27 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 1 point 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 06:00:46 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack -3 points 2 monthsFeb 20, 2025 09:46:27 ago (+1/-4)
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 1 point 2 monthsFeb 21, 2025 06:58:03 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Eliack
[ - ] Eliack -1 points 2 monthsFeb 21, 2025 11:16:53 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] puremadness
[ - ] puremadness 1 point 2 monthsFeb 21, 2025 15:38:41 ago (+1/-0)*
Do you get a better seat?
Lets revisit this that day.
Your kind is see-through with limp convictions.
Who Sent Me to chastise you?
[ + ] dirtywhiteboy
[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 0 points 2 monthsFeb 21, 2025 18:05:02 ago (+0/-0)