/lit/ - Literature

>>18250706
Oh shit sorry I forgot to ask “is he right” in the OP.

>>18250706
>>18250708
Have you tried asking a rock?

>>18250706
I've heard atheists say that we "begin as atheists;" obviously erroneous; rocks and babies do not think about these things because they lack the mental capacity (I can attest to either because I remember the time I was a rock and the time I was a baby).

What about a lack of disbelief?

>>18250706
>>18250708
No. He has no idea what rocks believe in.

>>18250723
I mean I imagine rocks are pretty down to earth.

>>18250732

>>18250706
Can lack of belief be translated to the opposite of belief? As in there is belief, and then the absence of belief. If so, then rocks have neither belief nor lack-of belief, as in order to lack belief there must be capability to have belief, just as if there is to be a full or empty cup, there must be a cup. This holds so long as that you aren't a completely self-brainwashed determinist.

>>18250721
That difference is usually put as soft atheism vs hard atheism. Soft atheism is just not having contact or not caring about it at all, hard atheism is to know what the concept of God is about and explicitly reject it.

But yeah, I don't like that "we begin as atheists" take either.

>>18250723
Stoicism

Atheists want us to be like rocks.

>>18250706
>logically
logic is overrated

>>18250706
Belief exists in the absence of evidence. You can say we start as athetists since we lack both evidence and interpretation of evidence but as we accumulate knowledge and information of the world we can ascribe being and meaning to it thus we arrive at belief. Since no objective measure or formal undertaking has begun we say that we believe this to be the case because look at this such and such. Only when we drill down to the core fundamental reasons of our understanding using reason and logic can we conclude that neither existence or absence of existence is evidence for either or so the correct assumption is not to believe without evidence. Whether you harbor belief in your mind or heart is irrelevant since it cannot be deduced logically or objectively. You can say you believe such and such but have no reason or proof. The problem arises when you demand others to accept that or you assert your belief as rational. So an atheist would just be a person who has not resorted to using the absence of evidence as reason, purely logical and attributed no greater meaning beyond what can be observed or measured.

>>18250706
test

>>18250706
>Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods

This definition of atheism is retarded because it implies that the "belief God does not exist' is NOT atheism.

Shifty atheists will appeal to this non-traditional definition of atheism in order to evade the burden of proof when making the claim God does not exist.

>>18250706
atheism is a religion

in atheism , there is no truth, and no morality
science doesn't lead to truth and morality either
atheism = hedonism+metanarrative by humanists about how christian monarchies are evil

>>18250946
No one seriously thinks the burden of proof is on the non believer.

>>18250946
Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

By that logic, this includes literally everything defined as a lack of something. Rocks are apolitical since they have no politics. Rocks are asexual, they lack sexual interests, etc... I mean, it's a trivial truth.

>>18250957
>>18250957
If you make the claim God does not exist, then you need to justify it.

>>18250972
This is poor bait, you should try /pol/

>>18250946
Based craigposter

>>18250972
>Desert Cultist: I spoke to God last night
>Regular Dude: Prove it
>Desert Cultist: Burden of proof is on you :)

>>18250732
fuck you i laughed

>>18250992
Do you know that God does not exist?
If you do not know then be honest and say so.
If you claim to know God exists then you must justify your claim to knowledge.
If you believe God does not exist but admit you do not know, you still need to justify your belief.

>>18251023
>the universe created itself out of nothing for no reason
>prove it
>burden of proof is on you :)

>>18251047
Ask a scientist and he will gladly explain to you the reasoning for his hypothesis.

>>18251042
I have not seen any evidence to suggest the god interpretation is plausible, possible or consistent with what we do know. Not only has their been no evidence presented thus a valid interpretation could be made, there has been no objective measure attempted to determine such.

>>18251061
And if you ask a theologian, he'll gladly explain the reasoning behind his hypothesis

>>18251069
Haven't seen it yet lol

>>18250992
Nah, the burden of proof needs to be for the arguement that a first mover does not exist.
Of course in a scientific or empirical context the one proclaimed something's existence is the one with the burden. However, even inductive and deductive reasoning is abandoned once naturalism becomes someone's life philosophy.
This results in a conundrum where nothing metaphysical can ever be proven because methaphysics can't exist under that presupposition. It is circular reasoning and it also denies the legitimacy of logic and philosophy.
If atheists want to claim intellectual superiority, this philosophy cannot remain.
Given the strength of the arguement for a first mover, atheists have the burden of proof to prove that the universe does not necessitate a primordial mover, given that energy can neither create or perish, under naturalism, it follows that the existence of it in the first place requires a force resulted from material explanation, but this cannot be because that is speculation and no proof can ever exist.
This results in a halting of that conversation because beyond that is speculation, thus atheists in their confusion between "truth" and "empiricism" become as intellectual as cows.
If atheists wants "proof", theists have "proven" their stance through relatively cogent philosophy. Atheists have yet to do so.

>retards treating a semantic argument like an argument about a concrete objective subject

It’s all so tiresome.

>>18251061
>Ask a scientist and he will gladly explain to you the reasoning for his hypothesis.
Are you talking about the creation of the universe perhaps? None of them can or have disproven God because that is not how that works. You might be a bit confused.

>>18251101
You're wrong because you are making the assertion that god isn't metaphysical so the burden of proof is on you.

>>18251140
>you are making the assertion that god isn't metaphysical
How the hell did you read that and come to this conclusion.

>>18250957
Burden of proof is on the claimant.

>>18251146
>nothing metaphysical can ever be proven
Ok so either god is metaphysical concept and can't be proven or he isn't metaphysical so he can be proven thus the burden of proof is on you.

not that I agree with this line of reasoning but it's obviously flawed in a very simple way

>>18251139
>You might be a bit confused.
Ironic, since you seem to be under the impression that a hypothesis is a certainty.

>>18251063
Irrelevant. If an assertion is made, for example that atheism is the truth, then some proof must be offered.
Stating that your opponent is wrong does not prove your argument to be true.

>>18251160
Dreams are real, bees make honey, and black holes probably exist.

>>18250850
Atheism is specifically a lack of belief in a monotheistic god, especially Christian. It is in reaction to it. Denying the dominant culture's standard beliefs. It makes little sense to say you're an atheist when everyone is or to apply this terminology to any culture not dominated by Abrahamic religion. It is incoherent when applied in most of the world. And incoherent when these is an absence of negation.

Additionally, it only addresses the point of God and does not deny everything surrounding or derived from it. Being as a person is still part of a culture and has not examined their countless equally baseless beliefs and sensibilities. It is most importantly rejecting affiliation of an institution, which makes it doubly incoherent when applied to other cultures because the notion of religion and faith is different.

>>18251160
No, I'm saying in ontology, the segregation between metaphysics and non-metaphysics is absurd. This necessity for physical proof is only so under empiricism. What I was saying is the imposition of empiricist philosophy upon ontology is an aberration, which clearly should not and can not be.

>>18250706
>>18250721
Atheism is à reactionary concept, it is the rejection of the belief of a divine entity or pantheon of divine entities. I think that's a belief in itself, frankly. No man is born atheist, but agnostic. Same with inanimate objects, such as rocks. Frankly, I say we lack concrete evidence to confirm the validity of either theism or atheism.

>>18251177
That's not the argument made. That's a strawman and exactly what you said is circular logic.
>that atheism is the truth
No. The absence of proof for the existence of god is not saying that no god can exist. It's saying because there is no evidence to interpret as god then the belief is not founded.

You cannot say an atheist asserts god does not exist because god has not been proven to exist so that one can assert he does not.

>>18251042
>If you believe God does not exist but admit you do not know, you still need to justify your belief.
Funny that you post Kant while saying this, who said that time, space, and causality were subjective, yet who still betrayed that view when he came up with his thing-in-itself, something that, given that time, space, and causality are subjective, he wouldn't have any right to access.

If time and space are relative, which they are, then the concepts of cause and effect must also be relative, since they involve time and space. If cause and effect are relative, then God as a grand cause is also relative. On the one hand, this justifies the existence of God as a certain relative, but on the other hand, it also justifies the view that God is an interpretation, which means that God can be un-interpreted out of the universe in almost as easy a fashion. Which is basically the view that many quantum theorists have.

>>18250706
>>18250946
The term atheism by itself is a lack of belief in deities/gods (without theism), and it's implied that the term should only apply to sentient beings able to consider religious ideas. A good term I've seen for non-sentient beings or beings that have never been exposed to religious stimuli is "agnostic" (the etymology is "without knowledge"). I think Dawkins agrees with the agnostic/gnostic atheism distinction where agnostic atheists accept the possibility of deities while not believing in any without evidence and gnostic atheists don't accept the possibility of religious deities/gods for various reasons.

>>18251192

>>18251191
All these things can be measured so there's sufficient evidence to support that? What are you saying?

>>18251213
>sufficient evidence
>black holes

>atheists are as dumb as a rock
makes sense

One of the most blindingly obvious flaws of the New Atheism movement is how they fail to define "belief", as they assume is that belief is "avowed belief", that is, what one says the believe. That is nowhere near close to what actual believe might be, even theoretically.

Oh, and an over-reliance on ironic humor to facetiously bolster rhetoric

>>18251214
>we can observe these things and we call them black holes but we don't really know what they do just that they are there, again, we will call it a black hole
Notice how it doesn't need to be magic to also exist? Simply observing something/measuring it scientifically is enough evidence for the existence of something (consensus given evidence).

>>18250706
According to the Bhagavad Gita as it is, atheists believe in a lack of soul. In that sense, dawkins is beyond wrong, because even rocks have a soul.

>>18251228
Belief is either the absence of evidence or the reliance upon faulty evidence to support a theory/interpretation. God does not rely upon evidence to exist for people so they believe he exists or the evidence they supply is something like 'existence' or 'the bible'. Logically and empirically we can discount this as evidence.

>>18251163
I am under no such Impression. You are under the impression that scientists have hypothesised about the beginning of beginnings, which they have not and could not. With the access to cosmic artifacts, they can only derive speculative "history". With it being "history" it follows that there are moments before so.
They can only spiral deeper in chronology. They can never reach beyond the first instance because that is metaphysics.

>>18251229
>we can invent a convoluted mathematical model loosely based on some evidence filtered through other models and take it to a purely mathematical conclusion and then, along with other artefacts of interpretation, say this vague collation of data indicating a large area of something is in fact a black hole (the thing we have defined from mathematical absurdity but have no actual proof of its mechanics or form whatsoever), therefore black holes 100% as we have said them to be definitely exist.

>>18251237
This is interesting, in how purely you apply scientism. Surely you admit "belief" is a concept that existed pre-science? So what did it mean then?

>>18251245
Just be clear this is your admission that you have no idea what you're talking about and that strawmanning isn't actually a valid response?

>>18251245
This also lends to another problem: absolute faith in the physical and platonic reality of mathematics as a thing that is discovered and magically determines the universe. Instead of what it really is which is bio-empirical academic inventions.

>>18251244
Nah. Everything has a beginning and an end. History had to start somewhere and logically the big bang would be the start of history. History does not mean there was always something before.

>>18251258
>History does not mean there was always something before.
Why is that exactly?

>>18251245
We've had images of a black hole, looking like we predicted a black hole would look in the location a supermassive black hole was predicted to be, since 2019

From the rest of your post I get the impression you flunked high school physics

>>18251255
Just to be clear you believe in random logical and mathematical end-conclusions over adhering to empirical evidence, of which there is next to none that couldn't be better explained by another model and still says nothing tangible about the supposed mechanics of black holes because they are totally made up, so long as it's accepted in a scientific field (dogma)?

>>18250706
>>18251228
It's pretty shocking how dumb their argumentation is when these people (Well Dawkins at least) were once well renown scientists in their respective fields.

>>18251244
>You are under the impression that scientists have hypothesised about the beginning of beginnings, which they have not and could not
Hawkings' final theory was that the universe does not have a beginning as we understand beginnings.

>>18251023
>>18251047
You're both wrong for asking different questions and then comparing answers as though they make sense. In actuality, you can justify any belief, even that snails rule the cosmos. The concept of Solipsism is just one of the ways this manifests philosophically. The question of whether religion or lack thereof is justified with evidence is irrelevant. The question is whether you wish to rely on the observations of your surroundings to make assumptions of the world in which you inhabit, or utilize emotional/intuition based reasoning to do so. The former leads one to science, the latter religion. Kiss kiss and make up, you're one in the same.

>>18251264
Because everything has a beginning and an end.

>>18251251
Of course but the scientific process doesn't need to be formalized for it to be applied. For example observing something, drawing a conclusion then testing it through practice is sufficient to move from belief to know. I know I can turn clay into pottery because I have done it so many times that anyone who asserts it is god who created this pot is either a fool or simply didn't know they could do this. Belief is the state that exists before application. It's not inherently wrong to believe something. it's obviously valuable to people for many reasons but it's the inability to move from belief that is the problem. Likewise you can arrive at knowing without having believed, my pottery example was probably like this. You don't intuitively look at clay and think it can be made to a pot, so I imagine discovering this process by accident was from a position of unknown to known, this would be more scientific with a hypothesis and what not, saying something like if I do this more I can make a pot. True or false? True. Now everyone makes pots so it is repeated and peer reviewed.

>>18251274
No I don't believe that

>>18251286
Out of left field...Do you believe if God? I will appreciate your answer and see where we may go with it.

>>18251274
That's not how science works. Scientists observe a phenomenon, give a name to it, and study it to find phenomena within that phenomenon. The idea of a black hole *as we know it* is definitely real, it has been observed. That is to say that we cannot attest to aspects of it we can only theorize about now, nor anything we could not even comprehend as possible.

>>18251299
To me the question is do I consider it worth suspending evidence as the necessary component of reason. I don't think it's worth suspending that fundamental principle to justify believing in god. I'm open to the possibility given evidence (like everything) but in the absence of evidence then I conclude god does not exist.

>>18251274
>of which there is next to none that couldn't be better explained by another model and still says nothing tangible about the supposed mechanics of black holes
Black holes follow from general relativity. There's plenty of shit you could've picked for your argument but black holes are a terrible choice, even disregarding that we have actually observed a black hole by now

>>18251314
And the people who believe in God..are they working with evidence? And what?

All atheists are liars. Everyone believes in God. "Atheists" merely avow their resentment toward their own belief, and latch onto "science" to validate their failing moral life. This has never not been the case.

>>18251326
If they are working with evidence I would like to see it and so would everyone else I imagine. Just based on what i've seen asserted as evidence, then I would say that is not evidence because it doesn't follow the principles of the scientific method, that is can be tested, measured, repeated, etc.

>>18251337
cope

>>18251284
Atheism is not a belief, it is a claim about a belief based on the lack of supporting evidence and reasoning for that belief. The burden of proof is never on the non-believer.

>>18251339
Religion has existed pre-science. So what about that?

>>18251292
Then why so faithful? The answer: scientific dogma. Your faith in science makes it the most dogmatic and dangerous thing in existence today, as has been shown for hundreds of years really. Social Darwinism is the bleakest example that comes from this.

Regarding black holes, it's not like I'm alone in this either but the issue is recurring. Scientists don't understand the nature of model-making in its relation to reality, especially when mathematics-heavy. Because 'science' is always a derivation of preexisting models, it is important to be careful and willing to discard the useless and make separate models that are not directly compatible with preexisting ones.

>>18251307
No, that's NOT how science works at all if you LOOK at how it works and not merely assert a self-serving platitude. But that's irrelevant here because that is not the origin of black holes, the origin is deciding something exists based on a conclusion made from a model, then interpreting data (which affords countless interpretations because it affords countless models) as supporting it. The problem with this is that this data doesn't really confirm or deny the supposed mechanics, and the data block identified as relating to black holes can be better explained by other models, models that do not suppose so much unsupported stuff.

>>18251350
Atheism has existed as long as people also claimed that gods existed. The fact that people share a common belief does not mean that they are right. Also when did man start believing in god? Was it as soon as he could reason as an ape? Or was it only after a certain attainment of evolution that he needed to ascribe gods to explain things that he could not yet comprehend? Are we to dictate our lives and society from the inability of cavemen to explain their natural environment? Not that I'm saying this as an argument merely observing such.

>>18251349
Atheism isn't a belief in its reaction to religion on whether religion can be justified using scientific evidence. In the context of atheism as a stand-alone, it is a belief. One could make the claim that nothing we perceive, scientific or not, is incorrect, and could not be proven wrong. Atheism is made belief in its dependency upon evidence. We can't really justify belief in anything. I still think atheism is valuable in practice of course, the ideas I'm talking about aren't really practical in application. But it is, in technical effect, a belief.

>>18251359
>'science' is always a derivation of preexisting models
Got any evidence to support that claim?

>>18251370
What does God mean?

>>18251282
>the universe does not have a beginning as we understand beginnings.
Exactly my point. This just means that the endpoint of science can not understand the beginnings of energy itself because that theory does not sufficiently answer why, and does not disprove contingency.
You really can not use science to build an ontology and belief because human intuition will always ask why in search for reason.
Stating the universe resurrects itself in a cyclical manner gives credence to the forward motion of time, as well as contingency.
Again, no scientist have hypothesised about the beginning of beginnings because they are, at the base assumptions of science, barred from ever encroaching upon that matter.
Philosophical questions prevail even with the most sophisticated scientific hypothesise.

>>18251285
Yes I agree.

>>18251047
That’s not the atheist position. If you lack a belief in both the proposition that a God or gods exists and the proposition that the universe was created out of nothing (which is a false dichotomy btw) you are an atheist (by the lacktheist definition anyway).

>>18251359
We observe unexplained phenomena not through models but instruments. We call these repeatable observable phenomena an x. What you have a problem with is the theories of x. If you doubt that people observe x it's because you're a fucking moron who doesn't know what they're talking about.

>>18250946
>This definition of atheism is retarded because it implies that the "belief God does not exist' is NOT atheism.
it implies no such thing

>>18251387
I'd imagine it has had different meanings over time but roughly put it is some time of entity that creates things which are not intuitively explainable. I'm sure there is a specific meaning associated to specific religions or beliefs but that's how I understand a god.

>>18251404
Instruments didn't just pop out of thin air. They were designed by us based on existing understanding. There is no x to observe without a model, unless we're talking about pre-scientific natural philosophy which we have long since passed. The idea that science is still just observing phenomena in a vacuum is naive.

>>18251416
Is it possible that God is not merely an explanation for the material which is is inexplicable? Is God not possibly something else than which science deals with?

>>18251359
The "model" you're referring to is based on observations made by telescopes and other instruments picking up what people initially viewed as abnormalities to their scientific understanding of the world. These observations were noted, studied, and dubbed as black holes. Their study is ongoing. That is not merely a self-serving platitude, nor is it unsupported. You expect science as an answer and not a process by which one attempts to find answers.

>>18251384
Atheism "as a belief" was clearly not what was meant in the post you replied to though.

>>18251435
No because then god isnt god.

>>18251447
This is an adequate conclusion of the limit of the atheist thought.

>>18251410
If you lack belief in God it is logically impossible to also believe God does not exist.

>>18251391
>This just means that the endpoint of science can not understand the beginnings of energy itself because that theory does not sufficiently answer why
The "endpoint of science" is the endpoint of human knowledge altogether. If the universe does not have a beginning that scientists understand as beginnings then whatever it is, no human can understand it; it is beyond human comprehension and affairs. Point being, whatever God there is surely does not give a shit what we think, whether we pray, or whether we steal, rape, or kill one another.

>>18250706
"Lacking a belief" in something, as they say, is not a coherent argument. It's merely a rhetorical game.
Being an atheist means actively believing that something is true about the universe: namely, there is no God. Or perhaps more accurately, all that exists is matter.
Logically speaking, suppose A means a belief in God. ~A is the opposite.
1. If A, then B.
2. If ~B, then C.
2. ~A.
3. Therefore not ~B.
4. Therefore C.
Simple argument. You can make B and C anything, as long as you agree with the premises, 1 and 2. Say B is a belief there is more than matter.
But it shows that if we can make any if statement about an atheist, then we can eventually come to a positive statement. Just apply your standard use of "unmarried bachelor" logical example.
Following this logic, we can reason that from a negative, it within the realm of reason to conclude a positive statement. Of course, the atheist is mostly bound to rhetoric, and refuses to understand the structured nature of his rhetoric.
>>18251237
>Belief is either the absence of evidence or the reliance upon faulty evidence to support a theory/interpretation.
That's a bad definition and you're well aware not a proper one. You're merely making another atheist rhetorical game by changing the definition of words and making hasty generalizations of large groups of people.
>God does not rely upon evidence to exist for people so they believe he exists or the evidence they supply is something like 'existence' or 'the bible'.
For such a "scientific" mind, you're making a statement without delivering any evidence or scientific analysis. "God does not rely on evidence to exist for people." What does that mean? For everyone? For most people? For some people? All three of those are entirely different kinds of statements. Of course you can always point to the ambiguous "they."
And of course, you'll never look at the actual arguments in history for the existence of God.
>Logically and empirically we can discount this as evidence.
It's obvious how little thought you've put into this issue before forming an opinion. Even empirically false statements can have evidence, otherwise the very concept of evidence becomes logically untenable. Otherwise, evidence becomes equated with only that which is absolutely true. That's an incredulous thing to believe for any scientific advancement. Perhaps if you've actually read something, you could read Galileo's "The Assayer" and see how he articulated a pre-Atomic theory, Corpusculariansm, without any direct evidence for atoms themselves. Or see a similar phenomenon in Francis Bacon's "New Organon."
More on that, it's preposterous to say the Bible is not evidence for something. How do you believe in anything in history? How can you believe in the Battle of Cannae, for instance? Through Livy and Polybius. Very little other sources exist on it.

>>18251446
Yes, the post was meant as a mediation. The argument that was being had was redundant, it would bear no satisfactory conclusion for either party. I was explaining how they were asking completely different questions, and thus were arriving at completely different answers. These answers could not be compared, hence why arguments of such nature always turn out this way. As much as I've loved seeing Dawkin's debates, eventually you come to see their futility by this.

>>18251435
If god is something that can not be dealt with science or what you mean evidence then I have no problem here. You accept that is not based in the material world and only in your mind is fine for me, I don't think people care what you believe. I would say that it will most likely be detrimental for your life if you use this method to parse reality but if you limit it to god and he explains things which are hard for you to understand and that makes it feel better then go for it. I would say that other people may differ on how they want to live their lives and that is completely acceptable to use evidence, logic and reason to guide your actions. I also think this guide will ultimately provide you a more fruitful (in meaning and materially) and holistic life.

>>18251205
This is semantics and fluid terminology. You're annoying, stop being like that.

>>18250706
>disbelief =/= doubt
Atheists are rarely entitled to call their disbelief a doubt. All beliefs and disbeliefs are convictions and the atheist merely has a negative conviction. I mean sure, atheists arrive at their disbelief by doubting, but that is irrelevant. Nobody ever arrives at any belief or disbelief, without first doubting what they formerly believed.

All this means in reality is that agnosticism is the only truly irreligious point of view, and Dawkins is worse at reasoning than Anselm of Canterbury.

>>18250946
>"belief God does not exist' is NOT atheism.
It is not. The existence of an all-powerful entity is irrelevant to me. I will not worship anyone, god or man. I am sure there are plenty of people who are atheist like me who will not worship a god even you can prove that he exists.

>>18251516
Youre not an atheist. Youre a gnostic.

Does this argument matter? If it’s true that that definition of atheism is a bad one and the lacktheist was convinced of that wouldn’t he just then identify as an agnostic. Why would he change his position and start arguing for the non-existence of God?

>>18251471
>That's a bad definition and you're well aware not a proper one. You're merely making another atheist rhetorical game by changing the definition of words and making hasty generalizations of large groups of people.
If it's bad please provide a counter definition instead of relying on ad hominem word games and strawmans. I'm open to the discussion of this so that we can agree upon a more meaningful term.

>"God does not rely on evidence to exist for people." What does that mean?
It means people don't need evidence to beleive in god. It means that people have faith and that they don't need to be shown something to say that god exists. It means that they need no explanation as to why they think the thing they do.
>For everyone? For most people? For some people?
Considering I gave the two alternatives I would say that it's OBVIOUS some people. Now who is trying to play word games? I always find that people accuse you of what they themselves are guilty of doing.
>And of course, you'll never look at the actual arguments in history for the existence of God.
Feel free to tell me an argument but also feel free to provide some evidence as well. Surely you can mean to make arguments with evidence instead of desperate assertions?
>Even empirically false statements can have evidence, otherwise the very concept of evidence becomes logically untenable. Otherwise, evidence becomes equated with only that which is absolutely true. That's an incredulous thing to believe for any scientific advancement. Perhaps if you've actually read something, you could read Galileo's "The Assayer" and see how he articulated a pre-Atomic theory, Corpusculariansm, without any direct evidence for atoms themselves. Or see a similar phenomenon in Francis Bacon's "New Organon."
What are you even trying to say here, you're just talking about something that has no relevance. My statement means that you can use logic and emperical methodology (evidence, measuring, observing, etc) to discount evidence presented in support of god. That is, when someone presents some 'evidence' that god exists it is always refuted and not able to be held up as proof. And before you ask I do mean ALWAYS. Feel free to provide some unequivocal objective proof of god.

>More on that, it's preposterous to say the Bible is not evidence for something
I said the bible is not evidence for god not evidence for something, clearly it is evidence of something.

So lets recap, strawmans, ad hominem attacks, faulty reasoning, what else did you accuse me of, oh yes word games. Funny that's all you seemed to muster.

>>18251516
Basically this >>18251540
Being a God-hater is not legitimate atheism, that's in another post-code of stupid.

>>18251497
What is?

>>18251516
Lie more

>>18251206
Pseud take.
Actually read Kant

>>18251611
>calling Schopenhauer a pseud

>>18251574
The post I was replying to. Read the FAQ you newb.

>>18250706
>is he right
Obviously
In the anal, ass-blasting way that only Dawkins can be
>>18250946
Actually pass logic 101 before shitposting next time

>>18251648
What I said is logical. You just don't like that it makes sense. You clearly can't point to something and say this is illogical. This statement here is fluid or you're making a semantic argument right here, because, I'm not. You simply don't like that you're wrong.

>>18251471
You're so far up your own ass your brain has become clouded
Atheist make a positive statement, yes
The statement is that they don't believe in the existence of gods
All your hand-waving is just rhetorical hullaballoo to avoid having to defend your own bullshit

>>18251206
What 2nd hand Kant have you read? Was it Wikipedia?

>>18250706
>rocks don't believe in god so why should we?
was this shit really enough to sway millennials in 2008

>>18250721

We do, though. the REAL PHILOSOPHICAL idea entailed by the OP's thing is: who, or what, is a SUBJECT? By saying that "a rock is an atheist" (if the quote is right, haven't read) Dawkins pithily attributes a certain mental state to a rock. Unless one takes a very Zen view on things, this might explain the western cringe at the suggestion.

Subjectivity is normally reserved for humans (or aliens or gods, hypothetically), but around the point of babies and zygotes and so on is where the discussion gets spicy. I consider a born baby to be an authentic philosophical subject, which has a certain mental process going about (consciousness, qualia, the authentic reality of other subjects are seperate-but-related discussions). I don't consider the general construction "newly born babies are atheists" to be problematic, if one allows that a newly born baby is something a bit more than a rock. I think that the dislike of the notion is because it feels like a definitional "gotcha" when it really isn't, it's just a definition.

Does a baby believe that G. Gordon Liddy will be the fifth president of the Moon? Yes or No will do. After, feel free to qualify your answer and ask the same question of a rock.

>>18250723
>ask rock if he believes in any gods
>he says he is a shinto kami
>turn 360 degrees and walk through torii

>>18251696
He didn't write it to sway anyone
He wrote it to make all the christcucks reeee and earn a retirement fund
And all it takes is a tweet for all you dicklet losers to shit yourselves all over again

>>18251706
>Dawkins pithily attributes a certain mental state to a rock
He says that with absence of mental states comes absence of belief. It's an autism test. You failed it.
just as OP and most of the other fish in the thread did.

>>18250732
Heh, nice.

>>18250784
Don't you mean to say "Stonicism"?

>>18251713

Yes, that's the plain reading of the quote. What I pointed out is the sense in which this is supposed to "not fit", and why others find it absurd.

>>18251676
Like I said to the other anon, are you saying that Schopenhauer was mistaken about Kant?

>>18250721
>What about a lack of disbelief?
It's called credulity. You grow out of it or you buy the bridge.

>being against the new atheists

Oh look, it’s babby’s first contrarianism

The burden of proof is both on theists and atheists. The only group that has no burden are agnostics. Now all of you retards postulating about shit you have no clue about can go kill yourselves.

>>18251782
I don't think having a belief means you are making a positive claim
Neither side has the burden of proof. Only someone that makes a positive claim
One thing I'm confused about though is someone making a positive claim is asserting something. But a negative claim is asserting a non existence of something. Does mean a negative claim can be a positive claim? It's almost impossible to prove a negative claim even if the logic follows

>>18251457
If you lack belief in God it is logically impossible to also believe God does not exist.
you're an idiot
>>18251471
>Being an atheist means actively believing that something is true about the universe: namely, there is no God
you're an idiot too
>>18251515
>agnosticism is the only truly irreligious point of view
you too
threads like this are a good reminder that /lit/ is the stupidest board

>>18251823
I claim you are not heterosexual. Prove otherwise, faggot.

>>18251782
Nah. Belief is enough for theists. Proof is needed to satisfy an atheist.

>>18251782
>>18251823
The reason you can keep circle-jerking about religious claims is that it is nothing but hand-waving nonsense
Claiming that "I can't know if there really were a couple of kids named Hansel and Grethel who killed an old hag" is logically sound, but it still makes you look like an autistic tool

>>18251831
>calling psychologically stunted people idiots
Mean.

>>18251782
Atheists don't need to prove that a theist's God isn't real, they just have to demonstrate how the theist has no proof for his God, which is enough for the atheist (who is just someone with a lack of belief in a god or gods) to not believe (which is not a belief) in that God.

>>18251834
Ohh I get it now. Thanks man!
>>18251837
I have no idea what you're trying to say to me. I'm just trying to learn bro. Least the other guy taught me something by claiming I'm gay

>>18251831
YOU ARE THE IDIOT!!!

Lacking belief in God is fundamentally different and incompatible with believing God does not exist.

see: >>18250960
>This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.

>>18251911
How can someone belief That God doesn’t exist without also lacking the belief that he does? If you believe that God doesn’t exist but do not have a lack of belief in the proposition that he does exist then you are affirming a contradiction.

>>18251925
Keep in mind this is the definition new atheists championed; it is convoluted but there is a distinction.

If you 'lack a belief' you neither believe nor disbelief; this is why according to this definition of 'lacktheism' babies and rocks are considered atheists.

If you believe God does not exist, you no longer lack a belief concerning God. Get it?

>>18250706
That's a silly troll. By that same reasoning you could say a rock is agnostic because agnosticism is "not knowing whether god exists" and rocks don't know that. The terms only apply to things that can have beliefs in the first place.

>>18251994
The redefining of atheism to mean a 'lack of belief' rather than 'belief that God doesnt exist' is an attempt by atheists to evade the burden of proof.

>There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists....
>But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists)...
>Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
>One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.
>So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view.
-William Lane Craig

>>18251994
It's more stupid than that. Rocks could have internal beliefs that we are unable to decipher. There is no proof that rocks don't believe in God so it's just a belief that rocks are inherently atheistic.

>>18251938
I get what youre saying.
May i ask, how do babies fit in with rocks when babies have consciousness, albeit primitive in comparison to an adult?

>>18250706
>Theism is a belief in the existence of a God or gods. This logically entails that some rocks are theists since they might have an intelligence that we don't know about and it is incident for some intelligent beings to believe in God or gods

>>18252054
Babies are incapable of making an intelligent decision, so they neither believe in God nor disbelieve in God.
People who have not given the subject any thought also fall in this category.

The reason this redefinition of atheism is retard is that means babies are neither theists (having belief in God) nor atheists (having belief God doesnt exist. So by this 'lacktheism' definition, an atheist is neither a theist nor an atheist. Yes its very retarded.

>>18252015
>our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
>he doesn't know about the cat god
that guy is an idiot too

>>18250706
I hope you just made this up.

>>18252099

You fucked up in the first clause of the first sentence my man.

>>18252015
>Disagreeing with the way I define your position makes you a dishonest bad faith actor.
Retard.

>>18250706
A rock does not have conciousness, nor meta-conciousness.

>>18252105
Muff ma pussy

>rocks are atheists
what's the problem problem then?

Has /lit/ never heard of Agnosticism? Damn, and this is supposed to be the intellectual board.

>>18253848
>this is supposed to be the intellectual board
Kek no it isnt and you being here proves it isn't.

>>18252160
This. Why would you insist on defining your opponent’s position that way?

>>18253912
Cope. Agnosticism is based.

>>18251047
A lot atheists don't claim to know why the Universe was created.

Atheism’s logical arguments are irrelevant, because atheism is plainly unhealthy for human psychology and poisonous to society at large.

>>18250721
Disbelief is a subset of belief.

>another thread where people confuse epistemology with ontology

Oof.

>>18250732

>>18251911
>Lacking belief in God is fundamentally different and incompatible with believing God does not exist.
so somebody that believes God doesn't exist has belief in God?

>>18250721
>I remember the time I was a rock

>>18255951
Keep seething cunt. Youre the dumbest fuck on this entire site.

>>18256892
Hes not saying that at all. Why are you so stupid?
"I dont believe in god" is not the same as "god doesnt exist".

>>18251469
non sequitur

>>18251023
You could just go the Hume route and say that miracle claims require extraordinary evidence. Atheist burden of proof dodging is so pathetic.

>>18257512
>fundamentally different and incompatible with believing God does not exist.
>incompatible
>If you lack belief in God it is logically impossible to also believe God does not exist.
>This definition of atheism is retarded because it implies that the "belief God does not exist' is NOT atheism.
if somebody believes god doesn't exist, he lacks belief in god, the pouint of that definition is that while the two position are not the same, both are atheist

>>18257828
Nope.
I dont believe in allah but i believe in yaweh. That doesnt make me an atheist.
Beliving that NO god exists is atheism. Everything else is theism and agnosticism.

>>18250706

>>18256528
>he bases his arguments off of his feelings

>>18257799
I don't even see why theists would care to have atheists prove that their gods do not exist. It's not like the lack of proof is going to change atheists' minds, and it's not like the theists believe in their gods because atheists don't have proof against their existence (even though that is hardly true at this point). Atheists, however, actually do disbelieve those gods due to the lack of proof coming from theists.

>>18257948
Everyone does, whether they admit it or not. The only exception is pure mathematics and pure logic.

>>18258328
Not in the way that that anon was describing. Saying "atheism hurts my feelings so now I'm a theist" is worthy of ridicule.

>>18250717
Underrated

>>18250784
kek
>>18251721
fucking woosh. god damn pseuds of lit

>>18250706
This is your 'hero'

>>18259333
Truth.
More often than not they end up in care homes and abandoned by their family. It's arguably morally correct to do so no matter what way you look at it.
t. Disability support worker

>>18259333
based.

>>18259333
He's right though. I wouldn't wish that life on anybody

>>18259333
damn, I love Dawkins now

>>18259333
he was only saying what already happens anyway. downs can be detected with reasonable success quite early in pregnancy and 90%+ of babies with downs are aborted. the only reason you see people with downs walking around are because of the larger population in general and the few undetected cases, plus those weird people who want a downs baby basically to keep as a pet and leave to the mercy of the state if it survives longer than the parents.
oh and of course there are more downs births in countries where abortion is illegal. i would bet that these are often quietly disposed of at birth.

>>18257948
It’s fact that atheists have worse psychological health.

>>18259333
Eugenics is inevitable. CRISPR manipulation will become mainstream within a decade.

>>18259353
>it’s okay to kill disabled people

Hmm

>>18261241
Cool fantasy

>>18259368
People with Dowm’s syndrome aren’t less happy