Is atheism just a "true for me" thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

As Vlad has just run away from the explanation for why atheism isn't just a personal truth (because the logic attempted for theism is objectively falsifiable) as fast as his little legs could carry him I think we're done here are we not?

What those individual arguments happen to be is of course a different matter entirely.

[BeRational]

I cannot understand after all this time, why some people assume that all atheists make the claim that god(s) do not exist.

Do they really not get it, or just like to keep repeating this daft assertion from time to time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Vlad has just run away from the explanation for why atheism isn't just a personal truth (because the logic attempted for theism is objectively falsifiable) as fast as his little legs could carry him I think we're done here are we not?

What those individual arguments happen to be is of course a different matter entirely.

Lets see the falsification of theism then.

[Enki]

For me, my atheism consists of not believing in any gods. Obviously it is true for me that I don't believe in any gods. The fact that others may say that they actually believe in god X  means that it can't be true for them.  So, in such cases, it simply means that it is true for me but not necessarily true for others.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

I cannot understand after all this time, why some people assume that all atheists make the claim that god(s) do not exist.

Do they really not get it, or just like to keep repeating this daft assertion from time to time?

I think they must get it as the point is so simple - I for one have explained it to this particular poster 4,687, 471 times already by my count. Just yer basic attention seeking maybe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I cannot understand after all this time, why some people assume that all atheists make the claim that god(s) do not exist.

Do they really not get it, or just like to keep repeating this daft assertion from time to time?

Who said all do?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Me:

As Vlad has just run away from the explanation for why atheism isn't just a personal truth (because the logic attempted for theism is objectively falsifiable) as fast as his little legs could carry him I think we're done here are we not?

What those individual arguments happen to be is of course a different matter entirely.

Vlad:

Lets see the falsification of theism then.

QED

Why the difference between falsifiable and falsified is so challenging to this poster is anyone's guess. Mine is that it's not challenging at all, he's just attention seeking. I could be wrong about that though.

[BeRational]

Who said all do?

You think because I am an atheist I therefore believe there is not god.

Do you accept that I do NOT believe there is no god or gods?

If you get that, then progress has been made.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

You think because I am an atheist I therefore believe there is not god.

Do you accept that I do NOT believe there is no god or gods?

If you get that, then progress has been made.

Never gonna happen. If he got past that, he'd lose half his bait.

A better way to put it by the way perhaps is that atheism (rather than atheists) does not require the statement "there are no gods".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You think because I am an atheist I therefore believe there is not god.

Do you accept that I do NOT believe there is no god or gods?

If you get that, then progress has been made.

Not necessarily since several people self identified as atheist have said that they dont know if there is a god but that is there opinion that there isnt.

I dont believed Ive ever given you a label.

[BeRational]

Not necessarily since several people self identified as atheist have said that they dont know if there is a god but that is there opinion that there isnt.

I dont believed Ive ever given you a label.

Do you understand that atheism is NOT the claim that gods do not exist.

You need to understand that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you understand that atheism is NOT the claim that gods do not exist.

You need to understand that.

Ok You say that that is what it is not.
What do you say it is?

[BeRational]

Ok You say that that is what it is not.
What do you say it is?

It is not believing that a god or gods exist.

How is it after all this time you do not understand this most simple concept?

[SteveH]

It is not believing that a god or gods exist.

How is it after all this time you do not understand this most simple concept?

If you don't believe that a god or gods exist, you believe, and therefore claim, that no god or gods exist. You're the one complicating the simple.

[BeRational]

If you don't believe that a god or gods exist, you believe, and therefore claim, that no god or gods exist. You're the one complicating the simple.

NO NO NO NO NO.

Do you believe my lawn has an even number of blades of grass.
If you say No, does that mean that you believe it has an odd number?

Do you not understand the very simple concept that you accept neither.

I do not believe there are an even number AND I do not believe it has an odd number.

I cannot accept claim as there is no evidence. I know it MUST be one of them, but until evidence is produced it is logical to not accept either claim.

Do you understand?

This is logic 101.

[SteveH]

That is bollocks 101. There are arguments for the existance or non-existance of God. There are no arguments for the evenness or oddness of the blades of grass.

[BeRational]

That is bollocks 101. There are arguments for the existance or non-existance of God. There are no arguments for the evenness or oddness of the blades of grass.

It is a simple example to make the point.

Why is this so hard.

Do you believe my lawn has an even number?

if not, can I then conclude that you think it has an odd number?

Do you understand the statement "I DO NOT BELIEVE X"

Does NOT "I BELIEVE X IS FALSE"

If you cannot understand that, then all logic will fail for you.

[SteveH]

Sigh.
TTFN.

[Enki]

If you don't believe that a god or gods exist, you believe, and therefore claim, that no god or gods exist. You're the one complicating the simple.

I don't understand your logic. Why can't I simply lack the belief that a god exists without having to move to a position that I am claiming that no god exists?

[BeRational]

Sigh.
TTFN.

Sigh also, logic is not your thing?

[SteveH]

Sigh also, logic is not your thing?

Yes, logic is my thing. Your nonsense about blades of grass is just ridiculous. There are either an even number or an odd number of blades of grass; the chance of either is 50%. There is no default position, and therefore no burden of proof. God either exists or does not exist, but here the non-existsance claim is the default; the burden of proof is on the believer to demonstrate that God's existance is more likely than not, other wise non-belief wins, because the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. Can we therefore please hear no more nonsense about lawns?

[Enki]

Yes, logic is my thing. Your nonsense about blades of grass is just ridiculous. There are either an even number or an odd number of blades of grass; the chance of either is 50%. There is no default position, and therefore no burden of proof. God either exists or does not exist, but here the non-existsance claim is the default; the burden of proof is on the believer to demonstrate that God's existance is more likely than not, other wise non-belief wins, because the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. Can we therefore please hear no more nonsense about lawns?

So, if logic is your thing, I repeat, Why can't I simply lack the belief that a god exists without having to move to a position that I am claiming that no god exists?

[SteveH]

So, if logic is your thing, I repeat, Why can't I simply lack the belief that a god exists without having to move to a position that I am claiming that no god exists?

Because it's nonsensical. "I do not believe that x exists" = "I believe that x does not exist".

[BeRational]

Because it's nonsensical. "I do not believe that x exists" = "I believe that x does not exist".

FALSE.

That is completely wrong.

I do not believe X is true, IS NOT THE SAME AS I believe X is false.

If you cannot understand this, please never try to use logic.

[SteveH]

I give up.