Re: The Reason One Becomes an Atheist

On 08 Jul 2024, Vincent Maycock <[email protected]> posted some
news:[email protected]: 

> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:47:27 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
><[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>On 9/07/2024 12:41 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:30:41 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 9/07/2024 10:27 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:26:50 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/07/2024 9:05 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:55:37 +1000, In the Name of Jesus
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2024 9:27 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [Default]  In the Name of Jesus
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> typed: 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/07/2024 8:48 am, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [Default]  Watson Herbusch <[email protected]> typed:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07 Jul 2024, [email protected] (The Doctor)
>>>>>>>>>>>> posted some news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One becomes an atheist when they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want God in their life. Not because there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no evidence for God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because evidence for our most awesome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Creator is there in the very *creation* that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He made;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And is evident for ~anyone~ who wants to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheist science is a contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is a religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not, dumb fuck.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Religion" is a misnomer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for admitting that atheism is not a religion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have your belief and your way, but where does it leave you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Religion" is a misnomer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everything is a belief, just as you have demonstrated here and
>>>>>>>> now. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are all on the same playing field (atheist or theist) no
>>>>>>>> matter what belief you give to yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vincent wrote:
>>>>>>> What is your definition of "belief"?
>>>>
>>>> In the Name of Jesus wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Vincent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about this one from WordWeb..."Any [personal] cognitive
>>>>>> content held as true."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I added the "[personal]" bit, though.
>>>>
>>>> Vincent wrote:
>>>>> That doesn't sound that offensive, except that "held as true"
>>>>> seems to imply an emotional investment that atheists simply don't 
>>>>> think applies to them.  (For example, "a group of people held dear
>>>>> such-and-such ideas.")
>>>>
>>>> Well, it wouldn't be "Any [personal] cognitive content held as
>>>> false" or the man would have to deny himself.
>>>>
>>>> Do you hold your beliefs dear to you? Every belief is emotional as
>>>> you will see every day here on the newsgroups and throughout the
>>>> world. That does not mean it is based on emotion, though, but it
>>>> often is. 
>>>>
>>>> "Any [personal] cognitive content held as true" encompasses both
>>>> emotion and indifference.
>>>>
>>>>> Are you sure you're not stirring people up by using some of the
>>>>> more offensive definitions of the word "belief" in atheist/theist
>>>>> communication like "a religious conviction" or "a firmly held
>>>>> opinion or conviction"?
>>>>
>>>> I've known you a while, Vincent, and I saw your point within your
>>>> first question.
>>>>
>>>> I am speaking of belief, as is befitting of every human being.
>>>>
>>>> "Any [personal] cognitive content held as true."
>>>>
>>>> Personally, my belief in God is not based on religious conviction;
>>>> it is based on my experience of truth. That is the only way to fly
>>>> because if it is based on anything less, it is based on self, and
>>>> self is way too unstable a foundation to build on.
>>> 
>>> Our problem seems to be that you're offending atheists by referring
>>> to their claims as being "beliefs." 
>>
>>You are subtly maneuvering and attempting to impose your belief upon
>>me. 
>>
>>I gave you an open and honest definition without guile.
>>
>>"Any [personal] cognitive content held as true"
>>
>>Of course your belief is belief.
>>
>>
>>> How would you feel about the phrase
>>> "Any personal cognitive content concluded to be accurate?" 
>>> as a
>>> description of what we atheists claim about our outlook on the
>>> world? If you agreed to that, would you still consider it to be a
>>> "belief"? 
>>
>>Of course, because it is. Just because you conclude something to be 
>>accurate, that doesn't automatically make it reality. For that to be 
>>true you would have to be God.
>>
>>The problem here is that you want your belief to be more than belief.
> 
> So for you a "belief" is something that can't be proven, but which is
> subscribed to anyway?
>  
>>You want your belief to equate to fact, reality, and truth. Sorry, I 
>>can't subscribe to that for you.
> 
> What about this  definition of  belief: "Any objective cognitive
> content concluded to be accurate"?  If you call that a belief, I don't
> think anyone would have a problem with having a "belief," using that
> definition.

The problem is when those who have publicly declared neither belief nor 
religion, attempt to achieve protected status using legislation that 
protects religious rights.