Is atheism just a "true for me" thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I actually am not sure what the statement true for me but not anyone else means".
But for those who do a) can you tell us and b) tell us if atheism is just a "true for me" thing.

[Roses]

No one can say with certainty no god exists. It think it is improbable that if there is such an external entity it is anything like the ones humans have created.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No one can say with certainty no god exists. It think it is improbable that if there is such an external entity it is anything like the ones humans have created.

Thanks for your reply
And yet people are happy to call themselves atheists so is that a "true for me position" would you say?

[Roses]

Thanks for your reply
And yet people are happy to call themselves atheists so is that a "true for me position" would you say?

My husband is a convinced atheist. As I have mentioned before he claims to have had some sort of experience whilst in a coma, which convinced him beyond all doubt that no god or afterlife exists. I don't give his 'experience' anymore credence than I do of those who claim the opposite, and god came through for them.

[BeRational]

I actually am not sure what the statement true for me but not anyone else means".
But for those who do a) can you tell us and b) tell us if atheism is just a "true for me" thing.

It is not a claim.

It is a rejection of the claim that gods exist, because they have not met the burden of proof.

Atheism is the default position until you accept the theistic claims.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is not a claim.

It is a rejection of the claim that gods exist, because they have not met the burden of proof.

Atheism is the default position until you accept the theistic claims.

How does that not imply a naturalistic universe?

Since you are saying the universe or more properly existence Has nothing like a god in
It?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My husband is a convinced atheist. As I have mentioned before he claims to have had some sort of experience whilst in a coma, which convinced him beyond all doubt that no god or afterlife exists. I don't give his 'experience' anymore credence

If you describe your self as an atheist then how do you say you are giving it less credence.
That question needn't be rhetorical.

[BeRational]

How does that not imply a naturalistic universe?

Since you are saying the universe or more properly existence Has nothing like a god in
It?

Atheists do not say that there is no god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheists do not say that there is no god.

Then you are suggesting thatLittleroses husband isn't an atheist? He sounds profoundly atheist to me

[BeRational]

Then you are suggesting thatLittleroses husband isn't an atheist? He sounds profoundly atheist to me

If someone says there is no god, then they are an atheist, but they then have the burden of proof.

I do not believe the is a god, and I do not believe there is not god

[bluehillside Retd.]

Feeding time!

[SteveH]

If someone says there is no god, then they are an atheist, but they then have the burden of proof.

I do not believe the is a god, and I do not believe there is not god

That makes absolutely no sense.

[BeRational]

That makes absolutely no sense.

My lawn has either and even or odd number of blades of grass.

Do you believe the number is even?

If not does that mean you believe it is odd?

The correct response if to accept that I do not know, and have no reason to believe either.

Does this make sense now?

[SteveH]

My lawn has either and even or odd number of blades of grass.

Do you believe the number is even?

If not does that mean you believe it is odd?

The correct response if to accept that I do not know, and have no reason to believe either.

Does this make sense now?

No. The number of blades of grass is unknowable, and there are no arguments one way or the other. There are arguments for and against God, and whether you believe in God's existance (not know) depends on which you find persuasive.

[SteveH]

I've just done a google in the hope of discovering that grass blades always grow in pairs, so that I could go ner-ner-na-ner-ner at you, but it appears not to be the case. Damn.

[Gordon]

No. The number of blades of grass is unknowable, and there are no arguments one way or the other.

It is knowable: you could count them all, that you don't know prior to counting doesn't mean the number of blades of grass can never be known (if you could be bothered that is).
 

There are arguments for and against God, and whether you believe in God's existance (not know depends on which you find persuasive.

That isn't the point. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't claim as an item of knowledge that there is no god but that there are no good reasons to think so. On the other hand a gnostic theist would say that they know (as an item of knowledge) that there is no god, and you'd be entitled to ask them to demonstrate their claim that there is no god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is knowable: you could count them all, that you don't know prior to counting doesn't mean the number of blades of grass can never be known (if you could be bothered that is).
 
That isn't the point. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't claim as an item of knowledge that there is no god but that there are no good reasons to think so. On the other hand a gnostic theist would say that they know (as an item of knowledge) that there is no god, and you'd be entitled to ask them to demonstrate their claim that there is no god.

How are you distinguishing " good reason" from "reason".

[Gordon]

How are you distinguishing " good reason" from "reason".

'Good' reasons would involve reasoning that on review aren't fallacious or incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Good' reasons would involve reasoning that on review aren't fallacious or incoherent.

Can you Give an example relevant to this forum.

[Gordon]

Can you Give an example relevant to this forum.

Nope: you know what they are anyway, Vlad - after all they've been mentioned often enough (unless you haven't been paying attention).
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope: you know what they are anyway, Vlad - after all they've been mentioned often enough (unless you haven't been paying attention).

I think you have misread me I asked for an example of good reasoning pertinent to this forum.

Can you explain the what is unreasonable about that request?

[Gordon]

I think you have misread me I asked for an example of good reasoning pertinent to this forum.

Can you explain the what is unreasonable about that request?

The context of my 'no good reasons', which you reacted to, was in relation to arguments offered in support of theism (the usual suspects) - but you know this already, Vlad, so your attempt to change the context of my remark is a big fail for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Nope: you know what they are anyway, Vlad - after all they've been mentioned often enough (unless you haven't been paying attention).

Quite. He knows perfectly well (or has no excuse for not knowing given how often it’s been explained to him) that logic is objectively verifiable – an argument is logically sound or it’s logically false. He also knows that atheism entails only finding arguments made for “god” to be logically false, for exactly the same reasons he’d find them to be logically false too if they were used to argue for something else.

If someone believes sincerely that there is a god (or anything else with no validating logic) that’s a subjective truth just for him, but that’s all it is.

What Vlad hopes to get from this is anyone’s guess – attention presumably – but it just pollutes this mb.

[BeRational]

No. The number of blades of grass is unknowable, and there are no arguments one way or the other. There are arguments for and against God, and whether you believe in God's existance (not know) depends on which you find persuasive.

Can you count?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

Quite. He knows perfectly well (or has no excuse for not knowing given how often it’s been explained to him) that logic is objectively verifiable – an argument is logically sound or it’s logically false. He also knows that atheism entails only finding arguments made for “god” to be logically false, for exactly the same reasons he’d find them to be logically false too if they were used to argue for something else.

If someone believes sincerely that there is a god (or anything else with no validating logic) that’s a subjective truth just for him, but that’s all it is.

What Vlad hopes to get from this is anyone’s guess – attention presumably – but it just pollutes this mb.

Like the universe Hillside is infintely regressing his refutations of the reasons for theism. His previous post is how the refutations are in a previous post and this has gone on and on hence his inability to produce the refutations.