Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
What? Let's assume that is true for a second: if it is redundant, why did you imply it?
Unless we're dealing with a child or an immature person, most people do aim to make informed decisions. That's not an atheist exclusive quality, almost everyone thinks the evidence is on their side, and their decision the right decision.
That's why its implied. And it's redundant because the decision still falls between the two options I gave. Either you take a passive approach, or you take an active approach.
If there is a third option, it's definitely not the one forward by Old Man. You're welcome to offer up your own if you have one.
You already acknowledged that what Old Man said is a 3rd option:
So in one response you narrow down on me saying "either/or" and now you narrow down on it's antecedent.
Perhaps the third time's the charm, and you'll be able to put the two together, and comprehend the sentence as a whole.
You can't both complain that I think only two options exist, then argue that I acknowledge a third.
John that is exactly what I'm saying. I'm pointing out the contradiction in what you have said.
Comprehension before accusation. Strive to make that a life goal.
"Unless we're dealing with a child or an immature person, most people do aim to make informed decisions."
Like cherry picking masses of evidence from multiple scientific fields because they don't support ancient texts, and insisting that unlike the rest of science these are wrong? How is that in any way an informed decision? Any more than insisting their denials of scientific facts are scientific when the entire scientific world disagrees? Then the answer when they can't get their pseudoscience into proper peer reviewed journals is that it is science that is biased, not them and so they set up their own journals and pretend they're scientifically valid, again if that's informed decision making I'm not seeing it. Can anyone claimed to be really making informed decisions then not see the irony of only disputing the bits of science that contradict their religious beliefs, and then claiming it's not them but science that is biased?
Just out of curiosity, are you subscribed to any journals? Or have access to a database, and if so, which journals do you follow?
Jesus criticised Thomas for doubting, so I fail to see why Christianity would consider doubt a natural element of Christianity.
In regards the existence of the Abrahamic god: I am certain that the god described in dogma as moral and benevolent does not exist. I have never doubted this position since becoming an atheist.
In regards a general supernatural force described as god (e.g. a Spinozan god): there have been many times in my life where I have had a vague sensation that others would label as "spiritual". After rejecting the Abrahamic god on moral grounds, there was a time when I was probably not an outright atheist due to this sensation. However, I now consider it unacceptable and meaningless to attribute anything phenomenal to a supernatural force. I am certain that the supernatural does not exist, if only for the simple reason that supernatural phenomena are oxymoronic.
"Its not uncommon to hear Christians talk about doubts."
Yes it is, Hitchens's razor slash.
"They are treated almost as an important part of humanity, and even essential to the Christian walk."
No they're not, Hitchens's razor, slash.
"In contrast, you seldom hear atheists talk about the doubts of atheism."
Wrong, religious apologists have posted examples in multiple threads on here of people who were atheists but now believe. Are you going for a record of erroneous claims?
Do they have them? If so, what are they about?
Unlike you I'll not make the asinine claim I know what others think, but yes, as an atheist I have doubts about all sorts of things where insufficient evidence has been demonstrated for them. For instance I doubt claims that a deity exists, I doubt religious apologists when they claim they know which one of the thousands of fictional deities humans have created are real, but can demonstrate no evidence for. I doubt creatards claims that they have scientific evidence that casts doubt on the scientific fact of species evolution, yet it has not been falsified as anyone can see. I doubt conspiracy theories as a matter of principle, as they are by definition nothing more than wild conjecture. Most of all I doubt the integrity of anyone who keeps trying to pretend that not believing in a deity incurs a burden of proof, but claiming to know what a deity wants and thinks does not. Or that rejection of all faith based dogma is closed minded, but rejection of all faith based dogma except one is open minded. Or that they are exercising critical thinking when they reject one scientific fact that happens to refute the creation myth of their chosen beliefs, but that people who accept all scientific consensus have been subjected to the same rigorous methods, and must be equally valid before science will accept them as true, are being biased.
"Unlike you I'll not make the asinine claim I know what others think . . ."
I don't know if its ironic or ignorant to say that on the very thread where I'm asking what other's think.
Breezy "I don't know if its ironic or ignorant to say that on the very thread where I'm asking what other's think.
>>>If this is a question you missed out the question mark at the end.
Breezy "you seldom hear atheists talk about the doubts of atheism."
01/22/2018 - 11:49
Sheldon Do you have any doubts about your disbelief in Zeus? Or are you THAT closed minded?
Breezy "No, I don't."
>>>Priceless, I have the same doubts about my disbelief in your deity as you do about your belief/claim that Zeus doesn't exist.
It's not a question; and you wrote all these posts just to tell me you don't have doubts?
Brevity, sir. Practice it.
"you wrote all these posts just to tell me you don't have doubts?"
Nope. I see you're still ignoring posts that don't say what you want to hear. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you lie like that?
The real irony is you lecturing atheists about doubts when your posts are always so dogmatic and intransigent.
As I said I doubt claims that are presented without sufficient evidence, or with no evidence at all.
Atheism is the position I arrived at because of this. If you can demonstrate evidence for the existence of a deity then do so. Then I'll decide if my disbelief is still warranted.
You already admitted your atheism has no doubts, you just don't extend it to your chosen deity. At least I'm open minded and demand the same evidence for any and all deities.
I think Chimp3's answer was perfect: "I practice doubt (verb) more than have doubts (noun)."
You keep telling me about the doubts you practice: "claims that are presented without sufficient evidence." But you say very little on the doubts you have, which is the whole point of the OP. Asking me if I have doubts about Thor (which I answered), is irrelevant to whatever doubts I may have about my Christianity.
Tell me about the doubts you have, not the doubts you practice. If you have no doubts, say so and keep it moving.
"you say very little on the doubts you have, "
I listed my doubts, and gave the reasons for them, it's not my fault you prefer not to acknowledge posts that say what you don't want to hear.
"Asking me if I have doubts about Thor (which I answered), is irrelevant to whatever doubts I may have about my Christianity."
No it's not, though it has always been clear you don't see why.
"Tell me about the doubts you have, "
I doubt a repetition of them would derail your agenda. What evidence have you that any deity exists? In all the excitement you seem to have missed this question, and you have failed to understand why it's salient to any open minded persons doubts.
"If you have no doubts, say so and keep it moving."
Already answered this. Now do desist from telling what to say there's a good chap, I've told you before I'll post what I am minded to, and not what you would like to hear.
Look at what I asked: "Do you ever have doubts about your atheism"
Look at what you said: "I doubt claims that a deity exists, I doubt religious apologists when they claim they know which one of the thousands of fictional deities humans have created are real, but can demonstrate no evidence for. "
That's like me saying yes, I have doubts about Christianity. Particularly I doubt the nonsense atheists say and the claims they make. Can't you see that's a non sequitur?
I am aware as are others that you enjoy these puerile games where you think you can dictate the course of debate. I'm never going to play along. Your question is absurdly stupid. I doubt the existence of a deity because no evidence has been demonstrated commensurate to the claim. If you want me to re-evaluate that position then you'd have to present such evidence, instead of playing idiotic word games in your endlessly tedious attempts to reverse the burden of proof.
Furthermore you have admitted you don't doubt your atheism for all deities except for one version of the deity you have chosen, the difference as I said is that I have an objective standard I apply to all claims for the existence of deities, whereas you do not. A better question would be why you have no doubts about all the deities you are atheistic towards, except one when you can demonstrate no evidence for the one you believe to be real?
I do think I can dictate the course of the debate, obviously, since it is my question. A question which you still have not understood.
I never said you didn't think this? In fact I quite specifically pointed out that you did think it, but you're wrong as this is a public forum, and I will post what I feel is apropos, and I understood your absurdly silly question just fine. It's like asking if I find not collecting stamps a fulfilling pastime.
Are you able to demonstrate a shred of evidence for the existence of a deity yet? Or answer why you have no doubts about your own atheism except for the one deity you think is real?
Certainly, post whatever you feel is apropos. I'll gladly review it and inform you when its not. For example: Why you have no doubts about your own atheism except for the one deity you think is real, is a nonsense statement.
"Certainly, post whatever you feel is apropos. I'll gladly review it and inform you when its not."
If it amuses you, it won't make any difference to me as I said as I don't care to play along with your game.
"Why you have no doubts about your own atheism except for the one deity you think is real, is a nonsense statement."
It's not a statement, if you look carefully you'll see a question mark at the end, a question you seem disinclined to answer, though I have a noticed a similar reticence among religious apologists for questions they are unwilling to put to themselves.
Are you able to demonstrate a shred of evidence for the existence of a deity yet? Or understand why evidence for the validity of a claim is intrinsically linked to doubts anyone may have about it? Or understand why it is absurd to ask someone if they doubt their disbelief of something whilst offering no evidence for it?
A nonsense statement or a nonsense question, are both nonsense alike.
Of course you think it is nonsensical to question why you single out one fictional deity as real without any evidence, which was the point of that question. Now, are you able to demonstrate a shred of evidence for the existence of a deity yet?
If my OP was nonsensical, why have others been able to respond coherently to it?
Obviously because a coherent post does not require the OP be sensible. As most of the responses have pointed out yours is just another transparent attempt to reverse the burden of proof.
Are you able to demonstrate a shred of evidence for the existence of a deity yet?.
A coherent post does not require a sensible OP. But a coherent response does require comprehending the OP, which requires it to be sensible.
That's just semantics, I comprehend your OP is nonsensical, as do others. This does not stop me or them offering cogent responses, for instance pointing why it is just another of your nonsensical attempts to reverse the burden of proof.
Are you able to demonstrate a shred of evidence for the existence of a deity yet?