atheism billboard

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 18, 2009, 03:39:28 PM

it really depends on the semantics of how you define atheist.
if you define it as lack of belief in a god then yes they are all atheist at birth.
if you define it as belief there is no god then no they are not atheist.

This is the only kind of atheist I have ever met.

I believe that there is no God. That is what the word "atheist" means to me.

Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.

If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.

Dude, I am an agnostic. My stance is the correct one to take for a logical, sane individual. You're the one who's at fault here.

Dude, I am an agnostic. My stance is the correct one to take for a logical, sane individual. You're the one who's at fault here.

Wasn't talking to you. Want a cookie?

No, I want world peace and a new generation of people who look to their commonalities before they look to their differences.

Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.

If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.

I didn't say the default position was correct, I said it was default. See: http://www.rif.org/

What meaning does a position of agnosticism being correct even have? That there is actually half a God?

No, I want world peace and a new generation of people who look to their commonalities before they look to their differences.

Not gonna happen with Religion around. Radical Islam more specifically.

Not gonna happen with Religion around. Radical Islam more specifically.

I lol'd. See: Crusades.

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on September 19, 2009, 12:11:54 AM

Not gonna happen with Religion around. Radical Islam more specifically.

I lol'd. See: Crusades.

Right, because the Crusades are going on right now.

I think the point he's making is that it isn't just Islamic fundamentalism which is capable of commiting atrocities. It may seem like a cheap argument based on anecdotal evidence, but the fact of the matter is that any theistic religion can do something like that.

I think the point he's making is that it isn't just Islamic fundamentalism which is capable of commiting atrocities. It may seem like a cheap argument based on anecdotal evidence, but the fact of the matter is that any theistic religion can do something like that.

The fact of the matter is that Islamic radicals are blowing people up in the name of their religion, not Christians. Sure, any group of people is capable of committing atrocities. That goes without saying and is a point that doesn't need to be made. But, most Christians in today's world would not condone terrorism of any kind. Even the Catholic church was heavily against the US going into Iraq.

The fact of the matter is that Islamic radicals are blowing people up in the name of their religion, not Christians.

Wait...what?!?

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on September 19, 2009, 01:10:15 AM

The fact of the matter is that Islamic radicals are blowing people up in the name of their religion, not Christians.

Wait...what?!?

Just sayin'.

Quote from: Proleg on September 19, 2009, 01:15:17 AM

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on September 19, 2009, 01:10:15 AM

The fact of the matter is that Islamic radicals are blowing people up in the name of their religion, not Christians.

Wait...what?!?

Just sayin'.

Heard tell o' tha magical lands o' Ireland or the Balkans, where the Christians will blow you up as soon as look at you?

You seriously are bantha fodder, banthy. Stop being an idiot and read a book or two.

Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.

If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.

If the default position is not accepting a claim that comes with no evidence or rational argument then yes, it is the correct position. That's why it's the default position. I'd like to know why someone would need evidence to deny a claim made by someone else. The default position on ANY claim is always non-belief until the evidence shows it to be satisfactory. Within that group of non-believers there may be people who go a step further and make a new claim but they still fall under non-believer, but they will then have a burden of proof. There is no burden of proof to not accepting a claim.

Quote from: Raist on September 18, 2009, 10:27:27 PM

Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.

If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.

If the default position is not accepting a claim that comes with no evidence or rational argument then yes, it is the correct position. That's why it's the default position. I'd like to know why someone would need evidence to deny a claim made by someone else. The default position on ANY claim is always non-belief until the evidence shows it to be satisfactory. Within that group of non-believers there may be people who go a step further and make a new claim but they still fall under non-believer, but they will then have a burden of proof. There is no burden of proof to not accepting a claim.

Yes, the default position is no opinion either way. Not an opinion of the negative outcome. If someone says there is a flying tree squirell, and you have not heard of such an animal, the default position would be you do not know whether it does, or does not exist. Believing that it does not exist would basically be a religious belief taken on faith.

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on September 19, 2009, 01:56:59 AM

Quote from: Raist on September 18, 2009, 10:27:27 PM

Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.

If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.

If the default position is not accepting a claim that comes with no evidence or rational argument then yes, it is the correct position. That's why it's the default position. I'd like to know why someone would need evidence to deny a claim made by someone else. The default position on ANY claim is always non-belief until the evidence shows it to be satisfactory. Within that group of non-believers there may be people who go a step further and make a new claim but they still fall under non-believer, but they will then have a burden of proof. There is no burden of proof to not accepting a claim.

Yes, the default position is no opinion either way. Not an opinion of the negative outcome. If someone says there is a flying tree squirell, and you have not heard of such an animal, the default position would be you do not know whether it does, or does not exist. Believing that it does not exist would basically be a religious belief taken on faith.

However, if nobody suggests there is a flying tree squirrel and you have not heard of such an animal then the default would be the assumption that it does not.

There are Christians extremists in the US killing people right now. KKK idealists still exist who hurt and kill black people, abortion clinics are getting bombed, et cetera. They are an extreme minority among Christians ...just like the violent Islams were an extreme minority. Media exaggerates an enemy larger than it is, and our invasion actually made people turn against us, just like Vietnam.

Quote from: Raist on September 19, 2009, 09:08:12 AM

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on September 19, 2009, 01:56:59 AM

Quote from: Raist on September 18, 2009, 10:27:27 PM

Can I just point out that it is funny when people demonize religion, claim atheism is the default, then later admit that the default is "no stance" which technically falls under atheism but is not their view.

If you truthfully think that the default position is correct then you should have no opinion either way because there is 0 evidence in your opinion pointing one way or another except retarded mental masturbation style "proofs" relying so heavily on linguistics and opinion that they would be laughed at in any other context.

If the default position is not accepting a claim that comes with no evidence or rational argument then yes, it is the correct position. That's why it's the default position. I'd like to know why someone would need evidence to deny a claim made by someone else. The default position on ANY claim is always non-belief until the evidence shows it to be satisfactory. Within that group of non-believers there may be people who go a step further and make a new claim but they still fall under non-believer, but they will then have a burden of proof. There is no burden of proof to not accepting a claim.

Yes, the default position is no opinion either way. Not an opinion of the negative outcome. If someone says there is a flying tree squirell, and you have not heard of such an animal, the default position would be you do not know whether it does, or does not exist. Believing that it does not exist would basically be a religious belief taken on faith.

However, if nobody suggests there is a flying tree squirrel and you have not heard of such an animal then the default would be the assumption that it does not.

Sorry, that is incorrect. There is no evidence towards its nonexistence.

Sorry, that is incorrect. There is no evidence towards its nonexistence.

I believe his premise is that a lack of evidence constitutes a valid reason for disbelief, not that a lack of evidence is evidence against it.

Quote from: Raist on September 19, 2009, 09:24:36 AM

Sorry, that is incorrect. There is no evidence towards its nonexistence.

I believe his premise is that a lack of evidence constitutes a valid reason for disbelief, not that a lack of evidence is evidence against it.

Lack of evidence should not favor a belief or disbelief. You should remain neutral on an issue until evidence is presented.

When it comes to existence, while a negative belief is not provable, it is still technically a positive belief and not the default.

Lack of evidence should not favor a belief or disbelief. You should remain neutral on an issue until evidence is presented.

I agree completely. That is why I base my atheistic views on evidence.

Quote from: Raist on September 19, 2009, 09:31:47 AM

Lack of evidence should not favor a belief or disbelief. You should remain neutral on an issue until evidence is presented.

I agree completely. That is why I base my atheistic views on evidence.

I'd love to hear any evidence that isn't a pseudo intellectual proof based on opinions and linguistics.

I'd love to hear any evidence that isn't a pseudo intellectual proof based on opinions and linguistics.

Second law of thermodynamics.

Quote from: Raist on September 19, 2009, 09:37:56 AM

I'd love to hear any evidence that isn't a pseudo intellectual proof based on opinions and linguistics.

Second law of thermodynamics.

Which applies to beings outside of our universe starting when?

Which applies to beings outside of our universe starting when?

We have no reason to believe that it doesn't. If physical laws don't apply to God, then God cannot be observed or measured, and may as well not exist.

Quote from: Raist on September 19, 2009, 09:43:55 AM

Which applies to beings outside of our universe starting when?

We have no reason to believe that it doesn't.

His existence would be a good indicator of that.

When it comes to existence, while a negative belief is not provable, it is still technically a positive belief and not the default.

I agree, which is why I am a weak atheist.

I'd love to hear any evidence that isn't a pseudo intellectual proof based on opinions and linguistics.

The proofs you consider to use linguistics work, the results just have linguistic meaning.
For instance, the argument from evil defines evil the same way it is used in the conclusion. If evil means willfully allowing genocide, than god is that definition of evil.

His existence would be a good indicator of that.

So your argument is that any predictions made by scientific theories are invalid, because if things were to be in such a way that invalidates them then they would be invalid?