Thinking like an atheist for a moment....

As usual, atheists are unable to defend their completely illogical beliefs and have to resort to invective as a defense never realizing that ad hominem comments are logical fallacies and provide even more proof of the illogic of the atheist belief system.


OMG!! Netti has a disciple cutting and pasting from his words :p How very predictable.
 
i think that you are, perhaps, projecting some of your own views upon others which do not share them in the first place. the term atheist indicates a lack of belief in deities, nothing more and nothing less. there is no belief system attached to the term though it is certainly possible to have a philosophical system which is atheist in orientation the terms are not equivalent.

You are quite mistaken. You have forgotten to factor in the reasons why atheists 'lack a belief in deities'. They believe that sense impressions represent some sort of reality. Consequently they believe in the supremacy of empiricism and its handmaidens reason, logic, language, space and time. They mistakenly believe themselves to be discrete beings. Part of their belief system is a disbelief in paranormal activity, in miracles, in the validity of non-linear learning styles, in the ability to acquire information in any way other than through empiricism. They tend to believe that consciousness is a biochemical process in the brain. They believe that religions postulate an individuated God. In addition, they demonstrate a lack of curiousity and an attachment to several logical fallacies, namely, over-generalization, argumentum ad nauseum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad verecundiam.


most atheists like to proclaim that they lack a belief in deities. atheists are humans, like are theists, and prone to the same fallacies and faulty thinking as any other. the only thing that makes one an atheist is a lack of belief in deity.

Of course, no religion postulates an individuated god. There are individual religionists who take a literal view of scripture and believe in an individuated god. Atheists are literalist fundamentalists who argue only with their own false notions of religion or with other fundamentalists of the religious variety.


at this point i have to presume that this is farce.

Denial and ridicule is the stock in trade of atheists and others who cannot defend their views.



i'm pretty sure that you're not sure what the term atheist means. it means there is no belief in deity one way or the other and thus we search not for that which is nonexistent.


Your own statement with its mention of 'nonexistent' clearly shows that atheism is not just a lack of belief in God but rather an active disbelief in God. Again, God is not individuated and therefore will not be known through an empirical search.
 
Organized atheism? Organized for self-control or organized with the aim to influence/control others? How about Evangelical Atheism? :p
I've noticed how Dawkinism closely resembles a religion--where the belief in God is replaced with the belief of 'No God.'

Evangelical Atheism. What a great description. In my associations with atheists they spend a great deal of time evangelizing themselves. They engage in group think and high five each other for doing so. They have the curious belief that the more times they repeat their illogical statements somehow that repetition makes those statements true. They protect their ignorance with a belief that those who disagree with them, especially religionists, are somehow dangerous.

Your comment on Dawkins is right on the money and points to the hubris of the atheist as their defining characteristic. They don't want someone else's religion, they want their own. If they get one and it has political power they will commit all the mistakes and crimes of which they accuse other religions only more so. Consider that they view childhood religious education to be a form of child abuse and then consider what they would do to those who 'abuse' their children in this way. Fortunately, atheism is a dead end.

They, of course, have an outreach form of evangelizing. They have their contemporary prophets - Sam Harris, David Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, A.C. Grayling. And their historical prophets - Hume, La Mettrie, Diderot, D'Alembert, and d'Holbach. They even attempt to subsume Deists such as Hobbes, Voltaire and some of the founders of the U.S. into the cult of atheism. And they have a political wing every ready to keep religion, and therefore morality, out of government and schools.
 
atheist is a term which simply indicates a lack of belief in deity. heck, as there are different flavors of theist (christian, muslim, hindu etc) there are different flavors of atheist, some atheists don't believe in any deity, some believe there are no creator deities and some believe that the deities of other religions don't exist. there are atheists that positively assert the nonexistence of deity (strong atheist) whilst others maintain there is no intersubjective evidence of deity and withold belief until such time (weak atheist) and probably a whole lot more that i don't know.
~v

This is an excellent reply. I am also atheist by this definition. I abandon such notions as a jewish god, various Christian gods or a muslim god. What I see in the majority who claim to own a god are mean spirited people and reflect a very mean god. It is not what I wish to be associated with. It is self talking, not a god.
Being raised catholic and loathing the lies I was told as a child, and living in a Jewish neighborhood for twenty years is more than enough gods I do however bend on a different branch with spirit and various possibilities for an afterlife. I have no problem with there being a god, though nothing farther would be discussed about it.
 
I find the whole Dawkins entourage thing a little strange. I mean, good for him, he's got groupies, but it just seems odd. I'm sure he enjoys it, though. I don't have much use for organized atheism. That's why I'm loathe to use the label. I do think that it functions somewhat like a religion at the (sort of) support group level. Kinda like how AA has a religious feel in a way. Maybe it's a substitute for the sense of identity one gets from the social aspect of organized religion. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can do without the "ism" part.

Chris

I like to hear Dawkins speak and view him as a comedian, His main argument being the same old evolution VS. creation. Yawn. His books are not special. I will miss Carlin because he was real trooper that, told it like it is and if you were offended, mute it and do not listen. I found him to be so serious and honest in his approach that you could not help but feel amused and delighted.
 
I like to hear Dawkins speak and view him as a comedian, His main argument being the same old evolution VS. creation. Yawn. His books are not special. I will miss Carlin because he was real trooper that, told it like it is and if you were offended, mute it and do not listen. I found him to be so serious and honest in his approach that you could not help but feel amused and delighted.

Hi LB, welcome to CR!

Yeah, I always loved Carlin. His face was so expressive! I miss him.

Chris
 
Namaste omprem,

thank you for the post.

omprem said:
You are quite mistaken.

perhaps, i've been mistaken about a great many things in my life thus far and it wouldn't be unusual to be mistaken about a great many more such consideration, however, doesn't cause me to have much worry.

You have forgotten to factor in the reasons why atheists 'lack a belief in deities'. They believe that sense impressions represent some sort of reality.

i know many atheists and am one myself yet the reason that you are providing is not my reason nor the reason of those that i dialog with that call themselves atheist. of course it is quite possible that there are atheists that are such for the very reason you suggest.

Consequently they believe in the supremacy of empiricism and its handmaidens reason, logic, language, space and time.

pretty much all beings rely upon reason, language and logic and spacetime requires no belief.

They mistakenly believe themselves to be discrete beings.

interestingly i've found the opposite to be true in that most atheists have a variety of views regarding the existence of self and their arising in a quantum universe.

Part of their belief system is a disbelief in paranormal activity, in miracles, in the validity of non-linear learning styles, in the ability to acquire information in any way other than through empiricism. They tend to believe that consciousness is a biochemical process in the brain. They believe that religions postulate an individuated God. In addition, they demonstrate a lack of curiousity and an attachment to several logical fallacies, namely, over-generalization, argumentum ad nauseum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad verecundiam.

such logical fallacies are prone to all beings irrespective of their religious orientation or lack thereof. in fact ones belief in deities seems to have no particular bearing on ones engagement in logical fallacies. the only thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities they may have widely disparate views on everything else.

Denial and ridicule is the stock in trade of atheists and others who cannot defend their views.

i choose to view your post as farce for otherwise it would be quite in breech of the Code of Conduct which you agreed to when you joined the forum. giving you the benefit of the doubt seems to be a fine way to go about it.

Your own statement with its mention of 'nonexistent' clearly shows that atheism is not just a lack of belief in God but rather an active disbelief in God. Again, God is not individuated and therefore will not be known through an empirical search.

you've confused my individual view with those of other beings which you've managed to do consistently through this thread. i do not understand why you find it so difficult to understand that the term atheist means lack of belief in deities and that a being which has that lack of belief may hold all manner of other beliefs which are not held in common by other atheists.

the simple fact of the matter is that atheists aren't like what you are portraying and you're not really keen to accept this. you've come to your conclusions and even were an atheist to explain that you've misunderstood their views you wouldn't believe them. i'm unclear what possible value such a view could have.

metta,

~v
 
Originally Posted by Tao_Equus Sweden is 80% atheist. What is wrong with Sweden?
Swedes have been found to have low prevalence rates for "belief in God": about 45%.
How Sweden became so secular.

More recently, in the 2005 Eurostat survey it was found that 53% of Swedes believe in "some sort of spirit or life force."

I've been unable to find any statistics pertaining to the prevalence of atheism among Swedes that specifically use "atheist" as a categorical classification for survey respondents.
 
Which is that you don't know what the f uck your talking about.

Have a nice day!

Chris

Ah, evasion and invective, the stock in trade of atheism. What a surprise. Your inability to defend or even articulate your beliefs suggests that even you know they cannot stand the light of day.
 
i know many atheists and am one myself yet the reason that you are providing is not my reason nor the reason of those that i dialog with that call themselves atheist. of course it is quite possible that there are atheists that are such for the very reason you suggest.

I suggest that you tell us why you are an atheist and I will show how that belief rests on the mistaken view that sense impression is reality. And I will point the rest of the logical and factual errors in basis of your belief system. But, of course, you won't do this because you already know the truth of what I say.



pretty much all beings rely upon reason, language and logic and spacetime requires no belief.

The plea of self-evidence is only convincing to those who are afraid or unable to examine their belief. You have just proved my contention that you and all atheists rely on sense impression as reality. In fact, sense impression is illusion. For a start, consider that the senses have narrow thresholds and are prone to failure and than any machinery designed to augment the senses suffers from the same limits.



interestingly i've found the opposite to be true in that most atheists have a variety of views regarding the existence of self and their arising in a quantum universe.

I'm sure that you mean quantum universes but never mind. It is interesting that the top quantum physicists have learned to move beyond the limits of reason and tap into the apparatus of their spiritual intuition and that they have similar visions and use similar language to the mystics of every other religion. It is only the plodders of physics and other religions that maintain a literalist approach to their field.



such logical fallacies are prone to all beings irrespective of their religious orientation or lack thereof.

This statement of yours is the very lazy logical fallacy of tu quoque in which you agree that atheism is riddled with logical fallacies but seek to divert attention from that fact by claiming that so do other religions. You provide no evidence that other religions do so. Nor do you seem to appreciate that being 'prone to logical errors' does not mean that one actually makes logical errors as the atheists do.


in fact ones belief in deities seems to have no particular bearing on ones engagement in logical fallacies.

There is no religion that postulates individuated gods. Plus religion is not a matter of belief but of direct experience of the Divine. Additionally, religion uses supra-rational, supra-logical means of accessing the Divine so the notion of logical fallacies does not apply. You just made three errors in one sentence.


the only thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities they may have widely disparate views on everything else.

The core basis of making those decisions including the one about a lack of belief in deities is common. And in error.



i choose to view your post as farce for otherwise it would be quite in breech of the Code of Conduct which you agreed to when you joined the forum. giving you the benefit of the doubt seems to be a fine way to go about it.

Pointing out the logical fallacies of atheists, which includes the fallacies of denial and ridicule, is fair game. Your implied threat is yet another logical fallacy. Oh, yes, I should inform you that I have NEVER responded to threats in the way that the threatener hoped.

It is interesting to note that not just you but others in this group use similar threats and illogic (and not just toward me) when they run out of reasonable responses. It is quite childish really.


you've confused my individual view with those of other beings which you've managed to do consistently through this thread. i do not understand why you find it so difficult to understand that the term atheist means lack of belief in deities and that a being which has that lack of belief may hold all manner of other beliefs which are not held in common by other atheists.

Wrong. Atheism means many things in addition to a lack of belief in gods. But atheists are loathe to admit that because then they would have to examine and change those beliefs because they are based on logical and/or factual error. Your insistence that atheism means only a lack of belief in gods is denial, pure and simple. And it doesn't work.

Second, your defense rests on the additional logical error of equivocation in that your reference to atheists having many beliefs not in common with each other conflates and confuses beliefs related to atheism and beliefs having nothing to do with atheism. One atheist may believe that summer is the best time while another may not but the belief or disbelief that summer is the best time has nothing to do with the many common but mistaken beliefs they share as atheists

the simple fact of the matter is that atheists aren't like what you are portraying and you're not really keen to accept this. you've come to your conclusions and even were an atheist to explain that you've misunderstood their views you wouldn't believe them.

You are merely restating your above flawed point and its fallacies remain those of denial and equivocation.

i'm unclear what possible value such a view could have.

The truth will set you free. Recognizing the lack of reason and logic in atheism (despite its claim to be depend on reason and logic) will allow you and other atheists to leave this dead end and regain a connection with your true nature.
 
....the mistaken view that sense impression is reality.
Recognizing the world you live in is not a denial of reality but the awareness of if. What good is shapeless sophistry in it? What is a man without his senses? He is crazy.
 
Namaste omprem,

thank you for the post.

I suggest that you tell us why you are an atheist

i practice the Buddha Dharma.

The plea of self-evidence is only convincing to those who are afraid or unable to examine their belief. You have just proved my contention that you and all atheists rely on sense impression as reality. In fact, sense impression is illusion. For a start, consider that the senses have narrow thresholds and are prone to failure and than any machinery designed to augment the senses suffers from the same limits.

that which is self evident is, as the term implies, self evident and requires no appeal for it's self evidentness to be self evident.

if your contention is that atheists use reason and logic then i have no particular issue with such an assertion.

my practice is geared along the lines of realizing the illusary nature of reality so i'd tend to agree with you that such is the case. though in all fairness all that i can confirm is my own views unless you insist in extrapolating my views to all beings in which case you may as well extrapolate my favorite ice cream flavor to them as well. vanilla, btw.

This statement of yours is the very lazy logical fallacy of tu quoque in which you agree that atheism is riddled with logical fallacies but seek to divert attention from that fact by claiming that so do other religions. You provide no evidence that other religions do so. Nor do you seem to appreciate that being 'prone to logical errors' does not mean that one actually makes logical errors as the atheists do.

sure but then as it is such that all beings engage in such irrespective of their religious orientation or lack thereof it seems so banal as to not be worth mentioning. as for evidence of such logical fallacies one only need read this very thread to find them, it's not terribly difficult to do so.

There is no religion that postulates individuated gods.

how do you know this to be so?

Plus religion is not a matter of belief but of direct experience of the Divine. Additionally, religion uses supra-rational, supra-logical means of accessing the Divine so the notion of logical fallacies does not apply. You just made three errors in one sentence.

that would only be so if i accepted your premises which is clearly not the case. religion is well defined in the dictionary and certainly includes beliefs, it is all well and good to apply ones own special understanding of a term but then i'm sure you know what that particular fallacy is called, yes?

The core basis of making those decisions including the one about a lack of belief in deities is common. And in error.

you cannot demonstrate it to be so and the atheists that responded in this thread have told you that you are incorrect and that they only share a non-belief in deity and they have come to this view through a variety of methods. then again, it doesn't seem that you've actually much interest in dialog.

Pointing out the logical fallacies of atheists, which includes the fallacies of denial and ridicule, is fair game. Your implied threat is yet another logical fallacy. Oh, yes, I should inform you that I have NEVER responded to threats in the way that the threatener hoped.

it's not a fallacy nor a threat it's the fact of the matter. if you cannot abide by the Code of Conduct that you agreed to when you joined the forum you are welcome to go to another online community. if you are unclear about what you may be doing that is skirting your agreement i suggest you read it once more.

It is interesting to note that not just you but others in this group use similar threats and illogic (and not just toward me) when they run out of reasonable responses. It is quite childish really.

my concern is with the logical fallacy which you are thoroughly engaged in the popular ad hom. it's against the forum rules and as you clearly know what logical fallacies are you are intentionally violating your word of honor to be provocative. you are certainly free to do so but you are not free to do so here.

Wrong. Atheism means many things in addition to a lack of belief in gods.

nope, it's absolutely correct. that is *all* it means and you can even tell by parsing the term "a = without" "theos = God". it really doesn't concern me overly much if you want to apply your own definition to the term and argue against it.

The truth will set you free. Recognizing the lack of reason and logic in atheism (despite its claim to be depend on reason and logic) will allow you and other atheists to leave this dead end and regain a connection with your true nature.

i agree that the truth has the potential to Liberate a being, you and i simply disagree on what that truth entails and what Liberation is.

metta,

~v
 
Back
Top