Atheists... Your life is pointless

bump

So is there a point to you? If there is, then what do you think it is?

There absolutely is a burden upon you...to say you do not believe something, does not say you have no beliefs about it at all...To say you do not believe something is exactly, quantitatively, subjectively equal to saying I believe something because...Or I challenge you to prove to me that that is incorrect since I believe things, and you claim you do not...then prove to me how what I have said is a belief I can't prove...but what you have said is not a belief because you can PROVE IT...if you can...Most of your whole first post above was nothing but beliefs about what "I believe" just to beat around the fact that you claim that atheism is no belief, and that you have nothing to substantiate because it is a rejection of positions...not a belief....subjectively of course...because if you argue that atheism is a universal "challenge of acceptance of propositions" then that is still a universal belief...

It makes no difference if you say this "challenge of acceptance of propositions" or this "beliefs"

Whatever you subjectively view atheism as is what you believe it is...

Do you think every single atheist sees atheism exactly like you do?

If they do is it a philosophy or religion then?

This is what i mean by you lacking the mental equipment to understand what i'm saying.



Where did i say that? Quote the post in which i said that.

If i tell you i don't believe something, i have no burden of proving that i don't believe it. After all, i'm the only one who knows whether or not i believe something. If i tell you i don't, you just have to take my word for it.

Duh-uh.

Very definitely there is no “burden of proof” for someone saying, “I do not believe there is a god.”

But there also is no “burden of proof” for someone saying, “I believe there is a god.”

One is a “belief” and one is a lack of “belief”…but neither incurs a “burden of proof”…unless one expects another person to “prove” that is his “belief.”

If, however, a person asserts “there is a GOD”…then a burden of proof arises and is borne by the person making the assertion. (SpadeMaster has asserted there is a GOD...and if he chooses to assert this in a discussion, the burden of proof for the assertion DOES fall on him.)

If a person asserts “there are no gods”…then a burden of proof arises and is borne by the person making the assertion. I have not heard anybody in this discussion assert there are no gods...so no burden of proof arises in that direction.

If I am wrong (it is a long thread) and someone has asserted "there are no gods"...that person does assume a burden of proof for that assertion.

Bullshit...It makes no difference whether you say it or not...and it does not make me incoherent or some other lame ass claim you assert...If I ask you a question then why not just answer it unless you are scared too, or do not want to because it puts you into a situation in which you can not try to dominate other participants? What significant relevance or validation do I need to obtain from you in order for my question to be found valid or worthy or answering or not? If your not man enough to answer or are too lazy then just tell the truth...It doesn't make a damn difference if you don't think you brought it up...My life does not operate around Setanta's ego...

Are you willing to answer my questions in my last post or not? Straight out...before you try to duck and dodge this one about how I am incoherent and am trying to infer bullshit that you never claimed...

DUUUHHH!!!

Welcome Bryce,
I agree with you regarding purpose in life being an independent question from a deity. I am curious regarding the top 1% of a society creating religions. What evidence brings you to that conclusion?
--Matt

Is this the same or different as asserting there are no gods? If it is different can you explain why you think it is?

If you and Set think it is different, does that not mean that you believe it is? Or that you both do not believe that it is?

Do you think every atheist thinks this same exact way as what Set said? If you think they do, can you explain why? Would that be your belief? If you think that not everyone would, or you can't explain it, is it because you believe this? Or because you do not believe this?

Is life, being what it is, worth having, Setanta? Was it ever?

Life is brought forth in evolution by an automatic process. It does not matter whether such life was or was not worth living. The subject is not considered.

But science and intelligence demands that the question is considered before human life is brought forth. It is a mark of civilisation that it is considered. The least civilised of societies consider the question least.

As an avid student of history you will know that the Emperor Augustus cajoled, bribed and threatened the higher classes to get them to have more children. And despite the extent of his powers he failed and it is possible to argue that the decline of the Empire began at that point.

Two or three of those popular heresies which were put down with savage force declined sexual activity. I assume they did so because life was to them a nightmare which they didn't wish to inflict on others who were not yet here. Many go childless today for the same reason.

Basically, your expression " Life is" is a voice from the animal side of things.

You need to justify life being worth living as an atheist. And in a civilised and intelligent manner.

Obviously I can't attest for Setanta's views, but judging by the quote in your comment...
No not all atheists feel that way regarding purpose in life. There are atheistic humanists, atheistic nihilists, and many other philosophical positions that an atheist might have.

It is different!

Allow me to rephrase the second sentence (the operative part) and you will see that it is different:

One does not need a god to give a point to one's life.

And that is correct. You might properly charge that Setanta must assume a burden of proof that "one does not need a god to give a point to one's life"...but in no wise is his statement an assertion that no gods exist.

The point he is making is that a god is not a necessary ingredient in having a point to one's existence...not that there are no gods.




I do not do "beliefs", Spade. It is my opinion that a god is not necessary for one to have a point to life.

How very pathetic you are--i'm not "afraid" to answer your question, it simply is a matter of your question being a non sequitur to what i have already said.

Your hostility is pathetic and amusing. I haven't said that you should or should not believe anything. I haven't said that your life should operate around anything i've said.

You were inferring something i had never said when you made claims about merit and having a point. I said nothing of the kind, and this is at the heart of your inability to understand what i am saying. Whether or not you or anyone else claims that there is a point to life, or a merit in theism is not relevant to the undeniable fact that people are--they are born, the are alive, and then they die, at which point they are dead. This is true without reference to your judgments.

Duh-uh

You have a false premise there, Frank. I am not saying that one's life has or can have a point. That's, in fact, the antithesis of what i am saying. I have consistently stated that people exist, that life exists, whether or not anyone alleges that there is merit or a point to that existence.

Hey Frank ,
The who has the burden of proof argument hinges primarily on an assumption of Occam's Razor. It is an assumption supported by empirical evidence in other "knowledge", however empirical evidence as a measure of knowledge is yet another assumption.
I happen to find much validity in Occam's Razor in potentially measurable phenomena (phenomena for which empirical evidence "should" apply). A theist may logically make the argument that the universe's creation is a one-time event (not empirically measurable). The deity is one of a kind (not empirically measurable).
Given your (assumed by me) fallibilistic position regarding knowledge I thought you might appreciate seeing where the assumptions in Occam's Razor lie.
Also the whole "who has the burden of proof" thing gets really tired, and doesn't end up moving the discussion along.

Okay.

Its very pathetic of you try to make claims that I am incoherent because you think I try to infer bullshit that was never stated...It does not make any difference at all if that is factual or not...You do not refrain from asking me what you want...and I can ask you anything I want too...I do not have to bring the conversation to an area that you feel is personally acceptable to acknowledge...Or relevantly conducive to what you want to hear, expect, or find worthy to discuss...that is ridiculously dumb...

I know, I know you are going to claim I am incoherent and am trying to infer more things you never claimed...It makes no difference though, I can interpret things the ways I see fit, and do not need your authority to validate it...that is absurd...

You have a free option you can answer it once it is proposed, however it is, or you can choose not too...but why not stop trying to divert attention because you feel you do not wish to engage the questions asked?

Duh-uh...

Matt...Occam's Razor leads to as many false conclusions as to reasonable ones.

Of all the arguments that enter these discussions, the use of Occam's Razor is, in my mind, the least persuasive.

Comments about who bears the burden of proof may be tiring, but they are necessary when demands for proof arise. And I honestly do not see how a discussion of this sort can "move along" without adherence to the notion of when a burden of proof exists...and who bears it.

No, actually, when you are enraged like this, and drop all the bizarre, esoteric baggage you usually carry into a discussion, you are far more coherent than you ordinarily are. That doesn't mean, though, that you are logically coherent. If i have not said a thing, then for you to argue against that thing is to erect a straw man fallacy. Have fun beating up on those scarecrows, Bubba.

As for the "question asked," if you weren't so pathologically unequipped to understand what i am saying, you'd see that the question is not relevant. I've already stated that people are, that people exist, whether or not someone thinks that state has merit or a point. So your question is a non-sequitur.

It is still an assertion, just like it would be to say One does need a god to give a point to one's life. ...

Or is this now an assertion to you? While the other one is not just taking the word not out of there...

Both are subjective views, it doesn't matter if one thinks it is true or not, it is subjective, it is an assertion, to claim it, would require proof to validate it is true...You said it is true, but it can not be proven true unless one believes it subjectively, or can prove it is a correct statement...

So it's an assertion to say that people exist? Are you willing to argue that that is not demonstrated?

Do you want to answer them? Or do you not want to answer them?