May 20 is ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’

Status
Not open for further replies.
A belief system, which you will find that Atheists also dont believe in, and Atheism itself is not.

All babies are born Atheist, that is that no one is born with the idea of God, but this is usually taught to just about everyone as they grow up.

This doesnt mean that babies believe that god does not exist, as they do not have the function to believe that either, they simply lack the idea and hence the belief in any God or religion.


That doesn't make them Atheist, that makes them Agnostic. Atheisism is a belief structure by definition,

The definition of belief:

The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary definition of "belief" is:
1. that which is believed; an accepted opinion.
2. conviction of the truth or reality of a thing, based upon grounds insufficient to afford positive knowledge:


Atheists have an accepted opinion that God or Gods do not exist. They have insufficient proof to afford positive knowledge of this fact, therefore it is a belief.


Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve, they maintain that as it is unknowable one way or the other they basically reserve judgement. This is how may so called Atheists see themselves.



The problem is that many Atheists are attempting to redefine the term Atheist so they do not have to answer such difficult "belief" questions or respond to claims of anti-religious zealotry.
 
The idea that our belief in God is so weak/unfounded that a simple youtube video would convert us to atheism does raise a smile, but is based on a bad assumption.

No one is trying to convert you to Atheism.

We realise that Theists are too close minded and intolerant to understand reality, or any truthful way of thinking. Most atheists you see these days on youtube, the internet, and in public like Richard Dawkins are a result of the intolerance and prejudices that they continuously face from the brainwashed theistic majority.

We arent trying to convert you, we are making it clear why we are the way we are, and how religion has absolutely no relevance in the modern developed world.
 
Atheists have an accepted opinion that God or Gods do not exist. They have insufficient proof to afford positive knowledge of this fact, therefore it is a belief.

Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve, they maintain that as it is unknowable one way or the other they basically reserve judgement. This is how may so called Atheists see themselves.

The problem is that many Atheists are attempting to redefine the term Atheist so they do not have to answer such difficult "belief" questions or respond to claims of anti-religious zealotry.

No, this is just mostly illogical BS again, taken from the belief that there must be proof behind not wanting to believe in imaginary beings or objects.

A person who does not believe in an unprovable idea does not in anyway need to justify their lack of belief with proof on the non existant idea with any kind of proof.

The current definitions of Theist and Atheist were as a fact historically invented by the Theistic majority, while never actually taking into consideration how Atheists actually believe or think.
 
Last edited:
what you're talking about (lack of belief) is agnosticism not atheism.

With your strong support of a scientific evidence based standpoint, surely agnosticism is best for you?


After all if you have no evidence it's logical to make no judgement one way or the other.
 
Nope.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] As strong atheism, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.[citation needed] Common rationales for not believing in any deity include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,[10] rationalism, and naturalism,[11] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[12]

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[17] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[18] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[19] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[20] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[21] theist in 1662;[22] theism in 1678;[23] and deism in 1682.[24] Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[25]

In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[50] A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."[51]

Practical atheism can take various forms:
Absence of religious motivation—belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
Indifference—the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
Unawareness of the concept of a deity.[52]

Do feel free to read the whole page yourself, not just an incorrect and outdated single line definition from a dictionary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I am not a 'believer'. I do not believe in imaginary concepts of God, or the constructs of such irrational beliefs - Organised Religion. God plays absolutely no role to my function, life, moral actions, learning, or belief of right and wrong. I simply have no capacity whatsoever to accept or require God in my life, or any other supernatural belief, I function fully without requiring any single belief based idea that has no intelligent reason to be believed in as true.

There is nothing, no part at all that defines me as an Atheist that can be described as being based on any belief in anything unproven.

As for the 'you cant prove god doesnt exist', I have posted this twice already:

Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion

#1. Argumentum ad ignorantium - Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been, Or can't be, proven false.
If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, That means he must exist.

I cannot accept that absolutely anything can be true until it is proven. I do not need proof that something that has not yet been proven is actually false to conclude this, this is a ridiculously illogical and stupid belief that goes completely against logical and rational thinking, which is held by people who I consider to have a dysfunctional brain.
 
Last edited:
Nope.



Do feel free to read the whole page yourself, not just an incorrect and outdated single line definition from a dictionary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


Sorry, but as I said Atheism is a belief. Show me scientific proof God doesn't exist as I will say it is not, until then it is, no matter how many atheists decide to reinterpret the word.

It is easy to understand, Atheists do not believe in god, they believe God does not exist, they cannot proof he doesnt exist thus in it's simplest form it is a belief structure. They have a belief that God doesn't exist because of the improbable nature of it, or that Science cannot prove his existence, or this or that. None of it substantiated with any kind of proof, just because the antithesis of their belief cannot prove theirs also does not mean that they are automatically incorrect and the Atheist viewpoint is.

You can dress it up in philosophy and terminology all you want, but utimately an Atheist cannot proof their assumptions thus it is a belief not a fact.

I, for example do not believe in God, I don't disbelieve in him either. I cannot proof it either way so I reserve judgement.

Theists can say they see proof of God in Nature or Human action or whatever, Science cannot currently prove them wrong. They have a belief structure that defies modern Science in this respect. Atheists can say there is not God, but again it is a statement that modern Science cannot prove them to be correct, so they too have a belief structure that defies Scientific analysis.

To say that because a Theist cannot scientifically prove that God exists, so he does not and at the same time not be subject to the same criteria is hypocritical and erroneous. To declare with confidence that God does not exist you would have to know all things in the Universe. You are not qualified to make this kind of absolute assertion regarding a universal negative. it's no good quoting Argumentum ad ignorantium to me either as I am not saying that God exists, just that you cannot prove he doesn't.

By your description of yourself you are an Agnostic, not an atheist anyway. I do wish that people would refrain from debating how religion defines itself when they are incapable of defining their own beliefs correctly.


I shall always be convinced that a watch proves a watchmaker, and that a universe proves a God. - Voltaire
and Voltaire could hardly be described as a Christian.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but as I said Atheism is a belief. Show me scientific proof God doesn't exist as I will say it is not, until then it is, no matter how many atheists decide to reinterpret the word.
Quite possibly the worse argument ever of course. Show me evidence the tooth fairy doesn't exist, or indeed that the great green badger God Vlagnog does not appear when ever no one is looking...

If there is absolutely no proof something exists... The logical conclusion is?

So that said God has gone out of his way to convince us he is not there!? This of course means in modern times you are less likely to believe than in previous centuries. Had I been born 400yrs ago, there would be a greater chance I suspect I would have believed... But in the modern age, with a more enlightened view, I find I cannot believe in it... Again, the system is shown to be flawed and utterly unfair!!
 
Quite possibly the worse argument ever of course. Show me evidence the tooth fairy doesn't exist, or indeed that the great green badger God Vlagnog does not appear when ever no one is looking...

If there is absolutely no proof something exists... The logical conclusion is?

So that said God has gone out of his way to convince us he is not there!? This of course means in modern times you are less likely to believe than in previous centuries. Had I been born 400yrs ago, there would be a greater chance I suspect I would have believed... But in the modern age, with a more enlightened view, I find I cannot believe in it... Again, the system is shown to be flawed and utterly unfair!!

It may well be the worst arguement, but it is the same one used by atheists. That's my point. I don't know if there is a God, I have no way of really knowing so I decide to believe in the negative due to the lack of empirical evidence to the contrary. That's not to say that their is none, it just means I beleive this to be the case.

It is entirely reasonable to suggest that we just do not have the ability or technology or knowledge to detect God, just as 400 years ago if I said there were such things as radio waves or atoms I would be been laughed at, as I could not prove they existed without the technology we have today. This doesn't make me wrong, just unable to prove my assertion.

The same is true of both Atheisim and Religion, and because of this they are both based in faith, one of a positive, the other negative.
 
and Voltaire could hardly be described as a Christian.

That analogy is terrible when being used to describe the Christian God, however - I mean a watch certainly doesn't prove a living watchmaker, or necessarily even a human watchmaker (it could, potentially, be a machine); similarly a universe doesn't prove an omniscient being, it doesn't prove an omnipotent being, it doesn't prove a benevolent being, and it certainly doesn't prove an immortal being.
 
It may well be the worst arguement, but it is the same one used by atheists. That's my point. I don't know if there is a God, I have no way of really knowing so I decide to believe in the negative due to the lack of empirical evidence to the contrary. That's not to say that their is none, it just means I beleive this to be the case.

It is entirely reasonable to suggest that we just do not have the ability or technology or knowledge to detect God, just as 400 years ago if I said there were such things as radio waves or atoms I would be been laughed at, as I could not prove they existed without the technology we have today. This doesn't make me wrong, just unable to prove my assertion.

The same is true of both Atheisim and Religion, and because of this they are both based in faith, one of a positive, the other negative.

But, how do we know about God then, if he's hiding away? Your answer will be he's contacted some individuals to pass over some of this information. So YET AGAIN, we have some individuals who don't have to take the same test as the rest of us, but get a personalised greating card from God, "HERE I AM"... Not fair is it!
 
That analogy is terrible when being used to describe the Christian God, however - I mean a watch certainly doesn't prove a living watchmaker, or necessarily even a human watchmaker (it could, potentially, be a machine); similarly a universe doesn't prove an omniscient being, it doesn't prove an omnipotent being, it doesn't prove a benevolent being, and it certainly doesn't prove an immortal being.

No, a Watch proves a Watchmaker, regardless of the nature of the watchmaker. The same with the Universe proves a God, regardless of the nature of God. That was what Voltaire was saying. He was questioning the nature of God.

Atheists can say God doesn't exist, but they really mean they don't believe in anthropological personification of God. The Nature of God is unknown so Voltaire was suggesting that God could be proven once you ignore any specific interpretation of his/her/it's nature.
 
If there is absolutely no proof something exists... The logical conclusion is?

Either that it doesn't exist, or that your tools are insufficient to detect it.

Didn't someone in this thread sum it up earlier? Science cannot disprove God because science was not designed to look for God.

The scientific method is designed to investigate and explain objects or patterns that can be observed in the present.

It is not designed to model things which happened in ancient times where there is no longer any observable evidence; nor is it designed for searching in the dark for things of unknown origin, form and location.
 
But, how do we know about God then, if he's hiding away? Your answer will be he's contacted some individuals to pass over some of this information. So YET AGAIN, we have some individuals who don't have to take the same test as the rest of us, but get a personalised greating card from God, "HERE I AM"... Not fair is it!

Why would my answer be that. It would not because I don't beleive in a God by any religious interpretation of what a God is. There is no reason to think that a prophets claims are false, just that his interpretation of Information or knowledge is false.

This has more to do with the question, 'What is the Nature of God'. Is the Universe as we see it 'God'? Is our inherent individuality merely aspects of a universal 'God'? Or any number of questions in the nature of 'God', none mean he doesn't exist, just we do not understand the nature of God in order to define it.
 
Why would my answer be that. It would not because I don't beleive in a God by any religious interpretation of what a God is. There is no reason to think that a prophets claims are false, just that his interpretation of Information or knowledge is false.

This has more to do with the question, 'What is the Nature of God'. Is the Universe as we see it 'God'? Is our inherent individuality merely aspects of a universal 'God'? Or any number of questions in the nature of 'God', none mean he doesn't exist, just we do not understand the nature of God in order to define it.

But their knowledge was either made up, or told to them surely? If it was told them then why did they get a personal message therefore giving them the benefit of no doubt in God?
 
But their knowledge was either made up, or told to them surely? If it was told them then why did they get a personal message therefore giving them the benefit of no doubt in God?

Who says they where not created for that purpose and is unable to enter heaven and simply ceases to exist after death?
 
I love how this thread is still going.

To the people who don't like the fact these pictures are being drawn: Has it occurred to you if you would have just stayed quiet, this would have blown over long ago?
 
Who says they where not created for that purpose and is unable to enter heaven and simply ceases to exist after death?

Ahhh NPCs? Nice! I guess just these hurd of virgins too?

Guess when we're talking in the realms of fantasy we could invent just about anything to justify anything!?
 
It must be comforting for all you god believers that somewhere in the darkest Amazon jungle a primive man with a bone through his nose is sitting in a mud hut & thinking just like you.
He's had no education like you have, he's never seen a TV or read a book so he's totally illiterate but just like you he believes & fears god.
Tomorrow he will pray to the god of bananas so that the crop will be good & maybe sacrifice a chicken to be sure god sees & hears him.
He's also tied the testicles of a goat to his doorpost as this will guarantee god will make him fertile.


so yes, it must be very comforting indeed that your minds are as one with this primitive fellow in his mud hut nailing a goats knackers to the door to appease god & unless Christian or Islamic missionaries find him & show him what he's missing in not praying to their god who of course is the real god he will remain blissfully ignorant, poor sad fellow that he is
 
mohammed.jpg
 
But their knowledge was either made up, or told to them surely? If it was told them then why did they get a personal message therefore giving them the benefit of no doubt in God?

Why does it need to be a personal message? More likely to assume they just had a brief understanding of some kind of 'ultimate truth' or innate universal knowledge and chose to interpret it in the only way their limited understanding could. A brief expansion of their perception of reality if you like.

You could say that the knowledge was mis-interpreted, but then we are back to question of what is the nature of God once again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom