What Atheists Do Not Believe

Xlnt elucidation of the issue.

Original Quill wrote:Xlnt elucidation of the issue.

Agreed Quill

Have a good evening

Catch you later

Same argument can therefore be but forward for any religion or theocratic stance. If one does not need to believe in the statements that define a theocratic position.

the Atheist that allows for some non-deity divinity is a non-theist by definition not an atheist. (example is Buddhism)

the argument when transferred to other theocratic positions means that a christian can be a christian without believing in any of the bible.

When atheism is treated just as a theocratic position rather than some innate truth it all falls down. How is atheist treating their theocratic position as an innate truth without consideration of our current knowledge of the universe any different than a Christian burying their head in the sand and holding their innate truth to be unquestionable?

I personally think Patheos.com highlights all that is wrong with atheism, if one holds no theocratic position to be true and requires proof to support that theocratic position, then none is provided.
merely going 'they are wrong so i am right' is not a valid hypothesis and is not affirming evidence. for it to be one must prove the binary nature of the universe(which is obviously false)

It truly is a site for mildly intelligent people to circle jerk

The atheist sees that as a job for the physicist.

So the Atheist see their theocratic position, that there is no divine element, as separate from science, which makes it merely faith. Where they further come unstuck is that most physicist claim agnosticism as it is what science has actually shown.
If ones faith is not based in science it has no more backing than an old book.

the fact that the last 5 points can be held by religions and agnosticism shows the shallowness of their theocratic position.

the first 4 points are really just admission that they don't know, yet have faith in an atheist theocratic position without evidence. which is my argument against these fundamental atheist that try and pretend they are 'better' than a theist. Both are holding a view to be true (not merely possible) without evidence to support that view as a fact.

I have no problem with atheists that admit they are relying on faith to hold that position BUT when atheist wish to state their theocratic potion is true then they must provide evidence to the affirmative just like any other theocratic position. the burden of evidence falls on those claiming to have a 'true position'. yet the only 'true position' is that we don't know enough to make a claim as to what is the 'true position'.

veya_victaous wrote:I personally think Patheos.com highlights all that is wrong with atheism, if one holds no theocratic position to be true and requires proof to support that theocratic position, then none is provided.
merely going 'they are wrong so i am right' is not a valid hypothesis and is not affirming evidence. for it to be one must prove the binary nature of the universe(which is obviously false)

Thorin wrote: An illogical position, as at no point does the atheist claim to be right based on beliefs.It only challenges poor religious beliefs. So you would need to show how and why your belief is true?

It truly is a site for mildly intelligent people to circle jerk

Thorin wrote: And there you have it, Theocratic racism in all its glory. That atheists cannot be intelligent,
based off nothing more than the opinion of someone who cannot even prove his point

The atheist sees that as a job for the physicist.

So the Atheist see their theocratic position, that there is no divine element, as separate from science, which makes it merely faith. Where they further come unstuck is that most physicist claim agnosticism as it is what science has actually shown.

Thorin wrote: Which proves you do not even understand what theocracy is. As Theocracy is a Political system based on religious commands from beliefs. So where is this atheist theocracy? You see you really do come out with some invented bullshit Veya

If ones faith is not based in science it has no more backing than an old book.

Thorin wrote: I have more faith in humans in what they do. So If I have faith in humans to be good and they do this, how has any of that to do with science, but human nature?

the fact that the last 5 points can be held by religions and agnosticism shows the shallowness of their theocratic position.

Thorin wrote:Can it? How so? Because you say so?

the first 4 points are really just admission that they don't know, yet have faith in an atheist theocratic position without evidence.  which is my argument against these fundamental atheist that try and pretend they are 'better' than a theist. Both are holding a view to be true (not merely possible) without evidence to support that view as a fact.

Thorin wrote: The first 4 points show that most poor arguments made to atheists are born from speculation. Yet again you try and class atheists as theocratic which makes zero sense. Showing you have no idea what Theocracy is. So instead you charge atheists alongside religious political absolutes. So maybe you can show me what political doctrine atheists must follow?
There is no such thing, because atheism is simple a belief that gods do not exists. Just as you are atheist to the abrahamic religions. That you do not believe this abrahamic deity exists

I have no problem with atheists that admit they are relying on faith to hold that position BUT when atheist wish to state their theocratic potion is true then they must provide evidence to the affirmative just like any other theocratic position. the burden of evidence falls on those claiming to have a 'true position'. yet the only 'true position' is that we don't know enough to make a claim as to what is the 'true position'.

I really despair at your ignorance at times Veya when you equate theocracy, a religious political order to atheism. Which has no rules or standard. It simple means no belief and yet because you believe in some wackadoodle belief you then equate everyone else to this stand point.
It does not work that way