11 Responses to “Re: Re: Re: Atheist”

1. By interestedinscience on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

   For the conclusions …
   For the conclusions “abduction relies on induction”, I’d have to say you’re right.

2. By gklr on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

   If there is one …
   If there is one substance, the physical… how do you explain truths that exist for concepts like “it’s raining out or it’s not raining out” which is true independant of the facts of whether or not it is raining? What physical property does the object “truth” or “existence” have? For that matter, the number 1 is a physical thing or it doesn’t exist? What fact applies to the number 1?

   I am not a materialist.

3. By gklr on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

   They are not …
   They are not deductive if they don’t have the God to deduct about. They are abductive yes, a form of assumption. I fail to find an example of abductive reasoning that doesn’t use inductive logic. Example: “It’s raining, therefore the grass is wet”, can be only concluded based on previous instances, if this time the grass is unseen. Therefore abduction uses induction necessarily as I see it. Thoughts?

4. By interestedinscience on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

   Induction (or …
   Induction (or inductive logic), from my understanding, is drawing a general conclusion from instances. Most arguments for god’s existence don’t seem inductive (they appear to either be abuses of abductive or deductive logic). Furthermore, I’d say there’s one substance, the physical (mind is reducible to the physical).

5. By gklr on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

   Thanks for sharing …
   Thanks for sharing your perspective, I am making a reply in a video I will title “atheist ramblings”.

6. By TheOptimisticSkeptic on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

   The point of my …
   The point of my rambling is as I said I don’t believe in god or that jesus existed, but I don’t believe he didn’t or that god doesn’t, I have an open mind where those things are concerned, I do however think it is so unlikely it isn’t really even worth considering.

7. By TheOptimisticSkeptic on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

   Recently many …
   Recently many atheist scholars have come to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to believe that Jesus existed at all, that doesn’t mean they believe he didn’t exist.

8. By TheOptimisticSkeptic on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

   CNN recently did a …
   CNN recently did a story on a bone box dated A.D. 63 with the inscription James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus, the article goes on to say most scholars agree that Jesus existed, since the term scholars includes historians, and biblical scholars, that is probably true, their belief is tainted by their religious upbringing and teaching.

9. By TheOptimisticSkeptic on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

   I think it is only …
   I think it is only religious people or people who once believed in god or religion who find the need to define atheism as a belief in the abscence of god, we speak different languages where terms like belief and faith are concerned.

10. By TheOptimisticSkeptic on Oct 1, 2008 | Reply

    I’m not a believer …
    I’m not a believer in god, I have never seen any evidence he exists, that doesn’t equate in my belief system with believing god does not exist, I also wouldn’t define myself as a non-believer in santa or the easter bunny or the idea of people living in my colon.

11. By atheist on Mar 12, 2010 | Reply

    Saying you are not a believer, says what you are not, not what you are.

    It is not about you to say that you do not believe in a god. It is about what you aren’t.

    What an atheist is not, is not what atheism is.

    Lacking belief is not anything at all, no such thing exists. To say this is what atheism is, is clueless on logic and makes no sense at all.