Thread: Why did you become an Atheist?

Originally Posted by Mario92

What in the world made you think this? Why does it seem so utterly impossible to you that, as molecules became more and more complex and learned to interact in new ways, they slowly became more and more lifelike in their interactions until the very first traces of life were born? Life is, at the most basic level, replication.

Pay special attention to the conclusion in bold.

Originally Posted by Talk Origins

Search spaces, or how many needles in the haystack?

So I've shown that generating a given small enzyme is not as mind-bogglingly difficult as creationists (and Fred Hoyle) suggest. Another misunderstanding is that most people feel that the number of enzymes/ribozymes, let alone the ribozymal RNA polymerases or any form of self-replicator, represent a very unlikely configuration and that the chance of a single enzyme/ribozyme forming, let alone a number of them, from random addition of amino acids/nucleotides is very small.

However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 1020 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].

Similarly, of the 1 x 10130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 1061 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup.

So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures, random assemblage of amino acids into "life-supporting" systems (whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles [10], RNA world systems [18], or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution [11, 25]) would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for the original monomer concentrations [23] and synthesis times.

Conclusions

The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.

Any other questions?

Be careful Mario. Molecules don't really 'learn' anything. They just collide in solution to react.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Consider also that there is an extremely high probability that Abiogenesis is wrong as well but scientist still seem to be searching for answers are they not?

You're equating something that has no evidence to support it yet has an incredibly high likelihood of being incorrect, with something that has vast amounts of experimental data behind it and has a much higher likelihood of being correct given current understandings of the natural world.

Of course molecules don't literally "learn." That's just my term for expressing new combinations and interactions between molecules as they become increasingly complex.

Am I missing something, here? The article seems to fully support the idea of abiogenesis. From what I understand, "meaningful probability" is not the same thing as "significant probability." I would assume, from the wording of that conclusion, that the exact or even ballpark estimates of the probability of those events happening cannot yet be determined. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the odds are tiny.

Even if they were tiny, we come back to the "infinite matter and time" argument once more. There are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy alone. Who knows how many planets that equates to? How many life-supporting star systems exist?

EDIT: Linked the original

http://dreamviews.com/community/show...Szostak&page=2

Christ on a friggin' crutch, man! Have you any life at all?

Did you intentionally use the word 'gnome' instead of 'genome'? Because it creates a very amusing narrative

The bulk of your disagreement seems to be coming from the use of the term evolution. Now you have the word evolution used in the sense of 'things changing over time' and in the sense of 'animals changing from one to another'. The latter deals with the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. The former is just simply a metaphor for growing complexity.

In any situation you have a medium for hereditary descent, you will have natural selection favouring the reproduction of the whatever it is for what is best at replicating itself. Regardless of whether it is technically alive or not. For the sake of simplicity in language this is sometimes referred to as chemical evolution and biological evolution, but chemical evolution is NOT invoking anything to do with changing allelle frequencies within populations of organisms. It's referring to increasing complexity generated via chemical processes between molecules that aren't alive.

It's like if I was talking about 'the gravity of a situation'. I'm not invoking Newton or Einsteins theories of gravitation when I use this word. I'm using it as a metaphor for how complicated a scenario is.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Did you intentionally use the word 'gnome' instead of 'genome'? Because it creates a very amusing narrative

lol.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

The bulk of your disagreement seems to be coming from the use of the term evolution. Now you have the word evolution used in the sense of 'things changing over time' and in the sense of 'animals changing from one to another'. The latter deals with the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. The former is just simply a metaphor for growing complexity.

In any situation you have a medium for hereditary descent, you will have natural selection favouring the reproduction of the whatever it is for what is best at replicating itself. Regardless of whether it is technically alive or not. For the sake of simplicity in language this is sometimes referred to as chemical evolution and biological evolution, but chemical evolution is NOT invoking anything to do with changing allelle frequencies within populations of organisms. It's referring to increasing complexity generated via chemical processes between molecules that aren't alive.

It's like if I was talking about 'the gravity of a situation'. I'm not invoking Newton or Einsteins theories of gravitation when I use this word. I'm using it as a metaphor for how complicated a scenario is.

That's understandable and you're right that was my main problem. We both know there are different variations of evolution.

Deliberate Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Business & Technology.
Random Mutation + Deliberate Selection + Time = A game of scrabble.

The problem with evolution that I have mostly is not with my belief or disbelief in it. It's the seperation attempt between evolution and abiogenesis. Even if they are different forms of evolution they are both evolution in all sense of the word. Even Dr. Szostak makes that assertion in his video. Now I'm not knocking his work by no means, the man is actually brilliant and I have a great deal of respect for him, but I was just in disagreements with a few of his points. However I do understand point but right now I'm to tired to get into this any further than I've already have. You bring up some great points that I will definitely ponder over.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

For an Atheist to make this statement "there is no possibility that God exists, I do not believe in a God" is a conscious decision. What is this decision based upon?

• Logic
• Lack of evidence
• Evidence
• Doubt
• Faith
• Combination of all
• Nothing at all

Fundamental Atheism, like any fundamentalist, bases their reason basically on nothing. It is un-thinking to think something for no reason and especially in the face of undeniable logic or proof.

But that is not what we are talking about.

So you believe there is a possibility that God may indeed exist. At this point would you not say that you're agnostic concerning the existence of God? Is this position consistent with Fundamentalist Atheist or not?

No, Agnosticism is the belief that it is not possible for us to ever understand or know of God/supernatural things.

Fundamentalist Atheists do not believe God exists no matter what proof was in front of them - even God himself likely (they would just likely think they are hallucinating).

If this is the case then you cannot have a disbelief in the unknown either. So once again this is in a state of being completely oblivious having a complete non-awareness of something. Can a Implicit Atheist argue against any material that relates to God?

You are thinking too dual-like here. It is not so black and white, there is a middle ground. You see to think that, given the idea of something for the first time, you go through a decision process and thus come up with a conclusion. But you still have predisposed non-beliefs in things because you have never heard of them. This predisposed non-belief is just that itself - ignorance. Ignorance to God is Atheism when the person has never heard of the idea at all.

However, on an entirely other debate, all humans are generally born with a spiritual inclination. But that is another topic to debate.

The point is that Atheism is simply not having a belief in God - not active disbelief, just no belief.

How is it not a thought process and/or determination if someone says this. "There is no possibility that God exists" Is that not a conscious assertion? Otherwise this behavior is simply without reason which is completely illogical.

Now you are simply not paying attention.

There are three major forms of Atheism. I will not term them, just describe them;

1) Active absolute rejection and denial that God exists
2) Thinking that Gods do not exist (but open to the idea that they could)
3) Absence of belief in God

The lines blue between 2 and 3 very easily. You are not acknowledging these separate divisions. Why is this? You keep asking me questions about fundamentalist atheism and as though I am one. We are saying that all people are born as 3.

Which is undeniably true.

Is there not an incredibly small percentage supporting certain areas of abiogenesis? Unfortunately, I do not have any numbers to present as I'm not even sure it's calculable which furthermore shows me that even astronomically incomprehensible odds can change people lives, because if not we wouldn't have people like Urey and Miller.

What is this numbers debate for anyway? I did not originate it but it seems like a very pathetic and cheap way to debate something. The odds of something are never a good reason to believe in something and it is very relative to the context. I think we can both agree on that, at the least.

Also, Abiogenesis is still being researched and does not have clear conclusions. Thus, to try and put a probability that it is true is like trying to make a probability for something you do not know. You cannot do that. It simply does not exist yet.

I sense an easy track to digression here but essentially I just think it's silly. I would never argue from odds, so I don't know this came up.

Consider also that there is an extremely high probability that Abiogenesis is wrong as well but scientist still seem to be searching for answers are they not?

Again, how can you place odds on something that nobody knows whatsoever. You cannot even place the odds on God being true but we can certainly deconstruct it's foundations (eg. the bible, political influences, etc.).

I would call this a very dirty and ignorant argument. There is no way to place odds on something that does not even have a conclusive theory or hypothesis.

Furthermore, I am not even debating Abiogenesis. Why are we mentioning this? It's irrelevant.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Fundamental Atheism, like any fundamentalist, bases their reason basically on nothing. It is un-thinking to think something for no reason and especially in the face of undeniable logic or proof.

But that is not what we are talking about.

I was under the impression that we were talking about Atheism as a whole not certain classifications of atheism. The claim was "Everyone is born Atheist" Other forms of Atheism didn't show up until half-way through the thread.

Originally Posted by O'nus

No, Agnosticism is the belief that it is not possible for us to ever understand or know of God/supernatural things.

Fundamentalist Atheists do not believe God exists no matter what proof was in front of them - even God himself likely (they would just likely think they are hallucinating).

Ok well in lieu of this we can detract all variations of atheism and focus on the particular atheism that is claimed we are born into this world as, which I believe is implicit atheism.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are thinking too dual-like here. It is not so black and white, there is a middle ground. You see to think that, given the idea of something for the first time, you go through a decision process and thus come up with a conclusion. But you still have predisposed non-beliefs in things because you have never heard of them. This predisposed non-belief is just that itself - ignorance. Ignorance to God is Atheism when the person has never heard of the idea at all.

You cannot have a predisposed belief of anything if you've never been exposed to it. Ignorance is not a non-belief. Being ignorant of something is being neutral of something until you're exposed to it and then able to classify that something.

Originally Posted by O'nus

However, on an entirely other debate, all humans are generally born with a spiritual inclination. But that is another topic to debate.

I agree.

Originally Posted by O'nus

There are three major forms of Atheism. I will not term them, just describe them;

1) Active absolute rejection and denial that God exists
2) Thinking that Gods do not exist (but open to the idea that they could)
3) Absence of belief in God

Right I understand that I just want to focus on the one form of Atheism that has been claimed we are all born into this world as.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The lines blue between 2 and 3 very easily. You are not acknowledging these separate divisions. Why is this? You keep asking me questions about fundamentalist atheism and as though I am one. We are saying that all people are born as 3.

and once again what is 3 based upon? If ignorance then you're uncertain and you have not established a belief or disbelief you're just simply ignorant of it. How can you form a belief or disbelief about something that has never enter your train of thought? If you just heard of God for the first time today, how could you have a disbelief in God yesterday?

Originally Posted by O'nus

What is this numbers debate for anyway? I did not originate it but it seems like a very pathetic and cheap way to debate something. The odds of something are never a good reason to believe in something and it is very relative to the context. I think we can both agree on that, at the least.

I agree and we can move pass this.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Also, Abiogenesis is still being researched and does not have clear conclusions. Thus, to try and put a probability that it is true is like trying to make a probability for something you do not know. You cannot do that. It simply does not exist yet.

I sense an easy track to digression here but essentially I just think it's silly. I would never argue from odds, so I don't know this came up.

Good we can focus on the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Furthermore, I am not even debating Abiogenesis. Why are we mentioning this? It's irrelevant.
~

You're right it is irrelevant so we can move pass this and stay on our current course.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I was under the impression that we were talking about Atheism as a whole not certain classifications of atheism. The claim was "Everyone is born Atheist" Other forms of Atheism didn't show up until half-way through the thread.

You fail to see the problem in defining Atheism.

The fact of the matter is, most modern (or adult) atheists are actually humanists or existentialists. This is because you cannot define a set of beliefs based on not believing something - you have to ask, "Why are they not believing in it?" and the answer will reveal a doctrine - something that is not atheism.

If you ask me why I am atheist, I am not going to say, "because I was born that way". This ought to be obvious.

Ok well in lieu of this we can detract all variations of atheism and focus on the particular atheism that is claimed we are born into this world as, which I believe is implicit atheism.

Yes

You cannot have a predisposed belief of anything if you've never been exposed to it. Ignorance is not a non-belief. Being ignorant of something is being neutral of something until you're exposed to it and then able to classify that something.

Ignorance is still a predisposition to everything - those things you do not know of.

If you do not know of God, then you are ignorant of God.
If you are ignorant of God, then you have no belief in God.
If you have no belief in God, then you are an atheist.

It is that simple.

...and once again what is 3 based upon? If ignorance then you're uncertain and you have not established a belief or disbelief you're just simply ignorant of it. How can you form a belief or disbelief about something that has never enter your train of thought? If you just heard of God for the first time today, how could you have a disbelief in God yesterday?

You are complicating something which is very simple. It is not like you lose a battle or something in this - it is simply a semantics debate you have created as I suspect it hurts the ego to think of the idea that we are all born not knowing about God which is technically atheist.

It is simple, I will run this down again as simply as possible;

A) Atheism = Absent belief in God
B) We are born with no beliefs of anything (arguable in other respects, but I do not think that is pertinent here)
Thus,
C1) We are all born Atheist

A) Ignorance is not knowing or having any knowledge of something
B) We are born ignorant of God
C) If you are ignorant of God, then you have no knowledge of it
D) If you have no knowledge of God, then you also have no belief in God
Thus,
C2) We are all born Atheist.

I cannot make it any easier than that. Just remember, saying we are born Atheist does not imply any further beliefs - just a lacking belief or absence of a belief.

Don't be tempted to be too pedantic on the semantics.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You fail to see the problem in defining Atheism.

The fact of the matter is, most modern (or adult) atheists are actually humanists or existentialists. This is because you cannot define a set of beliefs based on not believing something - you have to ask, "Why are they not believing in it?" and the answer will reveal a doctrine - something that is not atheism.

You're right the OP is obviously asking the wrong question. Where he should ask why do you reject or why do you believe the claim of God is a false premise.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you ask me why I am atheist, I am not going to say, "because I was born that way". This ought to be obvious.

you seemed to have made that statement here.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is not a very fair question.

Firstly, everyone is born Atheist because, in its strict definition, it is the lack of belief in something. Adding convictions or moralities to it muddles it up into something else that is not Atheism. If you really want to know, I consider myself to be Humanist Existentialist - but I can't say that very simply, now can I?

However, I do understand where you are coming from with this. My problem is that after a certain time in your life you eventually moved from a non-awareness state into a state of awareness, so for someone to answer the question by saying "No one chooses to be an Atheist we are all born Atheist" does not really answer the question now does it? Not a single person debating in this sub-form of R/S can say that they are an Implicit Atheist.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes

Why yes? When this sub-category of atheism no longer applies to you?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ignorance is still a predisposition to everything - those things you do not know of.

If you do not know of God, then you are ignorant of God.
If you are ignorant of God, then you have no belief in God.
If you have no belief in God, then you are an atheist.

It is that simple.

Why do you keep saying "Atheist" as a whole when there are so many sub-categories? One of the categories being "Explicit Atheist." Are we all born into this world as an explicit atheist? I know it's all semantics but I have a problem with just the general term of Atheism, I'd rather for you to say non-awareness = no belief and no disbelief.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are complicating something which is very simple. It is not like you lose a battle or something in this - it is simply a semantics debate you have created as I suspect it hurts the ego to think of the idea that we are all born not knowing about God which is technically atheist.

I do not have a problem with the fact that I was born into this world with a non-awareness of God. I myself wouldn't coin that as being atheist considering atheism also accompanies the flat out rejection of God so it's probably not a good idea to say I was born into this world as an atheist.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is simple, I will run this down again as simply as possible;

A) Atheism = Absent belief in God
B) We are born with no beliefs of anything (arguable in other respects, but I do not think that is pertinent here)
Thus,
C1) We are all born Atheist

A) Ignorance is not knowing or having any knowledge of something
B) We are born ignorant of God
C) If you are ignorant of God, then you have no knowledge of it
D) If you have no knowledge of God, then you also have no belief in God
Thus,
C2) We are all born Atheist.

I understand this but YOU'RE an atheist not because you were born with an unawareness of God. You see no reason to believe in something you have an consciousness awareness of, making your position as an Atheist a rejection not a position of non-awareness. Thats the point I'm making here.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I cannot make it any easier than that. Just remember, saying we are born Atheist does not imply any further beliefs - just a lacking belief or absence of a belief.

Would it not make things much more simplified just by saying we are born unaware opposed to these semantic games regarding which of the 5 or so different atheistic terms define you? When we know the term that has been coined we are born as does not apply you nor I.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why do you keep saying "Atheist" as a whole when there are so many sub-categories? One of the categories being "Explicit Atheist." Are we all born into this world as an explicit atheist? I know it's all semantics but I have a problem with just the general term of Atheism, I'd rather for you to say non-awareness = no belief and no disbelief.

Why do you insist on complicating the matter with sub-categories of atheism? I see no general use for such a classification system.

Ugh...for all intents and purposes, how about we define "atheist" as one who does not BELIEVE in the existence of a God, but does not necessarily insist there is no way such a god could exist? Would that make everyone happy?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

However, I do understand where you are coming from with this. My problem is that after a certain time in your life you eventually moved from a non-awareness state into a state of awareness, so for someone to answer the question by saying "No one chooses to be an Atheist we are all born Atheist" does not really answer the question now does it? Not a single person debating in this sub-form of R/S can say that they are an Implicit Atheist.

You keep trying to work from this cognitive standpoint but it simply is not true. Let us explore it.

If we are to deliberately make cognitive decisions based on all things that we have encountered, then all decisive beliefs must be conscious efforts. This is followed from the idea that you say one must make a conscious decisions based on what they are perceiving for their decision process (eg. information from the senses, data, discussion, etc.).

However, all peoples beliefs are formed within their childhood. This is a very fundamental truth that must be acknowledged by you. Although our beliefs can change over time, it is undeniably true that we develop beliefs in our childhood. It is an inevitability that we must face as we grown and learn about our own consciousness.

The major problem with this, though, is that we are not actually conscious of our decisions as a child. Within our fragile youth, it is virtually programmed within us to simply believe and follow what our parents tell us. This is because, evolutionary speaking, it would be counter-productive to question and doubt the information provided by our parents. If every child had conducted an experiment to test what their parents have said is true or not, we would all be dead from falling off of cliffs or electrocuting ourselves, etc.

Jokes and mockery aside, the point is that we do not always necessarily make conscious decisions on our beliefs, and especially not as a child.

Furthermore, we are not even conscious of many decisions we make our entire life. You can take a look at my thread (linked in my signature) "Experience and Your Unreliable Consciousness" as evidence that your consciousness is actually significantly flawed and very misleading.

It is a gross idiosyncrasy of man to think that they are conscious of all of their decisions.

Why yes? When this sub-category of atheism no longer applies to you?

You said we can just focus on the one type of atheism. I agreed; implicit atheism.

Why do you keep saying "Atheist" as a whole when there are so many sub-categories? One of the categories being "Explicit Atheist." Are we all born into this world as an explicit atheist? I know it's all semantics but I have a problem with just the general term of Atheism, I'd rather for you to say non-awareness = no belief and no disbelief.

My apologies for thinking that you are insightful enough to understand that that was my intent.

I have already exhaustively explained the three fundamental beliefs (which are generally applicable to all beliefs) and now you are just being pedantic.

A) Non-awareness=no belief or disbelief
B) No belief or disbelief=implicit atheism
C) We are born with no awareness of God
Thus,
C3) We are born Implicit Atheists

Stop being silly.

I do not have a problem with the fact that I was born into this world with a non-awareness of God. I myself wouldn't coin that as being atheist considering atheism also accompanies the flat out rejection of God so it's probably not a good idea to say I was born into this world as an atheist.

Now you are just trying to start an argument where there is none.

The flat out rejection of God is fundamentalism and you ought to find that there are not many Atheists that are actually like that.

Stop being prejudice and pay attention. It is beginning to be insulting that I pay attention and be insightful to your comments and you turn with negligent ones with this when you are clearly intelligent enough to do otherwise.

I understand this but YOU'RE an atheist not because you were born with an unawareness of God. You see no reason to believe in something you have an consciousness awareness of, making your position as an Atheist a rejection not a position of non-awareness. Thats the point I'm making here.

+ Everyone is born implicit atheist (let us also not forget that we are "atheist" towards everything)
+ We develop a belief taught to us from our family
+ We then adapt a sense of identity and test it throughout time

Also, you are still being a complete stubborn fool by not accepting the ideal that Atheism is fully capable of accepting God given the proper evidence and reasoning. Where there is none, one is not rejecting God, they simply do not see reason to believe in it.

Many Atheists would love to believe in God, if there were a reason.

Pay attention.

Would it not make things much more simplified just by saying we are born unaware opposed to these semantic games regarding which of the 5 or so different atheistic terms define you? When we know the term that has been coined we are born as does not apply you nor I.

Now you are being antagonizing. Stop being stupid.

We have already defined three general terms, that is all.

Do not get frustrated and upset with the argument if you cannot find some desperate vapid argument to weasel out of.

Humility is a virtue; it is very easy to admit being wrong and much more of an accomplishment than being right. I would be a much more humble person to know that more people are willing to admit being wrong and learn something new than to desperately argue something to their death bed and not learn or experience anything new.

It's sad really.

~

Originally Posted by Mario92

Why do you insist on complicating the matter with sub-categories of atheism? I see no general use for such a classification system.

I can agree I see no general use for such classification systems either and this is exactly the point I'm arguing. Also keep in mind that I did not create the sub-categories.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Ugh...for all intents and purposes, how about we define "atheist" as one who does not BELIEVE in the existence of a God, but does not necessarily insist there is no way such a god could exist? Would that make everyone happy?

Well one problem with this. You see that particular classification has already been coined. It's called Agnosticism.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You keep trying to work from this cognitive standpoint but it simply is not true. Let us explore it.

If we are to deliberately make cognitive decisions based on all things that we have encountered, then all decisive beliefs must be conscious efforts. This is followed from the idea that you say one must make a conscious decisions based on what they are perceiving for their decision process (eg. information from the senses, data, discussion, etc.).

However, all peoples beliefs are formed within their childhood. This is a very fundamental truth that must be acknowledged by you. Although our beliefs can change over time, it is undeniably true that we develop beliefs in our childhood. It is an inevitability that we must face as we grown and learn about our own consciousness.

The major problem with this, though, is that we are not actually conscious of our decisions as a child. Within our fragile youth, it is virtually programmed within us to simply believe and follow what our parents tell us. This is because, evolutionary speaking, it would be counter-productive to question and doubt the information provided by our parents. If every child had conducted an experiment to test what their parents have said is true or not, we would all be dead from falling off of cliffs or electrocuting ourselves, etc.

Jokes and mockery aside, the point is that we do not always necessarily make conscious decisions on our beliefs, and especially not as a child.

I agree with this, no child is really capable of making an actual certainty about anything, but unless I'm wrong I think it's safe to say you are no longer a child.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Furthermore, we are not even conscious of many decisions we make our entire life. You can take a look at my thread (linked in my signature) "Experience and Your Unreliable Consciousness" as evidence that your consciousness is actually significantly flawed and very misleading.

It is a gross idiosyncrasy of man to think that they are conscious of all of their decisions.

I'm fine with understanding that we are conscious of at least "some" if not all of our decisions.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You said we can just focus on the one type of atheism. I agreed; implicit atheism.

If this type of atheism doesn't apply to you then whats the point in discussing it? Which type of Atheism applies to you?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have already exhaustively explained the three fundamental beliefs (which are generally applicable to all beliefs) and now you are just being pedantic.

A) Non-awareness=no belief or disbelief
B) No belief or disbelief=implicit atheism
C) We are born with no awareness of God
Thus,
C3) We are born Implicit Atheists

Stop being silly.

Are you an implicit atheist now? The OP asked "Why are you an Atheist" you stated...

Originally Posted by O'nus

Firstly, everyone is born Atheist because, in its strict definition, it is the lack of belief in something.

You as well as other atheist who gave an answer, gave this same answer in some form of fashion. You're an Atheist now but it's not because of C3)Thats the problem I have with your statement it's misleading. Stop trying to sugar-coat the term and just be real with what you are. If you do not like the idea of God and you reject the idea of God, that's your opinion and you're entitled to that. I'm not going to criticize you. So there's nothing to be afraid of.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Now you are just trying to start an argument where there is none.

The flat out rejection of God is fundamentalism and you ought to find that there are not many Atheists that are actually like that.

I like the "not many" part of this statement. Are you willing to concur that there are at least "some" atheist that flat out reject the existence of God? What do they call this type of Atheist?

Originally Posted by O'nus

+ Everyone is born implicit atheist (let us also not forget that we are "atheist" towards everything)
+ We develop a belief taught to us from our family
+ We then adapt a sense of identity and test it throughout time

Also, you are still being a complete stubborn fool by not accepting the ideal that Atheism is fully capable of accepting God given the proper evidence and reasoning. Where there is none, one is not rejecting God, they simply do not see reason to believe in it.

If you do not accept something then you do what? You deny something. In the same sense they deny the existence based off the fact that they see no reason at this point to accept the existence. If you deny something is that not the same as rejecting something? So what exactly is a "gnostic atheist?"

Originally Posted by O'nus

Many Atheists would love to believe in God, if there were a reason.

Maybe many, perhaps some, but not all. If you can understand that then you can see my point.

Lets just cut to the chase and get right down to the bottom of YOUR position as an Atheist.

This is my understanding of Atheism in a general sense, which means "lack of belief" in something am I correct?

Now which kind of "lack of belief" is this?

• Absence of belief that a claim or something is true?
  
• Having a complete ignorance about something, as in a state of non-awareness about it?
  
• The act of not associating oneself to any particular commitment to a position, but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I can agree I see no general use for such classification systems either and this is exactly the point I'm arguing. Also keep in mind that I did not create the sub-categories.

Ne-yo, you're being very over-argumentative over something and really trying hard to antagonize rather than reconcile.

You must realize that the definitions I used for Atheism are applicable to every belief system.

Fundamentalism - Unyielding adherence to a belief.
Passive - A considerable transient or arbitrary belief in something. This is the state in which we believe in something but certainly open to the idea of being wrong. This is also referred to as being "open-minded"
Implicit - Believing or adhering to a certain belief system unknowingly or accidentally.

These three, which I have used for Atheism, can be applied to any belief system.

Take Christianity, for example:
- Fundamentalist Christians; believe in God no matter what
- Passive Christians; those that belief in God but open to the idea that they could be wrong
- Implicit Christians; those that have beliefs that are parallel to Christianity but not knowing of the whole institution yet.

Implicit believers are usually those that end up saying, "Oh hey, that is exactly what I believe - cool, I am X now."

Passive believers are usually those that end up saying, "Oh I believe this, but I am certainly always open to discussion."

Fundamentalist believers are usually those that end up saying, "Oh I believe this. There is no way you could persuade me otherwise."

Well one problem with this. You see that particular classification has already been coined. It's called Agnosticism.

That is not Agnosticism. You do not seem to even understand the terms at use here.

Taken from the Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


"Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, it seems (perhaps independently) to have been introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society
....
He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to the unknown God in his letter to the Ephesians. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful.
...
Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief."

+ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/at...agnosticism/#3

The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:

agnostic
/agnostik/

• noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

+ http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agnostic?view=uk

Please carefully understand these terms before you begin to execute them in discussion. I hope you are willing to accept that.

I agree with this, no child is really capable of making an actual certainty about anything, but unless I'm wrong I think it's safe to say you are no longer a child.

Do not forget, you are never conscious of all the decisions you make in your life. If you follow the link in my signature, as I said before, you will find my arguments (and proof) of this.

I'm fine with understanding that we are conscious of at least "some" if not all of our decisions.

It is arguable that you are conscious of none of your decisions. No right minded cognitive scientist would say that you are conscious of all your decisions, but most will agree on some. Even in this case, how are you certain of the ones that you are and are not?

If you can manage to determine that, then you have performed an unspeakable miracle that breaks the very boundaries of mind and reality.

If this type of atheism doesn't apply to you then whats the point in discussing it? Which type of Atheism applies to you?

Stop muddling up the discussion. I specifically said we are all born Atheists. I said nothing about me. Why are you trying to confuse things?

Pay attention.

Are you an implicit atheist now? The OP asked "Why are you an Atheist" you stated...

Of course I am not an implicit atheist. Stop being dumb.

You as well as other atheist who gave an answer, gave this same answer in some form of fashion. You're an Atheist now but it's not because of C3)Thats the problem I have with your statement it's misleading. Stop trying to sugar-coat the term and just be real with what you are. If you do not like the idea of God and you reject the idea of God, that's your opinion and you're entitled to that. I'm not going to criticize you. So there's nothing to be afraid of.

I am not rejecting God. Pay attention. I have the decency to read your posts, I expect the same in turn. Please do not prove yourself to be another ignorant and negligent neanderthal that cannot even carry a conversation proper without trying to fulfill their ego somehow. Believe it or not, I consider it a greater victory to admit you were wrong about something.

Unfortunately, it is not I in this case.

You are being completely ignorant to the idea that Atheism is not an independent belief system but a residual constituent of others. It is unfair to categorize and be so prejudice on your part.

Have you considered that Buddhists are technically Atheist?
How about Wiccans?
Pagans?
What of Existentialism?
Humanism?
Universalism?
Ba'hai? (Gray line here, haha)

You're arguing something that you obviously have not explored much. I hope that you are open-minded enough to actually learn from it and not to try and prove yourself somehow. There is much more reward from learning and humility than there is praise and arrogance.

I like the "not many" part of this statement. Are you willing to concur that there are at least "some" atheist that flat out reject the existence of God? What do they call this type of Atheist?

I have already said that; fundamentalism!

Are you just plain stupid or deliberately antagonizing?

If you make another statement as such, I trust you will understand if I side on the former.

If you do not accept something then you do what? You deny something. In the same sense they deny the existence based off the fact that they see no reason at this point to accept the existence. If you deny something is that not the same as rejecting something? So what exactly is a "gnostic atheist?"

You are still being ignorant.

Let me demonstrate your ignorance through example;

Do you believe in aliens?

This is a very commonplace question and very easily answered. However, we will soon learn that the question is prepositional (like you are).

Possible answers:
1) Yes - I believe that there are aliens.
2) No - I do not believe there could possibly be aliens.

This is all that you are allowing in a parallel example.

What about though..

3) There could be aliens, but I cannot weight that there is or not because we do not have the evidence.

How is the question prepositional? Because it is demanding that you answer if you believe or not. You can easily be open-minded about it but not fundamentalist about it either.

Maybe many, perhaps some, but not all. If you can understand that then you can see my point.

Sarcasm only demonstrates your lacking perspicacity to debate intellectually. I understand that position if you deliberately want to be a delusional troglodyte for the rest of your life.

Lets just cut to the chase and get right down to the bottom of YOUR position as an Atheist.

I think I already covered that. I hope you are not negligent to it. I am Atheist as a residual constituent of my actual beliefs.

This is my understanding of Atheism in a general sense, which means "lack of belief" in something am I correct?

Now which kind of "lack of belief" is this?

• Absence of belief that a claim or something is true?
  
• Having a complete ignorance about something, as in a state of non-awareness about it?
  
• The act of not associating oneself to any particular commitment to a position, but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief?

Pedantic semantics.

You are simply born with no beliefs.

If you are born with no beliefs, then you are atheist to all things, not just god.

Please pay attention this time.

~

...you people are putting waaaaay too much thought, time, and effort into your posts.

WOMBAT.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ne-yo, you're being very over-argumentative over something and really trying hard to antagonize rather than reconcile.

Implicit Atheism and Your atheistic position are not mutually exclusive. I will clear this one up as I move through the rest of your replies.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You must realize that the definitions I used for Atheism are applicable to every belief system.

Implicit - Believing or adhering to a certain belief system unknowingly or accidentally.

I'm not concerned with those other two but this one here I like to focus on. Explain to me how you can have a belief in something you're completely oblivious to? Furthermore you've just contradicted yourself. You stated up there that Implicit Atheism is "Believing or adhering to a certain belief system" However, you mentioned in your previous posts that Implicit Atheism is having "no belief or disbelief" Thus, whats starring you directly in your face is a bold-face contradiction. Would you care to explain how that happen????

Originally Posted by O'nus

A) Non-awareness=no belief or disbelief
B) No belief or disbelief=implicit atheism
C) We are born with no awareness of God
Thus,
C3) We are born Implicit Atheists

Originally Posted by O'nus

Implicit believers are usually those that end up saying, "Oh hey, that is exactly what I believe - cool, I am X now."

Considering as you mentioned that we are all born Implicit Atheist with no awareness of anything which is not limited to any beliefs. How is it possible we can say "Oh hey, that is exactly what I believe? Especially if you consider the fact that you're completely ignorant to any type of beliefs?

Originally Posted by O'nus

That is not Agnosticism. You do not seem to even understand the terms at use here.

Taken from the Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


"Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, it seems (perhaps independently) to have been introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society
....
He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to the unknown God in his letter to the Ephesians. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful.
...
Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief."

+ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/at...agnosticism/#3

The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:

agnostic
/agnostik/

• noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

+ http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agnostic?view=uk

Please carefully understand these terms before you begin to execute them in discussion. I hope you are willing to accept that.

It's clear an agnostic person has no belief nor disbelief concerning the existence of God their position is just there is no way to know so they will be considered neutral not believing or disbelieving.

Whereas Atheism is essentially this...

Taken from the Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/at...agnosticism/#3

The Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition defines it as:

atheism
/ˈa-the-i-zem/

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

Webster defines it as...

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity.

If you are going to accept the OED's definition for agnostic then I'm more than sure that you accept the OED's definition for atheism.

Now that we are clear on the definition of both categories we can move on. Except there is just one thing that babbles me. If Atheism is the disbelief and denial of the existence of God how can Implicit Atheism be coined as a subcategory when Implicit Atheism clearly indicates no denial or no acceptance due to a non-awareness factor? This doesn't make sense. How is that Atheism can be the denial of the existence of God but yet also be the non-denial of the existence of God? How can they possibly be both?

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is arguable that you are conscious of none of your decisions. No right minded cognitive scientist would say that you are conscious of all your decisions, but most will agree on some. Even in this case, how are you certain of the ones that you are and are not?

I'm pretty certain I am conscious of 'some' and thats enough for me.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Stop muddling up the discussion. I specifically said we are all born Atheists. I said nothing about me. Why are you trying to confuse things?

And what makes you think you're excluded from this "WE" that you mentioned? When you say 'WE' you're also including yourself, so yes, you were talking about yourself.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course I am not an implicit atheist. Stop being dumb.

Good now that we know that you're not an implicit atheist we can figure out why you are the other type of atheist, whatever that may be. Which one of those categories of atheism do you fit into? Explicit, strong, weak, positive, negative, de facto? If I am missing some feel free to include it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am not rejecting God.

If this is the case then your position seems to be in conflict with the OED's definition of atheism. You're just all mixed up aren't you.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have already said that; fundamentalism!

So it's clear that we are not born into this world as a fundamentalist atheist but yet this however is also atheism. You see the problem with all these categories of atheism that seem to conflict with one another? One can be a fundamentalist and flat out reject god and we would call this person an atheist. On the other hand one can have a non-awareness about God and although they do not accept or reject God they can also be called an atheist. Do you not see the gaping fallacy with this??

Originally Posted by O'nus

Do you believe in aliens?

No

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is a very commonplace question and very easily answered. However, we will soon learn that the question is prepositional (like you are).

Possible answers:
1) Yes - I believe that there are aliens.
2) No - I do not believe there could possibly be aliens.

I choose 2) No, so I guess I would be considered explicit atheist toward this.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is all that you are allowing in a parallel example.

What about though..

3) There could be aliens, but I cannot weight that there is or not because we do not have the evidence.

What about number 3)? If I select this one as an answer then what does that make me? Agnostic. Remember that one?

Originally Posted by O'nus

How is the question prepositional? Because it is demanding that you answer if you believe or not. You can easily be open-minded about it but not fundamentalist about it either.

Yeah I know as most agnostics are. You're not agnostic, so there is no possible number 3 for you. Unless there is something you want to tell me.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think I already covered that. I hope you are not negligent to it. I am Atheist as a residual constituent of my actual beliefs.

As you mentioned you do not reject the idea that God may exist. You do not accept it either, so it appears as if you're saying you're undecided and neutral. kind of like your number 3) in that alien example. Is this a correct analysis of your current position?

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are simply born with no beliefs.

If you are born with no beliefs, then you are atheist to all things, not just god.

Please pay attention this time.

You should really start practicing what your preaching. Because you are becoming more and more contradictory as we move forward.

Ok so number 2 is considered "lack of belief" for atheism.

• Having a complete ignorance about something, as in a state of non-awareness about it?

How can an atheist or even you as an atheist for that matter have this kind of lack of belief when you are completely conscious of the term God?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I'm not concerned with those other two but this one here I like to focus on. Explain to me how you can have a belief in something you're completely oblivious to? Furthermore you've just contradicted yourself. You stated up there that Implicit Atheism is "Believing or adhering to a certain belief system" However, you mentioned in your previous posts that Implicit Atheism is having "no belief or disbelief" Thus, whats starring you directly in your face is a bold-face contradiction. Would you care to explain how that happen????

I have already told you how ignorance is equated with atheism. It is not my fault if your too negligent to acknowledge that.

There is no contradiction; you are just failing to acknowledge the equation.

Considering as you mentioned that we are all born Implicit Atheist with no awareness of anything which is not limited to any beliefs. How is it possible we can say "Oh hey, that is exactly what I believe? Especially if you consider the fact that you're completely ignorant to any type of beliefs?

I have already explicitly told you how being ignorant is equated with atheism. Again, this is only demonstrating your lacking capability to be insightful and instead be negligent and stubborn.

It's clear an agnostic person has no belief nor disbelief concerning the existence of God their position is just there is no way to know so they will be considered neutral not believing or disbelieving.

You are still wrong.

Agnosticism is not a neutral position but the position that there is no way to ever know of God one way or another. That is still a very declarative statement and you seem to fail to understand that.

If you are going to accept the OED's definition for agnostic then I'm more than sure that you accept the OED's definition for atheism.

If you had any intelligence, you would see how what you stated only supports my position. Are you really that negligent or are you really that stupid? I really suggest you review my posts because you actually just reinforced mine. Not my fault if you are incapable of seeing it when I have even stated it in propositional form.

Now that we are clear on the definition of both categories we can move on. Except there is just one thing that babbles me. If Atheism is the disbelief and denial of the existence of God how can Implicit Atheism be coined as a subcategory when Implicit Atheism clearly indicates no denial or no acceptance due to a non-awareness factor? This doesn't make sense. How is that Atheism can be the denial of the existence of God but yet also be the non-denial of the existence of God? How can they possibly be both?

Because you are an idiot that cannot accept the idiot that how you view agnosticism is actually a form of atheism. Atheism is not the outright rejection of God; fundamentalist atheism is.

Holy crap man, pay attention.

I'm pretty certain I am conscious of 'some' and thats enough for me.

You grab onto that small piece of reality and run with it, obviously.

And what makes you think you're excluded from this "WE" that you mentioned? When you say 'WE' you're also including yourself, so yes, you were talking about yourself.

Your completely taking this out of context and equivocating the point. Of course I am including myself in that, you fool. I am saying that we are not talking about me but what I was saying.

Pay attention.

Good now that we know that you're not an implicit atheist we can figure out why you are the other type of atheist, whatever that may be. Which one of those categories of atheism do you fit into? Explicit, strong, weak, positive, negative, de facto? If I am missing some feel free to include it.

I already told you. I really am starting to be disappointed with you.

I thought you were smart enough to at least read things.

If this is the case then your position seems to be in conflict with the OED's definition of atheism. You're just all mixed up aren't you.

You seem to always be sarcastic at the perfect time to clearly demonstrate your complete lack of perception in others. Furthermore, it is compounded by your complete and utter negligence and voluntary ignorance.

Learn to read.

Take off the arrogant hat and actually look into what I have said.

So it's clear that we are not born into this world as a fundamentalist atheist but yet this however is also atheism. You see the problem with all these categories of atheism that seem to conflict with one another? One can be a fundamentalist and flat out reject god and we would call this person an atheist. On the other hand one can have a non-awareness about God and although they do not accept or reject God they can also be called an atheist. Do you not see the gaping fallacy with this??

I already told you that the categories of atheism are applicable to all beliefs. It is really a degree of belief and Atheism should be considered a bit different since it can easily be integrated into other belief systems; something which you are significantly failing to acknowledge.

But then again, you are significantly failing to acknowledge a lot of things. Including dictionary definitions that you even quote.

What about number 3)? If I select this one as an answer then what does that make me? Agnostic. Remember that one?

This clearly illustrates your lack of understanding as that is not even close to agnosticism. I highly suggest you try reading as you may find that how you are describing agnosticism is actually atheism.

Honestly, I have never seen someone go far into an argument with a mis-understanding of a word.

Yeah I know as most agnostics are. You're not agnostic, so there is no possible number 3 for you. Unless there is something you want to tell me.

Agnostics are not that open-minded at all. If you actually understood what agnostics were, you would already know that.

If you ask an agnostic, they would say, "There is no way we could ever know, by any means, if there are aliens or not."

When are you actually going to sit down and read the definitions? Are you really that illiterate?

As you mentioned you do not reject the idea that God may exist. You do not accept it either, so it appears as if you're saying you're undecided and neutral. kind of like your number 3) in that alien example. Is this a correct analysis of your current position?

Yes, oh my crap.

You should really start practicing what your preaching. Because you are becoming more and more contradictory as we move forward.

Of course I seem contradictory to you because you are completely failing to actually use the words right. If I was convinced you were an atheist, I too would be saying things like, "lol ne-yo, you're so contradictory, hurr dur hurr" but if only you could see how dumb it really makes you look - I hope that you can and then learn from it.

Ok so number 2 is considered "lack of belief" for atheism.

• Having a complete ignorance about something, as in a state of non-awareness about it?

How can an atheist or even you as an atheist for that matter have this kind of lack of belief when you are completely conscious of the term God?

Seriously.. go read man. You're embarrassing.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have already told you how ignorance is equated with atheism. It is not my fault if your too negligent to acknowledge that.

There is no contradiction; you are just failing to acknowledge the equation.

You obviously do not know the meaning of the word ignorance. Let me fill you in, since you're apparently clueless. I should not have to explain this to you.

Ignorance:

The condition of being unaware, uneducated, uniformed.
It's a condition of non-awareness completely and ultimately oblivious to something.

Now lets recap.

I asked you what is implicit atheism: You stated...

Originally Posted by O'nus

B) No belief or disbelief=implicit atheism
C) We are born with no awareness of God
Thus,
C3) We are born Implicit Atheists

A few post later you stated Implicit atheism is this..

Originally Posted by O'nus

You must realize that the definitions I used for Atheism are applicable to every belief system.

Implicit - Believing or adhering to a certain belief system unknowingly or accidentally.

You do not see this huge ass contradiction starring you in your face???

You stated: implicit atheism is no belief or disbelief in something.
You stated: implicit atheism is a belief in something.

If you have a belief in something, do you really consider that being in state of complete unawareness? If you do then, "dude wtf! Are you kidding me??

I'll give you another chance to explain this contradiction you've made.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You must realize that the definitions I used for Atheism are applicable to every belief system.

Implicit - Believing or adhering to a certain belief system unknowingly or accidentally.

I'm not concerned with those other two but this one here I like to focus on. Explain to me how you can have a belief in something you're completely oblivious to? Furthermore you've just contradicted yourself. You stated up there that Implicit Atheism is "Believing or adhering to a certain belief system" However, you mentioned in your previous posts that Implicit Atheism is having "no belief or disbelief" Thus, whats starring you directly in your face is a bold-face contradiction. Would you care to explain how that happen????

Originally Posted by O'nus

Originally Posted by O'nus
A) Non-awareness=no belief or disbelief
B) No belief or disbelief=implicit atheism
C) We are born with no awareness of God
Thus,
C3) We are born Implicit Atheists

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have already explicitly told you how being ignorant is equated with atheism. Again, this is only demonstrating your lacking capability to be insightful and instead be negligent and stubborn.

Ignorance is equated with atheism you say?
Here we go again.

Taken from the Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

How can you be in denial of something you are completely unaware of?

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are still wrong.

Agnosticism is not a neutral position but the position that there is no way to ever know of God one way or another. That is still a very declarative statement and you seem to fail to understand that.

Well the burden of proof is on you as you should know already. Show me a definition of agnosticism that says they have a belief or disbelief in something. Show me an agnostic person that has a belief or disbelief in something and I'll show you another huge contradiction.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you had any intelligence, you would see how what you stated only supports my position. Are you really that negligent or are you really that stupid? I really suggest you review my posts because you actually just reinforced mine. Not my fault if you are incapable of seeing it when I have even stated it in propositional form.

What I stated supports your position? Which part of what I stated supports your position? You failed to quote me on it. Or is this just a way for you to try and weasle out of that huge contradiction you made?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Because you are an idiot that cannot accept the idiot that how you view agnosticism is actually a form of atheism. Atheism is not the outright rejection of God; fundamentalist atheism is.

Holy crap man, pay attention.

Stop trying to separate the two Atheism is Atheism. It is what it is. As much as you argue against theist here on this forum with regards to how wrong the bible appears to be or how stupid is it for someone to believe in god. I would categorize you as an atheist and a fundamentalist atheist at that. How do you like those apples??? It really shouldn't matter whether fundamentalist or not their both the same damn thing anyway.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Your completely taking this out of context and equivocating the point. Of course I am including myself in that, you fool. I am saying that we are not talking about me but what I was saying.

Pay attention.

Dude whatever, I've made it clear to you time and time again through this discussion that we are talking about 'Your' position as an atheist. You can't speak for every other atheist on this board.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

How can an atheist or even you as an atheist for that matter have this kind of lack of belief when you are completely conscious of the term God?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If this type of atheism doesn't apply to you then whats the point in discussing it? Which type of Atheism applies to you?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Lets just cut to the chase and get right down to the bottom of YOUR position as an Atheist.

It can't get any more clear than that. However, just in case you missed it. We are discussing YOUR position as an Atheist. Do you see that? Is it clear to you now?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I already told you. I really am starting to be disappointed with you.

I thought you were smart enough to at least read things.

Why are you dodging this question??? You act as if you have something to be ashamed of. I'll make it easier for you. Which category of atheism does an Humanist Existentialist fall into? Better yet you do not even have to answer it, it's not like I'm going to get an answer from you anyway.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You seem to always be sarcastic at the perfect time to clearly demonstrate your complete lack of perception in others. Furthermore, it is compounded by your complete and utter negligence and voluntary ignorance.

Well since you didn't explain yourself, then I'll take it as true. Your position is inconsistent with atheism. At this point it's probably no reason to discuss this any further considering we may have gotten down to the bottom of it but there's more, so we will see what is the final verdict at the end.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I already told you that the categories of atheism are applicable to all beliefs. It is really a degree of belief and Atheism should be considered a bit different since it can easily be integrated into other belief systems; something which you are significantly failing to acknowledge.

All beliefs you say? You ever heard of an atheist that is convicted to the belief that God exist?

Originally Posted by O'nus

But then again, you are significantly failing to acknowledge a lot of things. Including dictionary definitions that you even quote.

The definition appears pretty cut and dry. Keywords are of importance. Disbelief, denial, negative, rejection, refusal, negation.These are just some of the few that sums up atheism.

You do not see words like, unaware, ignorance, oblivious, incognizant, unknowing, negligent. These are words that would sum up agnosticism.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This clearly illustrates your lack of understanding as that is not even close to agnosticism. I highly suggest you try reading as you may find that how you are describing agnosticism is actually atheism.

Yeah, yeah, is it really that much of a big difference to you? On one hand you have. Nothing can be known one way or the other. On the other hand you have. I do not know if it is or not until sufficient evidence is applied. They both appear to state the same thing in different fashions. In both cases it seems neither statement appears to know. It doesn't look way off to me, it looks pretty much on point.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Honestly, I have never seen someone go far into an argument with a mis-understanding of a word.

Honestly, I have never seen someone go far into an argument without clearing up a huge contradiction they've asserted and then try to say they didn't, when it's clear as day.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Agnostics are not that open-minded at all. If you actually understood what agnostics were, you would already know that.

If you ask an agnostic, they would say, "There is no way we could ever know, by any means, if there are aliens or not."

When are you actually going to sit down and read the definitions? Are you really that illiterate?

Here is a good bit of information for you. Just because something is unattainable to the eye doesn't mean it's rejected or accepted it's merely a factor of being unsure. In any case, it's not longer a factor of being oblivious to something. You either accept (me) reject (you) or undecided (agnostic) belief or disbelief is pending. That's all agnosticism is.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes, oh my crap.

So you say you're neutral now? Do you really think that you are? You're words and actions are inconsistent because you actively promote the rejection of creation. Reject creationism and you reject God. Well what do you know! It appears we have yet another bold-face contradiction.

Originally Posted by O'nus

evolution is true and creation is not.

and another...

Originally Posted by O'nus

The better question is; to what extent of knowledge does man require to understand that God is not involved in our lives?

and another...

Originally Posted by O'nus

You can replace "God" in this statement with anything - it does not necessitate it's existence.

and another...

Originally Posted by O'nus

A) God is God
B) God exists because of God
Thus,
C1) God exists.

This is illogic but is the crux of faith.

Dude you're just full of these contradictions. You're not fooling anyone, your actions do not lie, you reject, you think everything pertaining to God is inaccurate and flat out wrong and you think the idea of God is wrong and illogical. Now we've cleared your position up in it's entirety. You're a fundamentalist atheist. What's the point in even debating with you if your actions are not consistent with any of your words not to mention all of your huge contradictions. You're overrated by your peers here, live with that one.

Fixed!

But there's no evidence for God.

I doubt there would be any atheist if there was undeniable proofs and evidence that any deity existed. The different story is if they were one to worship that deity.

I see no reason why someone would want to be so fierce to deny possibility of a deity. The point is that there is simply no logical reason to believe, to have faith in any deity, since there are absolutely no proof. It seriously cannot be any of the gods descripted in those "holy scriptures". A pure logic denies that.

There is a great chance that there is a passive, malicious, bored god who likes to see people suffer and driven insane. He performs miracles any now and then and then people who witness it are stoned in their villages. He just laughts and takes another beer. Now that is a more probable than any other description for god there is.

The teaching in this funny little thing can be found here.

Spoiler for The Truth of Life:

Very superstitious, writing's on the wall,
Very superstitious, ladders bout' to fall,
Thirteen month old baby, broke the lookin' glass
Seven years of bad luck, the good things in your past.

When you believe in things that you don't understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain't the way

Very superstitious, wash your face and hands,
Rid me of the problem, do all that you can,
Keep me in a daydream, keep me goin' strong,
You don't wanna save me, sad is my song.

When you believe in things that you don't understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain't the way, yeah, yeah.

Very superstitious, nothin' more to say,
Very superstitious, the devil's on his way,
Thirteen month old baby, broke the lookin' glass,
Seven years of bad luck, good things in your past

When you believe in things that you don't understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain't the way, no, no, no

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You do not see this huge ass contradiction starring you in your face???

If you have a belief in something, do you really consider that being in state of complete unawareness? If you do then, "dude wtf! Are you kidding me??

I'm not concerned with those other two but this one here I like to focus on. Explain to me how you can have a belief in something you're completely oblivious to? Furthermore you've just contradicted yourself. You stated up there that Implicit Atheism is "Believing or adhering to a certain belief system" However, you mentioned in your previous posts that Implicit Atheism is having "no belief or disbelief" Thus, whats starring you directly in your face is a bold-face contradiction. Would you care to explain how that happen????

You seem to think that you found a contradiction in my argument because of the use of the word belief in conjunction with atheism.

However, you are completely ignoring the word IMPLICIT. Do you know what that word means?

It means that you have a set of ideas that are implicated within another. However, this does not necessitate the acknowledgment of the other.

In other words, you can believe in something and it implies you believe in something else.

In other words, you can have no beliefs, and it is still implicative of the word "atheism".

Do not forget that ATHEISM is not a belief in something. Are you really that daft and desperate for an argument? You're making things up now.

I'll give you another chance to explain this contradiction you've made.

This contradiction you have found is entirely conjured up by your complete misunderstanding and lacking ability to read.

Ignorance is equated with atheism you say?
Here we go again.

Taken from the Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

How can you be in denial of something you are completely unaware of?

This quote explicitly demonstrates your utter negligence to the word IMPLICIT.

I am really beginning to be disappointed with you. I expected more.

Well the burden of proof is on you as you should know already. Show me a definition of agnosticism that says they have a belief or disbelief in something. Show me an agnostic person that has a belief or disbelief in something and I'll show you another huge contradiction.

Agnosticism is the belief that you can never know for certain or ever confirm your beliefs. You seem to have muddled up the definition again. Please go read.

What I stated supports your position? Which part of what I stated supports your position? You failed to quote me on it. Or is this just a way for you to try and weasle out of that huge contradiction you made?

Wow, you are really going off into this tangent that you've completely made up on your own. You know, I would honestly be embarrassed if I were you but here you are really trying to convince me that what you are saying is what I said. But it's not. You're just being stubborn now.

Stop trying to separate the two Atheism is Atheism. It is what it is. As much as you argue against theist here on this forum with regards to how wrong the bible appears to be or how stupid is it for someone to believe in god. I would categorize you as an atheist and a fundamentalist atheist at that. How do you like those apples??? It really shouldn't matter whether fundamentalist or not their both the same damn thing anyway.

No they are not.

Now I know you are ignorant and, in fact, prejudice.

I really hope you have the intelligence to see how because you are actually being a complete ignoramus now. Your quote here illustrates the problem with peoples understanding of Atheism and your complete lacking interest in trying to learn otherwise but, instead, arrogant about your position.

Honestly, you have just lost a great deal of respect from me here. I really hope you at least try to reconcile this position as it really offends me.

Dude whatever, I've made it clear to you time and time again through this discussion that we are talking about 'Your' position as an atheist. You can't speak for every other atheist on this board.

It can't get any more clear than that. However, just in case you missed it. We are discussing YOUR position as an Atheist. Do you see that? Is it clear to you now?

Again, I have talked about mine and how it is implicated. But here you are now insisting that I am a fundamentalist.

Honestly, I have little interest in talking to a bigot.

Why are you dodging this question??? You act as if you have something to be ashamed of. I'll make it easier for you. Which category of atheism does an Humanist Existentialist fall into? Better yet you do not even have to answer it, it's not like I'm going to get an answer from you anyway.

Implied Atheism. You assclown.

Holy crap - you really refuse to read, don't you? I think you are really convinced you are just right about everything and can never be proven wrong.

The answer to your question is in the simplicity of the defined words which you are ignoring for the sake of, I think, an argument.

All beliefs you say? You ever heard of an atheist that is convicted to the belief that God exist?

Do you know what the word ADJECTIVE means? Because if you had any knowledge of English, you might see how embarrassingly wrong you are here.

The definition appears pretty cut and dry. Keywords are of importance. Disbelief, denial, negative, rejection, refusal, negation.These are just some of the few that sums up atheism.

You do not see words like, unaware, ignorance, oblivious, incognizant, unknowing, negligent. These are words that would sum up agnosticism.

That's because we are talking about implications, not fundamentalism or conscious/cognitive/volitional belief in something.

Remember, we are born without any beliefs in anything. How many times must this be said till you actually read what I am saying?

Honestly, I have never seen someone go far into an argument without clearing up a huge contradiction they've asserted and then try to say they didn't, when it's clear as day.

Like I said, you have made up the contradiction out of your own inability to read.

Or know what the word adjective means.

Here is a good bit of information for you. Just because something is unattainable to the eye doesn't mean it's rejected or accepted it's merely a factor of being unsure. In any case, it's not longer a factor of being oblivious to something. You either accept (me) reject (you) or undecided (agnostic) belief or disbelief is pending. That's all agnosticism is.

This quote again illustrates your complete stupidity now.

Belief in God;
Accept; Theism
Reject; Fundamentlist Atheism and Agnosticism
Undecided; Atheism

Yes, only fundamentalist atheism would be in flat rejection.

You clearly are still failing to understand agnosticism and especially atheism.

Please prove to us that you are not a bigot.

So you say you're neutral now? Do you really think that you are? You're words and actions are inconsistent because you actively promote the rejection of creation. Reject creationism and you reject God. Well what do you know! It appears we have yet another bold-face contradiction.

You.. are such.. an idiot.. oh my. Go read.

and another...

and another...

and another...

Wow, you're off in your own fantasy land. Honestly, reading this makes me red-faced for you. It's like watching someone try to sing for an audition and they sound like a retard with a cloth in their mouth.

Dude you're just full of these contradictions. You're not fooling anyone, your actions do not lie, you reject, you think everything pertaining to God is inaccurate and flat out wrong and you think the idea of God is wrong and illogical. Now we've cleared your position up in it's entirety. You're a fundamentalist atheist. What's the point in even debating with you if your actions are not consistent with any of your words not to mention all of your huge contradictions. You're overrated by your peers here, live with that one.

I AM NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST!

You are seriously pissing me off and significantly losing my respect at great lengths now. You are making up shit on your own and now fucking insulting me. Stop being so damn prejudice and insulting and actually fucking read what I am saying!

Holy fucking shit. It never ceases that some random prejudice asshole still has the ability to make me want to just reach out and strangle a puppy. I cannot believe how stupid you are. Seriously.

I'm just going to fucking delete this thread if you show your prejudicial behaviour again.

I've never been so goddam insulted by anyone on DV - and I never thought it would be from ignorance.

Fixed!

...

*Facepalm*

~

What made me so lucky that I got to live to age nineteen in a rich country while three year olds get murdered in Africa as part of a political move by the state? This question sums it up for me. If there is a God, and he did this on purpose with the power to stop it, then FUCK him.

I think it pertinent, as I am a major participant in the discussion right here, to mention this now created thread:

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...35#post1208335

~