So you would believe that there is no teapot until proven otherwise?

---

Or just not give a toss about it?

I'd suggest that the second option is more philosophically sound...

(April 22, 2013 at 6:51 pm)Dawud Wrote: Most Western philosophers hold that people believe their knowledge (as with the common person)

But you don't feel that you believe your knowledge Rhythm.

I think that belief is not required when there is knowledge to be had. I don't even have to -believe- that I have knowledge, IOW, I'm open to being wrong - it never raises to the level of belief. If you ask me how I know the golden gate exists - I'll tell you that it can be quantified - and further that I and many others have driven over it. The first bit being infinitely more useful than the second bit.

Quote:You think that belief is about uncertain things?

I think that belief is superfluous in the presence of knowledge.

This whole schtick smacks of the oft chirped "it's all beliefs anyway" line of bullshit - again, manufactured parity. Save yourself the time Dawud - there's no traction here with me.

It is not a question of "belief." If you have no evidence there is nothing to discuss. If I assert there is an invisible pink dragon in my garage will you believe me because I said so?

Objection! If the prosecution is going anywhere soon with this line of questioning may I ask if he intends to get there in this lifetime? Starting to look pretty random.

You claim there is a celestial teapot. I do not believe your claim.
It then follows I do not believe there is such a teapot.... but this comes as an afterthought.

Humans believe (or not) in claims.
We tend to believe in those we find to be trustworthy. And tend not to believe in untrusted people.
When we are born, the most trustworthy people are our parents, we believe anything they say..... and the process of indoctrination begins... the process responsible for over 90% of all believers in deities.

Has atheism made me different? I stumbled on it when I was 10, before that I was a 10 year old boy who went to school and had divorced parents who didn't particularly care about church and praying. After that, I was the same 10 year old boy who thought everyone in the world was under the wrong impression. Then I came to know I wasn't the only nut out of the sack (there was even a name for these people - atheist) so I stopped bothering and became open about it... whenever asked. Did I change? outwardly, no. Inwardly, not much... very little, almost nothing... heck... what was there to change? After watching the Nightmare on Elm Street at the age of 8 and getting quite scared by it, my brain must have developed some Bullshit detector that enabled me to handle the scary situation.... after that, everything on tv became interpreted as completely fictional.... I would still enjoy documentaries, of course, but no bullshit was allowed... I guess seeing the christian god as another fictional character came naturally after that.
I now think Freddy Krueger's lines are hilarious... go figure!

Careful, Dawud. If you manage to prove that something from nothing comes, where will you find a gap suitable for your god to fit in then?

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

(April 22, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Dawud Wrote: Can atheism ever compel someone to do something?

Has atheism ever motivated you to do anything?

Can atheism affect your character?

Atheism is NOT another form of religion. The absence of belief is nothing more than an absence. If anything character leads to atheism.

You need to get rid of the dumb ideas about atheism some clown fed you.

---

(April 22, 2013 at 5:26 pm)Dawud Wrote: You don't have any belief regarding God?

How can one have a belief about that which does not exist?

Some lying piece of shit really sold you a bill of goods.

---

(April 22, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Dawud Wrote: Well if I said there was a teapot flying around in the debris of space you would not be compelled to believe me (there is no evidence) - but to believe that there is no teapot would be to have belief.

Grow your ass up and knock off this shit. Teapot believers are required to produce the physical evidence for it. Not believing in the teapot means nothing more than they do not take crackpot believers seriously because they are ALWAYS LYING about teapots and gods.

---

(April 22, 2013 at 5:39 pm)Dawud Wrote: If you were to logically necessitate that there were no teapot then surely you would believe there was no teapot? Are you telling me you would have no belief about the teapot in this situation? Like if someone said to you - "Do you believe there is no teapot" you would say "I don't believe anything about that teapot"....

I'd say that's strange...

So you don't have any beliefs about God? You don't believe it's imaginary? So you accept the possibility (though maybe slight) that God exists?

God sir. Anyone who claims there is a teapot without physical evidence is a liar. It is as simple at that.

You can only honestly say you believe there is a teapot. If you say there is a teapot you are a liar. Even for Muslims lying is a sin.

---

(April 22, 2013 at 5:48 pm)Dawud Wrote: It's not a mute point - most people have belief in their knowledge to some degree...

Most people are stupid. So what?

Quote:Some people surely have a belief that there is no God.... Or believe that there is no such thing as a whole number <1 and >0

In fact I would say that it is possible to believe in these non-existences so much so that some people are convinced.

You may not have any beliefs but I would say that it is perfectly possible to fully believe that there is no God.

I would also say that this belief can have a profound effect in someone's life...

But you disagree....

The crap you are posting in this thread and other threads is also stupid if you really cannot tell the difference between what you are saying and what you are being told. If you really do not understand the difference then it is difficult to believe you know how to turn on a computer.

---

(April 22, 2013 at 6:51 pm)Dawud Wrote: Most Western philosophers hold that people believe their knowledge (as with the common person)

But you don't feel that you believe your knowledge Rhythm.

You think that belief is about uncertain things?

You are either playing stupid or you are stupid. Children understand the difference between you posts and what you are being told.

Are you playing or are you really stupid? That is an honest question.

At this point I'm surprised he didn't use the FSM reference to his god argument. Man, these guys are hard at work to come up with better arguments for their tales. It is so boring though.

(April 22, 2013 at 5:39 pm)Dawud Wrote: If you were to logically necessitate that there were no teapot then surely you would believe there was no teapot? Are you telling me you would have no belief about the teapot in this situation? Like if someone said to you - "Do you believe there is no teapot" you would say "I don't believe anything about that teapot"....

I'd say that's strange...

So you don't have any beliefs about God? You don't believe it's imaginary? So you accept the possibility (though maybe slight) that God exists?

There are 2 truth claims regarding the existence of the teapot, or a god.

The first is that it exists. The other is that it does not exist.

If someone claims a god exists, when an atheist responds, "I don't believe you". This position of the lack of belief in a god or a teapot, does not necessitate having the inverse belief.

Here's an example. Lets say there's a contest to guess how many gumballs there are in a large jar. Closest wins. If someone claims that there is an even number of gumballs, without having any sort of evidence, and I say, "I don't believe you". That doesn't mean I now believe there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar. I withhold belief on either possibility until there is supporting evidence.