Is atheism just a "true for me" thing.

[BeRational]

The arguments for God are wrong.....and therefore........?

That argument cannot be used to demonstrate that a god exists.

You need another argument.

If the argument is logically fallacious, it does not show that the conclusion is wrong, but it does show that the argument cannot demonstrate that it is correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you can just acknowledge that you now know that atheists just do not believe in a god.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It seems silly to not understand this simple term after all this time, so it would be good to put it to bed and move on.

I thought I had.
What we are trying to get to the bottom of is beliefs about God which an atheist could well have eg. God does not exist,
God might exist but I wont worship him etc etc God might exist but I act as though he doesnt.

What I am trying to get to is.Is atheism just a matter of being true just for the person in that position?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That argument cannot be used to demonstrate that a god exists.

You need another argument.

If the argument is logically fallacious, it does not show that the conclusion is wrong, but it does show that the argument cannot demonstrate that it is correct.

I have no argument over this.

[Gordon]

That might say more about you though than the arguments.

If you say you know the arguments to be wrong then that is not agnosticism.

I think you'll find that I said I 'reject' arguments for 'God(s)' as being fallacious and/or incoherent, and as such they are for me simply failed arguments: I haven't mentioned having knowledge, and clearly noted last night that I could be seen as being an agnostic atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

What bit of 'I have no beliefs about God(s)', which I've clearly stated, and you having trouble understanding?

I'd have thought my position was crystal clear on this: so, once again 'I have no beliefs about God(s) and set this out very clearly in #169 a few moments ago, and may I also refer the honourable gentleman to my #'s 129, 127 and 113 in this thread.

Perhaps you should try reading and thinking about what others say to you instead of just reacting to your own misreading of posts.

You have said the notion of God is a mess and for me that is a belief about God. For it implies that God in your view cannot exist. Agnosticism unavoidably puts the holder into the position where he cannot say whether God exists or not and that too,unless it is knowledge is a belief concerning God.

[BeRational]

You have said the notion of God is a mess and for me that is a belief about God. For it implies that God in your view cannot exist. Agnosticism unavoidably puts the holder into the position where he cannot say whether God exists or not and that too,unless it is knowledge is a belief concerning God.

I thought Gordon meant the arguments for god were a mess, as in logically bad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

What bit of 'I have no beliefs about God(s)', which I've clearly stated, and you having trouble understanding?

I'd have thought my position was crystal clear on this: so, once again 'I have no beliefs about God(s) and set this out very clearly in #169 a few moments ago, and may I also refer the honourable gentleman to my #'s 129, 127 and 113 in this thread.

Perhaps you should try reading and thinking about what others say to you instead of just reacting to your own misreading of posts.

Your claim that you have no beliefs about God contradicts tyour claim that the notion of God is an incoherent mess.

[Gordon]

You have said the notion of God is a mess and for me that is a belief about God.

You seem to be especially dense this morning: if I say a claim of '&%~we12**' is a mess does it mean that I hold a belief in '&%~we12**' OR might it mean that if I think any arguments to date in favour of '&%~we12**' are fallacious and/or incoherent I can simply dismiss '&%~we12**' until such times as an arguments is offered in support of '&%~we12**' that isn't fallacious and/or incoherent.

This isn't all that difficult, Vlad.
 

For it implies that God in your view cannot exist. Agnosticism unavoidably puts the holder into the position where he cannot say whether God exists or not and that too,unless it is knowledge is a belief concerning God.

Wrong: you really need to do some homework on what these terms mean in order that you can understand what other say to you when they use these terms: I thought I had explained clearly for you in #139 last night.

[Gordon]

Your claim that you have no beliefs about God contradicts tyour claim that the notion of God is an incoherent mess.

See my #182.

I regard the various claims of 'God(s)' to date to be an incoherent mess because the arguments offered in support of 'God(s) all fail, by dint of being fallacious and/or incoherent.

Whether or not there are 'God(s)' is another matter entirely - but until such times as there is an argument in favour of 'God(s)' that isn't fallacious and is coherent, then 'God(s) isn't a serious proposition since there are no current arguments that pass muster.

Now, before reacting I suggest you read back and engage brain (albeit I am perhaps being over-optimistic).

[BeRational]

See my #182.

I regard the various claims of 'God(s)' to date to be an incoherent mess because the arguments offered in support of 'God(s) all fail, by dint of being fallacious and/or incoherent.

Whether or not there are 'God(s)' is another matter entirely - but until such times as there is an argument in favour of 'God(s)' that isn't fallacious and is coherent, then 'God(s) isn't a serious proposition since there are no current arguments that pass muster.

Now, before reacting I suggest you read back and engage brain (albeit I am perhaps being over-optimistic).

Your position is very very clear

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I can claim a brief interlude here.
Unfortunately there are no good philosophers on this forum.Yes we have faithheads, Darth Evaders, Darth Avoiders, olympuc standard turdpolishers and yes New Atheists too....and they hate philosophy to the point that the brightest...Dr L.Krauss was easily tripped up on the Colbert show.

Gordon you start with the premise that God needs proving, needs arguing for otherwise there is nothing seriously there.

When you moan about not having evidence or crap arguments you unavoidably and inexorably start off from a belief position.

But even having exposed you as a beliefhead that isnt what I am looking for in this thread.Which is .........is atheism a matter of being true just for the person who is in that position.

[BeRational]

If I can claim a brief interlude here.
Unfortunately there are no good philosophers on this forum.Yes we have faithheads, Darth Evaders, Darth Avoiders, olympuc standard turdpolishers and yes New Atheists too....and they hate philosophy to the point that the brightest...Dr L.Krauss was easily tripped up on the Colbert show.

Gordon you start with the premise that God needs proving, needs arguing for otherwise there is nothing seriously there.

When you moan about not having evidence or crap arguments you unavoidably and inexorably start off from a belief position.

But even having exposed you as a beliefhead that isnt what I am looking for in this thread.Which is .........is atheism a matter of being true just for the person who is in that position.

I will not answer for Gordon, but I think you are wrong.

The default position for everything is that it does not exist.

The time to believe something exists, is when there is good evidence for it.

I do not make a special stance for god, I do it for everything.

[Gordon]

If I can claim a brief interlude here.
Unfortunately there are no good philosophers on this forum.Yes we have faithheads, Darth Evaders, Darth Avoiders, olympuc standard turdpolishers and yes New Atheists too....and they hate philosophy to the point that the brightest...Dr L.Krauss was easily tripped up on the Colbert show.

Gordon you start with the premise that God needs proving, needs arguing for otherwise there is nothing seriously there.

No I don't: I said that to successfully claim 'God(s)' needs an argument that isn't fallacious and/or incoherent, and I would never use the term 'prove' since it is fraught with problems.

When you moan about not having evidence or crap arguments you unavoidably and inexorably start off from a belief position.

Wrong, again.

But even having exposed you as a beliefhead that isnt what I am looking for in this thread.Which is .........is atheism a matter of being true just for the person who is in that position.

I clarified that for you last night - see #129.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I will not answer for Gordon, but I think you are wrong.

The default position for everything is that it does not exist.

The time to believe something exists, is when there is good evidence for it.

I do not make a special stance for god, I do it for everything.

The major flaw in your argument is the implication that things are proved into existence and are ontologically dependent on the argument which supports them.

As far as Gordon or anyone is concerned is it rules out agnosticism. Since the assumption or initial belièf is atheism.

I think you may have disproved Gordons claim to no velief since accordinfg to you he starts of with a point of view about God.

[BeRational]

The major flaw in your argument is the implication that things are proved into existence and are ontologically dependent on the argument which supports them.

As far as Gordon or anyone is concerned is it rules out agnosticism. Since the assumption or initial belièf is atheism.

I think you may have disproved Gordons claim to no velief since accordinfg to you he starts of with a point of view about God.

Everyone starts with no belief about a proposition. You have to as you do not know every proposition!
You only form a believe when evidence is provided in favour of a proposition.

How else could you operate?


Do you just assume everything is true?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Everyone starts with no belief about a proposition.

And then forms one?
Like er, the notion of God is an incoherent mess.
Or God is not to be taken seriously.......for instance.

[BeRational]

And the forms one?

Forms?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Forms?

Develiops, assumes, forms a judgement about.

[Gordon]

The major flaw in your argument is the implication that things are proved into existence and are ontologically dependent on the argument which supports them.

Wrong.

As far as Gordon or anyone is concerned is it rules out agnosticism. Since the assumption or initial belièf is atheism.

Wrong, since I said I could be referred to as an agnostic atheist: did you not read that, or did you just not think about what I'd said.

I think you may have disproved Gordons claim to no velief since accordinfg to you he starts of with a point of view about God.

I suspect you are being free and easy regarding BR's point: to claim to have no beliefs about something you first need to encounter some form of proposal, claim, argument or speculation that there is 'x' - and then then have the capability to consider these arguments and respond accordingly.

That new-born babies are atheists about 'God(s)' or can't appreciate of the joys or motorcycling isn't all that useful since they clearly aren't in a position to consider either in any meaningful sense.   

[BeRational]

Develiops, assumes, forms a judgement about.

You do all this based on evidence.

But you do not believe things just because they are asserted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do all this based on evidence.

But you do not believe things just because they are asserted.

Non sequitur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong.

Wrong, since I said I could be referred to as an agnostic atheist: did you not read that, or did you just not think about what I'd said.

I suspect you are being free and easy regarding BR's point: to claim to have no beliefs about something you first need to encounter some form of proposal, claim, argument or speculation that there is 'x' - and then then have the capability to consider these arguments and respond accordingly.

That new-born babies are atheists about 'God(s)' or can't appreciate of the joys or motorcycling isn't all that useful since they clearly aren't in a position to consider either in any meaningful sense.   

I may have misjudged BR since he went on to talk about the formation of beliefs which involved weighing up arguments and coming to an opinion......
And so after that any claim to having no opinion or belief becomes dubious........like er......claiming God is not to be taken seriously......or......The notion of God is a mess....are not opinions views or beliefs about god....for instance.

As for answering the question of wether atheism was just a matter of being a true for me. That reply#129 was IMV a tinee wee little Dodgkin.

[BeRational]

Non sequitur.

No it's not.

I shows that you start out from a position of NOT accepting the claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it's not.

I shows that you start out from a position of NOT accepting the claim.

Also we are talking about beliefs and not knowledge.

[BeRational]

Also we are talking about beliefs and not knowledge.

So?

You do not believe an assertion until it meets its burden of proof.

Do you just believe everything?