amandragon01

If they knew they were going to get abortions from their sex, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant and therefore shouldn't have had sex(this applies to the men even more).

If they don't want kids, then yes.

You have the right to sex without the desire to conceive.  This doesn't mean you should do it.

My argument isn't a good argument to ban abortion.  But it is a reason as to why females wouldn't want one.

Yet I could say I have faith in the principle of physics - which allows me to trust that if I sit on this chair then I wont fall down.  

Faith cannot be used to prop up any belief. That is like saying our legs prop up our legs. It makes no sense. Faith and belief are the same things. They are synonyms along with the word trust. 

If my eldest brother had been charged with the crime of trying to murder him, my faith in him would be a strong 'reason for me personally, in believing that he would not commit such an action.

Atheists, as people who have thought about existence, often make the claim that Atheism is an absence of belief in God or a deity. Does that argument work? I say no. I could claim theism is a lack of belief in atheism or an absence (not the presence) of the denial of God or gods.

An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as there cause, yet something about God too in their denial of Him. You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview. It examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.

First, what is the origin (reasoning the chain of events back to its furthest point possible) of moral conscious beings? Is such a causal factor intentional (thus mindful) or random, chaotic? A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best). How does SkepticalOne arrive at best? What is the ideal, the fixed reference point? That necessary Being is reasonable to assume since we only witness or observe moral mindful beings deriving their existence from other moral, mindful beings. With atheism (no God or gods) what is left for the origins of morality and before that conscious beings? I say it is a blind, indifferent, mindless, random chance happenstance. How is that capable of anything, let alone being the cause of moral mindful beings? 

Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance. How is that more reasonable? Am I missing something here?

It takes faith to be an atheist, a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker. How is that reasonable in arriving at morality? Somehow, there is a giant leap from chance happenstance to uniformity of nature and sustainability of these natural laws.

we see things that look supernatural happen to praying theists but there's no reason to assume those things happen to atheists. supernatural healings. 

the large majority of people who have NDEs who are atheists end up believing in God (almost everyone who has those experiences, even skeptics, end up believing in the afterlife, but that's just a related point). there's lots of good evidence for NDEs so we should take them seriously. such as out of body experiences being verified under scientific study.   it's stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die and then give no good reason why that happens, when drugs dont cause that to happen either. dr longs book 'evidence for the afterlife' is full of good evidence. 

there's the point that the universe is going from high energy to low energy as if it's a clock that got set (how does something happen once within all eternity and never happen again, what does that even mean?)... there's no good alternative hypothesis that has good evidence for it, just speculation. 

it's stupid to argue that humans are just elaborate living robots. it should be intuitive that we are more than that, and it's forced and artificial to think that way. 

there's good and inexplicable evidence for demonic possession. 

the design of the universe is weak evidence but it's evidence

Great question.  If we are to research what happened to Jesus, then the sources which would be most reliable would be the manuscripts which are closest or oldest to his alleged existence.  If we were to research the works of Aristotle or Caesar, we would do the same thing.  Interestingly there are copious amounts of manuscripts for the alleged existence of Jesus.  Not just close in times of date but also multiple copies of similar documents.  For those interested in ancient documents - the narratives around the life of Jesus are quite extraordinary. 

I take the view that when it comes to understanding the resurrection of Jesus - that the biggest hurdle people have is God not facts.  If you don't believe in God, then the resurrection becomes an impossibility, no matter what the facts ought to lead us to conclude.

In other words, facts become a side issue - to what we "know with our own experience". This is where many atheists tend to fall down.

You can't beat something with nothing. In other words, historians of all positions accept something extraordinary happened in history that took a new Jewish cult in the backwaters of the world from almost next to nothing with few subscribers to a cult that within a couple of hundred years - had captured a very large proportion of the Roman empire. This occurred in a time while Christianity was still illegal and participants could very much expect to be sentenced to death. The question is what happened? 

When all of the varied theories put forward to the questions around the death and resurrection are considered - and weighted against plausibility. Against likelihood. Against possibilities, the preponderance of evidence is significant. I think overwhelming. For me - the resurrection of Jesus is not something I believe in faith. In fact I would counsel against Christians to believe such in faith. It is a historical fact for the church. 

Hence the answer to your last questions is FACTS should have us arrive at that conclusion.  We ought not let the bias and assumptions we have either in the belief or the disbelief of God come into it. 

For there not to be a resurrection, requires a better, more plausible explanation. At this point in time, that still remains remarkably missing. Many people account for some part of the question - but NOT one takes into the account the entirety of the story.  Where is the body? Why were there so many actual witnesses of the resurrection - who were prepared to die - if they knew it was a lie or a conspiracy? What caused the exponential growth of the church - that has so baffled historians? 

It's not so much that's it's an impossibility, but it's a huge stretch.

Sure, some assumed male common ancestor way back when, while sniffing around for a female CA in heat, may have all of a sudden started pondering their existence. But why would I assume such a thing?

Again, I'm not claiming it's impossible.

Wouldn't you agree that it's a bit shaky?

And not to mention the fact that there's just no proof that early man made up the concept from imagination.

Again, not claiming an impossibility. But why should I consider it beyond a mere suggested possibility?

Three things...

1. There is no known instance of life ever starting without prior life

This neither removes the possibility of such an instance nor shows intelligence must be involved.

Agreed. But yet it is more in favor of intelligence being involved than not. So you have less reason to assume abiogenesis than I have to assume creation.

So the only example we have of intelligence hasn't been able to create life and this is evidence that life must require an intelligence to form?

Not must, but highly likely.  It is more reasonable to conclude that life comes from life than to assume abiogenesis when not only is there absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis, but there is a ton of evidence for life only from prior life.

How does this prove the necessity of an intelligence at all? It really only seems to show what we can't do.

Why can't we do it? The science seems to indicate because abiogenesis is incorrect/impossible.

3. Life makes, uses, and adapts information, and information creation & manipulation requires intelligence.

I agree that life creates and manipulates information if you define information as

"What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.

 Acceptable.

Then however I would ask why that requires an intelligence? What would prevent natural processes forming and manipulating such sequences? 

Only intelligence can produce a "particular" arrangement or sequence. Non-intelligence can only produce random arrangements or sequences.

Without the information in DNA/RNA, life cannot start. Without life, we cannot have DNA/RNA. It's simple and intuitive

Again we derive information from sequences, nothing seems to suggest these sequences. Why must these sequences be formed by an intelligence?

Because only intelligence can produce, use and store "particular" information.

S.E.T.I. was based on this truism. Otherwise, we could never know if a thing like a spaceship or a novel was a product of intelligence of of random chance.

Though the reasons to conclude intelligence in crestion life are not ironclad, there is absolutely no logical reason to assume abiogenesis. None whatsoever.

Disbelief and (or) lack of belief are being used synonymously, because it is specific to the existence of God or gods. Atheism isn't defined as "lack of beliefs" it is specific to the rejection (or disbelief) in God (or more specific, to the existence of God), as opposed to Theism. The definition would not exist without the cognition and understanding of theism, thus an understanding of God is necessary. This is so simple to understand, I have a "lack of" patience engaging any further in the topic at hand.

Lets call a disbelief in leprechauns A-gnomism.....as opposed to gnomism which is a belief in leprechauns.....Saying I lack belief in leprechauns is also saying I disbelieve in them, or have no belief why? because I first have cognition of them to have no belief specific to the existence of leprechauns. Claiming I lack beliefs is not the same, it has no relevance to A-gnomism specifically.

A-gnomism is not a lack of beliefs, that's not how it is defined, it is a disbelief (or lack of belief) in leprechauns. Again, the misconception that atheism means a lack of beliefs is somewhat silly, because we all know that without the cognition of Theism the term makes zero sense, it no longer means anything not to mention the reality that the definition itself insists the cognition of the existence of God or gods. There is no word for "lack of beliefs", other than saying "lack of belief". Babies can lack beliefs, but can't disbelieve in God (which is synonymous with a "lack of belief" IN GOD). .

A-theism was intended as a term for the lack of belief (or disbelief) in God specifically, for one to have no beliefs in the existence of God specifically one has to be aware of such concept otherwise a-theism is a worthless term. Without a belief in God there can be no term opposing it, and upon opposing it or rejecting it the term a-theism now has relevance. A baby cannot be an atheist (which is an opposing position to the existence of God or gods), though they can lack beliefs.

Untrue. The "people" requirement is due to the fact that only people think. If you remove the thinking requirement, you lose the logical reason for restricting the definition to people.

1. Why is personhood necessary for atheism? Why can't a scarf be an atheist?

2. What is it that makes a lemon tree different from a person, and thus, unqualified as an atheist?

Sorry, it simply doesn't make sense. There is a reason atheists have been restricted to people. That reason is not true for babies. Babies are people, but do not qualify under the definition.

Your only 2 logical choices are to,

1. Ditch the peoplehood/thinking requirement, rendering all inanimate objects as qualifying as atheists, or...

2. Keep the peoplehood/thinking requirement, rendering all infants as unqualified under the definition.

Now you say, flat head screwdrivers aren't people. So, tell us, why is people-hood is a criteria? Because only people think. But babies don't think! It is not being people Alone that makes one an atheist, it is being people + rejecting belief in God.

if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.

Then the White House is an atheist. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your own  definition specifies the rejection as a condition.

Then trees and platypuses do too. Your definition said rejection of a belief in God or gods was a criteria. A rejection requires knowledge of. Babies do not meet the criteria

Then flat head screwdrivers are atheists too!

Now you say, flat head screwdrivers aren't people. So, tell us, why is people-hood is a criteria? Because only people think. But babies don't think! It is not being people Alone that makes one an atheist, it is being people + rejecting belief in God.

if you say babies are atheists, then it must be only their people-hood causing them to be atheist, for they have rejected nothing! That is on its face illogical.

If you think the only criteria is not having a belief in god, then frisbees are atheists, for your criteria of people-hood must be coherant. In other words, why must an atheist be a people? Do you have an answer?

Three things...

1. There is no known instance of life ever starting without prior life

2. Man has not been able to create life at all

3. Life makes, uses, and adapts information, and information creation & manipulation requires intelligence.

Without the information in DNA/RNA, life cannot start. Without life, we cannot have DNA/RNA. It's simple and intuitive.

No sir. Being people and rejecting a belief in the existence of a god or gods, makes people atheists. No one is atheist simply because they exist.

Of course not. One is illogical and the other is irrelevant.

So what? Infants have not rejected belief in god.

Tautology. They have no belief in anything and cannot have beliefs in anything. Saying of a baby, "It doesn't have belief in the existence of a god or gods  is silliness when a baby cannot have belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Please present your personally preferred definition of "ATHEIST".

That's easy, so we would use common sense and correlation. The universe is constructed through a succession of processes, processes are associated with intelligence or agency

Here's a good way to consider it, every time you observe energy you observe awareness, every time you observe awareness you observe energy. Basically they co-exist.  I can make that claim simply by how energy acts within our universe.

...nothing has been presented to me that would demonstrate the necessity of a creator.

Life doesn't?

Tautology in reference to a baby. Babies cannot accept or not accept any preposition.

The religious leanings of the authors are immaterial. I've shown that babies do NOT qualify under of the definition YOU offered. Your definition required atheists to have had NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods. Babies have NOT done that. Babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods, a requirements of being an atheist by your definition.

Then babies are not atheists because they have not NOT accepted as true (believe) the existence of a god or gods! Even by your revised definition, babies do not qualify.

Are unborn babies "people"?

I bet you believe unborn babies are not people and thus are pro-abortion. So babies are " people" when you want to label them atheists, but not "people" when you want to kill them for your convenience.

The reason that atheists restrict the definition to "people" is because people think. A reasonable restriction. But babies don't think. And neither do trees. So then, why is the definition restricted to people? If not because of thinking, then why?

If the restriction is due to the fact that only people think, then a baby cannot be included. Or perhaps you are saying babies magically become atheists the moment they exit the birth canal?

Lack of belief is not the same as lack of belief in God. Once you add the words "in god" you've added content that needs to be understood. I can have lack of belief in general, but a lack of belief in fairies presupposes an understanding of that concept. This is simple to understand. For a baby to lack belief in God, it must have an understanding of God's existence. A baby therefore cannot deny the existence of God, or have a lack of belief in that. It simply does not know either way, and certainly has no understanding of existence or nonexistence. 

To make this more clear, you should understand why the term atheist even exists. It's a term created in direct opposition to theist. One party says I believe God exists, the other party says I don't believe God exists (a lack of belief God exists). Both are a position...In other words, I don't have a belief that God exists, I believe that God does not exist.... that's not the same as having a neutral position. One believes and the other disbelieves, they are in contrast to one another. If there is no theism in a baby then there is no atheism in a baby, they are locked in a default position between the two. That's the simplest way I can break it down for you.

The misconception is coming from the misleading statement that atheism is to have lack of belief. But actually, more accurately they have disbelief in god, or a lack of belief in the existence of God as proposed by Theists (which a  baby has no understanding of). A-theism is a counter position to Theism. A baby cannot have a counter position to theism, which is why they are agnostic if anything. But again, I take the position that they cannot have any philosophical stances at all. Intuition though, is an entirely different matter.

A baby cannot reason within themselves that they have no belief in God, or that they "lack" belief in God. They cannot reason that they have one, in order that a baby have a belief in God or have a lack of belief in God (disbelieve) they first must have an understanding of that concept. Having a "lack" of belief in the existence of God is the same as not believing in God, or disbelieving in God. That is why the term "disbelief" is within the definition. Disbelief or lack of belief are being used synonymously.

I'm asserting one must be aware of such a concept to either believe it or disbelieve it, and there is no such a thing as a lack of belief in God in a baby  without first a belief in God.  A baby cannot have a lack of belief in God because that asserts that a baby is deficient of something or does not have something....which creates a negative position. That's why there is a third category, a default position. Basically you have a scale, with atheism on the left, a neutral position in the middle and theism on the right. Because again, atheism cannot exist unless theism does. Both theism and atheism create such a contrast, and if there is a contrast of beliefs then that makes a middle ground. 

But that is how it is defined, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". My claim is that there cannot be a disbelief or a lack of that belief, which would require the missing of something. A baby is not missing a belief in God, they simply can't have belief either way. Again which is why we have a neutral category.  

They are not lacking anything, they are neither having nor missing something. 

They neither have a belief nor a lack of belief.  And lets not pretend that atheism is not defined as a disbelief. 

I'm saying there is a default position, with theism and atheism being positions. 

to be deficient or missing

to be short or have need of something

deficiency or absence of something needed

something missing or needed

A baby is not lacking belief in gods existence or disbelieving it, an atheist is. A baby is in a position of not missing anything, it is not lacking anything, and it does not disbelieve. It is agnostic if anything, do you make the claim agnosticism is not a usable term? if it is, could you please explain why a baby is not an agnostic? 

The term atheist cannot exist without the term theist, which is why we also use the term agnostic. That's three positions with one only being neutral, if a baby has no ability to reason wouldn't you put that baby in a neutral category? we have two categories here with one being a default position, the other two being that of chosen positions, or negative or positive....again the term atheist can only exist if I come along as a theist, every time I say hey! God exists (because of so and so), you say hey, no god exists (because of so and so). Before I came along and said God exists, there was a neutral category. Both atheism and theism are philosophical positions because there first needs to be the ability to reason. 

The term atheist cannot exist without the term theist, which is why we also use the term agnostic. That's three positions with one only being neutral, if a baby has no ability to reason wouldn't you put that baby in a neutral category?

we have two categories here with The term atheist cannot exist without the term theist, which is why we also use the term agnostic.

That's three positions with one only being neutral, if a baby has no ability to reason wouldn't you put that baby in a neutral category?

being a default position, the other two being that of chosen positions, or negative or positive....again the term atheist can only exist if I come along as a theist, every time I say hey! God exists (because of so and so), you say hey, no god exists (because of so and so).

Before I came along and said God exists, there was a neutral category. Both atheism and theism are philosophical positions because there first needs to be the ability to reason.

We went over that already, to have a disbelief or a lack of belief there needs to be an understanding of God. As I wrote above, atheism is not a lack of belief, it is the lack of belief in gods.....see the difference there?

Correct, which is why a baby cannot be atheist lol. They have no concept of God, therefore they cannot have a disbelief. 

That's ridiculous....One has to be aware of the concept of God to reject that concept, or have a lack of belief in that concept, babies are not aware of concepts. That is why agnostic fits better. Because a baby simply doesn't know and are ignorant. Therefore atheism is not a default position. It is a chosen position, either by asserting or rejecting a belief. 

And that's precisely why babies are not atheists, a baby cannot choose to believe or disbelieve in Gods existence. They cannot have a lack of belief either obviously, because again, there first needs to be an understanding of what the counter position is.

Let's just say for the sake of argument, there were common ancestors. With which common ancestor would the superstition, and God concept begin with?

The only concern in the animal kingdom is food, sex, and sleep. Some animal infants are lucky if their parents nurture them instead of eat them.

So logically the further we would go back in the alleged evolutionary chain, the less likely of any concern outside of basic needs and pleasure.

If God didn't exist, I would say the earliest humans would have less thought of a creator than a john in Amsterdam

No, because the OD is giving a definition in the "scope" of our society, where thinking people either choose, or reject the IDEA of God or gods. If there isn't even an IDEA of God or gods, then a person cannot be said to be atheist. Babies are just that. A-THEIST makes no sense if there aren't THEISTS.