WJ

P, ...yet you can't use this same objective reason to explain your own existence. What have you now, oh great leader, all-knowing, master of all??


Walrus

free12thinker

I will answer this question with a resounding "that's why we believe he doesn't exist", because he is not within logic or reason. That's why we don't believe in the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny. And just by stating that the force of god is outside of the domain of logic is quite humorous since nothing else in this world seems to be outside of logic, but we are to buy the god concept anyway. It's the exception to the rule of logic, huh? I heard someone on the radio state that god must exist, how else to explain the wonders of the world. This person was oblivious to the probability of a deity, they were simply in awe over the world, and in this, some extraordinary being must have created it. We don't buy it. We buy logic and reason.

You don't, at least not in religion.

And what's interesting about the American Dollar notation is that the In God We Trust motto was put on immediately following World War II and it was put on coins in 1864, during the Civil War. It's presence on our money was due largely to the increased religious sentiment during the Civil War Crisis and after WW II. This isn't coincidence. Nor is it coincidence that religious sentiment rearose after 9/11. People clamor for the god concept after tragedy because they need something to hold onto.

Atheists don't.

philechat

so what? see my previous posts about the concept of identity...I think I said enough

free12thinker

My existence is about science, it's about sex. It's about conjoining sperm and egg. It's not that difficult. That's what we teach our children in sex education. I am here because of science. Nothing more. Nothing less.

There is separation of church and state because the church has proven to be disastrous when conjoined with the law of the land. In other words, the church has always become the law of the land, and that just doesn't work in today's modern thinking society.

Adrian Selby

Theli, long time, no read topic

You said ages back that bacteria couldn't be atheist because they didn't have the capacity to be theist. If atheism is merely the lack of God belief they fit the description. Are you saying that a necessary part of the definition of the atheist is that he or she must be capable of being a theist. If so, does this mean capable of responding with a yes to the question 'Does God exist?' I'm further peturbed because a mentally handicapped child who can't communicate with others might equally not be capable of becoming a theist.

The problem with this is that one can only be a theist it seems if one is able to make certain beliefs known to others. That doesn't seem like a valid criterion to me.

Adrian

Kamchatka

Eight pages ago it appeared this thread was discussing whether newborn humans come into this reality with "no god belief", the conclusion of which would suggest whether atheism is or is not a default position.

Eight pages later the atheists continue buzzing around the theist fecal matter as if they don't enjoy the aroma and they aren't attracted to the feast.

Eight pages ago someone suggested that a newborn placed on a deserted island would naturally remain an atheist. The assertion was made by more than one that the only reason there is god belief is that all those pure atheist newborns have been polluted by theist doctrine.

Eight pages later there has been no proof offered of the assertion. Why is that? Might it be that the preponderance of evidence suggests the opposite?

Are we (humanity) not stranded on this deserted island? So where did this god belief stuff come from?

We are born with it, right or wrong.

Mother, parents, Earth. Gods exist my friends. The evidence is irrefutable.

You may cover your eyes like my cat, Tiger, used to do and imagine that nobody can see you if you refuse to see them, but it doesn't change the fact that you were born with god belief. You may sit back and throw up your hands and say "I have nothing to prove, I simply have 'no god belief'. That is not an assertion, therefore there is no burden of proof."

You simply refuse to see the evidence and cling to a perception of innocence which you also insist on denying. All so you don't have to deal with the truth.

We are born with god belief. Therefore, gods indeed exist. Denial does not change that fact.

It is really quite simple, acknowledge the evidence that up to now you have spent so much energy denying and join the battle against tyrannical gods.

Denying they exist won't get the job done.

free12thinker

Prove that we are born with God belief or stand in line behind WJ. It's that simple.

Samhain

Walrus:

More holy foolishness.

The point I'm trying to make is that belief or disbelief in a god (alone) does not constitute a "belief system". Catholicism, Budhism, Hinduism, Sikhism are all "belief systems". There are certain guidelines one must follow in order to be considered a Catholic, Sikh, etc. regardless if they believe in a god. As you can see it is not necessary to believe in a god to have a belief system, but atheism itself does not fall under the line of "belief system". There is little here that we, as atheists, agree on in totality besides the nonexistence of god(s). This is the only thing which can truly be said to have in common with one another across the board. Therefore, labeling atheism as a "belief system" fails for we do not have systematic rules, beliefs, etc. While one may contend that secular humanists have some kind of "belief system" (contend very poorly, I might add), you cannot generalize that the strict lack of belief in god(s) is a belief system in itself. On the same note we can percieve that belief in god(s) does not necessarily have to constitute a "belief system" as well. One may believe in god(s) like another person may believe in other superstitious nonsense such as vampires, ghosts, etc. While one may believe in such things, they may not base their lives around the existence of such things, god(s) can be taken in the same way in this sense.

When did I say that we could know of the essences or existence of supernatural beings as 100% sure either way? I make a statement of lack of belief. There is no evidence to support the existence of god(s), in fact, the common concepts of the majority that theists hold of "God" is self-refuting. We do not claim to know any more about the essences or existences of god(s) than theists do, our advantage is that we use logic and reason to support our stand, what supports yours? If it is the fact that we cannot 100% disprove god(s) then that is a very poor base for a pillar indeed.

This has to do with the shifting of the burden of proof by theists. A logical fallacy typical of theistic folk around the world. So this is our fault that theists place their belief in something which is not able to be disproven by explaining away the things we talk about here? Amazing

For what reason is this relevant? For what reason must we explain this?

I for one think that my existence is explained de facto. Of course, that is not the point. The point is, your existence falls under Sartre's bad faith (since you wish to discuss existentialism). The reason for this is simply the violation of Ockham's razor. Atheists do not attempt to violate this, theists do it to the opposite extreme in regards to existence.

FYI, the NT is a faulty authority. Not only that, most of it refutes its predecessor, the OT.

Please tell me why you'd wish to worship something you:
1. Cannot understand
2. Cannot talk to
3. Will never be able to experience
4. Rejects everything which you know to be objectively true at this point of existence


Kamchatka:

I call bullshit. There are thousands of explainations far more probable for the origins and continuation of religions other than "We are born with it". You'd definately have to be delusional to believe such, even as a theist. Free-will, remember? LMAO.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

free12thinker

It would also be great if you could prove that God existed, which you can't. Just as we cannot prove he does not. There is no absolute either way. There is no absolute that God exists, or that we are born believing in god or whatever. All we can do is be theist or non-theist. We are atheist because we don't believe God exists. We draw this conclusion from logic and reason.

Now WJ contends that logic and reason are not important in the area of God, even though they are important in validating everything else. Are you going to contend the same thing? If you are, let's just halt the conversation here, because, you will argue he exists and that we are born with the belief, yet you will offer no proof. I will claim that he doesn't exist and that we are not born with the belief, offering up the millions of non-theists in the world as proof that we are not born with it, but I can offer no absolute proof that he does not exist. And where are we left standing now?

Kamchatka

Back to the same old atheist foolishness.

"Prove it!"

I have know greater burden of proof than the self blinded atheists on this thread.

Mothers are my proof.

What is your's?

I think I can guess.

I have to go to work now. I'm not abandoning the thread, but it may be days before I can return.

And I will return.