Do you believe Thor is real? Wouldn’t it be better to be fulfilled rather than lacking this belief in Thor?
The arguments loses nothing there I think, probably because it was poorly reasoned from the first, by using a false equivalence fallacy that equates the lack of a belief with being unfulfilled. Lets’ hammer it home with some more counter examples:
Do you lack racist beliefs? Wouldn’t you be more fulfilled if you weren’t lacking these?
Do you lack homophobic beliefs? Wouldn’t you be more fulfilled if you didn’t lack these?
Do you lack belief that rape or murder is ok? Wouldn’t you be more fulfilled if you didn’t lack that belief?
I think that is sufficient to see that you need to demonstrate that lacking a belief necessarily mean one is unfulfilled. Of course more importantly, the fact that a belief makes one feel subjective fulfilment, does not in any way objectively evidence that belief.
If you are trying to equate a faith in God vs. a “faith” in atheism, then you have your wires crossed somewhere.
It is a principle of reason that one must show evidence for a claim that something exists, rather than requiring the audience to prove that something doesn’t exist.
So . . . that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens).
It amounts to someone proving God exists, rather than requiring me to prove that God doesn’t exist.
Otherwise . . . what’s to keep someone from claiming that leprechuans exist? And then requiring his audience to disprove their existence?
In fact, there’s probably more “evidence” for leprechuans than there is for God . . . as red-haired shoemakers have existed in Ireland before.
Here’s a photo of such a man now:
Even if he isn’t a leprechuan, he looks enough like one for us to wonder if he has leprechuan in his ancestory. We should test his blood and genes, and maybe research his family tree . . . after all, it could lead us to a large quantity of gold.
What are the alternatives and the premise upon which the reasoning is based? I have found that both atheists and theists use ideology rather than reason. The belief in good and evil is subjective.
Atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, thus it involves no claim or ideology. Only individual atheists are responsible for the claims they make, or ideology they espouse, other atheists are not tied to it.
Atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, thus it involves no claim or ideology. Only individual atheists are responsible for the claims they make, or ideology they espouse, other atheists are not tied to it.
The lack of belief or the absence of? Having no gods and not believing in i.e. trusting any specific gods is impractical. In order to do that the atheist has to redefine the term god and deity. That’s ideology. When does the lack of belief become a claim? So, an atheist (without gods) can believe in but not venerate specific gods. Just because you believe a god to exist doesn’t imply it is your god.
Correct, so in what context is belief defined? The Shinto Amaterasu is a goddess who’s adherents don’t believe actually exists. She was, by admission, commissioned by tradition and the Royal family. Not to exist in a literal sense but to instruct youth and unite communities. The apostle Paul said some people had their own belly as a god. No doubt that their bellies (metaphoric reference to food) literally existed. So what’s the definition of god or deity without so much exclusivity or limit of the occidental atheist ideology?
See above. A god can be anyone or anything. We’ve define atheism so what is the definition of religion? A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. Historically idols, rulers. For example, Zeus. Money, sex, drugs, the Pagan/Christian phallic symbol the cross.
How could you possibly not believe in the existence of something you can’t define? Ideology.
Sorry. I thought that was what you were doing.
That’s what I’m getting at. Belief as in trust or belief as in possibility of existence. Atheists believe there is no gods. That’s impractical ideology. Very similar to theism. Atheism is a theistic response.
Again, definition of belief is required. Trust. Like the Latin word credit, from which comes credentials, credible. You trust there are no gods. There are. Demonstrably. So you have to redefine it in a limited occidental fashion for your ideology. Am I wrong? I believe Zeus is a God. Not my god. I believe Charles is King. Not my king.
“If you are trying to equate a faith in God vs. a “faith” in atheism, then you have your wires crossed somewhere.”
It does seem that we all need some re-wiring of the circuits.
However, my evidence is the way in which you responded. Although I don’t know if it was intended, your assertion is that something is wrong with me (my wires are crossed). A common response to a personal diminishment such as this is to fight, flee or forgive. It seems most people choose one of the first two, both of which cause division of the whole. If we look at this forum, it thrives on that understanding (division perpetuates argument and vice versa).
“It was designed specifically to created strong well reasoned arguments, and expose and discard weak ones, it’s no use pretending it doesn’t achieve this, as we know differently.“
Yes. It seems created to create strong arguments and does it very well. And yes, one result of having “strong vs. weak” is that the weak (choose your definition) are discarded.
I guess I am probably thinking (reflecting) in terms of art and creativity than in logic and reasoning. For example, we have an illustration of darkness and light being transformed (reconciled) into beauty in Rembrandt’s paintings. Perhaps life is art more than fact…
The definition is in the dictionary, if I use a word then that is the definition I intend, I will clarify if I ever deviate from common usage?
I don’t see how this is relevant to your claims to believe a deity exists, and that an afterlife is possible?
Well since you are the one who came here, to claim a deity exists,and an afterlife is possible, then it is for you to define what you mean, and then evidence those claims. Not sure why you keep asking me to do it for you?
There is no atheist ideology, there may be ideologies that are atheistic, but those are two very different things. Atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
Then atheism is not at all impractical, since I don’t believe that any deities exist, and the rest of those are simply using the word as a metaphor, so don’t support your claim at all.
Very easily, since it would be absurd to believe something exists when one cannot even define what it is. the definition and evidence come first, then the belief, or not of course.
No, a lack of belief in a claim is not in and of itself a contrary claim.
Some do, I cannot answer for them, but atheism is not a claim, it is not a belief, and it has no ideology. Atheism and atheist are not the same thing.
No it isn’t, theism is a belief, atheism is the lack or absence of that belief.
You don’t know what you meant when you used the word in your claim? I assumed you did, and I assumed it was the common usage reflected in the dictionary, if you mean t something arbitrary then you will have to explain what you mean by belief, otherwise your posts will become meaningless.
However if, as you claimed, someone “believe a god to exist” then they would be a theist, and not an atheist.
Another straw man I’m afraid, please don’t tell me what I think, either quote a claim I have made, or ask me.
Yet you cannot offer anything approaching objective evidence for any deity, and seem very keen to avoid offering your best reason for believing a deity exists, and that an afterlife is possible, what am I to infer from that reticence?
Yes, since a) I have not offered any definition of a deity, and only asked you about your specific claim, and b) I have not offered any ideology at all.
Cool, now can you offer anything to support the claim that Zeus exists outside of the human imagination, anything beyond the bare claim I mean?
Indeed, but I can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that he is a king, and he’s not mine either. You are labouring over an erroneous notion that I am asking you to evidence deities you do not believe are real, even though i have every specifically said otherwise.
Lets try this, what is the best reason you think you have for believing a deity exists outside of the human imagination, or that an afterlife is possible?
I believe Thor is a real imaginative creation of a writer and artist. Thus, it seems to fall into a “category” of reality. To insist reality must fall into only one category is to imprison it, from my perspective.
It’s a debate forum, arguing is an essential component of debate, it is in the defintion. No one has to take part if they don’t want to, but if they come here and make claims, then that will carry a burden of proof that others will seek. Your own criteria for belief may not be sufficient for them to share that belief, and they may tell you this and why, if this is divisive, anyone doesn’t like it, my advice would be not to seek out debate here.
I can only agree, and again if one cares whether a belief or claim is true, then one ought subject beliefs and claims to the best methods of critical scrutiny.
Are they mutually exclusive then? I think it more reasonable to assert that art can be very subjective, while facts are objective. When one claims something is beautiful one is not making an objective observation, this does not mean they are wrong, merely that they are offering a personal opinion, when one says a deity exists in an atheist debate forum, then one ought to have more than a subjective claim.
You seemed to be suggesting that lacking belief equated to being unfulfilled. Which seems odd to me, since even theists like yourself lack belief in almost the same amount of deities as I do. Also does lacking belief in mermaids leave you unfulfilled? Of course most importantly how one feels about a belief tells us nothing about whether it is true.
Semantics, to claim something exists, is to claim it has objective reality. Something either is or is not objectively real, and how we perceive it is irrelevant to that. You also ignored the context of my post for some reason?
As Lee Atwater said (from the halls of power), “Perception is reality”. It seems possible we act more on our perception(subjective notion) of reality than reality itself (whatever it is).
The problem is that we know as an objective fact that our perceptions and sense are very easily deceived. So that statement seems more profound as a comment on how easily people are swayed by vapid rhetoric, than a literal statement of truth.
Well the former is the easier way, thinking critically and objectively takes work, and often won’t return the beliefs people cherish and want to hang onto.
If someone tells you something is good, or evil, you will learn far more about them if you ask them why they think this, whether you share their opinion or not.
Oh, I felt really full filled when I concluded that all deities were made up, Christianity was a load of horse shit, and I quit going to church. I’m the happiest I’ve ever been.
