Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by Suzianne
Neither Christians nor non-Christians have a corner on the "wonderment" market. I understand your desire to land an "ideological blow" on me, but please don't let that keep you from making sense, as it has so far.

You said (to an atheist) something about "those who would close their minds to wonder or to any belief at all". It seems like you might be conflating a lack of religious belief and people "closing their minds to wonder". You could perhaps clarify. It has nothing to do with your predilection for interpreting seemingly all questions, observations and disagreements as 'attacks' on you. I suppose another way of asking the question is do you see religious belief as a kind of wonder?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So as an atheist you don't believe that God doesn't exist? Surely you either believe that he exists or you believe that he doesn't exist. So which is it?

False dichotomy.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Actually, [b]none of it makes any difference to the "topic at hand", since that topic is "Why are you an atheist", and not "morality". The entire question of "morality" doesn't appear to have anything to do with the "topic at hand".[/b]

It got dragged into the thread by a couple of theists, especially robbie, who kept insisting that atheism must have this or that 'implication' for morality.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I see you saying No. I see you being very careful with your words so that you can later come through with your 'logical lawnmower'.

Can't really see any difference between which way you want to say it.

The only reason you deny having any belief, in anything, is so you can then trash any, and every, belief system.

I see you saying No. I see you being very careful with your words so that you can later come through with your 'logical lawnmower'.

Can't really see any difference between which way you want to say it.

You really and truly need to stop trying to read between the lines and just read what people actually write.
I am not being very careful with words so I can win some kind of contest and beat you up [figuratively speaking].
I am being accurate.

A lack of belief in X is not the same as belief in the lack of X. You really should know this by now.
I mean it's not as if this is some great complicated idea that is hard to grasp, this is basic kindergarten stuff.
Look, a belief in a claim is a firm conviction that that claim is true.
Isn't it obvious that you could have a firm conviction that a claim is true, a firm conviction that it's false, or lack
a firm conviction either way because you just have no idea which way to go?

And this doesn't change for a claim that a god or gods exist.

The only reason you deny having any belief, in anything, is so you can then trash any, and every, belief system.

No, No, NO!

I don't deny having any belief in anything. I clearly and frequently explicitly state that I believe all kinds of things.
Maybe if you actually read what I wrote you would know this.

I even frequently say that I believe that god's do not exist. I am a strong/gnostic atheist [depending on which god
you are talking about]. However when I am talking about atheism and atheists in general I am not talking about my beliefs
or the lack thereof, I am talking about what makes an atheist and what we have in common. And my belief in the lack of
gods is the minority opinion/position for atheists and I know that. And I say so regularly, including several times in this
thread if you bothered to read it.

And I don't go about trashing 'every belief system' and I have no intention of ever doing so.
I 'trash' irrational faith based belief systems, but that is not 'every belief system', not by a long-shot.

I have a belief system, as does everybody else, of one kind or another.
That belief system however is NOT atheism because atheism is not a belief system.
Neither is theism btw. Your belief system for example is [a version of] Christianity, not theism.
Theism is just having a belief in the existence of a god or gods... That's not a belief system.
A theists belief system [or one of them, a person can have more than one] is typically their particular religion [if they have one].



If you really and truly believe that I am dishonestly playing word games in some bizarre attempt to trash all belief systems from
some distorted nihilist position then all I can say is that you really and truly have no clue about what and how I think.
You are not even in the right solar system, let alone ball park.

Originally posted by moonbus
It got dragged into the thread by a couple of theists, especially robbie, who kept insisting that atheism must have this or that 'implication' for morality.

That figures. He is the single biggest "moralizer" on this forum, even though he constantly bemoans other people's "moralizing". Considering his actions as a clan leader on this site, I have doubts that the man has any morals at all, he certainly doesn't "walk the walk", as it were, despite his near-constant "talking the talk".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of any gods.

I lack belief in santa claus, hence I believe that santa claus does not exist. A rock and a baby lack belief in God because they have no beliefs. They do not believe that God does not exist.[/b]

I lack belief in santa claus, hence I believe that santa claus does not exist.

This kind of stuff makes me want to cry it really does.

NO! lack of belief in X does not imply or require belief in the lack of X.

I lack a belief that P = NP but I don't believe that P=/= NP
As far as I am concerned it's an unsolved problem who's answer is unknown.
I lack belief either way.

If you really did study Chemistry and Physics at university you SHOULD understand this.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That figures. He is the single biggest "moralizer" on this forum, even though he constantly bemoans other people's "moralizing". Considering his actions as a clan leader on this site, I have doubts that the man has any morals at all, he certainly doesn't "walk the walk", as it were, despite his near-constant "talking the talk".

A Christian that doesn't know what Gods Kingdom the central tenet of Christ's teaching is? Its incredulous.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That figures. He is the single biggest "moralizer" on this forum, even though he constantly bemoans other people's "moralizing". Considering his actions as a clan leader on this site, I have doubts that the man has any morals at all, he certainly doesn't "walk the walk", as it were, despite his near-constant "talking the talk".

Right, so you slagg-off my posts despite clearly not having read the thread... Nice.

As for RC, I'm not even convinced he talks the talk, let alone walks the walk.

Originally posted by FMF
You constantly refer to the beliefs of some other Christians ~ with whom you have differences of opinion ~ as "fringe" or not being "mainstream" and other expressions to that effect. It strikes me as being merely a sort of argumentum ad populum and not much else.

Of course. Because you don't "get it". That's not my fault, and nothing you can say will make that my fault.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A Christian that doesn't know what Gods Kingdom the central tenet of Christ's teaching is? Its incredulous.

Did I say that? No.

I'm simply a Christian who doesn't want to waste my time discussing God's Kingdom with a charlatan.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So as an atheist you don't believe that God doesn't exist? Surely you either believe that he exists or you believe that he doesn't exist. So which is it?

Go back and re-read the thread.

This has been covered umpteen times before, and that's just in my posts.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Of course. Because you don't "get it". That's not my fault, and nothing you can say will make that my fault.

I think the problem here is that you don't get what "argumentum ad populum" means. In recent months you have used it instead of an argument in many instances. You often assert that the world will soon end and that it might even happen in your lifetime. Do you claim that this assertion is "mainstream"?

Originally posted by googlefudge

I lack belief in santa claus, hence I believe that santa claus does not exist.

This kind of stuff makes me want to cry it really does.

NO! lack of belief in X does not imply or require belief in the lack of X.

I lack a belief that P = NP but I don't believe that P=/= NP
As far as I am concerned it's an unsolved problem who's answ ...[text shortened]... way.

If you really did study Chemistry and Physics at university you SHOULD understand this.

And yet you still maintain that my statement, "A lack of evidence FOR something is not evidence AGAINST that same something", is a lie.

You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Did I say that? No.

I'm simply a Christian who doesn't want to waste my time discussing God's Kingdom with a charlatan.

just tell us what it is and it will be enough for us.

Originally posted by FMF
I think the problem here is that you don't get what "argumentum ad populum" means. In recent months you have used it [b]instead of an argument in many instances. You often assert that the world will soon end and that it might even happen in your lifetime. Do you claim that this assertion is "mainstream"?[/b]

I think you err if you try to attack my intelligence. You also err in thinking that I care what you think at all. Again, stop stalking me.