My question for atheists.

Post Reply New Topic

You believe green ideas don't sleep in uniformity. Interesting. Welcome to madness, how is it?

The point I was making, is that a non-concept doesn't require a belief. It is unintelligible. A belief cannot be formed even if you wanted one. And for me, on a very personal level, "god" is a non-concept. And because of that, I hold no belief of that nature.

You can mock logic all you want to. That will reflect on your character, so be careful doing so.

As I said, I don't expect you to understand my point of view completely, but I do have every right to hold it. And your denial of my stand on the issue is insulting. I don't care enough to make a huge deal out of it. I'm not going to mock you, or try and show you how small minded I think you are being. If I cared enough, that is exactly what I would do. All I ask, is that you refrain, refrain from dismissing my perspective, and those who share it (there are many), as not possible. I accept you have your perspective, despite thinking it is incorrect, please accept that I have mine, even if you don't like it.

Ps. Since you believe green ideas don't sleep in uniformity, I have to ask...how do you think they sleep?

No, its not. Its not being afraid of the unknown and admitting to uncertainty. Children are, in fact, incapable of this.

Although the charge was technically atheism, this was the chief idea for which Socrates was executed: he claimed he was wiser than men who proclaimed their wisdom, yet knew little, because he was aware of his ignorance. He embarrassed a number of important individuals with questions in this regard, and so, because they could neither refute his logic nor tolerate the truth, they had him executed.

No, it isn't. Knowledge is defined as what is distinct from belief. This is the essence of the whole of epistomology.

...Note to self: Be more literal.

God, God, God. Don't ever get sucked in to an argument with an atheist. You will never ever ever ever win.

It is the way we like it. It's the way the world turns. A person always wants to win whether they are religious or not.

Lol, you know what I mean I am an atheist, by the way.

God, god, what does it mean? Just don't argue with atheists. We are always right.

How does this relate to madness? You gave me a notion to accept or not, and I didn't.



I understand what you were inferring, God is a concept, for reasons I mentioned. A belief can't be formed only on a notion that you haven't been exposed to. You can't declare the belief in God a non-concept because I'm pretty sure you've been exposed to the concept of God on a few occasions. Thus you can't say you have the mind of an infant.



I'm not mocking logic at all. Maybe it's a mockery to your logic. But I am speaking the truth to the matter.



I never claimed I understood your point of view, but if you weren't born yesterday and don't live under a rock, you know what the concept of God entails, and you have came to a position, belief, or persuasion to what you think. It's not a non-position, non-belief, or non-persuasion, because you've been exposed to it, and you have no choice, but to think one way or the other, for your own reasons, which you have stated is your logic, and there you have your gospel.



I believe they don't because there doesn't seem to be a benefit to believing that is indeed so.

Holding a belief in the negative about unintelligible nonsense is insane, because to do so, you must accept that that unintelligible nonsense is a concept, to form a belief in the negative.



You do not understand. The word "god" holds no meaning to me. In my mind that word is nonsensical. It is devoid meaning. It lacks a cohesive or intelligible concept. Thus I have no beliefs regarding whatever nonsense people are trying to imply with the word "god".



I own no logic, I only use it. If you mock logic, you mock logic... don't back peddle.
I laughed out loud at this underlined sentence. It's pretty funny when I visualized it. I know what you meant to write though, and disagree.



I have been trying to explain, and you refuse to acknowledge what I am telling you. I have not been exposed to a concept of god, not one that is intelligible, logically cohesive, or meaningful. Maybe after I am exposed to a concept of god that I can process, I will hold a belief about it...until then, I cannot have a belief in that regard.


I was curious if you were even paying attention, so I changed a word in my nonsensical string to see if you would notice. You did not. You don't even know what you are disbelieving. How can you be expected to understand nuanced and carefully exacting thought patterns if you don't even notice something as simple as the difference between "sound" and "ideas"...

Last I checked, those are two vastly different things.

So no...I don't expect you to understand what I am talking about. But even if you don't understand it, you should still accept that I know my mind better than you ever could. And I am telling you I hold no belief in regard to the word god. There are many people who share this lack of belief. And no matter how much you want to marginalize or dismiss that perspective, it remains. All you might accomplish with your arrogant attitude is to provoke, and that is likely the last thing you want. (And you let your ignorance hang out, for everyone to see)

LOL, OK, Let me consider your concept that "Holding a belief in the negative about unintelligible nonsense is insane, because to do so, you must accept that that unintelligible nonsense is a concept, to form a belief in the negative"

I'll have to believe that it isn't true, because I'm not insane, am I?

Quit putting so much FAITH in logic, the world doesn't work on it, unless you can prove to me that we live inside a programmed reality. Can you find the source code? What about a programmer?






Well, it should. You live in this world, and so you are cursed to have some opinion about God. It's not just a void in your brain. I think you do have an opinion about God but you won't admit it. I think you believe God doesn't exist because "It lacks a cohesive or intelligible concept" and even though that's not true, you've decided that to be your reason you believe God to not exist.





When someone tells you an idea or concept, your brain has to make a decision to believe it could be true, or it could be false. It compares the notion to your past experiences and knowledge and after you've considered it, you come to a decision either way. It's not a "void" in judgement. That would be like saying it was the same as if the person didn't mention the concept to you at all.



Not possible, there are many concepts of God, you should have at least one concept to work with.



It doesn't matter, your concepts lack substance and use, and are pretty one-dimensional. And I knew they were going to be ahead of time because you're trying to make a comparison between your nonsensical ideas and the concept of God. So what does it matter whether I noticed it or not?



I expect you can understand what I'm saying, I believe it, and I have faith in you.

You will realize that you do indeed believe, someday.

You can do it!

Hey, newsflash since this is your favorite way to troll every topic you walk into: so. What?

No, seriously. So what? Atheism (as opposed to anti-theism) is a lack of belief. If infants, rocks, cats, and expended shotgun shells are all technically atheists by this definition, what does it matter? Bones are 'hard'; rocks are also 'hard'. A human might be described as 'cold', meaning a lack of empathy or concern. If that expended shotgun shell also lacks empathy or concern, is it not also 'cold'? There's tons of things humans do that you can technically attribute to the inanimate or the incapable, and I don't see you raising a freaking stink about any of those. Bring a better game to this argument or freaking drop it.

I've lost all patience with this BS.

Bones are 'hard' and rocks are also 'hard' Sure, but why is that?

Are you saying that atheists can be atheists without a reason, like they just decide things all the time with nothing to back it up?

Is it magic?

OH YOU!

No, but thank you for again failing to get the point in the most obnoxious manner possibly available to you. What I'm saying is that you don't need to do anything to be an atheist. You don't have to decide that one or more gods don't exist, you don't have to take a stance about religion. You probably do anyway (human nature being what it is), but all you need to get your membership card is to not believe in a deity. If aforementioned lack of action is shared by the inanimate, so what? I never had religion in the first place myself, and when I was first exposed to it (on a school bus in the 2nd grade) my response was, "Oh. No, I don't believe in that." I didn't say that I felt it was false (as I now do) or that it was bad or otherwise take any stance on it whatsoever - I just didn't believe in it. They'd failed to convince me to take up a positive stance.

Now, what you're constantly talking about (believing that there is not a god or gods) is anti-theism; the active (positive) stance that deific power does not exist in the universe. If you're going to split goddamn hairs, split them correctly, aye?

Wow, I think this guy is actually mentally incapable of grasping the concept of "I don't know".

Proving once again that we humans are, on the whole, a primitive species.

Refusing either to deny or affirm a proposition which is beyond empirical affirmation or denial is merely to assert that the proposition is blithering nonsense.

The assertion "There is a God who Created the Heavens and the Earth" is a nonsensical dish of word salad. If the proposition cannot be addressed (1) either empirically or (2) as a provable or disprovable mathematical proposition then it is pure nonsense. Most of what we utter is nonsense.

ruveyn

In a hilarious case of irony, including that statement (by your definition).

Just like a baby, or a stick. We aren't talking about hot or cold, or tall or short, we're talking about a position someone takes, that has the mind to do so, after they are exposed to a concept.

You are saying that you are comparable to a rock, but that's false. You aren't a rock, or a stick, or an infant, or Tarzan living in the trees.

The concept has been exposed to you in many instances, and you have no choice but to belief either way because you can't say for sure.



You can only get that membership that you describe if you were born on a primitive island where everyone around you defecated as you walked.



The difference is that you have a mind to come to a position with. Maybe rocks have minds, what do you think?

"Oh. No, I don't believe in that." doesn't presume that you don't believe in the opposite. You have no choice, if you don't believe it to be true, then you believe it to be false.

What's the differences in saying "I don't believe in that" and "I feel it is false". I'm not seeing what the difference is.

Just because you don't have a positive affirmation one way doesn't suppose that you don't have a positive affirmation the other way.

"I don't believe it and that is my non-position" Is what I hear when people declare their atheist to be a non-belief. Now that doesn't make sense!



There is no such thing as positive or negative atheism. There is only atheism and it's the belief that God does not exist, but the reasons for believing such differs from atheist to atheist.

Knowledge doesn't describe an atheist or theist. If I had knowledge of something, it's absurd to merely believe.

"I believe 1 +1=2"

Now doesn't sound silly to you? It should.