Positive proof?

[Animavore]

I was not aware that he was whining about it.

Anyone who condemns people to an intinity of burny torture for not believing in them is a pretty whiny cunt in my book.

And you know that this is what God does how, exactly? You are once again falling into the Atheist's Fallacy line of reasoning.

But you're sort of right. You're not aware he is whining about it. Or anything else about him for that matter. Just like, seemingly, every other cunt.

And your rigorous scientific evidence showing that no other "cunt" knows anything about god is...??

I only know what others have told me. This isn't what I think god does all by myself. I haven't even a clue if there is a god, let alone what it does. If anything. No fallacy committed. Especially not some made up, self-serving fallacy I don't recognise.

You may find your own scientific evidence. I haven't made a scientific claim so I don't care to do so myself.

[Animavore]

Interesting that the most rapidly growing system of religious belief is atheism. I guess humanity is finally growing up.

Of the various systems of religious belief out there, Atheism is one of the least rational ones in my opinion.

Oh! The one which doesn't make grandiose claims about gods and what they want and desire from us is the least rational one?

I guess this shows exactly how worthless your opinion is.

Except that Atheists do in fact make grandiose claims about gods and what they want and desire from us. Every time they criticize some theist's doctrinal beliefs and/or writings they are making the grandiose claim that those beliefs and/or writings are false...without a single shred of objective scientific evidence that what they claim is true. The reason that they are less rational than theists is because Atheist doctrine insists that they have superior abilities of reason and logic that allow them to see the "truth" about god-claims when in point of fact their religious beliefs about the non-existence of God fly squarely in the face of reason and logic because they have not a shred of the sort of evidence they demand from theists to support their assertions.

In other words, Atheists think they are smarter, more rational and more logical than theists, but they actually aren't because they cannot even recognize the fundamental failures in logic and reason they commit when they say anything other than "I don't know" in response to a theistic god-claim.

Yawn. You bore me.

[Animavore]

Atheims isn't a belief system for the exact same reasons theism isn't a belief system. There are theistic beliefs systems, and there are atheistic belief systems (like A+ fools), but neither are one thing you can point to.
Saying"atheism" is a belief system, whether you capitalise it or not, (and "theism" is never capitalised), simply doesn't make sense.

Sure it does, because the actions of the members of that class meet the standards in one of the definitions of "religion" and I have proven time and again that their assertions with respect to god-claims are in fact beliefs and systematic beliefs at that.

Then you'll have no problem listing the tenents of atheism.

[Seth]

I was not aware that he was whining about it.

Anyone who condemns people to an intinity of burny torture for not believing in them is a pretty whiny cunt in my book.

And you know that this is what God does how, exactly? You are once again falling into the Atheist's Fallacy line of reasoning.

Atheists don't know that, and don't believe that. But, some Christians say that is what they know or believe God does.

And you accept them at their word? How credulous of you. Or how fallaciously dishonest. You made a direct claim about God and what God does to non-believers. You admit basing this claim on what "some Christians" say. Therefore, your claim is fallacious because you are basing your logical analysis (God is a pretty whiny cunt because he condemns non believers to an eternity of "burny torture) on a false premise, which is that what "some Christians say" about God is an expression of facts about how God acts. That's the very essence of the Atheist's Fallacy.

You simply cannot draw a rational conclusion about the nature, character or actions of God based on what "some Christians" say because they could be wrong.

And your rigorous scientific evidence showing that no other "cunt" knows anything about god is...??

There can be none, since there is no scientific evidence (rigorous or otherwise) showing that a god, or God, exists in the first place.

And you know that there is no scientific evidence (rigorous or otherwise) how, exactly? What's your rigorous scientific evidence that there is no rigorous scientific evidence? Are you a qualified expert on scientific evidence for the existence of God? Have you examined all evidence for or against the existence of God that exists? Have you drawn a rational scientific conclusion based on your review of this evidence? Have you published this report and submitted it for peer review, as Science demands?

Somehow I don't think so. Somehow I think you are simply engaging in ex-recto irrationality because you've been caught in a cleft stick of your own devising.

Therefore, your statement "There can be none" is both false and irrational, because there certainly can be scientific evidence of the existence of God that you are either unaware of or reject based on your personal religious Atheist bias.

[Seth]

I would have thought theism is a belief system. It's a belief in something taken entirely on faith.

No it's not. Theism is a generic or umbrella term. Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are all theistic belief systems, but they are not the same thing.

Correct. One uses the lower-case when describing the umbrella term "atheism" and "theism." One uses the capitalized case when referring to a specific group or set of beliefs that fall under either umbrella term. Thus it's Christian theism, Catholic theism, Hindu theism etc., and it's Atheist atheism. We could probably divide Atheism as a religious belief system into smaller categories, such as Dawkinsian atheism or Darwinian atheism or perhaps Irrationalist atheism, but I don't really thing that's necessary at this point.

Which, of course, leads me back to the question of: What, in your view, is "Atheism?"

Atheism, the religion, is comprised of people who view the question of the existence of God as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." A good indicator of this sort of religion is that the individual Atheist engages in heated debates on the subject of God with others, including other Atheists and theists alike. What makes it a religious exercise is the devotion and faith that such people have in their beliefs about God and other religions. Political activity in support of their doctrine is another good indicator of religious Atheism. The religious Atheist is one who has formed an opinion on the subject of god-claims and states and defends that opinion in a manner functionally identical to the apologetics of theists.

[Seth]

Since Seth has already admitted being a troll, Jim's comment is probably spot on.

But let me remind Seth of the original post I made. You cannot prove a negative. That is why non theists cannot prove the non existence of any deity.

But a positive proof is easy. Yet in all the years theists have been studying and researching their deity no such positive proof has ever emerged. This lack of 'proof', or even strong evidence is the reason I am an atheist.

Er, how do you know no such evidence has emerged? Theists have for thousands of years cited evidence of the existence of God (or gods). The bible is full of cited evidence of the existence of God, not all of which "science" has managed to "scientifically" dispose of.

You see, just because YOU are not aware of such evidence does not mean that such evidence does not exist. And just because YOU dismiss such evidence as not meeting your standards of proof doesn't mean the evidence does not prove the claim.

You see, a deity is unlike a physical aspect of the universe in that while a physical feature of the universe is testable and falsifiable because it is a feature which acts repeatably in a predictable manner, a deity, by definition, is a sentient being that is not required to act in a repeatably predictable manner, and therefore cannot be subjected to standard scientific analysis any more than an individual can be subjected to scientific analysis if the individual refuses to participate or appear for the testing.

Thus, if God doesn't want you to know that he exists, or he doesn't want to provide you with physical evidence that satisfies your standards of scientific proof, then all the scientific investigation in the world will not be successful.

But just because God might want to be cryptic and remain immune from "scientific" proofs doesn't mean that God does not exist, it means that God is not required to perform for your amusement and intellectual satisfaction and thereby can deny you the proof you yearn for as a deliberate act, for reasons of his own you are not privy to.

Therefore it is irrational to say that there is no evidence, because what you mean is that you know of no evidence that you find acceptable, which is far different from there being no evidence.

[Seth]

Since Seth has already admitted being a troll, Jim's comment is probably spot on.

But let me remind Seth of the original post I made. You cannot prove a negative. That is why non theists cannot prove the non existence of any deity.

But a positive proof is easy. Yet in all the years theists have been studying and researching their deity no such positive proof has ever emerged. This lack of 'proof', or even strong evidence is the reason I am an atheist.

On top of that is the realisation in this modern age that nothing in the observable universe requires an explanation involving a creator god.

Ah, the "not necessary" canard. You do realize that just because science thinks that something is "not necessary" to explain some aspect of the universe does not mean that the something posited does not exist. Occam's razor is a sharp instrument and cuts both ways.

Before Darwin, for example, it was an intellectually respectable position to argue, in the absence of any other potential explanatory mechanism for fine-tuned adaptations, that these were arranged by a clever, bio-engineering god. Post Darwin, we no longer have the need for that hypothesis...

And how exactly does your "need" or lack thereof become a causative factor in the nature of the universe? Just because you don't think you "need" it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[rainbow]

Atheists believe in not collecting stamps.

[Hermit]

But not collecting stamps is just another hobby.

[rainbow]

But not collecting stamps is just another hobby.

That is what they want you to believe. It is just a cover for baby-eating.

[pErvinalia]

I like baby carrots.

[Forty Two]

Atheism is not a system of religious belief.

Yes, it is. Or at least it can be and is in many cases.

No, it isn't.

However, if you claim it to be, please identify the system in some way other than referring to or capitalizing the generic term "atheism." For example, we don't just call "Theism" a system of religious belief, because it's not. Some theisms are systems of religious belief, and those systems have names. Even some atheisms are systems of religious belief, like some Buddhisms are atheistic. Jainism is atheistic. That doesn't mean Atheism is a system of religious belief.

Atheism is not a system of religious belief. Theism is not a system of religious belief. Some systems of religious belief are atheistic, and some are theistic, etc.

However, I note that you have capitalized the term. If you would define it, such that we can know the attributes of the system of religious belief which you denote as Atheism, then we can evaluate whether we agree or disagree with you.

Small "a" atheism is certainly not a system of religious belief.

I have discussed this in detail many times, but I'll hit the high points for you. There are only two types of small-a atheists, also known as implicit atheists. These two groups are comprised of persons who have either never, in any way, been exposed to any sort of theistic concept and are thus ignorant of the meaning of the word "theism", and those who are mentally incapable of comprehending theistic concepts at all, meaning the mentally deficient and children too young to understand the concepts.

Those are the only two kinds of atheists? Those that have never been exposed to any sort of theistic concept (a rather small minority of people, I should say -- as I can't think of a single atheist that fits that description), and then those who are mentally incapable of comprehending theistic concepts? That's a rather ham handed insult, right there. While there may well be some people who have "never been exposed to ANY sort of theistic concept" -- and while there may well be some people who are mentally incapable, that is certainly not the "only two" kinds of atheists. Some comprehend theist concepts very well, are well-versed in theism, and even previously were theists -- but have consciously found them unpersuasive, or irrational, or wrong on the facts, etc.

s

Everyone else, which is to say anyone who has been exposed to the concept of God (theism) is an "explicit atheist" or, as I define a sub-group of them, big-A Atheists, who are quite often members of the group of religious believers called Atheists because they act and argue in ways that are consistent with at least one standard definition of "religion." In most cases the applicable definition from among several is highlighted in red below, and to a lesser extent definitions 2 and 3 below.

[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

Source: religion. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion (accessed: June 23, 2015).

Well, that would be the rub -- have you an example of these big-A Atheists? A denomination of sorts? Can you list one of the big-A Atheist groups "sets of religious beliefs?"

We can do that for religious groups -- there are many religions and denominations, and sects, and factions and subsets, etc. -- and if you pick one, you can outline their basic tenets and dogmas and beliefs. Can you do that for a sect of Atheists?

[Forty Two]

Atheims isn't a belief system for the exact same reasons theism isn't a belief system. There are theistic beliefs systems, and there are atheistic belief systems (like A+ fools), but neither are one thing you can point to.
Saying"atheism" is a belief system, whether you capitalise it or not, (and "theism" is never capitalised), simply doesn't make sense.

Sure it does, because the actions of the members of that class meet the standards in one of the definitions of "religion" and I have proven time and again that their assertions with respect to god-claims are in fact beliefs and systematic beliefs at that.

Link to where you proved this.

You've said it here, but you haven't proved it.

You've cited the definition of religion, and quoted it. And you've declared that some atheists, called Atheists with a big-A, meet that definition. However, you missed the key bit about demonstrating HOW the Atheists meet that definition, by outlining just what beliefs, tenets, dogmas, or views these Atheists hold that constitute religious beliefs.

I can think of a couple -- Jains and Buddhists, for example, clearly are religions with systems of belief, and they are atheistic. Is that what you mean? That some atheists are religious? Are there any other examples you would cite to?

[Forty Two]

Since Seth has already admitted being a troll, Jim's comment is probably spot on.

But let me remind Seth of the original post I made. You cannot prove a negative. That is why non theists cannot prove the non existence of any deity.

Not entirely true, since it depends on the definition we apply to the deity being tested. For example, if one posits a Zeus who lives atop Mt. Olympus, then we can test that, and prove the negative, that Zeus does not exist, by going to the top of Mt. Olympus and seeing that Zeus is not there.

Science is all about proving negatives. We never prove theories, we disprove them, or they stand up to proof. Like, the theory that two objects of different mass dropped from a height will nevertheless fall at the same rate. We can never prove that theory right in all instances -- we can only test the theory to see if it is wrong by going up the top of the leaning tower of Pisa and dropping two different sized cannonballs to the ground. If the two balls fall at different rates, then we would prove the negative: we would prove that two bodies of different masses will fall at different rates of speed. If they fall at the same rate, then the theory has survived the test and is supported by the evidence, but we can never prove that they will always fall at the same rate. We can only improve our confidence. i.e. scientific method.

[Forty Two]

Interesting that the most rapidly growing system of religious belief is atheism. I guess humanity is finally growing up.

Of the various systems of religious belief out there, Atheism is one of the least rational ones in my opinion.

Oh! The one which doesn't make grandiose claims about gods and what they want and desire from us is the least rational one?

I guess this shows exactly how worthless your opinion is.

Except that Atheists do in fact make grandiose claims about gods and what they want and desire from us. Every time they criticize some theist's doctrinal beliefs and/or writings they are making the grandiose claim that those beliefs and/or writings are false...without a single shred of objective scientific evidence that what they claim is true. The reason that they are less rational than theists is because Atheist doctrine insists that they have superior abilities of reason and logic that allow them to see the "truth" about god-claims when in point of fact their religious beliefs about the non-existence of God fly squarely in the face of reason and logic because they have not a shred of the sort of evidence they demand from theists to support their assertions.

In other words, Atheists think they are smarter, more rational and more logical than theists, but they actually aren't because they cannot even recognize the fundamental failures in logic and reason they commit when they say anything other than "I don't know" in response to a theistic god-claim.

Yawn. You bore me.

Seth's comment, if taken as true, proves that theists cannot even recognize their fundamental failures in logic and reason -- which they commit when they say anything other than "I don't know" in response to a theistic god claim. In other words, theists who say they believe, rather than say "i don't know," under Seth's logic, would be committing a fundamental failure of logic and reason.

I think we atheists can all agree that "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer to many questions, even the gods question. Are there any gods? I don't know, which is precisely why I don't believe. I don't believe in things I don't know, and I only know things for which I have good reason to think are true.