The following discussion took placed due to the video “Is Atheism a worldview?”
Robert Bates commented thusly
I’m certainly not gonna call u stupid, just misguided, or misinformed. Atheism is a stance on a single claim. That’s all it is. I did agree that we may have individual worldviews, but that kinda hurts ur point, I think, because, as this may be the case, we dont share a worldview, believe me, we can differ on a great many things. Atheism is not a shared worldview, at all. Thanks for the video. Peace.
Ken Ammi now ken, I dont believe any gods exist, so in my opinion, there are no “really existing gods” if I ever discuss the actions of any gods, I’m addressing the legendary actions, attributed to a God or gods, that I do not believe exists. I may have misunderstood ur comment, please forgive me, if I did.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
This is odd, I cannot see any previous interaction between us in this chain of comments.
In any case, you are beginning with a conclusion so how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?
Now, you have apparently appointed yourself as authoritative definer of Atheism yet, your view is not only myopic, it is erroneous. For example, Dawkins refers to an Atheist worldview.
Now, first you said “Atheism is a stance on a single claim. That’s all it is” but when I ask where in your thinking about anything and everything you accept a really existing God (which I would imagine is how I phrased it, since I cannot see it) you reply “I dont believe any gods exist” so the supposed “stance on a single claim” has infected all of your thinking about anything and everything since Atheism demands that you do not see God anywhere, in anything, in any way.
Ken Ammi hello again Ken, I responded to something, u commented to someone else, in that particular thread, then some hothead was calling u stupid, I agreed with u, that we should attempt to engage in a civil discussion, and that doesn’t include ad hominem attacks. Ken words dont have definitions, per sey, they have usages, definitions can change over time, all I would need to do is define my usage, of the term Atheism, and then my definition of worldview, to sho that ur stance on both, are incorrect, according to my usage of both terms. Atheism doesn’t demand that I not see gods anywhere, there are no gods to see. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. I look at this material more objectively, concider other possibilities, and without proper evidence, I reserve forming beliefs, I dont guess, which is basically what ur doing, u have decided TO see gods anywhere, in the first place, so u are, at least in part, looking at this material subjectively. If well being and harm reduction is the goal, certain assertations can be made, to establish right and wrong, or what’s ethical in a given situation. If ur saying that there is a law giver, I dont know how u have established that, when objective law, does not exist, what one ought to do is based on the situation, ur complicating a really simple concept, Imho.
Well friend, if your reason for telling me that I am incorrect about Atheism and worldview is based on your “usage of both terms” then that is a pseudo-standard. I have been having regular discussions with Atheists for circa a decade and there are denominations of Atheism and a much more qualified Atheist than yourself, Dawkins, makes reference to an Atheistic worldview. Plus, of course it is a worldview so, if I may, in what area of your thinking do you accept an actually existing God?
I asked how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise? And since you bypassed that then you cannot simply keep getting ahead of yourself by referring your subjective personal preference for “well being and harm reduction” which you say “is the goal” based on your self-appointed authority—which is no authority at all.
Likewise with your reference to “right and wrong.”
Is it a law that “objective law, does not exist”?
Ken Ammi my friend, I’m happy to disagree, as I see that we do. I do not believe in ANY gods, period, as none have ever been demonstrated to exist. My worldview does not include a disbelief, in anything, and I dont care who says what about anything, we are both Atheists, but Dawkins and I disagree slightly on different things. Does this surprise u? He is a biologist, a scientist, he is an expert on these things, I would concede to him on these subjects, but Atheism is different, there is more than one definition of the term, I’m sorry, my friend, I dont care how many Atheists u have talked to, that’s an argument from authority, it simply doesn’t matter, I am an Atheist, and I’m telling u, u are mistaken. I’m saying that there is no objective moral law. Where does it come from? How can we consult it? Does this law cover every eventuality? Who is ur law giver? How did u determine it is moral? These are all positive claims, that require evidence. Is it ok to lie, ever? Kill? Eat humans etc? It depends on the situation, not the act itself. If harm reduction and well being are ur goal, then certain assertions can be made as to what is right and wrong in any given situation. No gods required, no scripture either. Pardon my assumptions, but aren’t u interjecting something on very poor evidence? And ur qualifying it on the purpose that u are giving it, for no good reason? This is an argument from ignorance fallacy, I believe. How did u rule anything else out? How did u determine that ur God is THE God? I am simply rejecting a claim, that does not evidently exist. U have questions to answer, as to how u have determined these things, and why anyone else should believe it also. I dont have a burden of proof, for a rejection of a claim, that is evidently untrue. Have a great day, my friend.
Friend, you are jumping to, un-premised, conclusions—again.
What is your worldview’s premise for demanding demonstrations of God’s existence and likewise for “positive claims, that require evidence”?
That your “worldview does not include a disbelief” is incoherent.
Also, that “many Atheists” say something but you, another Atheist say another so I should go with “I’m telling u, u are mistaken” is also incoherent.
But if Atheism is not a worldview then in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you make provision for, actually believe, in an really existing God?
You say “I’m saying that there is no objective moral law” which is one of those arguments from authority which you just dismissed before that. But I agree that “there is no objective moral law,” given certain definition of “moral,” but there is there is an objective ethical law, given certain definition of “ethics.” It proceeds forth from God’s very nature and essence since we were created in His image—it is based on His eternally relational nature as relationships are experienced within the Godhead, relationships that are truly diverse since they are experienced between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and yet, conflict free since God is one, there is only one God.
You “consult” it via a healthy conscience.
The spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written so that it either speaks directly or in principle to all situations.
Yes, of course it is “ok to lie” to, for example, save an innocent life—but not just to get away with stuff: we have examples in the Bible.
“Kill?” yes, but not murder.
“Eat humans” not generally.
But when you say “It depends on the situation” you are, on your worldview, making random bio-chemical reactions within haphazardly evolved gray-matter to be the arbiters. Moreover, when you say “not the act itself” indeed, your worldview cannot absolutely condemn anything.
So you say “If harm reduction and well being are ur goal, then certain assertions can be made as to what is right and wrong in any given situation” but that is just it: what is those are not my goals (since, of course, on your worldview they are mere options and not imperatives) or what if those are my goals for me, my family, my tribe, my clan, my nation but not you and yours?
So indeed, “No gods required, no scripture either” to just do whatever you what whenever you want to. But then again, even that would not be a case of “No gods required” since you are placing yourself in the position of (a) god.
Overall no, we are not even close to that I “have questions to answer” especially if you are right since we would just be two apes metaphorically chest thumping as we pond away at keyboards.
Ken Ammi thanks for the well thought out reply. But it’s very clear that u and I disagree, and I’m happy to do so. I didn’t use an argument from authority, I mearly gave u my opinion, my perspective, if u will. I am certainly not putting myself in the place of a God. U dont seem to understand that u are making claims, that u have zero evidence for, based on a book, written by humans, and loaded with fiction, and plagiarized stories. U are over complicating a simple concept, because u do not have a good argument, at all, in my opinion, ur grasping at straws, if u will. And u are mistaken. Atheism is not a worldview, we really, only have one thing in common. But u believe whatever u like. u have made the claim that there is a foundation for morality, prove it. We were made in the image of a God, which one, and prove it. What ur doing is a huge argument from ignorance fallacy, ur asserting, as fact, what is not evidently true, then, in a way, shifting the burden of proof. With all due respect, u dont seem to understand what a lack of belief is. I do not believe, or account for ANY gods, especially, actually existing gods. Why do u keep asking that question? When u dont understand, or like the answer, that I’ve already given. Maybe I dont understand ur point. Does ur world view account for what a leprechaun would or wouldn’t do, or shouldn’t do? In what way do u account for actually existing leprechauns? Or, are u ur own leprechaun, perhaps? This is what ur questions sound like to me. Maybe, I’m a little slow. Help me understand what ur even talking about, then let’s back up some of those claims, without using the Bible, because u cant have a sandwich, that’s 95% poop, and 5% turkey, and call it a turkey sandwich. Leave scripture out, it is irrelevant, I’ve read it, I know what it says. Ur reasoning has brought u to these beliefs, perhaps u should study this material, more objectively, instead of subjectively. U seem intelligent, but simple concepts seem to allude u. U are a believer, but I will remain skeptical, it serves me better. Thanks for the respectful discussion. Peace! And Shalom, my brother.
Ken Ammi listen, u are making a claim, to which I am asking the evidence for, I’m not demanding anything, especially from any gods, and if I were, I’d be demanding it from u, not any gods, I do not believe that ANY gods exist. So u tell me that one does, in fact, exist, I reject that claim for the lack of evidence. simple right? I can condemn any act, that I dont agree with, for whatever reason, ur the one saying that I need something to verify, that I can condemn something. Prove it! I dont believe it exists, u do not have the corner on right and wrong, or ethics, just because u believe what’s written in a book, I have a book that disproves alot of the claims in that book of urs, so which one of our books is correct? How do u know? There are lots of holy books out there, how do u know that urs is inspired by the one true God, and did this God choose a reliable method to get his message to the people that he created and loves? Does everyone interpret it the same way? Why are there SO many different denominations? Doctrines, etc? If u want to believe that this gods message is clear, fine, I have evidence otherwise. Hes god right? Why would a God worth worshipping, choose a book, to get his message across? Our eternal souls are in the balance, but u and I are having this discussion, why? Who is ultimately at fault here? Me? You? Or ur God? Just curious. Faith simply is not available to everyone, but the bible says it is, and it is incorrect. If u could KNOW a God exists, then I could also, but neither of us do, u just believe in one, and I do not. And I’m perfectly fine with that. Peace!
G’day mate, I am afraid that this is getting voluminously out of hand.
Well, if you are the ultimate authority in your life then indeed, you are putting yourself in the place of a god.
I understand that the Atheist memo states to demand, demand, demand but I am saying, as per something you just commented, that before you can demand “evidence” and for me to “prove it” you have to justify your demand of evidence and proof, then get around to elucidating what such evidence and proof would look like-what would count as such evidence and proof, then how you will go about critiquing it via your random bio-chemical haphazard brain, etc.
More examples, you refer to “a book” (a volume or anthology, actually, consisting of 66 books), “loaded with fiction, and plagiarized stories” but since you have not provided a premise upon which to condemn being “loaded with fiction, and plagiarized stories” then you cannot condemn being “loaded with fiction, and plagiarized stories” and are just emoting—and if you just want to emote then you can do that at home by writing a “My dear diary” entry.
Thus, since you have not even taken step #1 as of yet, you cannot even begin to speculate that I “do not have a good argument…grasping at straws,” etc.
You say “Atheism is not a worldview” but Dawkins does so who wins? In order to discern that, I asked in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in an actually existing God? You reply that Atheism is “a lack of belief” (which is only one of Atheism’s denominations) but you prove that it is not just that and not just one opinion about one issue since you admit, “I do not believe, or account for ANY gods, especially, actually existing gods” regardless of what you are thinking about—anything and everything—so that your one opinion about one issue has actually spread its infection to all of your thinking about all things and that, my friend, is a worldview.
When you say “I can condemn any act” you do not seem to consider they key difference between making a statement and having that statement be cogent, potent, premised, etc. so that it is more than just a taking ape making sounds or pounding on a keyboard—which is what your worldview tells you it is.
So, take the very first step, if you can, and only then will we be able to get to step two.
Ken Ammi no Ken, I appreciate that u think ur on to something, but ur not. Now ur being disingenuous. Listen very carefully, we are all Atheists at birth, just like animals, so along the way, u tell me that an ultimate authority exists, but provide no evidence for this claim, u practice naturalistic morality, just like I do, but u claim its religious morality, u haven’t proved that any gods exist, so what’s this premise that ur talking about, and why does it matter? U seemed smarter than this, ur argument is garbage, because it is, its nothing I haven’t heard for years. If ur not going to understand the error that ur making, talking about memos and Dawkins, atheist denominations, and other fluffy nonsense, save that for YOUR diary entry. U dont have to offer any proof for ur claims, but I dont have to believe it, and shouldn’t, until u do, because its nonsense, no matter how many times u repeat urself. It’s a cop out, u enter any discourse with an Atheist, using this particular argument, and u have already failed, Imho. With all due respect, u dont know what ur talking about. I could go on and on, we can discuss moral systems in social animal groups, where it comes from, etc. But until u provide evidence that what YOU are saying, is true, there is no step 2. That’s what we are waiting for here, I do not need to provide a premise, u do. What is it? Where did it come from? How do u know its moral? Etc. Or we are at square one. The aliens are the ultimate law givers, my morality comes from an alien. Do u believe me!? U shouldn’t, but who knows.
Ken Ammi saying that there is no morality, without a God, is the same as saying there is no economics, without the Monopoly guy.
Friend, you could only know if I was being disingenuous if you can read my mind and even if I was, you have no premise to condemn being disingenuous—please be consistent with your worldview, even though your worldview provides you no premise for consistency.
You cannot merely assert “we are all Atheists at birth” since some denominations of Atheism positively affirm God’s non-existence. Also, if you are attempting to get me to believe that all that it takes to be an Atheist is to be emotive at the level of a baby well then, fair enough. Yet, Atheist Michael Shermer has noted, “We are natural-born supernaturalists.”
Now, if you read my previous comment you would realize that when you reply with “naturalistic morality” and “religious morality” you are saying nothing since I noted, “You say ‘I’m saying that there is no objective moral law’ which is one of those arguments from authority which you just dismissed before that. But I agree that ‘there is no objective moral law,’ given certain definition of ‘moral,’ but there is there is an objective ethical law, given certain definition of ‘ethics.’”
Yet, you decided to ignore the issue of defining terms thus, when you write about “saying that there is no morality, without a God” you are missing the point. Technically, morality refer to the mores which are mere descriptions of whatever it happens that people are doing and thus, morality is subjective, intrinsic, tentative, situational, etc. Yet, ethics technically refer to the ethos which actually prescribes what people should and should not do, are agreed upon by all (in all times and in all places) and thus, the ethos is objective, extrinsic, absolute, etc.
Thus, of course there is morality without a God and that is the problem. And, of course, your worldview provides you no premise for the ethos.
You say I “haven’t proved that any gods exist” but you have not provided a premise upon which to demand proof nor upon which to reject without proof—you have not even taken step one first, nor can you since your worldview fails before it even begins.
You say “ur argument is garbage” but have no premise upon which to come to such a conclusion.
So, if you do not want to get into “memos and Dawkins, atheist denominations, and other fluffy nonsense” then go back to the very beginning of this and stop sidestepping the key issue which is to be your very first step, a step you have yet to take: how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for truth, logic or ethics, 2) for holding to these and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?
If it does not then you are done and have no premise upon which to demand anything, condemn anything, nor determine anything.
Ken Ammi again, I have offered u my perspective, saying that there is no objective morality, is my perspective, and I’ve already provided my reasons why, it’s not an argument from authority. Atheism does not have denominators, ur refering to the different definitions, we are all Atheists at birth, it’s the null set, are u implying that u were born with the knowledge of gods? I would, of course, disagree. Again, I do not need to provide anything further, to support my argument, we are waiting for u to provide evidence for YOUR premise, this thing u keep mentioning, without providing evidence for. Honestly, I’m confused as to why u are not understanding me, it’s real simple. After I’ve corrected ur misconceptions, and tried to appeal to ur common sense, u keep repeating urself, this is disingenuous, I’ve already provided my premise, it’s how ethics actually work, my ethics are the same as yours, they come from the same place, but we disagree on this, which I’m happy to do, but u have not even attempted to provide a real argument, to back up ur baseless assertions. U just keep repeating urself. Ur argument is garbage, because it isnt an argument at all, its pointless, holds no water. One can, and often does establish ethical behavior, without this premise, that u keep mentioning, animals do it, etc. U are the one adding an unnecessary element to the equation, without providing ANY evidence for its validity, and furthermore, ur hindering urself, u keep demanding that I provide a premise, who are u to demand such a thing!? As if morality doesn’t exist without a God belief, of course it does, this is the point, my friend, ur premise isn’t needed, it’s a security blanket, that u formed, out of ignorance, and poor reasoning, and u think it’s a “gotcha” argument, it isnt, at all. The null set, or null hypothesis, is that no gods exist, so what premise are u talking about, and why do u need one, SO desperately? When none is required, for anything? The null set changes when ample evidence is established, in this case, we probably disagree on evidence, and again, I’m happy to do so. I’m not sure anyone should trust ur judgment at all, at this point. Nobody is done either, WTF!? U dont get to make those decisions, we can certainly disagree, but u win nothing, there are no winners or losers. Do u honestly think this is the first time I’ve heard this argument? U believers have been using it for real, it is not a good one. Choose another, unless u like wearing egg on ur face.
Friend, we agree that “there is no objective morality” and that is by definition: what there is, is objective ethic when defined as the ethos.
But if, on your view, “there is no objective morality” then you have just disqualified yourself from condemning anything whatsoever—including illogicality and including your claim that I am being “disingenuous.”
If you think that “Atheism does not have denominators” then it is just a matter of your lack of awareness: please see what I wrote here, https://creation.com/atheism#definition
Thus, when you say “we are all Atheists at birth” you are merely playing on one particular definition of Atheism and so are being myopic.
Besides, that is irrelevant I mean what sort of argument is that babies are Atheists ergo, Atheism is a fact?
As for “I do not need to provide anything further” friend, you have not even taken step number one: you believe that you are a temporarily and accidentally existing ape and that I must “provide evidence”: that is absurd—especially when you are relying on un-premised logic which is also the result of accidents and will consider any evidence via your brain which is also the result of accidents.
You then jump context from “morality” to “ethics” and note that “my ethics are the same as yours, they come from the same place” with which I agree 100%—but that cannot be on your worldview.
You refer to how “u have not even attempted to provide a real argument…Ur argument is garbage” when I have not even begun presenting an argument because I keep begging you to set the table and you do not: plus, if I present an argument you will consider via your accidental brain, based on un-premised accidental laws of logic, etc.
You then jump context yet again by referring to that “As if morality doesn’t exist without a God belief, of course it does” with which I agree 100% given my technical definition. Thus, you are not even understanding the claims.
Thus, Atheism is a security blanket, that you formed, out of ignorance, and poor reasoning, and you think it is a “gotcha” argument, it is not, at all.
You then positively affirm that “no gods exist” (which is one of the denominations of Atheism) and means that you must nor prove it.
And in the end, you say “U believers have been using it for real, it is not a good one” upon mere accidental bio-chemical neural reactions that adhere to the laws of thermodynamics.
Ken Ammi perhaps I should reword what I’m saying, so u can better understand. U keep implying that a premise is needed to validate anything, ANYTHING, I’m saying that this “premise” is not required, for anything, because it doesn’t exist, obviously, but u keep suggesting that I NEED one, as if u have one, well, what is it, why have u decided to believe it? How did u establish that it is correct, or moral, or ethical? Why should anyone else buy it? Etc. This is where we are at, in this conversation. If u come back, talking about my lack of a premise, I mean seriously, let’s move on now, we can disagree, and move on. But I want u to realize what u have done here, u brought ur misconceptions into a discussion, and u regard them as factual, even after being corrected, u presume that atheism is a worldview, it is not, but u keep insisting that it is, this is disingenuous behavior. Hold on to ur preconceptions, as if ur life and or argument depends on it, but u cant or wont learn anything this way, u dont know what ur talking about, my friend, perhaps I should learn, before telling someone else what their worldview is, through assumption, this is foolish behavior, and u have been corrected, so there is no further excuses, for it. U have NOTHING to say, outside of asking me to provide a premise, something that u have only asserted, without evidence, that this premise exists and its needed for something. Prove it, or get on down brother. U have offered nothing.
My point has been that you actually believe that you are a temporarily and accidentally existing ape and that you demand that I adhere to your temporarily and accidentally existing laws of logic/rules of evidence which you administer via your temporarily and accidentally existing brain and I am saying that, that is an absurd position which results in that you have not even taken step one: why should I adhere to you temporarily and accidentally existing bio-chemical reactions within your temporarily and accidentally existing brain where merely are predetermined by the temporarily and accidentally existing laws of thermodynamics?
That is what I mean by premise: there is utterly no reason for anyone to provide you anything in terms of logic, evidence, proof, etc. since it would just be one temporarily and accidentally existing ape adhering to the chest pounding of another temporarily and accidentally existing ape—and I have been to the zoo many times but have never been particularly impressed by what the apes have to say.
Thus, you have yet to even begin a sequence that would result in you asking me questions such as “How did u establish that it is correct, or moral, or ethical? Why should anyone else buy it? Etc.” If your only premise is that you are an temporarily and accidentally existing ape with an temporarily and accidentally existing brain then you have no premise upon which to even ask much less pretend that you have a premise upon which to dissect any reply I may have.
But I see why you are desperate to “move on” because that is the Atheist tactic 101: begin with a conclusion, demand, demand, demand, then demand some more, refuse to establish how your worldview even comes close to interacting on such issues, then childishly taunt and run away to do it all again to someone else who will hopefully jump through your hoops without question (you have not done the last two, but I am just speaking from experience).
See, you refer to having to “realize” and “misconceptions” and “factual” and “being corrected” and “disingenuous behavior” etc., etc., etc. but based on that being stated by a temporarily and accidentally existing ape via a temporarily and accidentally existing brain in a temporarily and accidentally existing universe: there is no reason to pay one second’s attention to your apish chest pounding.
Fascinatingly, you refer to me “telling someone else what their worldview is” when my point all along has been that I am begging you to elucidate your worldview but you just want to move on.
So then, you claim I “have NOTHING to say” but indeed, “outside of asking me to provide a premise” since you have not even begun setting the table for a discussion: you just demand and demand on the it just is of the gaps.
For example, you say “prove it” but how and why: because an ape demands that I do so? Sir, please.
Ken Ammi my friend, I appreciate u engaging with me. U seem like a nice person, and I also appreciate that. U and I disagree on many things, Atheism isn’t formed, it’s the null hypothesis, but this is just one thing that we disagree on, and I digress, I’ll just leave it at that, my friend. Good luck with ur channel! I wish u well. Take care!
I pray the best for you and yours.
It is just sad that, as with the thousands of Atheists with whom I have regularly interacted for over a decade, you are so stuck in Atheism’s thought restrictions that you opt to run off rather than facing inconvenient issues.
The mere fact that you do not even recognize the various traditional definitions of Atheism speaks volumes—you see to be a missionary for only one of its denominations and reject anyone who disagrees even Dawkins and Shermer. If you were open to learning about your worldview then you would never say something as utterly false as that Atheism is the null hypothesis.
Atheism is the null hypothesis, because u were not born with knowledge of any gods, its easy enough to understand and admit, but u dont seem to understand how ANY of this works. Do u know what a null hypothesis is? Someone had to tell u that there is a particular God and perhaps offer u a bible, u had no knowledge of any gods before this, do u understand? Atheism IS the null hypothesis, period, we are all Atheists at birth, u should understand this, honestly. If u disagree, then ur opening, yet another, can of worms. And the fact that u dont know or understand this, doesn’t make me wrong, look it up. Atheism has multiple definitions, not denominations, u can refer to them as denominations, but that’s not what they are. Atheism is a stance on a single claim, THAT IS IT! We Atheists only have one thing in common, this is where u are confused, and I’ve already clarified my stance on this countless times, u can not teach me a worldview that I DO NOT hold, I dont care how many Atheists u have talked to, are u an Atheist? If not, stop telling people what Atheism is, or what Atheists are, u have egg on ur face, believe it or not, we can disagree on opinion but u are disagreeing with facts, u have been intellectually dishonest, because u have talked to Atheists and think u are some kind of expert, u are not, u are incorrect and refuse to correct ur mistakes, there isnt much left for us to discuss. U have offered NOTHING. Thanks for the conversation, but it’s old now, let’s move on. U take care!
Ken Ammi prove Atheist isnt the null set, try to. U said it was false, but it isn’t, and u will eventually agree with me, if ur honest, unless ur a presump, which u would be wrong there also, because certain uncontacted tribes would disagree with u, and the countless other gods, that people worship, that contradicts ur god, they might disagree also, so, as u should plainly see, Atheism IS the null set, until someone tells u about a God, u are an Atheist, or possibly nuts, if u dream it up a version on ur own. And unless u believe in all gods, ur an Atheist too, u just have ur particular favorite, which has the same issues as all the rest, they are not guilty of existing, have not been demonstrated, so I choose not to believe in any, until they have been demonstrated to exist. That how good opinions are formed, from good evidence, not heresy, or a book of allegories, that has been shown to be incorrect. but u be my guest, have at it, my friend, I was once a believer too, because I was indoctrinated as a child, and I bought it, but not anymore. I appreciate ur effort here, but u gotta do better brother, if u want to continue to have these discussions. Learn my arguments, so u will be better prepared, u dont know what u think u do, and it shows. U should treat us all independently, as we are all different, have different reasons, different arguments, learn them, then react, dont tell someone what they are, or what they think, or what their worldview is, u dont know my worldview, at all, because Atheists do not share one. U can ask, and u implied that u did ask, but u didn’t. This all started because u said Atheism is a worldview, and u are incorrect, I’ve shown u where u are wrong, but u keep insisting, without offering anything to show that Atheists share a worldview, because u cant, and u should, at least correct this mistake. But u do u. Shalom brother
Ken Ammi I opted out of this conversation, because it wasnt going anywhere, out of respect, not because I was scared to face something. give me something to face. By all means, continue. Perhaps we can find some common ground somewhere. U can keep mentioning other Atheists if u like, but it’s of no relevance, we dont have leaders, I dont care what any other Atheists opinion is, I may agree or disagree with them, on certain issues, we are not all the same. I already acknowledged the different definitions, and clarified which one describes my usage of the word. This, in no way, is indicative of denominations. And again, I’m happy to disagree.
My years of experience with Atheists confirm that Atheist are deathly afraid of the implications of their worldview so when they cannot just show up on the scene and jump to conclusions by demanding that everyone jumps through their presupposed hoops, they just run away to find a sucker who will not challenge them.
For some reason, you do not even want to deal with the definitions of Atheism—likely because you have built a comfortable argument around pretending that there is only one.
Atheism is not the null hypothesis, Atheism is null and void. It is a non-issue: it is like you arguing that the lack of the existence of mathematics is the null hypothesis because we are all natural born a-mathicists.
Yet, even if we are “not born with knowledge of any gods” that is just a genetic logical fallacy.
You also seem quite eager to claim that anyone, including any Atheist, with how you disagree is wrong—based on your subjective preferences, of course. I noted that Shermer disagrees with you and you simply ignored it—just inconvenient, I supposed.
Now, if “Atheism is a stance on a single claim, THAT IS IT!” when in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in an actually existing God?
Also, telling me that if I am not an Atheist I cannot tell you “what Atheism is, or what Atheists are” is an embarrassment. I do not have to be a Nazi to tell you what Nazism is or what Nazis are.
You complain about being “intellectually dishonest” but cannot condemn intellectual dishonesty—even if that is what it is.
In short, what has failed here is your worldview which is why all you can do is emote and seek to abscond.
You then attempt to employ logic without a premise by referring to “the countless other gods, that people worship, that contradicts ur god” which is like saying that if I believe 2+2=4 but there are countless sums that it may equal that contradicts “4” then we cannot know the truth.
Also, no you were not a believer since “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us” (1 John 2:19, which ironically came up in my daily Bible reading today).
You also make a lot of demands again, premised on nothing but your emotions—accidental ones within an accidental brain, etc. but when you say “dont tell someone what they are, or what they think, or what their worldview is” and that I “dont know my worldview, at all” you seem to forget that upfront I asked about your worldview, that your worldview failed before it even began is another issue. You can dance around the issue and ignore Dawkins, et al., but the fact is that Atheism is your worldview.
And if you think that Atheists have no leaders then you should get to know some Atheists—and look at yourself in the mirror: you are your ultimate leader in your own eyes.
And that ended it as he no longer replied.
For some Atheism related info, see my books (on which I am offering a money saving deal):
Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors featuring Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Reasons for Being an Atheist: A Comprehensive Guide
From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist: A Consideration of Richard Dawkins’ Polemics Regarding Christianity, Atheism, Communism, Nazism and Evolution
The Wild and Wacky World of Atheist Bus Ads and Billboard
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.