Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Sheldon
Definition of Believe used:
Believe verb
be·lieve | \ bə-ˈlēv \
believed; believing
intransitive verb
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK
// I believe so
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe
Definition of Belief used:
Belief noun
be·lief | \ bə-ˈlēf \
: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
// her belief in God
// a belief in democracy
// I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.
// contrary to popular belief
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
[For me] to affirm, that the claim, [a deity exists] is true, is irrational.
[For me] the statement [a deity exists] has a value of (status unknown.)
I believe a deity exists.
My belief [does not] constitute that the status of the statement [God exists] is true.
Edit: added [for me] to further qualify my position
Edit: changed brackets for clarification
Edit: deleted unnecessary/vague words
Edit: added definition for clarity
Thanks for the pointless semantics perhaps the fact you can''t even get dictionary definitions right explains your hilarious contradiction, that you believe a deity exists, but don't believe the claim it exists, and think the claim is irrational.
believe
verb
1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
"I believe a deity exists."
"My belief [does not] constitute that the status of the statement [God exists] is true."
You're doing what so many theists do in their mental contortions to try and avoid the cognitive dissonance of having no evidence for your belief. Your conflating knowledge with belief, but they are not the same.
Not knowing whether the assertion a deity exists is true would would make you an agnostic, not believing it is true would make you an an atheist. Ironically these are not mutually exclusive positions, and it makes perfect rational sense to withhold belief in a claim in the absence of knowledge. However, you cannot rationally both not believe the assertion a deity exists is true, whilst believing it irrational, and simultaneously believe a deity exists, they're mutually exclusive.
There are only two options for belief of a claim, not knowing is not a third option, but is a separate statement about knowledge.
@Sheldon
So you're maintaining your straw man even though it is demonstrably burned? Your only serving to amuse me at this point.
None the less I will address something you said. "Not knowing whether the assertion a deity exists is true would make you an agnostic, not believing it is true would make you an atheist."
ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
I'll wait for you to correct yourself.
It's as if you think we don't have access to dictionaries.
Agnostic
NOUN
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic
that's a link to the Oxford English Dictionary.
I note you don't address your earlier lie as well, as well it's there for all to see, and we have had our fill of lying dishonest religious apologists on here.
The fact is you're altogether too stupid, and too dishonest to bother with. It was to be expected of course, grown men believing in hokum magic, and bronze age superstitions. So I shall let others point out the stupidity, and the dishonesty for a while.
I shan't wait for to start showing any integrity for once, as it would be a waste of time.
catholicray: "I believe God exists because there is not objective evidence that verifies that God does not exist."
"I do not believe God exists because there is no objective evidence that verifies that God does exist."
You're Welcome
rmfr
@catholicray
"I believe God exists because there is not objective evidence that verifies that God does not exist."
I shall make one small change, and I hope you understand just how inane that statement is.
I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because there is not objective evidence that verifies that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
@David Killens
You can believe what you like it takes all kinds friend.
catholicray, this is a simple test for any statement. If you replace one noun and it does not make sense, then the original statement is a fail.
A god that conforms to the laws of the universe and one that does not conform to the laws of the universe are completely the same. FANTASY - until you provide evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to assume any God or gods exist.
In Woo-woo land, you can make any assertion you like, ask the most inane questions, and pretend like you are just seeking information and nothing else or not even really having a conversation. The quality of your written ability to be insightful is impoverished. Your game playing is indigent. Your avoidance of any real conversation is fruitless. Your efforts at manipulation inept. Your pretense at insisting on just having a conversation is disparaging to all. Your contribution to the site is purposeless and ineffectual. In short, you are wasting our time and you appear completely oblivious to the fact that you are wasting your own time as well.
I'm sorry @catholicray, I had been misreading your username as "catholiccray".
If god exists as part of reality, it must exist within the laws of nature.
Why should I believe God exists as a part of my reality?
For example suppose we exist in a simulation. Does the programmer exist within our program?
@ catholicray
Ah, the vat brain argument. Believe what you wish. However, if it is irrational and illogical and just plain inane and asinine and stupid, then do expect us to rip it apart AND make fun of it. You do not enjoy that, then remember, you are the one who came here.
rmfr
The laws of nature define everything that exists, otherwise they would not be laws. If "God" is not within the laws of nature, it does not meaningfully exist.
@Sopporo
"The laws of nature define everything that exists"
Even if I did consent to that point of view have we exhausted our discovery of the laws of nature or our understanding of them?
@catholicray
"Even if I did consent to that point of view have we exhausted our discovery of the laws of nature or our understanding of them?"
Of course not, humanity's quest for knowledge is insatiable and our scientific understanding of everything is expanding by leaps and bounds every day. Did you know that the old perception of our Milky Way was a spiral? Recent data has displayed that our Milky way is actually a bar galaxy.
I once sat in on a stream by a respected scientist and he remarked that we follow the data, no matter how uncomfortable be it may be. What we believe as a fact today could be overturned tomorrow, that is how science works, always challenging everything, always improving, always learning more.
This does not mean that science is "wrong", only that it is constantly being revised as we learn more and more. Religion, on the other hand is objective and static, and but for the advancements of science and brave people, we would still be believing this planet was flat with a celestial sphere with angels dancing with the stars.
@David Killens
I can agree with you I don't have an issue with science. I'm the thought police, not the knowledge police. Oh and I think you made a boo boo.
"Religion, on the other hand, is objective and static."
Don't worry I took a screenshot because it was hilarious.
"Even if I did consent to that point of view have we exhausted our discovery of the laws of nature or our understanding of them?"
Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Also how does this fallacious argument make your deity any more probable than vampires or mermaids being discovered? You don't believe vampires and mermaids exist do you? So we can add a special pleading fallacy as well.
You seem to be full of idiotic statements. My question is not somehow an active affirmation of anything. You just applied fallacy to a question. Please keep going your amusing me.
"You just applied fallacy to a question."
Well done you understood something correctly, do you really think a question cannot be based on, or contain a logical fallacy? I shan't even feign surprise.
"My question is not somehow an active affirmation of anything."
That one is called a straw man fallacy, as I never asserted it was. I suggest you Google argumentum ad ignorantiam, so that you can try and learn something, as this level of ignorance is pitiful if you're going to continue to adopt this grandiose tone.
"Please keep going your amusing me."
Your usual grasp of the English language. Your is not an abbreviation of you are, and you're really going to have to learn how to use commas. Perhaps if you had even a basic grasp of language you'd not have asserted you don't believe the claim a deity exists, and that it is an irrational claim, whilst simultaneously asserting you believe a deity exists. I'm still laughing and shaking my head at that and here are the quotes to save us all from your lies.
Mon, 03/18/2019 - 18:43
catholicray "I only claim to believe a diety exists."
"Mon, 03/18/2019 - 19:58
catholicray "I do not believe the claim is true.""
Oh dear...
"For example suppose we exist in a simulation."
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that reality is a false simulation? If not then why would I believe that anymore than anything else that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for?
@Sheldon
The only reason you should believe in something for which there is no objective evidence is if you desire to or the belief itself is justifiable to your subjective satisfaction (i.e. I have fair reasons to believe).
@catholicray
So firstly that's a no then, you can demonstrate no objective evidence what we perceive as reality is in fact a simulation. Secondly the only rational reason to believe anything is if there is sufficient objective evidence, anything else is just delusional wishful thinking.
"you should believe in something for which there is no objective evidence is if you desire to "
Well', QED "desire to believe" is wishful thinking...you seem content to hold irrational beliefs, I am not as I care whether what I believe is true, and rational thinking increases the chances your beliefs are valid. How I feel about the belief has no relevance for me to its validity. You seem to be saying that it's fine to believe in garden fairies and vampires if you want to, I think such an assertion speaks for itself and tells us a great deal about your own beliefs.
"I have fair reasons to believe)."
You just said you believe because you desire to, that is not a fair reason at all to believe something. What's more you quite obviously do not have fair reasons for your belief, or you would not be using this risible nonsense to try and justify that belief, you'd simply have shared the "fair reasons", and we'd have objectively scrutinised them. The fact you haven't is not a coincidence, and nor is this the first time a theist has attempted this long winded proselytising trek towards nothing. We've seen it all before, countless times.
You'd probably not be surprised how theists insist this is the fault of bias on my part, yet it is you and they who are favouring one deity through the bias of faith, and it is me who is applying the same objective standard for all claims.
Ironic don't you think? No, sorry, of course you don't think it's ironic, but it is very ironic, I never fail to think so each new time this happens.
If I choose to believe in Zeus using faith and an empty claim to have fair reasons, how is my deity any more or less real than yours? How do we decide which claim has merit? Your reasoning has lost all purpose and objectivity when you indulge the bias of faith, and logic has been left far behind. Your call of course, just don't try and pretend otherwise on here to me.
@Sheldon
Secondly, the only rational reason to believe anything is if there is sufficient objective evidence.
WRONG the only rational reason to know something is if there is sufficient objective evidence. Your stepping into my jurisdiction now Sheldon proceed with caution I police these here parts.
The reason a theist has to spend so much time with you is because until the agreement on the most basic definition of words can be reached there is no sense in providing the objective evidence. Hint: Your still not there yet.
"Secondly, the only rational reason to believe anything is if there is sufficient objective evidence.
WRONG the only rational reason to know something is if there is sufficient objective evidence. Your stepping into my jurisdiction now Sheldon proceed with caution I police these here parts."
No you don't police anything, nor will you until you grasp that one can believe with or without sufficient evidence. The latter is just irrational and pointless. I believe the world is not flat, are you going to tell me that this belief is not based on objective evidence and therefore knowledge?
"The reason a theist has to spend so much time with you is because until the agreement on the most basic definition of words can be reached there is no sense in providing the objective evidence. Hint: **Your (sic) still not there yet."
Thanks for taking the time to teach me basic word definitions, hopefully by the time you're done you'll have learned how to spell an abbreviation of you are. I don't believe your semantics have been correct even once since you have been here, and you have no objective evidence, that is axiomatic.
@catholicray
"The only reason you should believe in something for which there is no objective evidence is if you desire to or the belief itself is justifiable to your subjective satisfaction (i.e. I have fair reasons to believe)."
I try, but my penis has not grown.
edit: added post I was referring to
I tried to believe that catholicray's verbiage that believing a deity exists, and believing the claim a deity exists, were not the same thing, and that this was not in fact contradictory gibberish, but no amount of faith on my part would make it so.
The flaccid impotence of faith, proved yet again. Along with the rank absurdity of religious apologetics.
Catholicray: If you existed in a simulation, we could just turn you off. Who says a simulation has to have a programmer? Who says the simulation is not all there is? Who told you there was a "we." How are you not all alone and simply pretending others are replying to your inane posts and absurdities? What if, it's only you? And what it, you are not really there? What if you actually showed up as a real human being and had an actual conversation with another human being?
@Cognostic
Good evening I yield! Thank you for your reply. I'd like to return to a reality where you and I are objective at this time.
If he existed in a simulation he'd still be an arrogant semi literate clown, who's convinced he's a literary genius whose language skills have accessed some hidden esoteric truth that validate bronze age superstitions. A literary genius who can't spell an abbreviation of you are.
Pages