Why use reason to defend?

[Daver]

Good for you! (But bad for some other people) so, the rift remains and neither side “wins” because the other still exists.

[CyberLN]

@Daver

the rift remains and neither side “wins” because the other still exists.

Are you proposing that this rift you speak of is a bad thing?
Are you proposing that there is a contest going on?

[Data]

@Sheldon

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?

The President literally exists, do I believe in him? No. Make sense?

@Sheldon

I don’t see how this is relevant to your claims to believe a deity exists, and that an afterlife is possible?

She’s a god who literally doesn’t exist. Her adherents don’t believe she exists. It isn’t necessary for a god to exist.

@Sheldon

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?

Because what you believe a god to be doesn’t comport with reality. Gods exist. Literally and figuratively.

All militant atheists are ideologues.

@Sheldon

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.

Oxford: God: 1. in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being; in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate; an adored, admired, or influential person; the gallery in a theater.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in gods.

You see those as compatible? The fact is no one can disprove the existence of God, but they can prove the existence of gods, which means, atheism, at the least, is more wrong than right.

@Sheldon

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.

So much for science.

@Sheldon

No, a lack of belief in a claim is not in and of itself a contrary claim.

So you make no claims regarding the nonexistence of gods.

@Sheldon

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.

Oh. Okay.

@Sheldon

No it isn’t, theism is a belief, atheism is the lack or absence of that belief.

So typically a theist is atheistic regarding 99% of gods they are 99% atheists? And you don’t believe gods don’t exist?

[CyberLN]

Was this meant to answer the two questions I asked?

[Kevin_Levites]

@Data

have found that both atheists and theists use ideology rather than reason. The belief in good and evil is subjective.

I disagree.

Most atheists on this forum would be delighted to hear a proof of God’s existence. I mostly don’t use ideology to arrive at my beliefs.

[Sheldon]

@Data

@Sheldon

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?

The President literally exists, do I believe in him? No. Make sense?

I shall now resort to bullet points:

1. No, that makes no sense.
2. That nonsensical sentence is a non sequitur, that has zero relevance to what preceded.
3. You appear to be trolling, and I can no longer pretend you’re remotely interested in debate.

@Data

@Sheldon

I don’t see how this is relevant to your claims to believe a deity exists, and that an afterlife is possible?

She’s a god who literally doesn’t exist. Her adherents don’t believe she exists. It isn’t necessary for a god to exist.

Again no relevance, and again you’re trolling quite clearly.

@Data

@Sheldon

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?

Because what you believe a god to be doesn’t comport with reality.

Straw man, and of course this would be true of all non-existent things, and again trolling.

@Data

Gods exist.

Support this facile claim with some objective evidence please, and again, you appear to be trolling.

@Data

All militant atheists are ideologues.

Trolltacular… Another frustrated angry theist shows his arse on an atheist forum, angered that anyone dare not share belief in their vapid archaic superstition…Get over it, and yourself, is the only advice I can offer.

@Data

Oxford: God: 1.

You nil, you’re a troll, bussssttttedddd…

@Data

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in gods.

You see those as compatible?

Nope, you’re trolling with yet another tedious straw man.

@Data

The fact is

That you are a tedious troll…

@Data

no one can disprove the existence of God

Or invisible mermaids, go figure. For the troll, do please fuck off. for everyone else:

The troll is using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy there.

@Data

they can prove the existence of gods

You can’t even demonstrate one shred of objective evidence, troll…

@Data

@Sheldon

No, a lack of belief in a claim is not in and of itself a contrary claim.

So you make no claims regarding the nonexistence of gods.

Hoorah, you got something right, I suppose even a trolling broken clock must ne right twice a day.

@Data

@Sheldon

No it isn’t, theism is a belief, atheism is the lack or absence of that belief.

So

More trolling, sigh, tedious. Bored with your BS now…

[Data]

@Sheldon

More trolling, sigh, tedious. Bored with your BS now…

Sorry to have taken your time.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Data

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.

@Data

She’s a god who literally doesn’t exist. Her adherents don’t believe she exists. It isn’t necessary for a god to exist.

Provided my sources refer to the same goddess, a cursory reading tells me that this is a goddess that has been revered for at least 2000 years, and I cannot find any mention that this goddess was “commissioned by tradition”. On the contrary, all references I can find points to Japanese emperors being descendants from the goddess, implying that the belief in the goddess preceded the first emperor that claimed her as an ancestor. The earliest mention I can find in my simple search is from the 6th or 7th century BCE. So if this “commisioning” of the goddess really happened, it would have been more than 2600 years ago. And proving your claim of a “commissioning” of the goddess would be somewhat difficult.

Although it would be natural for the goddess to lose importance after the Japanese emperor Hirohito denounced his god-status after WW2, this does not imply that the shinto followers stopped believing in her.

If you have any concrete information about this, or information that is contrary to my (admittedly cursory) readings, I would appreciate it.

Amaterasu, also known as Amaterasu Ōmikami (天照大御神, 天照大神) or Ōhirume no Muchi no Kami (大日孁貴神), is the goddess of the sun in Japanese mythology. One of the major deities (kami) of Shinto, she is also portrayed in Japan’s earliest literary texts, the Kojiki (c. 712 CE) and the Nihon Shoki (720 CE), as the ruler (or one of the rulers) of the heavenly realm Takamagahara and the mythical ancestress of the Imperial House of Japan via her grandson Ninigi.

(Amaterasu - Wikipedia)

Amaterasu has always been an important—if not the most important—kami in Japanese spiritual life. Prior to the Meiji Restoration, when Shinto was not yet formalized, Amaterasu was important across most of Japan. It was only after Shinto was formally recognized as a state religion, however, that Amaterasu’s role was solidified and the Imperial family set once more as head of the now-democratized Japan.

Though State Shinto was abolished in the years after World War II, Amaterasu and the Imperial family remain an important part of Japanese spiritual life. Some scholars assume, based on archaeological evidence, that the prehistoric sun cult that occupied the region may have worshipped some incarnation of Amaterasu.

(Amaterasu – Mythopedia)

Indeed, the first Japanese emperor, Jimmu (r. 660-585 BCE), who founded the state in 660 BCE was said to be a direct descendant of Amaterasu. This belief allowed successive emperors to likewise claim divine ancestry and so exercise absolute authority.

(Amaterasu - World History Encyclopedia)

[Sheldon]

@Data

Sorry to have taken your time.

I’d prefer if you’d offered something cogent of value.

[Sheldon]

Lots of luck, @Data is clearly not here for honest debate.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

At least I’m trying…

[Sheldon]

Oh your response was laudable to be sure, but I’ve given @Data enough rope to spot he is a troll. I am not infallible of course, but I am often right on this. I shall leave others try, and see where it goes though, again lots of luck

[Sheldon]

@Data

@Sheldon

Yes, that is the common usage of the word, and thus the dictionary definition.

Correct, so in what context is belief defined?

Hard to believe that’s not trolling, but I gave a bit more rope here:

@Data

@Sheldon

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?

The President literally exists, do I believe in him? No. Make sense?

Now lets take a look at his previous claim for context:

@Data

Sheldon: Atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, thus it involves no claim or ideology.

The lack of belief or the absence of?

Yeah I’m sticking with trolling here…

[Daver]

From my perspective, if I judge it as either “bad” or “good”, I widen the rift. To me, there is a separation of people evidenced by two groups with opposite worldviews,each with their own version of the “truth”. Can they be reconciled using your truth?

[Daver]

I see you as having “shared” time with Sheldon. Taking his time seems to suggest ownership.

[Daver]

Sorry, I’m not sure if it was or not. I am not able to see the whole thread of our conversation (still a newbie here). What were the two questions you asked?

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Daver

What were the two questions you asked?

I’m not @CyberLN, but here is the context (screen dump):

[CyberLN]

@Daver

To me, there is a separation of people evidenced by two groups with opposite worldviews

Oh, @Daver, atheism is not a worldview. Perhaps this assumption of yours that it is a worldview is the root of this argument. All atheism is, is a response to the assertion that supernatural god(s) exist.
Does an atheist have a worldview? Probably. But it’s not typically rooted in atheism…at least not for all the folks I know who are identified as atheist. Their (and my) worldviews are both varied and sweeping.
Also, I challenge your use of the word separation. I don’t consider myself separate from many of the folks in my life who identify as theist. A/theism is merely one item about which we disagree. There are so very many other items, many on which we agree and others on which we disagree.
Worldviews are complex. They do not, imo, consist of an opinion on only one item. This attempt to reduce it to such may indicate a lack of observation and/or creativity.

[Cognostic]

@Data

have found that both atheists and theists use ideology rather than reason. The belief in good and evil is subjective.

LOL… What does Good or Evil have to do with atheism. I personally regard them as religious concepts and don’t use them. I find that the words fortunate and unfortunate suffice. Some people have animalistic and cruel natures, after all they are animals. Some people socialize to greater or lesser degrees. The idea of ‘evil’ as a thing, completely escapes me. It is something for the horror movies that people have bought into.

[Daver]

Hmmm. That’s curious. Where did you get your definition/description of atheism from?