Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

I would say everyone is born agnostic, which is almost the same as atheist but not quite. Agree?Atheism is a disbelief in God, not a lack of belief in Him. An Agnostic such as yourself, does not disbelieve in God, but lacks belief in him as I'm sure you'll agree you do not strongly believe and reject the notion of God.The atheist is the one who rejects God in his own mind.You cannot disbelieve something you have never heard of. When we are born, we are not dogmatically disbelieving any ideology.Ofcourse, I know you are obliging Riverrat's logic, rather than proclaiming people truly are born atheist. (I know I can appear obtuse when I adress someone and seemingly don't know why they are posting something. I know, I'm just a lazy to explain).

Hi RR.You quoted what I must take granted as Jar saying;(as I trust you ) I think this is true, but that the opposite can also be claimed. It is merely not as regularly conveyed as the positive is.You see, we as Theists, can replace his words thus;I can't think of a single reason for a Theist to not believe in God. There isn't any really good verifiable evidence there isn't one, or any strong reason to suppose there might not be a GodNo more Orang-jive! (Only kiddin' Jar, both statements are correct.).

I wouldn't say I pride myself, because I'm more of a wisdom-seeker, than a logic-fan. You are correct. Most of the time this isn't allowed, but both statements are both technically correct, in that both are true because of an exception to bivalence, in that we cannot say if God is true or false according to human knowledge. You once told me that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence IF we would expect that a certain evidence SHOULD be there, if the entity exists. (Or similar words atleast).I agree that there cannot be evidence for the non-existence of something a lot of the time, but it depends what we expect would evidence it if it did exist. The difference is one of knowledge.Your argument assumes that the positive is true,(as it is proven true) and is therefore not anologous, IMHO. Thus I could say;There isn't any eagle that eats, then; There isn't any eagle that does not eat.This time the negative favours me. But both your example and my example, are not valid analogies of what I am doing. ordinarily you would be correct, but logical rules are only there to stop error.For example, if I said;Your pig is pink therefore pink = your pig.This form is only fallacious because of error. But there are exceptions. For example, if your pig was the only pink thing in existence, then the logical rule would not apply.

Well, I agree with Nemesis on what a qualifier should be. Just to add; I don't think you can lump all gods in there anyway, as each case is vastly different.For example, evidence of an idol God being God would be a vastly different evidence from an invisible God.You can't prove God is not there, but it doesn't mean he is or isn't.

I guess you mean that there are reasons to reject God.I'm sure there are subjective and unique individual reasons that make this so, and I think you're right that this happens. It could also be argued that there are reasons to believe.On the whole, it's probably harder to believe. It can be nhilistic and worrysome, if one believes God isn't there to help. But it's harder to keep believing when things are tough, and God seems to not be there.But I've discovered that this is not really a truth; the TRUTH is that we don't want to have a tough time so we reject faith because it's too hard to accept that God is there, if we're having a tough time. Now people might pretend this isn't the case, but I think they know I am right about that.

When the Israelites were brought out of Egypt, they murmured against God because times were tough.What specifically confused you? Perhaps pragmatics are involved. What I mean to say, is that faith is tough to stick with. But nothing worthwhile is easy.

That's okay, most of the time I don't know what I'm saying either.Who cares what I say anyway? I don't. I already know I'm full of it.

I don't really do this. No. It's just such a freedom to admitt I could be entirely wrong about it. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I suppose so. If they become truly convinced that the Gospel is a story and the universe is atheist then I suppose so. I think Ramoss mentioned some valid personal reasons. ahaha. You really do think I doubt God because of my agnostic-like posts and such. I just content myself in knowing that being wrong is something any reasonable person has to think about if they are really interested in truth seeking.Look, Phat my friend, I believe in Jesus fully. If I started to disbelieve I know that he's left me without excuse because he has refuted me. Only Christ has ever refuted me Phat. For that reason, I shall call him Mycroft Holmes. The freedom, is that I don't have to be a radical like I used to be. It's great to not preach at atheists because I they are just some rare bunch of harmless naturalists to me these days.

I can see the pragmatics behind his words;I think means that disbelief comes because of the persons desire to disbelieve. I think RiverRat is saying that because societies are brought up in belief, it is then a change of this position that causes a none-belief.Forgive me if I am wrong in interpreting what you mean RR.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : spelling

Well, we must by our own thoughts, come to unbelief. Otherwise you would still believe, ofcourse.I know that as I was becoming atheist for a month or so, I was entertaining doubtful disputations pertaining to God. And the parable of the sower, describes all people.You have to apreciate that there are many adults who have always been believers throughout. Many times do you mention the majority of christians being evolutionist, and that scientists are christians too.I suspect it would have been very tough for you to carry on believing with all those doubts running riot upstairs. I know that I was close to the change and it was very difficult to deny my own musings and stay faithful.Don't hate me for harbouring irrefutable argumentation Shraff.