Hmm, turns out there’s even more in this can of worms than I first thought …
And of course, there’s the omission of this from the Wikipedia page:
Looks like the usual ex recto apologetics is beong exposed as a sham again …
3 Likes
I don’t see how those claims are objectively any different at all.
1 Like
Well, despite the histrionics and hissy-fits, convoluted definitions and vacillating attributes, protestations, and objections, they are not. Rather they are, for all practical purposes, interchangeable.
.
.
Edit (say 10 abracadabra’s, and think no more)
1 Like
It’s in any dictionary, and this reflects the broadest or common usage, and as was explained this definition is 100% inclusive of all atheists, the narrower definition you’re peddling to troll with is not.
Atheism
noun
- disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Wikipedia
*"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Nonbelievers contend that atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and that everyone is born without beliefs in deities; therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism."*
Definition
“Atheism is commonly defined as the absence of belief that any deities exist. Implicit atheism is “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” and explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of belief. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist.”
1 Like
No. @Calilasseia’s right. The very definition of atheism is rejection of current (and past, I guess) claims to deity and if you know nothing else about a person than them being an atheist there’s nothing else you can determine about them.
To give a simple example (a question), Nik is an atheist what can you tell me about this person?
UK Atheist
He is fat, lives in the North Pole, and likes to wear red. He raises reindeer. He hires elves to make toys in his workshop. He has magical powers and can fly through the night in a magical sled. He can slide down chimneys. He keeps a magical list of who is naughty and who is nice. He rewards nice little boys and girls by putting candy in their socks and gifts under a tree. (This was so easy! Let’s do another.)
1 Like
Hi guys. I’ve read many (but not all) of the posts in this thread . . . and I find several things to be very confusing about supposed “proofs” of God’s existence, and part of this may be because I’m autistic and I don’t see the world in the same way that everyone else does.
First, I hear apologists often mention our “objective, innate moral sense of right and wrong” that must come from God.
How come this innate moral sense doesn’t kick in all the time when I shop at someplace like Walmart where I’m patronizing a store that sells products made from child labor overseas? Why are we destroying the environment, killing whales, and destroying God’s Creation without the slightest pang on conscience? Where is this innate moral sense?
Second, if the Universe is “fine-tuned” for life, then why is more than 99.9999% of it uninhabitable? We can’t exist on the surfaces of stars, or in the vast, empty gulfs between galaxies (as it’s hard to imagine sustaining life in a very hard vacuum near absolute zero . . . I mean where would resources come from?), so how is the Universe fine-tuned for life?
Do I drastically misunderstand their points because of my autism?
Any clarification would be appreciated.
Thank you.
2 Likes
Because it is non-existant.
Because it is not fine-tuned.
Hope this helps!
2 Likes
Thank you Cog . . . but I didn’t communicate well. Why do people believe this shit when all you have to do is think for about 5 minutes to see that it’s wrong?
1 Like
In the context of moral sense that must come from a god, I find the above makes more sense if you change it to second person plural, i.e. “How come this innate moral sense doesn’t kick in all the time when they shop at someplace like Walmart where they’re patronizing a store that sells products made from child labor overseas?”
However, a reply from the religious that I have seen all to often is that god meant for humans to have dominion over animals and the earth, thus it is perfectly OK to seemingly overuse resources because god would never let resources run out and would never allow a climate run-off to kill off her precious perfect creatures. Which scores 11 out of 10 on both the blind belief scale and the egoism scale.
Because it is not. We are here because the local conditions on our planet happen to be conducive for our kind of life, not because the conditions were made for life to exist. Or, put another way: the conditions in the universe are not adapted to life, but life has found a way to adapt to the local conditions.
No, I don’t think you do.
1 Like
Yep! I did it in just one.
1 Like
Blimey, you think you know someone…what’s a name eh…
Yeah it’s a circular reasoning fallacy they like to trot out. our morality is also subjective, not objective, this would also be the case even if they could demonstrate it came from a deity.
Good question, the obvious answer is that what we call moral are subjective choices we make, and they’re relative as well. This one is easy to test, is murdering babies immoral? if the answers yes then the deity in the bible is an immoral monster, or you’re about to hear another special pleading fallacy.
Fine tuned is a metaphor scientists use, like evolutionary biologists saying something like an eye has the appearance of design.
No, religious apologetics is relentlessly disingenuous, thus the kind of contradictions you are highlighting in their rationale.
Exactly, the apologetics is like insisting a puddle must be designed, because the hole fits the water perfectly and vice versa.
Thinking can be entirely subjective, if you start with an immutable belief, then bend everything to it, then the thinking process is largely redundant as far as the result is concerned.
1 Like
Damn! That’s uncanny … you must be a telepath or something! 
UK Atheist
1 Like
Because they don’t think critically. Most of them were brought up in their parent’s religion from birth and experienced various forms of indoctrination at home and at church. There’s lots of peer pressure to remain among the faithful. There’s the fear of death that’s offset by promises of eternal life for those who believe, and if that doesn’t work, there’s the threat of eternal fire in hell.
3 Likes
Your points make sense . . . although I sincerely wish that we had progressed beyond the point where a threat of hellfire vs. eternal paradise carries enough weight to justify violence, bigotry, and political chaos.
The older I get, the more I lose faith in humanity. I don’t want to become a nasty, antisocial, cantankerous old curmugeon . . . but that seems to be where I’m heading.
HEY! Don’t pick on my frineds. Old Man Shouts has earned every antisocial, cantankerous, curmugeon quality he owns! We love him just the way he is. A real fossilized dinoturd in the rough. I do miss that trike he once had though.
3 Likes
And I revel in it! Even cantankerous old people (and some young ones) see me and say" Hey! Who’s that old curmudgeon?"
And yes, I miss my trike. My back decided to protest for a day at least every time I rode her so, after Bluey ( mobility scooter) I now have Sylvie, a larger scooter with more power and range. So I can spread my great brand of cantankerism further! Life is good!
2 Likes
I have not lost faith in humanity.
I think, as a species, we are maturing. It is important to look at a long timeline and not at individuals.
For example, up until just a couple hundred years ago, owning another human being was accepted, perhaps, worldwide. Is that the case now? Up until mere decades ago, women were not allowed to hold the same rights as men pretty much everywhere. That has changed and where it is not the case, those places are frequently looked down upon for it. How many countries had laws against homosexuality a hundred years ago compared to today? What do you suppose would happen if I walked down the street in New York or London or Johannesburg or Sidney in a coat made of baby seal pelts?
The pendulum swings. It’s certainly swinging in an ugly direction in the U.S right now, but I do not think that will last. History shows that things will shift again. The pendulum goes back and forth but it seems never to go back to the shitty side as far as it had in the past.
Are there places on the planet where things are still beyond fucked? Yes. But if you think it is as bad worldwide now as it was five hundred or a thousand years ago, I would say you’re wrong.
2 Likes
Why have any faith in humanity or anything else? Morality is not objective nor absolute. It evolves like everything else according to the masses. History does not favour anything but a cycle of destruction, only the more people are alive, and the more connected they are, the more bloodshed will ensue and the more evident that bloodshed will be to the others who are alive. Mankind is an embryo relative to the age of the earth or anything for that matter. The dinosaurs lived for millions and millions of years. There would be no humanity if they hadn’t been destroyed or alive… (where does all the oil come from?). Mankind is neither special nor important, but it needs to think it is to stay alive. Our own lives are important to ourselves. On that basis, I persaonlly aim not to exist to be remembered by others or fit in what others want out of me. In the end, no will care. If humanity and religion want to annihilate themselves over their beliefs, well perhaps it is a necessity before humanity can move onto the next stage of evolution. A nebulae is the death of one star that gives birth to many others. Destruction is part of the process. That would define my Ubermensch. Carpe Diem. On that note - Bob Marley - Real Situation. Always reassuring someone saw it all coming…
1 Like