If you look at my profile, or any of my posts, you will see that I am a Christian.
So why am I saying that I am an Aatheist?
I am not making a claim. I am simply rejecting the Atheists statement.
I do not beleive in Atheism or in any of its arguments (if it makes any).
I have lack of faith in Atheists lack of faith.
I am using the same line of reasoning that Atheists use.
Maybe I should state what I do believe, but that would not be in keeping with the logic behind atheism.
Do you see how meaningless my “Aatheism” is?
Can you see how meaningless it is if I remove one of the “A’s”?
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods.
I don't believe any deity or deities exist, is a typical statement.
Here is what else it is not, or does not:
1. Is not an answer.
2. Draws no conclusions.
3. Makes no claims.
4. Is just a philosophical statement.
5. Makes no claims as to what valid evidence of Gods existence would look like.
6. Has no opinion about Gods existence or non-existence.
7. Does not answer any questions about God.
8. Does not believe that no God or gods exists.
9. Says nothing about what is believed.
10. It is a negative statement.
11. Is neither true nor false.
12. Presents no evidence.
13. Is not statement about science.
14. Is not a scientific statement.
15. Is not falsifiable.
16. Is not an empirical statement.
17. Is not testable or falsifiable.
Did I miss any?
Please comment or make a counter argument.
If you are unable to attack the argument being made.
The custom of many is to attack the person making the argument.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Re: OP
...*voice of Yoda*.... Mmm... The Farce is strong with this one.
Even though Jo is a tedious liar, you have to admit that some of his BS is pretty hilarious. Check out 6 and 7 in his post...
So I don't believe any deity exists is not an opinion now? Priceless stupidity there Jo.
7 is even better, how many questions about unicorns does your lack of belief in them answer Jo? Fucking hilarious fair play...the real hilarity is that you then get 9 and 10 absolutely right...and they contradict the earlier claims.
@ Tin Man
"Strong in the Farce,this one is ..."
(Edit)
Once again:
Over the weeks
Jo has failed to:
Logic his God into existence
History his god into existence
Apologetic his god into existence
Biblical Hermeneutic his god into existence
Philosophise his god into existence
Evidence his god into existence
Misrepresent his god into existence
Misquote his god into existence
Openly lie his god into existence
What is left? Ridicule his god into existence?
This OP is a good start on that area....
Some search for truth Jo....some search for truth.
@Old Man
The great thing is that we don't have to counter any of this. The ridiculous nature of the OP pretty much speaks for itself.
Yup. These days I just watch Jo's antics and give myself a face-palm at when I once believed he had integrity.
The sole question on my mind: is this a Shakespearean tragedy, or an episode from Abbot and Costello?
@Jo . .
{I am an Aatheist
If you look at my profile, or any of my posts, you will see that I am a Christian.
So why am I saying that I am an Aatheist?
I am not making a claim. I am simply rejecting the Atheists' statement.
I do not believe in Atheism or in any of its arguments (if it makes any).
I have lack of faith in Atheists lack of faith.
I am using the same line of reasoning that Atheists use.
Maybe I should state what I do believe, but that would not be in keeping with the logic behind atheism.
Do you see how meaningless my “Aatheism” is?
Can you see how meaningless it is if I remove one of the “A’s”?
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods.
I don't believe any deity or deities exist, is a typical statement.}
===============
Here is what else it is not, or does not:
1. Is not an answer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is an answer ~ about what I believe, or at least do not believe.
===============
2. Draws no conclusions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a world view, that is true. Atheistic world views are derived, and as an atheist, my world view is derived in the light of my not being convinced of the actual existence of any gods.
===============
3. Makes no claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am an atheist so I claim to be unable to accept that any gods exist. That claim is my honest position.
===============
4. Is just a philosophical statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a statement of belief, or the inability to take on a particular belief, (or set of beliefs, derived from belief in a god or any gods).
===============
5. Makes no claims as to what valid evidence of God's existence would look like.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The statement given does not identify any god in particular. If a god is claimed to answer prayers, for instance, we would expect to see prayers being answered, (in a way that cannot be accounted for by other means - for example co-incidence).
===============
6. Has no opinion about Gods existence or non-existence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is all about opinion - in my opinion, no god has succeeded in proving its existence, and no theist has succeeded in meeting the burden of proof for their god-belief claim(s). So in my experience, if there is a god, it has not shown itself to actually exist, in any way that I can fathom.
===============
7. Does not answer any questions about God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Theists must answer those questions, and back up the claims with satisfactory evidence.
===============
8. Does not believe that no God or gods exists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some atheists would say that no god or gods exist. I just say that I am not convinced, (either way).
===============
9. Says nothing about what is believed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is entirely about what is believed, or more accurately, what lies in the pile of potential beliefs that are not adopted by me. IMHO. What I do not believe tells you something about what I do believe. I do believe that I am not convinced.
===============
10. It is a negative statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the question of the existence of a god or gods, It can be, but in my case it is more a neutral statement. It would be a negative statement if I were a strong atheist, in which case I would have a burden of proof.
===============
11. Is neither true nor false.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Atheism is a category of beliefs held by a certain group of people, (beliefs in the plural, because there are two broad categories of atheism ~ strong and weak). My statement about my belief is the truth as I perceive it. I am unconvinced, and the burden of proof of the theists has not been met to my satisfaction.
I hold to be the truth, that I am unconvinced on the existence of any gods.
===============
12. Presents no evidence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depending on the god being proposed, the lack of evidence, when evidence ought to be discernable, points to the absence of the god in question. If prayers don't seem to be answered any more than coincidence under pure chance, then a god that answers prayers would seem NOT to exist.
===============
13. Is not statement about science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
True.
===============
14. Is not a scientific statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just answered that
===============
15. Is not falsifiable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a position, it is in fact confirmed ~ I am after all, an atheist myself. In principle, the CLAIM(s) of THEISM is(are) provable, but IMHO has (have) not been.
===============
16. Is not an empirical statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answered in 13. above.
===============
17. Is not testable or falsifiable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you don't think I am an atheist, then you must think I am a liar, or something else. You just have to take my word for the fact that I don't believe in any gods. My word is all you have, and I don't accept the Biblical theory that: [In my heart, I know that "God" exists, even if in my mind, I don't acknowledge it].
===============
If you are unable to attack the argument being made.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above seventeen points make no arguments, so I fail to see how one could see the answers I have been giving as an attack on anything. However, the analogy in :-
===============
@jo
{I am not making a claim. I am simply rejecting the Atheists statement.
I do not believe in Atheism or in any of its arguments (if it makes any).
I have lack of faith in Atheists lack of faith.
I am using the same line of reasoning that Atheists use}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You may reject my statement that I do not believe, but you can only do so, if you think that I am a liar, or something else.
Atheism is a response to a claim. That claim is that a god or gods exist. The response is one of a belief position. If YOU say that YOU do believe, and you want OTHERS to follow suit, then YOU have a burden of proof. The proof burden arises, because theism is a positive belief, and reflects what the believer accepts about reality. So if you want to convince non-believers that the god exists, you need to provide evidence or proof that will convince the atheists.
A LACK of belief on the other hand stops with: 'I don't, (yet) believe'. There is no burden of proof for me on that, except my honest evaluation of my belief position.
===============
@Jo: {I am simply rejecting the Atheists' statement}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is saying that you are rejecting my position of: 'I don't, (yet) believe'. If so, it is insulting, but I doubt that it is what you are saying. Really your whole post mixes the position of the strong and weak atheist, and you should not do that. Perhaps you should convince me that I ought either to be a strong atheist, or else a theist, but not a weak atheist. If so, then you should know that it would not, (yet), change my position of weak atheism.
===============
@Jo: {Maybe I should state what I do believe, but that would not be in keeping with the logic behind atheism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But my atheism is NOT A LOGICAL POSITION; it is simply a lack of belief. If you want a logical position, then you ought to give me a logical argument pro-god-belief, and ask me to evaluate it using logic.
===============
The custom of many is to attack the person making the argument.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I'm not doing that, Jo.
===============
Cheers,
Mutorc.
@ Mutorc
Sorry for my delay in responding to your post.
Thank you for not attacking the person making the argument.
It says something about you as a person.
It also says something about the confidence you have in your arguments.
I completely understand that your Atheism is simply a lack of belief.
I understand that you have always been an Atheist.
I do not think you are a liar or anything else.
I am not trying to insult, and I am not rejecting your position.
If I understand you correctly.
You are not convinced that there is, or is not any God.
You are neutral on the subject.
Isn’t that more of a description of Agnosticism?
I am trying to show how meaningless atheism is.
Other than stating what you are unconvinced about.
Does it do anything else? It is not even an argument.
Other than saying it is someone else’s responsibility to convince.
If may Grandson asked me this question.
Grampy, is Santa Claus real, does he exist?
I would not answer that I have lack of faith in Santa Claus.
That I am not convinced. That the burden of proof is on those who believe.
That those who do believe in Santa Claus have not convinced me.
I would so NO, he is not real and does not exist.
I would explain why I believe that.
I can’t think of anything that I would answer with non-belief.
It is either yes, no, I don’t know, or it cannot be known.
Do I believe in godX (some other God than the one in the Bible)?
I would say NO, he does not exist. Can I “prove” this? No.
Can I convince someone who believes in godX that he is wrong? Probably not.
I can tell you why I believe godX is not real.
I can give you the arguments and what I consider evidence.
But in the end it is my subjective opinion or belief.
For all the gods I believe do not exist, and the one I believe does.
Isn’t that the same for everyone?
“It is all about opinion - in my opinion, no god has succeeded in proving its existence, and no theist has succeeded in meeting the burden of proof for their god-belief claim(s). So in my experience, if there is a god, it has not shown itself to actually exist, in any way that I can fathom.”
I think that flipping a statement or argument on its head can be informative.
If I said that I believe in God because no Atheist has succeeded in convincing me otherwise.
Does that sound like a good argument to you?
If I said no one who believes God does not exist has met the burden of proof.
Would you say that is a good reason for me to believe in God?
If you said that you have looked at all the evidence and arguments for God.
And have not become convinced that there is a God.
And I say I have done the same, but have been convinced.
We have different conclusions, but they are both our subjective opinions.
Do you have no beliefs on the subject? No opinions? No conclusions?
All you have is a lack of belief? No evidence or argument?
Why is it someone else's responsibility to convince you?
Don’t you want to make it your responsibility to answer the question?
Aren’t you more capable of answering it for yourself?
Than having someone else try convince you?
Jo said: "I can’t think of anything that I would answer with non-belief."
I am sure there is plenty you would come back at with only non-belief, and no definitive stance.
Let's say your friend is acting mostly normal when you encounter him, and casually mentions that he quit his job. When you ask him why, he (also casually) says he won the lottery. Do you believe him? Are you willing to tell him (and stick to your guns) with a "no you didn't" and out him as a liar? Or do you simply not believe him until he ponies up the evidence?
How about a news story from a fairly well known, but not always trustworthy news source that claims that militants from the Middle East have landed and are holding a particular town hostage. There are also reports coming in from other news outlets that state that this town is indeed under siege from something, but no one has gotten in yet to verify who or what is laying siege, and the town itself has gone dark with respect to communications. Do you freely state that the original news source claiming that it was a military invasion is completely wrong or that they have it right? Can you know for sure? Or do you withhold a decision as to what you do or do not accept until further investigation has been done and more information obtained, thereby withholding belief.
@ AccretedMinutiae
Of course there are instances every day where I have to wait until I have more information to make a decision.
But those are everyday minutiae :-) where I soon do take a definitive stance.
My point was not that we should make decisions without sufficient thought and information.
My point is that after sufficient thought and information, we should arrive at a stance.
If you don't, what is that implying? Why can't you figure it out?
Isn't the correct stance, I don't know, but I am working on it?
Agnosticism until you can gather sufficient information and give it enough thought.
Then decide what is the right answer.
Isn't that what you do?
OH, WOW!!!... *feigned look of shock*... Is it not INCREDIBLE that our darling little Jo who has been absent for so long just CONVENIENTLY pops back into the forum just a few hours after our most recent troll "JoY" has been expelled? Oh, my lord! It's a miracle, ladies and gentlemen! And I am once again a goddamn PROPHET, because I actually foresaw this happening in a vision! Hallelujah!
@ Tin-Man
The word you are looking for is "miracle". :-)
But seriously, I am not JoY, JoC, or any other than me.
Jo: RE: But seriously, I am not JoY, JoC, or any other than me.
Actually this is not really difficult to believe. Theists have been feeding us the exact same shit for centuries. The day something new and interesting comes from the mouth of a theist is going to be the day I go into shock!
@ Jo
"Isn't the correct stance, I don't know, but I am working on it?"
It should be, and for many people that is their official position. But it is human nature to jump to conclusions, our brains are wonderful computing machines.
But JO, when you joined his forum you were a believer. That is all one needs to know or explain.
Jo - not exactly no. I withhold belief. That's what I do. I don't believe your claims, and as for the agnostic bit - THAT'S how I am pretty sure you don't know enough to say one way or the other either. See... you actually have two things working against you and your claims. One is that a lot of people have come to the conclusion that you simply CAN'T KNOW the things you are purporting to know. And the other is that a lot of rational people are simply not going to believe your wild claims until you have the correct proportion of evidence to back you up.
Also - when did I EVER state that I "know?" I don't know... but I am not about to go around believing a bunch of stuff I simply don't know enough about yet. As you stated, some people are working on it... and I keep checking in, to see where they have gotten with their ideas... so far nothing AT ALL has stood out to me as worth my time.
@Jo
The term "atheist" was coined by theists, in the first place, to brand other earnest theists, with whom they disagreed, and tortured and killed, on all sorts of issues concerning their gods.
If you insist on adopting the claim to be an Aatheist, then I will have no other option than to be an Aaatheist...and the only sensible outcome will be my newly avowed position will beat Aardvark in any dictionary list.
Let this one go Jo, its making you look silly.
My claim to being an atheist is only a single position that only answers theist claims for the existence of a god or a gap of gods.
I more often refer to myself as a "naturalist humanist" as it covers far more about my perception of this life than just one issue i.e. my understanding of deep space science, evolutionary biology, philosophy, psychology, and human social and political history.
Call us what you will, but don't expect us to answer, or even take seriously, your assumptions about what you would like to think the term means or not.
It's a theist term.
Deal with it.
In any case, no matter what you think, the word will continue to mean that we still simply dismiss theist claims about the existence of gods. Any further assumptions comprise baseless accusations.
edited for clarity's sake
@ Ginseed
What do you mean by being a naturalist humanist?
By naturalist, do you mean nature is all there is?
We all believe that nature exists.
Why are you a naturalist?
IT is an objective fact, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for anything other than the natural physical universe?
Though I think we already know the answer.
@Grinseed
"Let this one go Jo, its making you look silly."
I think the boat sailed some time ago on that issue. From the first post I think .When you get bored with your chew toy, ignore it and it will go away.
@Cranky Re: "When you get bored with your chew toy, ignore it and it will go away."
Except in this case, because Jo has demonstrated himself to be rather akin to herpes. Just when you think it has cleared up and gone, the shit comes right back with a vengence.
"It's making you look silly"
That's atheism, to make people look silly.
@Flatland Re: "That's atheism, to make people look silly."
Nah. Most folks (particularly the theists we get here) do an excellent job of that all on their own. The atheists here just aid in pointing out the silliness to those who might have missed it. And, in all fairness, there have also been a few atheists come through who were quite adept at making themselves look silly. And it should be noted the rest of us tend to make greater effort to expose their silliness more so than we do with the theists. Just sayin'..
Oh, and also sententiousness.
@ Flatalnd
Unlike those "truly" wise ones who communicate in one sentence only?
Numpty.
Flatland: Atheists simply have no invisible means of support. Unlike theists, you don't catch us sacrificing, praying, eating special foods to please our imaginary friends, or avoiding masturbation because we think it is harmful.
@JO: I do not believe in Atheism
That's fine. There is nothing to believe in. Atheism is not a belief system. There is no dogma, no belief, no ritual. There is merely a lack of belief in god or gods. It's like being a non-soccer player. The only reason we have the world atheist in use today is because the Church needed a word to describe non-believers. Heretic, apostate, doubting Thomas, unbeliever, disbeliever, nontheist,
infidel, blasphemer, cynic and other derogatory names directed at anyone who does not go along with your insane belief system all work just as well.
RE: I do not believe in Atheism or in any of its arguments: There is nothing called Atheism to believe in. Atheism is a lack of belief in theological claims. I don't believe in Atheism either. I also don't believe in God or gods. I am an atheist because that is the name the theists use to describe my non-belief in their silly system of religion.
RE: YOU CAN STOP HERE - ANYTHING ELSE YOU ASSERT IS OUTSIDE OF ATHEISM.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. "I don't believe any deity or deities exist, is a typical statement."
Here is what else it is not, or does not: #9 SAYS IT ALL. "Says nothing about what is believed."
Atheism says nothing at all about what else might be believed. 100% correct!
What argument is being made? I think we are in complete agreement. Have I misunderstood your assertion. "Atheism is a position of non-belief in God or gods and nothing more." That's it! You got it.
@ Cognostic
The word Athesim originated in the 5th center BCE and had nothing to do with Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)""
You have no opinions, beliefs, conclusions, arguments or evidence on the subject?
You are not as convinced that God does not exist, as I am convinced he does?
You have no answers, claims, or convictions on the subject?
In all your years of education, experience, and reasoning, all you have is a non-belief?
That is not at all what I have observed in your posts.
How did you go from being a petulance :-) Pentecostal to an Atheist?
Did you have any evidence, arguments, claims, or conclusions on your journey?
Well done Jo, you have told us what the word used to mean, now it has a dictionary definition based on common usage. So sulk all you want, it means an absence or lack of belief in any deity or deities.
G.E.T...O.V.E.R...I.T....
@Jo: There were atheists "non-believes" long before the word "atheist" was ever used. One of my favorites, Epicurus. 341–270 BC. I'm sure there were atheists before him.
1, You have no opinions, beliefs, conclusions, arguments or evidence on the subject? (I have seen no good arguments for the existence of a god or Gods. I am convinced that there probably are no good arguments and so no reason to assert belief.)
2. You are not as convinced that God does not exist, as I am convinced he does? (I am convinced that no god I have ever heard of exists. Nothing you have put forth has changed that idea; To assert anything further would be fallacious. I would be making the same ignorant fallacy you are making by asserting there is no god.)
3. Yes. There are no answers, claims or convictions on the subject. There are just people like you who pretend to know shit that they can not possibly know. Or in the case of some ignorant atheists pretending they know shit that they can not possibly know. (Like I said above - SAME FALLACY.)
4. In all my years of education, experience and reasoning, what I have is the ability to detect bullshit. I have learned the limits of logic and how to test my claims and beliefs against what is and can be known. (Something you just don't seem to be able to grasp.)
5. Petulance is merely a style of writing which accurately ridicules ignorance.
6. Moving from a Pentecostal to Atheist was very easy and quite lucky on my part. I decided I wanted to be a preacher. As a preacher, I wanted to learn as much as I could about God. I made the decision to visit every Church in town. Within 6 months, I was an atheist. The pure utter insanity of religious beliefs and the assertions being made by the different religions were enough to cure me forever.
I have tons of evidence, arguments, claims and conclusions I gleaned from my journey. Joseph Smith was a con man and the Mormon faith is built on Bullshit. L Ron Hubbard was a con man and Scientology is built on bullshit. The Catholic Church has its head up its ass and is built on Bullshit. JW is another Bullshit religion built on bullshit. Seventh Day Adventists have built their religion on BULLSHIT. Calvinists were built on bullshit. Calvary Chapel was built on bullshit. Assemblies of God and all the "Make a Joyful noise" talking in tongues and the rest of the insanity is Bullshit! Southern Baptists are all full of bullshit. Baha'i is bullshit. Buddhism is bullshit. Taoism is bullshit woo woo. Hinduism and the unfolding of Shiva and its million gods is Bullshit. Shamanism is bullshit. Sympathetic Magic and Ritual magic are both bullshit. And finally - NOTHING BUT BULLSHIT IS EMANATING FROM ANYTHING AT ALL YOU HAVE SAID IN ANY OF THE POSTS YOU HAVE MADE. You are just one more ignorant lost soul in a long line of ignorant lost souls searching for meaning in BULLSHIT when there is not.
@ Cognostic
I think you have missed a major argument I have been making on numerous posts.
“NOTHING BUT BULLSHIT IS EMANATING FROM ANYTHING AT ALL YOU HAVE SAID IN ANY OF THE POSTS YOU HAVE MADE.”
In paragraph 1.2.3.and 4., you are making some of the same arguments I have made.
“I would be making the same ignorant fallacy you are making by asserting there is no god.”
I cannot provide empirical, scientific, or falsifiable evidence that God exists.
Neither can someone who believes he does not.
I think we have much more in common on this subject, than you realize.
I can also use the same words to describe my journey.
“I have tons of evidence, arguments, claims and conclusions I gleaned from my journey” that have convinced me that God does exist.
Hasn’t both of us made a subjective conclusion?
Do you believe my conclusion is “BS”, or do you “know” it is?
I don’t think I ever said that I “know” God exists.
I am convinced that he does, but not in the same way I know 1+1=2.
If we cannot “know” that God does, or does not exists.
Than isn’t the correct conclusion Agnosticism?
Is that what you are arguing for?
Pages