On why Atheism is a Shite BELIEF System

[jamest]

One cannot say that "There is no evidence for God" without implicating oneself in having a biased criterion for what counts as metaphysical evidence (scientific/empirical evidence = metaphysical evidence).

This FACT - given that the aforementioned criterion is utterly unjustifiable via reason (in fact, it's utterly irrational to think that an observed/experienced world and a world itself are not distinct) - means that 'atheism' is no more a rational [metaphysical] perspective to hold than [say] being a Christian [or suchlike]. Which, in turn, means that being an atheist turns out to be yet another shite belief system.

That's the shortest and sharpest undermining of atheism you'll ever witness. You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

[JimC]

To which I simply say:

"Show me the evidence"

Your inner feelings do not count as evidence.

[jamest]

To which I simply say:

"Show me the evidence"

Please read the OP again, Sir. It's the/your criterion for 'evidence' which unveils the truth about [your] atheism.

[jamest]

Your inner feelings do not count as evidence.

I have never used my 'inner feelings' to argue about anything, since I understand completely that ANY argument stands or falls by reason alone.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

Only if one subscribes to your definition of atheism. To me it is simply not having a belief in an deities. You are trying the same weak trick as Seth - attempting to force the point that an atheist believes that there is no god, and somehow bases that belief upon evidence. It is not that at all - not for me anyway. I just don't believe in god. Ergo, the adjective "atheist" applies.

[JimC]

Your inner feelings do not count as evidence.

I have never used my 'inner feelings' to argue about anything, since I understand completely that ANY argument stands or falls by reason alone.

No, if the argument is about the nature of the universe (into which category god fits), it stands or falls by a combination of correct reasoning and observational evidence which is repeatable, and available for scrutiny by all.

[jamest]

You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

Only if one subscribes to your definition of atheism. To me it is simply not having a belief in an deities.

Yet you can only fail to have a belief in deities for these reasons:

1) You're dead.
2) You're too stupid/ignorant to consider such beliefs.
3) You have a biased [scientific/empirical] criterion for [metaphysical] 'evidence' which subsequently prohibits the acceptance of the existence of a/any God.
4) You find logical fault(s) in the reasoning for any such Deity.

... Yet, [4] prohibits [3] from being the reason why you fail to have a/any belief in deities. Which is the hurdle where almost all (if not all) atheists fall.

I just don't believe in god.

You're a very smart chap (not to mention a devilish mod), so please don't belittle yourself by stating that you JUST don't believe in God. Please analyse the reasons underpinning that BELIEF. You'll find that those reasons condense around the unjustified belief that empirical/scientific evidence = metaphysical evidence. When/if you understand this, you will have no choice other than to accept that agnosticism is the only sound foundation from which all fruitful metaphysical arguments must hence emerge.

... Certainly, atheism as a foundation for metaphysical consideration is only applicable to the dead, stupid and biased, as per above.

[jamest]

Your inner feelings do not count as evidence.

I have never used my 'inner feelings' to argue about anything, since I understand completely that ANY argument stands or falls by reason alone.

No, if the argument is about the nature of the universe (into which category god fits), it stands or falls by a combination of correct reasoning and observational evidence which is repeatable, and available for scrutiny by all.

Given the aforementioned ontological distinction between 'observed X' and 'X itself', then it should be obvious that any argument about the fundamental nature of 'reality' has naff all to do with observation, JimC. In other words, science is out of its depth.

[JimC]

jamest wrote:

Yet you can only fail to have a belief in deities for these reasons:

What utter bollocks. I can fail to have a belief in god in the same way I fail to have a belief in the proverbial orbiting teapot of Bertrand Russell. I do not assert with 100% certainty that the teapot is not there, but I have no reason to have a positive belief in its existence.

Your inner feelings do not count as evidence.

I have never used my 'inner feelings' to argue about anything, since I understand completely that ANY argument stands or falls by reason alone.

No, if the argument is about the nature of the universe (into which category god fits), it stands or falls by a combination of correct reasoning and observational evidence which is repeatable, and available for scrutiny by all.

Given the aforementioned ontological distinction between 'observed X' and 'X itself', then it should be obvious that any argument about the fundamental nature of 'reality' has naff all to do with observation, JimC. In other words, science is out of its depth.

Clearly you have no understanding about the scientific method at all. The god concept of theists is not simply something that belongs to a vague, spiritual realm - they assert it as a universe creator, and actively engaged in real processes that affect humans and other parts of physical reality. That makes the god concept fair game for the tried and true methods which have teased out a superb working model of the nature of the universe around us, methods which involve carefully analysed observations. And yes, jamest, we know the observations are not the reality - but they are the best way of developing a model which actually works...

Trouble is, none of this vast body of solid, factual evidence, available for all to scrutinise and re-test, provides any evidence whatsoever for a supernatural being.

So, fuck right off, god concept. Rational beings have no need of that hypothesis, a lingering fairy tale from our pre-scientific past.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

Only if one subscribes to your definition of atheism. To me it is simply not having a belief in an deities.

Yet you can only fail to have a belief in deities for these reasons:

1) You're dead.
2) You're too stupid/ignorant to consider such beliefs.
3) You have a biased [scientific/empirical] criterion for [metaphysical] 'evidence' which subsequently prohibits the acceptance of the existence of a/any God.
4) You find logical fault(s) in the reasoning for any such Deity.

... Yet, [4] prohibits [3] from being the reason why you fail to have a/any belief in deities. Which is the hurdle where almost all (if not all) atheists fall.

I just don't believe in god.

You're a very smart chap (not to mention a devilish mod), so please don't belittle yourself by stating that you JUST don't believe in God. Please analyse the reasons underpinning that BELIEF. You'll find that those reasons condense around the unjustified belief that empirical/scientific evidence = metaphysical evidence. When/if you understand this, you will have no choice other than to accept that agnosticism is the only sound foundation from which all fruitful metaphysical arguments must hence emerge.

... Certainly, atheism as a foundation for metaphysical consideration is only applicable to the dead, stupid and biased, as per above.

You can only believe in deities if: -

1. You're braindead.
2. You're too stupid/ignorant to consider that they might not exist.
3. You have a biased [subjective/emotive/wish-fulfilment] criterion for [metaphysical] 'evidence' which subsequently prohibits the acceptance of the possible non-existence of a/any god.
4. You ignore logical fault(s) in the reasoning for any such deity.


Actually, I don't believe in that list any more than I do in yours. It is merely an example of how any "smart chap" can present their biased onions as facts. You have your reasons for believing, I am sure. I have none, so I don't believe. To believe without good reason would make me a not-very-smart chap. In fact, by definition, believing is holding a position without adequate reason (or, at very least, without recourse to that reasoning.)

I don't believe. In anything. Or in the absence of anything. Full stop.

[laklak]

I don't believe you.

[JimC]

I have a belief that XC exists. I'm not really certain, mind you, but it seems likely...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I have a belief that XC exists. I'm not really certain, mind you, but it seems likely...

Not a belief if it's not certain. Once you step onto the devil's probability spectrum, you leave belief behind!

[tattuchu]

*yawn*

[JimC]

OK, I have a vague feeling that XC exists...