Are you ok buddy?
You wrote this to me and not the other way around… : "Unless one form of evidence is part of an equivocation fallacy, you have no justification what so ever for the “Christian Version” …and then you write to me again saying…“WTF? Perhaps you could rewrite the sentence. Do you even know what an “equivocation fallacy” is? You might want to read up on that specific fallacy prior to displaying your ignorance in the next post.”
So I will ask you again are you ok or are you just trolling me with false accusations and your fuck off words? Are there mods here or is it a free for all Fuck Off website. Tell me please because if it’s going to be like this I too can raise a little hell…excuse the pun lol
And Cognistic…Stop that whining attitude and stop pulling the assumption that I am Christian out of your arse hole. Treat it like Vegas. What happens in your asshole stays in your asshole.
Am I theist or atheist? Theist I think only because I believe in UFO’s as being extraterrestrial. Then again I chat with people who claim to be atheist and believe in UFO’s as well but I don’t think the atheist definition allows for that. I really don’t care what category I fall into.
On denial, evasion and diversion I understand you clearly. Whether we like it or not it is a part of nature and sometimes when the nail is in we just have to stop banging the hammer for our own sanity if not for theirs.
I’m not here to justify the faith of theists I merely wanted to point out the reasoning behind it.
Uhhhh… Mighty bold of you to speak for all atheists. However, I hate to disappoint you, but what one atheist might require has absolutely nothing to do with what another atheist might require. You might want to consider retracting that statement, or at the very least learn a tad bit about what you are saying.
I agree with your list… I’ve also seen twisting of word meaning - or double meaning, WHICH is frustrating when engaging in a discussion, because I like to think that both parties are trying to communicate well through this particular means (forum format).
I believed based on reasons that used a low level of evidence… once I raised my standards and applied this standard in all my decision making, I found my life improved greatly.
People believe in god for a variety of reasons that they are convinced are good - however sometimes this isn’t the case (the evidence isn’t good or applicable to the claim).
Oh okay, cool. I agree that I have seen theist use at some point even here on these boards all 15 of those types of “evidence.”
Whats funny is I never seen a theist be able to justify any of those in any real measurable, repeatable, testable way that differentiates their ideas from a random religious idea I make up in 10 seconds.
It is all random background noise, throwing darts blindfolded without ever even seeing or being aware of the target. The rainbow farting unicorn god is just as justifiable as any other god/religion idea I ever heard of.
And why people do not understand the problem with that always confuses me. But I understand the brainwashing that goes on starting at young age makes people susceptible to not seeing that.
Curious, where are you at “Earth” ?
Do you believe in some sort of greater being that wants to be recognized by humans in some fashion? That has human like desires?
Hello Tin-Man
I only speak from my experiences from chatting with atheists. I will never claim to be a know it all. Furthermore…I don’t see the word “ALL” in my sentence, however since you brought it up the least you could do is enlighten me on what other atheist require.
Tin will answer, but I’m butting in - personally, I withhold belief in god/s as an atheist. It’s not ruled out but given the amount of “evidence” theists throw our way and no evidence of god wanting to be known, I’d say it’s extremely unlikely for gods existence.
I am a mind-candy junkie, and quite frankly, I’d place the likely existence of aliens above the existence of god.
[quote=“LogicFTW, post:48, topic:96”]
Whats funny is I never seen a theist be able to justify any of those in any real measurable, repeatable, testable way that differentiates their ideas from a random religious idea I make up in 10 seconds.
Until it is possible you never will. Why are you expecting that in the first place?
I did at first, when folks wandered into the forums saying they were right and I/atheist were wrong, I expected them to justify it. I have since learned that it is highly unlikely that they will actually be able to justify it in any way beyond just “talk.”
Curious, how would you describe yourself? It seems like agnostic is likely based on what you wrote so far. Do you consider yourself to be an atheist? Why or why not?
I agree with you that low level of evidence is unacceptable for certain things and I think the least theists could do when preaching their faith or belief is to at least admit on which form of evidence it is based on . That would make the conversation or debate come to a conclusion much quicker.
As I mentioned here before when the nail is hammered in at some point we have to put the hammer away or then we are just causing our own grief and stress. At lease that’s the way I like to treat myself.
My motivation has always been to get to “truth” (I hate the sound of that as my previous religion taught they had the “truth”) … so I try to make decisions or have confidence in things that are as close to what is true as humanly possible. I value it. Truth and time. I like to engage others that on their word claim they are after the same thing - good. And I can accept people have different levels of evidence for belief and situations. WHAT I personally can’t hand is blank ant dishonesty. Willful ignorance and a lack of humility (can never be wrong).
Someone like that is not willing to get to what is true or accept my levels of standard of evidence - and so, normally once I feel there is warrant - that they are displaying personality qualities I despise - I let them know. I have no problem with that.
Well your last line gave me a chuckle and laughter is good medicine . We’re on the same page on that one and you are well within your right to do so when required. I myself like to use the term natural truth as we are all part of nature and it distinguishes it apart from any religious connotations. Hm…I just noticed this…did I just imply the other is an unnatural truth. Something for me to ponder on.
Well we are all ignorant to some degree and on some topics more than others but I understand your point and where you draw the line and you should. Scientists won’t lower their line and that’s the way we want science to be handled as well. I wouldn’t want my doctor telling me they will try something they haven’t met the burden of proof yet. So yes in some cases strong evidence is required.
I am terrible with labels and prefer not to see myself in that perspective as it tends to make a small conclusion of who I am. I wouldn’t know. I will leave it up to people here to tell me what they think as they get too know me more.
See, I’d say, if it’s evidenced in reality, it’s apart of nature, be it quantum to “nature” to the cosmos. Unnatural… well, is that something not evidenced or “super natural”?
In my opinion we are all agnostic, just some people are not willing to admit that.
Additionally, understanding the definition of atheist correctly, you can be agnostic and atheist. They are not mutually exclusive.
I for instance consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I am also a self described: “angry atheist.”
I feel the world’s religions/god ideas set humanity back and slow progress more than help. I feel that people accepting mythology uncritically as the ultimate truth/fact is dangerous, is abused greatly, and leads to humans being more likely to accept other unevidenced ideas as truth.
Take the gambling addict phrase: “I am due to win! I will win!” All the while ignoring the odds are literally stacked against them, and the longer they play the more certain they will ultimately be worse off instead of better off. A dangerous thought process that can have, or lead to real harm in financial damage.
How peculiar. I chat with people who claim to be UFO-ologists, some of whom also happen to not believe in gods. Identifying as an atheist is less important to them. Extra-terrestrials are not regarded as supernatural.
The atheist definition is “a rejection of theist claims for the existence of a ‘God’ or gods in the absence of objective evidence”. After that an atheist is free to believe in Tralfamadorians or horoscopes or whatever else they want to believe. ‘Atheism’ is a one issue definition and it is not the universal denial of ‘belief’.
No-one here really cares for the tag ‘atheist’, which used to mean “someone who doesn’t believe in my god”. The ancient Greek and Roman theists use to brand Christians as ‘atheists’ and vice versa. Now theists generally use the term to brand all non-believers in the manner of a condemnation carrying all sorts of fallacious assumptions with it.
I prefer the simple term “non-believer” which carries less judgemental bias.
Lol… good question. That’s what I’m pondering. I had noticed what I had implied and don’t have the answer for you. The dictionary I just checked says " not existing in nature" Still pondering.
You left out one form of evidence; Credible, of which there is none for the existence of God(s.)
This atheist will accept evidence supported by scientific method and will accept nothing less…
Who ever made it up your howler of a list seems have made the mistake of conflating ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’. They are not the same. Evidence is anything produced to support an argument. It is not necessarily proof.
I’l just look at two.
Prima Facie means ‘at first glance’. It is not proof . More investigation is needed to arrive at proof.
Hearsay evidence is not proof. It is not accepted in law as proof. Nor is its brother, anecdotal evidence .That includes rumour or “some bloke told me”.