(April 15, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(April 15, 2015 at 1:45 pm)robvalue Wrote: Yeah, so...

Even for me, if I actually believed there was any kind of god, I wouldn't act any differently. Even if I somehow knew it was one of the popular story book character ones. Don't care, I'd just ignore them until it becomes a problem, as clearly their representation is very wrong in the books. Until they actually show up or contact me, they're obviously not interested.

If I believed there is "some sort of god", or even just didn't accept the claim that there isn't, it would make no difference. Until such time as I actually have any information about this "god" it can't possibly inform my actions. What am I meant to do? It's just too illogical for me to sit around vaguely trying to send messages to it until the vein on my forehead explodes.

So really, even if I was as unsure agnostic an atheist as can be, I reject both the claims that there is and isn't a god, I would still act the same. See, that is the "middle ground", it's just still atheism. That's the common confusion. Atheism gets 2 of the 3 positions.

I get it.  It's just that I'm not sure it's simple enough to say that it's merely a lack of a belief because positive beliefs do come into play.

You can have both. 

At a minimum it's lack of belief, but I can still reject positive claims outright when proposed and inherently lack the belief in deities per se. 

(April 15, 2015 at 1:39 pm)CuriousInquirer Wrote: How many atheists does it take to screw in light bulb?
I must know this before answering any of these questions.

I'm gonna need to see some evidence of this "lightbulb".

---

Wait I got another one!

Two. One to screw it in, and one to go fuck yourself.

(April 15, 2015 at 2:07 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: As I said before - in that case every single thing I - or anyone - has ever known, or even just heard in passing is a belief. Unless you can provide me with any example of something that's not a belief - it's just semantics. Which is fine, except it doesn't mean anything.

And you still haven't addressed the case of someone completely ignorant of the concept of religion or god.

Actually, very little is truly known, and most of our knowledge rests upon philosophical assumptions.  There's a saying that proof is only for math and alcohol, and even math rests upon several assumptions we can't actually prove beyond the fact that it correlates with reality.

As for case of someone completely ignorant of religion, that would be lacking a belief, but the moment you've evaluated the claim for god, you've formed a belief

But at its core, atheism is rejecting the claim. It doesn't even tell you how you got to that decision, so evidence may have nothing to do with it. You may have heard the claim and dismissed it because you don't like it. Or because you hold a grudge against the first person who told you the claim and that's enough to make a psychological link making you never believe the claim. You may not understand why you rejected the claim at all.

To talk about evidence is to assume a well ordered and vaguely rational mind.

You can talk about what beliefs the mind has about itself... But this seems like an extra meaningless layer that would apply to anything and it does seem like semantics.

Just my opinion

(April 15, 2015 at 2:35 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Actually, very little is truly known, and most of our knowledge rests upon philosophical assumptions.  There's a saying that proof is only for math and alcohol, and even math rests upon several assumptions we can't actually prove beyond the fact that it correlates with reality.

As for case of someone completely ignorant of religion, that would be lacking a belief, but the moment you've evaluated the claim for god, you've formed a belief

OK. I officially hate the way the forum works now. Yet again - my entire post, except for the quoted part - disappeared the moment I pressed "Post", I don't have the patience to recreate it, so let's just leave it at that... Ugh... This is why I haven't been posting much recently. The post editor does not work properly for me - not to mention the fact that quote tags are invisible and trying to make posts easier to read, by condensing quoted posts usually ends up in a mess...

JHC skips through 14 pages of no-doubt brilliant wit and discourse, but there are only so many minutes in the day...

The main difference between LeVeyan Satanists and atheists?

For men - Pointy beards. Sure some atheists have pointy beards but no one, does it quite as good as a Leveyan Satanist. They're so.....sculpted. Probably all manscaped as well, but...TMI.

For women - atheist chicks more with the whips and chains rather than leather. LeVeyan chicks dig that skin tight black leathery look. Or so I have read.  

Now finally some information our inquirer can work with!

---

(April 15, 2015 at 5:04 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: JHC skips through 14 pages of no-doubt brilliant wit and discourse,

You have no idea...

(April 15, 2015 at 5:05 pm)Alex K Wrote: Now finally some information our inquirer can work with!

---

(April 15, 2015 at 5:04 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: JHC skips through 14 pages of no-doubt brilliant wit and discourse,

You have no idea...

Am I missing out? After the bit from Exian on the first page "Satanists don't eat babies", I thought "Nailed It!" "Yup!" and "Thread over".

But, apparently not.

Yeah, that definitely was the intellectual high point. The rest was more slapstick...

(April 15, 2015 at 3:16 am)CuriousInquirer Wrote: Hello, I'm new here and I just wanted to know what the difference between atheism and LeVeyan Satanism is? I brought it up to one of my friends and they said they were practically the same thing. Any insight into this?

Thanks in advance.

Can't be bothered to read through all the posts in this thread. But this equation gives stupid a whole new meaning. Maybe the distinction between not believing and believing in yet another god, badass, idol or Mickey Mouse should hint at the difference.