Zoombael said:
Pemalite said:
That is the position I am taking as an Atheist... In this thread.
My position is not indoctrinated, all I ask for is evidence for Theists to backup their claims, that is it, that is rational, that is logical.
I think you are making it out to be something it's not.
Atheism isn't a belief or disbelief in God, it is the default position.
None of which results in proving/disproving God exists.
Just because there is/isn't life on another planet doesn't mean that life on THIS planet was created by your God, you need to judge each claim on it's own basis.
|
Hum. VG Users have the tendency to completely disregard what is written and respond to something the other side has never said. Strange, strange indeed. And you claim not being indoctrinated. ^^
Who is my god? Do you know? I dont think you even know the vague idea i drifft to.
Lets go back a little. Some user wrote: "no, i dont believe, because science"
Einstein was jewish and he was a strong believer.
Now i would like you to explain to me why one should expell the other from the human mind. I hope i dont have to point out that this isnt about flat earth 4000 years old and the world on the back of a giant turtle.
|
Einstein was not Jewish in a religious sense. He did not believe in a personal God such as the Jewish god.
So far, anyone claiming that there is a god had been unable to demonstrate it. If you think you can, go for it.
Pemalite said:
JWeinCom said:
You gave me the definition of atheism, but what we're really discussing is the definition of atheist, and that one letter change makes a big difference.
|
An Atheist is someone who adheres to the principles of Atheism.
Just like a Theist adheres to the principles of Theism.
They are part and parcel of the same construct.
JWeinCom said:
Pretty much any definition of atheist I've seen either explicitly or implicitly limits it to people. If you'd like to suggest we expand the definition to include animals like pigs, I would challenge you to find a way to identify what pigs think about the proposition of a god. I would agree that intuitively it seems almost certain that pigs do not believe in a god, but I don't think you'd be able to demonstrate that.
|
Atheism is the position. Atheist is the individual that adheres to said position.
Anyone who doesn't believe in a deity, be it for lack of cognitive capability, lack of evidence to convince them otherwise, or they just lack the care factor... Falls under that heading.
Thus we do not need to demonstrate what pigs think, they don't tend to have the ability to think like we do about philosophical issues. (Not to mention brain activity scans can tell us allot anyway about what the brain is doing anyway.)
JWeinCom said:
As for the second part, while you're right that an argument could be valid in structure, but have false premises, in this case the argument presented (look at page 55 I think) is not only unsound (premises are not true) but is also invalid. For this argument, I wouldn't even bother assessing the truth of the premises, because even if the premises were all true, the conclusion would not be.
|
Don't get me wrong, I agree.
But if someone is presenting an argument, then they need to present empirical evidence to go with said argument, otherwise we can just label it as "fake news" essentially, regardless of how compelling their argument is.
|
notice the words you're using. Anyone, someone, individual. These are words we typically reserve for humans. And our understanding of animal cognition is actually relatively weak. For instance a simple fish recently passed a test for self awareness we previously thought could only be passed by animals like elephants, dolphins, and great apes.
To qualify as an atheist would have to require more than simply lacking a belief in god. I just ordered a sandwich. Is the sandwich an atheist? I'm sure we'd agree that the sandwich completely lacked any belief in god.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 12 September 2018
