㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

[Black Rose]

You can be in your state of ambivalent epistemology all you want.

ASDF Movie: Pie flavour

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

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

why are you NOT A TAOIST ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

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

a very wise sage once said, "Nobody considers a negative attribute as a additive characteristic."

 

[EndogenousRebel]

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

why are you NOT A TAOIST ?

You demonstrating your ignorance or lack of imagination isn't serving your point.

I have read much of the scriptures that Taoist uphold. Literally all the Tao Te Ching is is a self-help book for "leaders" with a specific philosophy. Are you going to ask me how am I a Confuciusism next?

There isn't an object in the world that you can point to, that embodies no more or no less the qualities of X ideology/religion. I thought we moved past that.

I am not saying that a platonic perspective is impossible, but you can't just assign values to something like you can geometry. A triangle has discrete properties, we know what a triangle is. If you were to say the same about a Christian, I would ask you to prove it with the same rigor as we do with geometry, and you wouldn't have much luck with that.

So my point may be, that I may be a Taoist whether I like it or not

 

[Black Rose]

I do not demand that atheists explain why they disbelieve

because I understand that they (know) what they are

so I do not need to believe a baby is an atheist or theist

because they don't know

 

[ZenRaiden]

So my point may be, that I may be a Taoist whether I like it or not

Sure. You maybe accidental taoist, that is true.
I can be a accidental magician.
But we know that theism means I know there is God and I believe he is true.
Atheism literally means you do NOT believe there is God and he is not true.
At some point we could argue that some atheist are covert theist, in that they talk to some deity and believe they exist.
But that argument still does not counter the fact most of what was said.
In fact what was explicitly said was that atheism is lack of belief or not having God.
IN such case, we could argue what does theism then mean.
So that is indeed the problem here. Some awareness of God is necessary and positive belief in deity is necessary in theistic way.

because they don't know

They are unaware of God. ERGO ATHEIST ! LOL
How are you proving our point? ...and still rejecting it.
You are contradicting yourself.

 

[Old Things]

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

A can of beans cannot agree with or disagree with propositions because it does not have consciousness. Anything without consciousness does not have the ABILITY to believe or disbelieve propositions.

 

[Black Rose]

because they don't know

They are unaware of God. ERGO ATHEIST ! LOL
How are you proving our point? ...and still rejecting it.
You are contradicting yourself.

I am not sure people with babies often claim:

"my baby is an atheist"

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Atheism literally means you do NOT believe there is God and he is not true.
At some point we could argue that some atheist are covert theist, in that they talk to some deity and believe they exist.
But that argument still does not counter the fact most of what was said.
In fact what was explicitly said was that atheism is lack of belief or not having God.
IN such case, we could argue what does theism then mean.
So that is indeed the problem here. Some awareness of God is necessary and positive belief in deity is necessary in theistic way.

There is nuance in this discussion that we have been avoiding because it is complicated I can only imagine.

A theist who is a creationist vs one who is not for example.

An atheist who is creationist, yet isn't a theist.

There are many problems we would not be aware of unless we recognize certain realities.

If people with varying belief systems have apriori suppositions where axioms differ for example: you may be narcissistic if you have the hubris to think only mankind as the sole decider in the natural order.

Conversely a theistic creationist may be narcissistic if they think humans are central to the existence of the universe.

So it really does matter why atheist AND theist believe what they do. Less we live in a relativistic hellscape.

 

[Black Rose]

A theist who is a creationist vs one who is not for example.

Noah's flood covered all the coasts where ancient temples existed.

But it was only a 36-foot rise in sea levels over 900 years.

Holocene glacial retreat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

10,000 BC - Trailer 3

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Great flood myths are common among ancient cultures. I don't know why I would expect Noah's ark to be the exact account of what happened. But I see what you mean.

Ancient cultures are also victimized by nature, just as we are today when a hurricane strikes.

These "accounts" from the bible don't really say much about the nature of the weather event, if you ask me, and most sensible people.

 

[Old Things]

These "accounts" from the bible don't really say much about the nature of the weather event, if you ask me, and most sensible people.

The Bible is not a science book. It's purpose is not to talk about science or nature. It's purpose is to talk about God and His relation to humanity.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I am not sure people with babies often claim:

"my baby is an atheist"

Because atheism only comes up where we expect them to believe.
Babies are not expected to believe.
They are expected to suck titties, just like all babies.
Atheism does not have to be explicitly stated.
I still don't see any argument here other than inability to understand.

There is nuance in this discussion that we have been avoiding because it is complicated I can only imagine.

A theist who is a creationist vs one who is not for example.

An atheist who is creationist, yet isn't a theist.

There are many problems we would not be aware of unless we recognize certain realities.

If people with varying belief systems have apriori suppositions where axioms differ for example: you may be narcissistic if you have the hubris to think only mankind as the sole decider in the natural order.

Conversely a theistic creationist may be narcissistic if they think humans are central to the existence of the universe.

So it really does matter why atheist AND theist believe what they do. Less we live in a relativistic hellscape.

No it absolutely does matter. That is how we know someone is not theist.
However the argument here was atheism, is implicit.
Its positive claims we need to prove.

Good vid on Noahs ark.......

 

[Old Things]

I am not sure people with babies often claim:

"my baby is an atheist"

Because atheism only comes up where we expect them to believe.
Babies are not expected to believe.
They are expected to suck titties, just like all babies.
Atheism does not have to be explicitly stated.
I still don't see any argument here other than inability to understand.

There is nuance in this discussion that we have been avoiding because it is complicated I can only imagine.

A theist who is a creationist vs one who is not for example.

An atheist who is creationist, yet isn't a theist.

There are many problems we would not be aware of unless we recognize certain realities.

If people with varying belief systems have apriori suppositions where axioms differ for example: you may be narcissistic if you have the hubris to think only mankind as the sole decider in the natural order.

Conversely a theistic creationist may be narcissistic if they think humans are central to the existence of the universe.

So it really does matter why atheist AND theist believe what they do. Less we live in a relativistic hellscape.

No it absolutely does matter. That is how we know someone is not theist.
However the argument here was atheism, is implicit.
Its positive claims we need to prove.

Good vid on Noahs ark.......

Babies are either theists or can't believe anything. There is research that is done in this area that shows that most children believe in God or gods, the afterlife, and souls.

 

[Black Rose]

atheism, is implicit.

not believing is default atheism(?)

when do beliefs arise in children?

at age four I remember I felt God's existence

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I am not sure people with babies often claim:

"my baby is an atheist"

Because atheism only comes up where we expect them to believe.
Babies are not expected to believe.
They are expected to suck titties, just like all babies.
Atheism does not have to be explicitly stated.
I still don't see any argument here other than inability to understand.

There is nuance in this discussion that we have been avoiding because it is complicated I can only imagine.

A theist who is a creationist vs one who is not for example.

An atheist who is creationist, yet isn't a theist.

There are many problems we would not be aware of unless we recognize certain realities.

If people with varying belief systems have apriori suppositions where axioms differ for example: you may be narcissistic if you have the hubris to think only mankind as the sole decider in the natural order.

Conversely a theistic creationist may be narcissistic if they think humans are central to the existence of the universe.

So it really does matter why atheist AND theist believe what they do. Less we live in a relativistic hellscape.

No it absolutely does matter. That is how we know someone is not theist.
However the argument here was atheism, is implicit.
Its positive claims we need to prove.

Good vid on Noahs ark.......

Babies are either theists or can't believe anything. There is research that is done in this area that shows that most children believe in God or gods, the afterlife, and souls.

I feel as though we would have to commit immoral experiments to confirm so, no? Hate to be the first person to ask for a citation in the thread, but I'm gonna be that guy.

I am familiar with this though, just wanna see what you are referring to.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

However the argument here was atheism, is implicit.
Its positive claims we need to prove.

As someone who identifies as agnostic, I can tell you I do so because coming to a determined conclusion about anything that you don't have proof for is incorrect.

So then I as an agnostic would press both the atheist and theist for why they have come to x conclusion.

Not saying this gives a pass to theism and extraordinary claims, just saying

 

[ZenRaiden]

Babies are either theists or can't believe anything. There is research that is done in this area that shows that most children believe in God or gods, the afterlife, and souls.

hmmm I call bull shit on this. But if you want to believe that is fine.

not believing is default atheism(?)

when do beliefs arise in children?

at age four I remember I felt God's existence

NOT having the belief is default.
Not believing comes after you have been exposed to the concept.

As someone who identifies as agnostic, I can tell you I do so because coming to a determined conclusion about anything that you don't have proof for is incorrect.

So then I as an agnostic would press both the atheist and theist for why they have come to x conclusion.

Not saying this gives a pass to theism and extraordinary claims, just saying

You are opening the topic, to something else, but ignoring the thing I said.
Thats fine and to address this, we come to conclusions knowing and unknowingly all the time. About just about anything.

People can like you or dislike you in many ways just be prejudgment, people can believe and disbelieve all kinds of crazy things on a whim.

I used to grow up thinking atheist were more rational people, but that is also not necessarily true.
Overtime I learned that rationality and beliefs are sort of separate animals sometimes psychologically.
Its also a matter of how one views a wide variety of values and thoughts and beliefs.
Id imagine someone who has modern education will have higher resistance to believe in miracles than a person who has less education, simply, because education modern education stresses rationality, on reverse I think religions might instill ideas about collective etc. and tolerance rather than individualism.

Either way we can map all kinds of beliefs on all kinds of people.
I actually don't know if there was ever effort made to study en mass peoples beliefs.
To be frank sometimes I don't even know what my exact beliefs are.

Maybe we are on similar boat on this as I am perceive ergo P type I tend to leave my options open as much as possible and just wait and see.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You are opening the topic, to something else, but ignoring the thing I said.
Thats fine and to address this, we come to conclusions knowing and unknowingly all the time. About just about anything.

I'm more so addressing the OP.

Disbelief in something is a choice just as much as believing.

Atheist are not unconvinced of theism, they are convince that theism is not true.

Either way we can map all kinds of beliefs on all kinds of people.
I actually don't know if there was ever effort made to study en mass peoples beliefs.
To be frank sometimes I don't even know what my exact beliefs are.

Maybe we are on similar boat on this as I am perceive ergo P type I tend to leave my options open as much as possible and just wait and see.

Much like consciousness, things emerge from various aggregate phenomena that is too complicated for us to examine in an exact manner.

We are playing "pin the tail on the donkey" and when you play that you are either correct or incorrect. So I am saying that the donkey in this case is the metaphysical nature of things.

The premise which this conversation started is that to me. I am in agreement with theist incidentally, atheists are not inherently more rational, I tend to think that we should criticize the atheist as much as we do the theist.

I suppose it's easy for me as an agnostic, but that also takes me back to the point, I am the one that is undecided, unconvinced, atheists are convinced of something regarding the matter, it simply does not align with what theist think obviously.

We are using labels of course. That's part of the challenge.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Disbelief in something is a choice just as much as believing.

Sure its a choice, but then that brings up the question what makes that choice?

Atheist are not unconvinced of theism, they are convince that theism is not true.

Not all, though, some are just not impressed.

Much like consciousness, things emerge from various aggregate phenomena that is too complicated for us to examine in an exact manner.

True, what we ought to understand is that aggregate phenomena are always about out of reach of ordinary analysis. Much like we cannot contemplate any sufficient complexity without having complex thinking. Most humans almost most of the time operate on simple principals, because access to complexity is earned by hard mental work.

We are playing "pin the tail on the donkey" and when you play that you are either correct or incorrect. So I am saying that the donkey in this case is the metaphysical nature of things.

Metaphysical just means imaginary, lets simply keep it strictly what it is.
God is not hovering around, he is permanently out of reach, if that were not the case, then we would not have this conversation. Minus every-time someone observers, talks to or experience some extra rare phenomena of God.

I tend to think that we should criticize the atheist as much as we do the theist.

Atheist however are not in a bin with a holy book, they cannot be pinned down by any doctrine, they cannot believe one thing, because they are diverse group of people looking at the world differently.
A feminist is can be into random belief about x topic.
At which point we ought to ask a simple question what makes atheist not feminist.
As dumb as it sounds, so many of atheist are not feminist.
Then we ought to ask afeminist why they are deciding to be afeminist.
And then we go back to the ol who are atheist that believe in feminism and non feminism. There must be some reason, thus we must examine critically why some people choose to actively be against such concepts.
After all are female second rate citizens?
Do people who don't support feminism also have no concepts of fairness?
Probably it must be insecure men.

See from theist point of view everything is about God, so to them the concept of atheist is foreign in that atheist don't actively think about GOD, well unless they are some militant form of Atheist.
Which would be no different than Christians fighting over whether Christ was atheist or God.

We are using labels of course. That's part of the challenge.

Right labels that mean different things.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Sure its a choice, but then that brings up the question what makes that choice?

Atheist are not unconvinced of theism, they are convince that theism is not true.

Not all, though, some are just not impressed.

I'm not so sure origin matters so much in this situation. Not saying it wouldn't help, but if we want to debate origin I would say human instincts.

So we developed a culture that facilitate the continuation of culture.

Some think we can dispense with the relics of culture of old, others think otherwise.

Eastern philosophies seem to have a lot of continuity with today's thinking, but that's only if you overlook a lot of the cooky ideas.

You could say the same about a lot of repositories of knowledge and ideas.

True, what we ought to understand is that aggregate phenomena are always about out of reach of ordinary analysis. Much like we cannot contemplate any sufficient complexity without having complex thinking. Most humans almost most of the time operate on simple principals, because access to complexity is earned by hard mental work.

Right. We condense knowledge accessibility at a certain rate that is inadequate to match the amount of knowledge we are attaining.

The knowledge Newton created when he was 25 now is taught to high schoolers a couple years younger than him, and some gifted kids even younger than that. Is this the best we can do? Probably. It's probably just a question of efficiency at this point with a lot of the basic knowledge that influences most of the world.

Atheist however are not in a bin with a holy book, they cannot be pinned down by any doctrine, they cannot believe one thing, because they are diverse group of people looking at the world differently.
A feminist is can be into random belief about x topic.

A lamentable reality that we cannot observe such a thing at a glance. You probably could compile associated beliefs though. It would just be a matter of how you decide to interpret such data, assuming there is data which is to interprets or observe.

We can pose questions all day, and we might come to a higher understanding through them, but if we want real practical knowledge, we have to seek it out and that is a labor of love in a lot of cases.

To extent that a human brain can fathom reality just as is, without using the tool of language is an interesting topic. How many question deep does the average person go in their day to day life? Probably just one or two, and they are probably not stellar questions, because we don't have to use our brain so much to survive these days, and that's a waste of calories.

See from theist point of view everything is about God, so to them the concept of atheist is foreign in that atheist don't actively think about GOD, well unless they are some militant form of Atheist.
Which would be no different than Christians fighting over whether Christ was atheist or God.

Right. We need to update to culture 4.0 or whatever, and we aren't necessarily equipped to get everyone on board, assimilation or violence. Everyone has an opinion.

I am someone who has been diagnosed with mental disorders that currently would make me "unfit" to serve in the military, "unfit" to testify in court, "unfit" to drive myself, I cannot even sell or even donate my own blood without permission from a doctor. Do I actually deserve this? No. Culture and society has failed me, and people like me in some way, but has provided in others. It is not a choice I can even make, I must compromise.

I don't believe in ghosts, I am not sure that there are intentional coincidences in our day to day lives, and yet I have hallucinated bizarre things, experienced things that make me question the "dominant" perspective of the shared reality we have, I could be a solipsist and not think anything is real. But I remain to keep myself grounded.

You speak of self-righteousness. I detest self-righteousness. But I find that in the post-modern era is increasingly not monopolized by religion, self-righteousness is everywhere. I'm surprised I can even vote, but then hey, I guess I theoretically am part of the most easy to control (desperate) population. Enough to make me spit.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

 

[Old Things]

I am not sure people with babies often claim:

"my baby is an atheist"

Because atheism only comes up where we expect them to believe.
Babies are not expected to believe.
They are expected to suck titties, just like all babies.
Atheism does not have to be explicitly stated.
I still don't see any argument here other than inability to understand.

There is nuance in this discussion that we have been avoiding because it is complicated I can only imagine.

A theist who is a creationist vs one who is not for example.

An atheist who is creationist, yet isn't a theist.

There are many problems we would not be aware of unless we recognize certain realities.

If people with varying belief systems have apriori suppositions where axioms differ for example: you may be narcissistic if you have the hubris to think only mankind as the sole decider in the natural order.

Conversely a theistic creationist may be narcissistic if they think humans are central to the existence of the universe.

So it really does matter why atheist AND theist believe what they do. Less we live in a relativistic hellscape.

No it absolutely does matter. That is how we know someone is not theist.
However the argument here was atheism, is implicit.
Its positive claims we need to prove.

Good vid on Noahs ark.......

Babies are either theists or can't believe anything. There is research that is done in this area that shows that most children believe in God or gods, the afterlife, and souls.

I feel as though we would have to commit immoral experiments to confirm so, no? Hate to be the first person to ask for a citation in the thread, but I'm gonna be that guy.

I am familiar with this though, just wanna see what you are referring to.

The reason I said babies are either theists or don't have any beliefs is because there is research done on this that says that children are (more) likely to believe in God than adults. The same studies said that children are more likely to believe in an afterlife. This can all be found in this study:

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural...

www.sciencedaily.com

The other comment about souls comes from this video, I believe:

âï¸ Predisposition to believe in Souls and Afterlife

57 seconds · Clipped by Old Things Pass Away All Becomes New · Original video "BEST Case for the Existence of the Soul (w/ JP Moreland)" by Sean McDowell

youtube.com

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If you were to say the same about a Christian, I would ask you to prove it with the same rigor as we do with geometry, and you wouldn't have much luck with that.

you simply take the person at their word

if you say you're a "christian" then you are

it's really not that complicated

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

They are unaware of God. ERGO ATHEIST ! LOL

yep

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

But that argument still does not counter the fact most of what was said.
In fact what was explicitly said was that atheism is lack of belief or not having God.
IN such case, we could argue what does theism then mean.
So that is indeed the problem here. Some awareness of God is necessary and positive belief in deity is necessary in theistic way.

and NO particular knowledge or (positive) belief is required to qualify as ATHEIST

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So my point may be, that I may be a Taoist whether I like it or not

and in the same way

if you are NOT a THEIST

you may qualify as ATHEIST whether you like it or not

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

A can of beans cannot agree with or disagree with propositions because it does not have consciousness. Anything without consciousness does not have the ABILITY to believe or disbelieve propositions.

that is correct

a can of beans is obviously NOT A THEIST

 

[Old Things]

a can of beans is obviously NOT A THEIST

It's not not a theist either.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I am not sure people with babies often claim:

"my baby is an atheist"

is your baby a NON-CHRISTIAN ?


i know many churches make a big deal out of waiting until the "age of reason" before they suggest that a child "ask jesus into their heart"

so it would follow

that before that point

the child is a NON-CHRISTIAN

the child is also presumably a NON-HINDU

the child is also presumably a NON-MUSLIM

the child is also presumably a NON-THEIST

and that certainly seems to qualify as NOT-A-THEIST

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

It's not not a theist either.

in the same way a can of beans is not not an elephant ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Noah's flood covered all the coasts where ancient temples existed.

But it was only a 36-foot rise in sea levels over 900 years.

right,

but according to the holy scripture

Genesis 7:19, “all the high mountains under the whole sky were covered,”

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I don't know why I would expect Noah's ark to be the exact account of what happened.

because nearly all christians will tell you that the holy scripture is the 100% true and infallible word of an all knowing and all powerful creator

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Babies are either theists or can't believe anything. There is research that is done in this area that shows that most children believe in God or gods, the afterlife, and souls.

sure, like most ancient pre-agrarian tribes they were animists

they projected human emotions onto natural phenomena like storms and volcanoes

i remember thinking my toys had emotions when i was a kid

ANIMISM does not equal THEISM

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

at age four I remember I felt God's existence

did you subscribe to a specific THEOLOGY when you were four ?

there are many non-THEISTIC variations of gods

any and all non-THEISTIC beliefs are technically ATHEIST beliefs

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Hate to be the first person to ask for a citation in the thread, but I'm gonna be that guy.

what specific claim are you trying to critique ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

As someone who identifies as agnostic,

ok, so you are also NOT-A-THEIST


welcome to the club, it's a big tent

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Atheist are not unconvinced of theism, they are convince that theism is not true.

in the same way you are NOT "unconvinced" of zoroastrianism, you are convinced that zoroastrianism is not-true


and the zoroastrian would argue that you haven't spent enough time studying the holy word of AHURA MAZDA for you to make a properly "informed decision" and by declaring zoroastrianism "not-true" you are "leaping to conclusions without proof"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

See from theist point of view everything is about God, so to them the concept of atheist is foreign in that atheist don't actively think about GOD, well unless they are some militant form of Atheist.

the militant anti-theist also qualifies as NOT-A-THEIST

 

[Black Rose]

I am someone who has been diagnosed with mental disorders that currently would make me "unfit" to serve in the military, "unfit" to testify in court, "unfit" to drive myself, I cannot even sell or even donate my own blood without permission from a doctor.

If I go back to school, I may have money to buy a car.

The only job I had, was 12 hours a day Tuesday and Thursday for two years where I woke up at 6 am, got in a cold/hot van for an hour back and forth - and half the time I was not cleaning stuff no-one talked to me as I stood around pretending to dust doors.

at age four I remember I felt God's existence

did you subscribe to a specific THEOLOGY when you were four ?

there are many non-THEISTIC variations of gods

any and all non-THEISTIC beliefs are technically ATHEIST beliefs

There was a light and a voice from that light.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

There was a light and a voice from that light.

that sounds like a direct experience of the divine

which fits the definition of GNOSIS


the dictionary definition of THEIST is simply "a person who believes in a god or gods who created everything and interferes with human activities" - - although it strongly implies a religious doctrine it does not require a religious doctrine


so, if the experience you had leads you to believe the "thing" that interfered with you is also the creator of all things, then you would qualify as a general THEIST

 

[Old Things]

It's not not a theist either.

in the same way a can of beans is not not an elephant ?

Propositions are not necessarily things that exist in the universe like an elephant does. We know what an elephant is. We know a can of beans is not an elephant. So you would have to be saying that the can of beans could not not identify as an elephant. Is that the argument you want to make?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So you would have to be saying that the can of beans could not not identify as an elephant.

this claim seems obviously true

 

[Old Things]

So you would have to be saying that the can of beans could not not identify as an elephant.

this claim seems obviously true

Right, so the key thing in that sentence is "Identify" which a can of beans cannot do.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Right, so the key thing in that sentence is "Identify" which a can of beans cannot do.

right, so there are qualifiers that REQUIRE belief

a can of beans cannot believe anything and naturally cannot qualify as a believer

an ATHEIST on the other hand

is identified as simply, NOT-A-THEIST

so literally anything that is NOT-A-THEIST would qualify

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Right, so the key thing in that sentence is "Identify" which a can of beans cannot do.

right, so there are qualifiers that REQUIRE belief

a can of beans cannot believe anything and naturally cannot qualify as a believer

an ATHEIST on the other hand

is identified as simply, NOT-A-THEIST

so literally anything that is NOT-A-THEIST would qualify

Right, but a can a of beans can't opt to be a theist.. you seem to mean that atheism is the default setting, of which you have provided no proof.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

So my point may be, that I may be a Taoist whether I like it or not

and in the same way

if you are NOT a THEIST

you may qualify as ATHEIST whether you like it or not

Sure. But you yourself said you can simply take someones word. If I don't like being called atheist, then I can simply say I am a theist. Now because I believed someone's "word", I have incorrect information about the world. Do you not see how self-identification without reasoning is flawed?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

you seem to mean that atheism is the default setting, of which you have provided no proof.

it seems a little strange for you to expect me to prove that humans are not born automatically believing in a loving creator


i only need to convince you that SOME humans are NOT born automatically believing in a loving creator

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Do you not see how self-identification without reasoning is flawed?

please explain

 

[Old Things]

is identified

And that's the problem. As we said, a can of beans has no ability to identify any way whatsoever.