PH-
Welcome to PHCorner Forums! Sign up for free to unlock full access and exclusive privileges, including:
- Asking questions about computer and mobile issues
- Discovering internet tips for your mobile network and computer
🕯️ Traditions What is atheism - a common misconception
- Thread starter JackFrost10
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atheism
- Status
JackFrost10
Fanatic
well thats just your opinion, you dont have any credentials to define atheism, its like a doctor telling an engineer how to build a house.
also the concept of gravity is established, if you disagree you can publish a paper to the scientific community providing your own theory on how rocket science work. you can come back here with a noble prize, then I would agree with you that the concept of gravity is not established.
JackFrost10, post: 10066321, member: 1309305"]well thats just your opinion, you dont have any credentials to define atheism, its like a doctor telling an engineer how to build a house.
I have some points here to tell you.
1.You made a very poor analogy.
2. I am a thinking being, therefore, I know what I am saying.
3. It is a desperate intellectual action to tell me that I do not have credential to define or say about atheism...As if atheism is a practical science like medicine or engineering where I am neither a doctor or engineer but I tell you I love philosophy and science.
4. The doctor or engineer can practice their profession at the same time can philosophize about atheism or theism or agnosticism or about reality.
5. You are self-confessed atheist, but you do not have the monopoly on the truth about atheism. Will you reiterate too, that i do not have the monopoly on truth. YES! I don't have that monopoly. it only confirms my arguments.
JackFrost10: also the concept of gravity is established, if you disagree you can publish a paper to the scientific community providing your own theory on how rocket science work. you can come back here with a noble prize, then I would agree with you that the concept of gravity is not established.
What is the thing that I do not know about gravity as it is related to the discussion?
Is your reading comprehension still okay?
This is what I said...
Bandwagon: "It shows that you can not establish your concept of atheism like the force of gravity that pulls everything."
A good reader should understand of what I meant.
Or you may also lecture me about..
Anti de-Sitter space, Blackbody radiation, Brane inflation, Bubbles, filaments, voids and sheets, Bubble nucleation, Calabi-Yau Manifold, Chaotic Inflation, Comoving horizon, Cosmic Microwave Background, Cosmological constant, Cosmic Strings, Cosmological principle,
Critical density,
Dark Matter,
Dark Energy,
Deep field survey,
Domain Walls,
Doppler-shift,
Escape velocity
Eternal inflation,
Event horizon,
General Relativity,
Grand Unified Theory,
Gravitational waves
Graviton,
Holographic principle,
Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
Hawking Radiation,
Kibble Mechanism, M-Theory
No-boundary proposal,
Orbifold,
Phase transition, Planck constant, Quantum chromodynamics
Quantum field theory, Redshift , Singularity Special relativity, String Theory, Superstring Theory, Supersymmetry, Symmetry breaking, Vacuum manifold,
Yang-Mills Theory
maybe I do not know these things...
I have some points here to tell you.
1.You made a very poor analogy.
2. I am a thinking being, therefore, I know what I am saying.
3. It is a desperate intellectual action to tell me that I do not have credential to define or say about atheism...As if atheism is a practical science like medicine or engineering where I am neither a doctor or engineer but I tell you I love philosophy and science.
4. The doctor or engineer can practice their profession at the same time can philosophize about atheism or theism or agnosticism or about reality.
5. You are self-confessed atheist, but you do not have the monopoly on the truth about atheism. Will you reiterate too, that i do not have the monopoly on truth. YES! I don't have that monopoly. it only confirms my arguments.
JackFrost10: also the concept of gravity is established, if you disagree you can publish a paper to the scientific community providing your own theory on how rocket science work. you can come back here with a noble prize, then I would agree with you that the concept of gravity is not established.
What is the thing that I do not know about gravity as it is related to the discussion?
Is your reading comprehension still okay?
This is what I said...
Bandwagon: "It shows that you can not establish your concept of atheism like the force of gravity that pulls everything."
A good reader should understand of what I meant.
Or you may also lecture me about..
Anti de-Sitter space, Blackbody radiation, Brane inflation, Bubbles, filaments, voids and sheets, Bubble nucleation, Calabi-Yau Manifold, Chaotic Inflation, Comoving horizon, Cosmic Microwave Background, Cosmological constant, Cosmic Strings, Cosmological principle,
Critical density,
Dark Matter,
Dark Energy,
Deep field survey,
Domain Walls,
Doppler-shift,
Escape velocity
Eternal inflation,
Event horizon,
General Relativity,
Grand Unified Theory,
Gravitational waves
Graviton,
Holographic principle,
Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
Hawking Radiation,
Kibble Mechanism, M-Theory
No-boundary proposal,
Orbifold,
Phase transition, Planck constant, Quantum chromodynamics
Quantum field theory, Redshift , Singularity Special relativity, String Theory, Superstring Theory, Supersymmetry, Symmetry breaking, Vacuum manifold,
Yang-Mills Theory
maybe I do not know these things...
blank052694
Enthusiast
tnx nag enjoy ako magbasa im an atheist btw d nko mkikipag talo bsta naniniwla ako s pinaniniwalaan ko hail stephen hawkings
JackFrost10
Fanatic
you compared gravity to your concept that my concept of atheism is not established.
I am also a thinking being and I also know what I'm saying.
then why define Atheism in your own?
I am not a self confessed atheist, I am a free thinker that asked the burden of prof on the GOD claim.
The argument was, you think atheism is a belief like the GOD belief. -false
Atheism don't claim anything, its a rejection of the GOD claim because the GOD claim didn't meet the burden of prof.
here is an example:
I have a jar of candies in my hand, is there an even or an odd number of candies in the jar?
answer: I don't know unless I count it - atheism in a nut shell.
answer: I believe it has an even number of candies. - theism in a nut shell.
Atheism is just a rejection of the GOD claim, don't make it look complected by mixing space time, dimensions, alternate realities and timelines,
Eh..itong comment mo may kwenta ba to?walang kwenta pala dinagdagan mo pa isa pang walang kwenta eh di mas lalo kang walang kweta...manahimik ka na lang dyan at magbasa ka na lang.
Pastor ka pang nalalaman....hangal.
wahahahaha! laughtrip ka talaga, tara game..
Simulan ulet naten sa proof of existence ng god mo..
*Walang bible verse ha*
1Starlord8
Journeyman
Atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of belief in the existense of a deity.
P.S base on my point of view.
P.S base on my point of view.
perfectmonster13
Grasshopper
I agree with bandwagon (the most sound mind here).
perfectmonster13
Grasshopper
What makes an atheist an atheist??
JackFrost10, post: 10080402, member: 1309305"]you compared gravity to your concept that my concept of atheism is not established.
Your statement here is quite blurred. I do not know what you exactly mean.
I am also a thinking being and I also know what I'm saying.
Reality will show
then why define Atheism in your own?
I do not think if this question is even necessary to prove your points because that question can be also applied to you.
"JackFrost, then why define atheism in your own?"
I am not a self confessed atheist, I am a free thinker...
You contradict yourself. You already confessed as an atheist. Your previous messages testify to that.
We do not even need to emphasize the term "free thinker". Our statements here will prove that.
What I actually noticed is that your free thinking attitude is not manifesting.
...that asked the burden of prof on the GOD claim.
This the crucial point. You are assuming that the burden of proof is only to the one that claims something ex. the theist that claims there is a God. However, the glaring truth that you as a self-confessed atheist, also carry the burden of proof to disprove the claim of the theist.
No matter how 'maybe' ridiculous (to your own opinion) the claims of the theist, you also have the burden to prove or disprove the theist claim. Here the theist proposes ARGUMENTS why God exists. You, as an atheist, has the burden to disprove this ARGUMENTS by presenting your own counter ARGUMENTS which these arguments you claim or assume or believe as the truth. You can not objectively say that only the atheist has the authority on science and logic where in fact, the theist too has that disposal.
You can not reject emptily. As an intellectual being, you reject the God claim because, somehow, you have the previous knowledge of God as what the theist tell you. Therefore, intellectual rejection needs supporting arguments where these arguments we believe as the truth based on our scientific and logical investigations. If you say that you reject the God claim for nothing or that atheism is simply LACK of belief, then the truly atheist is the cat or rock for example because the cat or the rock can not make intellectual judgment contrary to the atheist that has known the God debate or issue. The word atheism itself already implies "negate" as "a" means negate. Atheism becomes the anti-thesis to theism. In forming your thesis on atheism, you need arguments (which you believe as the truth) to negate the arguments of theism.
The argument was, you think atheism is a belief like the GOD belief. -false
You are putting words into my mouth. You are not careful into reading or your reading comprehension is problematic.
I think you need to re read the entirety of this thread where I explain why atheism is a belief and in what sense that atheism is a belief and the very meaning of the word belief itself.
Atheism don't claim anything, its a rejection of the GOD claim because the GOD claim didn't meet the burden of prof.
This is already shown as false.
IF the atheist don't claim anything, then utter silence is the proof. However, it is very contrary to the fact because, the atheists here all abounds and that their arguments is too numerous to be contained and addressed. Take note that i do not mean to discriminate on the atheist or atheism because I am just stating the fact. If you are an atheist or theist or agnostic, then what? What matters is the logical investigations of our thought-claims.
here is an example:
I have a jar of candies in my hand, is there an even or an odd number of candies in the jar?
answer: I don't know unless I count it - atheism in a nut shell.
answer: I believe it has an even number of candies. - theism in a nut shell.
This analogy is too simplistic. You failed to realize that serious theist apologist also uses scientific and logical investigations, and to my understanding, the debate is a stalemate. Atheism will think that, that is all there is to life. There are areas where atheism is strong and weak, so too of theism but it is a deadlock. Even in death atheism can not be proven as true, because if atheism is true, then nobody can go back from the dead to say that atheism is true. However, are we absolutely certain that when our body corrupts or we say we are medically dead, nothingness will follow? Are we sure that nothingness itself exists as if a physical entity? If nothingness can not exist as a physical truth, then how are we sure that the consciousness of the medically dead person is gone to nothingness? Where is nothingness? Are we sure or do we have the scientific or logical proofs that the spirit or consciousness of the dead is gone into nothingness? How? I challenge you to provide your scientific proofs or logical deliberation that the person who dies, his consciousness is gone into oblivion. We only speculate! I have to reiterate again that all these "isms" are based on beliefs where these beliefs are fundamentally drawn from arguments reinforce by scientific and logical efforts. Atheism or the atheist does not have that exclusive claim of the scientific and logical knowledge.
Atheism is just a rejection of the GOD claim, don't make it look complected by mixing space time, dimensions, alternate realities and timelines.
Word play.
No matter what word/s will you put into defining atheism, logic will always show that atheism is a belief.
When you reject the God claim, you form ARGUMENTS where these arguments you BELIEVE as the truth. If you CLAIM that you do not BELIEVE your arguments as a belief, then you are self refuting because, you are not yet dead and came back from the dead to confirm the absoluteness and ultimacy of atheism. How I wish I am dead that I may know the ultimate truth.
Our imagination is the limit in this instance. Why can't we think of space-time, dimensions, alternate realities, afterlife, otherside, etc? This is necessary, if you are really a free thinking, you must entertain these things in your life. What if death is just an another gate to a reality? This is not an outrageous speculation. It is better to say we do not know. However, it is also scintillating how reality unfolds even if this space-time continuum will endure for thousands, millions, or billions of years. Maybe, death is the another gateway to a reality where space-time is meaningless only that there is this fundamental impulse not to commit suicide too see the ultimate truth.
Your statement here is quite blurred. I do not know what you exactly mean.
I am also a thinking being and I also know what I'm saying.
Reality will show
then why define Atheism in your own?
I do not think if this question is even necessary to prove your points because that question can be also applied to you.
"JackFrost, then why define atheism in your own?"
I am not a self confessed atheist, I am a free thinker...
You contradict yourself. You already confessed as an atheist. Your previous messages testify to that.
We do not even need to emphasize the term "free thinker". Our statements here will prove that.
What I actually noticed is that your free thinking attitude is not manifesting.
...that asked the burden of prof on the GOD claim.
This the crucial point. You are assuming that the burden of proof is only to the one that claims something ex. the theist that claims there is a God. However, the glaring truth that you as a self-confessed atheist, also carry the burden of proof to disprove the claim of the theist.
No matter how 'maybe' ridiculous (to your own opinion) the claims of the theist, you also have the burden to prove or disprove the theist claim. Here the theist proposes ARGUMENTS why God exists. You, as an atheist, has the burden to disprove this ARGUMENTS by presenting your own counter ARGUMENTS which these arguments you claim or assume or believe as the truth. You can not objectively say that only the atheist has the authority on science and logic where in fact, the theist too has that disposal.
You can not reject emptily. As an intellectual being, you reject the God claim because, somehow, you have the previous knowledge of God as what the theist tell you. Therefore, intellectual rejection needs supporting arguments where these arguments we believe as the truth based on our scientific and logical investigations. If you say that you reject the God claim for nothing or that atheism is simply LACK of belief, then the truly atheist is the cat or rock for example because the cat or the rock can not make intellectual judgment contrary to the atheist that has known the God debate or issue. The word atheism itself already implies "negate" as "a" means negate. Atheism becomes the anti-thesis to theism. In forming your thesis on atheism, you need arguments (which you believe as the truth) to negate the arguments of theism.
The argument was, you think atheism is a belief like the GOD belief. -false
You are putting words into my mouth. You are not careful into reading or your reading comprehension is problematic.
I think you need to re read the entirety of this thread where I explain why atheism is a belief and in what sense that atheism is a belief and the very meaning of the word belief itself.
Atheism don't claim anything, its a rejection of the GOD claim because the GOD claim didn't meet the burden of prof.
This is already shown as false.
IF the atheist don't claim anything, then utter silence is the proof. However, it is very contrary to the fact because, the atheists here all abounds and that their arguments is too numerous to be contained and addressed. Take note that i do not mean to discriminate on the atheist or atheism because I am just stating the fact. If you are an atheist or theist or agnostic, then what? What matters is the logical investigations of our thought-claims.
here is an example:
I have a jar of candies in my hand, is there an even or an odd number of candies in the jar?
answer: I don't know unless I count it - atheism in a nut shell.
answer: I believe it has an even number of candies. - theism in a nut shell.
This analogy is too simplistic. You failed to realize that serious theist apologist also uses scientific and logical investigations, and to my understanding, the debate is a stalemate. Atheism will think that, that is all there is to life. There are areas where atheism is strong and weak, so too of theism but it is a deadlock. Even in death atheism can not be proven as true, because if atheism is true, then nobody can go back from the dead to say that atheism is true. However, are we absolutely certain that when our body corrupts or we say we are medically dead, nothingness will follow? Are we sure that nothingness itself exists as if a physical entity? If nothingness can not exist as a physical truth, then how are we sure that the consciousness of the medically dead person is gone to nothingness? Where is nothingness? Are we sure or do we have the scientific or logical proofs that the spirit or consciousness of the dead is gone into nothingness? How? I challenge you to provide your scientific proofs or logical deliberation that the person who dies, his consciousness is gone into oblivion. We only speculate! I have to reiterate again that all these "isms" are based on beliefs where these beliefs are fundamentally drawn from arguments reinforce by scientific and logical efforts. Atheism or the atheist does not have that exclusive claim of the scientific and logical knowledge.
Atheism is just a rejection of the GOD claim, don't make it look complected by mixing space time, dimensions, alternate realities and timelines.
Word play.
No matter what word/s will you put into defining atheism, logic will always show that atheism is a belief.
When you reject the God claim, you form ARGUMENTS where these arguments you BELIEVE as the truth. If you CLAIM that you do not BELIEVE your arguments as a belief, then you are self refuting because, you are not yet dead and came back from the dead to confirm the absoluteness and ultimacy of atheism. How I wish I am dead that I may know the ultimate truth.
Our imagination is the limit in this instance. Why can't we think of space-time, dimensions, alternate realities, afterlife, otherside, etc? This is necessary, if you are really a free thinking, you must entertain these things in your life. What if death is just an another gate to a reality? This is not an outrageous speculation. It is better to say we do not know. However, it is also scintillating how reality unfolds even if this space-time continuum will endure for thousands, millions, or billions of years. Maybe, death is the another gateway to a reality where space-time is meaningless only that there is this fundamental impulse not to commit suicide too see the ultimate truth.
JackFrost10
Fanatic
counter Arguments are formed based on the current understanding of reality, which does not require a belief.
The GOD claim has the burden of proof because it starts from a Conclusion.
Steps of the Scientific Method
- Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ... <-- Atheist arguments starts here
- Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
- Form a Hypothesis. ...
- Conduct an Experiment. ... <-- most of The GOD claim cant even move past here
- Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion. <--- The GOD claim starts here.
sure
oh so asking questions are a claim now? <-- is this a claim? <-- or this one is a claim?
I really don't know I was just asking questions on people that claims GOD exist until they called me an Atheist.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-Albert Einstein
now your speaking my language.
so you want me to prove something that I didn't claim? huh, that's odd I don't remember saying that the consciousness is gone into oblivion or a GOD exist.
so did your questions requires a belief? or its more on the answer requires a belief? you could just say "I don't know" and you don't have to explain yourself. the moment you say GOD is the answer - it caries the burden of proof.
YES, the GOD debate is a stalemate. thats why atheism advocates science, if the people that claims that GOD exist debated the people that claims GOD don't exist its a stalemate. atheist are classified in the middle, those are the people that admits they don't actually know if GOD exist or not so we will stick on something more reliable like science and logic. we may be able to cure cancer while you defend your GOD's till kingdom come.
oh so forming a question from a claim based on your observation of reality is a belief? I mean if i dont believe something would it disappear? does it requires a belief for the sun to exist?
if someone claims that the sun doesn't exist and then I form a counter argument that it exist based on my observation of reality, is it a belief?
someone claims that a GOD exist and then I form a counter argument that it might not be the case based on my observation of reality, its a belief as per your assessment.
so which arguments are a belief and which are not.?
oh yes I am a free thinker I just happen to also think about the negative.
JackFrost10
Fanatic
when you realize you don't actually know anything therefore you can now learn everything.
JackFrost10, post: 10104191, member: 1309305"]counter Arguments are formed based on the current understanding of reality, which does not require a belief.
Whose "current understanding" of reality is the "truest" or nearest to the absolute/ultimate reality?
If understanding of reality does not require a belief, then why the need to form "counter-arguments"?
If you possess the knowledge of ultimate truth, do you think you still need counter-arguments?
The GOD claim has the burden of proof because it starts from a Conclusion.
How do you know that the theist's mind always works in that way? Besides, the atheist can not escape the philosophical truth of his stand that he too has the burden of proof to prove that the theist is wrong. Very simple as that. Still you can not figure out.
Steps of the Scientific Method
Steps of the Scientific Method
* Make an observation. Scientists (scientists have different personal beliefs..atheists, agnostics, or theists) are naturally (I emphasize this word because what is the sense of being natural to the scientist when every thinking being not only the scientist can be natural? in other words I mean, do we need to be a scientist to be naturally curious? )
curious about the world (scientists have different personal beliefs....atheists, agnostics or theists...besides, not only the scientists are curious about the world, if we mean the professing scientist..the philosopher is deeply curious about the physical world and of all realities that can possibly imagined). <<<< Atheist, agnostic, theist arguments start here..
Whose God claim are you talking about? Have you tried to debate a hardened theist apologist or you are just making a caricature of the theist position based on perhaps a theist that helplessly/poorly articulated his worldview without even considering the theist's strong points. However, I do not delve deeply in that issue because this thread is all about the meaning of atheism (semantic quibbling) and not the debate if God/gods exists or does not exist. If you really want to show to the world that your conclusion that the theist can not past your test, then you have to search the internet and challenge the hardened theists of their arguments. What you have enumerated above is applicable to every thinking human being. The atheist does not have the monopoly on the scientific method and philosophical investigations. We can always think of the opposite or opposition.
oh so asking questions are a claim now? <-- is this a claim? <-- or this one is a claim?
Is this how the self-confessed atheist always do?asking questions? Is it true that the atheist just only asks questions about life or reality? That the atheist does not claim anything?
AS IF reality is just riveted ONLY on the God/gods debate and that the agnostic, atheists, and theists out there know nothing of reality but the God/gods debate.
I really don't know I was just asking questions on people that claims GOD exist until they called me an Atheist.
Asking questions does not necessarily or automatically label someone as an atheist, agnostic or theist.
However, it is contrary to fact that the atheist merely asks questions. The truth is the atheist does not merely ask. Intellectual claims or argumentation will follow from both sides of the spectrum. Concepts are born or drawn in the interim.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-Albert Einstein
now your speaking my language.
so you want me to prove something that I didn't claim?
In what sense that I am speaking your language?
No, that is not the way I am saying something. You, as a self-confessed atheist, has the burden to disprove the theist claim. You are side-stepping the issue. You think you do not have the intellectual responsibility of proving your claim as an atheist?
huh, that's odd I don't remember saying that the consciousness is gone into oblivion or a GOD exist.
Again, this not what I am trying to say or there is a problem with your reading comprehension. Analyze properly.
so did your questions requires a belief? or its more on the answer requires a belief? you could just say "I don't know" and you don't have to explain yourself. the moment you say GOD is the answer - it caries the burden of proof.
Not so simple as what you say above about the atheism-theism or God debate issue. The atheist and theist both believe in their claims or arguments. The theist believes there is a God the atheist believes there is none. The burden of proof is applicable to both.
Or are we making here a repetitive non-sense?
YES, the GOD debate is a stalemate. thats why atheism advocates science, if the people that claims that GOD exist debated the people that claims GOD don't exist its a stalemate. atheist are classified in the middle, those are the people that admits they don't actually know if GOD exist or not so we will stick on something more reliable like science and logic. we may be able to cure cancer while you defend your GOD's till kingdom come.
Your argument here is antiquated and too limited. I think you are just having the caricature of the mainstream theist position. The atheist doesn't have the exclusive exercise and possession of scientific and philosophical knowledge (the atheist, theist, agnostic has this knowledge at his disposal to argue about his worldview). If you want to be classified "in the middle" the better term is "agnostic".
oh so forming a question from a claim based on your observation of reality is a belief?
I mean if i dont believe something would it disappear?
Again, is this how the atheist only does in reality? Are we sure that the atheist only "form" questions? The theist too can form questions. The theist too claim based on observation of reality. Meanwhile, the atheist can not escape the logical truth that when he forms arguments, he believes. He believes in his arguments as the truth. So simple and clear as that. If you really want to escape label, then take no position in the God debate. However, once you commit into something that requires not mere questions but argumentation, you can not escape being labeled.
does it requires a belief for the sun to exist?
if someone claims that the sun doesn't exist and then I form a counter argument that it exist based on my observation of reality, is it a belief?
someone claims that a GOD exist and then I form a counter argument that it might not be the case based on my observation of reality, its a belief as per your assessment.
so which arguments are a belief and which are not.?
How I wish that the concept of atheism is simple as the existence of the sun.
Is it logically complete to compare the existence of the sun to the concept of atheism?
Your statement above goes like this...
"Once there was a human being, then as per all kind of scientific observation and logical investigations, he concluded that the sun exists.. and then voila, atheism sprung into being!"
Oh, it is so hard to find the necessary connection of the sun's existence to the meaning of belief and atheism.
Whereas, the sun is a physical/material entity, atheism is a concept. The whole of atheism is not merely about questions. You can not find atheism in the physical world. Atheism originated from both inductive and deductive methods where these methods as per HUMAN WILL, weaved as arguments for atheism (non-existence of God) where the atheist believes that these arguments points to the non-existence of God. However, the theist can say the contrary and that inductive and deductive reasoning lead to the argument of God's existence and hence and so forth, the debate rages on and on...
oh yes I am a free thinker I just happen to also think about the negative
Oh, labels labels everywhere. A free thinker can not be limited by any worldviews. Besides, the true free thinker is open minded to all side of the spectrum...plus, he/she must transcend these mere verbal quibbling that we have....plus, he/she suspends judgment where he/she thinks he/she knows very little of reality..plus... a true free thinker commits none of both position but an objective observer..plus a free thinker is intellectually honest and that he/she is ready to dig deeper into the arguments of all sides...
Whose "current understanding" of reality is the "truest" or nearest to the absolute/ultimate reality?
If understanding of reality does not require a belief, then why the need to form "counter-arguments"?
If you possess the knowledge of ultimate truth, do you think you still need counter-arguments?
The GOD claim has the burden of proof because it starts from a Conclusion.
How do you know that the theist's mind always works in that way? Besides, the atheist can not escape the philosophical truth of his stand that he too has the burden of proof to prove that the theist is wrong. Very simple as that. Still you can not figure out.
Steps of the Scientific Method
- Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ... <-- Atheist arguments starts here
Steps of the Scientific Method
* Make an observation. Scientists (scientists have different personal beliefs..atheists, agnostics, or theists) are naturally (I emphasize this word because what is the sense of being natural to the scientist when every thinking being not only the scientist can be natural? in other words I mean, do we need to be a scientist to be naturally curious? )
curious about the world (scientists have different personal beliefs....atheists, agnostics or theists...besides, not only the scientists are curious about the world, if we mean the professing scientist..the philosopher is deeply curious about the physical world and of all realities that can possibly imagined). <<<< Atheist, agnostic, theist arguments start here..
- Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
- Form a Hypothesis. ...
- Conduct an Experiment. ... <-- most of The GOD claim cant even move past here
- Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion. <--- The GOD claim starts here.
Whose God claim are you talking about? Have you tried to debate a hardened theist apologist or you are just making a caricature of the theist position based on perhaps a theist that helplessly/poorly articulated his worldview without even considering the theist's strong points. However, I do not delve deeply in that issue because this thread is all about the meaning of atheism (semantic quibbling) and not the debate if God/gods exists or does not exist. If you really want to show to the world that your conclusion that the theist can not past your test, then you have to search the internet and challenge the hardened theists of their arguments. What you have enumerated above is applicable to every thinking human being. The atheist does not have the monopoly on the scientific method and philosophical investigations. We can always think of the opposite or opposition.
oh so asking questions are a claim now? <-- is this a claim? <-- or this one is a claim?
Is this how the self-confessed atheist always do?asking questions? Is it true that the atheist just only asks questions about life or reality? That the atheist does not claim anything?
AS IF reality is just riveted ONLY on the God/gods debate and that the agnostic, atheists, and theists out there know nothing of reality but the God/gods debate.
I really don't know I was just asking questions on people that claims GOD exist until they called me an Atheist.
Asking questions does not necessarily or automatically label someone as an atheist, agnostic or theist.
However, it is contrary to fact that the atheist merely asks questions. The truth is the atheist does not merely ask. Intellectual claims or argumentation will follow from both sides of the spectrum. Concepts are born or drawn in the interim.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-Albert Einstein
now your speaking my language.
so you want me to prove something that I didn't claim?
In what sense that I am speaking your language?
No, that is not the way I am saying something. You, as a self-confessed atheist, has the burden to disprove the theist claim. You are side-stepping the issue. You think you do not have the intellectual responsibility of proving your claim as an atheist?
huh, that's odd I don't remember saying that the consciousness is gone into oblivion or a GOD exist.
Again, this not what I am trying to say or there is a problem with your reading comprehension. Analyze properly.
so did your questions requires a belief? or its more on the answer requires a belief? you could just say "I don't know" and you don't have to explain yourself. the moment you say GOD is the answer - it caries the burden of proof.
Not so simple as what you say above about the atheism-theism or God debate issue. The atheist and theist both believe in their claims or arguments. The theist believes there is a God the atheist believes there is none. The burden of proof is applicable to both.
Or are we making here a repetitive non-sense?
YES, the GOD debate is a stalemate. thats why atheism advocates science, if the people that claims that GOD exist debated the people that claims GOD don't exist its a stalemate. atheist are classified in the middle, those are the people that admits they don't actually know if GOD exist or not so we will stick on something more reliable like science and logic. we may be able to cure cancer while you defend your GOD's till kingdom come.
Your argument here is antiquated and too limited. I think you are just having the caricature of the mainstream theist position. The atheist doesn't have the exclusive exercise and possession of scientific and philosophical knowledge (the atheist, theist, agnostic has this knowledge at his disposal to argue about his worldview). If you want to be classified "in the middle" the better term is "agnostic".
oh so forming a question from a claim based on your observation of reality is a belief?
I mean if i dont believe something would it disappear?
Again, is this how the atheist only does in reality? Are we sure that the atheist only "form" questions? The theist too can form questions. The theist too claim based on observation of reality. Meanwhile, the atheist can not escape the logical truth that when he forms arguments, he believes. He believes in his arguments as the truth. So simple and clear as that. If you really want to escape label, then take no position in the God debate. However, once you commit into something that requires not mere questions but argumentation, you can not escape being labeled.
does it requires a belief for the sun to exist?
if someone claims that the sun doesn't exist and then I form a counter argument that it exist based on my observation of reality, is it a belief?
someone claims that a GOD exist and then I form a counter argument that it might not be the case based on my observation of reality, its a belief as per your assessment.
so which arguments are a belief and which are not.?
How I wish that the concept of atheism is simple as the existence of the sun.
Is it logically complete to compare the existence of the sun to the concept of atheism?
Your statement above goes like this...
"Once there was a human being, then as per all kind of scientific observation and logical investigations, he concluded that the sun exists.. and then voila, atheism sprung into being!"
Oh, it is so hard to find the necessary connection of the sun's existence to the meaning of belief and atheism.
Whereas, the sun is a physical/material entity, atheism is a concept. The whole of atheism is not merely about questions. You can not find atheism in the physical world. Atheism originated from both inductive and deductive methods where these methods as per HUMAN WILL, weaved as arguments for atheism (non-existence of God) where the atheist believes that these arguments points to the non-existence of God. However, the theist can say the contrary and that inductive and deductive reasoning lead to the argument of God's existence and hence and so forth, the debate rages on and on...
oh yes I am a free thinker I just happen to also think about the negative
Oh, labels labels everywhere. A free thinker can not be limited by any worldviews. Besides, the true free thinker is open minded to all side of the spectrum...plus, he/she must transcend these mere verbal quibbling that we have....plus, he/she suspends judgment where he/she thinks he/she knows very little of reality..plus... a true free thinker commits none of both position but an objective observer..plus a free thinker is intellectually honest and that he/she is ready to dig deeper into the arguments of all sides...
JackFrost10
Fanatic
I dont know, I dont have any metrics to measure the absolute/ultimate reality.
to enlighten the person that his/her claim has holes that needs to be addressed.
maybe?, I don't know if you could have an example of the ultimate truth, I might have a proper answer.
actually I was just referring on just the GOD claim, I don't really know how all theist's mind works. you could google the burden of proof and how it works.
actually the second sentence is for kids its just a figure of speach.
actually I did, its been running for around 20 years. And now it has a few branches, also you can call them. they debated all kinds of believer's and non-believer's and Rey Comfort . you can point me on the right person, I might find a video of him/her calling the show, if not I can point you to the show, you might find most of the arguments here are already discussed.
no, atheist ask questions about the GOD claim.
well yes, asking the right questions to theist automatically label you as an atheist.
ah no, you can google the burden of proof, the GOD claim haven't meet the burden of proof, until then the burden of proof will not change sides.
maybe my reading comprehension is faulty, can you enlighten me?
The theist claims there is a GOD atheist rejects it - the burden of proof is on the theist.
The atheist claims there is no GOD theist rejects it - the burden of proof is on the atheist.
google the burden of proof.
limited in which metric?
true atheist don't have that exclusivity, that doesn't mean atheism is a belief.
true you can call me an agnostic still a synonym of atheism.
not reality, only the GOD claim.
well if I claim that the sun doesn't exist, anyone that argues with me believes there argument is true? would that make them a sun believer? like paganism?
actually I just want to know if it would require a belief to form a counter-argument on the suns existence.
also, the debate is on a stalemate because the burden of proof has not been meet by the god claim therefore it will not switch to the atheist side.
g33onama17
Fanatic
Good read, keep it going guys. I myself is an atheist.
- Status