㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

[EndogenousRebel]

Would I be Christian if I believed I am Christian, but not actually believed in anything Christian?
In that sense its possible lots of people are not Christian, but call themselves that.

A kid is atheist because dad is atheist is question of memetics.
I do think imposing beliefs on kids is somewhat dumb, but society imposes everything on us one way or another.

Many Christians are also astrologers on the side, which traditionally is pagan and frowned upon as witch craft.

This isn't like looking at unit of measurements, where we know exactly what a kilogram is because there is an object that weighs a kilogram in space and time.

If someone says that such object has the property of weighing one kilogram, we can easily test that. With something like belief system, it's much harder to test an object/subject for those properties. Even if we had a sound methodology, I'm betting there would be much disagreement on such matters.

Meta-Identification I guess if we want to be pretentious is what I am getting at. Self-identification is not enough. I guess when it comes to atheism, if someone says they don't believe in any Gods, then I guess you can take their word for it. But even the word "God" carries with it so much cultural baggage, that I'm not sure most atheist are equipped to have that discussion.

We become agents of choice when we can freely choose.
Freedom of choice is a big problem.
Because can we actually have such freedom?

We can certainly embody and manifest certain traits. I would say we are at least free to do that, however our unconsciousness tends taints that so be it. There is no "god" of categorization that will magically say (appoint) that we are X or Y.

There's this common thing that some Doctors experience when they first begin practicing. Kinda like imposter syndrome, what really makes you a "Doctor" besides being able to apply skills and knowledge that you have used for years? Some sort of socio-political endorsed paper I suppose.

I'm not suggesting we should have such strict criteria for something like atheist, but really, it's something that would personally kill me because you could for example say that a laveyan Satanism and an Atheist intersect on many beliefs, but you'd think that they are very different people. For example the satanist would be more attracted to spiritualism.

 

[Black Rose]

Many Christians are also astrologers on the side, which traditionally is pagan and frowned upon as witch craft.

This isn't like looking at unit of measurements, where we know exactly what a kilogram is because there is an object that weighs a kilogram in space and time.

New-age science is often misunderstood.

In particular, the reason many people hate witches is because of an anti-female prejudice. This was part of it so to say that during the Enlightenment it was discovered again by the public but was known in private the nature of the earth.

If you look into the free masons they say you can believe anything you want as long as you believe in God or you can't join. The greater Architect of the Universe made the stars and moon. It is from the Great Pyramid that we get the meter as the standard size of the earth and from this can map reality.

There was a conspiracy though to uproot masonry and turn it into atheism.

More happened in the 1800's and we can see that science did advance but common people began to read and write and what was thought of as magic was just math.

What was lost was the knowledge of how to heal people with plants and stuff.

So myths sprang up about anyone female that lived in the woods.

Powerful people just took advantage of these stories after modern medicine stopped these wide practices of earth-healing stuff.

many people thought at the times in Europe magic just was real.

folk magic then was the norm.

even with this, we can say that it was all about money

magic was a business like slavery and was bad to the Christians's values

can't say much else without writing an essay but common people did evil things in the Roman eras with magic and so became underground and bad when Christians took over.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Atheist intersect on many beliefs, but you'd think that they are very different people. For example the satanist would be more attracted to spiritualism.

Right, but the meandering thoughts, I am not sure what you want me to say.
Clearly we cannot be precise, but we are using words and words are not random.

We can ascertain certain belief by what people say.
My main concern was how we use words as labels.
LABELS are not always congruent with reality.

Overall for example you claim that atheism is some sort of belief system.

 

[Black Rose]

(The density has increased)

I was the one who said atheism is a belief

because I think that if you disbelieve in God you must understand what the concept of God is.

I disbelieve that unicorns exist = I know what a unicorn is AND I can say I doubt them

human babies do not have the ability to disbelieve in cats for instance so are all babies not-a-cat-ists, without knowing what you are talking about you cannot say what exists and does not. I could lack belief in cats but cats could exist but I would be ignorant. Ask me about God then, is there a mind behind everything, I said yes, and so I qualify as a theist. Ask a different person the same question and they say no, that makes it a belief based on ignorance because they don't know just like babies don't know cats exist.

 

[Old Things]

Anyone can be "Not convinced" of anything. That is not reasonable though, obviously.

Besides, calling deism the same as atheism is not going to help people. Why skeptics want to reduce everything is just weird to me. If you do like that kind of reduction, might want to look into the whole, "I think, therefore I am," thing, which, strangely enough, disproves atheism as it is classically understood.

 

[ZenRaiden]

because I think that if you disbelieve in God you must understand what the concept of God is.

We could barely agree what God is here, and we have been at it for months.

Atheist don't believe in God, they de facto don't need to know what it is.

Please tell me how atheist ignorance or non ignorance is necessary for atheism.

Its no use beating about the bush. It takes few sentences to make a sound position.

So far no one did, you just kept repeating one thing over and over and going to fringe ideas. The fringe ideas will not work if you cannot position an argument why atheism requires a belief.

 

[ZenRaiden]

That is not reasonable though, obviously.

To the question of atheism, maybe not, but the idea here is someone has to argue for a positive belief for God.
The best way to do that is to know God, but then atheist would have to know what religious people say of God.
Many atheist don't, but many do.

We ought to know that most things about Gods are claims without necessary proofs.
Ergo claims that can be easily dismissed.
They are claims that could have been made about anything.
What would happen if atheist apply strong skepticism to these claims?

 

[Black Rose]

Its no use beating about the bush. It takes few sentences to make a sound position.

So far no one did, you just kept repeating one thing over and over and going to fringe ideas. The fringe ideas will not work if you cannot position an argument why atheism requires a belief.

because you are not a potato, you are a human being

human beings can make conscious rational decisions about what to believe and what not to believe

so if you make a decision to believe or not believe in God,

then you believe in the truth or falsehood of the proposition

 

[Black Rose]

An atheist is not a baby

An atheist is not a can of beans

An atheist has the agency to accept or reject theism

 

[Old Things]

To the question of atheism, maybe not

I was speaking in generalities there. What is the use of saying you are "Not an astronaut?" Because everything we say about ourselves is separating ourselves on some sort of polemic. If I say I am a Christian, I am also saying I am not a Satanist. So whenever you say what you are not, you are also saying what you are. That is how self-identification works. And if you are making an absence sort of identification, it's just not meaningful in any way. There may be more things I am not than what I am. So, therefore, when I say I am not president of the United States, it's almost completely meaningless.

So when it comes to "not being convinced" it's literally A-Self-Identification. It is a lack of self-identification. It is not a positive thing at all. So it lacks meaning.

 

[ZenRaiden]

because you are not a potato, you are a human being

human beings can make conscious rational decisions about what to believe and what not to believe

so if you make a decision to believe or not believe in God,

then you believe in the truth or falsehood of the proposition

I was an atheist.
I think you are wrong, but being wrong is OK too.

An atheist is not a baby

An atheist is not a can of beans

An atheist has the agency to accept or reject theism

A THEIST IS A BABY!

A CAN OF BEANS IS A THEIST!

A THEIST HAS AGENCY TO ACCEPT OR REJECT NON GOD.

I was speaking in generalities there. What is the use of saying you are "Not an astronaut? Because everything we say about ourselves is separating ourselves on some sort of polemic. If I say I am a Christian, I am also saying I am not a Satanist. So whenever you say what you are not, you are also saying what you are. That is how self-identification works. And if you are making an absence sort of identification, it's just not meaningful in any way. There may be more things I am not than what I am. So, therefore, when I say I am not president of the United States, it's almost completely meaningless.

Hence why atheist don't exist, unless someone comes up to them asks them whether they believe in God, to which they say God who? Or simply NO.

And those people are called atheist.

You can have for instance militant atheist, they ascribe great pride in negating religion, but other than that atheist can be part of any club.

Please write what atheist believe below:
... ... ...

 

[Old Things]

Hence why atheist don't exist, unless someone comes up to them asks them whether they believe in God, to which they say God who? Or simply NO.

And those people are called atheist.

You can have for instance militant atheist, they ascribe great pride in negating religion, but other than that atheist can be part of any club.

Please write what atheist believe below:
... ... ...

Believing or not believing in God is not trivial. I know atheists want to make it trivial, but it is not. It's like asking if the earth is a sphere or flat. Everyone has a view. Now, if a person says they "Lack a belief" that the earth is a sphere, then you can't say they for sure believe in a flat earth, but then their self-identification is completely useless.

 

[Black Rose]

Please write what atheist believe below:
... ... ...

the proposition of theism is false

 

[Black Rose]

A CAN OF BEANS IS A THEIST!

a can of beans has no agency to be a theist or an atheist

 

[Black Rose]

Without understanding agency I do not think we can come to any conclusions about what atheism is.

Atheist: (I) Disbelieve in theism
Theists: (I) Believe in theism

Tell me how a non-agent can make choices to believe or not to believe things because I do not think they can.

 

[Old Things]

A CAN OF BEANS IS A THEIST!

a can of beans has no agency to be a theist or an atheist

Of course not!

 

[Black Rose]

God is a person.

You are a person.

The shared aspect of God and you is knowing one's own existence.

God is a person who knows all existence.

And we can say we believe God knows us personally.

 

[ZenRaiden]

the proposition of theism is false

Then all you need to do is tell atheist what you know and they will become theist.
Clearly they are missing something.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Without understanding agency I do not think we can come to any conclusions about what atheism is.

INdeed. Thus it is clear that atheist were not at fault for not believing, because this problem of agency has not yet been explained!

Atheist: (I) Disbelieve in theism
Theists: (I) Believe in theism

How much of theism does an atheist have to know before we can call it disbelief.
Like how much scripture or how many things they need to read before they can actively disbelieve.

Tell me how a non-agent can make choices to believe or not to believe things because I do not think they can.

Then it is clear, atheist are atheist simply, because conversion failed.
It is thus weak conversion skills that are at fault people don't believe.
It must mean that atheist were really not at fault at believing not in God.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Believing or not believing in God is not trivial

I was trying to speak to that. In an attempt to not get pedantic, believing a (mono)theistic God may imply believing a fundamental order to the universe at the highest levels.

People that believe in Karma for example, have other similar beliefs with others who believe the supernatural.

This is why it is imperative that we probe why an atheist believes what they believe. Saying "it just means that they believe X" without question, as if that isn't rooted in other context is dumb.

If you are an atheist, or you are "unconvinced" then you must be able to rationalize why you are unconvinced, and if that rationalization isn't consistent with other beliefs such as karma or other supernatural deities, then you literally are only an atheist because there are other people who are theists, as Zen is trying to propose.

If however, you do have reasons rooted in epistomology, then you are an atheist not because there are theists, but because your disposition (personality) of the world itself has lead you to that conclusion.

In my mind, the person who is an atheist because there are theist, is just a contrarian.

 

[Old Things]

In my mind, the person who is an atheist because there are theist, is just a contrarian.

I'm curious about your beliefs if you don't mind talking about them. Feel free to PM me if you want to only talk about this privately. I will not judge you. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

In my mind, the person who is an atheist because there are theist, is just a contrarian.

I'm curious about your beliefs if you don't mind talking about them. Feel free to PM me if you want to only talk about this privately. I will not judge you. I'm genuinely curious.

You could probably sum me up as a post-modern existentialist. I'm not sure what other fancy words you want to throw in there, like constructivist or pragmatist when it comes to knowledge. Not everything is subject to interpretation but interpretation is how we consume most knowledge blah blah blah.

I recognize when I am in a glass house, I understand my own biases I'd like to think. I'd shoot you a message, and I welcome yours, I don't have really anything special to say that hasn't already been said I don't think.

 

[Black Rose]

Without understanding agency I do not think we can come to any conclusions about what atheism is.

INdeed. Thus it is clear that atheist were not at fault for not believing, because this problem of agency has not yet been explained!

I think, on this planet, only humans can be considered fully autonomous rational agents.

So I would say rocks (actual physical rocks) cannot have the free will to believe stuff.

Atheist: (I) Disbelieve in theism
Theists: (I) Believe in theism

How much of theism does an atheist have to know before we can call it disbelief.
Like how much scripture or how many things they need to read before they can actively disbelieve.

enough to know that there is a higher power who is a person (agent)

they would need to have the experience of reality where they don't see the higher power as possible

Tell me how a non-agent can make choices to believe or not to believe things because I do not think they can.

Then it is clear, atheist are atheist simply, because conversion failed.
It is thus weak conversion skills that are at fault people don't believe.
It must mean that atheist were really not at fault at believing not in God.

No one is blaming anyone here.

I am talking about people believing things, not rocks.

So I ask why you still think a dead rock can be a free agent capable of knowing God?

 

[Old Things]

I recognize when I am in a glass house, I understand my own biases I'd like to think. I'd shoot you a message, and I welcome yours, I don't have really anything special to say that hasn't already been said I don't think.

FWIW, I think your worldview, though has problems like most worldviews people have, is far more rational than most people have. Most people just assume a philosophy without knowing anything about philosophy. And I can't blame you for not legitimately having a divine experience. God is something in most cases you have to experience to know He is real. It's almost (if not entirely) impossible to become a born-again Christian through reason alone. Reason can get you to accept the proposition of Christianity, but you still have to walk through the door in faith.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I recognize when I am in a glass house, I understand my own biases I'd like to think. I'd shoot you a message, and I welcome yours, I don't have really anything special to say that hasn't already been said I don't think.

FWIW, I think your worldview, though has problems like most worldviews people have, is far more rational than most people have. Most people just assume a philosophy without knowing anything about philosophy. And I can't blame you for not legitimately having a divine experience. God is something in most cases you have to experience to know He is real. It's almost (if not entirely) impossible to become a born-again Christian through reason alone. Reason can get you to accept the proposition of Christianity, but you still have to walk through the door in faith.

As I have told on this forum before, I think directly in conversation with you, I have had some unexplainable experiences that don't make sense from a rational point of view.

Not lapses in perception nor synchronicity- Jungian coincidence either, things vanishing in thin air right before my eyes, never to be accounted for again.

I don't like handwaving things off because when you try to find a "sound" explanation to them, even then it doesn't fit. I am not afraid to say I don't know, because in order to explain such things, then that must be true, obviously.

FWIW, if an Angel, or God themselves came to me and tried to convince me to repent, I would not rule out the possibility that aliens are pulling a prank on me. Yet I also would hear them out. Hardly a position that a sane person would take, it's hard to be on the fence about things because you never get closure. This is not by choice, it is just the way I am; engaging in philosophy so that I have the vocabulary and a sense of navigation is a choice I make, because I would probably be lost otherwise.

 

[Old Things]

FWIW, if an Angel, or God themselves came to me and tried to convince me to repent, I would not rule out the possibility that aliens are pulling a prank on me. Yet I also would hear them out. Hardly a position that a sane person would take, it's hard to be on the fence about things because you never get closure. This is not by choice, it is just the way I am, engaging in philosophy so that I have the vocabulary and a sense of navigation is a choice I make, because I would probably be lost otherwise.

I think your perception is very off here. If an angel or God told you to repent, you would be terrified. You would not be able to just think there rationally and "hear them out." If that were to happen to you, your true colors would come out immediately. If you have good moral and spiritual worth, you would repent that instant and would fall to your face undone by your sin. If not, you would be enraged and indignant, probably cursing in some demonic language.

Besides, an angel just means "messenger." As such, I am that messenger urging you and persuading you to repent. So the experience you are envisioning of God or an angel is me, as opposed to them that would knock you flat on your rocker.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If an angel or God told you to repent, you would be terrified.

But what if it were aliens?

I would hope that a benevolent being would present itself to me in a way that is comfortable to me, and would not interfere in my agency, but my comfort would be of no consequence to such a powerful being.

Ultimately I believe I will be damned if I do, damned if I don't. If such God is so good, and I least try to be good, then I would guess I would be an instrument in thier "plan" whether I like it or not.

 

[Old Things]

If an angel or God told you to repent, you would be terrified.

But what if it were aliens?

I would hope that a benevolent being would present itself to me in a way that is comfortable to me, and would not interfere in my agency, but my comfort would be of no consequence to such a powerful being.

Ultimately I believe I will be damned if I do, damned if I don't. If such God is so good, and I least try to be good, then I would guess I would be an instrument in thier "plan" whether I like it or not.

God is not like a human only more powerful. Some angels are like humans, but most encounters with angels in the Bible come with a necessary greeting by said angel: "Fear not." Why? Because they HAVE to tell you not be be afraid because otherwise you will be terrified. I don't blame you for not understanding the holiness of God, but you really do not understand the holiness of God.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If an angel or God told you to repent, you would be terrified.

But what if it were aliens?

I would hope that a benevolent being would present itself to me in a way that is comfortable to me, and would not interfere in my agency, but my comfort would be of no consequence to such a powerful being.

Ultimately I believe I will be damned if I do, damned if I don't. If such God is so good, and I least try to be good, then I would guess I would be an instrument in thier "plan" whether I like it or not.

God is not like a human only more powerful. Some angels are like humans, but most encounters with angels in the Bible come with a necessary greeting by said angel: "Fear not." Why? Because they HAVE to tell you not be be afraid because otherwise you will be terrified. I don't blame you for not understanding the holiness of God, but you really do not understand the holiness of God.

I don't claim to. I don't see the point in prayer when a nigh-omnipotent being probably has way more agency/competency to see how things would work out. I don't wanna owe a person like that a favor. And yet, if I believed with certainty that God were real, of course I would be indebted to them, so I understand how some people could be be obnoxiously pious.

 

[Old Things]

If an angel or God told you to repent, you would be terrified.

But what if it were aliens?

I would hope that a benevolent being would present itself to me in a way that is comfortable to me, and would not interfere in my agency, but my comfort would be of no consequence to such a powerful being.

Ultimately I believe I will be damned if I do, damned if I don't. If such God is so good, and I least try to be good, then I would guess I would be an instrument in thier "plan" whether I like it or not.

God is not like a human only more powerful. Some angels are like humans, but most encounters with angels in the Bible come with a necessary greeting by said angel: "Fear not." Why? Because they HAVE to tell you not be be afraid because otherwise you will be terrified. I don't blame you for not understanding the holiness of God, but you really do not understand the holiness of God.

I don't claim to. I don't see the point in prayer when a nigh-omnipotent being probably has way more agency/competency to see how things would work out. I don't wanna owe a person like that a favor. And yet, if I believed with certainty that God were real, of course I would be indebted to them, so I understand how some people could be be obnoxiously pious.

I do not claim any kind of gnostic knowledge of God. I have had experiences that I can't deny even though I have tried. I am almost as sure that the supernatural is real as I am that I exist. Obviously, I cannot be as sure that God or the supernatural exists as sure as I am that I exist. Yet, I would put it pretty high that I know God exists. Now, that is not compelling for you. All I can do is point out good reasons to believe God exists because I cannot give you experienced knowledge that God exists. You have to come to the possibility that Christianity is true. People will entertain all sorts of possibilities. If it is possible that God exists, then you are halfway there, IMO. Because then you CAN pray to God and ask Him to show Himself to you. And from there, you are very close and all you need is an answered prayer. Now, the question is whether you WANT God to exist or not. Most atheists do not want God to exist. They want God to not exist. And their desire to not believe God exists overrides the evidence that God does exist.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Something I have learned to be true, is that ignorance is bliss.

Knowledge and the curse that it brings with it is responsibility, may very well be too much to bear for mortal man.

This should not discourage us, even, I would go as far as saying that ignorance is a sin.

So you propose I seek knowledge from the big dude? Nah I'm good.

Corinthians 10:10

 

[Old Things]

Corinthians 10:10

First or Second Corinthians?

 

[Old Things]

Also, if you don't know what is true, you don't know anything.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Hardly a position that a sane person would take, it's hard to be on the fence about things because you never get closure. This is not by choice, it is just the way I am; engaging in philosophy so that I have the vocabulary and a sense of navigation is a choice I make, because I would probably be lost otherwise.

Probably the first one? More apt in this context

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If little Jimmy is 8 years old and is (NOT-A-STAMP-COLLECTOR) because his dad is (NOT-A-STAMP-COLLECTOR), then is Jimmy actually (NOT-A-STAMP-COLLECTOR) if he can't really say why he's (NOT-A-STAMP-COLLECTOR) or is he (NOT-A-STAMP-COLLECTOR) because he says he's (NOT-A-STAMP-COLLECTOR)?

little jimmy is also not-a-hindu and not-an-astronaut

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What is an Atheist, to you? We can start there.

anyone who does not self-identify as a THEIST


generally, someone who does not attend a church or synagogue or mosque or temple and does not worship a specifically THEISTIC god


it really has no bearing on any other aspect of their humanity

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

you just want to spread your ideology. Hence, a propagandist.

two points

one, atheism is NOT an ideology

atheism is simply the absence of one and only one very specific ideology, namely THEISM

two, you clearly don't subscribe to the standard dictionary definition of "propagandist"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

However, you still (should) need to persuade others that your belief is rationally sound.

do you personally feel compelled to explain exactly how your "non-hinduism" is "rationally sound" ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Also, if you don't know what is true, you don't know anything.

REAL-TRUE-FACTS (including objects) must be empirically verifiable and or logically-necessary (and emotionally meaningless) - - -

everything else is functionally indistinguishable from OPINION (private experiential gnosis dreams emotions) - - -

the first category is QUANTA and the second category is QUALIA

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think, on this planet, only humans can be considered fully autonomous rational agents.

How?

So I would say rocks (actual physical rocks) cannot have the free will to believe stuff.

So you are saying the only way to not be a theist is to actively disbelieve God?

enough to know that there is a higher power who is a person (agent)

Most atheist know there is this belief.

So I ask why you still think a dead rock can be a free agent capable of knowing God?

I don't. My statement was about the fact you don't understand that you can be atheist by virtue of not having the belief.
Agents have a choice.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

My statement was about the fact you don't understand that you can be atheist by virtue of not having the belief.

a can of beans is "NOT-A-CHRISTIAN"

in the same way

a can of beans is "NOT-AN-ELEPHANT"

in the same way

a can of beans is "NOT-AN-ASTRONAUT"




there is no requirement for the can of beans to be able to "choose" to be a christian elephant astronaut


they simply are NOT

 

[Black Rose]

I think, on this planet, only humans can be considered fully autonomous rational agents.

How?

Because I am not sure extraterrestrial aliens exist

So I would say rocks (actual physical rocks) cannot have the free will to believe stuff.

So you are saying the only way to not be a theist is to actively disbelieve God?

yes

enough to know that there is a higher power who is a person (agent)

Most atheist know there is this belief.

right

So I ask why you still think a dead rock can be a free agent capable of knowing God?

I don't. My statement was about the fact you don't understand that you can be atheist by virtue of not having the belief.
Agents have a choice.

the choice to actively disbelieve is what I consider atheism

because if atheism was not about actively disbelieving as a free agent,

not having beliefs would lead to ridiculous claims such as rocks being atheists.

and the ridiculous claim that rocks can be Christians, Buddhists, or anything else

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

the choice to actively disbelieve is what I consider atheism

a can of beans is "NOT-A-CHRISTIAN"

in the same way

a can of beans is "NOT-AN-ELEPHANT"

in the same way

a can of beans is "NOT-AN-ASTRONAUT"




there is no requirement for the can of beans to be able to "choose" to be a christian elephant astronaut


they simply are NOT

 

[Black Rose]

the claim that babies are atheists is what I think is ridiculous

babies have no capacity to incorporate the idea that God doesn't exist into their understanding

 

[EndogenousRebel]

the claim that babies are atheists is what I think is ridiculous

babies have no capacity to incorporate the idea that God doesn't exist into their understanding

I met a rock once that told me they were anti-theist.

My statement was about the fact you don't understand that you can be atheist by virtue of not having the belief.

a can of beans is "NOT-A-CHRISTIAN"

in the same way

a can of beans is "NOT-AN-ELEPHANT"

in the same way

a can of beans is "NOT-AN-ASTRONAUT"




there is no requirement for the can of beans to be able to "choose" to be a christian elephant astronaut


they simply are NOT

Right, but they don't have a property/characteristic of not being something.

You can identify them in a set of things that are not something I suppose, but that's not saying something qualities they have, it says something about qualities they don't have. Nobody considers a negative attribute as a additive characteristic.

If NASA wants to conduct an experiment, for example, "how do non-astronauts react during a ISS emergency?": then they look for people who don't have the characteristic of being an astronaut, they don't look for the characteristic of "not an astronaut". They look for the abscense of the characteristic "astronaut".

Otherwise, you're basically trying to prove a negative, and that is fallacious, this is the ground you are continuing to tread..

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

the claim that babies are atheists is what I think is ridiculous

babies have no capacity to incorporate the idea that God doesn't exist into their understanding

this is a very important point


THEISTS often DEMAND that an ATHEIST "justify their disbelief"

THEISTS often DEMAND the ATHEIST "explain why" they disbelieve


and the ATHEIST is puzzled by this demand


because they do not "disbelieve" for any reason


they simply, are NOT-A-THEIST


imagine it as a synonym for the term christians often use to describe NON-CHRISTIANS

imagine asking someone to explain why they are a NON-CHRISTIAN

i'm sure they'd likely say something like "i never decided to become a christian" or "i don't know why anyone would become a christian" or "i remain unconvinced"




think for a minute


at what point did you decide to become a NON-MUSLIM ?


at what point did you decide to become a NON-BUDDHIST ?


please explain your reasons for becoming a NON-TAOIST

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Nobody considers a negative attribute as a additive characteristic.

except THEISTS apparently

 

[EndogenousRebel]

and the ATHEIST is puzzled by this demand


because they do not "disbelieve" for any reason


they simply, are NOT-A-THEIST

We get to make up reasons you are not a theist until you let us know. That is the trade off. You can be in your state of ambivalent epistemology all you want.

If you were to say you are gay, and tell us it is because you are not heterosexual, then I guess it's because biologically there is something that makes them not attracted to opposite sex.

If we see a "gay" person, you, having sex with someone who is the opposite sex, we may ask why, and question if they are really gay, or if they are bisexual.

They may say that it was only a bet or a favor or whatever that excuses that one instance, but from then on we have to wonder just HOW MUCH GAY YOU ARE?

So you see, an atheist's explanation matters a lot, and you acting like it doesn't is very curious to me.

 

[Black Rose]

the claim that babies are atheists is what I think is ridiculous

babies have no capacity to incorporate the idea that God doesn't exist into their understanding

I met a rock once that told me they were anti-theist.

Asdf Movie 2 | Are You A Man Or A Mouse

 

[Black Rose]

please explain your reasons for becoming a NON-TAOIST

babies are in a quantum state of neither theist or atheist,

until they realize they themselves exist can they start to ask if the greater mind exists