But you didn’t say that “evidence” was needed for positive claims. You said that you have to “try and prove it”.
Sorry, that’s not proof. Please demonstrate why someone (or something) that is incapable of believing can be considered to be an atheist.
Please demonstrate that the word “atheist” can be used to refer to theists who don’t believe in the Abrahamic God.
So all you have is speculation. Sorry, not good enough.
Because anything else doesn’t work.
Not very well; willful ignorance, mindless dogmatism and/or just plain irrationality are what make them theists in the first place. They don’t want to “explore”; they want to insist that their fantasies are the truth, and exploring risks discovering inconvenient truths that contradict their fantasies. And the only “thinking” they want to do involves elaborating on their dogmas, not trying to understand reality or using logic.
No, I don’t dismiss it just because of my personal experience. The evidence from other polls suggests the census is flawed.
Read this
Because as been said, the natural and tangible exists. To consider the supernatural to be a satisfactory explanation first you must show that anything supernatural exists. It is an unecessary complication
Tangerines?
Really??
I’m curious as to how this ends when a religionist gets to the Gates O’ Heaven:
Gatekeeper- “So what did you do to advance the cause of your faith?”
Religionist- “Through clever wordplay and logic puzzles, I managed to convince someone that she was a believer, even though she really wasn’t!”
Gatekeeper- “Perhaps you didn’t understand my first question.”
I think this is another example, where very different levels of “belief” are treated as if they were identical.
The belief in any kind of god adds an element into your explanation that is purely fictional because there is no observational evidence for its reality.
And more, it’s easily identified as obsolete for an adequate explanation: If I want to explain what thunder is, I can observe the phenomenon with various means, make some tests to verify observations under controlled conditions and can then conclude that the phenomenon occurs, when the electricity of lightning hits the air and starts it vibrating, which – as I can test – produces a sound. I can also verify that the heat caused by lightning leads to an explosive expansion of the air, which adds another vibration. And so on.
Of course, I can include an element like Zeus in my explanation who I hypothesise is behind the phenomenon – but I can also add ad libitum Thor here or Indra or any other god who people believe(d) is responsible or a god I make up on the spot, like Brztlfazizl, causer of thunder, migraines and Mai Tais.
But what do I gain by such an addition? Can I produce thunder with a prayer to any of those gods? Or does it not occur when I deny their existence? Can I, in any way, find evidence that the element is needed for my explanation?
The answer is “No”, invariably “no”.
And since it is no, there is no reason to include it in my explanation.
Does this mean I don’t need any belief at all in the existence of the natural elements I included in my explanation or the rules that I modeled to guide their interactions?
Well, no. I do need such a belief. But that belief can be easily verified by the observations and experiments by other people. Reproduction of results is the key here.
If you can produce specific results by believing in a Brztlfazizl, that new element will be tested by other researchers and if they verify your results, we will drink a lot more Mai Tais in the future.
At the point where people are claiming that newborns are atheists, yes, really.
It seems to me that a lack of belief in GOd is insufficient to be an atheist: you gotta have an alternate explanation for the universe, an alternate belief system. But some folks seem to disagree, and therefore classify newborns as atheists. If they are, isn’t everything that lacks a belief in God an atheist? Or do you ahve to have some other beliefs before you qualify?
Yes, one tries to prove something by presenting evidence. If you don’t find it compelling then fine. Reject it. No skin off my nose.
So now you understand why the theist position is unsupportable?
No, you need to be a person.
I actually find it pretty easy. Someone describes Zeus and says a bunch of people once believed he was real. I examine their description. How any of the feats or characteristics attributed to him could be real are incomprehensible and unknown to me. I disbelieve in the existence of Zeus.
You really have no opinion whatsoever about the matter?
I, for one, welcome our new mixologist overlords
How about you present an argument instead of a link?
Anyway, you are back-pedalling. This is what you said previously:
No mention of the validity of the census, and you offered no alternative percentages based on other research. It seems to me that you base your beliefs on personal opinion rather than on facts.
BTW, you still haven’t even come close to providing proof of your other claims. It seems that you don’t understand the meaning of “evidence” and “proof”, or even “atheist”.
Good luck!
No, we don’t. I am not required to make up an explanation for that which I do not yet understand.
“I don’t have a complete answer yet, but as evidence comes in my understanding will grow.”
You are smart enough to know exactly the point I’m making. But seeing as you are having trouble. My point was, that people who are atheist but are culturally C of E will mark that down on the census. That skews the census figures and other polls bear this out.
No back-pedalling at all, or do we need to clarify that definition as well
I’ve offered alternative percentages now, or are you playing a game of “too late - doesn’t count”
I’m fairly certain that for any definition of those words that I come up with, you would find one subtly different enough for your purposes. I shan’t play that game.
No luck needed. Clarity of thought and reason will suffice.
Actually, you haven’t offered alternative percentages in this thread, but I’ll accept your overall claim that the U.K. is not very religious. I think, though, you’ll agree that even you are exposed to the fact that many people believe in God/gods, but you have a different belief.
How about playing the “let’s use external authoritative references to determine the definition of words” game, instead of the “this is what I say the word means” game?
Nicely phrased. Clarity of thought and reason will suffice, but you first need to aquire them. And, you’ll need some luck to do that, and some effort. You’re still a long way away from knowing how to justify your beliefs.
I capitalize it because I’m trying to point to that which precedes everything: THE creator. That special entity. So, “Creator”, with the oh-so-horrible-and-telling cap “C” seems an appropriate convention to use.
And this will be my last response to you. I’ve stated numerous times and very clearly that the Creator God I’m talking about has ZERO religious affiliation. I don’t even ascribe us—or this universe—as the point of his creation. We might very well be detritus from a grand creation we are unaware of. He/It might even want us to hold dear (if anything) rationality itself and nothing else. But it seems to give you great comfort believing and insisting that I ascribe some religious attributes to the concept I’ve been describing. Well, enjoy.
What’s the alternate belief to Leprechauns?
But maybe your point is that you find God an “explanation” for the universe, and that without that, how do we explain the universe? Personally, I don’t know how the universe came into existence, but I certainly don’t think that any descriptions of the various Gods people have proposed have anything to do with it.
If I hear a big bang in the night, and I don’t know what caused it, do I have to have an alternate hypothesis to have no reason to think that a pink fairy caused it?
It’s a religious concept. And one associated with a specific subset of religion to boot. I think we can all guess the actual affiliation of your officially unaffiliated god.
So you think that this initial cause ‘wants’ something from you. That is ascribing lots of baggage beyond just a thing that set things in motion. It sounds sentiment.
I gather, then, the human philosophy of “theism” is not something you see much value in, since there’s no evidence any of it is correct.
Welcome to atheism. This strikes me as a more valid use of the term than claiming it involves “disbelief in gods” or whatnot. I figure an atheist is obviously someone who has no use for theism. Even writing “disbelief in God or gods” gives God or gods more weight than the concept has ever earned.
That sounds like the makings of an awfully short discussion.
“A creator god has only the attributes of being a creator god.”
“Well, what about-”
“No.”
“Uh, okay…”
Part of the problem is religions anthropomorphisizing god. they are comfortable calling god, him and attributing human characteristics to him. He shows anger and can be petty He can be mean and destroy selected people or the whole earth.
Whatever kickstarted the universe is an unknown. God may be an explosion, a big bang. But there sure is no busy being watching over his creations. There is no heaven and no hell. It is on you to live a good life with good values because it makes sane people feel better about themselves.