Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==========================================
Here you go again; using the same flawed reasoning over and over again despite the fact I had laboriously exposed those flaws in other postings.
Firstly, my strongest reason for being an atheist is because the belief that there is a ‘god’ has no reasoning nor evidence nor any other type of premise to support it.
Secondly, you still think that ...[text shortened]... e theists that claim that god exists and not on the atheists that claim that god does not exist.
Firstly, my strongest reason for being an atheist is because the belief that there is a ‘god’ has no reasoning nor evidence nor any other type of premise to support it.
=======================================
Since you said "FIRSTLY" should I conclude that this is strongest reason for being an atheist?
If so, I don't intend to make you change your mind. I will however explain why this reason is not a problem to me.
But first I want to know if "firstly" means that this is your most important reason for atheism.
Yes?
No?
If not what is your most important reason?
1 edit
Andrew Hamilton,
From what I gather from your message, I am wasting my time believing I am part of a greater purpose. What should I be doing instead?
You make it clear you do not want to waste your time believing in any god because you reason it is highly unlikely. Do you believe it is a waste of time to search for the origin of life? If not,have you already critically thought that out yet?
I believe what I believe based off of the impact it has had on my life from the very moment I first understood it. Looking back now, I would dread having not made that choice.
Originally posted by jaywillOf course it is my main reason! I somehow get the sense that you don’t really think that is my main reason -if so, then what do you think is my main reason and what is your premise for believing that that is my main reason? -and before you answer that, bear in mind that I did not “choose” to be an atheists for the same reason why I did not “choose” to believe that ‘two plus two equals four’ for the same reason why I did not “choose” to believe any one of my beliefs!
[b]==========================================
Firstly, my strongest reason for being an atheist is because the belief that there is a ‘god’ has no reasoning nor evidence nor any other type of premise to support it.
=======================================
Since you said "FIRSTLY" should I conclude that this is strongest reason for being an ...[text shortened]... t reason for atheism.
Yes?
No?
If not what is your most important reason?[/b]
Also bear in mind that you cannot read my mind!
I have, not surprisingly, some less strong reasons (but still good reasons) for being an atheist such as the overwhelming physical evidence to support the theory of evolution but that evidence, of course, only contradicts some of the theists beliefs and only for those theists that have religious beliefs that are such that they directly contradict the theory of evolution.
I hope you have read and understood the rest of what I explained I.e. the part about what criterion I use to justify my claim that it is the theist that has the burden of proof for claiming that god exists rather than the atheist has the burden of proof for claiming that god does not exists. Do you think there is any flaw in that argument?
If so, I would honestly desperately like to hear what you think it is.
1 edit
Originally posted by SmoothCowboy“…You make it clear you do not want to waste your time believing in any god because you reason it is highly unlikely.…”
Andrew Hamilton,
From what I gather from your message, I am wasting my time believing I am part of a greater purpose. What should I be doing instead?
You make it clear you do not want to waste your time believing in any god because you reason it is highly unlikely. Do you believe it is a waste of time to search for the origin of life? If not,hav ...[text shortened]... very moment I first understood it. Looking back now, I would dread having not made that choice.
Correct.
“…Do you believe it is a waste of time to search for the origin of life? …”
That is a totally illogical comparison. Firstly, the process of “search for the origin of life” is not a belief but a process while “believing in any god “ is not a process but a belief so therefore you are not even really comparing like for like. Many of use are naturally curious and have a psychological need to satisfy that curiosity by seeking the truth by scientific inquiry and, so in that sense, I do not believe it is a waste of time to search for the origin of life because obviously I and many other people would really like to know how life got started. Now, if you compare that with “believing in any god “ , “believing in any god “ has nothing to do with rationally obtaining knowledge by scientific inquiry nor any other rational means. You “choose” to believing in god ; if anything is revealed to be the truth by scientific enquiry, rational people don’t “choose” to believe those scientific truths, -they just believe them.
“…I believe what I believe based off of the impact it has had on my life from the very moment I first understood it.…”
When you speak of “the impact it has had on my life” here, do you mean emotional impact?
If so, then do you believe that you should base your beliefs on your emotions rather than logic or evidence or some sort of premise? Or are you saying here that your emotions is the “premise” for your belief! ? If so, then I would just like to point out emotions are not premises.
==========================
Of course it is my main reason! I somehow get the sense that you don’t really think that is my main reason -if so, then what do you think is my main reason and what is your premise for believing that that is my main reason? -and before you answer that, bear in mind that I did not “choose” to be an atheists for the same reason why I did not “choose” to believe that ‘two plus two equals four’ for the same reason why I did not “choose” to believe any one of my beliefs!
Also bear in mind that you cannot read my mind!
======================================
You did not choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 4.
Do you have an equation of equal simplicity which "compels" you to accept the "fact" that there is no God?
I mean we have since recorded history a number of people who believe in God. If it is so very obvious as 2 + 2 = 4 that there is no God, what is this elegantly expressed and totally obvious fact that they have all missed ?
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=========================================
Here you go again; using the same flawed reasoning over and over again despite the fact I had laboriously exposed those flaws in other postings.
Firstly, my strongest reason for being an atheist is because the belief that there is a ‘god’ has no reasoning nor evidence nor any other type of premise to support it.
Secondly, you still think that ...[text shortened]... e theists that claim that god exists and not on the atheists that claim that god does not exist.
In this context, the relevant criterion is that the burden of proof must rest on the person that claims something does exist as opposed to the person that claims that same something does not exist.
======================================
If I think that playing baseball is a rediculous waste of time, then I would conclude "Why bother with it?"
If I conclude that baseball is a totally worthless pursuit it would be funny for me to be seen each day at Yankee Stadium telling everyone "The burden of proof is on you to convince me that baseball is not a total waste of time."
Why would I want to go out of my way and hang around Yankee Stadium demanding that it is up to all these fans and players to convince me of the benefit of playing baseball?
This is a discussion board on Spirituality. If you have a spirituality which does not necessitate the belief in God then tell us about it.
So do you have a Spirituality which has nothing to do with God ? Or are you saying that true spirituality consists in streneously denying the existence of God?
Is true spirituality demanding that believers in God accept the "burden of proof" to demontrate thier evidence for the existence of God?
Why do you come to the Spirituality Forum boasting "I am securely holed up in this little fortress here. I dare you to come and try to drag me out." ?
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“…You did not choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 4. …”
Of course it is my main reason! I somehow get the sense that you don’t really think that is my main reason -if so, then what do you think is my main reason and what is your premise for believing that that is my main reason? -and before you answer that, bear in mind that I did not “choose” to be an atheists for the same reas o God, what is this elegantly expressed and totally obvious fact that they have all missed ?
Correct.
“…Do you have an equation of equal simplicity which "compels" you to accept the "fact" that there is no God? …“
Yes. I already explained it. It is the absence of evidence of the existence of a ‘god’ which leads me to the conclusion that the probability of a ‘god’ existing must be vanishing small and therefore the probability that there is no god must be almost certain.
“…I mean we have since recorded history a number of people who believe in God. If it is so very obvious as 2 + 2 = 4 that there is no God, what is this elegantly expressed and totally obvious fact that they have all missed ?
…”
What they have all missed is the fact there is evidence that 2+2=4 because you can verify 2+2=4 by counting but there is no evidence for the existence of god and that is the reason for believing there is no god. Using the criterion I explained earlier, we shouldn’t calculate the probability of there being a god by looking for the evidence of no god but we should calculate the probability of there being no god by looking for the evidence of god.
Originally posted by jaywill“…Why would I want to go out of my way and hang around Yankee Stadium demanding that it is up to all these fans and players to convince me of the benefit of playing baseball?…”
[b]=========================================
In this context, the relevant criterion is that the burden of proof must rest on the person that claims something does exist as opposed to the person that claims that same something does not exist.
======================================
If I think that playing baseball is a rediculous waste of tim ...[text shortened]... ely holed up in this little fortress here. I dare you to come and try to drag me out." ?[/b]
Obviously I wasn’t saying nor implying that we must prove every assertion we make in every day life because that wouldn’t be practical.
“…This is a discussion board on Spirituality. If you have a spirituality which does not necessitate the belief in God then tell us about it….”
I do not have “Spirituality”. I am an atheist.
“….Why do you come to the Spirituality Forum boasting "I am securely holed up in this little fortress here. I dare you to come and try to drag me out." ?….”
I am not “boasting” anything. I am trying to save theists from their delusions.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillWe have all heard that argument before, and I am sure you know the answer. It is along the lines of "if you lived right next to the baseball stadium and the fans affected your life significantly, you might stand outside the stadium with placards proclaiming your views on the game."
If I think that playing baseball is a rediculous waste of time, then I would conclude "Why bother with it?"
If I conclude that baseball is a totally worthless pursuit it would be funny for me to be seen each day at Yankee Stadium telling everyone "The burden of proof is on you to convince me that baseball is not a total waste of time."
To be more specific, if you heard that baseball fans wanted their 'totally worthless' game taught as science in your sons school, you might try to do something about it.
This is a discussion board on Spirituality.
Uh, no it isn't. "Spirituality" might be the title, but you have not accurately described its content.
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNot really. I think I said that wrong. 😕
“…I believe what I believe based off of the impact it has had on my life from the very moment I first understood it.…”
When you speak of “the impact it has had on my life” here, do you mean emotional impact?
If so, then do you believe that you should base your beliefs on your emotions rather than logic or evidence or some sort of premise ...[text shortened]... remise” for your belief! ? If so, then I would just like to point out emotions are not premises.[/b]
Though having access to joy and peace are nice. My beliefs are based on scripture. Verses like this.
Rom 5:1-2
(1) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
(2) By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Originally posted by SmoothCowboyI find this completely bizarre. I am honestly desperate want to understand you. I don’t understand how you can possibly base a belief on mere “scriptures” or “verses”. “Scriptures” and “verses” do not give logical arguments -they just state propositions without premise. So, therefore, I am totally mystified to how you can possibly perceive any scripture or verse as a ‘premise’ for any of your beliefs.
... My beliefs are based on scripture. Verses like this.
Rom 5:1-2
(1) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
(2) By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Unless you mean, as you sort-of said, that it is not the “Scriptures” and “verses” themselves that are the premise for your beliefs but the “impact they have on your life”?
If so, is what you mean by “impact“ when you say “impact they have on your life” “emotional impact” ? if so, then how can you perceive that emotional response as a ‘premise’ for any of your beliefs?
If not, then what kind of “impact” are you referring to? and how do you perceive that kind of “impact” as a ‘premise’ for any of your beliefs.
