Atheism

Crow: Calling me an idiot repeatedly is non-constructive. You should learn more intelligent ways of dealing with arguments. Regardless of whether arguments raised by somebody are poor, that is not grounds for insulting them. Be more careful about personal attacks.

I understand Einstein's papers were published in a physics journal, not a metaphysics one. As somebody who frequently reads a lot of research, I feel confident in saying that the scientific community at large would overwhelmingly classify Einstein as a physicist.

@Stag removed doubled comment, again.

Be careful with refreshing.

@Stag AND I just had to remove the comment for the third time. As I say, be careful.

admin: Calling me an idiot repeatedly is non-constructive

I never directly call you an idiot, but I sure as hell want to. It is frustrating that you can never convince a retard on how comically retarded they are, so maybe it is unconstructive that I keep trying.

Nonetheless, Einstein used metaphysics.

Which is beside the point, because I told you what metaphysics are, and as long as you have a position on existence, reality, perception, time, ect. then you cannot say without looking like a total moron that " I don't believe in any metaphysics."

@admin

What about what I said earlier? You have never seen Michigan, so I can logically assume you actively believe Michigan does not exist? That is the argument you made for why God does not exist earlier after all.

Crow: "Telling me" is an assertion. I take assertions for what evidence they are, which can hardly be described as strong. I could assert right now that you have a house on the north pole and ride a sleigh every Christmas. Would that make it true? Doubt it. So assertions are things to be careful with. Now stop calling me a moronic retard. Using indirect language isn't really a defense either.

admin: M8, you aren't even on the same page as me.

I am not arguing God exists. I am arguing that you have no evidence that God does not exist, and that your position is just as ignorant and illogical.

You said some really stupid shit about not observing something makes it true, and I am hoping you can move past that and provide an actual argument for why God does not exist.

Crow: Seeing is not the only form of evidence though, is it?

I certainly believed in God when somebody told me about Him, then disbelieved when I thought a bit more about it. Being told about it is evidence, with the force of an assertion (for what that is worth). When I had never even considered God I was an atheist, because I do not accept what I do not know (nor do I see why anyone should).

Crow: Opposite. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Put it this way - if I drew 5 cards from a deck of playing cards and they were all red, would you assume I had 50/50 black and red cards?
If I drew 20 cards and all were red would you still assume 50/50?
Heck, I might as well draw all the cards in the packet. The more absence of black cards there is, the easier it is to accept the null hypothesis.

As to actual arguments, and by that I assume deductive, for that you'd have to provide a better definition of God because the word is super vague.

When I had never even considered God I was an atheist, because I do not accept what I do not know

I clearly stated several times, that isn't atheism.

Atheism by the true historical definition is the belief that God does not exist, and not whether one is simply skeptical about the existence of God.

Crow: Are you saying you can't both be skeptical and disbelieve in something?

admin: So you also don't know the difference between disbelief and denial?

The whole point is that you have no evidence to support your active position of denying the existence of God.

It would be one thing if you were just skeptical, which would make you fall under the label of agnosticism. That is if you use the common definition of a person who nether affirms or denies God's existence.

Crow: I don't believe in God, therefore I deny it. A believer might still be skeptical, and I'm a skeptical disbeliever.

If you call what I've said so far against God to be "no evidence", that's fine. I feel like you're generally not willing to understand my position, writing off my conclusions as idiotic or moronic, without engaging with my argument. So be it. Live and let live.

admin: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

That is just plain wrong.

Also you are using knowledge if it were not a priori, but aren't even basing knowledge off of true empiricism, so basically it is all conjecture. Too make matters worse, your whole stance has been wishy washy, because you keep arguing via empirism and backing out.

I guess I am going to take one last stab at this, and ask you this question once again

You have never seen Michigan, so by your logic Michigan must not exist. Right?

Crow: If I had no other sources of evidence, I would not believe in its existence.

Seeing is not all there is to believing - sight is only one sense, and it's not foolproof.

admin: It's sorta like saying you haven't seen Larstonville, so by my logic it doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't and that's why I haven't seen it - but then again, it might and I am yet to see it. The default assumption any reasonable person would have is that I made Larstonville up about 30 seconds ago to prove a point.

admin: I'd consider a religion to be a positive metaphysical belief system. Since atheism is a negative belief (ie a denial of a belief) it shouldn't be called a religion.
Do you agree with the definition, "The belief that there is no god"? or are you one of those that says atheism is,"The absence of a belief in God"?
Atheism, like theism, requires justification. I would agree that atheism is not an organized religion. Since its one of the philosophical views on Gods existence(Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism).
I am an atheist because the only bit of religion that holds any value for people is morality, and you don't need metaphysics for morality. So believing in the rest makes little sense, especially when it's largely illogical.
Your making the assumption that believing in a God=religion, which is false. You don't have to be religious to believe in a god, if atheism is not a religion, then theism and agnosticism are not religions either, since they are all beliefs regarding the existence of a god. If I believe in the existence of Justin Bieber, that doesn't make me religious. Instead of religion and morality, it would be better to offer a reason why you believe God doesn't exist.

Nobody truly believes that there is no God. The Bible states in Romans 1 18-22:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

So nobody is really an atheist. We know that God exist because of the creation. Everything that is seen. Because if there is a creation, then there must be a creator. And other things such as morality and such. If there is no God, how do you determine right from wrong?

Atheism is technically a religion. A definition of religion is:

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Bi0Hazard: The definition is fine, albeit confusingly rendered in a passive sentence. Atheism implies a negative belief, which is indeed different from the complete absence of a belief.

I would consider God to be a feature of a metaphysical belief system. In my comments to Stag I distinguished these from a physical system, like IDK, the water table for example. Perhaps some conceptions of God are not an organized religion, but they are certainly religious. Justin Bieber is a physical belief, not a metaphysical one (one would assume, unless you think he's literally a divine entity of some sort).

As I keep saying:
1. You can't logically argue against a concept without defining the concept. There are many different versions of "God" which are inconsistent - problems applying to one conception may not apply to another. This is not to say the concept cannot be generally flawed. For example, do you believe God is logical? Some would answer yes, others no. Both require different responses.
2. Inductively, a lack of evidence FOR god is as good as evidence against. Because religion is a positive claim, the null has to be that there is no god.

Crow: There is no evidence that a God does not exist, so holding an atheistic belief is starting from a position of incredible ignorance.
It wouldn't be ignorance, it would be faith. Atheists have faith in the non-existence of a god. Theists have faith in the existence of a god.
You can't prove/have evidence for God's existence because god wouldn't exist in reality. It would be possible to prove God doesn't exist if you point out a contradiction in the nature of God. The ontological argument for God's existence was meant to prove God has to exist, but it failed as a valid argument.
So, do you believe faith=ignorance?