Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by moonbus
Comparing a baby with a rock is ... um ..., thick as a brick.

Bricks neither have nor lack beliefs: the set of things to which the having or the not having of beliefs applies, does not intersect the set of rocks.

Bricks either have beliefs or they don't. So which is it?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Bricks either have beliefs or they don't. So which is it?

Catholics have either lost a wing or not. So which is it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so the "reverberations" to which you refer are simply physical processes - Moonbus

Indeed and it is the utter folly of the atheist to reduce everything to a base material level. We become the mere amalgamation of electro-chemical impulses! Our consciousness, our happiness, our smiles, our art, our spirituality all reduced to this base level and ...[text shortened]... every implication my former Master, infact, as soon as one takes a stance, it has implications!!

What is it about atheism which makes theists put their reasoning faculty to sleep? I do not believe in genies and kobolds. Do you think that has "implications"--for my morals?? You think I eat babies because I don't believe in genies and kobolds?? Of course I have a 'stance' -- but not because of being an atheist. Atheism is incidental to my 'stance' in a way completely unlike the way belief in God is not incidental to a theist.

I do not reduce everything to material conditions. I do, however, maintain that material phenomena are to be explained by material laws, not by hypothetical supernatural beings (including genies and kobolds Writ With Capital Letters). Whereas demonstrably intentional phenomena (e.g., chess and the realm of moral agents) are to be understood in terms of normative laws and intentions.

Humans need meaning and purpose, and they are liable to go mad without a community of similarly-minded seekers; on that we agree. They seek meaning and purpose unto the ends of the universe and beyond; where they do not find it, some are determined to project it and pretend they found it and attribute it to a Being With Capital Letters.

At some point, you were introduced to a symbolic vocabulary which made sense of your life (in that, I am happy for you); it happened to have been a variant of Christianity, but it could have been some other. Just because you thirst for a supernatural Being With Capital Letters to give your life a Meaning With Capital Letters doesn't mean such things really exist, does not mean that that symbolic vocabulary is true. It just means you're not satisfied with ones that aren't written with capital letters.

Non-satisfaction, not having answers to every question, and not having the solution to every riddle, are part of life, oh my former Padawan; one must learn to accept that. I grant you, it is not easy; the temptation to draw supernatural 'implications', to see 'omens' in thunder storms and 'punishments' in plagues, runs deep; one must be constantly on guard not to let one's thoughts wander off into ontological wonder sickness.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Bricks either have beliefs or they don't. So which is it?

They don't have beliefs. And if you really really want to, then call them atheists. I really don't care. Why does it matter to you? Just know that when I say something about atheists, I am including babies but not including rocks. If you deliberately misinterpret my statements and include rocks then that is you deliberately trying to cause miscommunication.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Bricks either have beliefs or they don't. So which is it?

Bricks are not the sort of thing which could have beliefs, therefore they also do not not have them.

Water is the sort of thing which could have a color or a taste or an odor, but as it happens (due to its chemical composition and the state of our sense organs), water is tasteless, colorless, and odorless. It does not have taste, color, or oder.

Responsibility, on the other hand, has no taste, but neither is it tasteless, for it is of the wrong type to have or not have a taste (or a color or an odor).

End of Logic 101 lecture.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Bricks either have beliefs or they don't. So which is it?

I'm pretty sure that I/we have dealt with this several times in this thread already.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of any gods.

An atheist is a PERSON who lacks a belief in the existence of any gods.

Thus a baby [which qualifies as a person] is an atheist, and a rock [which does not
qualify as a person] is not an atheist.

However, even if you were stupidly inclined to call everything that wasn't a being that
believed in a god or gods an atheist, including any and all inanimate objects individually
and collectively that would still demonstrate nothing whatsoever about the validity of
atheism as a position which means talking about whether such things are 'atheists'
or not is an utterly pointless waste of time.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm pretty sure that I/we have dealt with this several times in this thread already.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of any gods.

An atheist is a [b]PERSON who lacks a belief in the existence of any gods.

Thus a baby [which qualifies as a person] is an atheist, and a rock [which does not
qualify as a person] is not an atheis ...[text shortened]... talking about whether such things are 'atheists'
or not is an utterly pointless waste of time.[/b]

Hear hear!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Hear hear!

atheism = bag of stones

I like that.

Originally posted by moonbus
What is it about atheism which makes theists put their reasoning faculty to sleep? I do not believe in genies and kobolds. Do you think that has "implications"--for my morals?? You think I eat babies because I don't believe in genies and kobolds?? Of course I have a 'stance' -- but not because of being an atheist. Atheism is incidental t ...[text shortened]... st be constantly on guard not to let one's thoughts wander off into ontological wonder sickness.

There is nothing wrong with my faculty of reasoning my former master. Infact i remain logical and capable of rational thought. Have I insinuated that it has bearing on your morality, no, but i really think that it must and demonstrably so. Let us take an example. The atheists here are big defenders of so called 'gay rights', infact i have yet to hear a single one express any negativity despite the evidence that homosexuality is physiologically unnatural and leads to all kinds of disease and destructive behaviour. Now why is that my former master? because they have no moral sensibility? hardly! they are endowed with a conscience the same as the next man. what then? its simply because their atheism has not found any moral imperative to object to the practice. We can see once again how the implications of the atheistic stance have a direct bearing on morality and acceptance of certain patterns of behaviour. The same is true of other issues like abortion.

You cannot my former master place your pawn on e4 and expect the dynamics of the chessboard to remain in a state of equilibrium. Even you were forced to concede this although reluctantly.

am I not the greatest pupil to have surpassed my former Master when wretched pupils like Ghost of a Duke and Googlewendy have failed?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is nothing wrong with my faculty of reasoning my former master. Infact i remain logical and capable of rational thought. Have I insinuated that it has bearing on your morality, no, but i really think that it must and demonstrably so. Let us take an example. The atheists here are big defenders of so called 'gay rights', infact i have yet to ...[text shortened]... urpassed my former Master when wretched pupils like Ghost of a Duke and Googlewendy have failed?

There IS NO atheistic stance on anything other than lacking a belief in gods.

You will find [sadly] plenty of atheists as homophobic and bigoted as you are.

The fact that most atheists here belong to the moral majority [which includes many a theist] that accepts
people of all sexual orientations is not a function of us being atheists. [as I say, many a theist including
many a Christian... indeed I would say a majority of both in the west also accept people of all sexual
orientations and it is a minority of bigots like yourself that don't]

Because as we say time and time again without you managing to comprehend this fact...

ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM!

As I/We have explained again and again [including in the very post you are replying to] atheists subscribe
to many many many different belief systems [some of which are even religions] and almost always their
atheism is the RESULT of those belief systems and not the foundation or cause of those belief systems.

Morality and ethics are the result and part of the belief system a person happens to hold and as I/We say
that belief system is not atheism. Because atheism is not a belief system.

My ethics [as an example] would not change one iota should I become convinced that a god or gods actually
exist and I become a theist. Which means that my ethics evidently do not rely in any way on my atheism.

Of course we have been explaining this to you for years and for you to still not get it demonstrates perfectly
how stupid and how lacking in reason you are, but others might read this who are not lost causes.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There IS NO atheistic stance on anything other than lacking a belief in gods.

You will find [sadly] plenty of atheists as homophobic and bigoted as you are.

The fact that most atheists here belong to the moral majority [which includes many a theist] that accepts
people of all sexual orientations is not a function of us being atheists. [i][as I sa ...[text shortened]... ow stupid and how lacking in reason you are, but others might read this who are not lost causes.

you miss the entire point Googlewendy, a theist has a moral imperative to oppose the practice as its written against in his Holy book, an atheist by contrast has no moral imperative other than the dictates of his own conscience which may or may not be functioning. Atheism most certainly is a belief system because the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you miss the entire point Googlewendy, a theist has a moral imperative to oppose the practice as its written against in his Holy book, an atheist by contrast has no moral imperative other than the dictates of his own conscience which may or may not be functioning.

Are you using gendered language deliberately or are you just so backwards ass you don't
understand how to write non-gendered sentences? [in addition to not being able to spell
my name]

Atheists are they, not he, we are not all male. Theists ditto.

And again, some atheists are religious and have holy books which may or may not say anything
about homosexuality.

What you still spectacularly fail to comprehend is that there is no one way that atheists judge
morality and ethics and that indeed some atheists are religious and have holy books and authority
based subjective morality just like you do.

So it is you that miss the entire point due to your spectacular ignorance and stupidity.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Are you using gendered language deliberately or are you just so backwards ass you don't
understand how to write non-gendered sentences? [in addition to not being able to spell
my name]

Atheists are they, not he, we are not all male. Theists ditto.

And again, some atheists are religious and have holy books which may or may not say anything
abo ...[text shortened]... do.

So it is you that miss the entire point due to your spectacular ignorance and stupidity.

I am not pandering to your gelding sensibilities by writing gender neutral posts, take it to some namby pamby gender neutral zone where they have person hole covers instead of man hole covers you impuissant feeble Wendy of a sapling!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
atheism = bag of stones

I like that.

Of course you do, you just made it up for your entertainment because you were incapable of addressing the points you were responding to.
In fact this whole thread several theist have over and over tried to make out that rocks must be atheists for no apparent reason. They don't explain why it is so important to them to make sure rocks are atheists. It is obvious that they simply have nothing better to say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you miss the entire point Googlewendy, a theist has a moral imperative to oppose the practice as its written against in his Holy book, an atheist by contrast has no moral imperative other than the dictates of his own conscience which may or may not be functioning.

Atheists too may use books if they wish. In fact, Confucianism can include atheists.

Atheism most certainly is a belief system because the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.
You are clearly using a different definition for 'atheism' than the rest of us. Deliberately perhaps?