Printable View
You have to "believe" you are right even if you think Theists are wrong. Be sides concluding that God doesn't exist do to lack of evidence is factually wrong. You have to believe he doesn't exist. Therefore Atheism is a faith and something in which they all claim is dumb to have.
If you're using the term 'belief' synonymously with 'faith' then that's wrong. If you're using the word to just mean 'to think something is true' then that's right and there's no problem with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
Atheists don't make the positive assertion that God doesn't exist. They just don't think the evidence brought forward for his existence is good enough. If you think about Zeus or some other god, and consider why you don't believe in him (why you are an atheist with respect to that god), it's not because you think you've proved that he doesn't exist, is it? It's because you haven't been given any good reason to think he does. It's the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...obby-noooo.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
So what you're basically saying is that you have so little in the way of actual arguments that the only things you can find to debate are artificial, semantic non-issues?
Okay, thanks for letting us know.
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/6...gain_super.jpg
stop making threads like this???
That is all.
I might as well throw in the token answer:
Atheism is as much a faith as "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. "Not believing in god" is not the same thing as "concluding that there is no god."
Now get over yourself and go live your life.
Next time you think about posting something, I have a suggestion: don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
You look much more intelligent that way.
Quote:
It's better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt.
http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/p...to-images1.jpg
This image applies here.
Some atheist do make the positive assertion that God doesn't exist is true and this is exactly what a positive atheist asserts. The same goes for hard atheist, strong atheist, explicit atheist, positive-explicit atheist, self-powered atheist, total atheist, classic atheist, unwritten atheist, de facto atheist, anti-theism, whatever the hell these types of atheist are calling each other nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
Bitch Please:
faith definition
how the hell is atheism a trust in somethingQuote:
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
You guys seem to be having fun but the reality is faith is still required when voting "no." Skepticism does not mean everything is wrong until proven right. To believe god doesn't exist is not to doubt gods existence but to put forward your own supposition. Doubt is just that, and it takes no sides. But atheists take sides.
Saying "There's no proof of God." is different from saying, "I won't believe in God until its proven."
Thank youQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
To MrBlonde
Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist nothing more.
Not all atheists take sides? there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere
Its more of a statement.
Its ridiculous to argue facts vs faith its dumb.
Whether or not one is right or wrong.
You can not convince the one with faith who needs not look for fact, that the facts "prove them wrong."
Like wise you cant teach some one who looks for facts to believe/ have faith in the absence of facts.
(Facts as far as supporting the existence of a deity)
The spectrum isn't on the same plane.
If you wish to talk intellectually about such a topic you should not limit your self to the word "god" as it is not the true statement of an atheist.
Black is the absence of color, not one in itself; as Atheism is the absence of belief not one its self.
This is a simple word problem
not math
Believing in disbelief
ITS THE absence OF BELIEF AND absence OF FAITH
ITS DENIAL.
Why argue you believe in the fact that you don't believe
Being Atheist is based of peoples supposition due to the lake of evidence not something you have faith in
I am not taking sides!
If you wanna rile up a bunch of Religious persons there are better ways of doing it.
However MrBlonde if you know not of the facts and arguments of both sides you could argue that you and you yourself have faith in the supposition that atheism makes, since you may be ignorant of either sides standings and have not the faculties to decide for your self.
So you may in a way through ignorance or arrogance have faith IN atheism
But it stands that Atheism is not a FAITH its more of an "educated" statement based on the lack there of.
Im not here to say what side I take
just do your best to represent you're argument for your side when its plausible
This is my favorite part.
Got a few questions for you. Are you Atheist? Also, if so, then I'm curious as to what is your absence of belief in the existence of any deity based off of?Quote:
Originally Posted by abicus
I think you may have answered the question here. ^ Is your absence of belief based off lack of evidence for any diety, or perhaps something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by abicus
Why are people arguing about this? I thought the definitions were clear by now.
A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods.
An atheist is someone who is not a theist.
So an atheist can be someone who thinks that there definitely are no gods, a person who is undecided, a person who thinks there probably are no gods, a person who's never really thought about it... etc. As long as someone doesn't fall under the definition of a theist, the person is an atheist.
You wouldn't say that someone who doesn't believe in unicorns has faith that they don't exist. If you do, then fine, maybe you're defining faith differently.
This is a flexible definition to say the least, and hardly accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
The word itself refers to anti-theism, or belief that there is no god. If you are undecided or anything else besides that, then you are not an atheist.
Very true Omneis Dei and well put, hence, we can flip the script on that one.
An Atheist is someone who believes there is no God
A Theist is someone who is not an Atheist.
Yes you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
And there's nothing really more to discuss, since the disagreement is purely over a definition. Unless we want to throw sources.
Oxford Dictionaries: "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods"
Wikipedia: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Iron-Chariots wiki (atheist site): "An atheist, in the general sense, is a person who does not believe in the existence of any gods."
I am not trying to argue
and no i am not an atheist
faith is the belief or trust in someTHING
can be any thing
even trust in something in which there is no proof
I am just trying to say its dumb to say that atheism is a faith
black is not a color
and
atheism is not a faith
I just wanted to elaborate on it
like it was said its a position
Be that the case, then an Atheistic position would be in dire conflict with this entire statement you've made.Quote:
Originally Posted by abicus
u could argue semantics so yes
I don't think that Atheism is a faith as MrBlonde says
Faith is something you have when you believe in a deity.
Nothing is not a deity.
Therefor believing in nothing, or not believing in a deity, isn't a faith.
deity is a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal BEING, WHO may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god
lol semantics that
JK
> 2011Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
> Arguing about words
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/e...jpg?1301826641
I think Omnis Dei raises a valid point nevertheless. If absence of belief in a concept means a belief that (A) is false or invalid then one cannot claim absence of belief in (A) and in the same instance take the undecided position about (A). Being undecided is a stance of neutrality.
Atheism is a faith. Silence is a song. Sitting on your ass is a sport.
It's all so obvious. What's there not to get?
Exactly, the dictionary definition of atheism just argued my point perfectly. Atheism is a faith. Scatterbrain's analogy is completely irrelevant, also. Atheism is hardly silence. It requires as much faith to posit no as yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
How is that definition arguing in your favour?
"An atheist, in the general sense, is a person who does not believe in the existence of any gods."
'does not believe' == lack of belief, not "faith"
I'm curious as to what this lack of belief is based on. I know every Atheist is different but whichever Atheist responds to this, I'm curious as to what you're basing your lack of belief off of.
I'm not trying to say to not believe in god, you are forced to believe there is no god. I'm saying that if you're atheist, you believe there is no god. Otherwise you're an agnostic.
No - it just means you don't believe there is a God. Big difference. To not believe in a God is to accept the overwhelming evidence all around us. To believe in one is to believe against the evidence. Since theists are making an extraordinary claim, it's on them to produce extraordinary evidence if they want others to accept their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I would call that empiricism. Atheist posits the opposite claim which is also an extraordinary claim. There is no reason to believe the universe is not conscious, there is also no reason to be convinced it is. Evidence does not lean either direction, inertly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
SOME atheists posit no God exists - I guess those are the Strong Atheists. But not all atheism is so extreme.
The universe being conscious is not enough for it to be considered God - that would require it to be omnipotent and omniscient and to have always existed (the causeless cause). At least if it's to be considered a God like the Biblical one.
Yeah I'm not even interested in talking about the Gods related to circular logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I guess it comes down to a simple matter of deciding where to draw the line. I'm just going to keep the drawing the hard lines in reaction to atheists claiming I'm an atheist before acting like total douchebags.
I totally fail at understanding your last sentence Lol!!
I guess I"d call myself an agnostic atheist. If God simply means an intelligent universe, well that's different from the Christian God and I could accept it a lot easier. On matters like that I'm open minded.
What I'm saying is if atheists want to act like douchebags then they need to stop defining atheism is such broad terms that encompasses all the none douchebags. If someone identifies as an atheist by itself, I suppose it means what you want it to, like any other form of identification. However, when that person posits God does not exist and uses circular logic to support this claim, it makes me NOT want to identify as atheist. if atheism is truly meant only to ascribe to thinkers free of theistic faith, then it's been corrupted by all the DBs who push the claim further.
Great rebuttal Sir. I yield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
There is an easy solution, you just define athiest as not believing in any established religion. This isn't faith because we can trace back all established religions to their orgins and see how they were created by people at the time, and for what reasons, which shows how they are all made up by man, and thus do not involve real gods. In most instances when a person says god or talks about faith they are speaking about some specific god, so this term for athiest works well since the person doesn't believe in any specific god.
Now if you are talking about a god is a philosophical sense of being the universe, you are no longer talking about religion and so this term of athiest doesn't work. Which is a good thing, since athiests is usually used in terms of religions, and not in a philosophical sense, and athiests have greatly differing opinions on issues of the universe.
That is a problem. But, given the "lack of belief in god" definition is already accepted by so many large atheist groups, it's a bit too late to change the definition. The solution is for more nice and reasonable people to identify as atheists so those negative judgments go away. Refusing to is kind of like a homosexual man refusing to identify as gay because he doesn't like fashion or talk like a teenage girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
This is a valid point. In fact, it's kind of sad how someone who identifies as an atheist is automatically granted the worst social stigma in the US. It reminds me of liberals identifying as progressives because the conservatives managed to turn the word liberal into a rebuttal all by itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
I do need to say though that identifying yourself as an atheist creates the same kind of exclusion as religion. I still wouldn't identify as an atheist because I believe empiricism is part of human evolution and just because someone hasn't gotten there yet doesn't mean they won't, or their kids won't. I don't think the epitome of an advanced society will be one without religion. I like to use Ken Wilbur's spiral dynamics to explain this. To a traditional person, the bible makes sense because its infallible duh. To an empirical person, the bible makes no sense because it has no evidence to support its claims. To an inclusive person, the bible makes sense again because they can read between the lines and see the commonalities with other religions.
dingdingding!Quote:
Originally Posted by omnis dei
"commonalities with other religions" doesn't mean it makes sense to believe there is a god. I think all religions are equally deluded, just some are more prominently infecting the political system.
I can't believe this "debate" (if you want to call it that) is still something that people bring up. A-theist --> "not theist" - that is ALL. You can qualify it with words like "strong" and stuff, but just the word just means "no belief in a god."
The question Ne-yo posed earlier about "why do you lack belief in god" - I can sort of answer it, but the truth is, "why do you believe in god?" is much more relevant than "why do you NOT harbour a belief in a god?"
Consider someone who has NEVER heard of the concept of "god" and has never invented it. That person is an atheist. He has not said, "hmm, this god thing doesn't make sense, due to lack of evidence" - he has just NEVER heard of the concept. By the way, I know this pisses some christians off, but ALL new born babies are therefore atheist. Sorry, there is no such thing as a christian baby... Well, except maybe this guy haha. I think theists that are constantly harping on the word "atheist" do so because they don't like the fact that all babies are atheists, since that's the default starting position no matter what.
Now for me, I HAVE heard of the concept of god, but I have not encountered any reason to leave the "default state" known as "atheism" (and only known as such because theism exists - otherwise, the word atheist also wouldn't exist).
Actually that's not true. I used to be catholic (at least, that was the label handed down to me as a child), but then I started thinking about it, and realized that my "belief" was just going through the motions, and in reality, there really ISN'T any reason for me to move away from the default.
Some people seem to have a problem with differentiating between "lack of belief" and what lead one to a "lack of belief." That's why atheism is often split up into categories. Atheism as a whole is a lack of belief. Whether a person has a reason is irrelevant if you're discussing atheism as a whole, because you have yet to identify whether their lack of faith is implicit or explicit.
I understand why people have such a problem with this. Theism and atheism are [erroneously] usually thought of in terms of pure, polar opposites: if a theist is a person who says god exists, then an atheist is a person who says god does not exist. It leaves no room for other possibilities on the negative side. The negative side needs wiggle room because primarily, it isn't a positive position like theism is (though it can be, but that depends on the person). In simpler terms, there are more reasons to be categorized as an atheist than there are a theist.
For someone who has NEVER heard of a concept (in this case God). This is considered being in a state of complete unawareness with regards to God because this person has never been exposed to anything that defines God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
If Atheism = Lack of belief that a concept is true, then I'm confused as to how exactly can someone have an absence/lack of belief that something is true if they are completely oblivious to that something in the first place? If you lack belief that a concept is true you'll equally advocate the opposite position in which in this case would be A belief that a concept is false, which is an intellectual categorized assertion that YOU'VE made simply because you were aware of that concept in the first place.
I'll agree with this, there is no such thing as a Christian baby, there is equally no such thing as an Atheist baby, primarily because of that information I posted in the previous paragraph up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
There is no default position and no one is born Atheist. After all of these threads created on such topics within the past few years here, how can you still think this? Even O'nus eventually downplayed this mode of thinking after debating it. To have a lack of belief that a concept is true is a conscious choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
You stated that Lack of belief is complete ignorance of a concept which makes a person Atheist in this sense per your statement.
If being in a state of complete mental ignorance is what you describe as Atheism then how can it be possible for you to go back to a state of complete mental ignorance of a God if you were raised or labeled as a Catholic sortofspeak? If you're raised within a catholic environment then you were exposed to the concept of a God, how exactly can you go back to having complete and total mental unawareness about a God?Quote:
Consider someone who has NEVER heard of the concept of "god" and has never invented it. That person is an atheist. He has not said, "hmm, this god thing doesn't make sense, due to lack of evidence" - he has just NEVER heard of the concept.
It's called implicit atheism. Say, for example, I've never heard of the concept of God. It cannot be said that I believe God exists, and it cannot be said that I believe God does not exist. In addition, it cannot be said that I believe in God. But it can be said that I do not believe in God. Even something as simple as wording is important here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Simply because a topic has been discussed on numerous occasions does not necessarily mean that a person will shift to one side or another based on the frequency of discussion. And what O'nus has to do with this, I have no idea. As far as I know, Replicon and O'nus aren't the same person.Quote:
There is no default position and no one is born Atheist. After all of these threads created on such topics within the past few years here, how can you still think this? Even O'nus eventually downplayed this mode of thinking after debating it. To have a lack of belief that a concept is true is a conscious choice.
You can't, unless you suffer from some sort of chronic amnesia or other disabilities affecting memory. I don't know why you're bringing this up as it has nothing to do with what Replicon said. He isn't saying atheism is TOTALLY a complete mental ignorance of the concept of God. He said those with a complete mental ignorance of the concept of God are atheists simply by the fact that it cannot be said that they believe in God. There is a significant difference in what you're ascribing to him and what he actually said.Quote:
You stated that Lack of belief is complete ignorance of a concept which makes a person Atheist in this sense per your statement.
If being in a state of complete mental ignorance is what you describe as Atheism then how can it be possible for you to go back to a state of complete mental ignorance of a God if you were raised or labeled as a Catholic sortofspeak? If you're raised within a catholic environment then you were exposed to the concept of a God, how exactly can you go back to having complete and total mental unawareness about a God?
No. I stated that "atheist" == "lack of belief, and nothing more is required" - I gave the example of complete ignorance to show you the extent to which the term "atheist" is inclusive, NOT that that's how it's defined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Everyone who hasn't heard of god are atheists, but not all atheists have never heard of god.
Which is similar to the statement.
All pine trees are trees, but not all trees are pine trees.
Being an atheist is in fact the default neutral position for anyone who has never considered the issue, or has not heard of god.
Do you trust that you disbelieve in god? Of course or else you wouldn't be a atheist. Therefore atheism is a faith and therefore it lacks "truth". Therefore theism is the only way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solarflare
Do trust that you believe in gravity? Of course or else you wouldn't be sane. Therefore being sane is a faith and therefore it lacks "truth". Therefore being insane is the only way.
If you changes the words a little you see your argument sucks.
I disagree Insanity is the repetition of doing something over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I disagree. If you look the word up in a common dictionary you will see that I used the word properly.
Either way atheist claim of not being a faith is not true. Everything takes belief whether you like it or not. You may believe Zeus doesn't exist however strong it maybe you also believe that the chair you are sitting won't vanish into thin air. People just like to "assume" these things and forget that it all takes belief.....it always does.
Don't you believe Zeus doesn't exist? Welcome to atheism.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
I just wanna say I think its funny that NO A negativehas become a neutral thing
Common ground
Now people are speaking for things they can not
There is a definition for the term atheism
And for theism
Look em up
The topic has strayed far from what it was originally
Is atheism a faith?
No way I'm no atheist. Besides that's dumb Zeus wasn't a true "god" he wasn't a omnipotent, omnipresence savior of all that the Father is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
To be atheist one must not believe in any deity
False, if you didn't know by now that "disbelief" of atheist is in fact faith. So for one to be a atheist one must BELIEVE God doesn't exist. One must believe that the "Evidence or lack their of" is true or else they aren't being truthful to themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by abicus
That isn't true. If you know something for sure, then it isn't faith.
You normally wouldn't say you have faith in gravity. As if you have confidence that gravity will come through for you this time and pull things down. Which kind of implies that just maybe gravity will not work this one time and you will fly off into space.
What you usually would say is that you know there is gravity. In the case of atheism you can safely say you don't believe in any versions of god put forth in religion, because its easy to verify that they don't exist.
I don't have faith my chair isn't going to break all known laws of physics and vanish into nothingness. I know my chair isn't going to vanish. You are just using words oddly to try to make an argument that isn't really there.
How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
Anyway, I agree that the word "atheist" in itself is too broad to have much practical meaning, but I've always found it defined as "a lack of a belief in a deity." Because of how encompassing that is, you need qualifiers like, "strong", "weak", etc.
Addendum:
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
I do not believe that God exists ≠ I do believe that God does not exist
The former is weak atheism, the latter is strong atheism. The latter requires faith because it is a positive claim.
But nothing can truly be proven true. Objectivity isn't concrete and neither is logic. There is always the chance of 2+2=T or something. We just feel really really really strong about the laws of physics holding true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Because he isn't the Father and also he was born from something. Gods can NOT be born.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
A true god would bake cookies for all his creations.
How do you know? Please cite objective and verifiable sources (i.e., not a religious text).Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
Do you see what I'm doing here?
But the ONLY sources for Zeus are from Greek mythology.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
The only sources for any god are from their respective texts or from those who already believe in them. No scientist that I have ever heard of has ever gone (with an open and unbiased mind) into a test to see if god exists and come back with a positive result. If you can find one that hasQuote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
provengiven evidence to the existence of a certain deity without lying, jumping to conclusions, etc., please direct me there, as I would be more than happy to see it.
But as it stands, there is no reason to believe in Zeus any more than Yahweh or Vishnu or Xenu or Santa. One may be more popular than another, but that's it. And I know you wouldn't try an argumentum ad populum.
Atheism is the belief that no deity of any kind exists
if you understood the word deity you would have understood what i had said
Only through simple semantics do i agree with you that atheism is a faith
one must think of the following
For religious persons their definition of faith is different
As is it different among those who do not have religious faith
For a religious person to say that the disbelief in any form of god or deity is indeed a faith
then discredits their own side as faith should be a sacred/holy thing by many religious teachings
You can not convince the one with faith who needs not look for fact, that the facts "prove them wrong."
Like wise you cant teach some one who looks for facts to believe/ have faith in the absence of facts.
If you say the only source of Zeus is from Greek mythology then only source of a christian god is from christian mythology. Only difference is that people still practice christian mythology. When Zeus was thought of as a real god there was priests and scholars who spoke and wrote about him as well. Only difference between Mythology and religious is that one is no longer practiced. Wait long enough and Christianity will be referred to as mythology as well. Also the idea that nothing can ever be proven is a silly one. What you are trying to debate is philosophy, which doesn't fit into the context of this thread. Asking if we can truly ever know something is philosophical in nature. In all practical every day terms, we can prove things to be true all the time, and we do. So saying its faith doesn't make any sense.
Sad but true, beautifully worded, now my signature.Quote:
Originally Posted by abicus
look at color
would you agree that color is generated by different wave lengths of light
would you agree that an object only exhibits the color we see
would you agree that white consists of all colors
now this color you see is the result of the white light hitting the object and all wave lengths being absorbed except the one in which you see
so a object that appears red is red because that is the wave length that is reflected and not absorbed
now a true white object reflects all VISIBLE light wave lengths
now a true black object absorbs all visible light wave lengths
well white is compromised of all colors as the term theist encompasses any who believe in a form of a deity
well black absorbed all color, but wait it would have reflected a color if it was one
black being the opposite and lack there of
black the is not a color by definition
black and white are opposites
as are atheism and theism
anti matter and matter
protons and electrons
these things cancel each other out
and for one to credit the other
destroys them both
do not be the theist that credits atheism or vice versa
i am not taking sides
just trying to see whether you want to talk semantics
or
if one wants to mess with a ideological paradox
one can not semantically and correctly discredit the godliness or deityness of a one i e Zeus by the definitions of a bias faith
not in an argument including atheism as to atheism they all hold the same spot and general term in their perspectives
you can however use your own faiths teachings as to ridicule the proposition of other deities; with out the inclusion of semantics and the logical thinking's of an atheist
Food for thought:
atheism argues all faiths that their are no true real deities are non existent
true atheism does not argue against itself since it reaches an agreed conclusion
however a theist must depending on their religious teachings discredit all others
also the negative supposition of
"no god's/deity's exists"
is quite in fact
finite
to the point
unless there is a problem with understanding language
Wow abicus for someone who is not trying to argue you sure have a lot to say. :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I can understand your point BLUELINE thanks for clearing that up. This sounds more like Agnosticism to me, in which to be honest, is where I believe babies are rightfully categorized. So in short, Implicit Atheism lacks the positive belief in a God thus, does not believe in a God. Can we conclude that this position would equally lack the opposite belief, that there is NOT a God?
I'm pretty sure you've answered this already but just to confirm, feel free to entertain it.
Agnosticism is to advanced for a baby. If you never heard of god before, there is no reason you would consider the possibility for it. So they are atheists.
to ponder this have not the faculties do they
Agnostic lies in the realm of knowledge i.e., without knowledge can this "lack of knowledge" refer to the absence of available knowledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Correct me if I'm wrong, but agnosticism to me has always been defined as "a belief that the existence of a deity can not be proven or disproven." This sort of reasoning would have to come after comprehending both sides of the theism-atheism argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Ergo, I would hesitantly say that babies are implicit atheists, but honestly I don't think there is a word for babies or people who lack the knowledge to believe or not believe in a god. Perhaps "atheognosis" would be the correct (albeit imaginary) term, "a lack of knowledge of the concept of a deity".
> Come back a couple of days later
> Three pages of arguing about words
> In 2011
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/e...jpg?1301826641
Agnostic[ism] The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition,Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
agnostic: a. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
This is why Agnostic's fall under the realm of knowledge because if the term is misrepresented as "to a belief" it makes it appear as if Agnostics falls somewhere in-between Theist and Atheist as some kind of neutral ground when this is not the case.
I should have been more careful with my wording, but I still hold that agnosticism is a position rather than a lack of one due to the thought that "the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is... unknowable". If babies have never heard of the concept, they couldn't decide that the existence of a deity is unknowable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Also, Xei, sorry about debating semantics.
I can see how it can very well be confusing and mostly it's because you're looking at agnosticism to be placed within the realm of belief/disbelief and it doesn't belong there. A lack of anything means that a person has the inability to make an intellectual commitment to something, because something is essentially unknown. It can be unknown as a state of non-awareness (babies) meaning belief or disbelief is actually in a pending state following further action and or exposure. In short, the position is basically a position of being "deficient of knowing/unsure". Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get. The reason why, is because we realize that [Acceptance] belief in a concept is possible and [Rejection] disbelief in a concept is equally possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
If babies never heard of the concept then the concept is essentially unknown to them, i.e.,- knowledge in said concept is lacking or a deficiency in knowledge.
You are using a lot of work just to try to avoid saying babies are atheist. If you believe in god then you believe in god. If you don't believe in god then you don't believe in god. Those are you two choices. So if you ask someone who never heard of god, "Do you believe in god?" If they do not say yes, then by default they don't believe in god. And of course they are not going to say yes, because they never heard of it. If you are not sure, then you don't believe there is a god. If you think god is impossible to know, then you do believe there is a kind of god. If you don't think there is a god, but think if there is he would be unknowable, then you don't believe in god.
Agnostic are in most cases also atheists, though some times they can be doubting theists and stuff.
Agnostic lies in the realm of knowledge i.e., without knowledge can this "lack of knowledge" refer to the absence of available knowledge?
That didn't make any sense. If you lack knowledge, then yes you lack knowledge, but that is totally irreverent to the conversation.
I don't see how it's irrelevant to the conversation when the focus of our general discussion appears to be "the lack of something".
A baby is without knowledge in a concept, having a "lack of knowledge/absence of available knowledge" in a concept. Can you explain to me why a baby is not labeled as Agnostic?
ok, so babies are agnostic atheists. Happy? :P
(though some would say that "agnostic" doesn't juts mean "I don't know" but rather, "I can't know" and so you have to know ABOUT the question you claim you can't ever know the answer to - but we can argue pointlessly about that in a separate, equally-pointless thread)
Babies exist in the state of blissful ignorance that's characterized by pure innocence and absence of knowledge. Ie they live in the garden of eden. Upon learning human language and beginning to collect knowledge they eat of the fruit of that cursed tree and are cast out by God. Because let's not forget it was God himself who forbade us knowledge - let's face it, a happy Christian is a Christian who doesn't think too deeply and follows orders well. This is why they tend to be so willing and eager to twist words and meanings to support their belief system.
Because that's what the story of the Garden really is - it teaches that Man began in an animalistic state of blissful ignorance, but when he sought knowledge (became human) God was angry and filled him with the thought that knowledge is somehow innately evil and to be avoided. This is original sin - this idea. The idea planted by God. He sinned against Man by denying him knowledge and growth. Then he punished Man for that sin by giving him a religion that rewards ignorance and punishes thinking.
Agnostic is basically, "I don't know." Or "Maybe", or "It is impossible to know." "I don't understand the question." Is not agnostic. The only time agnostic means lack of knowledge is when taken in the philosophical sense , when you believe that we humans can't really understand god. Though a baby doesn't know philosophy and isn't thinking of things on that level. Agnostic requires knowledge on the subject a baby isn't going to know. It requires you taking the stance that you think its to hard to understand god, and if you never heard you god you can not take that stance.
I know it's a bit late, but figured I'd answer this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
When I was 8 years old, I realised that an all powerful immortal eternal being could not exist and there was no evidence. I basically realised that the Bible was just a fairy tale. That's what started it all. When I was 11, I learned of the term "atheist" on the internet.
So basically, I was brought up to believe it, but realised that it was just a credible as Santa Claus/the Easter Bunny/ghosts, so I stopped believing. My "lack of belief" in a god is comparable to my lack of belief in aforementioned supernatural beings.
I think Alric's post provides a sufficient reply for your first statement(s) regarding agnosticism. Choosing agnosticism is indeed too advanced for a baby for they don't even have a concept to work with and decide if the truth or existence of it is unknown/unknowable. It's unknown to them, but that does not necessarily make them agnostic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
As for your second point, yes we can, and I said that in what you quoted:
Say, for example, I've never heard of the concept of God. It cannot be said that I believe God exists, and it cannot be said that I believe God does not exist. In addition, it cannot be said that I believe in God. But it can be said that I do not believe in God.
Well, that's overstating it a bit. Even as an avowed atheist I concede this - there are lies, there are fables and fairy tales, then there are myths. And then there are religions. This is a spectrum of profoundness. Religions hold the most profound truths about mankind and the universe, but they must be understood metaphorically and not literally.Quote:
I basically realised that the Bible was just a fairy tale.
Take a look at Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scroll down and look at the origins of myth section. It lists 4 main ways for myths to come to be. The first Euhemerism, which they explain are tales of real events that are distorted until they become mystical in nature. Allegory, which they are said are used to explain natural phenomenon. Personification. Personification of inanimate objects and natural forces and making them into gods. The myth-ritual theory, where people make up reasons for rituals they do but forgot the original reason for doing.
If you go over it, you realize that the bible uses all of them. The bible is packed with allegory, and personification of natural events, with god being things like fire and lightning. And real events are often distorted until like a single man is doing impossible tasks. And Christianity is filled with strange rituals that are explain by stories.
Then you scroll down to the function of mythology section. It lists the main reason for myths is to establish models for behavior, exactly what the bible does.
Religion and myths are both the same thing. Of course as someone who can appreciate literature, there is a lot of learn about early man from the literature and myths of the time. Stories, even made up ones, help explain the human condition. Like you said, you just can't take them literally.
The same can be said about nearly all fairy tales (the ones before the 20th century anyway). They all hold very obscure metaphors, meanings and can be incredibly profound. Holy books just consolidate them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
What I meant in my post is that the Bible has no more foundation in reality than your average fairytale, except for maybe a few of the non-supernatural stories that can be confirmed through other texts and historic evidence.
Agnostic and atheist are two independent concepts so why tack on the word atheist? A baby doesn't have a belief and atheism lies in the realm of belief. Can you see how silly it is when you try to manipulate the words to fit your own ulterior motive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
Thanks Marvo for answering, I appreciate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Unknown is unknown it doesn't require philosophy. Based off the general understanding of Agnostic the following are all within the definition of agnostic as you yourself mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
- I don't know.
- Maybe
- It is impossible to know
None of these are required relations toward a philosophical thought process in order for them to work under agnostic. They're all automatically supported by agnostic[ism] if by nothing else but mere definition alone. You can be agnostic toward a variety of things.
If you've never heard of God you cannot take a position of disbelief either which is of Atheism. Agnostic doesn't exist in the realm of belief's which is why it works much better for babies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
A baby cannot have any sort of disbelief either so how can they be labeled as any type of Atheist? When atheism as a whole lies in the realm of beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Ok then, it can equally be said that you do not believe that God does not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE
You see what I did there? Let me ask you something, are you familiar with raising exceptional-case marker-Neg verbs from the subordinate clause (where it rightfully belongs) and shifting it to the main clause of the sentence? Because that's what you're doing and people normally do things like that in hopes of controlling an argument.
If you're unaware that you're doing this then you should probably read this.
web.mit.edu/linguistics
Implicit disbelief. I just explained it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Quote:
Ok then, it can equally be said that you do not believe that God does not exist.
The red-colored part is a positive statement. You must have heard of the concept of God if you say you believe God does not exist. This is not so for the blue-colored part.Say, for example, I've never heard of the concept of God. It cannot be said that I believe God exists, and it cannot be said that I believe God does not exist. In addition, it cannot be said that I believe in God. But it can be said that I do not believe in God.
There is no 'realm of belief'. You either believe you or don't believe. It is like you either have a chair or you do not have a chair. You have a computer or you do not have a computer. You have a left hand or you do not have a left hand. If you don't believe in a god, then regardless of the reason your an atheist. If you don't believe in god because you never heard of him, you are still an atheist.
Let me repeat that, if you do not believe in god, then regardless of the reason you are an atheist. By the definition of the word atheist, if you do not believe in a god, then you are an atheist. Do babies believe in god? No, they are atheist. Does it matter if they lack understanding in god or not? No, because the reason doesn't matter. If you don't believe in god you are an atheist, by the definition of the word.
So I ask you, do babies believe in god? If not, then they don't believe in god, and if they don't believe in god they are atheists. End of story.
But you're still raising, why? Let me show you something.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
BLUELINE does not believe in God -means- BLUELINE believes God does not exist,
-it does not mean that BLUELINE doesn't have any beliefs about God. This is why Atheism, rather you want to admit it or not lies in the realm of beliefs.
A - Belief with X is true - theos - theist <---This is [acceptance]Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
B - Belief without X is true - a-theos - atheist <---This is [rejection]
C - Unsure -pending A or B <---this is the true lack of belief. -[A]gnostic
Atheisim is a belief -its a belief that a concept is false bottom line.
For one to be atheist a conclusion
Drawn for them must be
No it doesn't. You're combining strong an weak atheism into a single concept there, even though they are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
X says, "I do not believe that aliens exist". This means that X has a lack of a belief that aliens exist. X concedes that aliens could exist, but X finds no reason to believe that they do exist.
Y says, "I believe that aliens do not exist". This means that Y has a positive belief that aliens do not exist. Y concedes that he does not even think aliens even could exist.
The former is weak atheism, the latter is strong. There is a difference, and semantics-debating losers like me consider it to be significant.
Why does it not make sense to say: "A person who has never heard of God does not believe in God?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Is Atheism based on Faith?
Check it out
The two are orthogonal. They're different attributes that can co-exist. Man, this is like if I said "I have a small blue car" and then you said, "small and blue are two independent concepts so why tack them together?" If you fail to understand this much, then our discussion is over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Yes, on a scale from -10 to 10, where "-10" means "I believe there is no god" and "10" means "I believe there is a god", atheism is a "0" ("I don't have a belief in god") - like you said, that is where babies lie. They're atheists, by definition. :PQuote:
A baby doesn't have a belief and atheism lies in the realm of belief.
I have no ulterior motives. Your brethren are the ones who started this idiotic thread to begin with. Clearly, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, and there's nothing useful to argue anymore.Quote:
Can you see how silly it is when you try to manipulate the words to fit your own ulterior motive?
Let's not forget now that you can have an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist.
I love charts, they make everything feel so official!
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/Tm...2520Theist.png
:horse::horse::horse::horse::horse:
Gosh I hope not. This whole baby thing is somewhat distracting for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
For what it's worth, I would be inclined to say that any kind of strong assertion, both is so/not so, requires some level of faith to accept without question...but that is because I have trouble asserting anything with complete confidence. /points to name.
I don't want to start another riot of words here either. Truly.
All I wanted to say was that: yes, all kinds of claims that god exists, and most [if not all] forms of practiced religion rely more heavily on faith than any comparable form of philosophical or practiced atheism.
But again, that doesn't mean accepting any sort of claim without question does not involve at least some level of faith...which is what both theists and atheists alike seem to be doing. [Because agnostics and babies seem to be the only ones capable of riding the fence in this tough crowd. Yikers.]
Also, I can't help but notice that at the outset the whole crux of the thing seemed to hinge upon whether or not a negative claim [god doesn't exist-atheism, etc.] uses the at least some of the same principles as a positive claim [god does/can exist-theism, etc.]...in this case, the principle of faith.
And somehow that evolved into the question of whether or not agnosticism [seemingly neutral claim?] is the same as either theism or atheism.
In which case, I'd humbly be voting yes, and no at this point...respectively. If this were a poll, and not ED.
So…that's an overall sortof to the title question. But I would lean towards changing the "is a" to a "has some".
I dunno.
This is not a lack of belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
X finds no reason to believe that aliens exist. <--- This is rejection.
It's rejection because the person has acted upon a decision to not believe based off reason. We only act upon things we believe in we do not act upon things we do not believe in.
This is also rejection the two statements are literally isomorphic toward one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
Because that statement means a person who has never heard of God, believes God does not exist. Which automatically ties them into the realm of belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
If you would quit raising you wouldn't see this problem.
That analogy you gave was pretty poor. Lacking knowledge in something is meaningless on it's own and it's of limited use. "He lacks knowledge in God" -So? What about it? Now when you tack on a descriptive belief-base label to it and make a claim that it's the default position, the knowledge-base label then becomes absent and it presents a problem of confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
This doesn't make sense if there is a belief that X does not exist is true then that's 10Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
If there is a belief that X exist is true then that's equally 10 because they are both positive beliefs.
In actuality the scale would go from 0 to 10 with 0 holding no belief/no disbelief and 10 holding belief/holding disbelief. Babies would be at 0 and atheist at 10 because atheist hold a positive belief that something is not true or a disbelief and babies do not hold a positive belief or disbelief about anything.
A lack of belief is atheism. It doesn't matter how much you say otherwise, that is the dictionary definition of a atheist. If you lack belief in a god, you are atheist. Arguing against the definition of the word doesn't get you any where.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Well, let's take a look at some reputable dictionary definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Merriam-Webster OnLine
atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
atheism:
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
disbelief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
disbelieve:
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold or reject belief
Cambridge Dictionary of American English
atheist: someone who believes that God does not exist
atheism: the belief that God does not exist
The Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989
Atheist:
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2000.
atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
atheism:
1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Appendix I.
disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.
denial:
1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request.
2a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction. b. Law The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff.
3a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief. b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation.
5. Abstinence; self-denial.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.
Atheism:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person. [Obs.] Syn. -- Infidel; unbeliever. See Infidel.
atheism:
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. Godlessness.
disbelief:
The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.
Syn. -- Distrust; unbelief; incredulity; doubt; skepticism. -- Disbelief, Unbelief. Unbelief is a mere failure to admit; disbelief is a positive rejection. One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects. Men often tell a story in such a manner that we regard everything they say with unbelief. Familiarity with the worst parts of human nature often leads us into a disbelief in many good qualities which really exist among men.
MSN Encarta Dictionary
atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
atheist: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
disbelief: the feeling of not believing or of not being able to believe somebody or something.
What words appears to be missing within all of these dictionaries?
Um... are atheists here SERIOUSLY trying to use the dictionaries on their favor? Remember, they were built/written when the Judeo-Christian religion was the strongest (And still is) notice all the "God" there to make the Christian deity look more interesting, of course it will say denial.
I for one, don't really bother with such a creature, who cares if it exist or not? I don't need to reject it nor worry about something that useless, just need to worry about the people doing silly stuff because of the book, but thats a different story.
I give up. I simply can not comprehend how you are unable to grasp the difference between strong and weak atheism given all the descriptions (not to mention Omnis Dei's chart, although it uses slightly different terminology).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
And while dictionary definitions are nice, words change over time and have different meanings to different people. Here is, among others, a strong/weak atheism description. Here is an implicit/explicit atheism description. Not to bash the dictionary people (I'm sure they did their best), but many of the more specific aspects of atheism are too deep to be covered in a single predicate-missing clause.
> Religious people trying to make the opposition look bad by claiming their beliefs are based on faith.
http://img.anongallery.org/img/9/6/w...-i-reading.jpg
The constant refusal to acknowledge the definition of words, and the leaps of 'logic' in desperately trying to avoid them really irritate me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Like, last time we had this discussion I brought up the concept of implicit atheism, as well as mentioning various kinds of atheism. But that's too inconvenient for some (and some of them are just too fucking stupid anyway), so they have to strawman it into "atheism is a faith".
Because rejection is rejection and I don't see how you cannot comprehend that. You can't say "I'm a weak atheist so I'm going to softly reject or softly deny God" and think it's any different when a so-called strong atheist rejection. That's what I see when people throw out the hundred or so version of atheist. Rejection is rejection there is no way to soften that term.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
To answer to the OP, the atheism you refer to is a faith, yes. Because it is a world-view disbelieving in God, it is also significant enough to earn that title. On the other hand, the atheism of all those people "who haven't heard of God" does not stand as a faith. Wow "atheists", did that hurt?
Therefore Atheism is an unjustified belief? Sounds unreasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
Since so much meaning is derived from atheism as disbelieving in God, it would seem meaningless to call all people who haven't "heard of" God atheists as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
There is no such thing as a "default position", since a position is the result of what something means to the person. The "default position" is lack of a position; i.e. neither yes or no, nor any grey area. The fact that there is no position means that it is neither atheist nor theist, nor any grey area. However given their outlying relevance in this world, there is nothing practical in speaking of somebody without a position or belief of God, nor somebody without any opinion of God, as atheist.Quote:
Being an atheist is in fact the default neutral position for anyone who has never considered the issue, or has not heard of god.
If we use your definition there, we may run into the above problemsQuote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
hi newbie poking in. it has been discussed in another forum. there's no point of arguing things that cannot be proved or disproved. and dont try to say that you are religion A, but keep saying about the teaching of religion B. so.. a simple reality check, tell yourself if someone ask you a question...
"do you believe in God?"
if you think you'll answer "no": you are atheist
if you think you'll answer "not sure": you are agnostics
if you think you'll say "yes": you are a theist. a person with religion.
there will be no answer such as "No, God doesnt exist, but i'm not sure" or "Yes God does exist, but i'm not sure either" or even "yes and no", its just nonsense imho. and dont argue about provability, nobody can do that. dont mixed up provability with belief (or faith). this thread is all about faith and belief. its like arguing that you like red but i like blue. we can argue about this until the world ends. my 2cnts.
While you can't say, "I'm a weak atheist so I'm going to softly reject or softly deny God", you can say, "I don't think a god exists, but it could."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
If you say, "My dog can do a backflip," I may say, "I do not believe that a dog can backflip." Ergo, it's a lack of a belief. My belief that the dog can do backflips is missing. Perhaps dogs can do backflips, but I find it unlikely. It's possible, but improbable.
If you say, "My dog can do a backflip," I may say, "I do believe that a dog can not backflip." Ergo, it's a belief. A belief that the dog can do backflips is not only missing, but added to it is the belief that dogs can not do backflips. Rather than say that it is possible but improbable for dogs to do backflips, I am asserting that it is impossible for dogs to do backflips.
You're claiming that a lack of a belief is a belief of lack. It isn't.
"I do not believe dogs can backflip, but it's possible that they could"
is not
"I believe that dogs do not backflip, for that is impossible".
That's the difference.
Kookyinc, do you lack belief in the existence of a God?
If so can you give a brief explanation as to why?
Yes, I do not believe in any gods because there is no testable, objective evidence to indicate that any gods exists. A god may exist, it's entirely possible and I'm open to that idea if it can be backed up, but insofar I find no reason to believe in a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
So you're stating that you do not believe in any Gods because of evidence. Would you conclude that you have not seen all evidence available and there may very well be sufficient evidence which demonstrate the existence of a God?
I would admit that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Do you believe that?
I believe that I have not seen any evidence that would suggest that a god exists, but I will admit that there is the possibility that there is evidence somewhere that has yet to be discovered and/or presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Ugh do you know what the word implicit means? They're not believing God does not exist. They're not believing anything. They can't set a belief on the concept of God, because they have never heard of it. But they can NOT believe in the sense that they implicitly, inherently, naturally, do not believe. In the case of ignorance, saying "I don't believe in God" does not mean "I believe God exists." Keyword here is implicit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
I don't know how to explain it any simpler so if you're still having trouble understanding this then I'm gonna go outside and play in traffic. It'd be far more productive.
So you're saying that you believe in the possibility that sufficient evidence could very well surface demonstrating the existence of a God?Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
Ummm... it's not called evidence until it does surface. Evidence that has not been discovered yet simply isn't evidence. It's called the unknown.
Edit: I believe it could, but I haven't found any yet, and I have no reason to believe that it will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Derp derp derp. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
If you believe that it could how exactly are you lacking belief?Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
It's always hilarious when theists start talking about scientific evidence for God.
By definition God is supernatural - existing outside the realm of the physical universe. How could such a being produce any physical evidence of his existence?
In all the time Man has existed, such evidence has never been found and never will. And as I already said by definition it's impossible. Anyone who has a sufficient grasp of the nature of God and of science understands that. Faith in God is exactly that - faith, and cannot be founded on any science.
I believe the Universe is an extension of God and most Christians would believe that God has the ability to influence the physical Universe. We believe God has brought the Universe into physical existence, surely this being the case He could very well influence the physical Universe at a time of His choosing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I believe that there is a possibility that there is evidence for a god. I believe that there is a possibility that a god exists. However, I lack believe in a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Divine intervention. Just because one is outside does not mean one can't stick his hand in and cause plagues of locusts and whatnot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
But I agree, a non-interventionist god by definition can leave no evidence, and its existence must be taken completely on faith. However, most of the more popular gods of our age have (allegedly) interacted with the natural universe in some way.
The word faith does not appear in any of those dictionaries in regards to atheism. Now since you, yourself looked up multiple words in 6 different dictionaries you have no excuse to call atheism a faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
The second part you seem confused on is that they also give two options for the definition. Denial and disbelief. You accept that if someone denies the existence of god, they are an atheist. However you seem to have trouble with the disbelief part. Disbelief isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief.
If you look back up the words disbelief you will see where it says reluctance or 'withholding' belief. If you are not sure, because you don't have enough data yet, that would be reluctance. One of them even says, the feeling of not believing. So if you don't believe in god, then you are not believing.
You got to read the whole thing. There are cases where disbelieving can be an active state, but there is also cases where disbelieving is simply not believing and the definitions of the words clearly show this.
Well, even if God causes miracles and communicates with people via visions, how does that leave any evidence of his existence? How can there possibly be any scientific evidence for the existence of a being who does not operate according to physical laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
Quote:
National Academy of Sciences:
Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral.
You've asserted belief by saying "I believe there is a possibility that there is evidence for a God". You believe(this is not a deficiency) This is something 'with' not something 'without'.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
What you do not seem to understand is this. For anyone to believe there is no God (atheism by definition) is to hold that belief by faith, considering there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative. I hate to break it to you dude but atheism is a faith, you might as well own up to it now, as to get comfortable with this new found information you've been exposed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
There will not be in relation to science because science only deals with natural phenomenon and God is supernatural phenomena.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Exactly. So let's have no more of this talk about "evidence" for the existence of God. It is something which can only be taken entirely on faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Furthermore, faith and science have no overlap anywhere. To accept one is to utterly deny the other. If you're a person who's willing to take things on faith, despite any evidence to the contrary, then you reject science. If you accept that the universe runs on natural laws that are quantifiable and can be studied to make sense of them, then you reject magic and the supernatural.
This explains why theists constantly fail to understand the actual definitions of words and are able to keep hammering away at conversations like this one even after people have clearly pointed out what those words mean.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...onceivable.jpg
That being the case you've just validated this statement even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
While you're technically correct, believing in the possibility for evidence of X to exist for something does not constitute a faith, it constitutes an open mind. To stay intellectually honest with myself, I have to believe that there could be evidence for unicorns. One can't disprove unicorns or give evidence of their non-existance. So even though I lack a belief in unicorns, and gods, that does not mean I' taking anything on faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
And we go back to the beginning: I still lack a belief in god, but I do not believe that god does not exist.
I wasn't talking about faith, we were discussing your so-called lack of belief, which you've confirmed that you actually have none, confirming in the same instance that you actually have belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
http://www.factpile.com/wp-content/u...s-facepalm.jpg
Circular logic can go on forever
Are you serious? Are you really going to say atheism is faith, after you just proved it wasn't faith by quoting 6 dictionaries? Faith was never mentioned in any of the dictionaries, because it doesn't require any faith at all.
Also there is evidence that there is no god. There is actual real, logical proof god doesn't exist. You are just saying stuff, and what your saying has no biases in facts. You can easily prove negatives, it isn't impossible.
For example. My hand is not green. Can I prove my hand isn't green? Yes! My computer is not red. Can I prove my computer is not red? Yes! Don't give me that regurgitated talking point about not being able to prove a negative, because frankly, it is bullshit. I don't need faith to believe my hand isn't green, and I don't need faith to know any specific god doesn't exist because I can easily prove it.
Well you're wrong there. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven because, once again, a supernatural being cannot be studied by science.
I know right? Where does this guy come up with this stuff?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Thank you Darkmatters, and facepalm me again and it's going to be me and you...lol
Anyway I'm done here, I believe my point has been made, you guys can take it for what it is. All I ask if you just be intellectually honest with yourselves.
~So it shall be written, that it shall be done.
That is why I said a specific god. It is very easy to prove specific gods don't exist, because in cases of specific gods they set down specific guidelines in which that god was interactive with the world. If you can disprove he interacted in the ways they said, you can disprove he exited.
But - how could science prove or disprove the supernatural?
If a bush burns and a man claims he heard a voice coming form it, can you either prove or disprove his claim?
Science deals only with phenomenae, not noumenae.
Please give an example of a divine intervention that science can study.
Specific supernatural claims can be debunked (which is why most theistic philosophies hide behind obscure and vague language). Consider the statement "God causes lightning when he is angry" this has been debunked because we know what lightning is (electrostatic discharge from the atmosphere) and have comprehensive naturalistic explanations for it as opposed to the epistemological bear-trap that is "god dun it". Of course we cannot disprove the existence of such a deity but we can debunk specific claims made by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
As for the burning bush example, no we cannot share someones subjective experience (only through language). People with schizophrenia for example sometimes hear inanimate objects communicating with them. We collectively know that inanimate objects are not capable of speech or thought (although Omnis Dei would probably disagree with this assertion) so we can prove that an individuals subjective experience is a hallucination, a projection of their mind onto the physical world. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to undermine the value of subjective experience (in fact it is the starting point) but we know that experience is fallible. We project our past experiences onto present ones and fall victim to conformation biases that prevent us from grasping the whole picture.
Ah, but in that case the theists run behind the "God works through natural phenomenae" banner. They'll just say he causes lightning by natural causes. Of course that significantly weakens the concept of God.
Ok, they can say "Can you prove that every lightning strike in history was always created by natural causes?"
Even when I was a theist I had to reconcile God's miracles as having causal manifestation. But if so, why believe in God?
For example if you look at some old religions you can see where a gods was created from two or more gods merged into one. If you make the claim that a specific god has always existed and was worshiped as a single god since the beginning of time, you could disprove it by going back and showing how he came to exist from the worshipers of the two religions merging into one. Obviously he hasn't always existed and wasn't always worshiped in that form, and thus the religion is wrong and he doesn't exist.
In the case of the bible, god was there at the creation of the world, up until it was widely practiced. However you can prove that the faith didn't exist at one point. And if not a single person on earth was worshiping that god, then the claim that he has always been there and was always worshiped is false.
And that is just a small example but there is hundreds of things you can pick apart about any religion. So when they make a specific claim you can often prove those specific claims false. Like how the bible says the earth is only 5000 years old, you can prove that is false.
To play devil's advocate for a moment - to prove that people didn't know about a God or had wrong impressions about that God is not to prove that it didn't exist.
That's pretty much my take on it. Any sort of God your mind builds, to me, is false. I love the book House of Leaves because of how it demonstrates [spoiler removed by mod or administrator]
Is an omnipotent being really so inept at communication that people cannot even understand what it is trying to say? Oh wait ya that's right our feeble human minds cannot conceive of a divine deities will, good argument for theism. Ill keep it in mind when theists assert god said this or that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
@Omnis Dei House of Leaves was a mindblowing book. I wish I could read it again for the first time.
We can counter your claim and suggest another color that your hand could have. But regardless, your hand exists. You can prove negatives, but you can't disprove the existence of something. What evidence would something not there leave to show that it isn't there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
You can demonstrate that claims made by people who believe in non-existant deity X can be explained by natural phenomena, and combined those explanations will reduce and eventually eradicate any reason to believe in such a thing, and practically disprove the existence of deity X. But even if that can be done, one can't really, really disprove the existence of anything.
Well, it's only the most fervent literalists who believe the Bible even really says that. Apparently some theist with too much time on his hands arrived at that conclusion by counting up the Begats in the bible and assuming that a human generation must be about 20 years long and factoring in the 6 days to create the earth thing. This assumes that no Begats were left out and that everything the Bbile says is to be taken at literal face value. So all that can be disproven there is the absolute literal truth of the statement. Most Christians aren't literalists anyway.Quote:
Like how the bible says the earth is only 5000 years old, you can prove that is false.
I only present this because I believe any claims that can be disproved through science will prove to be equally spurious. Say what it may about literal "facts" presented in the literature of Christianity, science still cannot even make any claim concerning a being that is by definition not natural.
If God can create the universe and can exist before it did, then he would have no problems hiding evidence of his existence from pesky scientists.
Yea but if they said they knew something, and they didn't then you can prove they are wrong. And if you said god actively played a part in a historical event, and that event never happened, then it proves he didn't do anything. When you get to the point where the vast majority of a religion is proven wrong, then you start disproving that gods very existence.
If you pick the 5% of the bible that can't be proven either way and use that to say god exists, well that 5% god isn't what you believe in. Your concept of the god is wrong and your concept of that god doesn't exist. You could then try to claim that there is still a god, but it wouldn't be the god your worshiping.
How about logically impossible things? What about a triangle with 6 vertices where the angles add up to 395 degrees?Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
I can say that there is no nail stuck through the center my hand. I can prove that such a nail doesn't exist. I look at my hand, and no nail. I have just disproved the existence of the nail See the thing is, when people talk about a specific god they lists traits it have and stuff. If you can disprove those traits then the item doesn't exist the way they claim it does. You can think of some instances where things might be extremely hard to disprove, however most people who worship a god says the god interactive with the earth and the people on earth. Those interactions are the points where you can show if some thing happened or not. You can't disprove god if he exists in another universe but if you claim he exists on earth and has a giant foot and stepped on someone and crushed him into the ground but there is no giant foot print and the guy wasn't crushed, you can prove that isn't true.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
Again though, that's just knocking down things people have said about God or statements about him in the Bible. All that can do is make Biblical Literalism look stupid. But then people who believe in Biblical Literalism aren't too concerned with looking intelligent to begin with.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/p...gif?1311796710Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Lol but the question still remains: can we disprove the existence of a triangle with 6 vertices?Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
We can because by definition a triangle has 3 vertices and the sum of its interior angles are 180 degrees. A triangle with 6 vertices with the sum of its angles are 395 degrees cannot possibly exist and we can prove this a priori.
Not if it's a supernatural triangle...
http://images.wikia.com/entertainmen...74/Dr_Evil.jpg
And with that I leave this endless circular logic thread
http://www.mybestgirl27.com/BlowingKiss.gif
But then you can make up excuses when reality disagrees. The nail is invisible and intangible. The footprint was covered up by the government/Noah's Flood/it's a metaphor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I have to stop this, I'm feeling like an apologist for something that I don't even believe.
I thought the rageface would be my admission of yes, we can, and I was dumb to not be more specific with my statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Though technically, you can get a 395° angle sum triangle in non-euclidian space. As the disgusting old man said to the foxy young lady, "you can get anything with those curves".
/insultedQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/e...jpg?1275576115
Im not so sure about that although my knowledge of non-euclidean geometry is limited. I know that in hyperbolic geometry the sum of the triangles interior angles always add up to be less than 180 degrees. Also even in non-euclidean geometry a triangle still only has 3 vertices.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
Yea but if you say the nail is invisible and prior to that you claimed to have seen it, then you have just proven you are wrong. And if you say only you can see it when can give you an eye test to prove that is wrong. They already have a set beliefs, if they use any excuses that conflict with that belief they are only proving them self wrong.
I think if you stick a triangle on a sphere, you can get a sum that big. But I'm not sure.[/offtopic]Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
They're wrong about the properties that they noticed with their fallible human senses, but can't prove that the invisible intangible nail isn't there, just that its properties changed or someone perceived it incorrectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
This discussion reminds me of this video, and like Darkmatters, I think Imma bail as well. I hardly see this discussion going much further. It was a fun, no doubt, but I have to go and do more productive things, like counting grains of sand and the like.
Then you just ask them how they know it is there. If they have no possible way of knowing it them self, then they are just making shit up. That is the entire point. You can claim something but if you have no way of knowing it yourself, then you just made it up. I can prove you made it up because you yourself admit there is no way you can know.
Aight then. But one last note, your right I checked and spherical triangles can exceed 180 degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
You say that the discussion is not productive but you have been arguing for the existence of something that we cannot prove exists for a couple posts now? Puzzled. Personally I think the discussion about the limits of the scientific method, epistemology, and logically impossible things was vastly more fun that arguing over semantics like the first six pages of this thread. Ok Ill leave too since everyone else left.Quote:
Originally Posted by kookyinc
But just to be the gadfly, it is interesting that you used Sagan's dragon argument. After what is the difference between an invisible nail and a non-existent one?
Holy shitballs...there's no way you just said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
This has made my week.
I must be having deja vu. I SWEAR I've heard this conversation all before a million times...
If Atheists believed in something that they hadn't yet proven, they would have faith. If they don't believe in something that hasn't been proven, they are simply refusing to believe it.
There you go guys, there's the answer. Do I win? (And this came from a *gasp* NON-ATHEIST! ZOMG.)
Well this thread seems to have gone off base that Atheism is indeed a faith. Must I reiterate? One can not have disbelief without affirming to faith of some degree. Zeus might exist I don't know but it seems unlikely however I have faith that he doesn't exist just as everyone else does.
One doesn't have "faith" that unicorns do not exist. They simply assume they do not until evidence to the contrary is presented.
faith: noun belief that is not based on proof He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Since you cannot disprove God's existence, you are accepting non-existence. You cannot physically have faith in something that you assume doesn't exist, or faith in the assumed non-existence. The point is, there is no faith because atheism is not a belief in something without evidence. No evidence is needed to assume non-existence... in fact a lack of evidence leads to a conclusion of non-existence until proof arises.
Atheists don't believe in something lacking in proof. (see definition above.) Therefore, not a faith.
By ne-yo's logic, "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. :P
I think we have been through a fair bit of semantics, but also straw-man on the atheist's part.
Atheism may not be a faith in no-God, but it is not about that, it is about the atheist's faith in his own reasoning in itself as the final answer. It is often a faith that logic itself can encompass all truth, including the spiritual and the supernatural, or other areas untouched; even in times where the logic has nothing to rest on. It is then a faith that the God problem is "settled" once and for all inside the frames of reason, strangely enough - even it finally means something cannot be proven or disproven.
If one says logic itself requires no faith, that is in itself odd, because if so there would be no means to bring it into action. If the atheist didn't have faith in the scientific method, for example, he would not use it. I know I wouldn't. However the scientific method just cannot work on everything by its paradigm, not including the times where it simply does not have enough information to function.
It is not about faith in a whether a logical conclusion will be logical, but about faith in logic in providing all truth in the universe. If it wasn't taken to this extent about certain issues, then the atheist would prefer to remain undecided, and instead perhaps become agnostic.
The gnostic/theist might also know God and then look upon the atheist and see that he doesn't actually know that there is no God, but that he has invested his faith in science alone and knows only what he can deduce. It is a losing battle however, because that faith is burdened upon a limited set of tools; hence there will be issues within these topics that can neither be proven nor disproven, and yet somehow have an original reality.
Minor interjection for the kiddies still arguing about an issue that is easily resolved for everybody by just defining atheism clearly: depending on how you define God, there may be clear evidence against such a God, in which case atheism isn't a faith in either definition.
Give an example of a debate I've had that rests on semantic non-issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
> Calling greenhavoc out for the nth time
> Expecting a reply
> in 2011
This thread is probably one of the biggest mindfucks ever on this subforum. Perhaps the DNA one with Ne-yo and Darkwing was worse.
*posting this again :/*Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlonde
might i state these are not the same
Belief Definition: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Faith Definition:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
so atheism isnt a faith
P.S: yet another thread that got completely fucked
P.P.S: I ignored every post in this thread except for most on page 1... incase what i said is irrelevnt now ://////////
lol..wait.. what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Dude don't hate on my super awesome Intelligent Design thread.
One more comment out of you about it and I swear I'll bump it...lol
I have a feeling there's only like 5 people left on this forum who actually read the whole thing. As in, all the 50 pages or however many it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Yea, it was a ton of freaking pages but all good stuff on both sides of the argument. I would've kept it going but I needed Shadow's expertise in Biology and he ended up winning the N.Y. lottery and left me at this God forsaken forum to deal with people like you alone. :cheeky:
A whole world of pain and frustration, if you're unlucky enough to step on the wrong one, I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
But seriously. Nothing...because there's no proof that invisible nails exist, right?
Maybe it's just a passing fancy, but for some reason that seems vaguely relevant...
Quote:
stormcrow:
After [all] what is the difference between an invisible nail and a non-existent one?
No - Stormcrow forgot to mention the nail is also intangible and makes no sound when dropped on surfaces, and no marks if dropped in soft dirt or anything similar. Here's the original context:Quote:
acatalephobic:
A whole world of pain and frustration, if you're unlucky enough to step on the wrong one, I mean.
Of course all this is not proof that the invisible (nail, dragon, man, whatever) does nor exist, or that it does. It simply means that no proof either way is possible. hence belief in such an invisible intangible thing is solely faith. Belief in something that is testable with consistent results is not faith.Quote:
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
I read the Demon-Haunted World almost a year ago and I still get chills when reading the Dragon in my Garage chapter. It is still profound and relevant to this day. I interpreted it a bit differently than Darkmatters did however. I have always interpreted it to be an affirmation of strong materialism and empiricism that asserts that if something is not testable in a quantifiable way, it does not exist. This sounds like a fool-hardy arrogant assertion but let me explain. If there is no proof of an objects (dragon) ontological existence then we have no reason whatsoever to believe that it does exist. If it cannot interact with physical matter in any way knowledge of its properties is unknowable and is therefore useless (in the way that it cannot significantly impact our world). When Sagan asks "what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?" it is a loaded question because it assumes the answer, there is no difference and we have no reason to believe that there is. I'm sure Taosaur is wincing as he reads this.
Most of the time I read the whole thread before posting (as painful as reading this one was) but yes many people do not. And Ne-yo you should bump it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
I should but I don't have that much time on my hands as I used to, that and without Shadow and his brainy sister's help, I could not possibly handle all of the arguments from the opposing side (you guys) if I wanted to. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Feel free to bump it if you guys like but I haven't really seen any theist on the forum arguing the case against abiogenesis and the holidays are approaching so my time logging into DV's will be very limited. Perhaps Really would entertain it, he's a smart cookie. :wink:
You can easily prove that the dragon isn't real through a bit of logic though. Because of the dragon is infinitely elusive, then the person has no way of knowing the dragon is there. And if they don't have any way to know it is there, then you know they are lying. You can also have a lie detector test with one of the newer brain scanning technologies(one that actually looks at your brain not one of them old style ones that read stress), and watch as they lying centers of their brain light up every time they tell their story.
Enough! Enough! I clearly outlined why such a baseless claim of disbelief is a faith. Speak no longer of such semantics in front of me again.