If you are convinced that something is there, you can spend a hell of a lot of time looking for nothing, and often, every dead end makes you that much more resolved to find that fucking thing.
If you’re goal is to look for something until you find it, eventually you will find it…whether it is actually there or not.
You’re thinking of car keys. And the trick is to look in the last spot first, they’ll be there.
And if it is not in the last spot? Does that mean someone stole it? Perhaps instead of looking for god, we should be looking for the person who stole it?
I struggle to read them as well and skip them mostly. Then I get reports about them and feel obligated to read them. That makes baby Jesus cry.*
*see what I did there? 
Example: the holy grail.
I’m struggling to see where the difficulty is, here. Are you saying that you never even considered the idea of whether the billions of people believing in God are onto something–that you always just assumed, without giving it any thought, that they must be wrong? If so, I find that a remarkable approach to life, similar to people who assume that China isn’t real just because c’mon.
If you’re saying that you thought about it, heard some people out, and decided you weren’t convinced, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I have no interest in defending some idea that I claimed people should engage in constant ongoing examination of the evidence or anything like that.
In any case, I don’t really see where a continued examination of who’s at fault for any previous miscommunication between us is interesting. If we understand each other now, peachy :).
seems its the theists that jump thru hoops to convince others of their belief - and have the most trouble understanding that atheists just ‘don’t’.
belief is an active item - non-belief is not - it takes no effort for me to continue ‘not believing’.
In other words - I think that all Atheists are ‘true atheists’ simply because thats all it takes - ‘don’t believe’ - how much effort they decide to use to discuss it has no bearing on the ‘trueness’ of thier atheism.
Now - theists, since they have so many conflicting and compound definitions for their individual and group belief ‘systems’ - they are going to constantly debate the ‘trueness’ of anothers beliefs simply because of the inherit conflicts in the system. its all ‘i think’ ‘i feel’ ‘i believe’ - while they wnat it to be a ‘we’ and commonality to it - (and there is some) - its not universal by any means.
I have said this multiple times. I have given it thought but why would I continue to debate in my head when nothing has changed over the decades in my lifetime? If something new ever came up, well then sure. But nothing has changed over the 45 years of consciousness to cause me to believe. Over my lifetime I have been exposed to plenty of religion (as I said, I am a practicing Jew) and nothing I have ever was exposed to changed my mind. It’s not that I’ve never thought about religion, it’s just nothing I’ve come across has changed my mind from no belief to belief.
There is no “c’mon”. It’s not like disbelieving in the country of China. As a toddler I never heard of China. One day I learned about it and Bob’s your uncle. I had no reason to not believe my map at home was wrong or that my teachers were quoting falsehoods. I learned about g-d in religious school as a young child. The concept of g-d seemed as believable to me as all the fairy tales my parents would read to me. I was happily able to not believe in Snow White, wicked witches, and ghosts. So fairy tales, Santa, elves, and the tooth fairy, and g-d were equally unbelievable. All my friends at school believed in Santa and I never did. Should I have given it deep thought before I dismissed it?
I’m perplexed by your doubt that my baseline was non-belief. Why is the assumption that belief should be the baseline for everyone? I’m truly not lying. I never have believed in Santa Claus and I’ve never believed in g-d.
But if you have a religion, but no belief in G-d, are you really a atheist? or just a doubter?
Merriam-Webster definition of “Religion”. I can see at least two of the definitions that would allow an atheist to be religious.
But the fourth one makes Atheism a religion.
And if anyone is using that particular definition, I’m sure they’ll let you know. I’ve given no indication that I am, and I don’t think any other atheist reporting in has either, though I might be wrong.
I have no clue what that means.
I don’t “have religion”. I have a culture and community I choose to engage with and I have cultural traditions I enjoy participating in and passing along. I derive deep personal meaning and benefit from my culture and my traditions that do not require them being divine in origin.
Oh please. You cant use a cite, then dismiss your own cite.
- a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith* Certainly includes hard Atheism. Thereby by your very own cite- Atheism can be a religion.
Bolding mine. Belief != faith. A strongly held belief does not equal “ardor and faith”.
I am stating which definiton of that word I think pertains to this conversation. I am under no obligation to accept all the definitions as pertaining to this conversation.
That definition makes vegetarianism a religion. Or being a Yankee fan.
I’m wiling to accept that my antipathy toward the NE Pats counts as a religion.
Cubbies fan-Guilty as charged.