Atheism is not a belief!!

[The Reality Salesman01]

More people throwing around 'fallacy'? TIBERIUS: give these people a logic school. They appear to be in desperate need of it.

I'm beginning to understand your thinking process...

Anyway, I hope you haven't mistaken your possessing knowledge to be anything more than ignorance.

In the words of Socrates, "I am the wisest of men as I am at the least aware of my own ignorance." He's not saying he doesn't know anything, he's just aware of that which he doesn't or possibly cannot know. You should tighten up your definitions.

I could nanny you into understanding why I made the word choice I made, but I prefer to let children explore the world, and come to their own conclusions.

Only when its convenient or...

TIBERIUS: give these people a logic school. They appear to be in desperate need of it.

...just as long as its not you doing the thinking?

Insult schminsult, irrelevant. We probably couldn't spend all day disagreeing upon what constitutes knowledge, given how I'd accept your definition of knowledge under the notation that it's not what I'm arguing, then invent a new word to explain what I am arguing. It'll probably be 'Tusfencain'.

More amusing dribble...

Probable and possible, the first is a likely possibility, the latter is only that it can happen.

Just to split hairs, your definition of probable is probably closer to the definition of potential. There is a difference between potentialities and probabilities. Probabilities are determined by inductive reasoning through observable things. Potentialities can be devised from deductive inference. A priori principles work in science because there is no reason to believe they are not true due to the consistency of the principles. You seem to be suggesting that such principles require faith, but it couldn't be further from the truth. Dedcutive inferences are made by eliminating that which we have no reason to believe as a potentiality. This is why I do not believe in God. I have no reason to believe in a God. The major disagreement, I think, would come in when we begin to use these words in sentences as qualifiers for knowledge. Especially since it seems as though you reject logic and its applications to obtaining knowledge in any rational sense.

If faith is irrational, we are all irrational.

Faith is irrational- Yes
Those that hold beliefs based purely on faith all hold irrational beliefs-Yes, it logically follows.

Using logic on gods is very shortsighted, as it pigeonholes them into an existence as we might be able to understand it.

I think that you are being a bit short sighted when you throw logic out the window in hopes of maintaining an irrational belief. You seem to suggest that God cannot be understood rationally. Then you are saying that knowledge of a God is irrational. If God can be understood rationally, then he is contingent upon certain logical restrictions just like everything else. God cannot be both God and Not-God at the same time. I realize your not a fan of logic, and so I am not holding my breath for any arguments from you that strengthen your opinion of God(s). Although it would raise the question as to why you would even attempt to argue your opnion when the very measurement of a valid argument relies on whether or not its logical.

what's a logical standpoint worth? You don't use it for science (you take it on faith under the weight of evidence you have also taken on faith

This is false. You either have evidence, or you don't. If you don't, its faith. I take nothing on faith. I make decisions based on experience and my level of expectations are gauged accordingly. I do not expect to know what is going to happen all the time, but I have good reason for the decisions I make and the level of expectations I place on the outcome. If I did not have a good reason to believe in something, I would stop believing it. Faith is not having a good reason to believe in something and believing it anyway (this is going back to that to proper applications of the words possible/potential/probable with respect to knowledge and beliefs.)

I don't see how anyone logically accepts anything. They might use logic as their reasoning behind their acceptance of a thing, but it is ultimately faith which bridges the gap between acceptance and nonacceptance.

Again, you seem to be conflating faith (believing in something purely because it's possible and having zero evidence) with probablility (Having a subjective expectation based on measurable results) is not the same as faith. In Science, it is these assumptions that drive the theories. If they cannot be tested, and results or data cannot be measured, then it is not accepted. Faith is quite different.

Long story short, an Atheist rejects God theories as they cannot be tested, do not produce measurable, tangible results. I do not believe in Atheism, I am an Atheist as a result of not being swayed by theism of any kind.

Saying an atheist believes that God is not real, is kind of a play on words and by doing so you take on a creative liberty with your inference.

Do christians belive they are the Anti-Christ if they themselves are not Christ?
Or are they simply Not-Christ?

---

But does anyone here believe that they are atheists.

I'm using the normal definition if believe - I.e. considering it to be true...

I like most people assume that people believe what they know...

So: do you believe you are atheist?

(Or do you change words' meanings to try to win arguments online?)

Yes. I believe I'm an Atheist. Why would I change the meaning of belief in that context?