Does God Suffer From Vanity?

[ddunbar]

Again, my ghost is at it:

Agreed upon definition of atheism by atheists in America:

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

Which of course follows all dictionary definitions of the word Atheism: (summed) -

The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

A breakdown of atheism and what it measn can also be found here: (an atheist website)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists." There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the nonexistence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

No such definitions accepted by organized and respected atheists would include babies.

Sorry Stu, but you'll have to take up your argument with your brethren - and stop blaming theists for its non-acceptence.

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:

Sorry Stu, but you'll have to take up your argument with your brethren - and stop blaming theists for its non-acceptence.

ddunbar's Ghost,
You really should read the links before clipping them. Reading the first few lines from one of them shows......

"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not


You know, just like a baby has no idea.

Please pass it on to ddunbar...

Merry Christmas

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

ddunbar's Ghost,
You really should read the links before clipping them. Reading the first few lines from one of them shows......

"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not


You know, just like a baby has no idea.

Please pass it on to ddunbar...

Merry Christmas

LOL.

But... but...

The same link and same paragraph you excerpted
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." from also says:

"It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."

Which is what a baby would have... "simple ignorance." That voids the use of atheism.

And for the second paragraph you excepted: Disbelief in a proposition, the proposition that God exists, requires understanding of the proposition in question in the first place in order to accept it as true or not, or to be able to determine that you can't determine if it's true or not. Hence the solid atheist argument, "there's no proof of gods." Therefore, an atheist simply doesn't believe the proposition is true because there's nothing to determine its validity. i.e. it can't be falsified. And this is why atheist can't be thought of as a religion. They don't have faith that there is no God. They simply don't believe the propr that there is from lack of evidence.

Babies haven't that capacity.

Sorry Stu. I read them carefully.

And here I thought cherry picking was something only theists do...

Happy holidays.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from acronym:

That's entirely specious, and you know it.

The singular differentiation, is there is nothing in the works of those individuals, that can compare in any way to the various religious texts, calling for, quite specifically, the bloody mass murder of anyone who disagrees with those texts.
Big difference, i think.

Not one of those philosophers, not one of those scientists, not one of those PEOPLE held up a text containing a recipe for genocide, mass murder or even CLOSE.

Replies?
Forgedabout it, religion is .....immune, sacrosanct. And its bollocks.

LOL

Your best answer is changing the subject. I can give you an example of a person who had a mass suicide long before you were born. Then what will your rebuttal be ?

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:
The same link and same paragraph you excerpted
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." from also says:

word play ddunbar, word play....

..... "also says".... does not eliminate the previous definition in some magic way.


I agree with other definitions for atheist/atheism in their context too. It is of course obvious such understandings do not disbar the primary one as there is no contradiction.

They all apply in the varying states and sets of circumstances to do with human existence and experiences.


The baby does not have to do anything. It simply must have no-theism to be without it: a-theist.
Any other addition states or conditions or nuances or semantics are additional to that primary condition or state.

Seeing it's 'that time of year again', I won't suggest the baby jesus was atheist.
Will that do!??

 

[El OchoCinco]

Of course GOD exists...

If not, who would Jessica Alba call out to passionately when I am making sweet love to her

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from volente_00:

So according to this if 90% believe in existence of GOD then you should believe them ?

If the mainstream scientific community presents irrefutable and reproducible evidence of a deity or "God," or even just a theory in that vein that is best supported by the factual evidence at hand subject to rigorous peer review, then I will certainly take notice. Until then, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Excuse me, but what a crock.

You no doubt have lots of beliefs that are not the product of "mainstream scientific community presents irrefutable and reproducible evidence."

If you actually do trade, then each trade, each speculation, requires a positive belief in success, but lacks your requirement suggested above.

Just come clean TK9, and admit that you are a bitter failed theist...

Why not speculate positively about God?

You non God position is just a speculation, but it is not really the product of science, but rather it is born of the bitter pill of failed theism and bitterness toward the Church.

Or is all this a product of some bad incident with a Priest in some dark corner of the pew...

Quote from Thunderdog:

If the mainstream scientific community presents irrefutable and reproducible evidence of a deity or "God," or even just a theory in that vein that is best supported by the factual evidence at hand subject to rigorous peer review, then I will certainly take notice. Until then, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

word play ddunbar, word play....

..... "also says".... does not eliminate the previous definition in some magic way.


I agree with other definitions for atheist/atheism in their context too. It is of course obvious such understandings do not disbar the primary one as there is no contradiction.

They all apply in the varying states and sets of circumstances to do with human existence and experiences.


The baby does not have to do anything. It simply must have no-theism to be without it: a-theist.
Any other addition states or conditions or nuances or semantics are additional to that primary condition or state.

Seeing it's 'that time of year again', I won't suggest the baby jesus was atheist.
Will that do!??

LOL.

Wordplay?

OK, one mo' time:

"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

1. Atheism is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. (agreed, yes?)

2. What is this absence? Deliberate choice or inherent inability to believe religious teachings. (agreed, yes?)

3. What this absence is not: Simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Logic and reading comprehension says: Atheism is a deliberate rejection of the belief in Gods. It is also an inherent inability to believe religious teachings. But it is not ignorance of religious teachings.

If atheism is not simply ignorance of religious teachings, something a baby would be "guilty" of, then a baby is not an atheist according to the definition given by infidels.org. (among other respected atheist sites.)

But you might say, "oh but what about inherent inability to believe? Surely a baby inherently can't believe."

But here you're wrong and contradicting yourself from prior posts because a baby would also be ignorant of religious beliefs because of its inherent non-cognitive state which prevents it from even comprehending such ideas. It can't believe or reject because it can't comprehend.

And that's what "It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings" means. And the author was erudite enough to put that there to void the possible irresponsible use of the term atheist. He/she/they are meaning to omit such individuals as babies, agnostics, Buddhist, or the theoretical ignorant of any religion. They are saying that one must know of theism in order to find that they reject it(disbelieve) or just can't come to believe it.

Hey, don't try to convince me. Convince your brethren. There are many atheists (leading, prominent ones in fact) that do not agree on your take and are in fact, insulted by it.

Curious that you didn't address the post from evilbible.com

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Excuse me, but what a crock.

You no doubt have lots of beliefs that are not the product of "mainstream scientific community presents irrefutable and reproducible evidence."

If you actually do trade, then each trade, each speculation, requires a positive belief in success, but lacks your requirement suggested above.

Just come clean TK9, and admit that you are a bitter failed theist...

Why not speculate positively about God?

You non God position is just a speculation, but it is now born of the bitter pill of failed theism and bitterness toward the Church.

Or is all this a product of some bad incident with a Priest in some dark corner of the pew...

Why is it that angels always sing when you post?

Your reference to trading in the above context betrays your general ignorance. Big surprise. As I understand it, a scientist seeks to disprove a hypothesis before he actually becomes comfortable with it. While a generally positive belief in success can be a motivating factor, I would think that a specifically positive belief in success is not a healthy bias when conducting scientific testing.

Trading can be conducted with a reasonably fine edge, allowing for the law of large numbers to prevail. Naturally, a more robust edge is preferable. I would think, however, that scientific certainty, or even confidence, requires a substantially higher watermark.

Don't like the "message," do you? Any more of your "ad hominem" for me, you self-righteous troll?