The only way one can act "inconsistently with their atheism" is to act as if a god existed, because all atheism means is "lack of belief in any god." Mike is playing the "atheists have no valid source of values" card, which is wrong. I have written more about this in other threads, but Mike won't discuss it - he just keeps throwing the claim out occasionally.

Jack, call me cynical but I disagree with your characterization of Mike's intent. I think Mike is just playing a simple, cowardly, semantics game to try to smear others (how Christian of him!).

Murder (e.g.) is not specifically addressed by atheism. So murder is neither consistent, nor inconsistent with atheism. But using the double-negative and saying, "murder is 'not inconsistent' with atheism," gives the appearance of tacit approval. Mike repeatedly exploits that appearance when he insists on using the double-negative and runs away from the positive form. Which also brings up another frequent short-circuit in Mike's logic - he likes to post ugly quotes by some atheist or another, and when no one specifically condemns the quote, he thinks it implies that we must approve of it.

Using different examples, you can see how ridiculous Mike's double-negative smear is:
Murder is "not inconsistent" with the chess club by-laws.
Abortion is "not inconsistent" with driving a car.
Or...
Helping an old woman cross the street "not inconsistent" with atheism.

If Mike were to walk out to the barn, lift up the horse's tail, and take a big lick... is that "not inconsistent" with Christianity?

The real question remains...
Yes or No?

Henry.........Jack, call me cynical but I disagree with your characterization of Mike's intent. I think Mike is just playing a simple, cowardly, semantics game to try to smear others (how Christian of him!).

Double negatives are a rather clever psychological trick which requires a rather sophisticated audience to discern. Average person will have this just fly by over their head and the person making this statement is typically going to reap the applauses.

You normally hear it used by someone who wants to cloud the actual topic by big and sophisticated words that can be instead expressed by rather simple language, especially in legal cases by defense attorneys who play to laymen juries, it is common in politics when the message is geared towards the base which is often times not sophisticated (you can see this today on the Republican side), political pundit heads talking (mostly on the Republican side), and philosophical/religious debates by a few Christianist theologians/philosophers (Denesh DeSouza and William Lane Craig in particular).

I would not be suprized if someone has written their masters or PhD thesis on double negatives in politics/religious discourse.

Double negatives reek of weak and psychologically bankrupt position as it's one of the last resorts one would use to finely disguise their position by sophistry.

P.S..... For some reason, the spell checker is not working, Jack?

Jack, I did not say AtheISTS have no values. They certainly do; some are conservative, some are liberal, some are Pro Abortion, some are Pro Life, some are Communists, some are Right Wingers.

But whatever they are, none of it is inconsistent with AtheISM. Some posters can cry and stamp their feet but it isn't.

If they chose to save a life that is not being inconsistent with Atheism.

If they chose to wipe out their opponents, call them names, etc, theat is not inconsistent with Atheism either.

In fact, it is all CONSISTENT with Atheism.

And what do you mean I won't talk about? The vast majority of my questions are ignored, and one poster in particularly cowardly fashion ignores my posts and questions but continues to talk about me.

But I have never seen you mention any of that.

Another one accused me of being ready to commit vicious crimes, and self rigtheously thinks I am under some obligation to answer all his questions. Cowardly and Contemptible if you ask me.

But, let me add...none of that is inconsistent with ATHEISM.

Mike, we've had this exact same discussion before, and, to be blunt, your point is stupid.

I don't believe in Leprechauns - I am an a-leprechaunist, and there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with that. Liking ice cream is not inconsistent with being an a-leprechaunist, hitting someone would not be inconsistent with being an a-leprechaunists, and so on. Nothing is inconsistent with a-leprechaunism because a-leprechaunism isn't about anything other than not believing in leprechauns - there is nothing else that is consistent with a-leprechaunism, and therefore nothing that is inconsistent.

The same is true of atheism. As I said before, "The only way one can act 'inconsistently with their atheism' is to act as if a god existed, because all atheism means is 'lack of belief in any god.'" The fact that nothing else is inconsistent with atheism has totally no significance whatsoever. There is no further inference one can draw about an atheist other than he doesn't believe in god.

If there is no further inference one can draw from one being an atheist than that he does not believe in God, then the whole thing sounds like a pretty meaningless position.

No inferences, no implications, nothing.

Right.

You are being snarkily sarcastic, I presume?

Mike writes,



Although Mike is being sarcastic, he is in fact right: there are no further inferences that one can draw about atheism other than an atheist doesn't believe in any god. Whatever other beliefs an atheist has, about anything, do not follow from his lack of belief in gods.

What inferences and implications do you think can be drawn, Mike? I am an atheist: what do you think follows from that, other than I don't believe in God or things which are based on belief in God?

Jack, I think this comment is incorrect. Here's the reason why. Atheism is the disbelief in the living God or perhaps gods accredited for creation and other fanamana considered unacceptable, but that doest mean that atheist don't have gods. Voltaire said, "It there were not God, it would be necessary to invent one." And so you have. A man can be a god unto himself. The New Age Movement with self worship. Take a look a Richartd Dawkins, he stretches his blind faith to infinity. He is a very religious man and his god is evolution, hook line and sinker.

You must admit that you cannot know whether God exist or not. Therefore claiming to be an atheist you have replaced the belief in what you do not know with another belief you do not know. And claiming or trusting that this new belief is based on reason, logic, evidence, science and the mind of man makes it a god.

An atheist must deny the existence of God because he hopes God doesn't exist. Not because there is a reason, but simply because he has placed his faith and trust in another god.

Wrong, but I have questions about what you say.

First, what definition of "God" are you using here. For example, Wikipedia says (and you're welcome to supply a different definition, or disagree with this):



What would mean to say, that I, or anyone, has made myself, a god: what ever man is, or what capabilities we have, we are not supernatural, we are not the craetor or overseer of the universe, we are not omni-anything, we are not eternally existent, etc.

So my question is: what qualities of "godhood" do you think someone who doesn't believe in god bestows on mankind?

Also, you write, "You must admit that you cannot know whether God exist or not. Therefore claiming to be an atheist you have replaced the belief in what you do not know with another belief you do not know. And claiming or trusting that this new belief is based on reason, logic, evidence, science and the mind of man makes it a god."

Why does trusting in "reason, logic, science" and others aspects of my knowing about the world make a belief in the value of product of that trust a "god"?

And you write, "An atheist must deny the existence of God because he hopes God doesn't exist. Not because there is a reason, but simply because he has placed his faith and trust in another god."

Baloney. It is an arrogant and insulting projection on your part for you to say I "hope God doesn't exist." I don't accuse you of believing in God because you need a crutch to escape acknowledging the real situation you are in - a temporary natural product of the universe - I accept that you genuinely believe in the truth of your God for your own reasons, but I expect you to likewise not project your notions about my motivations on me.

And, again, what "other god" have I placed my faith and trust in?

What "other god" have I placed my trust in?

Jack

No disrespect meant. My mistake in saying ' And so you have.' I was referring to the creation of the religion of atheism and evolution. I know you must say they are not religions, but I and thousands of the religious and atheist would differ. What I said was not to be personal, but is was written that way, sorry.

And in what ways are atheism and acceptance of evolution a religion? (Although is considerably different than your previous points about replacing one god with another.) That's what I don't get.

So what's your definition of religion? What qualities of having religious beliefs do I have because of either my atheism or my acceptance of evolution. I know you and others say those are religious beliefs, but why? There is no belief in the supernatural, no worship, no sacred ceremonies - none of the things commonly associated wit religion. So can you be more specific: in what ways are atheism and acceptance of evolution a religion?

Jack

Atheism does not remove the presence or reality of God, it simply replaces him, with another god or belief.

Molecule to man evolution is based on faith. Take a simple phylogenic tree, look at all the dotted lines, bazillions of transitions. There's not one evolutionary transitions which have ever been observed which can substantiate the claim. Not during human history or in the fossil record of the past. Each and every dot and line is a supposition based on belief, not fact. The overall promotion of this belief is nothing short of a missionary effort to save the masses if you will from the evils of conflicting beliefs such as Christianity. This is a sacred movement The belief in and submission to this faith is a form of worship. This is and organized movement based on faith. There is no difference here in the commitment, determination and drive which guides an independent suicide bomber. He really believes what he has accepted as fact is true. It's pure religion nothing else.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Evolutionist Michael Ruse

I know you see it as fact not faith, but remember that's your belief and your belief is not mine.

Imaginary creatures and and hypothetical possibilities doesn't sell to everyone.

ABO writes, in respect to accepting evolutionary theory, "This is a sacred movement The belief in and submission to this faith is a form of worship."

ABO is using these words in ways that are meaningless - even if you grant that accepting evolution is as much an act of faith as accepting God (which is wrong, but not the subject of this discussion), there is nothing about accepting evolution that is sacred, or involves worship. I've asked several times for ABO to explain what meaning he has for words like god and religion, and now sacred and worship, and how they apply to atheism and accepting evolution (which are two fairly different topics). ABO doesn't answer - he just says they're both "based on faith".

If you look at any definition of any of the four words listed above, you won't find qualities that apply to atheism. ABO uses the words, but he's not using their meanings correctly, so his claims make no sense.

Agreed, Jack.