Do atheists need some faith?

[Selliedjoup]

Oh christ, I get tired of this -necessity of the totality of knowledge- bullshit. You do not have to know every particular about an apple to conclude that it is not an orange. End of.

This garbage is so irritating. It's the ultimate "you can't explain therefore" The goalposts on this one come with wheels equipped as a standard feature. It only exists to provide endless opportunities to argue about anything other than what the user is hoping to establish.

If the apple/orange analogy works for you, I can see why you're frustrated.

That you believe that there are obtainable goalposts, shows what your belief is. In the absence of proof otherwise, just believe the goalpost is millimetres away.

If you can define what you're hoping to establish that would be a start.

[The Grand Nudger]

The apple/orange analogy "works" for anyone that isn't interested in fabricating confusion ex nihilo. I bet the kicker has to believe the goalposts are there to score a field goal in your book as well. No faith required there either amigo, try again.

[Selliedjoup]

You didn't say anything.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Hello everyone. I have a question that I've been very curious about for awhile, and I'm opened minded to being persuaded one way or the other.

I'm sure you've all heard that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist, well I'm unsure if that is actually true.

So here is my question, well, there is actually two questions:

It seems that many atheists are atheists not because of evidence against theism but because of a lack of evidence for theism. Is this true?

If so, isn't there a little faith involved that there really isn't any evidence for theism that may have been overlooked or yet to be discovered?

Thanks in advance.

Atheists do not need faith to disbelieve. That's it.

[genkaus]

How you got that is beyond me.

Clearly, since plain logic is beyond you.

I never realised this was only about the points you were making.

That is only one of the things you don't realize.

If you claim that only science can determine what reality is, and science measures, then....

Fallacy of composition. Science measures does not mean that science can only measure.

I asked you to outline what you think, if I got it wrong. You didn't do it, just reiterating that I got it wrong.

Read the post again if you want to know what really think.

[Selliedjoup]

How you got that is beyond me.

Clearly, since plain logic is beyond you.

Unfortunately your 'plain' logic consists of I am right as I am right. People who want some form of credibility commonly outline their position.

I never realised this was only about the points you were making.

That is only one of the things you don't realize.

This statement admits you don't consider what I say, so I wonder why you're responding at all. How you claim to address any points or questions I have made, will remain a mystery inside your own head. Even if they do come out they still will remain a mystery.

If you claim that only science can determine what reality is, and science measures, then....

Fallacy of composition. Science measures does not mean that science can only measure.

Comprehension fail and strawman. Where did I say science can "only" measure? You claimed the ability to measure is non-sensical. If you have a point I would suggest making it.

I asked you to outline what you think, if I got it wrong. You didn't do it, just reiterating that I got it wrong.

Read the post again if you want to know what really think.

You have written several posts all of which say very little. It you feel one of these posts perfectly illustrates your position, that's up to you to highlight and not for me to assume.

[genkaus]

Unfortunately your 'plain' logic consists of I am right as I am right. People who want some form of credibility commonly outline their position.

Read again. The logic behind why your position is self-defeating is clearly outlined.

This statement admits you don't consider what I say, so I wonder why you're responding at all. How you claim to address any points or questions I have made, will remain a mystery inside your own head. Even if they do come out they still will remain a mystery.

No mystery to anyone with cognitive faculties. If you actually read the posts, you'd find that your points and questions have been addressed. That you failed to understand the response is not ground for asserting that they weren't addressed.

Comprehension fail and strawman. Where did I say science can "only" measure?

Here:
"If you claim that only science can determine what reality is, and science measures, then...."

By concluding from the given premises that "science can measure reality", you have made the assumption that the only way science can determine something is by measurement. A comparative statement would be using "criminals do bad things" and "a criminal takes care of his parents" to conclude taking care of one's parents is a bad thing.

You claimed the ability to measure is non-sensical. If you have a point I would suggest making it.

No, I've said that the idea of measuring reality is nonsensical. And that establishes my point regarding comprehension failure on your part.

You have written several posts all of which say very little. It you feel one of these posts perfectly illustrates your position, that's up to you to highlight and not for me to assume.

You mean this one?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-13879-p...#pid315103

[Selliedjoup]

Unfortunately your 'plain' logic consists of I am right as I am right. People who want some form of credibility commonly outline their position.

Read again. The logic behind why your position is self-defeating is clearly outlined.

Sadly it's not. You make the assumption that whatever you say to be true, and feel no requirement to justify or rationalise your perspective in any way. Your claim of being unable to measure reality was purely a subjective judgement to which you then hide behind your tautology

This statement admits you don't consider what I say, so I wonder why you're responding at all. How you claim to address any points or questions I have made, will remain a mystery inside your own head. Even if they do come out they still will remain a mystery.

No mystery to anyone with cognitive faculties. If you actually read the posts, you'd find that your points and questions have been addressed. That you failed to understand the response is not ground for asserting that they weren't addressed.

That you believed you addressed my points/questions illustrates that you did not comprehend the points and/or questions in the first place. Please feel welcome to cut and paste my reponse, unless of course, it takes more brain cells to do this than what you intend to write.

Comprehension fail and strawman. Where did I say science can "only" measure?

Here:
"If you claim that only science can determine what reality is, and science measures, then...."

By concluding from the given premises that "science can measure reality", you have made the assumption that the only way science can determine something is by measurement. A comparative statement would be using "criminals do bad things" and "a criminal takes care of his parents" to conclude taking care of one's parents is a bad thing.

Ok that's a really poor comparison, and exposes your limited understanding of what is being said. You claimed to understand what reality is, and all that it entails. You have so far failed to provide any evidence, beyond countlessly repititions, of that this is correct.

If you propose that you understand reality it is logical that you have some idea of all that it is (its size would be logical included in this) . For example, I understand football and the dimensions of the field, ball etc. You understand reality (without requiring any need to define it further) and then class it's size as immeasurable. Or is this due to your self-proclaimed understanding of reality to then state the ability to measure its size is non-sensical. But you failed to offer any reason why it would be non-sensical, other than that you udnerstand reality. Do you see where you tripped yourself up? There are limitations on being self-assured as you eventually need some form of evidence/proof to back up what you state. Feel free to outline why you understand reality and why it's immeasurable now.

You claimed the ability to measure is non-sensical. If you have a point I would suggest making it.

No, I've said that the idea of measuring reality is nonsensical. And that establishes my point regarding comprehension failure on your part.

Yes, this is implicit in this conversation. I would have hoped I didn't need to re-state everything over and over due your daily struggle with recall.

If you have a point I would suggest making it.

You have written several posts all of which say very little. It you feel one of these posts perfectly illustrates your position, that's up to you to highlight and not for me to assume.

You mean this one?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-13879-p...#pid315103

No I didn't mean any post, as you have not actually stated your position in this post or anywhere else. You're incapable of outlining what you believe, perfectly illustrated by the quote in the post you linked to above:

"I don't have to know what all of reality is to know what reality is" and yet you accuse me of using a tautology? I don't know what reality is, yet you seem to convinced based on what you perceive it to be? I just hope for your sake you're a troll.

If you can, rationalise your position. Otherwise I can't see the point in wasting my time with someone like you.

[Cato]

Selliedjoup,

If from ten yards away I hurled a three inch diameter stone at the bridge of your nose at about 80 miles per hour, what would your reaction be? Would you use your experience of material existence to immediately assess that the consequences were not favorable to you and either duck or take the damage in your hands? Or would you rely on faith that the sight of me throwing the stone (which cannot be verified non-materialistically) is just a figment of your imagination and that no harm could possibly follow? Or, this gets better, does your faith in this instance give you the same information that is known to a 'materialist' through human perception, and you only reserve true faith wisdom for shit that just isn't true? If you don't know what I'm getting at I suggest you read your first reply to this thread.

The rest of your argumentation is nothing more than solipsistic needle-dicking.

[Selliedjoup]

I'm not saying our perception of reality and the material is completely wrong, all I'm saying is how do we know all of what reality actually is and entails as opposed to what we perceive it to be?