The Case For Atheism

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a lazy belief system that has nothing to hang its hat on, on its own merit.
You can have other things to define you, so do I, none of which has anything to
do with theism, big deal. With respect to Atheism you picked something you do
not have to defend, you only attack another's belief, what a pathetic waste of time.
Kelly

Atheism is not a belief system. You just don't seen to be able to conceptualize that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a lazy belief system that has nothing to hang its hat on, on its own merit.
You can have other things to define you, so do I, none of which has anything to
do with theism, big deal. With respect to Atheism you picked something you do
not have to defend, you only attack another's belief, what a pathetic waste of time.
Kelly

It is not an attack, it is a defense, by some of us, anyway, against the imposition of religion upon government, science, and in general, life. And, not to sound paternalistic, but the religious are beneficiaries of this defense, at least all those who would not be on the winning religious team, are beneficiaries, even if they don't know it. Not all religions are exclusionary, but we have evidence of some on this forum.

Originally posted by rwingett
Atheism is not a belief system. You just don't seen to be able to conceptualize that.

Sure it is, you wrap your brain around the universe and lay its foundations at
nothings feet. You have a belief system, a weak one, but even a weak one will
give some meaning to one's life.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
It is not an attack, it is a defense, by some of us, anyway, against the imposition of religion upon government, science, and in general, life. And, not to sound paternalistic, but the religious are beneficiaries of this defense, at least all those who would not be on the winning religious team, are beneficiaries, even if they don't know it. Not all religions are exclusionary, but we have evidence of some on this forum.

Atheism is against another belief system, it stands against theism, and it is
a rejection of it. Since its very reason to be is to be against or reject God it
is opposition to God by its very nature. You cannot even call yourself an
Atheist without someone else having views or beliefs and you have to be
against them. I do not call myself against the tooth fairy though I don’t
believe in it, my lack of belief towards it is meaningless to me, I do not choose
a word to describe my very unbelief from the tooth fairy.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Atheism is against another belief system, it stands against theism, and it is
a rejection of it. Since its very reason to be is to be against or reject God it
is opposition to God by its very nature. You cannot even call yourself an
Atheist without someone else having views or beliefs and you have to be
against them. I do not call myself against the too ...[text shortened]... ingless to me, I do not choose
a word to describe my very unbelief from the tooth fairy.
Kelly

Of course. There are no tooth fairyists calling for science to include their beliefs, or for their strictures to be followed in court proceedings, or for their beliefs to be honored in public schools. I trust that if there were, you would join in the resistance, if only to defend your own particular stance. Give me the liberty to defend mine. I believe in freedom of belief, but there is a necessary limit. We cannot give freedom of action, to those who would take away freedom of belief. And some religions require their adherents to believe that they must work in that direction.

Originally posted by JS357
Of course. There are no tooth fairyists calling for science to include their beliefs, or for their strictures to be followed in court proceedings, or for their beliefs to be honored in public schools. I trust that if there were, you would join in the resistance, if only to defend your own particular stance. Give me the liberty to defend mine. I believe in free ...[text shortened]... ef. And some religions require their adherents to believe that they must work in that direction.

You want me to give you the liberty to defend your stance about what,
nothing? I'm not stopping you from defending anything, you may if you will
defend the flying Spaghetti monster, that would at least be defending
something real or not, but to define one's self as I'm not part of another group,
is not a reason to be anything. Not hard to attack another's beliefs, anyone can
say they disagree about anything, it is a weak stance about life whose only
foundational plank is that you don't agree with someone else.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You want me to give you the liberty to defend your stance about what,
nothing? I'm not stopping you from defending anything, you may if you will
defend the flying Spaghetti monster, that would at least be defending
something real or not, but to define one's self as I'm not part of another group,
is not a reason to be anything. Not hard to attack another ...[text shortened]... about life whose only
foundational plank is that you don't agree with someone else.
Kelly

OK then.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
In short, nothing you have mentioned here has shown that God's existence is highly improbable.

I was not attempting to make the case for the improbability of god, for there are a plethora of books in print that already do the job fairly well I think. I merely mentioned what, for me personally, pretty much makes the whole god concept a bust.

Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that there are an infinite number of universes populating the "quantum froth," some closed (eventually collapsing) and some open (expanding forever), with varying laws of physics, dimensionality, and the whole bit. Indeed, it makes sense that there's an infinite array of "parallel" universes to our own that collectively play out all the probable outcomes of every physical event over the span of time. Thus, talk of "beginnings" and "endings" becomes kind of moot.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I was not attempting to make the case for the improbability of god, for there are a plethora of books in print that already do the job fairly well I think. I merely mentioned what, for me personally, pretty much makes the whole god concept a bust.

Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that there are an infinite number of universes populating the "quantum fr ...[text shortened]... over the span of time. Thus, talk of "beginnings" and "endings" becomes kind of moot.

It is funny in my opinion to have someone talk about God not being real while
at the same time spouting off about an infinite array of parallel universes and
claiming that the beginning and end of things is a moot. The things people
cook up in their heads.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is funny in my opinion to have someone talk about God not being real while
at the same time spouting off about an infinite array of parallel universes and
claiming that the beginning and end of things is a moot. The things people
cook up in their heads.
Kelly

So you:
1. Admit that belief in God is as ridiculous as something cooked up in your head?
2. Believe that anyone who believes ridiculous things should also believe in God?
Or am I misunderstanding?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you:
1. Admit that belief in God is as ridiculous as something cooked up in your head?
2. Believe that anyone who believes ridiculous things should also believe in God?
Or am I misunderstanding?

1.sooo you admit that you haven't spoken to any Apes personally so as to ascertain their thoughts

2. soooo you admit that you can produce no works of Ape art, despite stating that such is in existence

3.so you have no way of knowing whether Apes are conscious of concepts like beauty, despite your assertion that they are


yet here you are, chastising another contributor, for apparently the very same
mistake? Are you aware if the implications of this? are you aware of how it reflects
upon the credibility of your utterances, are you aware of the complete hypocrisy? Good,
see to it and dont let it happen again.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sure it is, you wrap your brain around the universe and lay its foundations at
nothings feet. You have a belief system, a weak one, but even a weak one will
give some meaning to one's life.
Kelly

I have a belief system, yes, but atheism is not it. I may or may not be a naturalist, a materialist, or a humanist, and subscribe to all the beliefs that go with them. They would describe what I believe and what I am. Atheism, on the other hand, is not a belief, or a system of beliefs. It addresses one question only and conveys no opinion about anything except whether or not a god or gods exist.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Atheism is against another belief system, it stands against theism, and it is
a rejection of it. Since its very reason to be is to be against or reject God it
is opposition to God by its very nature. You cannot even call yourself an
Atheist without someone else having views or beliefs and you have to be
against them. I do not call myself against the too ...[text shortened]... ingless to me, I do not choose
a word to describe my very unbelief from the tooth fairy.
Kelly

If a majority of people were tooth fairy believers, all trying to put pro-tooth fairy legislation into effect, then you can bet that there would be a word for non-belief in the tooth fairy. It would become a big deal. But since no one believes in the tooth fairy, there is no need for a word to signify it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You want me to give you the liberty to defend your stance about what,
nothing? I'm not stopping you from defending anything, you may if you will
defend the flying Spaghetti monster, that would at least be defending
something real or not, but to define one's self as I'm not part of another group,
is not a reason to be anything. Not hard to attack another ...[text shortened]... about life whose only
foundational plank is that you don't agree with someone else.
Kelly

You seem to be willfully obtuse here. I will repeat for the nth time that atheism is NOT how I define myself. It is NOT a stance about life. It does not define me or tell you anything about me at all except that I am not a theist.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I was not attempting to make the case for the improbability of god, for there are a plethora of books in print that already do the job fairly well I think. I merely mentioned what, for me personally, pretty much makes the whole god concept a bust.

Incidentally, I'm of the opinion that there are an infinite number of universes populating the "quantum fr ...[text shortened]... over the span of time. Thus, talk of "beginnings" and "endings" becomes kind of moot.

It is my opinion that your belief is craziness.