Exposing Atheistic Myths

[skepticalbip]

An intriguing observation. How are you defining 'atheist,' then?

One who does not believe in the existence of any god.
My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.
Many people say things or pantomime their way through rituals in such a way as to appear to be theist as a survival instinct... but none of them have ever demonstrated a belief in existence of a god.

I will stand corrected if provided sufficient evidence of someone's belief, though.

I think maybe you are confusing those who claim to be Christian but don't accept all the Christian beliefs about god and the bible as true with Atheists. There are many that don't accept the church's claims and descriptions as true but hold some fuzzy belief of some ill-defined or non-defined higher power... These would not be atheists but would be believers in the supernatural.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

An intriguing observation. How are you defining 'atheist,' then?

One who does not believe in the existence of any god.
My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.
Many people say things or pantomime their way through rituals in such a way as to appear to be theist as a survival instinct... but none of them have ever demonstrated a belief in existence of a god.

I will stand corrected if provided sufficient evidence of someone's belief, though.

It's really not a big part of the lives of most "believers" but they do exhibit behaviors that demonstrate their belief, like going into buildings and singing songs to an invisible spaceman, among other things.

In the main, however, their lives and the vast majority of their behaviors are certainly atheistic. What people say and what people do are two different things. I've always considered behavior far more important. Speech is behavior certainly, but being six feet, six inches tall and claiming to be six feet, six inches tall are two different things. People who claim they have gods really don't have gods, but snippets of their behavior still make them "believers." And this behavior is in fact the evidence that they actually "believe."

 

[Gun Nut]

An intriguing observation. How are you defining 'atheist,' then?

One who does not believe in the existence of any god.
My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.
Many people say things or pantomime their way through rituals in such a way as to appear to be theist as a survival instinct... but none of them have ever demonstrated a belief in existence of a god.

I will stand corrected if provided sufficient evidence of someone's belief, though.

If they say they believe, they've demonstrated their belief. You stand corrected if you cannot show that people don't believe what they say they believe.

I'm sorry, as much as I would like to help, the laws of the universe prevent me from making negative existence claims. The onus is on the so-called "believer" to establish the authenticity of their belief. Sorry. <shrug>

 

[Gun Nut]

An intriguing observation. How are you defining 'atheist,' then?

One who does not believe in the existence of any god.
My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.
Many people say things or pantomime their way through rituals in such a way as to appear to be theist as a survival instinct... but none of them have ever demonstrated a belief in existence of a god.

I will stand corrected if provided sufficient evidence of someone's belief, though.

It's really not a big part of the lives of most "believers" but they do exhibit behaviors that demonstrate their belief, like going into buildings and singing songs to an invisible spaceman, among other things.

I've investigated that and have already reported it under "pantomime". See above.

In the main, however, their lives and the vast majority of their behaviors are certainly atheistic. What people say and what people do are two different things. I've always considered behavior far more important. Speech is behavior certainly, but being six feet, six inches tall and claiming to be six feet, six inches tall are two different things. People who claim they have gods really don't have gods, but snippets of their behavior still make them "believers." And this behavior is in fact the evidence that they actually "believe."

We are close to agreement. I am not of the opinion that behaviors are equivalent to beliefs... "do as I say, not as I do".. came from somewhere. Otherwise, I agree with this.

 

[Gun Nut]

An intriguing observation. How are you defining 'atheist,' then?

One who does not believe in the existence of any god.
My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.
Many people say things or pantomime their way through rituals in such a way as to appear to be theist as a survival instinct... but none of them have ever demonstrated a belief in existence of a god.

I will stand corrected if provided sufficient evidence of someone's belief, though.

I think maybe you are confusing those who claim to be Christian but don't accept all the Christian beliefs about god and the bible as true with Atheists.

The ol' Cafeteria Christian is still a Theist argument? I reject it on the grounds that these folks do not demonstrate belief in ANY (Christian or otherwise) god. They pick and choose the rules they wish to live by and use whatever scripture they like best as a defense. Blasphemy is dealt with quite harshly... eternally.. one who believes that would do no such thing.

There are many that don't accept the church's claims and descriptions as true but hold some fuzzy belief of some ill-defined or non-defined higher power... These would not be atheists but would be believers in the supernatural.

I would entertain the notion of a third group... But I am not yet convinced that a group of people that reject every biblical god ever proposed can be called something other than Atheist, just because they have

some fuzzy belief of some ill-defined or non-defined higher power.

It's quite a stretch to go from that to "BELIEVE". "fuzzy... ill-defined".. sounds more like a fleeting thought to me.

 

[Half-Life]

Things existing without a cause is a theistic assumption that is part of the self-contradictory cosmological argument put forth by the idiot Aquinas who was laughed of serious philosophy many centuries ago.

It starts with the premise that everything is caused, then once it gets to God, it violates it's own premise by assuming that God was not caused (otherwise he wouldn't be much of a God). IOW, theists simultaneously claim that things need causes and things don't need causes, depending on when it's emotionally convenient for them.

Atheists don't need to make this patently absurd self contradictory argument. They could either assume that everything does not need a cause and therefore no God is needed to cause the known universe, or atheists could assume that everything does need a cause and therefore all things are an infinite chain and there cannot logically be a first-cause, a beginning, a God, etc..

There can't be an infinite number of causes because then you can't get back to the beginning to how it all started.

This was ruled out centuries ago by philosophers as well.

 

[Gun Nut]

Things existing without a cause is a theistic assumption that is part of the self-contradictory cosmological argument put forth by the idiot Aquinas who was laughed of serious philosophy many centuries ago.

It starts with the premise that everything is caused, then once it gets to God, it violates it's own premise by assuming that God was not caused (otherwise he wouldn't be much of a God). IOW, theists simultaneously claim that things need causes and things don't need causes, depending on when it's emotionally convenient for them.

Atheists don't need to make this patently absurd self contradictory argument. They could either assume that everything does not need a cause and therefore no God is needed to cause the known universe, or atheists could assume that everything does need a cause and therefore all things are an infinite chain and there cannot logically be a first-cause, a beginning, a God, etc..

There can't be an infinite number of causes because then you can't get back to the beginning to how it all started.

This was ruled out centuries ago by philosophers as well.

"getting back to the beginning to how it all started" assumes that it started. That's circular reasoning. you can't have infinite causes if the premise is that the universe is caused. Without that premise, there is no "problem".
It's like asking you when you started kicking your dog, to find out if you are kicking your dog. So.. when was that?

 

[skepticalbip]

There can't be an infinite number of causes because then you can't get back to the beginning to how it all started.

In an eternal universe, there is no beginning or start. So an infinite number of causes.

This was ruled out centuries ago by philosophers as well.

The fact that religions and philosophers think they ruled out an eternal universe does not make it a fact... only an ego driven claim.

 

[Gun Nut]

There can't be an infinite number of causes because then you can't get back to the beginning to how it all started.

In an eternal universe, there is no beginning or start. So an infinite number of causes.

This was ruled out centuries ago by philosophers as well.

The fact that religions and philosophers think they ruled out an eternal universe does not make it a fact... only an ego driven claim.

If they begin with a premise that prevents any other line of thought, then it is logical and valid. The premise, however, may not be.
I see no reason to accept the "just so" premise that the universe was "started".... "somehow".

 

[abaddon]

If they say they believe, they've demonstrated their belief. You stand corrected if you cannot show that people don't believe what they say they believe.

I'm sorry, as much as I would like to help, the laws of the universe prevent me from making negative existence claims. The onus is on the so-called "believer" to establish the authenticity of their belief. Sorry. <shrug>

You said a belief does not exist in other people's heads. So obviously the laws of the universe don't prevent you from making negative existence claims.

 

[bilby]

I think maybe you are confusing those who claim to be Christian but don't accept all the Christian beliefs about god and the bible as true with Atheists.

The ol' Cafeteria Christian is still a Theist argument? I reject it on the grounds that these folks do not demonstrate belief in ANY (Christian or otherwise) god. They pick and choose the rules they wish to live by and use whatever scripture they like best as a defense. Blasphemy is dealt with quite harshly... eternally.. one who believes that would do no such thing.

There are many that don't accept the church's claims and descriptions as true but hold some fuzzy belief of some ill-defined or non-defined higher power... These would not be atheists but would be believers in the supernatural.

I would entertain the notion of a third group... But I am not yet convinced that a group of people that reject every biblical god ever proposed can be called something other than Atheist, just because they have

some fuzzy belief of some ill-defined or non-defined higher power.

It's quite a stretch to go from that to "BELIEVE". "fuzzy... ill-defined".. sounds more like a fleeting thought to me.

A lot of the behaviour of religious people is irrational to the point of absurdity, and the concept and policing of blasphemy is an excellent example.

Blasphemy is the belief that an all powerful and all knowing being needs humans to help prevent other humans from saying mean things about it.

I hope that it's obvious to everyone that this is completely absurd.

 

[Treedbear]

An intriguing observation. How are you defining 'atheist,' then?

One who does not believe in the existence of any god.
My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.
Many people say things or pantomime their way through rituals in such a way as to appear to be theist as a survival instinct... but none of them have ever demonstrated a belief in existence of a god.

I will stand corrected if provided sufficient evidence of someone's belief, though.

I've suspected as much for awhile now. If they truly believed they would lead their lives much differently. If I was completely convinced that a loving God existed who wanted only what was good for all mankind and who would reward me with an eternity of joy and contentment in an afterlife I think I would be in a state of constant prayer and trying to serve others without caring for my own needs. But nobody I know is like that.

 

[bilby]

An intriguing observation. How are you defining 'atheist,' then?

One who does not believe in the existence of any god.
My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.
Many people say things or pantomime their way through rituals in such a way as to appear to be theist as a survival instinct... but none of them have ever demonstrated a belief in existence of a god.

I will stand corrected if provided sufficient evidence of someone's belief, though.

I've suspected as much for awhile now. If they truly believed they would lead their lives much differently. If I was completely convinced that a loving God existed who wanted only what was good for all mankind and who would reward me with an eternity of joy and contentment in an afterlife I think I would be in a state of constant prayer and trying to serve others without caring for my own needs. But nobody I know is like that.

Yup. Small numbers of medieval monks and nuns behaved in that way; But even in the hyper religious centuries before the enlightenment, such devotion was rare, and it is far more rare today.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think maybe you are confusing those who claim to be Christian but don't accept all the Christian beliefs about god and the bible as true with Atheists.

The ol' Cafeteria Christian is still a Theist argument? I reject it on the grounds that these folks do not demonstrate belief in ANY (Christian or otherwise) god. They pick and choose the rules they wish to live by and use whatever scripture they like best as a defense. Blasphemy is dealt with quite harshly... eternally.. one who believes that would do no such thing.

There are many that don't accept the church's claims and descriptions as true but hold some fuzzy belief of some ill-defined or non-defined higher power... These would not be atheists but would be believers in the supernatural.

I would entertain the notion of a third group... But I am not yet convinced that a group of people that reject every biblical god ever proposed can be called something other than Atheist, just because they have

some fuzzy belief of some ill-defined or non-defined higher power.

It's quite a stretch to go from that to "BELIEVE". "fuzzy... ill-defined".. sounds more like a fleeting thought to me.

You seem to be defining 'believers' as only those who are rabid fundamentalists who's every thought and action is about their god. By that definition, you are right. There ain't that many... hell even most of the clergy wouldn't qualify, if any. But then you would also be labeling deists, pantheists, etc. as atheists (which they are not).

 

[Keith&Co.]

There can't be an infinite number of causes because then you can't get back to the beginning to how it all started.

How would you prove that there must be a beginning?

 

[Keith&Co.]

An intriguing observation. How are you defining 'atheist,' then?

One who does not believe in the existence of any god.
My observation is that almost no one I have ever met, or read, or heard about, believes in the existence of any god.

you would have to demonstrate telepathy to establish this as an observation.
Otherwise all you are doing is expressing disappointment in the behavior of people who claim a given belief.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I reject it on the grounds that these folks do not demonstrate belief in ANY (Christian or otherwise) god

Well, you certainly can do that, but it seems silly.
i get pretty dismissive of the theists who insist that they know more about my beliefs than i do, and further that i actually do believe, but pretend anti-beliefity, because reasons.
I cannot see that anyone else has an edge on the ability to test an opponent's innermost beliefs based on the individual's understanding of the other guy's religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe at some point we will use brain imaging to know when a person is sincere and when they are fibbing.

Standard theistic belief is not rational so it's obviously an evolved behavior that had survival value at some point in the past. There are certainly people who think they are spirits and have implants and are angels and other weird stuff, and these people are sincere. And that's because of their brains and the fact that they don't have a choice. In varying degrees there are lots and lots of these people and we all know them in our lives. That they don't spend every waking moment in fervent prayer awaiting rapture is the evolved rational parts of their brains also in operation. But they certainly are still believers.

People who spend their lives in monasteries still have to obtain food and do lots of other things the environment dictates lest they perish, so they acquiesce. That's plain old natural selection in action. If my definition of a believer is someone who prays in a corner to the avoidance of all else, natural selection will eliminate that person quite quickly from the gene pool, and has. That's why we have believers that don't do only that.

 

[blastula]

I'm sorry, as much as I would like to help, the laws of the universe prevent me from making negative existence claims. The onus is on the so-called "believer" to establish the authenticity of their belief. Sorry. <shrug>

What would qualify as establishing the belief?

Somebody can be a smoker while still believing smoking is bad for them. Behavior doesn't tell you everything.

 

[aupmanyav]

I'm sorry, as much as I would like to help, the laws of the universe prevent me from making negative existence claims. The onus is on the so-called "believer" to establish the authenticity of their belief. Sorry. <shrug>

Look at 'virtual particles'. They are proof of 'negative' existence.