Cito di Pense wrote:By itself, atheism imposes no requirement to believe in anything

I hadn't realised that you didn't believe in anything. Doesn't that make you a zombie, or somethin'?

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:By itself, atheism imposes no requirement to believe in anything

I hadn't realised that you didn't believe in anything. Doesn't that make you a zombie, or somethin'?

That's not what he said, you even quoted him so you must have realised that's not what he said.

Let's nip this atheism nonsense in the bud. Atheism is not a total absence of belief; rather, it's a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

Of course, the preference I speak of is for a materialist/physicalist metaphysic, combined with the erroneous belief that scientific knowledge is of metaphysical value, namely materialist/physicalist value.

So, it's not the case that the atheist has no reason to believe in God(s); rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion.

jamest wrote:Atheism is not a total absence of belief

Nope, just the absence of belief in gods.

it's a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

Nope, it's not.

So, it's not the case that the atheist has no reason to believe in God(s)

Wrong again.

rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion.

That being that no convincing reason to believe in gods has been presented. Evidences like those described in the bible would be a good start but apparently the god that used to like proving it's existence doesn't like proving it's existence any more.

jamest wrote:Of course, the preference I speak of is for a materialist/physicalist metaphysic, combined with the erroneous belief that scientific knowledge is of metaphysical value, namely materialist/physicalist value.

Many atheists won't even understand what that bollocks means, let alone have a preference for it.

jamest wrote:Let's nip this atheism nonsense in the bud. Atheism is not a total absence of belief; rather, it's a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

Of course, the preference I speak of is for a materialist/physicalist metaphysic, combined with the erroneous belief that scientific knowledge is of metaphysical value, namely materialist/physicalist value.

So, it's not the case that the atheist has no reason to believe in God(s); rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion.

I wonder what this obsession of native English speakers with the word "belief" is. I never use it in connection with science, nor when I express an opinion. Come to think of it, I practically never use the word, because I don't believe in anything. I leave that pointless activity to others.

jamest wrote:Let's nip this atheism nonsense in the bud. Atheism is not a total absence of belief; rather, it's a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

Of course, the preference I speak of is for a materialist/physicalist metaphysic, combined with the erroneous belief that scientific knowledge is of metaphysical value, namely materialist/physicalist value.

So, it's not the case that the atheist has no reason to believe in God(s); rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion.

I once tried only buying my groceries from metaphysical stores. It wasn't a resounding success.

trubble76 wrote:

jamest wrote:
... rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion.

That being that no convincing reason to believe in gods has been presented.

This is the pivotal point. When you say that no convincing reason to believe in gods has been presented, you omit to mention the 'truth gauge' through which you have assessed that reason. I mean, there are plenty of people who believe in a God, for a variety of different reasons. So, the only way to reject those reasons is to put them through your own criteria for believing anything - which essentially amounts to a physicalist bias and an erroneous belief in the metaphysical value of empirical evidence.
Hence, what I said is true:

Atheism is a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

jamest wrote:So, it's not the case that the atheist has no reason to believe in God(s); rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion.

What about babies?

Blackadder wrote:

jamest wrote:Let's nip this atheism nonsense in the bud. Atheism is not a total absence of belief; rather, it's a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

Of course, the preference I speak of is for a materialist/physicalist metaphysic, combined with the erroneous belief that scientific knowledge is of metaphysical value, namely materialist/physicalist value.

So, it's not the case that the atheist has no reason to believe in God(s); rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion.

I once tried only buying my groceries from metaphysical stores. It wasn't a resounding success.

Metaphysical stores sell stories about reality, not cabbages.

jamest wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

jamest wrote:Let's nip this atheism nonsense in the bud. Atheism is not a total absence of belief; rather, it's a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

Of course, the preference I speak of is for a materialist/physicalist metaphysic, combined with the erroneous belief that scientific knowledge is of metaphysical value, namely materialist/physicalist value.

So, it's not the case that the atheist has no reason to believe in God(s); rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion.

I once tried only buying my groceries from metaphysical stores. It wasn't a resounding success.

Metaphysical stores sell stories about reality, not cabbages.

Made-up stories. Your "real" can be anything you like. So can mine. I'm riding my metaphysical surfboard on the crest of a fantasy wave. And I see turtles. All the way down.

jamest wrote:]Atheism is a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

Why do you insist that more belief is better than less? It's the quintessential position of a political hack.

jamest wrote:
Let us nip this atheism nonsense in the bud. Atheism is not a total absence of belief rather
it is a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God

Of course, the preference I speak of is for a materialist / physicalist metaphysic combined with the
erroneous belief that scientific knowledge is of metaphysical value namely materialist / physicalist value

So, it is not the case that the atheist has no reason to believe in
God rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion

Considering how there is precisely zero evidence for the existence of God why is atheism nonsense ?

The reason atheists do not believe in God is because they do not believe God exists [ tautology number one ]

Science says absolutely nothing about the nature of reality. It only references phenomena and that is all

The reason atheists do not believe in God is because they do not believe God exists [ tautology number two ]

Atheists are not ignorant, like animals and babies. Atheists are people who make informed choices. Making informed choices involves running the evidence through the 'truth mill', which involves having a belief about what constitutes evidence. Only then can one favour or reject certain evidence, which is precisely what atheists do.

John Figgs wrote:Here is another interesting excerpt from a study I listed earlier:

''Discussion
The results we present here are consistent with and provide support for specific predictions of the supernatural monitoring and fear of supernatural punishment hypotheses. As predicted by both theories and consistent with our Hypothesis 1, individuals who professed belief in God rated moral transgressions as less justifiable than those who did not. Consistent with Hypothesis 2 and the supernatural punishment hypothesis, stronger beliefs about the unjustifiability of moral transgressions were present in individuals who professed belief in heaven or hell. And consistent with Hypothesis 3 and the supernatural monitoring hypothesis, among those who believe in God, those who professed belief in a personal God rated moral transgressions as less justifiable than those who professed belief in a Spirit or Life Force.''


makes you wonder just where atheists are situated on the moral transgression scale.

lol

You mean you think it helps you continue to push the lie that atheists are less moral. Matters not a fuck to you that it's circles all the way down.

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:]Atheism is a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

Why do you insist that more belief is better than less? It's the quintessential position of a political hack.

Why do you suppose that you have less belief than the theist? You don't. You merely have different and less profound beliefs than the theist.

John Figgs wrote:

Paul wrote:

John Figgs wrote:2: the evolutionary benefits ( for society and psychologically) of belief in God.

or to put it another way.

"It has been suggested that to believe in god is beneficial, so I believe in god."

This suggestion is supported by strong empirical data, I suggest you take a look at the papers I posted here.


It isn't me that's doing away with the evidence with one line dismissals, its you guys, I posted strong sources and took my side: belief in God is beneficial. Regardless of its truth, I consider this a reason for being a theist rather than not.

Let's assume for the sake of argument this is true (are you watching, michael? Of course you are). Liking green leafy vegetables is beneficial. Do you think you can just decide to therefore like them some day?

jamest wrote:Atheists are not ignorant, like animals and babies. Atheists are people who make informed choices. Making informed choices involves running the evidence through the 'truth mill', which involves having a belief about what constitutes evidence. Only then can one favour or reject certain evidence, which is precisely what atheists do.

jamest wrote:the only way to reject those reasons is to put them through your own criteria for believing anything - which essentially amounts to a physicalist bias and an erroneous belief in the metaphysical value of empirical evidence.

Do I really need a belief to ask what constitutes evidence? Note that I am merely asking. You have never given your version of what constitutes evidence. Maybe that's because evidence is something that can hit you in the gut and leave a big hole there.

jamest wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

jamest wrote:
... rather, that he has his own reasons to reject said notion.

That being that no convincing reason to believe in gods has been presented.

This is the pivotal point. When you say that no convincing reason to believe in gods has been presented, you omit to mention the 'truth gauge' through which you have assessed that reason. I mean, there are plenty of people who believe in a God, for a variety of different reasons. So, the only way to reject those reasons is to put them through your own criteria for believing anything - which essentially amounts to a physicalist bias and an erroneous belief in the metaphysical value of empirical evidence.
Hence, what I said is true:

Atheism is a preference for a particular belief which rules-out the possibility of believing in God(s).

It's not a preference at all. Only believing things when you have sufficient reason to believe them is rational. If you are moaning that god could never be accepted in a rational system, then perhaps you're right but I don't see what other options are available to me.

jamest wrote:Atheists are not ignorant, like animals and babies. Atheists are people who make informed choices. Making informed choices involves running the evidence through the 'truth mill', which involves having a belief about what constitutes evidence. Only then can one favour or reject certain evidence, which is precisely what atheists do.

No, atheists don't have beliefs in gods. They can also be ignorant while not having beliefs in gods, like babies.