• The Invalidity of Atheism
    Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc.
    — Gregory A

    I give up. Why?     — praxis

    Why indeed. I mean mermaids are not super-natural, why not believe in them. Eh?
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    ↪lll
    To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. It's a circular argument.
    — L'éléphant

    I don't believe that a purple man with seven arms rules the Omniverse on a throne made of cotton candy.     — lll

    You also don't argue against that straw-filled creature. And if you were to you too would be a theist by disagreeing on a particular deity.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    ↪Tom Storm
    Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left).
    — Gregory A

    this has to be a troll. Best left alone.
    — Wayfarer

    You'd think so. But I've heard this kind of incoherent, quasi-libertarian shit from some apologists in recent times. Next comment is usually a connection between Communism and atheism, along with a conspiracy to deprive people of liberty, along with their faith.     — Tom Storm

    You've got me here. It's not communism, but instead another even more horrific head of the Hydra that is the Left, feminism. Which will not only conspire to deprive males of their lives, females of their freedoms but along with that (all) faiths not worshiping God the Mother.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left).
    — Gregory A

    this has to be a troll. Best left alone.
    2 days ago     — Wayfarer

    Whether aware of it or not atheists attempt to silence theists. Theism, you are forced to agree, is placed on the right, politically. There are of course conservative atheists, no group being completely homogenous, but still, the softness of the Left, the perceived (and real) harshness of religions can not but result in generating political opposition.
  • The Invalidity of Atheism
    Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself — Bob Ross
    This is a critique of theism, not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God/gods. If you think that God/gods have never been shown to exist, then you would be an atheist (unless you choose to believe with, self admittedly, 0 evidence). Atheism cannot be tangible in a literal sense by definition, just like not-stamp collecting is just as real as the number zero: neither are tangible yet are very real.

    Theism is a belief in gods that so far have never been shown to exist. Atheism's (claim) is a non-belief in gods so far never shown to exist. Atheism in actuality is opposed to something never shown to exist.

    Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion.

    The Bible is not holistically religion. Atheism is the rejection of theism (or, more generically, yes, religion): not just merely Christianity.

    Atheist's, 'as non-believers in gods', should have nothing whatever to say about religion, specifically the religions of the Bible, and can't specifically reject any religion or any god.

    Theism offers an explanation for our existence, atheism offers no explanations of its own, a weaker position.

    It is not a weaker position because it doesn't positively assert anything (it is a doctrine of negations). Is it a weaker position to not-stamp collect, or be an avid stamp collector? Neither. Atheism is not meant to provide anything beyond simply lacking a belief in God/gods. This doesn't mean in the slightest that someone should be a theist because "atheism is a weaker position", nor does it have anything to do with naturalism
    .

    Theism asserts God created the universe, whereas atheism "doesn't positively assert anything".

    No, it's not a weaker position to not collect stamps. But an a-stampist would be a weak position.


    Naturalism is the counter-position to theism
    No it is not. Traditional physicalism or materialism would be an appropriate counter argument. Naturalism is a philosophical theory that rejects supernaturalism, while not necessarily negating metaphysics. Naturalism is not the claim that all there is is definitely the material world, it is the theory that all natural events must be explained by natural laws, logic, reason, etc.

    Naturalism, as the term suggests is a belief in Nature, a naturally occurring universe.

    atheism occupying a non-existent middle ground

    You either believe something, or you don't (principle of noncontradiction). Therefore, each person either believes in God/gods, or doesn't. Theism is the belief in such, atheism is the negation. These are, in terms of beliefs, the only two options.

    There are believers, non-believers & there are atheists. Atheists 'attempt' to negate theism. Non-believers are those when asked do they believe, reply 'no'. We know who atheists are because they are active in their attacks on theism.

    If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths.

    Atheism is opening your mouth and claiming you don't believe, that is it. Other philosophical theories have to invoked to claim further. If I'm not a stamp collector, that is all I am going to be able to say about the matter, but that has nothing to do with other, completely unrelated, positions I may voice
    .

    If atheism were valid it would accept that it has nothing to say about something it doesn't believe exists.

    Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists.

    What exactly did you prove here? Atheist is the term for those who subscribe to atheism. I'm not following the logic here.

    Atheists are actively opposed to theism. They are 'a-theistic'. They are a-theists.

    The invalidity of atheism does not validate theism, as naturalism may still be right, but atheism needs to be invalid for theism to be right.

    It is not "theism" vs "naturalism". You can be an atheist and subscribe to metaphysical truths (you can also not be a naturalist and be an atheist). Likewise, naturalism is a philosophical theory pertaining to epistemic claims, theism is pertains strictly to belief. Not all theists claim to "know" God exists. Lots do, but some don't (some are agnostic theists). Some prefer, contrary to a 2 dimensional labeling system, a 1 dimensional representation: atheism - agnosticism - theism. However you fancy, none of it implies naturalism.

    Theism and naturalism are counter positions philosophically, not opposed socially, culturally or politically.

    Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc.

    Atheism does not necessitate that one should believe in mermaids. I honestly haven't met a single atheist that does, nor does it pertain to atheism in any way imaginable: that would be a separate assertion.

    If when looking into your container of 'non-beliefs' you select one, then all of those other things in there become real. Atheism for example says nothing about non-belief in mermaids. A theist believes in a god, but that doesn't stop him believing in many other things. His belief in god does not stop you believing in other things.

    Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left).

    Not at all. Again, atheism is the negation of theism. Theism is the belief in God. Gnosticism (not in the sense of the gnostics) is the claim of knowledge (epistemically) either way, agnosticism the negation thereof. This has nothing to do with "Left" (I would presume you are referring to politics) nor free-speech.

    There are many explanations for atheism, some weak, some strong. But the advent of 'red-shift' (social) is the strongest. The Left after censoring no less a person than a US President has no problem shutting down theists.

    The real catch is that by entering into a (any) debate, you by default put your opponents on an equal footing as yourself, allowing as you need (and do ask) them to prove what they are claiming. For atheists to not accept this is to have them standing on ground arrogance has mislead them into believing exists.

    

    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		The Invalidity of Atheism		
    Atheists dwell on the Bible, so unless you can produce some of these 'pre-bible' atheists, well....
    
— Gregory A
    
"The Riddle of Epicurus", circa 3rd century BCE. No reference to the Hebrew scriptures and nearly eight centuries before the Christian Bible and eleven ceenturies before the Quran. Hopefully you're not allergic to a short wiki article on "the history of atheism": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism :chin:     — 180 Proof

    
God would need to give us the power to solve evil, and which is something we are presently doing. And isn't it that 'evil'  was a choice we made ourselves, the original sin, itself an act of free-will we chose.
    

    
I'd dismissed "barring one small statistical error" but it does seem more involved than I'd first understood.
    
I can't explain the Pygmy lack of belief, but can't understand how any tribe couldn't contemplate a basis for its own existence. They must have been subject to a lot of survival pressure to not allow a/any supernaturally-based philosophy.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		The Invalidity of Atheism		
    Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion.
    
— Gregory A
    
Sweet fuckin' Jeezus. :roll:
    

    
Atheism preceeded the Bible by millennia and every religion that rejects worship all deities entails atheism with respect to those unworshipped deities. So, on these two points alone, your post is grossly uninformed and thereby "invalid" itself.
    

    
To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place.
    
— L'éléphant
    
Suppose atheism claims only that 'theism is not true', that – regardless of whether or not there is a theistic deity – what is said in religious texts and believed 'about some deity' is demonstrably not true. Does such a formulation of atheism make more sense to you?     — 180 Proof

    
What is 'not true' is false? Atheism, in its dishonesty, needs to avoid such a declaration. It does not have the backing of science, Big bang and evolution still technically theories. Atheism is really the rejection of a perceived harshness, evolving over time, currently rejecting the patriarchy Moses, Jesus & Muhammad represent. So, no this formulation makes no more sense to me.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		The Invalidity of Atheism		
    That's right, their denials are in effect a disclaimer. They leave open the possibility of there being a God so that they may say (if 'evidence' were to arise) 'this is what we have been waiting for'. Which is In effect still a reversal of much of what they have said already regardless. Arrogance is a trait we see in them. Which really shouldn't be there if they were being truly scientific.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		The Invalidity of Atheism		
    Atheists dwell on the Bible, so unless you can produce some of these 'pre-bible' atheists, well....
    
And one thing that can never be is atheism preceding theism, as the title says it all. We also need to keep in mind, barring one very small statistical error, all societies have had their god/s.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		The Invalidity of Atheism		
    That's the correct way of putting it. 'A circular argument'. They have in a sense brought themselves into existence, explaining maybe why they are only a sub-group in society. But still there is some sort of motive required on their part I would think. Otherwise, why not leave people to their beliefs, after all religion (which is very real) has contributed a lot to society. An example is in that it has, in days gone by at least, kept marriages together longer.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		A "Time" Problem for Theism		
    Time relates to motion, motion relates to matter. 'Before' is a word, a convention we use, prior to but not part of in this instance. There is no reason why God could not exist before the first matter was created, before the concept of time began.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		Ukraine Crisis		
    Vlad Putin is up against a monster a lot bigger than himself. The Left. Its goal to eliminate all perceptions of harshness, which includes males, is set to rule. A vulnerability in the democratic election process to let this happen. Ukraine the last military stand by a conservative dictator, conservatism in its death throws regardless of who wins.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		Why does time move forward?		
    Isn't it that it's the conceptional nature of all things that allows for cause and effect. A firecracker can explode, but not un-explode. But a firecracker is a concept, no two firecrackers the same. The manufacturing event unique too, and provides us an 'effect to cause' aspect. Our voice the 'effect to cause' sounds going out, sounds coming into our ears.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		Why does time move forward?		
    There is 'time' and there is 'Time', the former a measure of the rate of motion, the latter directionality, a contentious issue. A clock's hand moves (x2) in direct relation to the rotation of the earth. The earth never stops turning, night and day and the sleep cycle give us the 'concept' of days going by.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

  • 
		
    
		Colour		
    ↪GLEN willows

    

    
Couldn't one colour correspond with  'I can't really see you well' & and the other color correspond  'I can see you really well'.
    
				
    
			
		
    
	
    

    • 

Home » Gregory A