church of atheism

Nods.

I don't mean this to be insulting, but when I see some others insistent takes on atheism, I figure they learned that in school or in church, or, church-school, not from a broad swath of everyday atheists.

The atheist cannot rebuke what is not there to be rebuked. Show him something to rebuke. Don't show him zilch and say to him, "Prove that it is zilch."

Desists seek to set out semantic traps and trick you into agreeing with them. The honest atheist need not step into the trap.

I understand and I admit that you are correct in some instances. However, if I may tear down your sentence just there to make a proof, I think you will find this interesting.

You "figure they learned that in school or in church, not from a broad swath of everyday atheists". Let me play with the words for a moment in context of the rest of the post.

This could just as easily say that you "assume they learned it from...".
Even more to the point this could just as easily be written that you have "judged them to be of little experience with other atheists"

A blind judgement. Which you knew because you clarified intent prior to posting the comment knowing that it would be found insulting if I were a lesser man.

This is the same blind judgement that upset Atheists as a whole. The blind judgement of the existence of a God. Or the blind judgemnt of your life choices. Though you were very political in your approach, you have done the same thing which Theists do. Keep in mind that I was once an Atheist myself. However, I do not dare compare my my experiences to yours in this matter. The are most definitely going to prove different.

I cannot show you air. Would you take a stance that it is not there?

Hi All,
Does it matter what others believe, or what you believe? I have friends of all religions and friends of none, I love them for who they are, not what they worship (I have no sadist, satanist, or pervert friends, by the way). I wouldn't want them to change. For pity's sake - If we all thought the same thoughts, we'd have no-one to talk to, this site, all sites, social groups and philosophy would be completely pointless. Can't we all find some enjoyment in discussing each other's beliefs and points of view, even if it is only mine that are the real deal?
Best wishes all.
Mark...

See? Semantic argument, in place of an evidenced one.

Not at all. You argue that there is nothing there to prove. I argue that you cannot prove that there is nothing there. Instead of taking a stance of proof you state that you do not HAVE to prove anything because I have not proven anything. That is exactly my point.

Neither of us can prove anything so neither of use can claim theism or atheism as both require an absolute one way or the other. The funny thing here is that I am not a theist in the traditional sense. I know that I cannot prove the existence of God. I also know that I cannot disprove it. The lack of evidence is not the evidence of lacking.

My air comment was simply to strike your imaginiation. We cannot see the air but we know it is there because we can see the effects of it. We can feel it on our skin, see the trees blow in the wind, breathe it deep and meassure it. But air was not always something we could meassure. We had to develop the tools and knowledge to understand it. As is with God (or the lack thereof). I could just as easily claim to feel the effects of God and that would be the same proof given for the air until we meassure it.

I have not taken a stance on this subject for one side or the other. Instead I take the stance that there is no side.

This makes me laugh. I make that "assumption" because that is what I learned in school and church too... all this capital A for atheist stuff. I will grant some probably learned it from independent reading or from a religious forum, with a few coming to the conclusion on their own.

I have personal knowledge of many atheists in everyday life and online, atheists of both sorts, even though I don't go around searching them out. Not being a statistician or researcher who did proper interviewing and documentation on my observations, my comment was just that, my observation. I'm not great at developing arguments in debate, but I spent years in research med technology before switching fields - let's say I am playing with a hypothesis that the insistent take that atheists are believers and might need some kind of proof is a kind of handed down, seemingly rote, view.

Where your argument breaks down, you think because you assert something for which there is no evidence, I ought to have evidence if I do not accept your thesis. Your argument has all the validity of a shell game. You think to put me on the defensive by asserting, on your say-so and on no other authority, I will at best break even by having no proof. Not so. I am clearly not in a dilemma, unless I allow your words to put me there.

Atheist is a label. If you are not sure what you believe then you would simply say that you are not sure, but if you state that you are an Atheist then you have claimed a label and applied it to your life. This means that you know what you believe and choose the appropriate label to fit you.

By taking a stance, you accept the stigma of that stance.

Why is it so hard to simply say you don't know one way or the other and search for answers in your own way?

If you are in no dilemma then why debate? If you have no further questions to answer for yourself, then why make conversation. I am a study of humanity edgar. If a man feels he has nothing to prove then a man attempts to prove nothing.

Your circumlocution and dodging techniques reveal much more than your statements themselves. You have yet to reply to a single one of my comments though I have replied directly to all of yours. If you have no dilemma then why do you discuss?

well actually, one can be shown air, measure it as well.

I am finding enjoyment, so far. I'm not inclined to go on and on in circles, though the circling can bring out new elements of interest, and I'll sometimes read others' debates - just that my own interest has fairly short limits. My limits have to do with lack of fascination, when I could be reading about Kyrgyzstan and all that. I'm no angel at a2k, as others here know, but I generally am not trying to convince others to my point of view: more that I am trying to explain myself. Thus I am not just right for a philosophy debate membership, more of a read along person.

Your label is not mine or many other atheists' label.

I discuss for the same reason you discuss. Because the topic interests me. Plus, I rarely see my point of view stressed on these threads, in language that suits me.

Well, hey, it is you who keeps insisting he or any of us prove what is not a belief to us.

(adds, bye, I'll read along later)

Hi osso,
Was that last post to me, or a misclick. I'd be using that bunny with a pancake on its's head, if I could find it.
Have a brilliant day, osso.
Mark...