hatred for being an atheist

skunkd0c · Nov 14, 2013

Prawn Connery said:
You may find if "God" exists, s/he/it will be so far advanced - so incomprehensible to all of us - that s/he/it will impose absolutely no human conditions on you or your "soul" at all. Because "God" is not human, and therefore not subject to the same failings, beliefs or conceptual processes that we are bound by.

Anthropomorphism is the practice of humanising things that are not human. This includes deities.

"God" does not judge. "God" does not get angry or vengeful. "God" does not get jealous. "God" has no pride. "God" is omnipotent, and therefore knows what we all will do - and why we will do it - before we are even born. If there is a "God", then we are nothing. We are certainly in no position to question or assert anything in relation to any omnipotent being and/or its existance.

"God" - by the very definition of the word - must be so far removed from the human condition and our simple concepts of existance that we couldn't even begin to understand what s/he/it has planned for us. If there is a plan at all . . .

I am free to judge anything based on my own set of values
i can use these values to judge a god, not sure why you think this is not possible.

a god by definition could do anything of its choosing so if it wanted to experience the human condition it could
if it wanted to judge it could

the god you imagine seems not very "godlike" if they are unable to do the things you state

Prawn Connery · Nov 14, 2013

You are basing your concept of "god" on your own limited human thinking. You are anthropomorphising.

What makes you think "God" "chooses" anything? Choice is a human concept. "God" can be all things at once . . . and nothing at all. "God" does not need to make choices.

I do not imagine "God" because "God" is unimaginable.

You are indeed free to believe anything you want. That is part of the human condition. But that is all it is. Your beliefs bare no more resemblance to reality than the human concept of reality itself.

"God" by its very definition is the god of human definition. Subject to the limitations of the human condition. And therefore, not very godlike at all . . .

skunkd0c · Nov 14, 2013

what other concept of god is possible, other than a human concept ?

I am stating that if a god requires people to be subordinate or worship i am not interested in that deal

you seem certain this is not a possible outcome, how is it possible for you to rule this out ?
since god can do all things at once why are you placing limitations on god

you seem to be suggesting that god is incapable of doing things that humans can imagine..

Beefbisquit · Nov 14, 2013

Prawn Connery said:
The concept of YOUR god - or perhaps someone else's - may need to be taught (in scriptures, for example), but how do civilisations as a whole come up with those concepts in the first place?

Aha!

The concept of "god" - ruler, protector, creator, arbiter, whatever - is innate in every living thing. Every living thing looks up to something else that influences its existence.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In the land of the simple, the unexplained is God.

People came up with god as a way to attempt to explain the natural world around them. They had no concept of science, and for all they knew the sun was an entity that nurtured and warmed them. It made sense to attribute things in nature to what they could conceptualize. Limiting our understanding of the universe to what we can conceive without using science, is a logical fallacy, or an argument from ignorance. Early people just didn't know what logic was.

Absence of anything makes as much sense as nothing being nothing. Which conceptually (to our simple brains) cannot be quantified, let alone imagined.

Your ability to imagine something has nothing to do with that object existing in reality. Can you imagine what the 10th dimension looks like? I bet you can't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before the big bang, there was no 'space'. What does 'no space' look like? It's the epitome of 'nothing'. Can you imagine it? I can't, but that doesn't affect whether or not 'lack of space' is a real thing.

Try to think of "nothing" right now. You can't do it.

What I can imagine, and what actually exists, or existed at one point is irrelevant. The bounds of the universe are not limited by my imagination.

When you have no beliefs, you have a belief: it is your belief in the absence of beliefs.

This is demonstrably not true. Pad already gave this example; if a court rules someone as not-guilty they are NOT saying the person is INNOCENT. NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT are two very distinct things, just like non-belief and belief, are very distinct separate things. Stating otherwise does not make it so.

This gets to the very "core" (sorry!) of philosophy. A non-apple may still be an apple - because an apple cannot exist without a non-apple. Otherwise it is nothing. It's not an apple. It's not a non-apple. So it must be the same thing, right?

That's not true. A non-apple by definition, is not an apple. You are basically attempting to create a 'married bachelor'. It's an impossible contradiction, and calling a non-apple an apple is the same concept. You're saying 'there are apples that aren't apples', which doesn't logically follow.

Prawn Connery · Nov 14, 2013

skunkd0c said:
what other concept of god is possible, other than a human concept ?

Exactly. You've nailed it. "God" is a concept, and is therefore limited to the minds of those who conceptualise.

Now, if you were open to believe humans are not the only form of "intelligent" life in the universe, would another being's concept of "God" be any less valid than ours?

Would those beings be our "Gods"? Are we "Gods" to lesser life forms?

Are you quite certain humans are the only forms of life that conceptualise?

My definition of "God" may be very different to yours, but is still limited by my condition. So who's definition is right? By limiting yourself to preconceived ideas of what "God is", is your "God" not limited in and of itself?

skunkd0c said:
I am stating that if a god requires people to be subordinate or worship i am not interested in that deal

you seem certain this is not a possible outcome, how is it possible for you to rule this out ?
since god can do all things at once why are you placing limitations on god

Do you wish for lower life forms to worship you? Subordination is - again - a lower form of conceptualisation.

The concept of a "God" that I would be open to conceptualising would be a much higher life form with absolutely no use for us at all - let alone with the preoccupation of subornination.

I do not rule it out. But I perceive it to be more unlikely than likely. If humans have taught themselves anything, it is that more highly evolved beings - more intelligent people - are more likely to be opposed to subornination and other forms of slavery or worship.

skunkd0c said:
you seem to be suggesting that god is incapable of doing things that humans can imagine..

Not quite. I am suggesting that an omnipotent "God" is way beyond the realms of our imagination to the point that, even if "God" did do something we can imagine, it may likely be for reasons we cannot imagine - and therefore what we are "imagining" bears no resemblance to what may actually be happening.

In simple terms, it may be like a sacrificial chess move that draws the scorn of those who cannot imagine where it would lead . . . until check-mate is complete. Even then, those witnessing may still not understand what exactly just happened.

Prawn Connery · Nov 14, 2013

Beefbisquit said:
People came up with god as a way to attempt to explain the natural world around them.

Can a child not do the same? Do children not have imaginary friends and simplistic explanations for the things that happen around them?

What about lesser life forms?

I opened the door to a cabin last year and startled a snake. I closed the door. The door had a window. I observed the snake turn around and strike out at a nearby trash can. The snake was reacting to what it thought was a threat. In its limited capacity, it attacked an object that had nothing to do with anything. It did not understand what had just happened, yet formed a cognitive reaction to the situation.

The snake conceptualised in its most basic form.

True story.

Beefbisquit said:
Your ability to imagine something has nothing to do with that object existing in reality.

Most certainly it does. If you weren't observing it, would it actually exist?

Some theories of quantum physics extrapolate just that: objects only exist if they are observed.

You think, therefore you are. So what are you if you cannot think?

Beefbisquit said:
Can you imagine what the 10th dimension looks like? I bet you can't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before the big bang, there was no 'space'. What does 'no space' look like? It's the epitome of 'nothing'. Can you imagine it? I can't, but that doesn't affect whether or not 'lack of space' is a real thing.

Putting aside the fact that this is not a new concept - space-time is ever-expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light (according to people much smarter than you and I) - you have just conceptualised the very things you said you couldn't!

What I am saying is, you can't even imagine the things your are trying to imagine. "10th dimension" is just a phrase.

Beefbisquit said:
What I can imagine, and what actually exists, or existed at one point is irrelevant. The bounds of the universe are not limited by my imagination.

Exactly what I've been saying all along. :smile:

Beefbisquit said:
This is demonstrably not true. Pad already gave this example; if a court rules someone as not-guilty they are NOT saying the person is INNOCENT. NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT are two very distinct things, just like non-belief and belief, are very distinct separate things. Stating otherwise does not make it so.

Nothing is "demonstrably not true". This is where the failings of the human condition - your conditioning - cloud the issue.

You are arguing legal definitions - not concepts. What have legal definition got to do with beliefs?

Have any of you actually been inside a court room and observed what happens there? Do you still want to argue that some jurors acquit those they believe are guilty and vice versa for their own personal reasons?

Many people act in direct contradiction to their beliefs. It is very common. To argue otherwise is fallacious in the extreme.

Beefbisquit said:
That's not true. A non-apple by definition, is not an apple. You are basically attempting to create a 'married bachelor'. It's an impossible contradiction, and calling a non-apple an apple is the same concept. You're saying 'there are apples that aren't apples', which doesn't logically follow.

If everything in the word was an apple. If the world itself was an apple. If the universe was an apple. If it's creator was an apple. What would an apple be? It would be a non-apple - because it would be the same as everything else! In the same way that the concept of nothing is, in fact, something.

This is precisely what I mean about limited understanding. You must take a concept to its enth degree to fully extrapolate it. Human beings are incapable of doing this. You only see what is in your own limited world: apples, jurors, whatever. You cannot think outside that.

And it is for that very reason that you cannot see that non-belief is and of itself a belief.

Right now you are arguing a non-belief. So what exactly are you arguing if not something you believe?

Prawn Connery · Nov 14, 2013

Let me put it another way . . .

If you do not believe in your non-belief, what exactly is the argument?

That you believe that non-belief is not a belief . . . purely because that's what you believe?

Padawanbater2 · Nov 14, 2013

Prawn Connery said:
Let me put it another way . . .

If you do not believe in your non-belief, what exactly is the argument?

That you believe that non-belief is not a belief . . . purely because that's what you believe?

This is why I stopped arguing with these sorts of people..

You can talk your way in circles all you want, buddy..

eye exaggerate · Nov 14, 2013

Beefbisquit said:
People came up with god as a way to attempt to explain the natural world around them. They had no concept of science, and for all they knew the sun was an entity that nurtured and warmed them. It made sense to attribute things in nature to what they could conceptualize. Limiting our understanding of the universe to what we can conceive without using science, is a logical fallacy, or an argument from ignorance. Early people just didn't know what logic was.

People might have been limited in the scientific sense of logic. Through the uninhibited imagination people were able to 'draw' a God so as to draw near to 'it'. To me it would seem that this was a portal to communication with something of an absolute abstract mind. Whoa, sounds tough.

So as people began to understand this communication, others were able to decipher patterns which began to lead to a more logical perspective.

Kind of like this - let's say you experience something like coincidence or déja-vu. The 'other half' of the phenomenon has a life of its own, it was just 'there' for you. So, from where does that other life originate? What put it there for your meaningful experience to happen? Chance? What is chance is this instance? How could 'chance' 'contain' the elements needed for your matter-based experience?

Fck :lol:

Prawn Connery · Nov 14, 2013

Padawanbater2 said:
This is why I stopped arguing with these sorts of people.

You mean people with logical, coherent arguments?

I can understand why you wouldn't want to engage with such people.

Prawn Connery · Nov 14, 2013

eye exaggerate said:
Kind of like this - let's say you experience something like coincidence or déja-vu. The 'other half' of the phenomenon has a life of its own, it was just 'there' for you. So, from where does that other life originate? What put it there for your meaningful experience to happen?

There is a theory that space-time is like a pack of cards, or pages in a book. Each "page" is an infintisimal "slice" of space-time arranged in a particular order, along a time line, like a book - which is why time only seems to travel in one direction.

However, what if somehow those pages or cards in the deck got shuffled in the wrong order? Would we see our future before it happens? That little slice of space-time - that "page" of reality - was somehow inserted into our current time-line but was so brief - as brief as the briefest measure of space-time we can imagine - that we failed to notice until we reached the correct "page".

And then we remember: "Hang on, hasn't this happened before?"

Yes it has.

eye exaggerate said:
Chance? What is chance is this instance? How could 'chance' 'contain' the elements needed for your matter-based experience?

Fck

This is a very interesting argument. I would argue there is no such thing as chance.

Why? Because given infinite time and infinite space, there are infinite possibilities. And if there are infinite possibilities, then sooner or later a pattern must develop. Some might say the odds - or chance - of such an event are 50/50. It either happens or it doesn't (two choices). But if there is no such thing as chance, then in fact it becomes a certainty.

The infinite paradox is that everything is possible - even the possibility of possibilities being finite. In which case, not everything would be possible . . .

skunkd0c · Nov 14, 2013

Prawn Connery said:
Exactly. You've nailed it. "God" is a concept, and is therefore limited to the minds of those who conceptualise.

Now, if you were open to believe humans are not the only form of "intelligent" life in the universe, would another being's concept of "God" be any less valid than ours?

Would those beings be our "Gods"? Are we "Gods" to lesser life forms?

Are you quite certain humans are the only forms of life that conceptualise?

My definition of "God" may be very different to yours, but is still limited by my condition. So who's definition is right? By limiting yourself to preconceived ideas of what "God is", is your "God" not limited in and of itself?

Do you wish for lower life forms to worship you? Subordination is - again - a lower form of conceptualisation.

The concept of a "God" that I would be open to conceptualising would be a much higher life form with absolutely no use for us at all - let alone with the preoccupation of subornination.

I do not rule it out. But I perceive it to be more unlikely than likely. If humans have taught themselves anything, it is that more highly evolved beings - more intelligent people - are more likely to be opposed to subornination and other forms of slavery or worship.

Not quite. I am suggesting that an omnipotent "God" is way beyond the realms of our imagination to the point that, even if "God" did do something we can imagine, it may likely be for reasons we cannot imagine - and therefore what we are "imagining" bears no resemblance to what may actually be happening.

In simple terms, it may be like a sacrificial chess move that draws the scorn of those who cannot imagine where it would lead . . . until check-mate is complete. Even then, those witnessing may still not understand what exactly just happened.

You seem to be saying the same thing over and over, maybe i am missing your point

"gods power is limited to my imagination"
"i am unable to judge god because i am human"
"gods power is unlimited"

these positions are contradictory

i originally made some IF statements this means that if the given events take place and are true the next statement will follow and so on

i do not understand how you are able to dismiss them since you have already stated in other words that gods power is unrestricted
this would make any human imagined event involving god possible and any IF statement valid

you listed things that god can't be or can't do "god can't feel loneliness"

you seem to be saying god could not recreate the concept of human loneliness, or that god is unable to do things humans can do

i do not believe gods power is dependent on my human imagination

This sounds like something a christian would say, " Humans can't judge the actions of the christian bible god because they do not understand the grand plan for us all" sacrificing the few for the sake of the many is ok so to speak

i can imagine an alien coming to earth and shooting you with its ray-gun decapitating you
i have made you look like Brad Pitt in my imagination , i hope this is ok

although i do not believe it is likely this will happen, this bears no influence on it actually happening or not
my imagination as far as i am aware does not govern what is possible in the multiverse

if the said alien were to kill you for no apparent reason not even for a food source, perhaps just for sport
i would use my humanbeing concept of all things, to judge this event, i am sure i would conclude that the alien
is not very nice for killing you

are you stating that i am unable to make this decision because myself and the alien hold different concepts ?

peace

Prawn Connery · Nov 14, 2013

skunkd0c said:
You seem to be saying the same thing over and over, maybe i am missing your point

"gods power is limited to my imagination"
"i am unable to judge god because i am human"
"gods power is unlimited"

these positions are contradictory

i originally made some IF statements this means that if the given events take place and are true the next statement will follow and so on

i do not understand how you are able to dismiss them since you have already stated in other words that gods power is unrestricted
this would make any human imagined event involving god possible and any IF statement valid

you listed things that god can't be or can't do "god can't feel loneliness"

you seem to be saying god could not recreate the concept of human loneliness, or that god is unable to do things humans can do

i do not believe gods power is dependent on my human imagination

This sounds like something a christian would say, " Humans can't judge the actions of the christian bible god because they do not understand the grand plan for us all" sacrificing the few for the sake of the many is ok so to speak

Er, I didn't actually say any of that if you read what I've written. But, you know . . .

skunkd0c said:
i have made you look like Brad Pitt in my imagination , i hope this is ok

Oh, of course - we can both agree on this :mrgreen:

skunkd0c said:
although i do not believe it is likely this will happen, this bears no influence on it actually happening or not
my imagination as far as i am aware does not govern what is possible in the multiverse

if the said alien were to kill you for no apparent reason not even for a food source, perhaps just for sport
i would use my humanbeing concept of all things, to judge this event, i am sure i would conclude that the alien
is not very nice for killing you

are you stating that i am unable to make this decision because myself and the alien hold different concepts ?

peace

You need to think a little beyond all that. It is part of your condition that you can imagine all those things but can't - in your mind - apply them to your current reality. Just as it is part of your condition that you can't imagine something beyond that. That is part of the limitation we all have.

Or it may not be. It would truly be something if mankind continued to evolve into his own definition of "God".

In some aspects we have. What would ancient man have thought of us returning from space in our capsules and behaving in all our advanced technological glory?

skunkd0c said:
You seem to be saying the same thing over and over, maybe i am missing your point

I am saying the same thing for the most part, and you do appear to be missing the point:

All your arguments are constrained to human-conditioned thinking relative to the only reference you have - your present awareness - which basically means none of us know what the fuck we are talking about, let alone have any iota of an idea of what Life, the Universe and Everything truly means - if anything at all.

^ Do you understand that bit? It's really got fuck-all to do with "God" and everything to do with ourselves.

Prawn Connery · Nov 14, 2013

I'm high as fuck. The reality is . . . reality is there to be altered. :bigjoint:

guy incognito · Nov 14, 2013

Padawanbater2 said:
How/why would a juror believe someone is guilty and still acquit them for their crime? It is the job of the prosecutor to present enough valid evidence for condemnation.

I'm having a hard time understanding your point..

Jury nullification. If I was ever on a jury involving a marijuana crime I would find them not guilty. Not because they are not guilty in the eyes of the law, but simply because I disagree with the law and don't think it should be illegal in the first place and I refuse to convict someone using an unjust law.

Or some dude who was 18 years old banging his 17 year 364 day old gf who he ends up marrying. Technically in some states that is rape and is punishable with prison time. I would refuse to convict in that situation on the same principle.

I don't agree with anything prawn connery says, he seems to be off his rocker. Also I read all his posts in sean connerys voice. I just wanted to introduce you to the concept of jury nullification.

Heisenberg · Nov 14, 2013

Prawn Connery said:
You mean people with logical, coherent arguments?

I can understand why you wouldn't want to engage with such people.

I think he means people with no concept of epistemology and who feel entitled to limit the world based on their own personal mussing.

There are only two positions available on the existence of god. Belief or non belief, theism or atheism. Anyone who does not subscribe to theistic ideas is an atheist. Atheism only requires a lack of belief, and that belief can be lacking for any reason: ignorance, rebellion, logic, apathy, ect. Only a very small subset of atheists go on to also claim god doesn't/can't exist. You are choosing to define a whole group of people by that small minority, and leaving no room for people like me who have not been convinced of any god, yet still consider the possibility that evidence is out there and we just haven't found it yet. I don't believe, yet I don't claim a God doesn't/can't exist. Since I have no evidence or knowledge that God can't exist, saying he doesn't would require a leap of faith. I do not posses that faith, yet you are trying to box (people like) me into a position that requires it.

I have seen no evidence of the Lock Ness monster, yet I do not know that he isn't real. He could be down there. So while I do not believe, I also do not claim its nonexistence. It would not be fair for someone else to pigeonhole me into taking the position that Nessie can't be real just so they can feel they understand the world. That would not reflect my feelings and it would not reflect the state of the world.

Atheism has meant lack of belief as far back as 1772 when Paul Henri Holbach wrote: "All children are atheists, they have no idea of God." This statement only makes sense if the term "atheism" includes a passive sense which does not mean the explicit denial of the existence of any gods. A hundred years later, we see atheism is still meant to mean lack of belief when Charles Bradlaugh wrote in 1876: "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God, but he says 'I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The word God to me is a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."

So we see atheism has always meant "without belief" while not requiring the positive claim that there is no God. You seem to be redefining it to fit your own simplistic view of the world, and resisting with specious reasoning when corrected. If you insist on redefining words and then having the world subscribe to the redefinition, and refuse any appeal, then some people feel talking to you is a waste of time, which is what I believe Pad meant. What's next? Will you redefine "up" to mean "sideways", "poison" to mean "zero"? Redefining words and expecting others to argue against the redefinition is no different than rewriting history and expecting people to argue against that.

guy incognito · Nov 14, 2013

I have seen no evidence of the lock ness monster either. No one has, and they have been searching for a long time. I cannot claim with certainty that it does not exist, but if I was a betting man I would place high odds that it does not exist.

I think the same thing of god. I have no proof one way or another, but it seems like the default position should be denying his existence. I am open to the possibility that there may be a god, but I highly highly doubt it.

Heisenberg · Nov 14, 2013

guy incognito said:
I have seen no evidence of the lock ness monster either. No one has, and they have been searching for a long time. I cannot claim with certainty that it does not exist, but if I was a betting man I would place high odds that it does not exist.

I think the same thing of god. I have no proof one way or another, but it seems like the default position should be denying his existence. I am open to the possibility that there may be a god, but I highly highly doubt it.

Yes, but according to Prawn Connery you don't actually think this way. You actually say that God does not and cannot exist, because that is the only alternative to believing he does. If you feel he has not left room for your view, then he will play an intellectual shell game of redefining words to show that he knows your views better than you. Rather than expanding his view of the world, he would limit yours.

guy incognito · Nov 14, 2013

I understand (and disagree with) what prawn is saying. I was just adding my 2 cents to the mix. If I had to classify myself as either having a lack of belief in god, or an active belief that he does not exist it would be the latter.

Beefbisquit · Nov 14, 2013

Prawn Connery said:
Can a child not do the same? Do children not have imaginary friends and simplistic explanations for the things that happen around them?

What about lesser life forms?

I opened the door to a cabin last year and startled a snake. I closed the door. The door had a window. I observed the snake turn around and strike out at a nearby trash can. The snake was reacting to what it thought was a threat. In its limited capacity, it attacked an object that had nothing to do with anything. It did not understand what had just happened, yet formed a cognitive reaction to the situation.

The snake conceptualised in its most basic form.

True story.

This is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with belief or non-belief, and belief in the absence of something, and a lack of belief are STILL distinct things.

Most certainly it does. If you weren't observing it, would it actually exist?

Some theories of quantum physics extrapolate just that: objects only exist if they are observed.

If no one in the world was looking at the moon, it wouldn't cease to exist. I don't feel like you're being very intellectually honest in this discussion.

You think, therefore you are. So what are you if you cannot think?

Then you're dead, but your body still exists or at least existed at one point. What does this have to do with belief or non-belief?

Putting aside the fact that this is not a new concept - space-time is ever-expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light (according to people much smarter than you and I) - you have just conceptualised the very things you said you couldn't!

What I am saying is, you can't even imagine the things your are trying to imagine. "10th dimension" is just a phrase.

The human mind is limited, I agree. Try to think of a new colour that you've never seen before.

Exactly what I've been saying all along.

You're trying to say that your imagination has an impact on the things in the world, and I disagree.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

Nothing is "demonstrably not true". This is where the failings of the human condition - your conditioning - cloud the issue.

TONS of things are demonstrably not true. Are you being serious, or are you trolling? This type of comment makes me wonder. I can use a light meter to measure the nm frequency of light, and tell you what colours it ISN'T. If you said 'the gravity on earth makes things fly towards the sky', I could demonstrate how that is not true by dropping an object.

You are arguing legal definitions - not concepts. What have legal definition got to do with beliefs?

I'm trying to show you how non-belief and not-guilty are not the same as belief, or innocent. You don't seem to be grasping this concept.

Have any of you actually been inside a court room and observed what happens there? Do you still want to argue that some jurors acquit those they believe are guilty and vice versa for their own personal reasons?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. The crown (government) has never found a person innocent in its existence. It has only failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove someone guilty. Likewise, people who do not have a belief in god do not necessarily believe god doesn't exist, only that they haven't seen the required evidence to form a belief.

Many people act in direct contradiction to their beliefs. It is very common. To argue otherwise is fallacious in the extreme.

It's called cognitive dissonance.

If everything in the word was an apple. If the world itself was an apple. If the universe was an apple. If it's creator was an apple. What would an apple be? It would be a non-apple - because it would be the same as everything else! In the same way that the concept of nothing is, in fact, something.

What the hell are you talking about? We would completely derail the entire concept of language if we were to do that. It's silly to even waste time pondering it. Language only works if there are rules to it, how would calling everything an apple, facilitate the passing of knowledge from one person to another? It's ridiculous.

If we called everything an apple, an apple would no longer mean the same thing, but the actually physical object that we know as an apple would still exist (as an apple no less, as everything would be an apple) Non-apples wouldn't exist. Pointless.

This is precisely what I mean about limited understanding. You must take a concept to its enth degree to fully extrapolate it. Human beings are incapable of doing this. You only see what is in your own limited world: apples, jurors, whatever. You cannot think outside that.

And it is for that very reason that you cannot see that non-belief is and of itself a belief.

Right now you are arguing a non-belief. So what exactly are you arguing if not something you believe?

I actually do believe that god doesn't exist. I'm arguing that atheisms default position is one of non-belief, not one of an active belief that god doesn't exist. Any atheist who has that belief, is formulating that belief outside of atheism.

You talk about limited understanding, but you're human too. This is a common tactic perpetuated by theists, that they have some higher understanding of existence because of some wishy-washy, pseudo-metaphysics.

Let me put it another way . . .

If you do not believe in your non-belief, what exactly is the argument?That you believe that non-belief is not a belief . . . purely because that's what you believe?

The argument is simple. Belief and non-belief are distinct. Not having a belief is not the same as belief that something doesn't exist. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Let's just break this statement down further;

Human beings are incapable of doing this. You only see what is in your own limited world: apples, jurors, whatever. You cannot think outside that.

And it is for that very reason that you cannot see that non-belief is and of itself a belief.

I understand the English language quite well, and this, is a non-sequitur. How does it logically follow that because humans can only respond to reality within the limits of their own perception that someone who doesn't have a belief in something, actually believes in that something? It doesn't logically follow whatsoever, and if you're not going to use logic to formulate the basis for your arguments, then we cannot continue this discussion.

I don't have to 'believe' that non-belief isn't the same as belief, they are different fucking words with different definitions. If you want to change the definitions of words to suit your argument you're being intellectually dishonest.

hatred for being an atheist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member