Way back in my Baptist Sunday School Days it was things like being made in god's image. OK is god a man or a woman and what color is god and what does his face look like, if we're in god's image shouldn't we all be old long-bearded white men?

(December 14, 2010 at 12:04 pm)lilyannerose Wrote: Way back in my Baptist Sunday School Days it was things like being made in god's image. OK is god a man or a woman and what color is god and what does his face look like, if we're in god's image shouldn't we all be old long-bearded white men?

I was told the same this, when asked teachers and everyone else said that it's in our heart that we are in god's image. That makes no sense. A Cop out

(November 8, 2010 at 5:51 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: In the last thread I started I saw that the atheists here cite "burden of proof" as to why they do not believe in God. The atheist is not making any claims about the supernatural and, therefore, those that do make claims about the supernatural have the burden of proof.

I do not know what thread you are speaking of so I cannot check, but I certainly hope that is not what your atheist participants said. I wonder if you notice the equivocation there, or how the issue shifts from "God" in the first instance to the "supernatural" in the next. Nevertheless, atheism does indeed make claims about God, viz. the claim that God is not required.

---

---

(December 9, 2010 at 5:44 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Then look at the arguments for atheism, which are far more convincing and largely evidential.

No matter how many times I hear that, it never stops being hilarious.

---

---

(December 14, 2010 at 1:28 am)Micah Wrote: Maybe eight or so months ago I started asking questions like, "If a god created the universe, what created him?" And, "How can the Christian God exist when there is evil?"

And what recourse did you take in seeking the answers? Try to be specific; that is, don't simply give a vague hand-waving response.

(December 14, 2010 at 5:37 am)Micah Wrote: That is indeed interesting. If [Sproul] believes that, I wonder how he reconciles God as his source of morality?

Sproul would respond to you, "What makes you think a reconciliation is needed? What supposed problem do you find?"

---

---

(December 14, 2010 at 5:47 am)ziggystardust Wrote: http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR097.htm -- That would give you a rough idea what Calvinism is about.

Really, Zigg? That is like directing someone to Answers In Genesis to get a rough idea what evolution is about. Micah will not learn anything helpful or accurate about Calvinism from a web site that is strongly opposed to Calvinism. (It is probably safe to assume that you were unaware the site was hostile to Calvinism.) I would rather suggest Monergism.com as resource materials on Calvinism.

Quote:No matter how many times I hear that, it never stops being hilarious.

And whenever xtians profess to believe in the resurrection of a dead jewish carpenter that is pretty fucking hilarious, too.

(January 1, 2011 at 1:14 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:No matter how many times I hear that, it never stops being hilarious.

And whenever xtians profess to believe in the resurrection of a dead jewish carpenter that is pretty fucking hilarious, too.

Indeed or that the murdering tyrant protrayed in the OT is the source of morality

Source of absolute morality or source of moral relativism? If Yahweh is merely the source of moral relativism then that just means that Yahweh created people so they could disagree about what's "moral" and yet Yahweh himself has no absolute morality.

(January 1, 2011 at 9:41 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Source of absolute morality or source of moral relativism? If Yahweh is merely the source of moral relativism then that just means that Yahweh created people so they could disagree about what's "moral" and yet Yahweh himself has no absolute morality.

AKA god is a oxymoron

Now I shall directly answer the original question of the topic:

How do you become an atheist? By either merely ceasing to believe in god(s) and thereby become an agnostic atheist, or by also denying even the possibility of the existence of gods(s) and thereby become a gnostic atheist.

And changing belief is not a free choice: It's merely a matter of whether you're convinced or not by the existence of god(s) in the case of agnostic atheism, and in the case of gnostic atheism it's a matter of being convinced that god(s) do not exist.

(January 1, 2011 at 12:52 am)Ryft Wrote: Nevertheless, atheism does indeed make claims about God, viz. the claim that God is not required.

Atheism is broadly a response to theistic claims. While strong atheists can make ontologically negative claims about various deities in alphabetical order, it is still a response, a rejection of an ontologically positive claim a higher being exists. Other than that most of us including myself don't make claims about non-existent beings that we don't believe exist in reality or have sufficiently met their burden of proof.

Just because I am without belief in Santa Claus' existence doesn't mean I am making a claim that he doesn't exist. If I did that then I would need proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and I haven't got any. I'm not making a claim at all, I am just unconvinced by the claim that Santa Claus does exist. I am without belief in Santa Claus, I don't positively believe that he doesn't exist.

My position is the same for God.

I think the confusion between being without belief and positively disbelieving something is the same between not having a liking for something and positively disliking something. If someone says to me "I like X, do you like X?" and I say "No, I don't like it". They may then say "Why not?" Because they are asking why I positively have a distaste for X, but I might not have meant that I had a positive distaste for X, I might be completely neutral on the matter and have merely meant I don't have a liking for X. So I neither have a liking for X nor do I positively not like X. I am apathetic towards X, I don't care about X.

Another example is popularity. If someone or something is described as "unpopular" by person A, and person B then asks "Why? Why are they (or why is it) unpopular?" they might have confused merely "not popular" with "positively unpopular". The someone or something that is "unpopular" as in "not popular" might be so simply because no one has an opinion on that person or thing, no one really likes or dislikes that thing or person.

So there's an equivocation between disbelieving to mean be without belief, and to positively disbelieve.

There's an equivocation between disliking as in merely not having a liking for and disliking as in positively having a dislike for.

There's an equivocation between "unpopular" as in merely "not popular" and "unpopular" as in notorious, or in other words, positively not popular.

In fact, there's even an equivocation between the word "positive" as I have been using it. I have of course not been meaning "positive" in the sense of "good" or "optimistic" when I have been saying "positively dislike" or "positively unpopular" for example, to some that may seem even oxymoronic if they consider liking and being popular important (And to those who think of "disbelieve" to mean "being in denial about God's existence" such people may even consider "positively disbelieve" to be oxymoronic if they think I am using "positive" to mean "good" or "optimistic"). No, I am of course using "positive" to mean "not neutral", so either positively one way or the other.

For example, when I contrast "positively bad" with merely being "without good", I do not mean "positive" in the sense of "good" because of course that would mean something like "goodly bad" or "pleasantly unpleasant" which would of course be, oxmoronic. And not merely oxmoronic as in relating to an oxymoron, but also oxymoronic as in yes, an oxymoron.

So there's even an equivocation there as well, with the word "positive." I'm starting to see equivocation more and more in fact, at least I think I am. There are obvious equivocations, and then there are very subtle ones that people overlook too.