[Neo] Atheists: How Much Lack of Belief is Required to be an Atheist?

You claimed to know everything about faith when you spoke of atheists - now you claim you don't understand it? Not believing
in the Easter Bunny is exactly the same as not believing in gods.

 

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? If you say "no" is that a faith?
Most atheists I know simply view gods like you view the Easter Bunny.

 

What a silly question. When I said "militant atheist" I did not mean the mainstream.

 

I'm about as adamant as they come. Doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility of some sort of... well, what? That's the real question. Theists don't even know what they believe in themselves. It's not defined in any meaningful way. Their deities are just something existing somewhere beyond our knowledge. Whatever. I'm open to any possibility, but that requires evidence. Theists don't have evidence, so there never is any evidence for me to consider.

 

Well, carry on.

 

Nope; They don't ask about God or gods. They take such a question for nonsensical.

Are you asking for a teapot in Earth orbit? It's the same senseless question.

Those who pray to a fictitious cannot understand atheism.

 

Nope.

Beliefs are generally defined as convictions that things held in the mind are true. If individuals think particular tenets are likely to be true, they are said to believe them. If individuals think particular tenets are unlikely to be true, they are said to disbelieve them.

Humans either believe ("something is true" is redundant), disbelieve, or don't know. By definition, humans can't believe something is false.

You assume that everyone owns glasses. Faulty premise.

What if one doesn't own a glass?

 

​

I'm unconvinced that these are appropriate ways of thinking about belief, or lack thereof. What is the real world interpretation of lacking belief 50%? Or, let's start with, what is the real world interpretation of having belief to 50%?

 

No it did not fall apart, after I showed you that you were wrong when you claimed rather amusingly that you needed a 100% lack of water to not be wet!

You then went on about the size of a water molecule, so I asked you what the size of a belief molecule was?

At this point you claimed you had won, rather charmingly awarded yourself a little trophy and ran away.

People can read the full text of our somewhat funny discussion here

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...heist-religion.571255/page-10#post-1071640799

 

How does one measure something that has no unit of measurement?

 

The question is about how much lack, enough as opposed to not enough.

Where do people come up with this stuff?
By visual inspection of the amount of liquid in the glass, as given in the example earlier. A glass 1/2 full of water means you do not have the other 1/2, it lacks 50% of its capacity. Same goes for beliefs or lack thereof.

It sure does, they go ballistic when informed that unless their beliefs are fact they believe on faith, and thats a fact.

All forms of absence can only occur in the mind before being introduced to a proposition

false

true they make a statement that they lack of belief, but its not clear how much belief they lack.

For the propositional question: Is earth is larger than the sun, you either believe the proposition is true or you believe it is false.

then we are taken right over the cliff

Lets start with how much one must lack belief to be classified correctly as an atheist. This is not a proposition about dissecting what is or is not a belief, it is a proposition looking for one answer and one answer only, HOW MUCH lack of belief is required to be an atheist? Very simple, please refrain from derailing the subjectmatter.

Your example was foolishly set up to be 100% waterless, forcing you to pretend water existed, a perfect shot to the foot.

35 posts of nonresponsive arguments most having little to nothing to do with the issue stated in the OP.

 

I never have bought into the idea "atheism is a lack of belief". They use that argument so they are invulnerable to question. Actually, they have very strong beliefs. Those of us that recognize intelligent design or a Creator recognize our sovereign individual rights are given to us by that Creator. Atheism promotes and paves the way for us to be ruled and rights dispensed by an elite class supported by a strong collective aka Socialism/Communism.

 

Umm oh never mind! The posts are there for people to judge.

 

and they should its hilarious and its a perfect demonstration at how neoatheists run their arguments head first over the cliff when they find their arguments in a corner with no way to turn but concede or cliff.

So how we doing on the OP premise?

how much LoB is enough to hold the label of atheist, very simple question?

 

Yes all we need is a unit of measurement for a belief?

Meanwhile what is a neoatheist?

 

Try telling that to the thousands of Libertarian Atheists ... won't go over well.

 

There are far more religious people who do not recognise Intelligent Design than there are Atheists.

 

But a true Liberatarian will see that a belief in God will help him/her protect individual rights from the collective so they will not "mock" or belittle those of faith. I know there are not many of those, but if there are, the "fairy in the sky" would only help preserve what they desire......FREEDOM

They're called "unalienable rights" I think a true libertarian accepts that premise.
Some Libertarians are just anarchists.

 

Religion is like membership in a "country club".....faith is a different thing. There are many many of faith. Most attend a Church. Some just worship w/ family and small groups. Secularists don't get that.

 

Bull crap. The church has a history abridging personal rights in carrying out their agendas. Or are you going to pretend that the Muslim "belief in god" has been a wonderful thing for personal freedoms? Or that the Catholic prohibitions against birth control are all about personal freedoms, or that Baptist's prohibitions on numerous books is all about "personal freedoms" ?

What a joke, "God's will" has been used to curtail personal freedoms for eons.

 

That does not alter the fact that more Christians support Evolution and do not recognise creationism than atheists, yet you blame atheists I do not understand why?

 

You promote "the joke". The joke is Faith is interpreted as "religion" which is man's effort to use the revelation of God to consolidate power for use as they see fit. Have been watching a mini series called The Last Kingdom. A person of Faith sees the struggle of Saxon Kingdoms trying to unite in the face of Pagan attacks. They claim the unifying factor is "Christianity". They just can't pull it off. Why? Because each King focuses on his own Kingdom. Not the Kingdom of God. It is not faith....it is "RELIGION"!

 

So think about it. You are calling individuals "Christians" that deny the Word of God as true. They deny mankind was created in the image of God. I don't disagree with you.It is a major misconception among secular Americans. How would they even know the teachings of Jesus if it were not for the Word of God?....yet they deny it? They say they are Christian because they "belong" to a church? That is like saying if I sleep in a garage I am an automobile!

 

For billions of people, their faith in God and their religious views are one in the same. Your own argument lends credence
to the fact that a belief in gods is no protection against loss of personal freedom. We have thousands of years of history
that prove it.

 

the Bible uses many allegories to illustrate points - given this fact, why do you discount the belief of Christians who look
at "... and God created the heavens and Earth ..." as an allegory for the Big Bang? I know there are a number of scientists who
feel that the Big Bang was the the spark of life at the hand of God.