Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 16:23
I've been having a discussion with a fellow about his religion. He is an atheist, or at least he claims to be.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16262611&posted=1#post16262611

He believes that God does not exist, however, he acknowledges that it is impossible for him to prove this belief.

So, when it is pointed out that he has "Faith" that he is right, and that his view of the universe is right. As devout as any other religious fellow that I've run across.


Just to make sure I am being clear about my own beliefs, I am unsure, I'm an agnostic. I see evidence in nature and in man that both makes me believe that there may be a God, and there may not be one, or at least it may be difficult to know which one is the right one.

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 16:30
Is being bald a hair color?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

void *
11-07-2010, 16:32
If you really want understanding of this, please answer this question:

Do you believe in the existence of Vishnu?

When you answer, please carefully note that I asked if you *believe* - not whether it can be known or not known, but whether or not you *believe* it is true that Vishnu exists.

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 16:33
And because its a pet peeve:

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic thiest, etc etc.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 16:38
Is being bald a hair color?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

And what does either of those have to do with the fundamental nature of the universe?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 16:42
If you really want understanding of this, please answer this question:

Do you believe in the existence of Vishnu?

When you answer, please carefully note that I asked if you *believe* - not whether it can be known or not known, but whether or not you *believe* it is true that Vishnu exists.

To answer, I have my doubts. But I do not know for sure. I believe there is evidence that supports creation, and evidence that supports evolution. It's possible that Vishnu exists.


Is it so hard to admit?

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 16:43
And what does either of those have to do with the fundamental nature of the universe?


Nothing, but they're perfect analogies to demonstrate the mistake in your thought process here.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 16:46
It not mattering much whether it's true or not, in the example, does not change that it is *exactly* parallel with respect to belief and knowledge. Given that belief and knowledge are the areas in which I'm trying to make the point, the fact that it lacks gravitas is irrelevant.

I see this to some extent analogous to you objecting that someone notes the speed of two objects in freefall is the same because one happens to be a stuffed bunny and the other a safe - "The safe will do more damage when it hits, so even though we've been talking about speed, and they both have the same speed, I'm going to ignore that they have matched speeds!!!"



So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?

Joking or otherwise, the impression I'm getting is that you don't actually want to understand the point. So - that being the case - there's not much point continuing, is there?

If you want to see my answer to your post, lets move this to the GT Religious Issues Forum.

See ya there. http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1282322


The whole "pixies" metaphor minimizes the gravity of the question at hand, and is likely something you've used before to mock the question.

Does God exist or not? You said in the other thread that you "believe" there is no god, but you have no proof.

Like it or not, that is faith.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 16:49
And because its a pet peeve:

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic thiest, etc etc.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

I think what you are trying to describe is whether the approach to atheism is active or passive.


Whether passive or active, if you do believe there is a deity, you do. If you don't, you don't.

Agnosticism ranges from whether it is impossible to know, or whether the individual simply does not know.

I think it is possible to know, only if there is a God. I assume that we would all find out in the afterlife. If there isn't, I doubt we would be aware enough to realize it after we are dead.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 16:52
Nothing, but they're perfect analogies to demonstrate the mistake in your thought process here.

I think they are minimization of the issue.


I'll go first. I don't know if there are any deities.


Are you personally sure that there is or is not a god?

void *
11-07-2010, 16:56
If you want to see my answer to your post, lets move this to the GT Religious Issues Forum.

See ya there. http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1282322

I find it pretty funny that you responded, in this thread, to the post from the other thread - when I had already asked a question in this thread, and was already here to see it (edited: and, in fact, you had already responded to it)

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16262676&postcount=3

I selected Vishnu in this case because an actual god that people really, really believe in ought to hold sufficient 'gravitas' that you might focus on the parallels rather than saying it doesn't matter.

So - Do you believe that Vishnu exists? Not 'do you doubt', not 'do you know or not know', but can you honestly accept the premise that Vishnu is real?

Edit: Or, in other words, would you give the answer 'Yes' to the question 'Does CavalryDoc believe Vishnu actually exists'?

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 17:01
I think they are minimization of the issue.


I'll go first. I don't know if there are any deities.


Are you personally sure that there is or is not a god?

Do you understand the difference between the terms "atheist" and "agnostic"?

Again: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm


"First learn, then form opinions"

Ramjet38
11-07-2010, 17:15
Void*

Would you please answer Doc's question of "Are you personally sure that there is or is not a god"?

Thanks

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 17:36
I find it pretty funny that you responded, in this thread, to the post from the other thread - when I had already asked a question in this thread, and was already here to see it (edited: and, in fact, you had already responded to it)

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16262676&postcount=3

I selected Vishnu in this case because an actual god that people really, really believe in ought to hold sufficient 'gravitas' that you might focus on the parallels rather than saying it doesn't matter.

So - Do you believe that Vishnu exists? Not 'do you doubt', not 'do you know or not know', but can you honestly accept the premise that Vishnu is real?

Edit: Or, in other words, would you give the answer 'Yes' to the question 'Does CavalryDoc believe Vishnu actually exists'?

I can honestly accept the possibility that vishnu exists. But I believe that I do not know whether he does or does not exist.

Do you know? Do you just know it in your heart, or can you prove it one way or the other?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 17:42
Do you understand the difference between the terms "atheist" and "agnostic"?

Again: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm


"First learn, then form opinions"

That's pretty funny. dismissive condescension. It's not working, but it is funny.

Maybe you could try learning the actual definition of the terms you are using.

agnostic

Main Entry: ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

The bold section fits closest. It may be knowable, but I personally do not have enough proof one way or the other to state conclusively that God, or a God does or does not exist.

So, now that we've gotten past your misconception.


Are you personally sure that there is or is not a god?

See, the problem is I am not sure. If you are sure, how? What convinced you?

RC-RAMIE
11-07-2010, 18:46
Because its not a religion.

I can't prove if there is a real easter bunny but I don't give it a enough chance to consider it, I feel the same way about a god.

Why do I have to prove a god religious people CLAIM is real I am sure there is no god I have seen no reason to believe in one. I do not have faith there is no god just like I don't have faith there is no tooth fairy. I put theme in the same category. Does that make my no faith in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy a religion? No that would be silly.

Why do people fill the need to label something that does not want to be a religion or claims to be a religion or a religion? Especially on glock talk to want to call atheism a religion when it claims not to be and islam not a religion when it has been for a long time.

void *
11-07-2010, 18:51
I can honestly accept the possibility that vishnu exists. But I believe that I do not know whether he does or does not exist.

This is, again, not an answer to the question asked. I am not asking if you accept it as possible. I am not asking you if you believe you know. I am not asking about what you know - I am asking about what you believe, I am asking whether or not you accept the proposition "Vishnu exists" as something you believe.

Please, just honestly answer the question - Do you believe that Vishnu exists?

Or, to put it a slightly different way, do you have faith that Vishnu exists?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 18:59
Because its not a religion.

I can't prove if there is a real easter bunny but I don't give it a enough chance to consider it, I feel the same way about a god.

Why do I have to prove a god religious people CLAIM is real I am sure there is no god I have seen no reason to believe in one. I do not have faith there is no god just like I don't have faith there is no tooth fairy. I put theme in the same category. Does that make my no faith in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy a religion? No that would be silly.

Why do people fill the need to label something that does not want to be a religion or claims to be a religion or a religion? Especially on glock talk to want to call atheism a religion when it claims not to be and islam not a religion when it has been for a long time.

It is a belief system that seeks to explain the basic nature of the universe.

It IS a religion. It's OK to admit it if you are one of the faithful. All of us here believe in the right of the individual to practice the religion of his choice.


Denial that Atheism requires faith without proof, of the real situation of affairs in nature, and of the supernatural, doesn't help. It's just a denial of the truth.


Either you have faith that you are correct, or you don't.

If you don't, maybe you're really an agnostic?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 19:02
This is, again, not an answer to the question asked. I am not asking if you accept it as possible. I am not asking you if you believe you know. I am not asking about what you know - I am asking about what you believe, I am asking whether or not you accept the proposition "Vishnu exists" as something you believe.

Please, just honestly answer the question - Do you believe that Vishnu exists?

Or, to put it a slightly different way, do you have faith that Vishnu exists?

You asked a question, and I answered it honestly. Just because you don't like the answer does not make it any less honest.

You have already illustrated that you are a victim of digital thinking......

Open your mind, and allow yourself the ability to believe that some people are honestly not so arrogant as to believe that they have all the answers.....

I really don't know if Vishnu exists or not. And if you will actually admit the truth, neither do you.

void *
11-07-2010, 19:05
You asked a question, and I answered it honestly. Just because you don't like the answer does not make it any less honest.

You haven't answered the question, at all, either honestly or dishonestly.

You have answered the question 'Do you believe you know whether or not Vishnu exists' with what appears to be a 'No'. (Edit: More specifically, you stated "I believe that I do not know whether he does or does not exist." - which is 'Yes' to the question 'Do you believe that you do not know', which is answering 'No' to the question 'Do you believe that you know').

You have answered the question 'Is it possible that Vishnu exists' with what appears to be a 'Yes'. (Edit: You stated that you accept it as possible)

You have answered the question 'Do you know Vishnu exists' with what appears to be a 'No'. (Edit: If you don't believe you know, then you hold the position that you don't know)

But you have not answered the question 'Do you believe Vishnu exists', and telling yourself that it's just that I don't like the answer doesn't change that.

Since an actual answer to that question (coming from you, rather than me inferring a likely answer based on what you have actually answered) is critical to the point, I can't really explain further without you actually answering it.

Edit: So I can only really ask the same question again, in yet another different way:
Do you accept the proposition that Vishnu exists?

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 19:06
The bold section fits closest. It may be knowable, but I personally do not have enough proof one way or the other to state conclusively that God, or a God does or does not exist.

Its interesting that you jump on the broad, modern definition of agnostic while skipping the definition thats more truthful to the actual philosophical position. Doesn't fit your agenda, I suppose. :dunno:

(A)theism = referring to belief or non-belief in god(s)
(A)gnosticism = referring to knowledge of god(s)

As has been stated, they're not mutually exclusive positions. Most "atheists" also fall into the agnostic category as well, i.e. "I don't believe in any gods but I don't claim to know they don't exist either."



you personally sure that there is or is not a god?

See, the problem is I am not sure. If you are sure, how? What convinced you?

Great, you've established that you don't claim to know whether or not a god exists, now do you believe in one anyways? If you do, you're an Agnostic Theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism) and if not, an Agnostic Atheist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)

See how that works now?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 19:20
You haven't answered the question, at all, either honestly or dishonestly.

You have answered the question 'Do you believe you know that Vishnu exists' with what appears to be a 'No'.

You have answered the question 'Is it possible that Vishnu exists' with what appears to be a 'Yes'.

But you have not answered the question 'Do you believe Vishnu exists', and telling yourself that it's just that I don't like the answer doesn't change that.

Since an actual answer to that question is critical to the point, I can't really explain further without you actually answering it.



Digital thinking may be terminal in this one.......


Life is not on or off, black or white.....

Life is not digital, it's analog.

Life is best described as shades of gray, in infinite directions.


You are asking if Vishnu exists or not, and I have answered that I am uncertain.

I asked you if you believe Vishnu exists, and you haven't answered. Do you know? Do you just know it in your heart, or can you prove it one way or the other?

But you edited the question out of your posts, because answering it honestly will further evidence your faith in your religion.

Evidently, Atheists aren't as sure as I thought they were, or at least you aren't.


I am answering your questions, even if you don't like the answers. You asked what you wished was a "Yes or NO" question, and forgot to consider that the answer "Maybe" is just as valid as the other two.

You are not answering mine though. So, the hypocrisy is evident. Try to stop that if you can.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 19:26
Its interesting that you jump on the broad, modern definition of agnostic while skipping the definition thats more truthful to the actual philosophical position. Doesn't fit your agenda, I suppose. :dunno:

(A)theism = referring to belief or non-belief in god(s)
(A)gnosticism = referring to knowledge of god(s)

As has been stated, they're not mutually exclusive positions. Most "atheists" also fall into the agnostic category as well, i.e. "I don't believe in any gods but I don't claim to know they don't exist either."



You profess to know, without proof. I am humble enough to admit that I don't know.

Who is being more honest?



Great, you've established that you don't claim to know whether or not a god exists, now do you believe in one anyways? If you do, you're an Agnostic Theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism) and if not, an Agnostic Atheist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)

See how that works now?

I believe that I don't know. I'm not so arrogant that I believe that I have to know everything. I know quite a lot, but in my 42 years, I have a wealth of experiences, that lead me to be unsure.


You seem awful sure though. How did you arrive there?

2952
11-07-2010, 19:28
How many people that do not believe in GOD and believe we all came from pond scum or the Big Bang theory can believe that a tornado blowing through a junk yard can assemble a flyable working Boeing 747 from the junk in the yard.

There is an order to the Universe and everything made in it. GOD made it.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 19:37
How many people that do not believe in GOD and believe we all came from pond scum or the Big Bang theory can believe that a tornado blowing through a junk yard can assemble a flyable working Boeing 747 from the junk in the yard.

There is an order to the Universe and everything made in it. GOD made it.

I applaud you for having the conviction to admit your faith.

The atheists are still ignorant of their own, or at leas the won't admit it.




It's odd, that the religion that is the least tolerant of others, that seeks to suppress the right of others to believe, or even not believe are those that claim to have no religion, while denying their own.

void *
11-07-2010, 19:40
Life is not on or off, black or white.....

Life is not digital, it's analog.

Life is best described as shades of gray, in infinite directions.

That depends entirely on the domain of the question being asked. For instance, the answer to the question "What is the range of possible temperatures?" is *not* a continuous variable in both directions. It has a well known floor.

The answer to the question "Are you wearing shoes?" is, in fact, binary.

And so is the answer to the question "Do you accept the proposition x is true?".

You are asking if Vishnu exists or not, and I have answered that I am uncertain.

No, I am not asking if Vishnu exists.
I am asking if you *believe* that Vishnu exists.
You responded by answering a different question than the one asked.

I asked you if you believe Vishnu exists, and you haven't answered.

No, I do not. See how easy that is?

Do you know?

Nope.

Do you just know it in your heart, or can you prove it one way or the other?

It can't be proven one way or the other.

I am answering your questions, even if you don't like the answers. You asked what you wished was a "Yes or NO" question, and forgot to consider that the answer "Maybe" is just as valid as the other two.

Answering "Maybe" is not answering "Yes" - which is, I think, the whole reason you're answering *other* questions, rather than the one I actually asked.

To get right down to it, if you cannot say "Yes" to the question "Do you believe Vishnu exists", (or, equivalently, "Do you accept the proposition that Vishnu exists?"), then you don't believe Vishnu exists. You might be uncertain, you might not be able to prove it, you might not be able to know - but all of that is irrelevant, you don't believe if you can't say yes to the question "Do you believe?"

"knowledge" and "belief" are quite well defined terms in this respect, they are individually true dichotomies, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Ersatz
11-07-2010, 19:49
Cav, could you lay out your evidence for a deity?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 19:49
That depends entirely on the domain of the question being asked.



No, I am not asking if Vishnu exists.
I am asking if you *believe* that Vishnu exists.
You responded by answering a different question than the one asked.



No, I do not. See how easy that is?

Originally posted by Cavalry Doc:
I asked you if you believe Vishnu exists, and you haven't answered.

Nope.



It can't be proven one way or the other.



You are starting to sound like an agnostic....



Answering "Maybe" is not answering "Yes" - which is, I think, the whole reason you're answering *other* questions, rather than the one I actually asked.

To get right down to it, if you cannot say "Yes" to the question "Do you believe Vishnu exists", then you don't believe Vishnu exists.

You can't stand someone admitting that they don't know. It's a matter of arrogance and being honest with yourself. I am not so arrogant that I believe I know the truth about everything, and I am humble enough to admit that to myself.



So, how do you KNOW Vishnu does not exist. An honest person would answer that they do not...... Unless you are about to surprise the heck out of me with some unprecedented revelation.

void *
11-07-2010, 19:49
I'm not so arrogant that I believe that I have to know everything.

Yet, you are so arrogant as to tell people that they profess to know, when they are *continually* telling you that they do not.

(Apologies, mikeflys, if you're actually a strong/gnostic atheist, but from what I've read, I think the assumption that you're not is fairly safe).

void *
11-07-2010, 19:50
So, how do you KNOW Vishnu does not exist.

Please quote where I've said that I know that Vishnu does not exist.

Perhaps you might want to review the post in which I answered your question, as I quite specifically remember answering "Nope" to the question "Do you know?".

See what I mean about my stating I don't claim to know, and you coming back and claiming that I have?

I don't know.
I do not have faith that Vishnu is real.
Just like, I suspect, you don't have faith that Vishnu is real.

Which is the entire point, because my lack of faith that Vishnu is real is not the same thing as an active faith that Vishnu *isn't* real.

Ersatz
11-07-2010, 19:55
Please quote where I've said that I know that Vishnu does not exist.

Perhaps you might want to review the post in which I answered your question, as I quite specifically remember answering "Nope" to the question "Do you know?".

See what I mean about my stating I don't claim to know, and you coming back and claiming that I have?

I don't know.
I do not have faith that Vishnu is real.
Just like, I suspect, you don't have faith that Vishnu is real.

Which is the entire point, because my lack of faith that Vishnu is real is not the same thing as an active faith that Vishnu *isn't* real.

You're pissing into the wind. ;)

void *
11-07-2010, 19:57
You're pissing into the wind. ;)

Probably - but there's always the hope that someone else will come across it, read it, think about it, and get the point.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 19:58
Cav, could you lay out your evidence for a deity?

Life is simply too complex to have happened without a design. Several organs and even simple structures require too many things to be in just the right place in order to function. A simple flagella requires several atoms to be arranged into molecules, those molecules into compounds, those compounds to be arranged in symmetrical structures with the remainder being suddenly apparent.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/ciliaandflagella/images/ciliaandflagellafigure1.jpg

Such a simple thing, is yet, so complex. Fill a jar with Blue, red, yellow and gray marbles. Shake them up. Stop when you see the pattern above. Now continue, until the jar is arranged in that pattern from top to bottom.

There are several intermediate steps that would make this very simple structure inoperative. This does not even begin to broach the complexity of an organism being able to selectively use this structure to get itself toward food, or away from danger.


On the other hand, there are several religions, most exclude the others, so which one is right? Which one really knows, or do any of them?



I'm only human. All I know for sure, is that several people in this thread aren't able to evaluate their belief system objectively.

RC-RAMIE
11-07-2010, 19:58
It is a belief system that seeks to explain the basic nature of the universe.

It IS a religion. It's OK to admit it if you are one of the faithful. All of us here believe in the right of the individual to practice the religion of his choice.


Denial that Atheism requires faith without proof, of the real situation of affairs in nature, and of the supernatural, doesn't help. It's just a denial of the truth.


Either you have faith that you are correct, or you don't.

If you don't, maybe you're really an agnostic?



Open your mind, and allow yourself the ability to believe that some people are honestly not so arrogant as to believe that they have all the answers.....

.

What faith? I am atheist. That does not require faith. I do not claim to have all the answers I just claim that the god answer is lacking any evidence for me to consider it.

My atheism does not claim to know or seek to know the basic nature of the universe, that what science does.

RC-RAMIE
11-07-2010, 20:01
Life is simply too complex to have happened without a design.

You starting to sound less agnostic.

void *
11-07-2010, 20:03
Maybe coming at it the other way ...


Cavalry Doc, do you admit that there are people who would say they cannot prove that God exists, but that believe that God exists?

Have you seen the argument that God cannot allow himself to be provable because then it would not take faith to believe?

void *
11-07-2010, 20:07
You starting to sound less agnostic.

He claimed agnosticism in the other thread because I made a statement about him believing.

I was making a probabilistic assessment of his belief based on the known belief of many other people I have had similar conversations with.

He claimed agnosticism, I claimed 'my bad'. We'll see how that works out in the end.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:07
What faith? I am atheist. That does not require faith. I do not claim to have all the answers I just claim that the god answer is lacking any evidence for me to consider it.

My atheism does not claim to know or seek to know the basic nature of the universe, that what science does.

But do you know that there is no god, or are you unsure?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:09
You starting to sound less agnostic.

Just willing to consider both sides of the issue. given billions and billions of years, anything is possible.

Given that there are many different religions, and some older ones than are currently popular, which one is right?



It's an open mind thing. :wavey:

Animal Mother
11-07-2010, 20:09
Life is simply too complex to have happened without a design. Several organs and even simple structures require too many things to be in just the right place in order to function. A simple flagella requires several atoms to be arranged into molecules, those molecules into compounds, those compounds to be arranged in symmetrical structures with the remainder being suddenly apparent.
Any number of functional evolutionary pathways for flagella have been proposed and detailed since Behe first made this argument. Here's one (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html).

RC-RAMIE
11-07-2010, 20:10
I have seen no prof of a god so I will say there is no god.

Animal Mother
11-07-2010, 20:11
How many people that do not believe in GOD and believe we all came from pond scum or the Big Bang theory can believe that a tornado blowing through a junk yard can assemble a flyable working Boeing 747 from the junk in the yard.

There is an order to the Universe and everything made in it. GOD made it. Which god?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:13
He claimed agnosticism in the other thread because I made a statement about him believing.

I was making a probabilistic assessment of his belief based on the known belief of many other people I have had similar conversations with.

He claimed agnosticism, I claimed 'my bad'. We'll see how that works out in the end.

The forum has a search feature. Go ahead and use it. :wavey: You'll see.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. The last 8 or more times I was in a church, it was to vote.


Maybe you have never encountered a true agnostic. I have encountered many different people of many different religions. Each individual was unique in their beliefs.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:14
I have seen no prof of a god so I will say there is no god.

But how do you know for sure? Are you sure?

If you are sure, how are you sure?

RC-RAMIE
11-07-2010, 20:16
But how do you know for sure? Are you sure?

If you are sure, how are you sure?

Because I never seen one or been shown evidence that proved one same as voids magic pixels. You had no problem being sure about that one.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:16
Which god?

That's not a valid answer to the true atheists here.

See the OP.



It's a rough crowd for an agnostic too. :wavey:

void *
11-07-2010, 20:17
Because I never seen one or been shown evidence that proved one same as voids magic pixels. You had no problem being sure about that one.

pixies, man, pixies.

Millions of demo coders all over the planet have proved over and over again that magic pixels exist. :supergrin:

Animal Mother
11-07-2010, 20:17
That's not a valid answer to the true atheists here.

See the OP.



It's a rough crowd for an agnostic too. :wavey:But the post to which I was responding was clearly not written by an atheist.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:19
Because I never seen one or been shown evidence that proved one same as voids magic pixels. You had no problem being sure about that one.

Have you personally been shown proof that neutrons exist? Other than just claims in a book (The Koran and Bible have witnessed claims too).


The magic pixies (not pixels) may exist. I am not 100% certain they exist. I really doubt it though, Void* has been tap dancing too much to be a reliable source.



Is there a god or gods?
How do you know for sure, or are you unsure.

void *
11-07-2010, 20:20
The forum has a search feature. Go ahead and use it. :wavey: You'll see.

Oh, I'm not saying you're not.

It just does seem pretty strange for an agnostic to say something like "Life is simply too complex to have happened without a design."

That's not a statement that it could be possible that it was designed. That's a statement that it's impossible for it to have *not* been. Which is not agnostic - it's a statement claiming specific knowledge that it can't have happened without a designer.

For all I know, you just used stronger wording than you intended to.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:21
But the post to which I was responding was clearly not written by an atheist.

Well lets be fair, and apply the same question to all religions, including atheism.

RC-RAMIE
11-07-2010, 20:23
Have you personally been shown proof that neutrons exist? Other than just claims in a book (The Koran and Bible have witnessed claims too).


The magic pixies (not pixels) may exist. I am not 100% certain they exist. I really doubt it though, Void* has been tap dancing too much to be a reliable source.



Is there a god or gods?
How do you know for sure, or are you unsure.

No but im sure I could read some scientific research papers that used test and evidence to come to the conclusion that protons exist, I can't do the same with a god.

Im SURE because nobody can provide evidence that he exist.

void *
11-07-2010, 20:25
That's not a valid answer to the true atheists here.

Actually, that all depends.

For instance, were I on some island somewhere, and the indigenous people told me that their god was a stone statue that they worshiped, and claimed no unprovable supernatural powers for this god - I'd be quite willing to state "Yes, your god exists".

Of course, that's quite a different kind of god than most people claim to have faith in.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:25
Oh, I'm not saying you're not.

It just does seem pretty strange for an agnostic to say something like "Life is simply too complex to have happened without a design."

That's not a statement that it could be possible that it was designed. That's a statement that it's impossible for it to have *not* been. Which is not agnostic - it's a statement claiming specific knowledge that it can't have happened without a designer.

For all I know, you just used stronger wording than you intended to.




Perhaps it is because I have considered both sides of the question, and have actually been able to consider the valid points of each side, and that has left me unsure?

Both arguments have valid points. I have considered the arguments on both sides well.



Just because I have brought up an argument that shakes your own faith, do not confuse that with my continued agnosticism. It's not my fault if you aren't secure in your beliefs, for I'm not sure myself. :wavey:

void *
11-07-2010, 20:28
Perhaps it is because I have considered both sides of the question, and have actually been able to consider the valid points of each side, and that has left me unsure?

Then why word it in a way that implies surety?

Just because I have brought up an argument that shakes your own faith

Don't worry - you can't shake something that doesn't exist.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:28
No but im sure I could read some scientific research papers that used test and evidence to come to the conclusion that protons exist, I can't do the same with a god.

Im SURE because nobody can provide evidence that he exist.

Testimony exists on both sides of the argument. You've just shown that you preferentially prefer one side over the other.



Since you are so sure, and you have no real proof that your position is correct, would you at least agree that your position meets the Webster's definition of "faith"?

If not, why?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:31
Then why word it in a way that implies surety?



Don't worry - you can't shake something that doesn't exist.

I have stated that I have seen evidence from both sides that is convincing. Both sides cannot be right though.

I was asked what evidence I had seen that makes me consider that possibly god does exist. I gave it, and it made several of you itch. Why is that?

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 20:33
Well I'm off, it's late. Sleep on it.


If you can prove that Atheism is not a religion, I'd love to see how you formulate that argument.

So far, the only arguments I've seen, have not convinced me.

RC-RAMIE
11-07-2010, 20:37
Testimony exists on both sides of the argument. You've just shown that you preferentially prefer one side over the other.



Since you are so sure, and you have no real proof that your position is correct, would you at least agree that your position meets the Webster's definition of "faith"?

If not, why?

My position is I don't know how we got here I just don't buy the god answer. That requires no faith.

What reliable, testable prof exist on the god side. If there was it would require no faith. I don't have to have a faith in how we got here I can say I don't know.

That does not mean I have to take seriously or even come up with evidence for something that some other people say exist with no evidence to prove it. The evidence requirement is on their side.

Mankind has answered life's mysteries with science, if you want to place some form of faith on me I will say I have faith that mankind and science will one day answer the mysteries we have left.

void *
11-07-2010, 20:39
If you can prove that Atheism is not a religion, I'd love to see how you formulate that argument.

It doesn't take faith to NOT believe something that requires faith. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

I don't believe that Russel's teapot exists. I don't believe that Vishnu exists. Please formulate an argument that explains how lack of belief in such things is somehow faith that those things don't exist.

IdaReggaeMon
11-07-2010, 20:53
Life is simply too complex to have happened without a design. Several organs and even simple structures require too many things to be in just the right place in order to function. A simple flagella requires several atoms to be arranged into molecules, those molecules into compounds, those compounds to be arranged in symmetrical structures with the remainder being suddenly apparent.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/ciliaandflagella/images/ciliaandflagellafigure1.jpg

Such a simple thing, is yet, so complex.

Wow, a cdesign proponentsists!. How original. You'd have made a good witness at the Kitzmiller trial.


Fill a jar with Blue, red, yellow and gray marbles. Shake them up. Stop when you see the pattern above. Now continue, until the jar is arranged in that pattern from top to bottom.

This experiment and the analogy to evolution would be appropriate if evolution were a random process, but of course it's not. It's stunning that someone who should have had considerable formal education in biology can be so completely ignorant of it.


There are several intermediate steps that would make this very simple structure inoperative. This does not even begin to broach the complexity of an organism being able to selectively use this structure to get itself toward food, or away from danger.

Sigh...http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 21:03
You profess to know, without proof. I am humble enough to admit that I don't know.

Who is being more honest?

I believe that I don't know. I'm not so arrogant that I believe that I have to know everything. I know quite a lot, but in my 42 years, I have a wealth of experiences, that lead me to be unsure.


You seem awful sure though. How did you arrive there?

Did you read anything that's been posted at all? For someone professing to be so open-minded you're sure doing your best to skate around what you don't want to believe.

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 21:13
Yet, you are so arrogant as to tell people that they profess to know, when they are *continually* telling you that they do not.

(Apologies, mikeflys, if you're actually a strong/gnostic atheist, but from what I've read, I think the assumption that you're not is fairly safe).

You are correct, sir :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 21:13
Wow, a cdesign proponentsists!. How original. You'd have made a good witness at the Kitzmiller trial.



This experiment and the analogy to evolution would be appropriate if evolution were a random process, but of course it's not. It's stunning that someone who should have had considerable formal education in biology can be so completely ignorant of it.



Sigh...http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US

Hey reggae mon, if you'll go back and look, I was not askednwhat evidence I had to present that made me believe that life was intelligently designed, but what evidence made me question whether it was possible that intelligent design is true. I don't know, and neither do you.

But life is suitably complex, as to at least have to consider the possibility. The possibility of evolving workable structures is hard enough, without evolving all of the millions of structures together, that create a mammal.


So, do know for sure whether a god exists? If you are sure, share your proof, or at least admit it is a matter if faith that allows you to believe this way.

IdaReggaeMon
11-07-2010, 21:17
It doesn't take faith to NOT believe something that requires faith. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

I don't believe that Russel's teapot exists. I don't believe that Vishnu exists. Please formulate an argument that explains how lack of belief in such things is somehow faith that those things don't exist.

If atheism is a "religion",...
then Not Collecting Stamps is a "hobby".

http://www.youtube.com/nonstampcollector#p/u/3/d0A4_bwCaX0

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 21:18
It doesn't take faith to NOT believe something that requires faith. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

I don't believe that Russel's teapot exists. I don't believe that Vishnu exists. Please formulate an argument that explains how lack of belief in such things is somehow faith that those things don't exist.

Atheism requires belief in a complex system of accidents and chance, followed by a long period of natural selection to accept current reality without intelligent design.


The piling on and denial of this, is not unlike villagers chasing a heretic out of town with torches. Atheists, at least around here, are not very open minded, and firmly hold to their beliefs, while responding emotionally to any questioning of their religion.


It's all quite typical.

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 21:20
If atheism is a "religion",...
then Not Collecting Stamps is a "hobby".

http://www.youtube.com/nonstampcollector#p/u/3/d0A4_bwCaX0

Logical fallacy. Not collecting stamps does not give one a particular understanding of the universe and it's origins.


We already covered that one

Cavalry Doc
11-07-2010, 21:21
It's odd to see so many people's faith shaken, by asking a few simple questions. Ut makes you wonder ....

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 21:23
Atheism requires belief in a complex system of accidents and chance, followed by a long period of natural selection to accept current reality without intelligent design.

Thousands of years ago, atheism would've required something other than chariots pulling the sun across the sky, something other than the evil eye that caused sickness, etc etc

Answers being complex and not fitting in an easy to digest sound-bite doesn't automatically mean that goddidit.

cruz lee
11-07-2010, 21:32
He believes that God does not exist, however, he acknowledges that it is impossible for him to prove this belief.

how do you prove that which does not exist? or presumed guilty until proven innocent...This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).:dunno:The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.

void *
11-07-2010, 21:37
Atheism requires belief in a complex system of accidents and chance, followed by a long period of natural selection to accept current reality without intelligent design.

First, you are asserting a false dichotomy. Even if evolution is wrong, that does not mean that no other natural process could result in us. It would mean that if there were such a process, we don't know what it is.

Second, atheism by itself does not imply belief in particular physical models or posits of the origin of life. It means you don't believe in gods, and that's all it means.

You could, for instance, think that evolutionary science has it all wrong and *still* not believe in gods.

If you want an atheistic religion, go have a look at Buddhism - but the mere fact that someone does not believe in gods no more mandates that they must have faith than the idea that someone's preference for pizza requires that their favorite topping be pepperoni.

9jeeps
11-07-2010, 21:52
I held a total drunk Athiest head one time while he was puking his guts out. He Talked to God, plenty!:tongueout::rofl:

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 22:01
I held a total drunk Athiest head one time while he was puking his guts out. He Talked to God, plenty!:tongueout::rofl:

:rofl:


I think its stupid when some atheists get all indignant at the slightest religious expression. I'll still say "bless you" when someone sneezes or "thank god I didn't do that" or whatever. At this point, they're just common expressions and not some statement of faith.

void *
11-07-2010, 22:22
:rofl:


I think its stupid when some atheists get all indignant at the slightest religious expression.

There's a particular atheist I know who I have heard respond quite negatively against hanging out with - gasp - people who self-identify as agnostic in the ternary sense of a single variable with possible values 'atheist, agnostic, theist'.

That just seems silly to me - automatically rejecting people because they believe seems silly to me. It's still a matter of what they do to me.

She's the closest I've ever seen to an actual, in the flesh, strong/gnostic atheist.

mikeflys1
11-07-2010, 22:41
Yea, thats pretty extreme...The really sad part is that's what most people imagine when they hear someone's an atheist when in reality its such a small percentage. I've still yet to meet any of these militant types in person, thankfully.

bel970
11-07-2010, 23:11
I've seen this type of thread many times.................and it's still funny.

what would we learn if it wasn't out own face we saw in the mirror?

bleedingshrimp
11-08-2010, 00:29
Atheism requires belief in a complex system of accidents and chance, followed by a long period of natural selection to accept current reality without intelligent design.

Wrong! Completely, incontrovertibly, irrevocably, and factually INCORRECT sir.

a·the·ism

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no god (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god).
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism in NO way relies on any other beliefs or theories (evolution,humanism). By definition it simply does not require anything other than a lack in belief of god or a disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 04:31
Thousands of years ago, atheism would've required something other than chariots pulling the sun across the sky, something other than the evil eye that caused sickness, etc etc

Answers being complex and not fitting in an easy to digest sound-bite doesn't automatically mean that goddidit.

I'm not saying god did it. I'm saying that I'm open to the possibility, because quite frankly, none of us know for sure. I just believe that the people that are sure that they know the truth, are only sure through faith, as opposed to proof.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 04:37
He believes that God does not exist, however, he acknowledges that it is impossible for him to prove this belief.

how do you prove that which does not exist? or presumed guilty until proven innocent...This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).:dunno:The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.

That's what I have been trying to point out, atheism is an affirmation, not just a denial. Just ask an atheist "If life was not created through inteligent design, how did it happen, and a slew of affirmations will follow. Agnostics just don't have proof either way, and don't jump into one religion because they believe the others are false or flawed.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 04:39
Wrong! Completely, incontrovertibly, irrevocably, and factually INCORRECT sir.

a·the·ism

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no god (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god).
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism in NO way relies on any other beliefs or theories (evolution,humanism). By definition it simply does not require anything other than a lack in belief of god or a disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

Notice how the faithful respond emotionally when confronted with inconsistencies within their faith.

Ok, then how do you explain your existence?

Are you really sure there is no god? Have you seen some proof that you could share with me?

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 04:49
First, you are asserting a false dichotomy. Even if evolution is wrong, that does not mean that no other natural process could result in us. It would mean that if there were such a process, we don't know what it is.

Second, atheism by itself does not imply belief in particular physical models or posits of the origin of life. It means you don't believe in gods, and that's all it means.

You could, for instance, think that evolutionary science has it all wrong and *still* not believe in gods.

If you want an atheistic religion, go have a look at Buddhism - but the mere fact that someone does not believe in gods no more mandates that they must have faith than the idea that someone's preference for pizza requires that their favorite topping be pepperoni.

I don't think you are using the word "dichotomy" correctly. It does seem to be a favorite though.


Like any other religion, there will be many denominations. Most of the Atheists I have discussed religion with are sold on the whole magic big bang theory, and evolution of species from simple single cell organisms, which themselves are amazingly complex, to mammals, reptiles etc.

If that is not how you explain the origins of the human condition, do you have an alternate theory? What convinced you.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 04:54
There's a particular atheist I know who I have heard respond quite negatively against hanging out with - gasp - people who self-identify as agnostic in the ternary sense of a single variable with possible values 'atheist, agnostic, theist'.

That just seems silly to me - automatically rejecting people because they believe seems silly to me. It's still a matter of what they do to me.

She's the closest I've ever seen to an actual, in the flesh, strong/gnostic atheist.

Descrimimation against agnostics? Why not? All the other religions do it.

How would you define a strong gnostic atheist?

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 05:29
Wow, a cdesign proponentsists!. How original. You'd have made a good witness at the Kitzmiller trial.




This experiment and the analogy to evolution would be appropriate if evolution were a random process, but of course it's not. It's stunning that someone who should have had considerable formal education in biology can be so completely ignorant of it.




Sigh...http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US

That's a pretty good example of making your argument fit the solution you already have. The flagellum argument given leaves out the fact that those proteins are moved there, and do not simply randomly occur. Also, if the structure suddenly appeared on a bacterium that previously was without one, how would it know how to use it? How would it know that it had to make others when it decided to pass it down to the next generation? The flagellum is a very simple structure, and is still so complex that it is unlikely to occur by accident.

The prof gave a good try at it, but there were a lot of missing links.

void *
11-08-2010, 07:10
How would you define a strong gnostic atheist?

Someone who thinks that they can know whether or not a god or god exists, and who does not believe a god or god exists.

The fact that you're even asking the question indicates that you're not processing the statements that have been made on this in either thread.

void *
11-08-2010, 07:16
I don't think you are using the word "dichotomy" correctly. It does seem to be a favorite though.

Oh, we have to go back to definitions, again, do we?
2. logic the division of a class into two mutually exclusive subclasses: the dichotomy of married and single people

You are arguing that if it is not ID, it has to be evolution.

In fact, the possible combination of truth values include both ID and evolution being true (a creator who decided to create with evolution as a mechanism), just ID being true, just evolution being true, or neither ID nor evolution being true and the actual answer being some other physical mechanism that we do not yet know about.

So, no, I am not using dichotomy incorrectly, and yes, you are setting up a false dichotomy.

You are also arguing that people somehow have to fervently have 'faith' in evolution, when the reality is that various ideas are conditionally accepted or thrown out based on available evidence. That doesn't happen when a proposition is accepted on faith.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 07:38
Someone who thinks that they can know whether or not a god or god exists, and who does not believe a god or god exists.

The fact that you're even asking the question indicates that you're not processing the statements that have been made on this in either thread.

You've jumped to a conclusion without examining the facts. I won't make any profound statements about you because of that though.

I asked for your definition, just for insight, that's all.

Did your friend have any convincing proof ? Or is she simply sure without having proof?

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 07:50
Oh, we have to go back to definitions, again, do we?
2. logic the division of a class into two mutually exclusive subclasses: the dichotomy of married and single people

You are arguing that if it is not ID, it has to be evolution.

In fact, the possible combination of truth values include both ID and evolution being true (a creator who decided to create with evolution as a mechanism), just ID being true, just evolution being true, or neither ID nor evolution being true and the actual answer being some other physical mechanism that we do not yet know about.

So, no, I am not using dichotomy incorrectly, and yes, you are setting up a false dichotomy.

You are also arguing that people somehow have to fervently have 'faith' in evolution, when the reality is that various ideas are conditionally accepted or thrown out based on available evidence. That doesn't happen when a proposition is accepted on faith.

I'm not trapped into the opposite possibilities that either an deity exists, and all of the knowledge of one religion is right, or there is no god, and it's all hogwash.

I think there are different possibilities. Isn't it at least possible that there is a design, but that none of us actually have figured it out yet?

Even the theory of evolution does not adequately explain how humans or other animals originated. It's still just a theory, not a law.

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 08:05
Notice how the faithful respond emotionally when confronted with inconsistencies within their faith.

Ok, then how do you explain your existence?

Are you really sure there is no god? Have you seen some proof that you could share with me?

No faith

I don't explain it yet. Mankind has not figured out complete yet how we got here. I know what the current evidences show us.

Im sure. How you ask the people who claim he is there can't prove it. Thats my prof.

void *
11-08-2010, 08:08
I'm not trapped into the opposite possibilities that either an deity exists, and all of the knowledge of one religion is right, or there is no god, and it's all hogwash.

Umm, what?

Either there is a creator, or there isn't. That's a true dichotomy. All possible creators are in the 'is a creator' class, and that says nothing about whether or not there is a religion for which all the knowledge of that religion is correct.

I think there are different possibilities. Isn't it at least possible that there is a design, but that none of us actually have figured it out yet?

Sure. Do you agree that if that were the case, then there is in fact a creator, and it therefore must be the case that there is not *not* a creator? That's one of the dichotomies. Any possibility you can think up for which there is a creator belongs in the 'is a creator' class, any possibility you can think up for which there is not a creator belongs in the 'Isn't a creator' class.

Your statement that not believing there is a creator mandates a belief in evolution implies that the classes are actually 'There is a creator' and 'Evolution is true', and that is not the case. There are actually two independent dichotomies under examination, and it is demonstrably the case that the truth value of one overlaps the other (there are evolution proponents who believe it is a tool used by God to create, for instance, and there are evolution proponents who believe it is unnecessary to invoke a creator).

Even the theory of evolution does not adequately explain how humans or other animals originated.

And again, you're missing the point. The dichotomy 'Evolution happened / evolution didn't happen' says nothing about the dichotomy 'There is a creator / there isn't a creator'.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 09:45
The forms that creation could have taken are infinite. From one that just lit the fuse for the big bang and is watching what is happening, to a loving and caring shepherd that us interested in our personal lives. Maybe, the designer is not even aware in the conventional sense. We are. How we came to be here is a mystery. Some people claim to know the truth of whether there is or is not a creator, and they follow thier own religious beliefs in that regard, Atheists included.

void *
11-08-2010, 09:58
TSome people claim to know the truth of whether there is or is not a creator, and they follow thier own religious beliefs in that regard, Atheists included.

And yet again you are stating that we think we know, in the face of multiple statements, from multiple atheists, that we are not claiming to *know* it was not a creator. We are claiming to *not believe* that it was a creator.

Knowledge and belief are different concepts, with different definitions, and the status of any particular person's statements on whether they can know, and whether they believe, are two, independent, variables.

If you know something, it is not possible for you to be wrong.
If you believe something, it is possible for you to be wrong.

If a particular posit (such as the existence of a god) is such that it is *impossible* to be absolutely certain you cannot be wrong, then you cannot know. The only variable left is whether or not you believe the posit.

This has been explained to you, multiple times, in multiple different ways, and you are still coming back and saying that, somehow, atheists automatically claim to know - when you have multiple atheists telling you honestly that we make no such claim.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 10:13
So, since it may not be possible to know, if you believe, that is a belief born of faith.

Is it possible for someone to know something to be true, then later find that they were mistaken?

I think the issue is that if you do not know, then you are simply guessing like everyone else. Why you are so firmly attached to your belief is another mystery. I've noticed many Atheists in GT berating others for believing in a deity. I'll be sure to ask them if they know there is no god or just believe there is no god from now on, then try to help them be tolerant of other religions.

Thanks

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 10:16
So, since it may not be possible to know, if you believe, that is a belief born of faith.

Is it possible for someone to know something to be true, then later find that they were mistaken?

I think the issue is that if you do not know, then you are simply guessing like everyone else. Why you are so firmly attached to your belief is another mystery. I've noticed many Atheists in GT berating others for believing in a deity. I'll be sure to ask them if they know there is no god or just believe there is no god from now on, then try to help them be tolerant of other religions.

Thanks

I answered you numerous times there is no god. It is not my job to prove that statement it is up to the people calming there is one.

"I'll be sure to ask them if they know there is no god or just believe there is no god from now on, then try to help them be tolerant of other religions."

That is really funny considering some of your post on muslims.

mikeflys1
11-08-2010, 10:20
And yet again you are stating that we think we know, in the face of multiple statements, from multiple atheists, that we are not claiming to *know* it was not a creator. We are claiming to *not believe* that it was a creator.

Knowledge and belief are different concepts, with different definitions, and the status of any particular person's statements on whether they can know, and whether they believe, are two, independent, variables.

If you know something, it is not possible for you to be wrong.
If you believe something, it is possible for you to be wrong.

If a particular posit (such as the existence of a god) is such that it is *impossible* to be absolutely certain you cannot be wrong, then you cannot know. The only variable left is whether or not you believe the posit.

This has been explained to you, multiple times, in multiple different ways, and you are still coming back and saying that, somehow, atheists automatically claim to know - when you have multiple atheists telling you honestly that we make no such claim.

Obviously when the truth doesn't fit his preconceived notions, he doesn't care to know it.

void *
11-08-2010, 11:40
So, since it may not be possible to know, if you believe, that is a belief born of faith.

Yes. And if you do *not* believe, that is *not* faith, it is lack of faith. It does not take faith to not believe something that takes faith.

It requires faith to believe in god. If you don't have that faith, you don't have faith.

Is it possible for someone to know something to be true, then later find that they were mistaken?

No. If there is the possibility of being mistaken, it is not knowledge in a philosophical sense.

Example: The Pythagorean theorem. Within a Euclidean geometry, if you have a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the two other sides will equal the square of the hypotenuse. This has been proven. There is no way it is not the case - if a triangle is in a Euclidean geometry and it has a right angle, this relation will hold. So we can say that we *know* it. It's mathematically true, independent of the truth of anything else. If none of you really exist and I'm the only entity anywhere that actually perceives anything - the Pythagorean theorem is *still* mathematically true. So I can say that I *know* that, in a Euclidean geometry, a right triangle will meet that relation.

Now, take string theory - the math works. We *know* the math works. But we aren't currently able to test that the math actually applies to reality, and we could be wrong, so we can't say we *know* string theory is true.

I think the issue is that if you do not know, then you are simply guessing like everyone else.

We're not guessing. People say god exists. I say, show me evidence that will convince me to accept that posit. If you can, then I will accept it. If you can't, then I have no reason to accept it.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 11:49
Obviously when the truth doesn't fit his preconceived notions, he doesn't care to know it.

The truths that atheism fits the definition of a religion quite accurately. It's a mystery why it is so hard to admit.


You have my permission to practice it any way you want, and the constitution will back you up too.

Besides, it's only my (and Meriam-Websters) opinion that it fits. If I'm right or wrong, why would you care?

void *
11-08-2010, 12:04
Besides, it's only my (and Meriam-Websters) opinion that it fits. If I'm right or wrong, why would you care?

We have been over that - Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and the Oxford english all have definitions defining atheism as 'disbelief in the existence of God or gods' with minor wording variations. (In fact, the online Oxford English supplies *only* that definition).

Given that the definition of disbelief is 'the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true', the usage of atheism as 'a lack of acceptance of the posit that god or gods exist', or 'a lack of belief that a god or gods exist', or any of the myriad ways it has been worded in attempts to impart understanding to you, is entirely consistent with standard dictionary definitions.

Your stubborn refusal to admit that accepted definitions apply has no bearing on whether or not they actually do. The reality is that your opinion is your opinion, and Merriam-Webster agrees that I have been using an acceptable definition.

mikeflys1
11-08-2010, 12:09
The truths that atheism fits the definition of a religion quite accurately. It's a mystery why it is so hard to admit.

Yea we know, its a religion because you say so. What a compelling argument.

You have my permission to practice it any way you want, and the constitution will back you up too.

How magnanimous of you. You have my permission to continue being wrong.

, it's only my (and Meriam-Websters) opinion that it fits. If I'm right or wrong, why would you care?

Why wouldn't I care? If I presumed to (incorrectly) tell you what you think, you'd just accept it?

David Armstrong
11-08-2010, 12:12
What faith? I am atheist. That does not require faith. I do not claim to have all the answers I just claim that the god answer is lacking any evidence for me to consider it.

My atheism does not claim to know or seek to know the basic nature of the universe, that what science does.
That seems a good summary of it. Faith is not the same as belief, and we all believe in something whether it can be proven or not. Belief can be expressed as an understanding based on current best-fit science (I believe in the theory of evolution) or it can be belief based on past experience (I believe the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow) but that does not make it religious in nature.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 13:36
Atheism is a religion? Perhaps..... if you wish to classify it that way. Some atheists band together to support one anothers belief...or disbelief. Creating a kind of "church" I suppose.

And while I have not personally seen it, I'm sure somewhere there's a list of things you're supposed to believe in order to be a "good" atheist. Maybe a "Anti-holy book"?

And maybe somewhere there's a group with a whole collection of rites and ceremonies to celebrate their beliefs. Complete with holidays to commemorate the joining of the first two chemicals, or maybe the anniversary of the first single celled organism.

Maybe...perhaps....possibly.

My own opinion on the question?

It's amusing.

Its amusing to see everyone so worried about how I, or others like me "classify" our views on a omnipotent, omniscient being who said a magic word and **POOF**!!! reality sprang into being.

Its amusing (to me) that they mock, argue and roll their collective eyes at me, or others like me, who continually explain that we dont know how reality "started". And maybe its unknowable and maybe not.

Its amusing to me that I, and others like me, are considered "close minded" because we dont rely on a book whose origins ore questionable, whose information is...incredible(most pc term I could think of), whose inconsistencies are glaring and is only ONE of many thousands that **claim** to have **all** the **answers**.

You can classify my "belief any way you wish. Doesnt make a difference to me...... BUT!! you need to know that:

1. My atheism has little to no bearing on my day to day life.
2. I do not sit and think of other ways the universe came into being. If something makes sense..i.e evolution, I accept it at face value until something that makes more sense comes along. Hardly what you would call a hard "religious" belief.

3. The only time I think deep thoughts about this crap is here.

4. I didnt really set out to disbelieve so much as I examined religion as a whole, and summarily dismissed it. And to me, it IS as trivial as pixies, fairy dust and unicorns pooping skittles on a rainbow.

Ogreon
11-08-2010, 14:55
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

Does the "not" collector hate the fact that stamp collecting exists? Is he worried about all the stamp collectors out there? Does he troll stamp collecting web discussions? Does he flip out when he hears people discussing their stamps? Does he post nasty reviews of stamp collecting books on Amazon?

If any of these things apply, then "not" collecting stamps is a hobby.

bleedingshrimp
11-08-2010, 15:26
Notice how the faithful respond emotionally when confronted with inconsistencies within their faith.

Ok, then how do you explain your existence?

Are you really sure there is no god? Have you seen some proof that you could share with me?

An explanation of one's existence is NOT a requirement of Atheism. We can think we came from pea pods on Neptune or we can decide that the origin of our existence is unknowable and therefore unimportant to our lives. Irregardless, as long as we don't have a belief in a god or gods...we are Atheist. You see how that works? Atheism is not an instruction book and it does not seek to define, expand, or expound upon anything else (evolution, origin of the planet, molecular biology). It's a definition, and despite your attempts at redefinition...it remains previously defined.

void *
11-08-2010, 16:02
Does the "not" collector hate the fact that stamp collecting exists?

Please provide proof for your implied assertion that all atheists hate the fact that theism exists. Note: Any proof submitted will immediately have counterexamples offered. (For instance, I don't hate the concept of theism - I just don't think it's supported by evidence - and pointing that out is not hate, it's just a matter of expressing a viewpoint).

Is he worried about all the stamp collectors out there?

Please provide proof for your implied assertion that all atheists are worried about all theists. Note: Any proof submitted will immediately have counterexamples offered (For example, I am worried about theists who would like to see theocracies. The rest, I have no issue with unless they take, say, criminal action. But this is not a worry about *all* theists. My mother is a theist, the high school buddy I see the most is a theist - on and on and on - and I have no worries at all about them)

Does he troll stamp collecting web discussions

Please provide proof for your implied assertion that all atheists troll theist web discussions. Note that any such proof will immediately have counterexamples offered (For instance, I enjoy discussion about such things, and I tend to respond to statements I don't agree with. Is that trolling? I don't think so - if you do a forum search you'll note I tend to stay out of the theological discussions)

Etc, etc.

Even if we accept the idea that the above actions result in a hobby (see below), to call "Atheism" a religion, by the analogy, you need to show that all atheists engage in them. Similarly, if we're going to define 'religion' by actions such as trolling boards, etc, we would need to show that all theists engage in them. This is quite obviously not the case.

Also, in a strict sense, none of the things you list is actually a hobby. They are all opinions/actions/etc *towards* a hobby. The person making them still does *not* collect stamps, so you can't call such a person a stamp collector.

mikeflys1
11-08-2010, 16:25
Does the "not" collector hate the fact that stamp collecting exists? Is he worried about all the stamp collectors out there? Does he troll stamp collecting web discussions? Does he flip out when he hears people discussing their stamps? Does he post nasty reviews of stamp collecting books on Amazon?

If any of these things apply, then "not" collecting stamps is a hobby.

Is this really what you think atheists are all about?


:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 17:15
We have been over that - Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and the Oxford english all have definitions defining atheism as 'disbelief in the existence of God or gods' with minor wording variations. (In fact, the online Oxford English supplies *only* that definition).

Given that the definition of disbelief is 'the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true', the usage of atheism as 'a lack of acceptance of the posit that god or gods exist', or 'a lack of belief that a god or gods exist', or any of the myriad ways it has been worded in attempts to impart understanding to you, is entirely consistent with standard dictionary definitions.

Your stubborn refusal to admit that accepted definitions apply has no bearing on whether or not they actually do. The reality is that your opinion is your opinion, and Merriam-Webster agrees that I have been using an acceptable definition.

Actually, from my perspective, it is you that is being stubborn. Atheism for many is not a passive refusal to believe in something, it is an active believe in something. The passive ones have not been in this thread defending it, the active ones have.

You actively believe that there is no god, whether you choose to admit it or not. I am not making that up, you have actively stated so in this thread.

Do not deny your belief, embrace it. If you believe that there is no god, and you are willing to defend it with reason and logic, I have no problem with that. The denial is simply not necessary.


It's not any different than a Christian stating that they simply do not believe that Jesus is not the Son of God. Is that fellow religious? Yup, he is. Just think about that for a minute or two before you respond. REALLY think about it.


Stating a belief in passive voice doesn't change the belief. If you are really sure, a "gnostic/athiest", then...........

kjm1016
11-08-2010, 17:18
I have known a great many people who believed obsessively & passionately in many things. That didn't make their beliefs a religion. Look at sports fans. Some of them act like their favorite team is the One True Faith! It may look that way but that don't make it so. Just because NFL fans treat their sport like a religion don't make it one. I know UFOlogists (i.e., people who REALLY believe in space aliens) who I keep expecting to kneel and face Roswell before praying to whatever. I've encountered people who would practically allow themselves to be martyred before admitting there was no second gunman on the grassy knoll. These may sound like religions, but they're not. I have found the silly and down right specious arguments presented here to be psuedo-intellectual at best. The lack of religious belief is a religion? That's ridiculous! Isn't that like saying the lack of evidence is itself evidence of something as the loony conspiracy theorists so often contend? This is something that should've been wrapped up quickly and not taken up five pages of pointless discourse.

On the other hand, CavDoc, maybe you're onto something. Maybe it's time to found the first atheist church! Whadaya say? You could be the first atheist Pope. Tax-free status from the Federal government! Yeah, Yeah, that's the ticket! I could be the first atheist Pastor. What DO you think, Doc?

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 17:28
Yea we know, its a religion because you say so. What a compelling argument.



How magnanimous of you. You have my permission to continue being wrong.



Why wouldn't I care? If I presumed to (incorrectly) tell you what you think, you'd just accept it?



I have not told you what you think, I think. I've simply pointed out that just like any other, a strongly held belief system that seeks to explain the basis of existence, is a religion. I still don't understand why it's so hard to admit that atheism is a religion. If you were truly a passive non-believer, why are you so virulent in defending the belief?


Atheism may be right, it may be wrong, and I can live with that.
But I also still believe that it does actually fit the definition of a religion.


Just my own humble opinion, backed up by common definitions of common words.:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 17:34
Does the "not" collector hate the fact that stamp collecting exists? Is he worried about all the stamp collectors out there? Does he troll stamp collecting web discussions? Does he flip out when he hears people discussing their stamps? Does he post nasty reviews of stamp collecting books on Amazon?

If any of these things apply, then "not" collecting stamps is a hobby.

Is this really what you think atheists are all about?


:rofl:


Of course you are correct. Not ALL atheists are actively pursuing the religious, showing bad manners and intolerance, but there are quite a lot of them around these parts.


I started this thread when one of the atheistic faithful participated in a drive by troll attack. It struck me as odd, that this fellow thought that his religion required him to show intolerance and bad manners toward all others.


In the USA, it seems as if the Atheists focus their anti-religious bias preferentially against the predominant religion. That would be a good research project, to see if the same is true for atheists in predominantly Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim countries.


:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 17:39
I have known a great many people who believed obsessively & passionately in many things. That didn't make their beliefs a religion. Look at sports fans. Some of them act like their favorite team is the One True Faith! It may look that way but that don't make it so. Just because NFL fans treat their sport like a religion don't make it one. I know UFOlogists (i.e., people who REALLY believe in space aliens) who I keep expecting to kneel and face Roswell before praying to whatever. I've encountered people who would practically allow themselves to be martyred before admitting there was no second gunman on the grassy knoll. These may sound like religions, but they're not. I have found the silly and down right specious arguments presented here to be psuedo-intellectual at best. The lack of religious belief is a religion? That's ridiculous! Isn't that like saying the lack of evidence is itself evidence of something as the loony conspiracy theorists so often contend? This is something that should've been wrapped up quickly and not taken up five pages of pointless discourse.

On the other hand, CavDoc, maybe you're onto something. Maybe it's time to found the first atheist church! Whadaya say? You could be the first atheist Pope. Tax-free status from the Federal government! Yeah, Yeah, that's the ticket! I could be the first atheist Pastor. What DO you think, Doc?

That would be funny. Me standing in front of a crowd of thousands, wearing whatever atheist priests wear, and telling them, "hell, for all I know, you are all wrong, but then again you may be right."



The difference between a firmly held belief in a sports team or the second gunman on the grassy knoll, is that both are minuscule trivia.


For most, a religion seeks to explain the basic foundation of existence, which atheism does.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 17:48
Atheism is a religion? Perhaps..... if you wish to classify it that way. Some atheists band together to support one anothers belief...or disbelief. Creating a kind of "church" I suppose.

And while I have not personally seen it, I'm sure somewhere there's a list of things you're supposed to believe in order to be a "good" atheist. Maybe a "Anti-holy book"?

And maybe somewhere there's a group with a whole collection of rites and ceremonies to celebrate their beliefs. Complete with holidays to commemorate the joining of the first two chemicals, or maybe the anniversary of the first single celled organism.

Maybe...perhaps....possibly.

My own opinion on the question?

It's amusing.

Its amusing to see everyone so worried about how I, or others like me "classify" our views on a omnipotent, omniscient being who said a magic word and **POOF**!!! reality sprang into being.

Its amusing (to me) that they mock, argue and roll their collective eyes at me, or others like me, who continually explain that we dont know how reality "started". And maybe its unknowable and maybe not.

Its amusing to me that I, and others like me, are considered "close minded" because we dont rely on a book whose origins ore questionable, whose information is...incredible(most pc term I could think of), whose inconsistencies are glaring and is only ONE of many thousands that **claim** to have **all** the **answers**.

You can classify my "belief any way you wish. Doesnt make a difference to me...... BUT!! you need to know that:

1. My atheism has little to no bearing on my day to day life.
2. I do not sit and think of other ways the universe came into being. If something makes sense..i.e evolution, I accept it at face value until something that makes more sense comes along. Hardly what you would call a hard "religious" belief.

3. The only time I think deep thoughts about this crap is here.

4. I didnt really set out to disbelieve so much as I examined religion as a whole, and summarily dismissed it. And to me, it IS as trivial as pixies, fairy dust and unicorns pooping skittles on a rainbow.



:cool: Best answer so far, IMHO.

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 18:12
.


For most, a religion seeks to explain the basic foundation of existence, which atheism does.

No it doesn't atheism just says I don't think the god answer is right atheism does not try to prove or explain anything

:cool: Best answer so far, IMHO.

You do know he was saying your argument is BS

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 18:19
No it doesn't atheism just says I don't think the god answer is right atheism does not try to prove or explain anything


Then explain what evidence you have that God does not exist.


You do know he was saying your argument is BS

But he was polite about it. He made a statement that did not include ad homs.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 18:20
For most, a religion seeks to explain the basic foundation of existence, which atheism does.


And so how does a lack of belief in god translate to me claiming to understand the existence of the universe?

All atheism is to me, is the act of dismissing that which is patently ridiculous.

mikeflys1
11-08-2010, 18:21
No it doesn't atheism just says I don't think the god answer is right atheism does not try to prove or explain anything





Such a simple concept, but he's already decided that atheists think what he wants them to and the truth is irrelevant. Pretty sad.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 18:24
But he was polite about it. He made a statement that did not include ad homs.

I am polite as I can be while, basically, letting it be known that I consider religion to be a myth.

While there isn't much I can do about my belief, or lack thereof, theres no reason to be nasty about it either.

Besides Doc, your one of my favorite folks on PI:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 18:31
And so how does a lack of belief in god translate to me claiming to understand the existence of the universe?

All atheism is to me, is the act of dismissing that which is patently ridiculous.

Simply not believing what others believe is an act of contrarianism, not atheism.


A lack of belief in a deity, is a belief system. If not a deity, what explains the nature of the universe.

Stating it passively, does not change the active belief necessary to come to that conclusion.

Do you believe that deity's exist, or not, or do you simply not know. If you are sure that no god exists, how do you explain your existence. If you have a fairly detailed explanation of how you came to be typing your response, then there is an underlying belief system.


The firm belief that there is no god, without any proof, requires faith, and is a form of religious belief.

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 18:36
Then explain what evidence you have that God does not exist.



But he was polite about it. He made a statement that did not include ad homs.

Why do I have to give evidence showing there is no god when people who says god exist can not give evidence for it?

I will give you the same level of evidence that I see proving a god.

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 18:40
Such a simple concept, but he's already decided that atheists think what he wants them to and the truth is irrelevant. Pretty sad.

I'm trying to point out to you, that if you really, REALLY believe that there is no god, and you can support that belief with an argument, that it is more than simply not believing that there is no god. You must have a system of beliefs that explain reality without involving a deity.


Denial is what I am seeing here. Atheists are very uncomfortable admitting that their belief system can accurately be described as a religion.

I don't mind being told that I don't know for sure how we got here. But I believe that you don't know for sure either. Neither do people that admit their faith. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Yours does not hurt me, and mine does not hurt you.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 18:41
Why do I have to give evidence showing there is no god when people who says god exist can not give evidence for it?

I will give you the same level of evidence that I see proving a god.

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

Then maybe you're really an agnostic instead of an atheist?

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 18:47
Simply not believing what others believe is an act of contrarianism, not atheism.

Well, I have been called contrary. But simply not accepting a particular belief is contrarianism? Then we ALL are ... contriasts?


A lack of belief in a deity, is a belief system. If not a deity, what explains the nature of the universe.

How can lack of belief in a particular belief system become a belief system?

Makes no sense to me.

I have no idea what explains the nature of the universe. But I'm reasonably sure the answer wont be found in mythologies.


Stating it passively, does not change the active belief necessary to come to that conclusion.

Active belief in what.... precisely?

Again, disbelieving one thing does not necessitate belief in another thing. My beliefs are subject to change without notice. And belief isnt a necessity to religion. Faith is.

And I have very little faith in anything.

Do you believe that deity's exist, or not, or do you simply not know. If you are sure that no god exists, how do you explain your existence. If you have a fairly detailed explanation of how you came to be typing your response, then there is an underlying belief system.

I do not believe in deity's. Why? Never seen, heard, smelled or touched one. When there is no proof that something exists, the only reasonable, logical conclusion is that it does not.

Isn't a question of belief.




The firm belief that there is no god, without any proof, requires faith, and is a form of religious belief.

Faith has.....less than nothing to do with it.

So many things that are fictional dont have the slightest proof of existence. Yet it isnt faith that leads me to THINK they dont exist.

It's reason and logic.

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 18:48
You must have a system of beliefs that explain reality without involving a deity.


Why


Then maybe you're really an agnostic instead of an atheist?

How did you get that out of my post?

If you can I now see how your think atheism is religion.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 18:50
Lone Wolf8634,

Do you have any idea how humans came into existence?

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 18:52
RC-RAMIE,

Do you have any idea how humans came into existence?

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 19:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfhf1p8WKDk

Is a good place to start if you have netflix the whole show is on instant play.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 19:04
I'm trying to point out to you, that if you really, REALLY believe that there is no god, and you can support that belief with an argument, that it is more than simply not believing that there is no god. You must have a system of beliefs that explain reality without involving a deity.

I really really think there is no god.

And I dont have a system of beliefs that explain reality, I simply dismiss mythology as an explanation.

I'm here, thats enough for now. If I die without knowing how and why....well, so has everyone else thats ever lived:dunno:

Denial is what I am seeing here. Atheists are very uncomfortable admitting that their belief system can accurately be described as a religion.

Denial of what precisely? Your claim that atheism is a religion? Meh. As I said before, you'll do as you will, doesnt effect me.

I don't mind being told that I don't know for sure how we got here. But I believe that you don't know for sure either. Neither do people that admit their faith. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Yours does not hurt me, and mine does not hurt you.

IMHO you're stating that everyone MUST have a religion, and that if you claim to be atheist, than that is your religion.

Again, In the strictest sense, complying with proper definitions and withholding the personal thoughts of individuals, you are probably correct.

BUT....

To me, in order to qualify as a "religion", a belief system must be codified, shared by others, actively participated in and be a major influence on your behaviour and morals.

My atheism satisfies none of these requirements.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 19:06
Lone Wolf8634,

Do you have any idea how humans came into existence?

I'll accept the current theory of evolution for now. Doesn't mean its the be all and end all belief that I hold. It just means that its the theory that makes the most logical sense to me right now.

I have no faith in it till its proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfhf1p8WKDk

Is a good place to start if you have netflix the whole show is on instant play.

Is this your answer to my question?

It starts a bit late, with the apes already being there and all.


How did the apes get there?

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:15
I'll accept the current theory of evolution for now. Doesn't mean its the be all and end all belief that I hold. It just means that its the theory that makes the most logical sense to me right now.

I have no faith in it till its proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Kind of like a Catholic that only attends Easter and Christmas Mass.


Really, you don't come across as a die hard atheist.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 19:17
How did the apes get there?


They descended from their forebears and so on and so forth back to when the planet was young and the correct chemicals joined in the right fashion to create the first building blocks of life.

Do I really believe that with all my heart and soul and have faith that I'll never be proven wrong?

Nope.

But its infinitly more reasonable and logical than "goddidit"

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:17
I really really think there is no god.

And I dont have a system of beliefs that explain reality, I simply dismiss mythology as an explanation.

I'm here, thats enough for now. If I die without knowing how and why....well, so has everyone else thats ever lived:dunno:



Denial of what precisely? Your claim that atheism is a religion? Meh. As I said before, you'll do as you will, doesnt effect me.



IMHO you're stating that everyone MUST have a religion, and that if you claim to be atheist, than that is your religion.

Again, In the strictest sense, complying with proper definitions and withholding the personal thoughts of individuals, you are probably correct.

BUT....

To me, in order to qualify as a "religion", a belief system must be codified, shared by others, actively participated in and be a major influence on your behaviour and morals.

My atheism satisfies none of these requirements.

Actually, Agnostics don't have a religion.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:20
They descended from their forebears and so on and so forth back to when the planet was young and the correct chemicals joined in the right fashion to create the first building blocks of life.

Do I really believe that with all my heart and soul and have faith that I'll never be proven wrong?

Nope.

But its infinitly more reasonable and logical than "goddidit"



It is a view of how the world came to be, and a belief in an explanation that you can't support with facts.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/p/ExplainReligion.htm

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 19:20
Is this your answer to my question?

It starts a bit late, with the apes already being there and all.


How did the apes get there?

IDK.

Science has solved many of mans mysterious that was once answered with supernatural answers, why would this one be any different.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 19:22
Kind of like a Catholic that only attends Easter and Christmas Mass.


Really, you don't come across as a die hard atheist.

Actually I am. (a die hard athiest that is, not a sometime catholic).

I just dont hate everything religious and have no interest in antagonizing people about their religion.

I just dismiss it as inconsequential.

I'm old enough to know that some need their religion, as they would be lost without it. And its a good thing that some do have it. Who knows what they would be capable of without it.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 19:24
It is a view of how the world came to be, and a belief in an explanation that you can't support with facts.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/p/ExplainReligion.htm

So any explanation of how the world came to be is a religion??

I never said I could support it with facts. I said I accept it for now.

I never said I believe in it. I said it makes the most sense to me right now.

If it were to be disproved tomorrow, than I guess I could no longer accept it.

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 19:25
It is a view of how the world came to be, and a belief in an explanation that you can't support with facts.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/p/ExplainReligion.htm

Are you saying evolution can't be supported?

What you don't understand is even if evolution or big bang was proven dead wrong today it would not mean a god did it and would not change how I feel about a god aka my atheism.

How we got here, how it all started has nothing to do with atheism. How hard is that to understand.

Atheism is easy. Do you believe in a god? No = atheist thats all.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 19:27
It is a view of how the world came to be, and a belief in an explanation that you can't support with facts.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/p/ExplainReligion.htm

One other question....Why do I NEED to support it with facts?

Especially when my entire attitude towards it is : Meh...that'll do fer now?

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:37
One other question....Why do I NEED to support it with facts?

This is where faith comes in.


Especially when my entire attitude towards it is : Meh...that'll do fer now?

Well enough. Thanks for keeping it civil.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:39
IDK.

Science has solved many of mans mysterious that was once answered with supernatural answers, why would this one be any different.

I don't know. You seem to have a lot of faith in science.



:cool:

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 19:42
I don't know. You seem to have a lot of faith in science.



:cool:

Why wouldn't I. It has given humans a lot of medical break through, cool stuff to play with aka the internet im debating this subject with you on.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:44
Actually I am. (a die hard athiest that is, not a sometime catholic).

I just dont hate everything religious and have no interest in antagonizing people about their religion.

I just dismiss it as inconsequential.

I'm old enough to know that some need their religion, as they would be lost without it. And its a good thing that some do have it. Who knows what they would be capable of without it.



I have to admit, the atheists that approach their belief system as something that they believe, and that they don't feel a need to push on others, are the ones that I get along with best. The rabidly anti-religious folks that act like emo-vampires at the sight of a cross, tend to turn me off a bit.

I'm not too fond of Jehovah witnesses knocking on my door at 7:00 in the morning either. I have a way to keep that from happening too often though.

I believe that humans are just barely sentient. They are imperfect beings, which is why most of us feel a need to carry guns. I have seen enough for me to accept this imperfection, even in myself.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:47
Why wouldn't I. It has given humans a lot of medical break through, cool stuff to play with aka the internet im debating this subject with you on.

Amazing isn't it. Almost sounds more like secular humanism. Almost.

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 19:49
Amazing isn't it. Almost sounds more like secular humanism. Almost.

Nope.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 19:49
This is where faith comes in.



Well enough. Thanks for keeping it civil.


As I stated before, I dont have any faith in it. Some other theory will come along that may appeal to my reason more and **poof** I'll accept that.

The reality is, I dont feel an overwhelming need to know how humans got here, what caused the universe to be and what the reason is.

I'm here now and anything other than that is just intellectual curiousity..


You're quite welcome. I think its kinda fun to debate without getting tripped up with name calling.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:51
Nope.

Are you sure? Have you looked at the definition?

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 19:54
As I stated before, I dont have any faith in it. Some other theory will come along that may appeal to my reason more and **poof** I'll accept that.

The reality is, I dont feel an overwhelming need to know how humans got here, what caused the universe to be and what the reason is.

I'm here now and anything other than that is just intellectual curiousity..


You're quite welcome. I think its kinda fun to debate without getting tripped up with name calling.

Same here. :wavey: It always makes it much more fun to share and debate ideas, than to wade into name calling and condescension.

I accept your answer. It's logical and well supported.

Lone Wolf8634
11-08-2010, 19:58
Same here. :wavey: It always makes it much more fun to share and debate ideas, than to wade into name calling and condescension.

I accept your answer. It's logical and well supported.


Cool. See ya in PI!!:cheers:

void *
11-08-2010, 20:05
You actively believe that there is no god, whether you choose to admit it or not. I am not making that up, you have actively stated so in this thread.

Please cite and quote it. This ought to be interesting, because while I remember stating many times that I do not believe in god, that is, again, not the same thing as stating an acceptance of the proposition that there is no god.

Will this turn out like the post where I asked you to quote somewhere I stated that I know whether or not Vishnu exists? Tune in and see!

You might find there are a whole lot more atheists that you get along with if you could stop telling them that they believe something they are quite plainly telling you they do not believe.

If you haven't gotten it yet - I consider the truth value of whether or not a god or gods actually exists as an unprovable for the definition of most deities. I simply do not accept those propositions, and that is by definition a lack of faith in those deities, which makes me an atheist.

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 20:14
Are you sure? Have you looked at the definition?

You might be able to use it as a basic description on how I approach life. From what I know and read on it but I would have to do a lot more research before I labeled myself that way.

Atheism on the other hand is easy all I have to answer is one question.

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 20:20
Please cite and quote it. This ought to be interesting, because while I remember stating many times that I do not believe in god, that is, again, not the same thing as stating an acceptance of the proposition that there is no god.

Will this turn out like the post where I asked you to quote somewhere I stated that I know whether or not Vishnu exists? Tune in and see!

You might find there are a whole lot more atheists that you get along with if you could stop telling them that they believe something they are quite plainly telling you they do not believe.

If you haven't gotten it yet - I consider the truth value of whether or not a god or gods actually exists as an unprovable for the definition of most deities. I simply do not accept those propositions, and that is by definition a lack of faith in those deities, which makes me an atheist.

Aww heck, you caught me, it was in the thread that brought this one into being, and not this thread.


:wavey: Forgive me?


I did find it, quoted it below.

No, that's an example of me being wrong when I made an estimate of your belief based on probability, given the admitted belief of people that I usually see this argument from.

I've got no problem admitting I called it wrong when you state what you actually believe.

Why do you keep trying to throw in a definition that I've already plainly stated is not the definition I am referring to? Especially when it is blatantly obvious, by the agreement of multiple dictionaries, that the definition I am using is acceptable?



It would be less difficult if you stopped asserting that the valid definitions I have given somehow don't apply, don't you think?



It's a simple admission that 'there is no god' is not a provable statement.

I "believe" there is no god to the same extent that I "believe" there are no magic, invisible pixies in my backyard - in other words, I have seen no evidence of either, and have no reason to accept the statement 'there is a god', nor the statement 'there are magic invisible, incorporeal pixies in my back yard'. I don't believe either statement. Can I prove that either statement is false? No. Is it possible to *know* either statement is false? No. Do you grok it yet?

Cavalry Doc
11-08-2010, 20:22
You might be able to use it as a basic description on how I approach life. From what I know and read on it but I would have to do a lot more research before I labeled myself that way.

Atheism on the other hand is easy all I have to answer is one question.

Life's questions are not so easily answered.....

Making it easy doesn't necessarily make it an accurate description.

void *
11-08-2010, 20:31
I did find it, quoted it below.

That is a statement that I do not believe they exist, not a statement that I believe they do not exist.

Do you understand the distinction? When I say 'I do not believe X', I am saying 'I do not accept as true the proposition X'. That is not the same thing as saying 'I accept as true the proposition not X'.

The way my brain works, you would have to show me a means of determining that incorporeal, invisible pixies do *not* exist before I would accept 'there are no incorporeal, invisible pixies' as true. But if someone posits there are incorporeal, invisible pixies, I am not going to believe their posit until they show me a means of determining with some high probability that they actually exist. It's their posit, it's on them to show it, I don't have to show the converse to say 'I don't believe that posit'.

Look at it like this - if someone were to say to you "Hey, there's a giant green invisible, incorporeal dragon sitting on your shoulder", are you going to believe them?

It might be true, and nobody can prove it one way or another, right? But without any means of determining whether or not it is true, are you obliged to believe them?

No, because the burden of proof for a statement like that is on them. You don't have to go prove that there *isn't* a dragon on your shoulder before you can say you don't believe them.

Any other way, and anyone could posit the negation of *anything* and claim that you have some religious-like faith in that negation. Would you accept the argument that, since you can't say 'Yes' to the statement 'Vishnu exists', that means it is your religion that Vishnu does not exist? I doubt it.

RC-RAMIE
11-08-2010, 20:32
Life's questions are not so easily answered.....

Making it easy doesn't necessarily make it an accurate description.

When it is a question about what you believe its actually very easy.

Ogreon
11-08-2010, 22:08
Please provide proof for your implied assertion that all atheists hate the fact that theism exists. Note: Any proof submitted will immediately have counterexamples offered. (For instance, I don't hate the concept of theism - I just don't think it's supported by evidence - and pointing that out is not hate, it's just a matter of expressing a viewpoint).



Please provide proof for your implied assertion that all atheists are worried about all theists. Note: Any proof submitted will immediately have counterexamples offered (For example, I am worried about theists who would like to see theocracies. The rest, I have no issue with unless they take, say, criminal action. But this is not a worry about *all* theists. My mother is a theist, the high school buddy I see the most is a theist - on and on and on - and I have no worries at all about them)



Please provide proof for your implied assertion that all atheists troll theist web discussions. Note that any such proof will immediately have counterexamples offered (For instance, I enjoy discussion about such things, and I tend to respond to statements I don't agree with. Is that trolling? I don't think so - if you do a forum search you'll note I tend to stay out of the theological discussions)

Etc, etc.

Even if we accept the idea that the above actions result in a hobby (see below), to call "Atheism" a religion, by the analogy, you need to show that all atheists engage in them. Similarly, if we're going to define 'religion' by actions such as trolling boards, etc, we would need to show that all theists engage in them. This is quite obviously not the case.

Also, in a strict sense, none of the things you list is actually a hobby. They are all opinions/actions/etc *towards* a hobby. The person making them still does *not* collect stamps, so you can't call such a person a stamp collector.

There is NO implied assertion that all atheists do this. Many atheists do, which suggests that THOSE atheists are not the rational, thinking people they claim to be.

The hobby of the "not" stamp collector (in this example) is hating and harassing stamp collectors.

Ogreon
11-08-2010, 22:18
Is this really what you think atheists are all about?


:rofl:

No. This is, however, what many atheists are about.

You, amongst others, are inferring far beyond any implications.

mikeflys1
11-08-2010, 22:47
No. This is, however, what many atheists are about.

You, amongst others, are inferring far beyond any implications.

Let's play a little game of find the confirmation bias:

You claim that "many" atheists are all about trolling the religious; would you say the religious troll atheists at the same rate? less? more?

void *
11-08-2010, 23:11
Many atheists do, which suggests that THOSE atheists are not the rational, thinking people they claim to be.

Which has nothing to do with atheism being simply lack of faith in a god or gods. Do you agree, or disagree?

'rational' and 'theist' are independent variables - just like 'gnostic' and 'theist' are independent variables. And I would also argue that pretty much everyone is irrational about *something*.

The difference is whether or not there's an honest self examination and search to recognize that irrationality. Such a search is doomed to failure, just by the fact that nobody is perfect ... but there are plenty of people who honestly try, and whether they're theist, or atheist, isn't relevant to that. I know plenty of theists who would state that they know it's not provable whether or not god exists - but they just can't bring themselves to believe existence is even possible without a deity. I don't knock them for holding that position, and it doesn't necessarily make them an overall irrational person.

void *
11-08-2010, 23:21
There is NO implied assertion that all atheists do this.

You may not have intended it, but your post came across as 'I'm going to throw all this stuff out there as rebuttal to an analogy that is trying to point out that atheism is defined by what is *not* believed in'. And in that context, there is certainly an implication that, given the OP is alleging that atheism is religious by definition, all atheists must do the things that you are saying rebut the analogy.

That may not be how you intended it, and I can certainly accept that you didn't - but you see the point, don't you?

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 04:41
That is a statement that I do not believe they exist, not a statement that I believe they do not exist.

Do you understand the distinction? When I say 'I do not believe X', I am saying 'I do not accept as true the proposition X'. That is not the same thing as saying 'I accept as true the proposition not X'.

The way my brain works, you would have to show me a means of determining that incorporeal, invisible pixies do *not* exist before I would accept 'there are no incorporeal, invisible pixies' as true. But if someone posits there are incorporeal, invisible pixies, I am not going to believe their posit until they show me a means of determining with some high probability that they actually exist. It's their posit, it's on them to show it, I don't have to show the converse to say 'I don't believe that posit'.

Look at it like this - if someone were to say to you "Hey, there's a giant green invisible, incorporeal dragon sitting on your shoulder", are you going to believe them?

It might be true, and nobody can prove it one way or another, right? But without any means of determining whether or not it is true, are you obliged to believe them?

No, because the burden of proof for a statement like that is on them. You don't have to go prove that there *isn't* a dragon on your shoulder before you can say you don't believe them.

Any other way, and anyone could posit the negation of *anything* and claim that you have some religious-like faith in that negation. Would you accept the argument that, since you can't say 'Yes' to the statement 'Vishnu exists', that means it is your religion that Vishnu does not exist? I doubt it.


Again, giant incorporeal green dragons are small potatoes here.

Your stuck on an imagined difference between the active and passive statements that end in the same belief, that there are no deities. If you are convinced that you right, then it is what it is. Releiving yourself of the responsibility of supporting your belief, or lack thereof, is convenient too.



It strikes me as odd that some Atheists are so proactive in defending their beliefs. One would think that they wouldn't waste much energy worrying about it. One possibility is that it is driven by the same emotions that drive others to religion, hope and fear. In Christianity, it could be the hope to enter heaven, and the fear of entering he'll. In atheism, it seems similar, hope that heaven does not exist, because if it does, they are going to the other place. Most religions have good places for the faithful, and bad places for bad people.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 04:44
When it is a question about what you believe its actually very easy.

Tell that to a philosophy major. :)

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 04:54
There is NO implied assertion that all atheists do this. Many atheists do, which suggests that THOSE atheists are not the rational, thinking people they claim to be.

The hobby of the "not" stamp collector (in this example) is hating and harassing stamp collectors.

Not only that, but the Non-stamp collector goes onto stamp collecting sites or obliquely to postage sites and rails against stamp collectors as idiots, mindless zombies etc. Some are so apoplectic at the sight of a stamp, or anything that reminds them of stamps and stamp collectors, that they spend real money in court and fight to have the offending objects removed fro
Their sight.

Sort of stumps on the rights of the stamp collectors.

Personally, I think it is a form of prosthelytizing. Not much different than those jehova witness fellows.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 04:59
Let's play a little game of find the confirmation bias:

You claim that "many" atheists are all about trolling the religious; would you say the religious troll atheists at the same rate? less? more?


In GT? I see more drive by posts ridiculing religion or the religious. The ones recruiting for their religion the most here, especially in unrelated threads are the Atheists. That's just my own observation.

void *
11-09-2010, 07:52
Again, giant incorporeal green dragons are small potatoes here.

Which, again, is irrelevant to the point. Small potatoes or large potatoes, not believing an assertion works exactly the same way.

Your stuck on an imagined difference between the active and passive statements that end in the same belief, that there are no deities. If you are convinced that you right, then it is what it is. Releiving yourself of the responsibility of supporting your belief, or lack thereof, is convenient too.

By your own statements in the thread, you don't accept 'Vishnu exists' as true - because 'Maybe' is not 'Yes' - and you don't accept 'Vishnu exists' as false.

That, right there, shows the distinction I am making. That you keep denying that the distinction exists is irrelevant.

If you actually think that not accepting the statement 'Vishnu exists' as true means you accept the statement 'Vishnu exists' as false - then not only are you contradicting yourself, but by your own statement you are obligated to have faith there is *not* a dragon your shoulder merely if someone asserts there is, and you don't accept the assertion.

Basically, you're refusing to admit that knowing and believing are two different things - or rather, that I define it in those terms - and that belief in an assertion is just a matter of whether or not you accept it as true.

void *
11-09-2010, 07:55
It strikes me as odd that some Atheists are so proactive in defending their beliefs.

It strikes you as odd that you would make a statement about atheists in a thread, and that someone who disagrees with you would post disagreeing with you?

It strikes you as odd that, despite being given very specific definitions, when you turn around and tell someone that they don't think what they are plainly telling you they think, they'd post back disagreeing with you?

You must have an interesting definition of 'odd'.

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 09:49
In GT? I see more drive by posts ridiculing religion or the religious. The ones recruiting for their religion the most here, especially in unrelated threads are the Atheists. That's just my own observation.


Naturally...as you obviously have a problem with nonbelievers, your confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) is going to make a mountain out of that molehill.

Ogreon
11-09-2010, 15:20
Let's play a little game of find the confirmation bias:

You claim that "many" atheists are all about trolling the religious; would you say the religious troll atheists at the same rate? less? more?

I don't know. I don't follow any atheist discussion boards. I've got a few atheist books, I don't recall off hand seeing any "I haven't read this book but he's going to hell and so is anyone who reads it" reviews. I have seen a number of "This book is fictitious drivel and anyone who believes it is an idiot" reviews of bibles.

Given the fact that there are a lot more theists than atheists, I would expect to see more of it from theists but I don't. I have not, however, done a statistical study.

I fully respect the beliefs of atheists. Your relationship (or not) with God is not my problem.

I've been proselytized by atheists. I don't mind this (except when they respond to my refusal to convert with "You're an idiot"). I don't mind being proselytized by anyone. I believe strongly in freedom of speech.

My point is simple. Take an atheist who spends a lot of his time worrying about theists, attacking theists, and posting nasty reviews of bibles. This suggests to me that, for him, atheism has become a religion. This is a person who has an intense hatred for God. How can one hate someone who doesn't exist.

Ogreon
11-09-2010, 15:30
Which has nothing to do with atheism being simply lack of faith in a god or gods. Do you agree, or disagree?


If someone simply lacks faith in God, then I would not call that person "religious". There are many nominal theists, whom I would not call "religious" either.

If someone claims a lack of faith, but seems to invest a significant amount of his resources against God, I would count this as "religious".

RC-RAMIE
11-09-2010, 15:37
I don't know. I don't follow any atheist discussion boards. I've got a few atheist books, I don't recall off hand seeing any "I haven't read this book but he's going to hell and so is anyone who reads it" reviews. I have seen a number of "This book is fictitious drivel and anyone who believes it is an idiot" reviews of bibles.

Given the fact that there are a lot more theists than atheists, I would expect to see more of it from theists but I don't. I have not, however, done a statistical study.

I fully respect the beliefs of atheists. Your relationship (or not) with God is not my problem.

I've been proselytized by atheists. I don't mind this (except when they respond to my refusal to convert with "You're an idiot"). I don't mind being proselytized by anyone. I believe strongly in freedom of speech.

My point is simple. Take an atheist who spends a lot of his time worrying about theists, attacking theists, and posting nasty reviews of bibles. This suggests to me that, for him, atheism has become a religion. This is a person who has an intense hatred for God. How can one hate someone who doesn't exist.

I see theist take this line on atheist on forums. What most don't take into consideration is in a religious section of a forum you will more likely encounter atheist talking about religion.

This is not a everyday topic for me out of the internet realm. My wife is catholic it does not bother me.

Ogreon
11-09-2010, 15:42
'rational' and 'theist' are independent variables - just like 'gnostic' and 'theist' are independent variables. And I would also argue that pretty much everyone is irrational about *something*.

The difference is whether or not there's an honest self examination and search to recognize that irrationality. Such a search is doomed to failure, just by the fact that nobody is perfect ... but there are plenty of people who honestly try, and whether they're theist, or atheist, isn't relevant to that. I know plenty of theists who would state that they know it's not provable whether or not god exists - but they just can't bring themselves to believe existence is even possible without a deity. I don't knock them for holding that position, and it doesn't necessarily make them an overall irrational person.
Indeed. I don't see why the rational on either side would have problems with the other. Your relationship, or not, with God is not my problem. My relationship with God is not your problem. I am never disturbed by rational discussion or disagreement.

Ogreon
11-09-2010, 15:51
You may not have intended it, but your post came across as 'I'm going to throw all this stuff out there as rebuttal to an analogy that is trying to point out that atheism is defined by what is *not* believed in'. And in that context, there is certainly an implication that, given the OP is alleging that atheism is religious by definition, all atheists must do the things that you are saying rebut the analogy.

That may not be how you intended it, and I can certainly accept that you didn't - but you see the point, don't you?

Health problems tend to obviate extensive discussion, which is why I tend to content myself with a few brief comments. My questions are intended to posit that atheism MAY be a religion in some instances. (I generally use capitals rather than bold or italics for emphasis because I usually have javascript turned off.)

void *
11-09-2010, 15:53
If someone simply lacks faith in God, then I would not call that person "religious".

Would you agree that the definition of theist is basically "Someone who believes in a god or gods"?

void *
11-09-2010, 16:03
I've got a few atheist books, I don't recall off hand seeing any "I haven't read this book but he's going to hell and so is anyone who reads it" reviews. I have seen a number of "This book is fictitious drivel and anyone who believes it is an idiot" reviews of bibles.

Go to amazon, find a book on atheism, with a fair number of reviews, then go to the customer reviews (all of them), order them by most helpful first, then go to the last few pages. I've seen customer reviews of books about atheism with claims that the author is the antichrist, and no actual commentary on the book *content* at all.

I suspect that whether the book is theistic or atheistic, if the subject is religion you are going to find reviews that match the above criteria. Some will be from people who believe - some from people who don't.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 17:16
Naturally...as you obviously have a problem with nonbelievers, your confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) is going to make a mountain out of that molehill.

I just find it odd that Atheists refuse to admit that the websters definition of "religion" accurately describes many of them.

Maybe it's just the radical ones that go beyond simple disbelief, and cross into proactive anti-belief?

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 17:26
It strikes you as odd that you would make a statement about atheists in a thread, and that someone who disagrees with you would post disagreeing with you?

It strikes you as odd that, despite being given very specific definitions, when you turn around and tell someone that they don't think what they are plainly telling you they think, they'd post back disagreeing with you?

You must have an interesting definition of 'odd'.

Not really, I generally use the definition found in dictionaries.

If you don't believe that atheism fits within the definition of religion, I'm ok with that. I still think it does.

void *
11-09-2010, 17:31
If you don't believe that atheism fits within the definition of religion, I'm ok with that. I still think it does.

I think that there are a lot of people with a lot of beliefs that fit the definition of 'religion' in the sense of 'a belief held on faith'. But the mere fact that there are some atheists who actively have faith that god does not exist does not mean *all* atheists do. 'Some cats are orange' does not logically mean that all cats are orange. And as I've been trying to note - I do not think it is impossible for a god or gods to exist. I couldn't honestly say that, because I think that it's not possible for us to prove it either way. But if you asked me if I believe a god or god exists, I have to say 'I can't accept that posit as true on faith' - in other words, I don't believe it is true.

My argument is that the mere fact of not believing in a god or gods is not something that meets that definition. It's not believing something on faith, it's *not* believing a posit such as "god or gods exist", when the posit requires faith to believe it. It's defined quite literally by lacking the faith required to believe one particular posit.

When I say I am atheist, that is what I mean. I do not accept the posit that there is a god or gods. And not accepting that posit does not require faith.

Ogreon
11-09-2010, 17:44
Would you agree that the definition of theist is basically "Someone who believes in a god or gods"?

I would.

void *
11-09-2010, 17:45
Not really, I generally use the definition found in dictionaries.

So, you think it is 'odd' that people would respond to a forum post they disagree with.

I don't think that's odd. In fact, I think pretty much all of GT is a giant shining counterexample, plenty of people that think lots of different things make posts disagreeing with other people.

Ogreon
11-09-2010, 17:54
I see theist take this line on atheist on forums. What most don't take into consideration is in a religious section of a forum you will more likely encounter atheist talking about religion.

This is not a everyday topic for me out of the internet realm. My wife is catholic it does not bother me.

I don't think that atheists should be excluded from a religious forum. I can see how someone could disbelieve in God, but still be interested in the subject. I have an interest in many religions which I don't believe in.

I don't know if any of the atheists here would fall under my definition of being "religious" atheists or not. I don't know a large enough sample of atheists to know if most do. I simply suggest that many who call themselves atheists do fit my definition of "religious".

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 17:57
I think that there are a lot of people with a lot of beliefs that fit the definition of 'religion' in the sense of 'a belief held on faith'. But the mere fact that there are some atheists who actively have faith that god does not exist does not mean *all* atheists do. 'Some cats are orange' does not logically mean that all cats are orange. And as I've been trying to note - I do not think it is impossible for a god or gods to exist. I couldn't honestly say that, because I think that it's not possible for us to prove it either way. But if you asked me if I believe a god or god exists, I have to say 'I can't accept that posit as true on faith' - in other words, I don't believe it is true.

My argument is that the mere fact of not believing in a god or gods is not something that meets that definition. It's not believing something on faith, it's *not* believing a posit such as "god or gods exist", when the posit requires faith to believe it. It's defined quite literally by lacking the faith required to believe one particular posit.

When I say I am atheist, that is what I mean. I do not accept the posit that there is a god or gods. And not accepting that posit does not require faith.

Firm belief without the possibility of proof noted. It's faith.


1faith
noun \ˈfāth\
plural faiths\ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>

It's not me that is trapping you, its Merriam-Webster.

:dunno: I'm just showing that the definition applies, not creating a new definition.

void *
11-09-2010, 18:00
I would.

So, to construct a dichotomy, we need a subcategory that is mutually exclusive with the definition we have agreed to for 'theist'.

So we take the definition we've agreed to, of theist, and are left with a definiton of 'someone who does not believe in a god or gods' for the other mutually exclusive subcategory forming the dichotomy.

In one category, you have 'believes in a god or gods', in the other, 'does not believe in a god or gods' - or, equivalently, 'disbelieves in a god or gods' - disbelief being lack of belief, lack of acceptance of the posit that a god or gods exist.

If we shift that to theism/atheism as a dichotomy, the same train of thought leads right to the dictionary definition I have been using for atheism - 'disbelief in the existence of a god or gods'.

Now, there are tons of other variables in play (the gnostic/agnostic dichotomy, for instance, or religious/irreligious) - but 'atheism', to me, is just a matter of not being able to accept the posit 'a god or gods exist'.

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 18:13
Firm belief without the possibility of proof noted. It's faith.




It's not me that is trapping you, its Merriam-Webster.

:dunno: I'm just showing that the definition applies, not creating a new definition.

It's not a "firm belief without the possibility of proof", but a rejection of that firm belief.

The only thing being trapped here is your mind within your own prejudices.

void *
11-09-2010, 18:14
Firm belief without the possibility of proof noted.

'I can't accept that god is true on faith' is firm belief?

As a self-identified agnostic in the sense of a three-state variable with values 'theist, agnostic, atheist', you are *also* not accepting that god is true on faith. If you can't say 'god is true', then you haven't accepted the posit.

Therefore, by your argument, you hold a firm belief without the possibility of proof. Maybe you should start a thread named 'Why is it so hard to admit that agnosticism is a religion'.

Do you see the absurdness of your statement that not accepting a posit on faith makes it a firm belief?

Schabesbert
11-09-2010, 18:27
It's not a "firm belief without the possibility of proof", but a rejection of that firm belief.

The only thing being trapped here is your mind within your own prejudices.

He's right, you know.

If A and B are mutually exclusive, but not totally known (so that there's an "I don't know" state), then "not A" does not automatically imply "therefore B."

"Not A" DOES imply "B or 'I Don't Know'".

You're being logically inconsistant in your argument, and Cavalry Doc is correct to point that out.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 18:29
'I can't accept that god is true on faith' is firm belief?

As a self-identified agnostic in the sense of a three-state variable with values 'theist, agnostic, atheist', you are *also* not accepting that god is true on faith. If you can't say 'god is true', then you haven't accepted the posit.

Therefore, by your argument, you hold a firm belief without the possibility of proof. Maybe you should start a thread named 'Why is it so hard to admit that agnosticism is a religion'.

Do you see the absurdness of your statement that not accepting a posit on faith makes it a firm belief?

Ahhh, but there is a difference. I simply don't know. I understand that none of us knows for sure. So I reserve judgment on the issue.

You have chosen to believe.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 18:33
It's not a "firm belief without the possibility of proof", but a rejection of that firm belief.

The only thing being trapped here is your mind within your own prejudices.

It's not a dichotomy. It's a trichotomy.

One believes in a deity.
One believes that no deity exists.
One admits that they simply don't know for sure.


I'm only pointing out the animal in the trap.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 18:35
He's right, you know.

If A and B are mutually exclusive, but not totally known (so that there's an "I don't know" state), then "not A" does not automatically imply "therefore B."

"Not A" DOES imply "B or 'I Don't Know'".

You're being logically inconsistant in your argument, and Cavalry Doc is correct to point that out.

:cheers:

It's difficult to teach logic to religious zealots.

Thanks for the assist.

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 19:12
He's right, you know.

If A and B are mutually exclusive, but not totally known (so that there's an "I don't know" state), then "not A" does not automatically imply "therefore B."

"Not A" DOES imply "B or 'I Don't Know'".

You're being logically inconsistant in your argument, and Cavalry Doc is correct to point that out.

The problem here is that A and B are totally known....these aren't descriptors of the supernatural but of yourself. If you've accepted one of the god hypotheses, even casually, then you fall into category A (theism). If you've not accepted any then you're category B (atheism). If you don't know, then you haven't accepted one. Just like if you ask a girl out and she say's "I don't know" then she hasn't (yet) accepted, right?

Agnosticism is a whole 'nother identifier...you can fall into either category A or B above and still be either gnostic or agnostic. Gnostics of either category would be the ones we all seem to have a problem with i.e. the "I know for sure without a doubt that god does (or does not) exist!" types. Then obviously the agnostics of either category would likely say "I don't know for sure but I believe/don't believe.

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 19:14
Other than the ridiculous not being a religion means you are a religion, it really seems that we're all making a lot of similar agreeing arguments here, just defining our terms differently.

void *
11-09-2010, 19:18
He's right, you know.

If A and B are mutually exclusive, but not totally known (so that there's an "I don't know" state), then "not A" does not automatically imply "therefore B."

"Not A" DOES imply "B or 'I Don't Know'".

'I know it's not', 'I know it is', and 'I don't know' are statements in the domain of knowledge. Ternary logic is three-state in the sense of 'I know it is', 'I don't know', and 'I know it isn't'. The unknown state can be viewed as a box within which one distinct value is actually held, but you don't know what it is. At the bottom, that 'unknown' box still holds a true value, or it holds a false value - you just may not know what it is. There is no middle state where the truth of the proposition is actually something other than 'true' or 'false', you're using ternary logic to model your state of knowledge about the variable. 'false' means 'we know it to be false', true means 'we know it to be true', and 'unknown' means 'we don't know whether it's true or false'.

'I believe it is', 'I don't believe it is', 'I don't know what I believe', and 'I believe it is not' are statements in the domain of belief, which is distinct from what you know. If you believe it - whether your belief matches the actual value of the variable or not - you are accepting the posit as true. The actual value, and whether or not you *can* know, don't affect that.

Schabesbert
11-09-2010, 19:29
'I know it's not', 'I know it is', and 'I don't know' are statements in the domain of knowledge. Ternary logic is three-state in the sense of 'I know it is', 'I don't know', and 'I know it isn't'.
Great. Would you say that mikeflys1 is making a statement in the domain of knowledge or not?

Before you answer, re-read his reply above:
"The problem here is that A and B are totally known"

The unknown state can be viewed as a box within which one distinct value is actually held, but you don't know what it is. At the bottom, the variable still holds a true value, or it holds a false value - you just may not know what it is. There is no middle state where the truth of the proposition is actually something other than 'true' or 'false'.

'I believe it is', 'I don't believe it is', 'I don't know what I believe', and 'I believe it is not' are statements in the domain of belief, which is distinct from what you know. If you believe it - whether your belief matches the actual value of the variable or not - you are accepting the value as true.
And, since you don't know, you are basing your belief on ... what ... faith?

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 19:33
Calling atheism a religion is just a theist ploy to attempt to shift the burden of proof.

If accepted at face value (simply a rejection of the case for your deity) then it simply means that the theist argument isn't that convincing. But, if you try to portray atheism as some affirmative belief instead then that comes along with its own burden of proof. So they've effectively lowered the bar for themselves because you can't prove something does not exist, so even poor evidence is better than no evidence.

void *
11-09-2010, 19:34
Great. Would you say that mikeflys1 is making a statement in the domain of knowledge or not?

His statement is referring to belief. Your belief. It is far easier to *know* what you *believe* than it is to *know* the actual value of the variable that the belief is making a statement about.

If Cavalry Doc is saying that he doesn't know whether or not he believes, that's fine - but implies that he's hiding whether or not he can answer the question 'Do you believe that god exists' with 'Yes' from himself.

And, since you don't know, you are basing your belief on ... what ... faith?

Again, it is not belief. It is the fact that I do *not* have belief in the proposition 'a god or gods exist'. The assertion that something is true needs to supported with evidence. Rejection of the assertion that something is true does not - and does not imply that you would also not reject the active assertion that something is *not* true.

Kind of like how, when people ask me if I think it is *possible* that a god or god exists, I say 'yes'. That doesn't mean that it's knowable, and it also doesn't mean that I believe it is true.

void *
11-09-2010, 19:44
In other words:

Two posits:
God exists.
You personally believe God exists.

Which posit has a lower threshold for assigning an actual, known truth value?

If you know the second posit is 'true' for you, then you are a theist. Now, construct the true dichotomy for that second posit.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 19:44
The problem here is that A and B are totally known....these aren't descriptors of the supernatural but of yourself. If you've accepted one of the god hypotheses, even casually, then you fall into category A (theism). If you've not accepted any then you're category B (atheism). If you don't know, then you haven't accepted one. Just like if you ask a girl out and she say's "I don't know" then she hasn't (yet) accepted, right?

Agnosticism is a whole 'nother identifier...you can fall into either category A or B above and still be either gnostic or agnostic. Gnostics of either category would be the ones we all seem to have a problem with i.e. the "I know for sure without a doubt that god does (or does not) exist!" types. Then obviously the agnostics of either category would likely say "I don't know for sure but I believe/don't believe.


Wow. That totally blows apart the whole concept of the scientific process.

Honest and ethical scientists will admit that they don't know, when they don't know. In fact, among medical practitioners, most will admit that the more they know, the more they realize that they don't know.


Without conclusive irrefutable proof, admitting that you don't know may be the most honest answer possible. It's possible that you may be missing the real truth. But at least you wont come across as an ill informed know-it-all.

void *
11-09-2010, 19:46
You have chosen to believe.

So my statement that if tomorrow, a deity head popped up and proved that deities existed, I would then have reason to accept the posit, means nothing to you, eh?

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 19:48
Calling atheism a religion is just a theist ploy to attempt to shift the burden of proof.

If accepted at face value (simply a rejection of the case for your deity) then it simply means that the theist argument isn't that convincing. But, if you try to portray atheism as some affirmative belief instead then that comes along with its own burden of proof. So they've effectively lowered the bar for themselves because you can't prove something does not exist, so even poor evidence is better than no evidence.

You missed it. The definition of "religion" is finite. It has limits. Atheism fits within those limits.

Evidently some atheists are unwilling to accept that.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 19:49
So my statement that if tomorrow, a deity head popped up and proved that deities existed, I would then have reason to accept the posit, means nothing to you, eh?

It means significantly more than nothing, but somehow less than "a lot".

wrenrj1
11-09-2010, 19:50
Being raised Methodist as a kid through HS and off on my own after that, I'm a Christian for the most part. Non-practicing in any religion, I believe that I need to be a good person to those around me. That may be simple or complex. I hope that I have or will rise to the occasion by my actions.

void *
11-09-2010, 19:50
Honest and ethical scientists will admit that they don't know, when they don't know.

When are you going to understand that both mikeflys and myself have *both* stated that we are of the position that the truth value of the posit 'a god or god exists' cannot be known?

Please show how stating 'That's not a provable posit' is not equivalent to a statement that we don't know. (In fact, it's stronger, in that not only does it imply that we *don't* know, but that we *can't* know - if 'a god or god exists' were a provable posit it would not take acceptance without proof to resolve it)

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 19:52
Wow. That totally blows apart the whole concept of the scientific process.

Honest and ethical scientists will admit that they don't know, when they don't know. In fact, among medical practitioners, most will admit that the more they know, the more they realize that they don't know.

Without conclusive irrefutable proof, admitting that you don't know may be the most honest answer possible. It's possible that you may be missing the real truth. But at least you wont come across as an ill informed know-it-all.

Did you actually read what I wrote at all? Try again.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 19:53
In other words:

Two posits:
God exists.
You personally believe God exists.

Which posit has a lower threshold for assigning an actual, known truth value?

If you know the second posit is 'true' for you, then you are a theist. Now, construct the true dichotomy for that second posit.

You should really explore the possibility of a TRIchomy. It may be more expansive than that, and probably is.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 19:54
Did you actually read what I wrote at all? Try again.

Yes..

He's right, you know.

If A and B are mutually exclusive, but not totally known (so that there's an "I don't know" state), then "not A" does not automatically imply "therefore B."

"Not A" DOES imply "B or 'I Don't Know'".

You're being logically inconsistant in your argument, and Cavalry Doc is correct to point that out.

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 19:56
You missed it. The definition of "religion" is finite. It has limits. Atheism fits within those limits.

Evidently some atheists are unwilling to accept that.

Religion in the sense of "I watch football religiously", sure some may take it to that extreme, but as far as an actual religion no, not at all.

My point still stands.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 20:01
Religion in the sense of "I watch football religiously", sure some may take it to that extreme, but as far as an actual religion no, not at all.

My point still stands.

Does watching football the same day very week, describe a basic understanding of the universe?


Nope. Metaphor not accepted. Try again please. :supergrin:

void *
11-09-2010, 20:01
You should really explore the possibility of a TRIchomy. It may be more expansive than that, and probably is.

There is no trichotomy for the posit 'a god or gods exists'. The value of that variable is either true, or false. We can't know the value, but that doesn't mean there's some secret middle value that is in reality neither true nor false.

Similarly, whether or not you accept the proposition 'I believe a god or gods exist' is also a dichotomy. You appear to be of the opinion that this is also unknowable, at least for you - but it's demonstrably not, it's a simple matter of whether or not you can answer the question 'Do I accept the proposition that a god or gods exists?' with 'Yes'.

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 20:03
Of course it isn't. You've made up your mind that atheists think how you say they do and no argument is going to convince you otherwise.

Congratulations, you yourself are exactly what you accuse atheists of being.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 20:25
There is no trichotomy for the posit 'a god or gods exists'. The value of that variable is either true, or false. We can't know the value, but that doesn't mean there's some secret middle value that is in reality neither true nor false.

Similarly, whether or not you accept the proposition 'I believe a god or gods exist' is also a dichotomy. You appear to be of the opinion that this is also unknowable, at least for you - but it's demonstrably not, it's a simple matter of whether or not you can answer the question 'Do I accept the proposition that a god or gods exists?' with 'Yes'.



If you can't understand a human having the position that they simply don't know whether or not a deity exists....

Well then, I'd have to say that you are religiously intolerant of other ideas.

It's an analog situation, not digital. There is a realization that you do not know for sure. In the absence of proof, it may even be the most ethical position to simply state that you don't know for sure. There is also the realization that there may be an intelligent design that may not fit the conventional model of a "GOD". If there is a creator or intelligent catalyst for creation, is there a requirement that it/he/she be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, or even aware of it's own existence.

The denial of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being that created the universe, seems a little digital to me.

What if this is all an experiment conducted by a being of less than average intelligence that mixed matter an energy in a science experiment.....

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 20:27
Of course it isn't. You've made up your mind that atheists think how you say they do and no argument is going to convince you otherwise.

Congratulations, you yourself are exactly what you accuse atheists of being.

Opinionated?





Isn't that the problem that atheists have with other religions?

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 20:42
Opinionated?


Isn't that the problem that atheists have with other religions?

I was going with close-minded.

Maybe some but, as an agnostic atheist, I don't really have that problem :wavey: I don't believe until presented with sufficient evidence and then *poof* I'm a believer. Good reasoning is contagious.

Did you catch my post on the previous page about how we all seem to be making arguments that practically agree with each other but we're just defining our terms differently? Thoughts on that?

Anyways, time to go hang out with the gf for a bit so catch y'all tomorrow.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 20:54
I was going with close-minded.

Maybe some but, as an agnostic atheist, I don't really have that problem :wavey: I don't believe until presented with sufficient evidence and then *poof* I'm a believer. Good reasoning is contagious.

Did you catch my post on the previous page about how we all seem to be making arguments that practically agree with each other but we're just defining our terms differently? Thoughts on that?

Anyways, time to go hang out with the gf for a bit so catch y'all tomorrow.

Yeah, I also noticed that you didn't describe yourself as an athestic agnostic.


Which predominates?

void *
11-09-2010, 20:57
If you can't understand a human having the position that they simply don't know whether or not a deity exists....

When are you going to understand that both mikeflys and myself have *both* stated that we are of the position that the truth value of the posit 'a god or god exists' cannot be known?

Please, respond to this. Also, please describe how being of the position that a supernatural posit such as 'a god or god exists' cannot be known is somehow 'can't understand a human having the position that they simply don't know whether or not a deity exists'.

I understand it, because despite the fact that you're not getting it, I hold that position. I do not know the truth value of the statement 'a god or god exists'. I also go beyond that, and say that with respect to deities as they are normally defined, it *cannot* be known because it *cannot* be proven.

When you understand that, maybe we can move forward.

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 21:06
Please, respond to this. Also, please describe how being of the position that a supernatural posit such as 'a god or god exists' cannot be known is somehow 'can't understand a human having the position that they simply don't know whether or not a deity exists'.

I understand it, because despite the fact that you're not getting it, I hold that position. I do not know the truth value of the statement 'a god or god exists'.

When you understand that, maybe we can move forward.

Considering those responses, I am at least considering the possibility that you are both closet agnostics.

I'm ready to move forward with you now.

void *
11-09-2010, 21:17
Considering those responses, I am at least considering the possibility that you are both closet agnostics.

I'm ready to move forward with you now.

Well, we've both said we are agnostic. There's no closeting about it. We don't know, and we can't know, and "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

So now that we're straight on that ->

Say somebody comes up to me, and says 'Do you accept the posit that a god or god exists?'.

I don't have the faith required to accept that posit. I can't honestly examine myself and say 'Yes, I accept the posit that a god or gods exist'.

I am not, by admitting that I cannot accept the posit 'a god or gods exist', automatically required to have faith in the opposite posit 'no god or gods exist'. If someone walks up to me and says 'Do you accept the posit no god or gods exist', I am perfectly free (and would) say 'No, because you are asserting something that is not provable'. (Edit: and yes, the *actual* truth values of those two posits are linked, in that if one is true, the other is false - The point here is that I view acceptance of a posit as whether or not I can say 'Yes, I think that posit is true')

Are you following?

Cavalry Doc
11-09-2010, 21:25
It's a little late, I'll search tomorrow to see if you have ever acted rudely in challenging members of other faiths.


Which would be odd for a fellow that admits that he does not know.



http://maniacworld.com/toss-a-coin.jpg

void *
11-09-2010, 21:36
It's a little late, I'll search tomorrow to see if you have ever acted rudely in challenging members of other faiths.

I try not to. But I'm human, and there have been cases of people who have faith being rude to me, and my responding in kind.

That's got nothing to do with whether someone is an atheist or a theist, though. That's a matter of being a human. I find it interesting that you're moving the goalpost from an explanation of why I say I'm atheist, and how that does not equate to a religion, to 'have you ever been rude'.

Has anyone not?

Lone Wolf8634
11-09-2010, 21:44
Calling atheism a religion is just a theist ploy to attempt to shift the burden of proof.

If accepted at face value (simply a rejection of the case for your deity) then it simply means that the theist argument isn't that convincing. But, if you try to portray atheism as some affirmative belief instead then that comes along with its own burden of proof. So they've effectively lowered the bar for themselves because you can't prove something does not exist, so even poor evidence is better than no evidence.

You missed it. The definition of "religion" is finite. It has limits. Atheism fits within those limits.

Evidently some atheists are unwilling to accept that.

I....... gotta get in this again.:supergrin:

Actually Mike has hit on what I was saying, In that, rejection of religion as a whole cannot be construed as a religion.

As Mike said... atheism isnt an affirmative position. Its a rejection of a supernatural being and all the trappings that go with it. And its not faith either. After all, no adult I know believes in the tooth fairy, santa clause or the easter bunny. And the analogy isnt trivial either.... because none of those require faith to disbelieve because they're to preposterous consider, its the same way, I at least, feel about an all powerful being who put us here to fight it out on our own.

Others may assign more importance to the subject, but I think a large number of atheists would agree.

RC-RAMIE
11-09-2010, 21:54
Does watching football the same day very week, describe a basic understanding of the universe?
n:

Atheism does not try to describe a basic understanding of the universe.

Lone Wolf8634
11-09-2010, 22:08
Atheism does not try to describe a basic understanding of the universe.

Correct.....Science does that.


Sooooo....is science a religion???

Schabesbert
11-09-2010, 22:19
Correct.....Science does that.


Sooooo....is science a religion???
No, but materialism is.
What you're calling science I highly suspect is really materialism.

mikeflys1
11-09-2010, 22:23
Yeah, I also noticed that you didn't describe yourself as an athestic agnostic.


Which predominates?

Neither. Both are descriptive of different things (as has been pointed out over and over already) and their sentence order is irrelevant.

void *
11-09-2010, 23:37
No, but materialism is.
What you're calling science I highly suspect is really materialism.

Science is underpinned by methodological naturalism, not materialism.

Cavalry Doc
11-10-2010, 09:27
Atheism does not try to describe a basic understanding of the universe.

Whether there are or are not deities is pretty basic as to how one sees the universe.

Chance vs. Design.

Lone Wolf8634
11-10-2010, 09:55
No, but materialism is.
What you're calling science I highly suspect is really materialism.

Again, why does there have to be a "ism" associated with it.

Cant I just dismiss religion without having something to replace it?

Is it so hard to believe that someone doesnt need to have it in their life?

Lone Wolf8634
11-10-2010, 09:58
Whether there are or are not deities is pretty basic as to how one sees the universe.

Chance vs. Design.

Not really.

The dismissal of deity's simply means we dont accept this version of events. It does not imply that we must accept any other set of events.

void *
11-10-2010, 14:33
Say somebody comes up to me, and says 'Do you accept the posit that a god or god exists?'.

I don't have the faith required to accept that posit. I can't honestly examine myself and say 'Yes, I accept the posit that a god or gods exist'.

I am not, by admitting that I cannot accept the posit 'a god or gods exist', automatically required to have faith in the opposite posit 'no god or gods exist'. If someone walks up to me and says 'Do you accept the posit no god or gods exist', I am perfectly free (and would) say 'No, because you are asserting something that is not provable'. (Edit: and yes, the *actual* truth values of those two posits are linked, in that if one is true, the other is false - The point here is that I view acceptance of a posit as whether or not I can say 'Yes, I think that posit is true')

Are you following?

Cavalry Doc - do you understand what is being stated here?

Schabesbert
11-10-2010, 15:26
Cavalry Doc - do you understand what is being stated here?
I'd like to hear what the Doc says, but it's my understanding that you're saying that you're not an atheist, but rather an agnostic.

mikeflys1
11-10-2010, 16:57
Christ...thats been explained a half dozen times already in this thread and you still screw it up.

void *
11-10-2010, 17:17
I'd like to hear what the Doc says, but it's my understanding that you're saying that you're not an atheist, but rather an agnostic.

I am both.

I hold the philosophical position that it cannot be known whether or not a god or gods exists. That's agnostic.

I do not accept the posit that a god or gods exists. That's atheist.

wrenrj1
11-10-2010, 18:37
I'm just glad we can have these discussions about religion or lack thereof as a choice. That's America. No disrespect to anyone, just a comment on the quality of respectful discussion of the issue.

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 05:37
Not really.

The dismissal of deity's simply means we dont accept this version of events. It does not imply that we must accept any other set of events.


OK, other than chance vs. design, what other options are there?

It seems to be pretty basic to any explanation on how we came to be.

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 05:57
Cavalry Doc - do you understand what is being stated here?

Yes, you are describing agnosticism. Atheism describes people that have already made the decision on what to believe.



athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity





Atheists, by definition, have made the leap and arrived at a belief that there are no deities.

You previously described the existence of agnostic and gnostic atheists. I think that concept is incorrect in which term should be the adjective.

An atheistic agnostic makes more sense.

from one side to the other, I would consider the scale as:

Theist
Theistic agnostic
Agnostic
Atheistic agnostic
Atheist


I know that's overly simplistic, but it's still valid.

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 05:59
Christ...thats been explained a half dozen times already in this thread and you still screw it up.

Oh, the irony. :rofl:

void *
11-11-2010, 08:44
Yes, you are describing agnosticism.

No, I cut the bit where I described agnosticism out of my quote of myself.

Atheism describes people that have already made the decision on what to believe.

If you're deciding, or trying to decide, or don't know what you believe, can you answer the statement 'Do you accept the posit that a god or gods exists' with 'Yes'?

If you have to say 'Maybe', you are not saying 'Yes'. That is an inability to accept 'a god or gods exist' as true

disbelief: the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


You do not have to decide to actively believe that there are no gods to be an atheist. You simply have to not believe that there are any. It's that simple. Those definitions are straight out of the dictionary, we've been over them multiple times. Like I've said before - the fact that you seem to be unable to accept that those definitions are valid does not change that they are valid and perfectly acceptable definitions.

void *
11-11-2010, 09:17
An atheistic agnostic makes more sense.

That's like saying 'I have brown hair and blue eyes' makes more sense than 'I have blue eyes and brown hair'.

Kegs
11-11-2010, 09:33
Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion

Um..because it ISN'T ?

Think about this for a minute...

Without anything, nothing ceases to exist.

If that makes no sense to you, go back and read it carefully and consider the various ways it can be comprehended.

It's fairly standard logic.

As is not believing in an imaginary being that rules everything.

Religion is essentially anti-logic.

The entire matter however, is a non-issue.

No wonder it's gone 10 pages on Glock talk!

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 12:51
Um..because it ISN'T ?

Think about this for a minute...

Without anything, nothing ceases to exist.

If that makes no sense to you, go back and read it carefully and consider the various ways it can be comprehended.

It's fairly standard logic.

As is not believing in an imaginary being that rules everything.

Religion is essentially anti-logic.

The entire matter however, is a non-issue.

No wonder it's gone 10 pages on Glock talk!





I've thought about your deep thought. If nothing were here, it would apply. But since we are here, we are not in a situation where we are "without anything". We are quite definitely with many things, including questions, like whether deities exist or not. Atheists believe there is no god, without proof. They have faith that they are correct. They recruit. It's as much a religious belief as any other.

RC-RAMIE
11-11-2010, 13:46
Atheists believe there is no god, without proof. They have faith that they are correct. They recruit. It's as much a religious belief as any other.


No they believe there is no god because there is no proof of a god. We have proof that based on our current knowledge there is no god. No faith needed.

void *
11-11-2010, 13:48
Atheists believe there is no god, without proof. They have faith that they are correct. They recruit. It's as much a religious belief as any other.

It is certainly true that some atheists 'recruit'. It is certainly true that some atheists actively believe that no god or gods exist. However, it is not a blanket statement that applies to all atheists.

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 14:00
No they believe there is no god because there is no proof of a god. We have proof that based on our current knowledge there is no god. No faith needed.

What you are describing is a hypothesis. To believe, one must know. To know, without proof, is faith.

void *
11-11-2010, 14:08
To know, without proof, is faith.

It is impossible to know without proof of some kind.

I don't even *know* that I'm actually typing right now - because my perception could be inaccurate. I have a fair amount of confidence that I am, because of the consistency of what I perceive - but there's always the possibility that all my perceptions are false.

Is that me having religious faith that I'm typing right now?

No, it's me conditionally accepting the posit that I am typing, both because that is what I perceive myself to actually be doing, and because if my perception is wrong, it cant' affect how I decide to interact with what I am perceiving much because it is *consistently* wrong. If I woke up in thirty seconds and found myself in some kind of apparatus that forces really vivid dreams, I would no longer conditionally accept the posit that I actually typed all this.

That's not faith, that's practicality.

RC-RAMIE
11-11-2010, 14:09
What you are describing is a hypothesis. To believe, one must know. To know, without proof, is faith.

I KNOW based on our CURRENT knowledge no proof of a god exist. NO FAITH

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 14:12
It is certainly true that some atheists 'recruit'. It is certainly true that some atheists actively believe that no god or gods exist. However, it is not a blanket statement that applies to all atheists.

I've posted the definition of Atheism many times in this thead. Atheists, by definition do not doubt that there is no god.

It's hard to have a conversation without being able to agree on the definition of common words. I'm using the dictionary definition, and your definition of atheism is different. :dunno:

How would you suggest we proceed. Am I supposed to use your definition, or you mine?

void *
11-11-2010, 14:17
I've posted the definition of Atheism many times in this thead. Atheists, by definition do not doubt that there is no god.

You've consistently ignored accepted definitions of atheism within this thread.

It's hard to have a conversation without being able to agree on the definition of common words. I'm using the dictionary definition, and your definition of atheism is different. :dunno:

As has been shown multiple times, the definition I am using is in multiple dictionaries. In fact, it is the *only* definition in one of them. How can you be claiming to be using "the" dictionary definition when the very dictionary you cite has more than one definition for the term?

How would you suggest we proceed. Am I supposed to use your definition, or you mine?

Given that I am trying to explain my position to you, and that the definition I am using is in fact in the dictionary and an acceptable definition, it would be reasonable for you to accept the definition I am using for the purposes of actually attempting to understand my position.

Given that you keep denying that it's even acceptable, despite my quoting and citing which dictionaries I pulled it from, I've been thinking that it's quite possible you don't actually *want* to have an understanding of my position.

void *
11-11-2010, 14:23
With that in mind, I will lay the definitions out again:

disbelief: the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Are you willing to have a discussion within the framework of these definitions?

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 16:44
I'm still of the opinion, as shared with MeriamWebster (and even your definitions above) that atheism us more than the belief that there is no proof that god exists, it is the belief that no god exists.

Watering it down to make it fit isn't really clearing anything up here.

My original question is still valid. If you want to say that you don't fit in the actual definition of atheist, then the question isn't really directed at you.

chilic82
11-11-2010, 18:13
I KNOW based on our CURRENT knowledge no proof of a god exist. NO FAITH

What evidence would you accept to prove a god exist?

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 18:19
I KNOW based on our CURRENT knowledge no proof of a god exist. NO FAITH

What evidence would you accept to prove a god exist?

Good one. :wavey:


I have another one. Atheism is not simply acknowledgment that there is a lack of proof that a deity exists...

Many theists will acknowledge there is no proof, and that they simply have faith that their deity exists.

It appears that at least one atheist will acknowledge that there is no proof, and that he has faith that no deity exists.

Further proof that atheism is a religion......? I think so.

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 18:35
It is impossible to know without proof of some kind.

I don't even *know* that I'm actually typing right now - because my perception could be inaccurate. I have a fair amount of confidence that I am, because of the consistency of what I perceive - but there's always the possibility that all my perceptions are false.

Is that me having religious faith that I'm typing right now?

No, it's me conditionally accepting the posit that I am typing, both because that is what I perceive myself to actually be doing, and because if my perception is wrong, it cant' affect how I decide to interact with what I am perceiving much because it is *consistently* wrong. If I woke up in thirty seconds and found myself in some kind of apparatus that forces really vivid dreams, I would no longer conditionally accept the posit that I actually typed all this.

That's not faith, that's practicality.

If I respond to the post you typed, will you have faith that you typed a message.


But seriously, if you aren't even sure you are having a conversation, that calls into question the opinions you are trying to defend. If you, and your perception of this conversation may not exist, you may not have standing, and a right to have an opinion and a position in the first place.

It would be helpful to at least acknowledge that we are having a conversation, and that the conversation includes several pages of text that both of us have written. If you can't follow along or keep up, please accept my sincere apologies for any offensive things I might have said above.

But if you are of at least average intelligence, and reasonably sure that you are both here, and having this conversation, then lets continue.....



An interesting question was recently raised. What sort of evidence would you require to change your mind, and believe that a deity exists?

void *
11-11-2010, 18:36
I'm still of the opinion, as shared with MeriamWebster (and even your definitions above) that atheism us more than the belief that there is no proof that god exists, it is the belief that no god exists.

The definition of atheism above is in Merriam-Webster, worded slightly differently.

It is definition 2a: a disbelief in the existence of deity

void *
11-11-2010, 18:40
If you, and your perception of this conversation may not exist, you may not have standing, and a right to have an opinion and a position in the first place.

Where did I say I might not exist?

I *know* I exist, I'm the entity that is doing my perceiving. I think, therefore, I am. I can't prove with absolute certainty that you exist.

The most I can do is conditionally accept the posit that you exist - in other words, I am *assuming* you exist up until the point at which I have some reason to think you don't. I do this not because such assumptions are automatically logically valid - but because it is consistent with what I'm perceiving. You *appear* to be an entity such as myself, that is percieving, and you *consistently* appear that way. So I accept the posit that you are - but if tomorrow, I wake up in a dream machine, I'll then have reason to no longer accept it.

Are you denying that, for instance, schizophrenics can hallucinate entire people that appear completely real to them? And, in fact, there are accounts of such people interacting with their hallucinations, never knowing that they weren't real people, right up until someone else pointed out that they couldn't see them?

Are you denying that it's possible that you are a brain in a vat and all of your perception is false?

To make the point strike home: Please prove, in the mathematical sense, to me, that you are actually a thinking, sentient being, and not just some sufficiently complex replica of such. You yourself - if you actually are - know that you are - but you can't prove it to anybody else. The most you can do is get them to accept it as true.

Which, in fact, I do - and people do that all the time, it is in fact an entirely normal posit to accept. This does not change that there is the possibility that you are not.

Cavalry Doc
11-11-2010, 18:43
The definition of atheism above is in Merriam-Webster, worded slightly differently.

It is definition 2a: a disbelief in the existence of deity



Right. Disbelief = lack of belief. Hence, the statement that an atheist does not believe a deity exist, is true.

I know many devout christians that will admit that they have no proof that God, or a God exists.


Denial is unhealthy.



If you have strong doubts in the existence of a deity, and admit that you have no proof, but are between 51% and 99% sure that no deity exists, that makes you an atheistic agnostic.

Atheists believe that no deity exists.
Atheists do not believe that a deity exists.

You can't slide a **** hair in between the two sentences above. It's only the difference between active and passive speech.