A question for theists...
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.
Everybody except who?
Those who neglect punctuation?
"Those who neglect punctuation?"
Indeed, or those who don't know that accept and except are two very different words.
You have to laugh, when I tired of the endless unevidenced claim theists keep making that their religious beliefs give them access to objective morality, and offer them all the chance to list a few objective morals, the reticence is almost as hilarious as the obfuscation. The irony is manifest. Not one of them has even acknowledged the question asking them to list ten beliefs they hold apart from their religious beliefs, that they can demonstrate no objective evidence for. Oh the humanity...
I didn't add the caveat, or demonstrate some objective evidence for any deity, as they dodge that question like a toothless old hag dodges the hard toffees in a box of sweets.
A Muslim pushing Buddhism? Dasa-sila? They are 10 universal observances for the pious life, I suppose. The one about not sleeping in the 'high bed' never appealed to me at all. As my grandma said 'never stand when you can sit, never sit when you can lie down, particularly on a nice high comfy bed." But then she was neither Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.
Sorry Sheldon. I do hope someone responds to your OP one day.
That's ok Grinseed, theists pass up these opportunities, always preferring to skulk around the forum preaching at us, and rehashing woeful apologetics they see have been thoroughly dismantled in any number of threads on here already.
The meagre offering of dishonest obfuscation offered thus far is pretty typical in my experience.
Jo even having the front to pretend he'd answered my question, then demanding I answer claims that as an atheist I've never once made.
Two more theists have shown equal contempt the question. If he Breezy were here he would sneer at me and condemn them as irrelevant.
Before I move on fill me in if my reply answers the first part of the OP
Ten beliefs I hold without any objective evidence that have nothing to do with religion.
1) Every human being is insane
2) No man made creation answers all questions we may have (maybe the 8 ball. Joking)
3) The universe cannot be known (it is still in birth). Example: Unlike babies in whom we have adults to compare what it will amount to, the creation of the universe offers us nothing to compare it to at full growth. Furthermore we can observe and study the complete baby and predict its outcome but that is not so with the universe.
4) Everyone’s life is just as it is supposed to be
5) Self made people do not exist
6) I can see furthest in the darkness that in the sunlight
7) Reality is not what it seems
8) Every human being is conditioned
9) Every word we say is an assertion
10) Even when we don’t have the answer we try to fill in the blank just as I did with number 10
1) Demonstrably false, as this would quite obviously leave no benchmark for sanity, so we can verify the claim's validity with objective evidence.
2) This is an objective fact?
3) I don't understand the claim, as science gains new knowledge into to universe all the time? And again we can falsify this with objective evidence. .
4) Do you really believe this? Based on what? This one at least sounds like a belief that you can demonstrate no objective evidence for.
5) That would depend how you're defining self made. So objective evidence might exist to falsify your claim.
6) Is this a joke? I feel you're being facetious now. Otherwise this is demonstrably false. So again objective evidence can be demonstrated to falsify it.
7) This is often the case, and we can of course objectively evidence this claim. Schooling, language, even potty training might satisfy this description of conditioning.
8) To a certain degree yes, and again this can be objectively evidenced.
9) Another demonstrably false claim. Questions need not be assertions. Either way we could objectively validate or invalidate this claim.
10) We? Many people, scientists in particular are extremely cautious not to do this, again objective evidence could easily test this claim.
So only number 4 appears to be a belief that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for, but I'm dubious that you really believe this, and if you have such a fatalistic view that it has no derivation in your religious beliefs.
How about the ten objectively moral actions or behaviours?
Thanks for your overview of my replies. I accepted the challenge as a means to learn the knowledge and the art of communication and debate that many atheists have nailed down very well. I obviously have a lot to catch up on and your overview is bringing me one step closer. I will attempt to correct my beliefs that fall into the proper category and move on with the rest of your OP at a later time as I am very busy this month.
EDITED: No 6 is not a joke. My reason for saying that is that at night time I can see light years away by looking at the stars and when the sun is out, well the distance I can see becomes shorter.
Ok, but again I don't see how that is a belief held without any objective evidence?
1. insane: You do not know the meaning of the word. "Insane" is a legal finding and not a clinical diagnosis. A condition that prevents normal functioning that results in a danger to self or others.
2. No man made creation was ever designed to answer all questions. (Thank you Mr. Obvious.) \
3. The universe (can not) is not yet known and that is why we continue exploring.
3b. The "Creation of the Universe?" WTF??? Please provide evidence for the claim that the universe was created. While we are on the topic you might want to provide evidence for what you think that creator was. We don't even know if the universe "Came Into Existence" at a point in time and you want to move to a creator, what rationale can you give for your assertion?
4) Everyone's life is supposed to be. (Who decides the "supposed to.") Even if determinism is absolutely correct, there is no reason to assume "supposed to." Everyone's life is their life. A is A. A is not B. This is much more likely.
5. Self made people do not exist. (Then I have been doing something wrong my entire life.) If we buy into your theory we are actually falling back on the idea of Karma. It is your lot in life to be who you are and you can be no other. In a fully deterministic world, this would be the case. It is the thief's / murderer's job to rob or kill. It is the police officer's job to catch them. It is the court's job to judge them. It is the jailer's job to jail them. Everything is predetermined. The idea of free will is an illusion and you are not responsible for your behavior. (To the degree that you have behavior, you are incorrect. I will always hold you responsible for the decisions you make. But then, that is just the way my free will expresses itself.)
6. I can see furthest in darkness - Absolutely! That which is in the sunlight is known. It is illuminated either by us or for us. That which is in the darkness is unknown, unseen, vast, and even beyond our current ability to comprehend. Darkness is the land of inquiry, experimentation, and exploration. Perhaps we will never find the boundaries. We certainly won't find them by clinging to the light of the Lord, and using God as the only answer to all of our questions.
7. Reality is not what it seems. (Quite Simply Wrong) Reality is exactly what it seems. It is your understanding that is faulty. If reality was not as it seemed you would be able to climb to the top of a 10 story building, flap your arms and fly off the top into the sunset. YOU CAN'T. You will fall at a rate of 32 feet per second, straight to the earth and break your boned. There is nothing in reality that bends it to your thoughts. If your thoughts do not correlate with that which is known to be real, you will find yourself neck deep in shit very quickly. The more your thoughts correlate with reality the more functional you are as a human being on this planet.
8. Every human being is conditioned: YEP! And it is rationality, reason, and critical thinking that unbinds us from our conditioning and gives us greater freedom.
9. Every word we say is based on an "A Priori." This is a fact. The laws of logic are accepted as a priori because they have been demonstrated to work. We use them because nothing better has come along to replace them. Assertion's can be inane or they can be backed by solid facts and evidence. Above, I made the assertion that you can not stand atop a building, flap your arms and fly away, I stand by that assertion based on facts, logic, experimentation, personal experience, and all current evidence. You can certainly prove me wrong and I would love to see you do it. Try if you like but all my money is on you breaking your neck. In short, There are "Assertions" and there are "assertions." These two words are not the same thing.
10) Even without answers we try to fill in the blanks. Hence I give you the mythologies of religions and the observation, inquiry, experimentation and predictability of science. Of course we are looking for answers.
"The universe cannot be known (it is still in birth). Example: Unlike babies in whom we have adults to compare what it will amount to, the creation of the universe offers us nothing to compare it to at full growth. Furthermore we can observe and study the complete baby and predict its outcome but that is not so with the universe."
Bullshit. If you took a photograph of a few thousand random people, eventually you would have a complete dossier on the complete human life cycle, from birth to death of old age. The same applies to the stars. We have studied enough stars to have a very good idea on how they form, how long they live, how they die.
Already we have some very sound hypothesis on the creation of this known universe, and it's eventual demise
The universe can be known. But we humans are only at the beginning of learning. We have the capacity and drive to learn, we just need a few more million (billion? maybe trillions?) years.
"I can see furthest in the darkness that in the sunlight"
When the sun is up, the blue light is scattered. That bright blue is brighter than the background stars. Everything has an explanation.
"Reality is not what it seems"
Actually, your first impression is very accurate. Reality is what it seems. I have worked in high risk jobs and tasks, and your first line of defense in staying alive is your firm grip on reality.
"Every word we say is an assertion"
Are you sure?
"Even when we don’t have the answer we try to fill in the blank just as I did with number 10"
Oh boy. It's time for the editorial piece again ...
First of all ... OMS, Tin-Man ... forget the splatter sheets, start digging a fallout shelter.
Let's take a look at this shall we?
And even at this early point in the examination of this post, it's time to reach for the nuclear ordnance. Not least because way back in February of this year, I posted this substantial exposition of the cardinal rules of discourse, as understood in every properly constituted, rigorous academic discipline. In addition, I shall bring to the table this post on the actual nature of atheism that I posted back in April, in response to yet more canards from a sueprnaturalist.
Combining the essential postulates expounded in those two posts, I hereby inform you that atheism involves rejecting belief itself as purportedly constituting a source of substantive knowledge. This is because ALL the observational data extant with respect to "belief", points to this being, certainly as practised by supernaturalists, uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions, in direct contravention of the cardinal rules of discourse I have already presented here. That atheists are suspicious of those assertions, and indeed seek for those assertions to be treated the same as assertions in every other sphere of human activity, means that our approach to those assertions, and all others, constitutes the very antithesis of "belief". As a corollary, the rest of your post is rendered null and void by this elementary fact, but, in the interests of proper discourse, I shall address the assertions you present here point by point. Starting with:
First of all, given that every concrete entity that has ever been alighted upon and found to exist, has been accompanied by observational data to that effect, why should a god-type entity by any different? Especially if, as supernaturalists frequently assert, their particular species of magic man intervenes in the observable universe with observable consequences? If this supernaturalist assertion is true, then by definition this entity should be reliably and repeatably found to exist via appropriate observational data. That this hasn't happened casts serious doubt upon this supernaturalist assertion.
Of course, the predictable and tiresome apologetics, to the effect that the various species of magic men asserted to exist by supernaturalists, possess a special, "privileged" status in this regard, is merely another supernaturalist assertion awaiting evidential support, and in the absence thereof, can be safely discarded in accordance with the cardinal rules of discourse. Discarding this assertion leads as a corollary to the position that any entity of this sort that genuinely exists, especially one that intervenes in the observable universe with observable consequences, should itself be observable in a manner not requiring any presuppositions on the part of the observer. Given that scientists have alighted upon observational evidence for entities and interactions, that the authors of mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about, suggesting that one's particular species of magic man is purportedly exempt from this is the real belief at work here - namely, an assertion bereft of evidential support.
Of course, this issue is complicated to a particularly juicy extent, by the simple question of asking "what constitutes a god-type entity", a question that I addressed with this post, in which I pointed out how supernaturalists, with their own presuppositions, have not even bothered to contemplate the existence of any of a vast number of possible options other than their favourite mythological candidates, let alone the ramifications of any of those options being realised. As a corollary of this prior body of work on my part, I can safely contend that I have given this topic far more diligent thought than any supernaturalist on the planet.
Then, there's the little matter of the fact that an entity that exists, but which is not observable, is by definition indistinguishable from an entity that does not exist. Until an entity becomes observable in a reliable and repeatable manner, we may, in accordance with the cardinal rules of discourse, safely operate as if said entity does not exist. This is subtly but rigorously different from asserting that such an entity does not exist, a course no one with a proper scientific education ever takes if operating in a discoursively competent manner. The position taken by those of us who take discourse seriously is NOT the strawman caricature you have erected above, but rather, that in the absence of data supporting the relevant postulate, we may provisionally discard the postulate. This leaves open the possibility of data becoming available in the future pointing to the status of that postulate.
As to the matter of asking for observational data in this regard, well, this brings us back to my opening paragraph. Namely, that every concrete entity established to exist thus far has been established to do so via observational data, without exception. Those wishing to make an exception for their magic men are required to support the requisite assertion with something other than rhetorical spells.
I could write much more on this topic alone, but it's time to move on ...
And this again, is a manifest and duplicitous misrepresentation of atheism. Apart from having covered this in part while dealing with the previous canard, you have been told repeatedly here, not least by myself, that none of us who treats the rules of discourse properly asserts this. What we postulate instead, and with good reason, is that mythology is incompetent to inform us on the matter, and as a corollary, mythological candidates for the role can be dismissed, not least because those candidates are replete with paradox, absurdity and contradiction. This does NOT mean that any of us rules out a non-mythological candidate bereft of said paradox, absurdity and contradiction, and again I point you to the several previous posts I have presented here covering this matter in more detail, including this one, in which I explicitly covered this very topic in answer to your own previous assertions on the subject. I'll repeat paragraph 2 of that post here to reinforce the point being made:
That you could post the above assertion, after my having expended diligent effort explaining the above to you, points either to discoursive or ethical deficiencies on your part.
Moving on ...
See my coverage of the canards  and  above.
Correction, what those of us who paid attention in class actually postulate, is that there exists a VAST body of evidence for the existence of natural entities and interactions, but ZERO evidence for asserted "supernatural" entities and interactions. As a corollary of the cardinal rules of discourse, supernaturalist assertions in this vein are safely discardable. Until, of course, supernaturalists provide actual evidence to support that assertion, instead of the usual tiresome apologetic spells. See the post covering the cardinal rules of discourse referenced in the answer above to .
Correction, our position is NOT to assert this, but merely to treat the converse supernaturalist assertion as safely discardable in the absence of supporting evidence. Again, see the post covering the cardinal rules of discourse referenced in the answer above to .
This isn't a matter of "belief", it's a matter of vast quantities of hard evidence, ranging from the findings of palaeontology, genetics, and molecular biology. Here's a sample set of citations of the scientific papers in my collection covering human evolution:
Evolution of specific features in humans:
 Accelerated Evolution Of The ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion by Natalay Kouprina, Adam Pavlicek, Ganeshwaran H. Mochida, Gregory Solomon, William Gersch, Young-Ho Yoon, Randall Collura, Maryellen Ruvolo, J. Carl Barrett, C. Geoffrey Woods, Christopher A. Walsh, Jerzy Jurka and Vladimir Larionov, Public Library of Science Biology, 2(5): e126 (23rd March 2004)
 Evolution Of The Human ASPM Gene, A Major Determinant Of Brain Size by Jianzhi Ziang, Genetics, 165: 2063-2070 (December 2003)
 Evolution Of Olfactory Receptor Genes In The Human Genome by Yoshihito Niimua and Masatoshi Nei, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 100(21): 12235-12240 (14 October 2003)
 Evolution Of Vertebrate Olfactory Systems by H.L. Eisthen, Brain, Behaviour and Evolution, 50(4): 222-233 (1997).
 Human Brain Evolution: Insights from Microarrays by Todd M. Preuss, Mario Cáceres, Michael C. Oldham and Daniel H. Geschwind, Nature Reviews of Genetics, 5(11): 850-860 (November 2004)
 Molecular Evolution Of FOXP2, A Gene Involved In Speech And Language by Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano Anthony P. Monaco and Svante Pääbo, Nature, 418: 869-872 (22 August 2002)
 Molecular Evolution Of Microcephalin, A Gene Determining Human Brain Size by Yin-Qiu Wang and Bing Su, Human Molecular Genetics, 13(11): 1131-1137 (1st June 2004)
 Organisation And Evolution Of Olfactory Receptor Genes On Human Chromosome 11 by J.A. Buettner, G. Glusman, N. Ben-Arie, P. Ramos, D. Lancet and G.A. Evans, Genomics 53(1): 56-58 (1 Oct 1998)
 Primate Evolution Of An Olfactory Receptor Cluster: Diversification By Gene Conversion And Recent Emergence Of Pseudogenes by D Sharon, G Glusman,Y Pilpel, M Khen, F Gruetzner, T Haaf, D Lancet, Genomics, 61(1) 24-36 (1 Oct 1999)
 Sequence, Structure And Evolution Of A Complete Human Olfactory Receptor Gene Cluster by Gustavo Glusman, Alona Sosinsky, Edna Ben-Asher, Nili Avidan, Dina Sonkin, Anita Bahar, André Rosenthal, Sandra Clifton, Bruce Roe, Concepción Ferraz, Jacques Demaille and Doron Lancet, Genomics, 63(2) 227-245 (15 Jan 2000).
 The Evolution Of Mammalian Olfactory Genes by L. Issel-Tarver & J. Rine, Genetics, 145(1): 185-195 (January 1997)
 The Human Olfactory Subgenome: From Sequence To Structure To Evolution by Tania Fuchs, Gustavo Glasman, Shirley Horn-Saban, Doron Lancet and Yitzhak Pilpel, Human Genetics, 108: 1-13 (3 January 2001)
 Hominid Ancestry
 A New Primate From The Early Eocene Of Myanmar And The Asian Early Origin Of Anthropoids by J.-J. Jaeger, Tin Thein, M. Benammi, Y. Chaimanee, Aung Naing Soe, Thit Lwin, Than Tun, San Wai and S. Ducrocq, Science, 286: 528-520 (15 October 1999)
 Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005)
 The Oldest Known Anthropoid Postcranial Fossils And The Early Evolution Of Higher Primates by D.L. Gebo, M, D'Agosto, K.C. Beard, T, Qi and J Wang, Nature, 404: 276-78 (16 March 2002)
This list isn't even a complete list of the papers in my collection, as I've yet to update the database to include the most recent entries. But even an examination of those papers above should tell you that magic wasn't involved.
Moving on ...
Another canard on your part. What we actually postulate, and do so on the basis of a large body of evidence, is that science can answer questions based upon testable postulates. Which it has done successfully for 250 years. On the other hand, supernaturalist assertions have answered nothing, and neither has mythology - again, the observational data is conclusive here.
BZZZZT!!!! CANARD ALERT AGAIN!!!!
That life arose through testable natural processes, isn't a matter of "belief" again, but a matter of evidence from laboratory research, courtesy of the fact that every chemical reaction postulated to be implicated in the origin of life has been tested in the laboratory and found to WORK. Even though the detailed exposition of relevant research I gave in this detailed post on the subject does not cover the most recent findings, it still covers enough to tell any unbiased reader, that much has been learned in this vein. Note that among the 70 scientific references I provided at the end of that exposition, are references to research involving model protocells. Yes, this is how far science has come despite only having had 50 years or so to investigate the matter properly.
Ahem, as I've already explained to you and several other people here, this is a matter of active research. But since we have no evidence for mythological magic men, assertions about them are again discardable. As for that research, I covered a particularly interesting example thereof in detail here in this post, where I provided a detailed exposition of that research instance, which is interesting precisely because it includes a testable prediction which scientists are working to verify.
Again, no fucking "belief" involved.
We only have supernaturalist assertions on this. Which are, for reasons already given, safely discardable.
Again, we only have supernaturalist assertions on this, which are, for reasons already given, safely discardable. Plus, there's the little matter of Genesis being completely arse about face with respect to the actual order of events as uncovered by diligent scientific research. I've already covered in detail why mythological errors are fatal to supernaturalist assertions on this matter in detail here.
I'll deal with the next two canards together:
BULLSHIT. Which, apart from being in direct contradiction to your own assertion  above, bears NO relation to actual scientific postulates on this matter. This travesty of our thinking I dealt with in part here.
Moving on ...
BULLSHIT. And is also in direct contradiction to your own assertion  above. Already dealt with this in detail under  and its linked post.
The contrary supernaturalist assertion is discardable on the grounds of being bereft of evidential support.
The contrary supernaturalist assertion is discardable on the grounds of being bereft of evidential support.
Try "there is OBSERVATIONAL DATA to this effect". Such as the vast body of data available to anyone who has spent time on rationalist forums, pointing to the manner in which, when presented with contrary data refuting their assertions, supernaturalists resort to a range of duplicitous tactics to preserve their adherence to mythological assertion. On the contrary, I and others here have never had to lie or misrepresent in order to present our case.
You can come out of your fallout shelter when the lava has cooled.
Holy fuck! I pour my “god damn” heart out, and - nothing. Throw a dog a bone for fuck sake. Did I win the fucking contest or what? I wan’t my coupons!!!!
@Rat Spit Re: "Did I win the fucking contest or what?"
Hey, Ratty, I hate to be the one to bring you the bad news, but I don't believe you got it. Now, in all fairness, you made some really good points. Unfortunately (And this is just my personal opinion.), you may have kinda fucked yourself with that #4. I mean, c'mon! Really? You were living in a VW Beetle? Honestly, man, how are we suppose to believe THAT??? Simply doesn't seem very plausible. And if there is that much lack of credibility on one point such as that, then, naturally, all the other points you made become suspect. Too late now, of course, but you should have left out the #4 point. Sorry, big guy.... *patting shoulder in sympathy*...
*drops blood soaked splatter sheets* *Applauds Cali. Sheldon and Grinseed* *smacks Ratty with wooden rule "idiot boy, a volkswagen? Hah! You will be telling us you vacationed in a Bond Bug next""Go and get our choc bombs.."
Well TM? see any survivors? Or is that little patch of dried shite over there what remains of Jo's arguments?...and that smelly patch...is that his morality just lying (pun) around unattended?
@Old Man Re: "Well TM? see any survivors?"
...*mumbled voice*... Ah ownt noh. Muh aherls er-... *removes snorkel from mouth*... Oh, sorry about that... *wipes slobber from corners of mouth*... Like I was saying, I don't know. My goggles are all smeared over with blood. Can't see a damn thing. Hang on... *carefully removes goggles*.... *looks around slowly with impressed look on face*.... Wooooooow..... Impressive... *nodding head in admiration*... Rob Zombie would be proud! Hell, maybe even a little jealous. You were right, by the way. Those VIP box seats were fantastic. Sorry I doubted you.... *respectfully bowing to Cali, Sheldon, and Grinseed*... Great work guys! That was fun!... *fumbling with plastic sheeting*... Uh, would somebody mind helping me remove this plastic?
Heh, on one other forum I participate in, I introduced my response with "this will be in eight parts". That one took up 835K as a plain ASCII text file which I compiled before I posted it. Took three days to run through that one in 8 hour stretches.
@Jo. re: YOUR INANE LIST OF BULLSHIT.
1, Humans can choose to be noble, good, self-sacrificing, benevolent, faithful, and humble. (Theists, on the other hand, can not. They are concerned with reward and punishment from an imaginary god. All the good they do is simply seeking reward. All the bad they do is merely seeking to avoid punishment. This is NOT moral behavior. Choosing to be noble, self sacrificing, benevolent, faithful or humble because you want to be noticed for the good you do by your god is not noble, self sacrificing, benevolent, faithful, or humble. It is greedy reward seeking behavior. It is merely following orders. There is nothing intrinsically altruistic about the behavior and therefore it can never be moral. I can train a dog not to sit on the sofa. Because the dog does not sit on the sofa does not mean he is acting good. He is merely blindly doing as he has been trained.
2. Humans are more than just the sum of their parts. (And? This means absolutely nothing at all. "MORE" What in the hell does that mean. I submit to you that humans, ALL HUMANS INCLUDING ATHEISTS, are simply "DIFFERENT" than the sum of their parts. Furthermore, without many of those parts, they would not even be here. This one gets a HUGE - 'SO THE FUCK WHAT?"
3. Humans are more than just very complicated biological entities. (Do you have an example that is not connected to and completely free of biology? I would love to hear it. Please share what else you think they are and support your claims with facts and evidence. )
4. Humans have a soul, spirit, or something that cannot be explained solely through science. (It can not be explained and yet you think you can explain it? Please do so. Go ahead and explain it without science if you think your explanation will stand against critical inquiry? I know of no research study confirming your current position; with or without science. Please cite your sources. )
5. Humans have minds and free will. (You have to define free will. The trend today in neuro-research is to assert that there is no such thing as free will. Many researchers have stopped using the term "Free" and now simply refer to "will." Even if we have the will to make a decision; how is that connected to a god. You must offer evidence for your assertion as well as define what in the hell you are talking about. I think you want to talk to someone in this field like Sam Harris or at least do yourself a favor and try to understand what is meant by free will.)
6. The above are not just a product of electro-chemical actions developed through evolutionary happenstance. (Just because you make the assertion that the above are not a result of chemical interactions and biology, does not make it so. You must provide evidence in the form of facts and justifications for your claims. Anyone can make an assertion. "You are a raving idiot." The assertion itself carries no weight at all without facts or evidence supporting the claim. But as long as you continue giving us facts and evidence, it begins to look like the claim is more and more justified.
WHAT ATHEISTS BELIEVE WITHOUT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE:
1. How you can be on this site for as long as you have and still not even picked up a basic definition of Atheism is completely mind boggling. "Atheists are people who do not believe in god of gods." According to your Church dogma, even babies are born into original sin, separated from god, not knowing god, and therefore, ATHEIST.
2. Objective evidence can be provided to prove or disprove God. (I don't know why any Atheist would ever think this. I have never seen any objective evidence and I have heard people like Sheldon ask for it a thousand times. If it can be provided. please do so.)
3. There is no God. (How do you know this? For any atheist to make the assertion that there is no god or that this god or that god does not exist, you would need to define the god you are talking about. I have never seen an argument for the existence of a god stand against critical inquiry. I have never seen facts or evidence supporting the existence of a god. If you think you have some supporting information, we would all love to hear about it. Until then, it genuinely appears that there is no god. This is not an apriori supposition but rather a conclusion based on the complete lack of evidence the theists have provided. We are willing to change our minds. How about you?
4. God can be disproved. (Of course gods can be disproved. There are a billion of them on the planet and you have disproved of all but one. You merely hold your god to a different standard of evidence than all other gods. Were you to apply the same critical knowledge to your god as you do to all the others, you would find yourself disbelieving that god as well as the other billion. How do you disprove all the billions of gods out there? Obviously gods can be disproved, you do it and so do we. The only difference between us is that you believe in one more god than us.
5. There is only the natural world. (Umm.... Is there evidence for anything else? Not even sure where this is going. Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of God or gods. There is nothing in Atheism that addresses the "Natural World." You want to talk with a scientist or a philosopher. Good luck with that.
6. There is nothing supernatural. (I don't know if there is a supernatural or not. You got any evidence at all supporting your claim? Can you even define the "supernatural." If it exists, surely you can define it. The only definition of supernatural I have ever heard is "Supernatural = I don't know."
7. Humans are solely a product of evolution. (This seems to be the best theory we have on the subject currently. Do you have a better one? Love to hear it. By the way. This is not an assertion of Atheism but an assertion of the Biological sciences. It has noting to do with atheism. If biology and evolution were completely wrong, you would still have to provide evidence that your god did it before anyone could accept your assertion. We have no such evidence.
Science can answer all questions.
9, Life occurred through only natural processes. (Repetitive. Same as above. No matter how many times you say it, it does not make it an Atheist assertion. Atheists do not believe in God or gods. If you think life came about any other way than through natural processes, you need to talk to biologists. Atheism has nothing to do with biology.
10. The universe occurred only through natural processes. (I have no idea how the universe occurred. I don't know anyone that does other than the theists who make the inane assertion "God Done It, Prove me wrong." There is nothing in Atheism that states how the universe came into being. NOTHING. You probably want to talk to a Cosmologist or Theoretical Physicist with an interest in cosmology. Atheists have nothing to say about the creation of the universe at all.
11. God has never intervened in human affairs. (How in the hell would anyone ever know this? Atheist: PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR GODS. If there is a god and if he or she or it has intervened in human affairs, you have the burden of proof. First you must provide evidence for the existence of your god and then you must indicate how, when, where, and why it intervenes in human affairs. Good luck with that. You do not get to simply assert your god into existence.
12. God was not somehow behind the creation of the universe and life on the earth. (Atheists do not believe in god or gods. Please cite any evidence at all for this creator god you are talking about.)
13. The universe created itself. (How do you imagine this happened. Like your evidence for a God, if you assert the universe created itself, you must provide evidence for the claim. I know of no such evidence. I do know that natural processes occur. Atoms do bond together to form molecules. Molecules bond to form elements. There is a whole lot of natural chemistry out there and very little in the way of verifiable gods. Currently, my understanding, is that all knowledge breaks down at Planck Time. No one knows what is beyond. Not theists and not cosmologists. The difference is that the theists are pretending to know while the cosmologists are continuing to explore. I know of no one who makes the assertion that the universe created itself.
14. The universe created its own laws. (Same as above)
15. Life created itself. (No one knows how life began. Abiogenisis is currently the most accepted theory as we have produced the elements of life in labs from inorganic material. THIS IS A FACT. Atheism says noting at all about the emergence of life on this planet. NOTHING. Atheists are people who do not believe in God or gods. You want to argue with Biologists or Cosmologists and not Atheists.
16. The universe and life has no purpose, meaning, or reason for existence. (Hmmm... If the universe has meaning... How would you know? I have meaning. I bring meaning to my life and the world around me. Can you share how it is you think the universe has meaning? What an interesting idea. How did you figure that out? I would love to hear more. Atheists are people who do not believe in God or gods. There is nothing in Atheism that talks about the "Meaning of the Universe."
17. There is nothing after this life. (Perhaps you mean there is no evidence for anything after this life? That might be a fair claim for many atheists; however, Buddhism is also atheistic and they believe in reincarnation. There is nothing what so ever that prevents an Atheist; a person who does not believe in God or gods, from making the assertion that something happens after this life. I would merely ask of them the same question I would ask of you, "How do you know this and what evidence do you have.
18. Theists have only psychological reasons for the beliefs, but atheists never do. (Um.... This just makes no sense. Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behavior. ) I am a licensed psychotherapist and I don't even know if there is anything called a mind. I know, generally, what we call mind, but that definition can change depending on who is defining it and what research is being done. So when you say "psychological reasons for beliefs" are you simply asserting that beliefs are held in the mind or are somehow an expression of mind? What are you talking about? You might want to E-mail someone like Sam Harris to have this discussion. Atheists are people who do not believe in God or Gods. They are not people who study neurobiology or who have anything to say about the mind, its existence or nonexistence or its link to the brain. I think you are confused.
THE SHORT REPLY:
How in the fuck can you be on this site for as long as you have and still not grasp the most basic facts about ATHEISM. "Atheists are people who do not believe in God or gods." That says nothing at all about SCIENCE, BIOLOGY, CHEMESTRY, COSMOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, OR ANY OTHER "OLOGY" YOU CAN DREAM UP.
ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR GODS!
'What is the meaning of supernatural powers?
If you enjoy a good story about vampires, witches, werewolves, or ghosts, you like reading about the supernatural — forces, beings, and events that are beyond what can be explained by nature. Supernatural comes from the Latin word supernaturalis, meaning beyond nature.'
The supernatural is another word for fiction or fantasy, it's not meant to be real life! If you believed fiction/fantasy was real life how could you tell the difference between reality and non-reality? How would you know Jack and the Beanstalk isn't a true life tale? I don't think you would unless you're applying one standard to one thing and another standard to something else.
Still waiting for a theist to give anything approaching a coherent honest answer to the questions in the thread OP? What can one infer from the initial nonsense that made no effort to honestly address either question, followed by a deafening silence?
Here's the OP question again verbatim, as theists seem to be avoiding answering at all costs...
I should like all the theists in here to list ten beliefs they hold without any objective evidence, and that are nothing to do with their religion.
Alternatively any theists can acknowledge they hold none, and explain why we should not infer an inherent bias in their religious belief, if it held to a different standard of evidence than all their other beliefs.
I would also like to ask to any theists here to list ten objectively moral actions, with evidence obviously, not just simply invoke their belief that objective morality exists because the deity they believe in is perfectly moral, as this is just a circular argument that invokes unevidenced claims.
For Halloween, I will disguise myself in a theist (probably one who enjoys being here) and give you the evidence you looking for. Right?
Quality, I shall look forward to that. In the mean time in lieu of my inevitable conversion and being saved, I intend to go off into a spiral of debauchery that even for me is impressive. I mean this would make Caligula blush.
@Sheldon Re: "...I intend to go off into a spiral of debauchery that even for me is impressive. I mean this would make Caligula blush."
AWESOME! Video! We demand video! The masses require entertainment!
I ain't sitting down watching Sheldon do a 10,000 piece jigsaw of the Queen of England's best handbag....that is his idea of debauchery you know..
@Old Man Re: "I ain't sitting down watching Sheldon do a 10,000 piece jigsaw of the Queen of England's best handbag..."
But what if it is a jigsaw puzzle of the Queen herself?.... Nude! Now THAT would be worth watching!
( Oh, and just to clarify... NO, Sheldon, YOU do not have to be nude while assembling the puzzle.)
Seriously? An 80 odd year old woman? You have lost a few nuts and bolts somewhere TM! Given the choice a nudie Sheldon would marginally less vomitworthy....especially if he wore a tiara....
@Sheldon Re: Old Man - "Given the choice a nudie Sheldon would marginally less vomitworthy....especially if he wore a tiara...."
Hmmmm.... Hey, Shelly! Take notes! Old Man may be on to something here! We could become millionaires almost overnight!
You get the pic of Sheldon naked save for a tiara, I will take care of production. I reckon we are on a winner! I am sure Jo would buy one just to stick pins in it and read the inerrancy of hindsight to it every day. I know cog would love two or three live size versions and Breezy would be into it as well....easy money mate!
Remember, though, for Cog to be interested, it will have to be "special".
Hey, Sheldon! Would you mind wearing a pig nose for a few shots?
Well I was thinking of replacing a few special pieces with self lubricating 3d sections. That will get the whole primate section buying....