Help me out with this statement

[RickD]

,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

Ken,

You took a small part of ACB's quote, took it out of context, and changed the meaning.

ACB's point wast that those that claim no God is real, is a belief. And that belief needs a reason to be believed. Otherwise, that type of atheism becomes a blind faith.

[Kenny]

,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

Ken,

You took a small part of ACB's quote, took it out of context, and changed the meaning.

ACB's point wast that those that claim no God is real, is a belief. And that belief needs a reason to be believed. Otherwise, that type of atheism becomes a blind faith.

Point taken. Thanks for pointing that out for me

K

[abelcainsbrother]

,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

Why believe them then?They have nothing to base their assertion on,nothing,and they pride themselves on not needing to give reasons.You are defending them so you agree with them,see how it works? Once you speak,it is belief and you are admitting there is no reason other than rejecting evidence for God.You can reject all of the evidence for God and claim you are not convinced but you still have massive problems for believing what you do.You do know that a person can choose to believe something despite evidence to the contrary.

[Kenny]

,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

Why believe them then?They have nothing to base their assertion on,nothing,and they pride themselves on not needing to give reasons.You are defending them so you agree with them,see how it works? Once you speak,it is belief and you are admitting there is no reason other than rejecting evidence for God.You can reject all of the evidence for God and claim you are not convinced but you still have massive problems for believing what you do.You do know that a person can choose to believe something despite evidence to the contrary.

Belief in God for the most part requires faith. Not everybody has faith. I know you do, but a lot of people do not; myself included.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

Why believe them then?They have nothing to base their assertion on,nothing,and they pride themselves on not needing to give reasons.You are defending them so you agree with them,see how it works? Once you speak,it is belief and you are admitting there is no reason other than rejecting evidence for God.You can reject all of the evidence for God and claim you are not convinced but you still have massive problems for believing what you do.You do know that a person can choose to believe something despite evidence to the contrary.

Belief in God for the most part requires faith. Not everybody has faith. I know you do, but a lot of people do not; myself included.

Ken

I agree, but it doesn't take much faith in Christianity compared to what I see atheists putting their faith in.For a lot of them it seems science is there God now and whatever the non-demonstrated science says they still put their faith in that science will one day confirm their world view.Jesus talked about faith the size of a mustard seed.It is not hard to believe God can create the universe and everything in it.

[Kenny]

,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

Why believe them then?They have nothing to base their assertion on,nothing,and they pride themselves on not needing to give reasons.You are defending them so you agree with them,see how it works? Once you speak,it is belief and you are admitting there is no reason other than rejecting evidence for God.You can reject all of the evidence for God and claim you are not convinced but you still have massive problems for believing what you do.You do know that a person can choose to believe something despite evidence to the contrary.

Belief in God for the most part requires faith. Not everybody has faith. I know you do, but a lot of people do not; myself included.

Ken

I agree, but it doesn't take much faith in Christianity compared to what I see atheists putting their faith in.For a lot of them it seems science is there God now and whatever the non-demonstrated science says they still put their faith in that science will one day confirm their world view.Jesus talked about faith the size of a mustard seed.It is not hard to believe God can create the universe and everything in it.

I don't know the Atheists you are referring to, they will have to speak for themselves because I can only speak for myself. I am a skeptic. I apply the same skepticism to Science (or anything else) as I do to religion. The only difference is; most of the scientific claims make sense to me; most religious claims do not.

Ken

[Proinsias]

To describe someone as "the most die hard anti-....." automatically conjures up notions of emotional attachment regardless of the subject matter in most cases I can think of. Might be better aiming for a dialogue instead of 'burden of proof' tennis. It would be very wearisome if someone wanting to proclaim a life free of religion would be under the burden of having to adequetaley refute the religious and philisophical underpinnings of all the major religious systems to the satisfaction of their members.

I've had them tell me they were anti-theist,also it might be wearisome but when they are claiming no God is real then it becomes belief and there are then reasons to believe it and these need to be explained,you cannot believe something for no reason and a lot of times it is from a corrupt understanding of the word of God and based on atheist talking points which is like a bible for them and they try to make you prove God is real just so they can explain it all away with talking points while they think they don't have to prove why God doesn't exist.It is a cop-out and weakness.It is just a game for them that do this and no matter how much evidence you present for God it is denied and rejected for intellectual dishonesty.It is a wonder how they can believe something so futile.

I kinda struggle with the label of atheism. In the more traditional, Greek/Roman, sense I feel it describes me fairly well in that I don't worship the Christian God which is/was the religion, and much of the culture, of my upbringing. In that same sense Christians were labelled atheists as they did not worship the Roman pantheon back in the day.
I'm a slow reader but after 15 years or so of reading a fair amount of Christian, daoist, hindu, buddhist and atheist thoughts alongside prayer, meditation and day to day life I feel Christianity, and theism in general, makes unreasonable assertions. But that's just me at the moment, things change.

[1over137]

things change

They do.

[Kenny]

It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:

You're right that if someone asserts something, they should demonstrate why its true. The problem comes at this assumption you have that atheists are people who assert no god exists. When someone comes up to you and says "There is no god!" that's more then an atheists position even is. An atheist is someone who doesn't assert a god exists. It's someone who doesn't believe in a god. That's completely different then someone who asserts god doesn't exist, or someone who believes that gods don't exist. I have met an innumerable amount of atheists in my life, and yet I have not met one person EVER who believes god doesn't exist. That isn't to say that someone who would believe in no gods wouldn't be an atheist, it just is irrelevant to an atheists position. This is your mistake. You assume that an atheist believes in no god, which is wrong. Atheists just don't believe there is one. Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two things I hope is never a juror in a case of any significance. After all, they might think that because the preponderance of the evidence indicating someone is not guilty is somehow the same as the courts asserting that the person is innocent.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understand ... hypothesis

You're fighting a strawman position held by no one, then labeling that as some particular atheists position. It isn't.

However, if it is, your person there needs to demonstrate their wild claim that there is no god, like you said. They are still an atheist, but they are making a separate claim unrelated to atheism. Some sort of wacky counter-theistic claim, which isn't even named because nobody has it.

Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?

I know this ended long ago, but I think I see the point the person is making here. There is a difference between the statements
1. God doesn’t exist
2. I don’t believe God exist.

They are both claims, but claim #1 is about the existence of God. Claim #2 is about what the person believes. Claim #1 would require proof be provided that God doesn’t exist (impossible in most cases) Claim #2 would require proof that he actually holds the opinion he claims to have. Claim #2 would not require he provide evidence about God’s nonexistence because he never made a claim about God’s nonexistence only about what he believes concerning his nonexistence.

Ken

[Jac3510]

It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:

You're right that if someone asserts something, they should demonstrate why its true. The problem comes at this assumption you have that atheists are people who assert no god exists. When someone comes up to you and says "There is no god!" that's more then an atheists position even is. An atheist is someone who doesn't assert a god exists. It's someone who doesn't believe in a god. That's completely different then someone who asserts god doesn't exist, or someone who believes that gods don't exist. I have met an innumerable amount of atheists in my life, and yet I have not met one person EVER who believes god doesn't exist. That isn't to say that someone who would believe in no gods wouldn't be an atheist, it just is irrelevant to an atheists position. This is your mistake. You assume that an atheist believes in no god, which is wrong. Atheists just don't believe there is one. Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two things I hope is never a juror in a case of any significance. After all, they might think that because the preponderance of the evidence indicating someone is not guilty is somehow the same as the courts asserting that the person is innocent.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understand ... hypothesis

You're fighting a strawman position held by no one, then labeling that as some particular atheists position. It isn't.

However, if it is, your person there needs to demonstrate their wild claim that there is no god, like you said. They are still an atheist, but they are making a separate claim unrelated to atheism. Some sort of wacky counter-theistic claim, which isn't even named because nobody has it.

Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?

As Rick said early on, it's a cop out. Next time you come to this argument, when they tell you they don't believe God doesn't exist, they just lack a belief that God exists, then respond, "Oh, cool. Well that's ok, because it's not that I believe God exists; it's just that I lack a belief He doesn't exist." And then proceed to argue on the basis of God's existence exactly as they proceed to argue on the basis of His non-existence.

[Jac3510]

It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:

You're right that if someone asserts something, they should demonstrate why its true. The problem comes at this assumption you have that atheists are people who assert no god exists. When someone comes up to you and says "There is no god!" that's more then an atheists position even is. An atheist is someone who doesn't assert a god exists. It's someone who doesn't believe in a god. That's completely different then someone who asserts god doesn't exist, or someone who believes that gods don't exist. I have met an innumerable amount of atheists in my life, and yet I have not met one person EVER who believes god doesn't exist. That isn't to say that someone who would believe in no gods wouldn't be an atheist, it just is irrelevant to an atheists position. This is your mistake. You assume that an atheist believes in no god, which is wrong. Atheists just don't believe there is one. Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two things I hope is never a juror in a case of any significance. After all, they might think that because the preponderance of the evidence indicating someone is not guilty is somehow the same as the courts asserting that the person is innocent.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understand ... hypothesis

You're fighting a strawman position held by no one, then labeling that as some particular atheists position. It isn't.

However, if it is, your person there needs to demonstrate their wild claim that there is no god, like you said. They are still an atheist, but they are making a separate claim unrelated to atheism. Some sort of wacky counter-theistic claim, which isn't even named because nobody has it.

Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?

I know this ended long ago, but I think I see the point the person is making here. There is a difference between the statements
1. God doesn’t exist
2. I don’t believe God exist.

They are both claims, but claim #1 is about the existence of God. Claim #2 is about what the person believes. Claim #1 would require proof be provided that God doesn’t exist (impossible in most cases) Claim #2 would require proof that he actually holds the opinion he claims to have. Claim #2 would not require he provide evidence about God’s nonexistence because he never made a claim about God’s nonexistence only about what he believes concerning his nonexistence.

Ken

lol at kenny appealing to epistemology v ontology

[abelcainsbrother]

Atheists come up with all kinds of arguments in their attempts to exclude themselves from needing evidence and proof for being an atheist.when it comes to God they want us to prove it,but they get to hide behind an opinion at best and exclude themselves from needing any reason,muchless evidence and proof. I mean Jesus made salvation too easy for sinners for them to reject him for an atheistic opinion they have no reasons to believe and then end up in hell for eternity.There is no reason for them or anyone to even take the risk of being wrong when they have no evidence,proof or reasons for choosing to be an atheist or agnostic.It is just doubt based on an opinion.

[Kenny]

Atheists come up with all kinds of arguments in their attempts to exclude themselves from needing evidence and proof for being an atheist.when it comes to God they want us to prove it,but they get to hide behind an opinion at best and exclude themselves from needing any reason,muchless evidence and proof. I mean Jesus made salvation too easy for sinners for them to reject him for an atheistic opinion they have no reasons to believe and then end up in hell for eternity.There is no reason for them or anyone to even take the risk of being wrong when they have no evidence,proof or reasons for choosing to be an atheist or agnostic.It is just doubt based on an opinion.

There is plenty of evidence, just not the type of evidence that is going to convince you or other Christians like yourself. But unless I am trying to convert you or others to my way of thinking (which I am not) my evidence doesn't need to be convincing to anyone but myself

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Atheists come up with all kinds of arguments in their attempts to exclude themselves from needing evidence and proof for being an atheist.when it comes to God they want us to prove it,but they get to hide behind an opinion at best and exclude themselves from needing any reason,muchless evidence and proof. I mean Jesus made salvation too easy for sinners for them to reject him for an atheistic opinion they have no reasons to believe and then end up in hell for eternity.There is no reason for them or anyone to even take the risk of being wrong when they have no evidence,proof or reasons for choosing to be an atheist or agnostic.It is just doubt based on an opinion.

There is plenty of evidence, just not the type of evidence that is going to convince you or other Christians like yourself. But unless I am trying to convert you or others to my way of thinking (which I am not) my evidence doesn't need to be convincing to anyone but myself

Ken

Nope! There is no evidence,you choose to think like you do without evidence it is true,it is just doubt based on an opinion that you prop up over everything else.You may come up with reasons for thinking like you do,but it is'nt evidence atheism or agnosticism are true.

[Kenny]

Atheists come up with all kinds of arguments in their attempts to exclude themselves from needing evidence and proof for being an atheist.when it comes to God they want us to prove it,but they get to hide behind an opinion at best and exclude themselves from needing any reason,muchless evidence and proof. I mean Jesus made salvation too easy for sinners for them to reject him for an atheistic opinion they have no reasons to believe and then end up in hell for eternity.There is no reason for them or anyone to even take the risk of being wrong when they have no evidence,proof or reasons for choosing to be an atheist or agnostic.It is just doubt based on an opinion.

There is plenty of evidence, just not the type of evidence that is going to convince you or other Christians like yourself. But unless I am trying to convert you or others to my way of thinking (which I am not) my evidence doesn't need to be convincing to anyone but myself

Ken

Nope! There is no evidence,you choose to think like you do without evidence it is true,it is just doubt based on an opinion that you prop up over everything else.You may come up with reasons for thinking like you do,but it is'nt evidence atheism or agnosticism are true.

So you claim to know better than I know what's going on in my head? I'd say that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard; but I've discussed with you before so this type of logic isn't new to me anymore.
Let me put it this way; I say I have evidence that I find convincing. You are not qualified to say I do not.

Ken