Re: The Reason One Becomes an Atheist

On Tue,  9 Jul 2024 08:49:45 +0200 (CEST), owen <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

I think the idea is freedom to practice any religion or no religion.