Thanks for the speedy welcome Rhythm.

Might want to make an introduction thread so everyone can say hi.


That being said, hi!

Yet another service we provide my man.

Hola.

Hi there to you too!

Please pardon this copy and paste, which I rarely do, but here's a post I recently wrote that may stimulate further conversation.

Somebody asked....

Quote:Can you list what you see as the tenets of atheism’s
faith?

And I replied....

Quote:Somebody makes a god claim. Such claims typically
attempt to describe the source of all reality, the
foundation of everything.

The listener analyzes the god claim with their human
reason. The listener concludes the god claim lacks
sufficient evidence. The listener becomes an atheist.

The foundation of atheism is the assumption that the
rules of human reason are binding upon the area the god
claim is being made about, all of reality, everything.

There is no proof that the rules of human reason are
binding on all of reality, an arena we can not yet
define in even the most basic manner.

Thus, the foundation of atheism is faith.

The assumption that the rules of human reason are
binding on all of reality is a very understandable and
common belief. But it is still faith.

Most atheists take the qualifications of reason for
this particular question as an obvious given. Thus,
they don’t realize they are operating from faith and
making an unproven assertion.

Thus, when atheists commonly say “I am not asserting
anything”, they are usually sincere, but always
mistaken.

It is also not proven that human reason is NOT
qualified for analyzing claims about the fundamental
nature of all reality. It’s pretty easy to make a case
that human reason is probably not so qualified, but
that’s just a speculative argument, and not proof.

Do you think you may have gone off the rails a bit with that one? Inserting less than accurate depictions of what may or may not be going on in an atheists mind in order to set up a kinder, gentler target for your batshittery?



-for example-...what part of your statement applies when said atheist simply says "I don't believe your god claim"?

Immediately below I enter the response of my pet rock attesting to it's atheist credentials.


"( )"

Wait a minute and I'll ask if it wants to assert any of its faith based claims.


Crickets...

(January 26, 2015 at 10:14 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Reasoning invents computers and jet engines and vaccines.

Get back to me when religions invent something beyond neat little stories to exploit guilt and inflict misery.

Christianity also invented a story that not quite about directly exploiting guilt and inflicting misery. That's the story about how christainity having invented something beyond neat little stories to exploit guilt and inflict misery.

Welcome

An atheist lacks belief in god(s). That's it. You should not assume anything about why they feel that way or what else they believe or don't believe.

By the by, agnostic is not an intermediate position between theist and atheist; there is no intermediate position. Just in case that comes up

(March 2, 2015 at 3:20 pm)Thoughtage Wrote: The foundation of atheism is the assumption that the
rules of human reason are binding upon the area the god
claim is being made about, all of reality, everything.

There is no proof that the rules of human reason are
binding on all of reality, an arena we can not yet
define in even the most basic manner.

Where the hypothetical deity interacts with reality, there should be an effect, susceptible to examination, in our reality. If there is no effect at all, then it cannot be said that an interaction has taken place.

Reason is much more successful in interrogating and describing reality than is faith. We find that to be the case no matter which investigation you choose to ponder. When we want to solve a crime, we use detectives and evidence, not prayer. When we want to investigate the nature of subatomic particles, we use colliders and observations and formulæ, not Biblical research.

Reason need not be binding upon all reality (indeed, I pointed out prior to your joining this thread that there are aspects of human existence which do not submit to reason). But -- it describes objective reality very well, and because of that, the assumption that we should use reason to investigate new aspects of reality is not based on faith, but rather, on experience.

That is why your argument is flawed.