Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system

[Immanuel Can]

"Lack of belief" takes nobody anywhere. You can't know anything or do anything or live a life without believing things, because it's impossible in

Casually conflating lack of a specific belief with lack of any belief.

At first glance, I'd have to say that's a silly thing to say. But maybe you'll explain it, so it makes some sense.

[Ben JS]

"Lack of belief" takes nobody anywhere. You can't know anything or do anything or live a life without believing things, because it's impossible in

Casually conflating lack of a specific belief with lack of any belief.

At first glance, I'd have to say that's a silly thing to say. But maybe you'll explain it, so it makes some sense.

I was pointing out your transparent strawman.
Not for your benefit,
but for those who think you communicate in good faith.

Atheism is the attribute of being absent of a belief in deities.
Inanimate matter and most life forms are presumably atheistic.
A lack of a specific belief: that of deities.

One can lack a specific belief, without lacking all belief.
You conflated these two positions so you could provide your strawman argument.

Disappointing stuff.

[Skepdick]

Atheism is the attribute of being absent of a belief in deities.

Are you absent of such belief? In general, making an absence claims about a domain (even when that domain is your own cognition) requires omniscience within that domain. Are you omniscient of your entire cognitive apparatus? Do you have perfect self-knowledge?

What if the belief is there but you can't recognize it for what it is?
What if you've identified the belief yet you are describing it using different concepts/language/vocabulary to express it?

How do you make sure that your "atheism" isn't mere theism reframed using linguistic/conceptual relativity?
How do you know you simply haven't replaced deities with something functionally and psychologically equivalent?

Has it crossed your mind that the human tendency toward something like religious thinking is so fundamental that you can only ever redirect it; but you can't opt out of it.

[Ben JS]

Atheism is the attribute of being absent of a belief in deities.

Are you absent of such belief?

Hello dick, I believe I am.

I've been introduced to the concept of deities,
and have inspected what beliefs I hold in regard to them.
My evaluation concludes I am absent of the belief that deities exist -
I believe the concept of deities exist,
but am absent of the belief that deities exist.

The concept is not the thing in itself.

Thus, I believe atheism is an attribute that describes my beliefs or lack there of in this instance.

I do not know with 100% certainty the contents of my beliefs -
but this critique has nothing to do with the atheistic position,
but of general human limitation.

I don't require omniscience to draw a reasonable conclusion.

-

But, dick,
I'm not going to be dragged into this pissing match.

To lack a specific belief, is not the equivalent of lacking all belief.
This, and that IC conflated these, is my primary point.

You wont bait me.
If you respond with piss,
I'm walking away and you can stand in it.

[Skepdick]

Hello dick, I believe I am.

Ok, but is your belief true; or is it just a random guess?

I've been introduced to the concept of deities, and have inspected what beliefs I hold in regard to them.

Have you also been introduced to the concept that deities are not reducible to concepts?

My evaluation concludes I am absent of the belief that deities exist

You mean you are absent the belief that your misconception of deities exists.

I believe the concept of deities exist

So you do believe deities can be conceptualized.

but am absent of the belief that deities exist. The concept is not the thing in itself.

Have you considered any deities that can't be conceptualized when evaluating the "existence" claim?

Thus, I believe atheism is an attribute that describes my beliefs or lack there of in this instance.

Well, in that regard I can 100% agree with you. I don't believe in any of the deities you don't believe in.

I do not know with 100% certainty the contents of my beliefs -
but this critique has nothing to do with the atheistic position,
but of general human limitation.

Well yes! The general human limitation being our inability to conceive of deities.

When you take rational theology to its logical conclusion it becomes a form of sophisticated atheism. A God who can be fully grasped by human reason isn't really God at all, but a mere intellectual construct.

I don't require omniscience to draw a reasonable conclusion.

Of course, you don't require omniscience to label your conclusions "reasonable".
But you do require omniscience to label them "true"

To lack a specific belief, is not the equivalent of lacking all belief.
This, and that IC conflated these, is my primary point.

It is equivalent when you can't determine the scope of this believe that you may or may not be lacking.

You wont bait me.

I don't have to. You've baited yourself when you claimed to be an atheist.

If you respond with piss,
I'm walking away and you can stand in it.

It's your nappy - it goes where you go.

Atheism, like naive theism (the Catholics and their systematic theology), commit the same sort of category error - they assume divinity can be approached through ordinary conceptual and logical analysis.

The whole theism/atheism debate is misconceived from the start. It's colorblind people arguing about the spectrum.

[Ben JS]

Well, you made that easy.
At least it was quick.

To lack a specific belief, is not the equivalent of lacking all belief.

To conflate the above is a transparent strawman.

I'm getting out of the sewer that is the dick's contribution.

[Skepdick]

Well, you made that easy.
At least it was quick.

Seems you were always looking for the easy route out.

Don't pretend you needed a reason from me.

To lack a specific belief, is not the equivalent of lacking all belief.

To conflate the above is a transparent strawman.

That may well be generally true; but it's not universally true.

So it's only generally; but not universally a strawman.

By treating a general principle as universal and ignoring the exceptions when equating the two is perfectly valid - it's actually you who is strawmanning the point. If God exists; then God is the necessary precondition for the possibility of belief itself.

Your attempt to separate that specific (yet necessary) belief from all other beliefs is akin to removing the ground floor but keeping the rest of the building in tact.

I'm getting out of the sewer that is the dick's contribution.

No, you aren't. You are staying exactly in the sewer of your confirmation bias.

Mean while others have made the exact same point...

Plantinga: God as the ground of reliable cognitive faculties
Van Til: Without God, rational thought becomes impossible
Classical theism: God as the source of intelligibility itself

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"Lack of belief" takes nobody anywhere. You can't know anything or do anything or live a life without believing things, because it's impossible in

Casually conflating lack of a specific belief with lack of any belief.

Exactly Ben. It's deliberate. They can't possibly not know the difference between subjective religious belief and coherent justified true belief, i.e knowledge. They all such... lie. For their 'truth'.

[Immanuel Can]

Casually conflating lack of a specific belief with lack of any belief.

At first glance, I'd have to say that's a silly thing to say. But maybe you'll explain it, so it makes some sense.

I was pointing out your transparent strawman.

There wasn't one. I can't make sense of that comment at all.

Atheism is the attribute of being absent of a belief in deities.

No, that's agnosticism. "A-" plus "theos," literally translates to "no + Gods". That's its meaning. If you didn't know, you know now. And "a-" plus "gnosis" is "not + know." If you "lack belief," you don't know anything about it. If you deny the existence of God, you say, "no gods."

So your alleged defense is just...well...ignorant, which is the other synonym of "agnostic," and also a synonym for "lacking belief."

[Immanuel Can]

To lack a specific belief, is not the equivalent of lacking all belief.

Oh. I found the "straw man."

You claim that because I said everybody believes things, that somehow that meant that one can't refuse belief (or "lack it," which is nonsense) in a particular area. And I didn't.

Straw man fixed. But it was yours.

But "lacking belief," as a phrase, has an implication unfortunate for Atheism: for a "lack" is a deficiency, not a positive or neutral thing. One can only "lack" what one has need of. So you would be saying you have need of a belief in God, but haven't found it yet; which is exactly right, I would say.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I've only registered one intellectually honest believer on this web site. Are there more?

[henry quirk]

I've only registered one intellectually honest believer on this web site. Are there more?

If you will, dear Liza, please, define your terms intellectually honest and believer.

Everyone here probably believes himself intellectually honest, but none of us are (not consistently); few here are believers (theists or deists), most are atheists or agnostics or are bent toward the East or hug trees and rub crystals or...

[popeye1945]

Typical. No answer.

How do addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division create order that didn't exist?

See above.

Why don't you invoke Goedel I wonder?

Not all patterns are natural; not all patterns are functional. Below: "How do addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division create order that didn't exist?"

https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/viQ ... H3e2WVGF7w

What does it say? Is it even more of a non sequitur than your reply?

Why the obfuscation? The dishonesty?

At its core, the meaning of mathematics and arithmetic in relation to patterns is about structure, relationships, and predictability. Mathematics provides the language and tools to identify, create, and analyze patterns, revealing the underlying order within numbers, shapes, and natural phenomena.

Arithmetic—the foundation of mathematics—uses basic operations to define numerical patterns and sequences, forming the basis for more complex mathematical concepts. Geometry, algebra, calculus, and discrete mathematics further expand on these ideas, enabling discoveries in fields ranging from physics to computer science.

Ultimately, mathematics transforms patterns into knowledge, bridging intuition with logic. It allows humanity to quantify beauty, structure randomness, and innovate across disciplines. Every mathematical formula, equation, and calculation maps the universe’s intricacies into a form we can understand and manipulate.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Could you clarify what you're looking for?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Not all patterns are natural; not all patterns are functional. Below: "How do addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division create order that didn't exist?"

https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/viQ ... H3e2WVGF7w

What does it say? Is it even more of a non sequitur than your reply?

Why the obfuscation? The dishonesty?

At its core, the meaning of mathematics and arithmetic in relation to patterns is about structure, relationships, and predictability. Mathematics provides the language and tools to identify, create, and analyze patterns, revealing the underlying order within numbers, shapes, and natural phenomena.

Arithmetic—the foundation of mathematics—uses basic operations to define numerical patterns and sequences, forming the basis for more complex mathematical concepts. Geometry, algebra, calculus, and discrete mathematics further expand on these ideas, enabling discoveries in fields ranging from physics to computer science.

Ultimately, mathematics transforms patterns into knowledge, bridging intuition with logic. It allows humanity to quantify beauty, structure randomness, and innovate across disciplines. Every mathematical formula, equation, and calculation maps the universe’s intricacies into a form we can understand and manipulate.

Perhaps I am missing something here. Could you clarify what you're looking for?

Not possible. Just as it isn't for arithmetic to create order from chaos. For empty rhetoric to contain a proof.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I've only registered one intellectually honest believer on this web site. Are there more?

If you will, dear Liza, please, define your terms intellectually honest and believer.

Everyone here probably believes himself intellectually honest, but none of us are (not consistently); few here are believers (theists or deists), most are atheists or agnostics or are bent toward the East or hug trees and rub crystals or...

I sit corrected and apologize dear Henry. Indeed, there is a vast array of those with incoherent unwarranted (as opposed to merely unjustified) untrue beliefs, including my good self. I believe in kindness (HAH!), equality of outcome, Geoism, all sorts of nonsense. And I am as bent as it gets, towards trees and crystals, well, I talk to the former. Mad as a biscuit. And yes, I meant th/d/eists. Especially Christian theists. I'm an atheist republican who sings God Save The King with deep primal feeling. A totally incoherent hypocrite. If you are one - a Christian theist that is (I should read up), then the count is two. >< Just took time out there to sample your posts from 2013. Can't tell! You ain't no determinist that's for sure, so we can be bitterly unpleasantly divided over that. As for intellectual honesty, I aspire to it according to my risibly limited intellect. The majority of educated theists who express themselves here are helplessly dishonest. They put faith before reason and then say it's the other way around. They obviously cannot help it. Others do too of course. Make one hand clapping claims and never back them up. Troll. On this very thread. See immediately above. It's genetic I'm sure. Now I'm as deluded, self-deceived, ignorant, stupid and stubborn as you like, and unpleasant with it, all you gotta do is point out how, with finger paint. Yours, Liza