• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Are there any "true" atheists?

Well if something in his subconscious felt married, though the actual real person himself is single, then this is the guy who'd conclude he's a married bachelor.
 
abaddon said:
Well if something in his subconscious felt married, though the actual real person himself is single, then this is the guy who'd conclude he's a married bachelor.
Click to expand...
You keep mixing up the actual with the perceived. That's where you're going wrong. Bachelors and married men are actual people. Atheism and theism are perceptions of what is believed in the mind. Although actual married bachelors are by definition impossible, men who believe they are married bachelors are very possible. In the same way atheistic theists are very possible.

Understand?
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Alcoholic Actuary said:
Unknown Soldier said:
James Brown said:
For some people, "sound logic" means whatever feels right to them.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that's true, but just because there are counterfeits, it doesn't follow that there is nothing that is genuine. Logic is a very old, refined, and sophisticated discipline and is intellectually on a par with mathematics. I encourage everybody here to study logic.
Click to expand...
We do. We all do. Maybe you might start by describing the 'logic' behind a 'fear of damnation'?

aa
Click to expand...
That's easy. If there might be a God who damns unbelievers, then logically atheists will be toast.
Click to expand...
Logically, if 'hypothesis' then 'conclusion'. To a person mostly on this forum, your hypothesis is false, therefore the conclusion does not follow. Maybe somewhere there is a worker at Costco or Home Depot who damns unbelievers, but a god? what kind would do that if they existed?

aa
 
Unknown Soldier said:
That's easy. If there might be a God who damns unbelievers, then logically atheists will be toast.
Click to expand...
Pascal's wager breaks down on the existence of more than one religion or sect.

If there is a God who damns unbelievers, then logically everyone who believes in the wrong God will also be toast.

Believing in none might actually be a better bet - if you walk into a Leeds United bar wearing a Manchester United shirt, you're toast; If you're not wearing any football regalia at all, you can probably have a quiet pint and not be given any hassle.

There's absolutely no reason to imagine that Zeus would be less angry at Christians than he would be at atheists, and plenty of reasons why he might be considerably more angry at Christians.
 
Having a logically valid argument does not mean you have proven anything, A logically valid argument simply means that there are no logical fallacies and conclusion follows from premises.

Logically sound or sound reasoning are more subjective assessments.

Theists especially the RCC make convoluted logically valid theological arguments, but it is based on the truth of the assumed truth of the premeses. Usually buried in the reasoning and logic is an a priori assumption god exists. Or circular arguments where conclusion proves the premis.

God exists because god is in the bible, the bible is true because god exists.

And now we diverge again into what constitutes theological evidence used as parts of the premises. Along with Soldier's argument atheists just don't really get theists and their logic is equally valid as science based on measurements. Soldier's argument has been posted a number of times in the past by theist posting on the science forum.

So how do you logically prove there are no true atheists? I don't think you can prove that qualitatively. You ca run studies, accumulate subjective data, ad draw a conclusion but it is not what I would call proof. The24/7 media now has a steady stream of studies based on small samples drawing sometimes wild ass conclusions. They are alleged correlations not proofs of causality.

A survey was done in the UK on beliefs. A occlusion was that the survey was useless. Asking what appears to be a simple question do you believe in god gets problematic when a large number of people are asked. God means many things to many people. How the question is asked affecs how people respond.

Political pollsters over time learned how to frame questions asked in election polls in order to get the best possible accuracy.

Skilled peoplec an bias a response by how the question is framed. Which is why during elections there is a 'poll of polls', all polls combined. How FOX asks questions of Trump supporters will not likely br the same as questions asked by a CNN poll.

Theist, atheists, and another with an agenda to support will frame questions and interpret responses differently. This is not exactly profound, in politics common knowledge. Religious and philosophical debate is just amotherr name for politics. In tat context Soldier is making a political argument. He is not making a proof, he is trying to sway opinion.

And as we all know politicians routinely make use of logical fallacies. All you have to do is watch what politicians use for arguments.

So, to show there are no true atheists where is the data? What were the poll questions? What is the criteria for making a conclusion?
 
Fear of damnation comes from the same psychic swamp as other irrational faith claims: that we'll be sensate, eternally, after brain death occurs; that our every thought and impulse is monitored by a deity; that there's a tempter named Satan, etc.,etc. This is sheer manipulation and mental bondage. U.S., there are REALLY people who don't believe a shred of this. We accept that there are true believers -- why in the hell don't you know there is a 100% secular population?
 
Unknown Soldier said:
abaddon said:
Well if something in his subconscious felt married, though the actual real person himself is single, then this is the guy who'd conclude he's a married bachelor.
Click to expand...
You keep mixing up the actual with the perceived. That's where you're going wrong. Bachelors and married men are actual people. Atheism and theism are perceptions of what is believed in the mind. Although actual married bachelors are by definition impossible, men who believe they are married bachelors are very possible. In the same way atheistic theists are very possible.

Understand?
Click to expand...
That is goalpost shifting. It is one thing to say something exists, it is another to claim it exists near exclusively.
 
bilby said:
Unknown Soldier said:
That's easy. If there might be a God who damns unbelievers, then logically atheists will be toast.
Click to expand...
Pascal's wager breaks down on the existence of more than one religion or sect.

If there is a God who damns unbelievers, then logically everyone who believes in the wrong God will also be toast.

Believing in none might actually be a better bet - if you walk into a Leeds United bar wearing a Manchester United shirt, you're toast; If you're not wearing any football regalia at all, you can probably have a quiet pint and not be given any hassle.

There's absolutely no reason to imagine that Zeus would be less angry at Christians than he would be at atheists, and plenty of reasons why he might be considerably more angry at Christians.
Click to expand...
As I keep bringing up, the only version that doesn't says "gods can be as humans, and design universes for reasons identical to human ones; no same human would let any religious zealot out; no same human would not let someone out who bases their ethics on religion (AKA "the alignment problem"); therefore, based on observations, God likely prefers atheists.

Pascals wager doesn't just break down in a situation with uncertainty over gods, it completely inverts given sufficient understanding of available and visible "creation/sub-creation" mechanics and logic.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Psychologists for decades have known about what they call "cognitive dissonance." From Wikipedia we have:
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment.
Click to expand...
So yes, there really are atheists who can believe in God.
Click to expand...

Cognitive dissonance is awesome! So not only do I believe in god because I am a fundamentalist Christian, I also believe in Allah, Buddha, Krishna, and I'm a Jehovah's Witness Mormon. Man, I'm definitely going to Heaven now.

Wait a second. Forgive me for doubting your superb post, but I'm allowed to do that because I can believe it and doubt it at the same time. So... this makes me realize something.

The posters in the thread who doubt your magnificent words also believe them. There can be no "true" non-believers. But then, this also means you both disbelieve and believe them at the same time. Therefore, what is the point in arguing since you all believe and disbelieve every post in the thread? Moreover, why even make the thread if everyone believes and disbelieves? Why make any thread? Why communicate with anyone ever? It all--just is.

Go live your life. I set you free.
 
ideologyhunter said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:

Go live your life. I set you free.
Click to expand...
Isn't there unfinished business? We haven't even mentioned MPP. I believe in MPP. I've taken rides on her, on a few memorable nights. Everyone, deep down, deep deep down, knows about MPP and harbors at least SOME belief in her. Magic Pink Pony!!! She rocks!!!
Click to expand...

I never heard of MPP, but now that I know, there are memory cells in my brain reflecting the possibility of its existence. This means I have cognitive dissonance and as there are no "true" non-believers I have to believe and disbelieve in MPP simultaneously.
 
The bible god makes sense if you look at it as metaphor for the patriarchal tribal culture that gave rise to it.

We don't know how the god myth was actually used in daily life. God the father up there somewhere as an image of god the father head of household.

From a show on archeology there is evidence there may have been a male and female principle, but the female half got dropped.
 
Alcoholic Actuary said:
Logically, if 'hypothesis' then 'conclusion'. To a person mostly on this forum, your hypothesis is false, therefore the conclusion does not follow.
Click to expand...
That's faulty logic. Any conditional statement is true as long as it does not does not have a true hypothesis followed by a false conclusion. So conditional statements having false hypotheses are all true!

Learn logic.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Alcoholic Actuary said:
Logically, if 'hypothesis' then 'conclusion'. To a person mostly on this forum, your hypothesis is false, therefore the conclusion does not follow.
Click to expand...
That's faulty logic. Any conditional statement is true as long as it does not does not have a true hypothesis followed by a false conclusion. So conditional statements having false hypotheses are all true!

Learn logic.
Click to expand...
Soldier are you familiar with the saying about somebody being a 'One Trick Pony'?
 
steve_bank said:
The bible god makes sense if you look at it as metaphor for the patriarchal tribal culture that gave rise to it.

We don't know how the god myth was actually used in daily life. God the father up there somewhere as an image of god the father head of household.

From a show on archeology there is evidence there may have been a male and female principle, but the female half got dropped.
Click to expand...

Apparently Yahweh had a wife called Asherah.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Alcoholic Actuary said:
Logically, if 'hypothesis' then 'conclusion'. To a person mostly on this forum, your hypothesis is false, therefore the conclusion does not follow.
Click to expand...
That's faulty logic. Any conditional statement is true as long as it does not does not have a true hypothesis followed by a false conclusion. So conditional statements having false hypotheses are all true!

Learn logic.
Click to expand...
Why do I post here? YOU DO NOT HAVE A TRUE HYPOTHESIS! Therefore, we can make no correct statement about the veracity of your conclusion. That is perfect logic. Learn it. Statements in and of themselves are as dumb as the people making them. "If a function is continuous, then it is integrable." Logically not true, although the hypothesis can be true and so can the conclusion not be false when open to specific interpretation.

aa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom