Atheism requires faith as well...?

[PoopShoot]

Cambridge University has a good source where you can learn about atheism:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html

There's nothing to learn about.  Atheism is merely the rejection of belief in gods, everything else is other philosophies.

And here is where the faith must come in if you wish to follow the Aristotelian laws of logic:

? where is the evidence ?

Evidence for what?

[Whitney]

Cambridge University has a good source where you can learn about atheism:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html

There's nothing to learn about.  Atheism is merely the rejection of belief in gods, everything else is other philosophies.

Not to mention that the university itself didn't publish that website, it seems to be the project of some theology professors.  I frankly didn't see the point in reading it because I'm already familiar with any philosophical arguments they may have included on the page.  Well, and that I don't take freeservant very seriously considering his past record here.

[PoopShoot]

Well, and that I don't take freeservant very seriously considering his past record here.

I don't know about his past record, but I disregarded everything he said after "premise 1: there is no god".  This kind of thinking betrays a deep ignorance of what atheism means.  Whether that ignorance is intentional or not, I don't know, but  I do know that he's posted on this forum enough times for me to reasonably doubt that he's never been corrected in this gross assumption.

[freeservant]

 how did I do that?

[freeservant]

Well, and that I don't take freeservant very seriously considering his past record here.

I don't know about his past record, but I disregarded everything he said after "premise 1: there is no god".  This kind of thinking betrays a deep ignorance of what atheism means.  Whether that ignorance is intentional or not, I don't know, but  I do know that he's posted on this forum enough times for me to reasonably doubt that he's never been corrected in this gross assumption.

What you call a gross assumption only apply if language and the meaning of words are ONLY subjective.

There is a science to language and meaning: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem12.html

Do you know what the word asymmetry means?

It means without symmetry

Do you know of the laws of logic?

In the law of the excluded middle the question is binary

Yes or No

God

Theist = God and the belief there in.

Atheist = without god/s

You believe in A or T and in order to be A you believe.  In order to be T you believe. (hence the invocation of the excluded middle)

And Whitney I don't take your ad-hom seriously considering the evidence demanding atheist can deny they need evidence if the laws of logic are inconvenient for them or if Bertrand Russell happens to be inconvenient for them.

Oh and I get why having a non-belief vacuum of thought on the matter of God works for the atheist who can't possibly produce evidence for their faith and it works for the theist as well as you can see in my UNBEATABLE sig...

Look at my sig an tell

[freeservant]

Cambridge University has a good source where you can learn about atheism:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/history.html

There's nothing to learn about.  Atheism is merely the rejection of belief in gods, everything else is other philosophies.

And here is where the faith must come in if you wish to follow the Aristotelian laws of logic:

? where is the evidence ?

Evidence for what?

Evidence that you are rational and have a rational view that uses logic.

Oh an the link is about HISTORY

But please continue with your irrational contempt prior to investigation if that will keep your faith alive.

[PoopShoot]

Theist = God and the belief there in.

Atheist = without god/s

This is where your argument falls apart.

Theism: belief in gods
Atheism: no belief in gods.

Not believing in gods doesn't mean I believe there are no gods just as acquitting a murder suspect doesn't mean I think he's innocent.  Just as my acquittal for reasonable doubt doesn't mean I think he's innocent, my lack of belief in your god for reasonable doubt doesn't mean I assert he doesn't exist.  Before you try to school others in logic, learn some for yourself.

[PoopShoot]

Evidence that you are rational and have a rational view that uses logic.

My requirement that you have evidencee in order for me to accept your claims is evidence that I'm a rational person and hold a ration view based on logic.

Oh an the link is about HISTORY

Yes.  History of a non-"ism".  "The history of atheism" is shorthand for "some people who lack belief in gods have said/done things that make me want to try and lump modern people who also lack a belief in gods with them".  It's the same fallacy as trying to say that I think something merely because Dawkins or Hitchens wrote it in a book.  please try to make that argument, please oh please

But please continue with your irrational contempt prior to investigation if that will keep your faith alive.

My contempt isn't irrational, it's based on a futility of looking into something that is admittedly based on ignorant assumptions about a non-position.  As for keeping my faith alive: it's too late for that, my faith died years ago, that's why I'm not a Christian anymore.

[DropLogic]

If god was real...wouldn't we be born believing in him? Would an all powerful god be so selfish as to demand your blind affection? Doesn't make much sense does it.  
Religion was the first form of capitalist infomercial.  "Hey wow...these people buy this crap! Roll with it!"
Sadly, Atheist came before Theist, but thanks to the overwhelming amount of believers, we have to take the "anti" side.  Non-believer is a better description I suppose.

[Whitney]

And Whitney I don't take your ad-hom seriously considering the evidence demanding atheist can deny they need evidence if the laws of logic are inconvenient for them or if Bertrand Russell happens to be inconvenient for them.

Define ad-hom for those of us who don't understand it  

(btw, it's important that you figure it out because ad-hom is against the forum rules and you are guilty of it already in the short time you have returned to HAF; in fact repeat offenses of that is why you were banned for a week the last time...btw, this is your warning.)

[freeservant]

Evidence that you are rational and have a rational view that uses logic.

My requirement that you have evidence in order for me to accept your claims is evidence that I'm a rational person and hold a ration view based on logic.

Wait?  So you need no evidence but only I do?  

Premise expansion: “As rationalists, we maintain that evidence is absolutely required for proof of a statement; yet we maintain categorically that there exists no deity despite total lack of solid, irrefutable evidence in support of that statement, and the impossibility of ever obtaining such evidence.”

Ah... so you are not a rationalists when it comes to yourself... Yeah.. the bankruptsy of having a non-position has eluded you.  And you think to school me on logic.

Oh an the link is about HISTORY

Yes.  History of a non-"ism".  "The history of atheism" is shorthand for "some people who lack belief in gods have said/done things that make me want to try and lump modern people who also lack a belief in gods with them".  It's the same fallacy as trying to say that I think something merely because Dawkins or Hitchens wrote it in a book.  --please try to make that argument, please oh please

What are you trying to say?  I get that non-ism is not rational as it makes a constant special pleading case that the non-believer can't have any rational position for their non-position what they argue in circles about.

Premise: Atheism is rational

A non-belief and non-position is logical as it needs nothing as it is only a nothing that has no burden.

B an assertion that atheism is a non-assertion absence of any needed evidence or faith in rational cognitive ablities that require any belief statement

= C The undefeatable tautology that makes atheists so incredibly bankrupt in their faithless devotion to the idea that they are rational or use logic.

But please continue with your irrational contempt prior to investigation if that will keep your faith alive.

My contempt isn't irrational, it's based on a futility of looking into something that is admittedly based on ignorant assumptions about a non-position.  As for keeping my faith alive: it's too late for that, my faith died years ago, that's why I'm not a Christian anymore.

I was once an atheist and my personal experience is that God has not abandoned you even if you abandon God.  He did not abandon me.

[freeservant]

And Whitney I don't take your ad-hom seriously considering the evidence demanding atheist can deny they need evidence if the laws of logic are inconvenient for them or if Bertrand Russell happens to be inconvenient for them.

Define ad-hom for those of us who don't understand it  

(btw, it's important that you figure it out because ad-hom is against the forum rules and you are guilty of it already in the short time you have returned to HAF; in fact repeat offenses of that is why you were banned for a week the last time...btw, this is your warning.)

Henry Coppee, page 147, says: "The argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacy when the design it to teach pure [p. 66] truth, and when no unholy passion or emotion is appealed to. In this application it was used by our Savior himself to the Jews on many occasions with great force and beauty. His touching and yet searching appeal to them for the woman taken in adultery sent them out one by one before his power. Each one felt the argument and admitted the conclusion." But some one may say: "To charge her accusers with the same crime did not prove her to be innocent." Certainly not; neither did the Savior intend that it should. But he intended to stop the unholy mouth of her hypocritical accusers. He knew these men cared nothing about the woman's guilt. He knew they were after him, and not her, and were using her in an effort to get him to commit himself in such a way that they could make out a case against him. The woman's guilt was a mere pretext. And the fact stands out clearly that Jesus stopped their mouths by charging they were as guilty as she.

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rw ... e/TAHA.HTM

Did you not attack my person with the following:  

I frankly didn't see the point in reading it because I'm already familiar with any philosophical arguments they may have included on the page. Well, and that I don't take freeservant very seriously considering his past record here.

This was an attack on my character to try and evade and not address the validity of the scholarly work done on that website.

You would have a valid ad hominem if you can rightly show that there is any valid linkage to my behavior that shows that website as invalid by reason of my personal character that you feel makes any philosophical argument that by contempt prior to investigation is prepositionally invalid because you are familiar with them.

So I say that She that is without guilt can cast the first stone...

[DropLogic]

I was once an atheist and my personal experience is that God has not abandoned you even if you abandon God.  He did not abandon me.

HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW?

[PoopShoot]

Wait?  So you need no evidence but only I do?  

Of course I need evidence when I make an assertion.  What assertion are you asking I support?

Premise expansion: “As rationalists, we maintain that evidence is absolutely required for proof of a statement; yet we maintain categorically that there exists no deity despite total lack of solid, irrefutable evidence in support of that statement, and the impossibility of ever obtaining such evidence.”

Ah... so you are not a rationalists when it comes to yourself... Yeah.. the bankruptsy of having a non-position has eluded you.  And you think to school me on logic.

Putting words in my mouth and then attributing that position to me is a strawman argument.  Yes, you need some schooling on logic.

What are you trying to say?  

I'm saying that your equate the writings of past philosophers with my beliefs (that you never asked me about) is a strawman.  Unlike religious churches, I'm not obligated to accept the ideas of a past philosopher merely because we share the same moniker.

I get that non-ism is not rational as it makes a constant special pleading case that the non-believer can't have any rational position for their non-position what they argue in circles about.

What?  English, please.

Premise: Atheism is rational

Are you still trying to attribute premises to me?

Let me know when you you're ready to discuss instead of attribute.

[PoopShoot]

This was an attack on my character to try and evade and not address the validity of the scholarly work done on that website.

Negative.  It was personal reasoning as to why she wasn't addressing your post.  An ad hom requires that she address your post by flasely claiming something against you personally.