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

this has to be a troll. Best left alone.

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.

What the fuck happened to thread? How did this become a troll enclave?

It is not a weaker position because it doesn't positively assert anything — Bob Ross

Incorrect. Atheists do assert something: God does not exist.

Zeus does exist. — EugeneW

In mythology no less, sir.

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.

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?

Well, you know, it's just that I think nature by itself can't have spawned a creature like my wife. Somehow, some mad god must be involved. Luckily, I might add! — EugeneW

Nice.

@Bob Ross
I understand that you said "positively assert anything".
There is more than one way to skin a cat. It's all positive if you asked me.

Atheism is a belief, a fairy tale, a myth. — EugeneW

Why is good knot a very tail? You argue that atheism is a belief. The standard reply is that it's a lack of belief (which is more strictly correct, IMN), but I do think atheism is often associated with a disenchanted worldview. This worldview (which is mine) strikes me as merely subtractive. The atheist (tends to) takes fewer entities seriously than a certain kind of theist (the theist meanwhile still expects toasters and teamsters to work.)

Atheism is a belief, a fairy tale, a myth. — EugeneW

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit." :halo:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/656116 :fire:

You have to return to the time of our emergence from the wilds. The cro magnon's etc.
The original gods were all related to the strange but very important objects they cognised all around them.
The sun, moon, stars, wandering planets, earth, water, forest, wind, thunder and lightning etc.
You have to combine this with the human tendency to view events and make up their own version of what actually happened, taking account of the 'Chinese whisper' effect. The early god(s) and their entourage fables were such an obvious outcome, easily garnished from the most basic understanding of YOUR own psyche. The later fables of Christianity, Islam etc are just more sophisticated versions of earlier fables. Almost nothing from the biggest religions today are original. The stories are much the same only the names have been changed.

I remember a TV show where a Scots reporter spent time with isolated tribal peoples all over the world.
It was a good series. As a final episode, he decided to bring the Chief of a particular tribe and his main entourage (about 8 people altogether) to London. I think this was a 'sensationalist' episode which intended to get that 'overwhelmed' response from these 'simple/backwards folks' visiting London.
Scenes like the tribesmen all chasing after a squirrel in a park, to find out what the hell it was and the moment where the Chief does not appreciate being told that he cant meet 'The Queen'(as they stood outside Buckingham Palace) during this particular visit, even though he considered himself her equal in status. They were then taken inside St Paul's Cathedral. This was the only scene of value to me when, the words of the chief an all his group, were translated, as exclaiming that 'man did not build this place. This place could only have been created by god.'
For me, this demonstrated where gods came from in the mind of early humans. This understandable assumption has been with us ever since, even though we know its completely wrong. Human's built that useless building (give it to the homeless)!
Atheists cannot disprove the existence of god. Theists gravitate to Pascal's wager as the unknown scares them. Fear of what they don't understand is simply more powerful than their ability to rationalise and reason. They will rarely admit this however, For three main reasons.
1. Their economic/social/influential status is dependent on theism.
2. Theism is a fundamental part of their control over others.National or tribal control or even just as a
desirable family moral code.
3. Their memory of the 'fear' aspect of why they became believers has faded and they are convinced it
was never part of their reasoning.

Just an interesting aside. I see the use of :fire: as an indication of your opinion of a sentence or a group of wording in a post in accordance with the online 'Netiquette' guidelines.
:fire: would indicate an accusation of 'Flaming,' that your words are a deliberate attempt to inflame the opinion of others.

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit." — 180 Proof

Ergo, 45% of people alive today are 'pieces of shit'?

Why is good knot a very tail? You argue that atheism is a belief. The standard reply is that it's a lack of belief — lll

"Good Knot in the Fairy Tail" is a fairytale because it sprang up in the minds of employees in the fairytale factory. It was created in response to the harsh reality of theism, to counteract a miracle-devoid universe to bring back a mystery-element, so badly needed. Good Knot gets untied finally, resolving the Fairy Tail. The moral of the fairytale being that even in a theist universe miracles and wonders can be found. One doesn't need atheist fantasìes and materialism to accomplish that.

Good Knot gets untied finally — EugeneW

I personally consider Alexander the (not so) great to be a butcher but I did like the story of his encounter with the Gordian knot. If he could untie it, the local powers would submit to him without a fight.
He just chopped it to pieces with his sword. A scientific solution in my opinion. Sharp metal cuts rope!
If true, (probably just another exaggerated Macedonian story) it was a clever moment from an otherwise savage autocrat.

:up:

:down:

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit."
— 180 Proof

Ergo, 45% of people alive today are 'pieces of shit'? — Theorem

What do people generally believe is the percentage of those who are pieces of shit? Somewhere in the 90% + range, probably.

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

Like @Tom Storm, I, too, have heard this type of reasoning before. The constitutionally given right to free speech trumps informal logic.

Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?

Because they want to. .

What a bizarre claim, mirroring the stance of the OP: "People are atheists because they want to."

Anyway, the question was specifically for the OP.

The moral of the fairytale being that even in a theist universe miracles and wonders can be found. One doesn't need atheist fantasìes and materialism to accomplish that. — EugeneW

Fascinating. Almost a reversal of what's expected. Some consider theism to be a position that insists on the wizardry of the world, while they think of atheism as a grim disenchantment.

It was created in response to the harsh reality of theism, to counteract a miracle-devoid universe to bring back a mystery-element, so badly needed. — EugeneW

Here again. A typical tail would be that the New Age woo woo is 'ferry dust' sprinkle on the otherwise egolisciously satanic Mill of the world. To me we're all already 'born in scene' and this dream is exciting enough without angels and dragons.

I can actually prove (through logic) that we are not alone, but since I created a discussion on God giving us gifts and talents (for the philosophy of religion section) and it was never even posted by this site, I know this isn't the right place to discuss God.

As far as the invalidity of atheism, I do have a lot of experience talking with them (atheists) and I will say that it is important to respect everyone's opinion/belief/position on life and things of that nature. I have long since made it a point to always consider the position of an atheist when writing philosophy. I ask myself, "what would the atheists that I've known, think about this particular philosophy"?

God really does the same thing if you think about it. God takes into consideration all people, not just the ones who believe.

I can actually prove (through logic) that we are not alone, — chiknsld

Which of course is not the same thing as actually proving it. A Nobel Prize and a shit-ton of money awaits the person who can prove gond/s. One suspects this will go unclaimed.

God really does the same thing if you think about it. God takes into consideration all people, not just the ones who believe. — chiknsld

So do you know god/s personally? This is the kind of odd personal claim an apologist might make. Why would we take this seriously?

I think you (not "we") are assuming that my post or my work in general is persuasive. You come across a bit on the aggressive side (as far as the assumption goes).

I can't do anything about how you interpret others. But I'm asking you about how you interpret god'/s. Do you have an answer to this?

Which of course is not the same thing as actually proving it. A Nobel Prize and a shit-ton of money awaits the person who can prove gond/s. One suspects this will go unclaimed. — Tom Storm

As I have stated to you, my post is not meant to be persuasive. And I also stated in my first post that this is not the place to discuss God since they are heavily moderating which discussions can be had about God.

My post was mostly about the invalidity of Atheism. I'm not here to explain to you how or why I believe in God (no offense).

my post is not meant to be persuasive — chiknsld

You can't make extravagant claims on a philosophy forum and expect for them to go unchecked.

So you not only believe god/s are real, you claim to know what god/s think. A double whammy of implausibility from an atheist's perspective, as I am sure you must know. Pray tell us how it is achieved?

The debate about the nature of atheism takes place precisely because people make claims such as yours and won't or can't justify them. Ideas live in ecosystems.

my post is not meant to be persuasive
— chiknsld

You can't make extravagant claims on a philosophy forum and expect for them to go unchecked.

So you not only believe god/s are real, you claim to know what god/s think. A double whammy of implausibility from an atheist's perspective, as I am sure you must know. Pray tell us how it is achieved?

The debate about the nature of atheism takes place precisely because people make claims such as yours and won't or can't justify them. Ideas live in ecosystems. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry that I tickled your fancy by mentioning that I can prove we are not alone (by way of logic). Again, my post was really about the "invalidity of atheism".

For fear of derailing the thread, I'll have to ignore if you continue to ask for proof of God. I'm not going to continue repeating myself.

I will say this (correct me if I am wrong), you do not believe in God but you continue to ask for proof of God. What to you is proof of God?

By the way, you have 3 thousand posts on this site. In my younger days I could do that in a couple weeks (if not less). You speak to me as if you represent a group of people by referring to yourself as "we" or "us" and you seem to think that you have more experience in philosophical conversations than me.

Also, what are your thoughts on the things I said regarding the "invalidity of atheism"?