I mean, they got to believe in something right? Don't they believe that science is god, or something like that? How can they live their life believing in nothing? It just doesn't make sense. Do you think when the swipe their debit card at the grocery store that they believe it will work? They do believe that it will work, right? Why would they swipe it if they didn't believe it would work.

Come on people. Atheists believe in something so they aren't really atheists.

Let's see you people destroy my sound logic. You just can't do it. Unless of course you insist on using commonly accepted definitions for commonly understood terms. But that wouldn't be playing fair. So come on, have at it.

<smile>

LOL!

Whew! As an agnostic I dodged a (Schrödinger's) bullet on that one!

I used to be an agnostic, but now I just don't know.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I mean, they got to believe in something right?
> Don't they believe that science is god, or
> something like that? How can they live their life
> believing in nothing?...

You seem to think that an atheist believes in NOTHING. Where on earth did you get that idea?

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in GOD (or gods). An atheist can believe in all kinds of other things. Like science, love, goodness, life....

Perhaps you need to sharpen your definition skills.

It's OK, Richard -- he was kidding :)

"What do you mean you are an atheist? Don't you believe in anything at all, brother? We all need something to believe in! Brother, tell me, what do you believe in?"
- "You are right brother, I do believe in something. My credit card. It's always there for me when I need a new painting or antique jewellery. I believe in the power of my credit card and it has helped me through my greatest trials!"

Their face is gonna be priceless.

I believe the weatherman as much as Christians do.

I believe for every drop of rain that falls A flower grows, even though, statistically, its unlikely
I believe that somewhere in the darkest night A candle glows, although I havent done an exhaustive study

Essexexmo [NLI] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe for every drop of rain that falls A
> flower grows,

Your knowledge of plant physiology is sorely lacking.

I believe I'll have another cup of coffee...:)

There's a difference between belief and trust.
I "trust" my debit card will work. This is based on evidence, the foundation of which is the fact there's money in the account and it has worked each and every time before.
Belief, I submit, is similar except it is not founded upon evidence, rather a claim. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny....all exist in the mind of belief.
As kids we are taught to confuse the two, and then as adults we perpetuate that confusion by making statements like "I believe in climate change"...when in fact what you mean to say is that you trust the science.
As an atheist I do not "believe" in anything...rather I trust based on the evidence presented to me. Others may see things differently.

I believe there is no difference between "belief" and "trust."

But I trust that in spite of my belief that there really is a
difference.

it teaches you of all the possibilities of the universe. It also disproves the existence of any god for me.

So you got me. I do believe in cash.

"In God we trust. All others pay cash."

~ Sign at a checkout stand in a retail outlet

Of course, since everyone thinks with the same logic you do, right?

That was good. =)

HH

Atheism is a trap laid by theists to easily dismiss your arguments, since Atheists are the least trusted demographic in America.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

I can't believe so many ExMo's walk up to the chalk outline on the side walk and lay down in it.

I'm with Sam Harris, who said as much 10 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODz7kRS2XPs

(FF'wd to minute 4:15 to skip the introduction)

"So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I’ve got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it. So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great. I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves “atheists.” And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist.

Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2017 09:46PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "We should go under
> the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while
> there, we should be decent, responsible people who
> destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."

Interesting that the guy who says "go under the radar" is a very visible, very public, very outspoken advocate. Hmm.

I agree with his second part. I don't agree with the first part. I consider that "hiding." That's far more "pandering" to the religious majority -- they'd love for us to stop being public and vocal -- than being public and vocal are.

Let me see if I understand your point. Because theist may say bad things to and about atheists, atheists shooed hide "go under the radar" in order to destroy bad ideas?

Why would I want to do that? As atheists have come out of the closet, so to speak, the public view about atheists has improved. (see the graph in point 9). This mirrors what happened with the LGBT civil rights movement. As with the LGBT movement, people are less likely to dislike atheists if the actually know one or more.

Viability is the best way to destroy bad ideas about atheist.

The worst way to deal with a bully is to let them bully you into hiding.

The above post was a reply to http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1944832,1945749#msg-1945749