"Secular consumerism/nationalism is worse than religion

[Ryan Thunder]

No, because you don't have to prove that something that cannot be proved to exists does not exist.

What part of that do you not understand?

[General Zod]

A-theism is literally 'no-God.' Which is a definitive statement that, given the usual degree of intellectual rigor people practice around here, seems like the kind of thing that one either backs up with evidence, or admits one is accepting on faith.

If you understood that demanding someone prove a negative is fallacious you wouldn't have to pull so much shit out of your ass to make your point. As it stands, I have to do fuck all of nothing to show that God isn't real. It's up to the ones claiming he exists in the first place to provide the actual evidence.

[General Zod]

No, because you don't have to prove that something that cannot be proved to exists does not exist.

What part of that do you not understand?

Most of it. I suggest thinking your post out more carefully and actually posting in comprehensible English. Your grammar is embarrassing to elementary school children.

[Kanastrous]

... I repeat; You are a fucking moron.

That's an observation. Not an argument.

Read my post. Read it good and fucking hard. Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF.

Atheism is commonly defined as disbelief (per your own definition offered above). Disbelief is commonly defined as a rejection of belief, and rejection is a choice, not merely a lack.

You may check a dictionary, or if you like, I'll provide links.

If they don't have some faith forced on their impressionable young mind, then they will be atheists, because they do not believe in a god, thus fitting the god-damn definition.

You're ignoring the existence of agnostics, who do not claim special knowledge, acceptance, or rejection, one way or the other. Some of whom arrived at agnosticism after rejecting the tenets of a specific religious sect, some of whom arrived at the position without having anything forced upon them, at all.

Any more incredibly fucking retarded statements from you, Kanastrous?

Let's continue the conversation, and we'll see.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

My, doesn't mis-spelling enormous make *you* look brilliant, by comparison...

Fine use of an ad-hominem there, jack-ass. My spelling errors have no bearing on my argument.

Let's bold-face some of your own text:

If you are defining both theism and atheism in terms of what you choose to believe, then you are describing the same kind of choice.

Uh... no, they're not. Let me put this to you bluntly. Choosing to believe in something for which there is no proof is the opposite of logic. Atheists disbelieve because there is no proof. Huge difference. One is influenced by
blind faith, the other by analytical logic.

Which does not alter the fact that the existence and non-existence of God are equally provable - or un-provable - assumptions. So at the level of what we can actually prove, the theist and atheist appear to have entirely equal support behind them.

Sure, the specific tenets or particular definition of God that some religious type might be pushing, can be disproven, found fallacious, shown to be inconsistent, and all that.

But the simple, basic is-there-or-is-there-ain't question, before we start layering on any one religion's superstitious veneer, is still not something that appears to be definitely answerable, either way.

And none of that alters the fact that one needs to be proven in order to rationally be believed, and the other does not. It is perfectly rational to disbelieve in the absence of proof, and it is equally irrational to believe despite the UTTER lack of evidence

Atheism is a belief (as you defined it, above) in something that you cannot objectively demonstrate.

Belief in something that cannot be demonstrated, sure looks like a form of faith, to me.

On the other hand, agnosticism, an admission that it's not a question amenable to answers, particularly the facile primitive crapola offered by religion, impresses me as a more realistic position.

I already answered this. And I'll repeat myself one last time, for good measure. You're a moron. Atheist is perfectly logical. It asserts that since there is no proof of gods existence, there is no reason to believe in his existence. Atheism, as I said, is more lack of belief in something, than belief itself, and these beliefs are entirely logical.

You mean, did you go too far, here? Weee! Look at me! I can point out spelling errors! This invalidates his whole argument!

Nope.

My, aren't we clever?

[Kanastrous]

A-theism is literally 'no-God.' Which is a definitive statement that, given the usual degree of intellectual rigor people practice around here, seems like the kind of thing that one either backs up with evidence, or admits one is accepting on faith.

If you understood that demanding someone prove a negative is fallacious you wouldn't have to pull so much shit out of your ass to make your point.

If you can demonstrate that the definitions I offered are incorrect, or that I am using the terms out of congruity with their meanings, please do.

Since atheism is an absolute conviction in the truth of the statement that 'there is no such thing as God,' I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone to prove the truth of that absolute conviction.

'There is no God' appears to be such a sweeping and definitive statement about the nature of reality - and is not interchangeable with the more-supportable statement that no one can prove a God, or no one has conclusive evidence for a God - that I think atheists might do better than hide behind well we don't *have* to prove it for it to be true, which is suspiciously like what I hear from people who belief there *is* a God, and don't want to demonstrate the objective truth of their conviction, either.

As it stands, I have to do fuck all of nothing to show that God isn't real. It's up to the ones claiming he exists in the first place to provide the actual evidence.

There was a time when someone could say with the same degree of authority, that they had to do fuck all of nothing, to show that the electron wasn't real. And although they were correct...they likewise failed to demonstrate that the electron wasn't real. And lo and behold, some years later...electrons. Whose degree of existence remained the same, regardless of anyone's belief or disbelief in them.

I am not comparing the concept of God directly to the concept of the electron, but I am comparing the absolute conviction of some sort of God's non-existence, with the absolute conviction of the electron's non-existence, where in both cases I think the safe assumption is maybe-until-proven-true, rather than absolutely-not-until-proven-true.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

You're ignoring the existence of agnostics, who do not claim special knowledge, acceptance, or rejection, one way or the other. Some of whom arrived at agnosticism after rejecting the tenets of a specific religious sect, some of whom arrived at the position without having anything forced upon them, at all.

I would contend that agnosticism as you describe it is almost on par with religion, in terms of sheer stupidity. Claim no special knowledge, acceptance, or rejection, one way or the other, right? So if I claimed that there was a horde of giant, pink, war-mongering... oh... unicorns, that lived deep within the earth's mantle, would you not reject that out of hand?

OF COURSE YOU FUCKING WOULD! So why not God? The idea is no less ridiculous, and just as hard to prove, unless you want to go digging around deep beneath the earth's crust to find out for certain.

[General Zod]

If you can demonstrate that the definitions I offered are incorrect, or that I am using the terms out of congruity with their meanings, please do.

Since atheism is an absolute conviction in the truth of the statement that 'there is no such thing as God,' I don't think it's unreasonable to ask someone to prove the truth of that absolute conviction.

'There is no God' appears to be such a sweeping and definitive statement about the nature of reality - and is not interchangeable with the more-supportable statement that no one can prove a God, or no one has conclusive evidence for a God - that I think atheists might do better than hide behind well we don't *have* to prove it for it to be true, which is suspiciously like what I hear from people who belief there *is* a God, and don't want to demonstrate the objective truth of their conviction, either.

There's a bum in New York that people call Bob. Secretly, he's an alien from Alpha Centuri in disguise and only reveals his true identity to those people he wants to. Prove me wrong.

There was a time when someone could say with the same degree of authority, that they had to do fuck all of nothing, to show that the electron wasn't real. And although they were correct...they likewise failed to demonstrate that the electron wasn't real. And lo and behold, some years later...electrons. Whose degree of existence remained the same, regardless of anyone's belief or disbelief in them.

I am not comparing the concept of God directly to the concept of the electron, but I am comparing the absolute conviction of some sort of God's non-existence, with the absolute conviction of the electron's non-existence, where in both cases I think the safe assumption is maybe-until-proven-true, rather than absolutely-not-until-proven-true.

I've never been to New York. Prove me wrong.

[DavidEC]

Atheism is commonly defined as disbelief (per your own definition offered above). Disbelief is commonly defined as a rejection of belief, and rejection is a choice, not merely a lack.

You may check a dictionary, or if you like, I'll provide links.

Dictionaries are hardly sufficient for the fine grain of debates such as this. If you want to delve into semantics, then what you are describing is anti-theism, a term which more accurately describes the intellectual mindset of consciously rejecting God.

To go back to a previous post of yours:

Which does not alter the fact that the existence and non-existence of God are equally provable - or un-provable - assumptions. So at the level of what we can actually prove, the theist and atheist appear to have entirely equal support behind them.

'Proof' will always be beyond our grasp, especially of a negative. What we can do is come to a reasonable conclusion.

There is no evidence for God. There is no evidence for a pink rhinoceros in my bedroom. We come to the reasonable conclusion that they do not exist. We will not walk around with rhino-hunting rifles and we will not live our lives predicated upon the possibility of God existing.

Do you walk around with Nitro Express rifles and ammunition? No? Then why should your position on God be any different?

[Kanastrous]

My, doesn't mis-spelling enormous make *you* look brilliant, by comparison...

Fine use of an ad-hominem there, jack-ass. My spelling errors have no bearing on my argument.

That's true. They just make you look a little bit silly, while you're spewing insults and disparaging other people's intelligence rather than simply addressing their argument.

Let's bold-face some of your own text:

If you are defining both theism and atheism in terms of what you choose to believe, then you are describing the same kind of choice.

Uh... no, they're not. Let me put this to you bluntly. Choosing to believe in something for which there is no proof is the opposite of logic. Atheists disbelieve because there is no proof. Huge difference. One is influenced by
blind faith, the other by analytical logic.

I think we're working with different definitions of atheism; I stick with the most literal, which mean flatly, definitively, no god. A flat, definitive statement about the nature of reality, like that, needs supporting. And since we agree that it's fallacious to prove-a-negative...I think that an admission that there is no actual knowledge one way, or the other, is more rational.

Which does not alter the fact that the existence and non-existence of God are equally provable - or un-provable - assumptions. So at the level of what we can actually prove, the theist and atheist appear to have entirely equal support behind them.

Sure, the specific tenets or particular definition of God that some religious type might be pushing, can be disproven, found fallacious, shown to be inconsistent, and all that.

But the simple, basic is-there-or-is-there-ain't question, before we start layering on any one religion's superstitious veneer, is still not something that appears to be definitely answerable, either way.

And none of that alters the fact that one needs to be proven in order to rationally be believed, and the other does not. It is perfectly rational to disbelieve in the absence of proof, and it is equally irrational to believe despite the UTTER lack of evidence

I'm not arguing in favor of belief, irrational or otherwise.

I'm arguing in favor of an admission that the question is un-answered...and probably un-answerable. That is, agnosticism.

Atheism is a belief (as you defined it, above) in something that you cannot objectively demonstrate.

Belief in something that cannot be demonstrated, sure looks like a form of faith, to me.

On the other hand, agnosticism, an admission that it's not a question amenable to answers, particularly the facile primitive crapola offered by religion, impresses me as a more realistic position.

I already answered this. And I'll repeat myself one last time, for good measure. You're a moron.

Again, observations regarding your interlocutor, are not arguments against their position.

Atheist is perfectly logical. It asserts that since there is no proof of gods existence, there is no reason to believe in his existence. Atheism, as I said, is more lack of belief in something, than belief itself, and these beliefs are entirely logical.

Yeah, we're working with different definitions. I prefer mine, since mine is more literal to the actual meaning of the word: a-theism means no-god and is a flat definitive statement. Flat, definitive statements define belief and knowledge, not lack-of-belief or an admission to lack-of-knowledge.

You mean, did you go too far, here? Weee! Look at me! I can point out spelling errors! This invalidates his whole argument!

Nope.

My, aren't we clever?

Never said it invalidates any part of your argument, it's just fun to point out an arrogant vulgar prick's simple mistakes, while he's slamming my intellect rather than just addressing my arguments.

I have to go to set, now.

I'll check the thread later.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

A-theism means "No BELIEF in god", not "No-god", if you're going to be literal about it, asshole. Theism means belief in god. Atheism means no belief in god. It's not a definate statement. It's not saying "There is absolutely, positively, 100% no fucking god.". It's saying "I don't believe there is a god".

And it is perfectly fine to express opinions or observations about the person you're debating while you're arguing against their points on this forum. I'd wager you'd best get used to it, because if you keep up with this sort of crap, you'll be getting a lot of it.

You can take your agnosticism and shove it. If someone proposes to me the existence of something, without offering a shred of proof, I will disbelieve until something is offered. If they can give me real, solid, objectively undeniable proof of the existence of Gods or the tooth fairy or pink-warmongering-unicorns-that-live-below-us, then I might believe. Until then, I won't. That makes me an atheist.

[Ryan Thunder]

No, because you don't have to prove that something that cannot be proved to exists does not exist.

What part of that do you not understand?

Most of it. I suggest thinking your post out more carefully and actually posting in comprehensible English. Your grammar is embarrassing to elementary school children.

I made a single typo.

And other than that, my statement makes grammatical sense...

If you cannot prove that something exists, then you are not required to prove that it does not exist.

[General Zod]

I made a single typo.

And other than that, my statement makes grammatical sense...

If you cannot prove that something exists, then you are not required to prove that it does not exist.

It's painful to read due to being a double negative and looping on itself. "If you can't prove X exists, then you're not required to prove X does not exist"? That makes no sense.

[DavidEC]

My position is more like it's not necessary to disprove it in order to invalidate it.

[Ryan Thunder]

I made a single typo.

And other than that, my statement makes grammatical sense...

If you cannot prove that something exists, then you are not required to prove that it does not exist.

It's painful to read due to being a double negative and looping on itself. "If you can't prove X exists, then you're not required to prove X does not exist"? That makes no sense.

Well I'm not sure how to dumb it down further than that.

I'm just saying that you folks shouldn't have to prove to Disastrous here that God doesn't exist, because we can't prove that He does.

[TheKwas]

Yeah, we're working with different definitions. I prefer mine, since mine is more literal to the actual meaning of the word: a-theism means no-god and is a flat definitive statement. Flat, definitive statements define belief and knowledge, not lack-of-belief or an admission to lack-of-knowledge.

Aside from your definition being incorrect, as pointed out numerous times, it's fucking retarded to use such a definition on a site full of self-described atheists because not a fucking single atheist philosopher worth his dime called himself an atheist using that definition. It just one massive strawman argument constructed by theists to slander atheism and make it seem like the two are equally valid (which wouldn't be true anyways).

[Medic]

I'm not arguing in favor of belief, irrational or otherwise.

I'm arguing in favor of an admission that the question is un-answered...and probably un-answerable. That is, agnosticism.

You're only tripping up by positing atheism is seriously a firm conviction.

Atheists are always quick to point out the fallacy in the claim that "because we can't prove God DOESN'T exist, then he must!" (negative proof) You're doing the opposite, by suggesting the atheist position is "because no evidence exists FOR god, there must not be a god." Apparently by accident and not design (since you're arguing for agnosticism) you're doing the same thing as theists who by redefining atheism as a conviction most fundamentally try to dishonestly accuse US of demanding negative proof when in fact our dis/belief is subject to evidence.

Look at meditation for example. To the scientific community it was once one among many pie-in-the-sky, supernatural "phenomena." That latter claim applied to meditation for example would be wrong, as evidence has since come in demonstrating there'ssomething going on physiologically.

That no such credible evidence in support of god's existence is forthcoming since, oh, time immemorial, is telling. The inherent untestability of a god's existence has a slight problem to do with it -- you can wire a Buddha up to modern science's most precise equipment but what does one do to test a god's existence?

The theist says "I know God exists." The agnostic says "I'm positive it can't be known." The atheist says "in the absence of evidence, I don't believe in any god or god's." You can throw the dictionary at us all you want but the fact is you have a supermajority of atheists telling you that they use the word 'atheist' in manner completely different than you. (even if an English scholar backed you up I'd STILL throw a brick at you since it proves only that the word 'atheist' is fuck-all descriptive to begin with, open to falsely-imbued meaning by all manner of fuckwits)
It is enough to say the notion of god is just not worthy of consideration or discussion on it's own merits -- but obviously god's believers are more-than deserving of such scrutiny.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Do you not feel that it's unreasonable to hold/suspend judgment based on the idea that we cannot absolutely disprove something or prove something? Must we have 100% certainty in order to be justified in either belief or disbelief? I think that would be unreasonable. If we actually adhered to that epistemology, we would need to be agnostic about much of everything, since there's little of that absolute certainty in the world.

If we cannot reject/disbelieve God because there's some remote, implausible reason why he might exist, then there's also the same rationale for suspending judgment on any number of things that lack "certainty" as you put it.

[General Zod]

Do you not feel that it's unreasonable to hold/suspend judgment based on the idea that we cannot absolutely disprove something or prove something? Must we have 100% certainty in order to be justified in either belief or disbelief? I think that would be unreasonable. If we actually adhered to that epistemology, we would need to be agnostic about much of everything, since there's little of that absolute certainty in the world.

If we cannot reject/disbelieve God because there's some remote, implausible reason why he might exist, then there's also the same rationale for suspending judgment on any number of things that lack "certainty" as you put it.

Strawman much? Who said anything about 100% proof being necessary?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Strawman much? Who said anything about 100% proof being necessary?

No, not a strawman, as that's what Kanastrous is saying. I wasn't clear to whom I was speaking. My fault. His position entails that we should suspend judgment because we can't be sure God does not exist, as if we require such a level of "certainty." He's using that to propose that atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin in that they make unprovable claims, but he wants an unreasonable standard of certainty.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: by his standards, you can make up virtually anything and you must with-hold judgment because we cannot absolutely disprove it, so it "might", however implausibly, exist. But he's only really applying that level of proof to God, not other things you invent.

[Darth Wong]

You're ignoring the existence of agnostics, who do not claim special knowledge, acceptance, or rejection, one way or the other.

Agnostics come in two flavours: closet atheists and liars. The former are trying to avoid social ostracization in a Christian supremacist society. The latter are dishonest little shits who have absolutely no problem declaring that Zeus was a silly mythology, but who suddenly adopt this "can't know either way" attitude for concepts they've been raised to take seriously, like Vague God.

[Darth Wong]

What an obvious case of an apologist not wanting his precious sky-pixie to be identified with mass murderers.

Because He can't be, you retard. It's like saying that Atheism is to blame for all that shit that happened in Russia during the Cold War.

Neither condones the actions often taken (conveniently) in their name.

Name one moral commandment of atheism. You can't, can you? That's because it doesn't have any, therefore it is impossible to say that it promotes any kind of moral or immoral behaviour. The same is not true of Christianity, which is full of moral declarations, some of which are rather abhorrent and many of which contradict one another, thus allowing any asshole from Constantine to Torquemada, Columbus, and Hitler to declare that God is with him.

[Darth Wong]

You seem to think that I'm denying that Hitler believed in God (I've said specifically that he did), nor that he used religious rhetoric and concepts as part of his ideology and to gain public support (I've said that he did that too). Nor am I denying that Nazi ideology in a broader sense incorporated them as well - I've referred to Nazi "political theology" in this thread.

No, I'm saying that you think you can get Christianity off the hook by showing that it is not the exclusive cause of anti-Semitism. Your argument hinges on the notion that a social movement which was started for religious reasons but which evolved over the centuries is somehow not the fault of religion, because it evolved over the centuries. That is pure sophistry of the highest order.

But my position, as I said before, is that I see any link between historical Christian anti-semitism and Hitler's anti-semitism as remote, and certainly not the direct causal one you give it.

By your tortured logic, NOTHING is caused by historical Christianity, because any social movement you can tie to historical Christianity has evolved and changed over the centuries.