Belief is Opinion

[Drew_2013]

Is that the best you can do post a picture of your face?

[Sinfidel]

Who could look at this and NOT immediately conclude it is proof of a kind, loving, intelligent designer?

[ghoulslime]

Drew_2013 wrote

Is that the best you can do post a picture of your face?

Wowser! The old "I know you are, but what am I?" argument! Powerful stuff, assclown!

So, go ahead and present us with the evidence for your imaginary god! We hunger for your assclown fare!

[ghoulslime]

Sinfidel wrote

Who could look at this and NOT immediately conclude it is proof of a kind, loving, intelligent designer?

I suspect that if we start peeling the layers off of this new theist toy, we may just discover that he rejects the Theory of Evolution, and thinks we all came from Adam's rib.

By the way, thank you, imaginary god, for making Ebola!

[ghoulslime]

My belief that invisible leprechauns live inside of my belly button has the exact same possibility that they don't, innit?

Assclowns of the world unite!

[Sinfidel]

Drew_2013 wrote

Hello all,

I personally don't say as a matter of fact God exists...I say its my opinion we owe our existence of the universe and humans to God. The only burden I have to form an opinion is a simple preponderance of evidence more than against. In regards to the theist atheist debate, atheism isn't in a vacuum. Neither the theist or the atheist denies the universe and sentient humans exist, the disagreement is over whether a Creator caused such or it was the result of a mindless process that fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

Real True Atheists have proof of the non-existence of God. Should you develop enough mental clarity to overcome your "Faith" delusion, you too can become privy to the proof and truth, as disclosed in:

[Sinfidel]

ghoulslime wrote

My belief that invisible leprechauns live inside of my belly button has the exact same possibility that they don't, innit?

No! Belly button lint is evidence of Leprechauns living in there.

Mr Barker has been collecting his own navel fluff in jars every day since 1984. The achievement has won him a place in the Guinness Book of Records for the world's largest collection of navel lint.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ton-fluff.html

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

The term atheism has in many circles has come to be known as a lack of belief in God or gods.

Okay, sure. I can go with that.

The letter a in the word atheism means not or without, in this case without God or gods,

I believe, because of its Greek orogins, it specifically means 'not'. So atheist means 'not theist'.

just as the word asexual means reproduction not or without sex.

It means not sexual.

But these are neither here nor there, as the strict definitions aren't really how we colloquially use them. I simply want to stress that specific meaning of atheist above to reference later.

The problem with the word atheism being redefined as meaning lack of belief in God or gods is the following:
First you might as well drop the a in atheism since it no longer means what it means. You might as well categorize yourself not as a ‘weak’ atheist but a weak theist.

Well, no. Because as you noted, it means 'not theist'. We're not theists. It fits perfectly.
As for the more colloquial meaning that is attributed to it of 'lacking a belief in god or gods', that is irrelevant.
The idea of atheist is to seperate the ideology from the theist ideology (hence 'not theists'). It would be ridiculous to identify ourselves as theists whilst simultaneously trying to seperate ourselves from that ideology.

Ironically it means you share more in common with theists than you think.

We both get patronising comments from ill-informed "agnostics"?

Theists don’t believe God doesn’t exist and as a weak atheist you don’t deny God exists either. You evidently not only lack belief in Gods existence… you also lack belief in Gods non-existence. Apparently there isn’t enough evidence to convince you God does exist and lack of evidence to convince you God doesn’t exist. In essence you have no opinion in regards to this matter.

See above. If you want, I'd be happy to go into a bit more detail with you on how this is incorrect and mis-informed, but I will refrain in this post.

It’s pointless to debate the existence of God since my opponent in this case doesn’t deny the existence of God either so what is there to debate?

A lot. Possibility vs probability, for one.

Lastly, I think I think the lack of belief gambit is just that…a debating technique to avoid making any claims and having to defend atheism as you say theists should defend theism.

Sure. I get that. It's wrong, but I can definitely see how people would think that.

[ghoulslime]

Sinfidel wrote

Real True Atheists have proof of the non-existence of God. Should you develop enough mental clarity to overcome your "Faith" delusion, you too can become privy to the proof and truth, as disclosed in:

You should not reveal the book unto him, until he is a true initiate! Now he shall have to be cleansed with the holy fluids of the resurrected staff of divinity!

[ghoulslime]

Sinfidel wrote

No! Belly button lint is evidence of Leprechauns living in there.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ton-fluff.html

Sweet Patrick McQuiggan of Killkerny! This man is a blessed patron saint of belly button leprechauns!

[Drew_2013]

Real True Atheists have proof of the non-existence of God. Should you develop enough mental clarity to overcome your "Faith" delusion, you too can become privy to the proof and truth, as disclosed in:

You should spread this Gospel to the weak atheists who need to overcome their lack of belief in the non-existence of God.

I believe, because of its Greek orogins, it specifically means 'not'. So atheist means 'not theist'.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean 'not theist' what it would mean is not what theists subscribe to

Theism
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

That would then mean not belief in the existence of God or gods and especially not God who is the creator of the universe. Why else would you state your not a theist other than you reject what theists believe?

Well, no. Because as you noted, it means 'not theist'. We're not theists. It fits perfectly.
As for the more colloquial meaning that is attributed to it of 'lacking a belief in god or gods', that is irrelevant.
The idea of atheist is to seperate the ideology from the theist ideology (hence 'not theists'). It would be ridiculous to identify ourselves as theists whilst simultaneously trying to seperate ourselves from that ideology.

It is ridiculous to call yourself an atheist (which most people would say is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God) but for the sake of avoiding making a claim redefine it as merely a lack of belief. Moreover its (IMO) an intellectual dodge. The belief we are the result of a Creator is to the question why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? Is our existence the result of a mindless process that didn't intend our existence or is our existence the result of planning and design? Someone already said that an extraordinary explanation requires extraordinary evidence. What ordinary explanation accounts for a universe coming into existence in the first place and then happens to have the conditions necessary for life to exist? I know in the past some atheists have suggested the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. Isn't that rather extraordinary? A more popular explanation is this is one of an infinitude of universe that happened upon the conditions to create life.

[ghoulslime]

Drew_2013 wrote

You should spread this Gospel to the weak atheists who need to overcome their lack of belief in the non-existence of God.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean 'not theist' what it would mean is not what theists subscribe to

Theism
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

That would then mean not belief in the existence of God or gods and especially not God who is the creator of the universe. Why else would you state your not a theist other than you reject what theists believe?

It is ridiculous to call yourself an atheist (which most people would say is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God) but for the sake of avoiding making a claim redefine it as merely a lack of belief. Moreover its (IMO) an intellectual dodge. The belief we are the result of a Creator is to the question why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? Is our existence the result of a mindless process that didn't intend our existence or is our existence the result of planning and design? Someone already said that an extraordinary explanation requires extraordinary evidence. What ordinary explanation accounts for a universe coming into existence in the first place and then happens to have the conditions necessary for life to exist? I know in the past some atheists have suggested the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. Isn't that rather extraordinary? A more popular explanation is this is one of an infinitude of universe that happened upon the conditions to create life.

Assclown: One who thinks there is an invisible god living in Uranus.

[ghoulslime]

Drew_2013 wrote

What ordinary explanation accounts for a universe coming into existence in the first place and then happens to have the conditions necessary for life to exist?

Assclown fallacy for today - God of the Gaps

Come on assclown! You can do better than that!

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean 'not theist' what it would mean is not what theists subscribe to

Theism
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

That would then mean not belief in the existence of God or gods and especially not God who is the creator of the universe. Why else would you state your not a theist other than you reject what theists believe?

Close. It would mean "not theist" and "not theism". But you nearly had it. You also weirdly added a whole bunch of extra 'not's in there. I'm assuming that was some sort of attempt to make it look as grammatically incorrect as possible in some sort of confused attempt to pretend that somehow makes your point.


But regardless, how does this in any way effect my point (which you seem to be backing up?)

It is ridiculous to call yourself an atheist (which most people would say is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God) but for the sake of avoiding making a claim redefine it as merely a lack of belief.

Why? I do not have a theistic belief. Therefore I am not theist. Therefore I am atheist. What else would I call myself?

I supposed anti theist could work, but has negative overtones that I dislike. How about non-theist?

Regardless of which term you use, the results (and my not having a theistic belief) remains exactly the same.

Moreover its (IMO) an intellectual dodge.

So because I don't believe other people's claims, and will happily tell them why, somehow I'm dodging?

No.

The belief we are the result of a Creator is to the question why is there something rather than nothing?

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

How did our existence come about?

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

Is our existence the result of a mindless process that didn't intend our existence or is our existence the result of planning and design?

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

Someone already said that an extraordinary explanation requires extraordinary evidence.

Someone also said "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Both are good quotes.

What ordinary explanation accounts for a universe coming into existence in the first place and then happens to have the conditions necessary for life to exist?

So are you actually suggesting that if we can't give you an answer, by default your answer must be correct?
Are you really going to go with that?
Do I really have to explain to you why that is wrong?

I know in the past some atheists have suggested the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing.

Okay. Good for them.

Isn't that rather extraordinary? A more popular explanation is this is one of an infinitude of universe that happened upon the conditions to create life.

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

[Sinfidel]

ghoulslime wrote

Sweet Patrick McQuiggan of Killkerny! This man is a blessed patron saint of belly button leprechauns!

How I envy this man his rightful place in the annals of science!

Mr Barker has been collecting his own navel fluff in jars every day since 1984. The achievement has won him a place in the Guinness Book of Records for the world's largest collection of navel lint.

My epitaph can only claim that I was a minor annoyance to a few Theologues.