Are cats atheists?

[Zen Badger]

Atheists are generally very clear that they want atheism to be defined as a lack of belief in God, and not the belief or claim that there is no God. If this is so, why aren't cats and trees and birds and mentally challenged people who cannot think about things like the supernatural realm atheists?--they all lack belief in God too.

Because they don't have to put up with christian idiots telling them they'll go to an imaginary hell for not believing in an imaginary sky bully.

[jonb]

Yes and it is probably why Mohammed (pboh) would not interrupt their dreams. That's for you two and you know who you are.

[Jeffonthenet]

I disbelieved it, but I think I did so for reasons and not just the absence of reasons.

That's fine, but disbelieving it based on absence of evidence is fine as well.

Not necessarily. Everytime there is an absence of evidence it is not always the case that we should disbelieve something.

It seems to me that they disbelieved it for a reason. The reason is that they don't see enough evidence to believe. However, this reason, that there is not enough evidence to believe, is up for debate, and itself seems to need rational warrant as it is not self-evident as 1+1=2.

Well they can disbelieve in it if they aren't convinced of God existing when presented with the concept. Usually people don't dismiss an idea, without seeing if there is an evidence. Atheists usually did look up evidence for God and found them to be unconvincing. Whether they are convincing to you or to others, is a different matter. Whether they are sound arguments is another issue.

Because there is not evidence for X, it doesn't necessarily follow that one should disbelieve X. Only if there is another premise in the argument like, "there is no evidence for X, and if X were true, we would expect more evidence than there is for X." However, this is not just an absence of evidence then. There is a claim here.

But Atheists are allowed to make mistakes like all humans, and if they are unconvinced, they are unconvinced.

I don't think that they would consider atheism a "mistake."

Most Theists don't believe on God based on arguments and are not informed of philosophical or scientific arguments for a Creator. They simply believing without knowing why they do.

Just because they do not believe based on some argument doesn't mean they do so irrationally or ignorantly.

---

He has given me a new heart and experience of satisfaction beyond even words can explain fully. He has forgiven my sins and made a way for me to access Him by the faith he gives to me.

It's all in your head. Don't you think that all the people who have or do believe in other gods feel the same way? Just not about your particular god. It's you who has had the change of attitude, and you who have satisfied yourself. The fact that you did it by believing in some imaginary sky father is relevant, I suppose, and speaks to your character... but which imaginary sky father is completely irrelevant.

How do you know? I am one of the most skeptical people out there.

---

From the fact that there are many of X fabricated, it doesn't follow that all X are fabricated.

Ahhhhh...... and I bet you think that YOUR god is the special one, huh?

Yes

[Felasco]

Ok, what we see here is that Jeffonthenet is asking very reasonable and intelligent questions. He is being intellectually honest and loyal to the principles of reason by applying the same challenges we reasonably present to theism to atheism as well.

In reply, those members who can't meet his challenge are hoping to bury the thread in a big pile of cutesy tootsy snarky comments etc. The junior high school defense strategy, which admittedly is effective, as it will eventually succeed in running off anybody thoughtful enough to present an effective challenge.

The mistake Jeffonthenet is making is the same one I always make (over and over again for 60 years) in assuming that conversations about theism and atheism have anything to do with reason. People like Jeffonthenet and myself display our own lack of reason by pointlessly debating Jehovah's Witnesses, forum atheists and other such passionately committed ideologists.

So, to summarize, the lot of us are all nuttier than fruitcakes, and seem to be enjoying our almost complete lack of rationality. :-) On with the games!

[frankiej]

Well, one of my cats loves my spaghetti bolognese, so I assume she worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster... That is how it works isn't it?

[Mystic]

Because there is not evidence for X, it doesn't necessarily follow that one should disbelieve X. Only if there is another premise in the argument like, "there is no evidence for X, and if X were true, we would expect more evidence than there is for X." However, this is not just an absence of evidence then. There is a claim here.

I agree, but Atheists will disagree. In case of God and properly basic knowledge of him, although there is no rational argument to go against it, they feel no such knowledge exists given their own experience and their view of knowledge.

Just because they do not believe based on some argument doesn't mean they do so irrationally or ignorantly.

True enough from my perspective, not necessarily an Atheists perspective depending on how he sees possible knowledge, but it doesn't help the case with Theists when along with that belief comes a belief of something that is certainly not properly basic (religion) and that is unsupported by evidence.

So it looks like "God" is just part of the equation "religion".

You can't really blame Atheists for thinking the belief in God is no different then belief in religion, which to many of them, has been proven to be baseless.

[Simon Moon]

Not necessarily. Everytime there is an absence of evidence it is not always the case that we should disbelieve something.

If there is an absence of evidence for a claim, what should be the justification to believe it? The best response is to disbelieve the claim, until evidence is provided.

If a claim is made, and there is an absence of evidence for it, how do you make the decision to believe it or disbelieve it?

Because there is not evidence for X, it doesn't necessarily follow that one should disbelieve X. Only if there is another premise in the argument like, "there is no evidence for X, and if X were true, we would expect more evidence than there is for X." However, this is not just an absence of evidence then. There is a claim here.

These 2 responses demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of disbelief.

When someone claims that X exists, despite the fact that they are unable to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, doesn't mean that believing that X does not exist is the only other position. I have the ability of not believing your claim, without believing the inverse.

[Mystic]

If there is an absence of evidence for a claim, what should be the justification to believe it? The best response is to disbelieve the claim, until evidence is provided.

What's the evidence for free-will?

I have the ability of not believing your claim, without believing the inverse.

If there is no scientific evidence or logical arguments of free-will existing, is it rational to with hold judgement and neither believe in free-will nor believe free-will is non-existent?

[Simon Moon]

What's the evidence for free-will?

There is still a lot of debate that free-will exists. The latest neural science is showing that we don't have free-will, we only have the illusion of free-will.

You seem to be making the claim, with absolute certainty, that free-will exists, when in reality some of the best minds in science and philosophy are not so sure.

I'm glad you have some sort of special knowledge. Maybe you should publish a paper on the existence of free will and settle the matter once an for all.

If there is no scientific evidence or logical arguments of free-will existing, is it rational to with hold judgement and neither believe in free-will nor believe free-will is non-existent?

You completely missed the point that you are replying to!

Here it is again. If I disbelieve that there is insufficient evidence to support claim X, that does not mean I necessarily believe claim X is false.

[Erinome]

It's all in your head. Don't you think that all the people who have or do believe in other gods feel the same way? Just not about your particular god. It's you who has had the change of attitude, and you who have satisfied yourself. The fact that you did it by believing in some imaginary sky father is relevant, I suppose, and speaks to your character... but which imaginary sky father is completely irrelevant.

How do you know? I am one of the most skeptical people out there.

So you've ruled out the possibility that it's Zeus who's filled your heart with glee? You've ruled out Allah, and are unafraid that you're displeasing him by worshiping a prophet? You've ruled out that it might be 400 gods that make you feel this way, rather than just the 3 in 1 god? You've ruled out every other possibility?



Mkay. I'd really love to hear how you did that.