Why can't Atheists just admit that they have taken a step of faith?
Because atheism is a religious construct, and simply not believing in a ridiculous myth requires no other belief, just some common sense.
Not believing a tall story is easy if one is not indoctrinated and remains rational.
You believe there is no God based on your faith in rationalism. Yes, you have reasons for why you don't believe in God, but you are still believing in them. Your philosophical or belief system is only theoretical; thus, it is a faith step.
I believe there is no god because the god story is no more believable than the three bears.
No other philosophical position is required to not believe myths, just the capacity to tell myth from reality..
You are trusting in your evidence for the non-existence of God. You have taken a step of faith! You cannot prove to the nth degree of certitude there is no God. You just believe it.
I can't prove there are no goblins under my bed either.
(I can't prove there are no goblins under my bed either)
Sure, you can. Just turn on the light and look under your bed. You just proved to yourself there was nothing physical under your bed. What you cannot prove is that the instant you look away, a goblin will materialize out of nothing - goblin ex nihilo - an immaterial spirit goblin who is all powerful, all knowing, and one who gets an Allstate safe driver discount.
That is a fine example of what I just explained in that your mindset is one of belief and faith and not of thinking and understanding. Others don't believe, they "understand" gods are not required in reality for reality to exist.
Again, if you were able to think and understand rather than just believe, you yourself would "understand" and wouldn't need to ask those questions or come up with those explanations.
Let me get this straight. You are just thinking and understanding and not believing in what you think and understand? Do you act on your thoughts or understandings? Earth calling Beelzedad.
(You believe there is no God based on your faith in rationalism)
You miss the point. The theist hypothesizes that there is a god.
What atheism rejects is not god but the hypothesis. This rejection of your hypothesis requires no faith. The rejection is due your lack of facts that substantiate your claim.
If you could validate your claims, there would be no atheists. Therefore, atheism is simply a result of your failure to provide facts to back your god hypothesis.
I think it is important to first agree on what "atheist" means.
Most theists claim it is the belief that there is no god while most people who are not theists claim it is simply the lack of belief in a god.
If you are going to take the stance that atheism is the belief that there is no god, then yes, it does require faith and it is a stance that no rational person should ever take.
Most people who are not theists dont however, claim that there is no god. They simply state that there is no reason to believe in a god, as do I and that requires zero faith.
This semantic thing is so funny. YOU ARE BELIEVING IN YOUR NON REASONS TO SUPPORT YOUR NON THEISM (ATHEISM). It's okay. Your philosophical belief system is non-belief.
What's your belief system that results in you not believing in a giant pink Ipod with 6 legs living on jupiter?
By your involvement in this forum shows that your non-belief in God holds much more weight than not believing in a giant pink Ipod.
Well, since you asked, we KNOW that Ipods, Jupiter, and legs exist and that pink exists as a colour..........
BUT, if you are talking probabilities ("holds more weight" implies weighing things up), then you discount belief since belief does not leave room for doubt so whichever holds the most weight is irrelevant.
You just showed that you dont see my non belief as a belief system and I thank you for your honesty in publicly negating your original assertion of atheism requiring faith.
What is so humerous about your position is that it is you who uses semantics to defend his faith.
No one can determine with complete certainty any knowledge - knowledge itself is a belief about what is valid, and that belief is based on intuitive understandings of reasonableness. In this claim you are accurate.
Therefore, the baseline postion, the starting point is that no one can know for certainty that there is a god and no one can know for certainty there is not a god; however, to then make a comparison that these choices are equivalents is ludicrous as it is based on a false semantic argument that equal ignorance validates the equality of suppositions based off that ignorance. In other words, it ignores what has been found to be factual in the natural world, as far as we can understand what factual is, and replaces it with an assertion that magical explanations are equally valid. Magical explanations are what led ancients to believe thunder was caused by Thor's hammer - hardly an equivalent belief to the explanation of a collisison of air molecules.
What you are claiming is that it is equally reasonable to assert that matter (the earth) can be formed out of complete nothing (space) rather than try to understand that pre-existing matter combined to forn the object earth. And you want us to believe your magical explanation rather than the actual data we possess of observing meteors crash into the earth and become an added part of the earth - and then you want to call both ideas equal because we cannot rule out either with absolute certainty.
Well, sorry. The rational and reasonable among us didn't buy Uri Geller's claims that he could bend spoons with his mind, either, and then James Randi showed us all how the trick was done. In like fashion, James "Reason" during the Age of Enlightenment pulled the curtain back on the Oz of the Dark Ages and exposed magical beliefs to be nothing but superstitions of frightened, timid humanoid apes.
I'm not defending anything in this forum. I am just saying that Atheism is a step of faith. To believe that pre-existing matter just popped out of no where and that random meteors created order is a huge leap of faith. I'm cool with just honestly saying I have faith in my beliefs. Nothing created something, potentiality produced actuality, matter produced mind. This is what you believe. Atheism is just a theory like all belief systems.
Atheism does not require you to believe anything. You claiming "this is what you believe" is a total lie made up by yourself. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It is not the belief in anything else.
(I'm not defending anything in this forum. I am just saying that Atheism is a step of faith)
Of course you are defending your faith, and you are lying to yourself to claim otherwise. Your defense is that atheism is an equally implausible belief to theism, therefore you are no sillier than an atheist to believe what you do.
This forum question isn't about atheism - it is about what you believe.
It is the same deceptive trick The Discovery Institute tries to sell by making the ludicrous claim that science is a belief just like creationism is a belief and therefore both should be allowed in the classroom, all because there can be no absolute knowledge so all ideas are equally viable.
Disputing reasoned arguments based solely on your belief that because nothing can be known with absolute certainty means that all explanations are equally viable is simply dogmatism unleashed.
You and your dogmatism are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes, I am a Theist. Yes, my goal is to make the point that all of us are arguing our belief systems based on faith and nothing else. Yes, we have our evidence, but ultimately we all walk over the unknown by faith. For you or anyone to deny this, makes one a liar. I don't care how you word your argument, in the end we all believe in something. We all walk by faith.
Well then you worded your title wrong because while people have beliefs, atheism is not a belief and therefore requires no faith just like not skiing requires no skill.
They don't believe in GOD. They believe in science or fred flintstone. They do have beliefs...just not in GOD. They have faith in scientific method. They have faith in Newton (who believed in God) Darwin, Einstein. They ski, just on a different slope.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It does not require the belief in ANYTHING. Not in science, not in darwin, not in dawkins, and not in fred flintstone.
This is getting tiresome now.
Yes, and they appear to use their brains for different purposes, too, not just for the acceptance or denial of belief.
(They don't believe in GOD.) Correct.
(They believe in science or fred flintstone.) Correct.
(They do have beliefs...just not in GOD.) Correct.
(They have faith in scientific method.) False. We have a degree of trust (i.e., we believe) in the scientific method because it has been shown to be reasonable to have that trust. We do not think the scientific method infallible, though, (i.e., we do not have faith in the scientific method as perfect).
(They have faith in Newton (who believed in God) Darwin, Einstein.) False. We believe that Newton, Darwin, and Einstein lived. We also believe that each of them is now dead. We see that their ideas are still in use, though.
(They ski, just on a different slope.) False. We don't ski. We bobsled.
You can't claim you have any evidence if you claim you're arguing for a belief system "based on faith and nothing else."
If you had any evidence, you wouldn't require faith to believe.
That is not true at all, and by denying it does not make one a liar. We do not all walk by faith or believe in something in the same regard as you have faith and believe in your god.
(Yes, I am a Theist) That was obvious.
(Yes, my goal is to make the point that all of us are arguing our belief systems based on faith and nothing else.) No, your goal is to make it appear that there is equality between faith and non-belief because neither is provable. This idea discounts the value of inductive reasoning as a basis for establishing beliefs. Having a reason and having a good reason are not the same thing.
(Yes, we have our evidence, but ultimately we all walk over the unknown by faith.) This is completely false. Faith is acceptance without evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. Non-belief is a rejection of a faith-based idea.
(For you or anyone to deny this, makes one a liar. I don't care how you word your argument, in the end we all believe in something. We all walk by faith.)
I submit you do not understand the difference between faith and belief, then. All of knowledge is based on belief - even direct knowledge requires we believe our senses accurate. Faith, though, is not knowledge - it is based on a hope, rather than a belief, that what one believes is right.
Because for someone to be termed "atheist", someone else has to have first invented god.
Presumably you yourself take a leap of faith everytime you dismiss the existence of unicorns, the tooth fairy, bigfoot?
For the record, I don't like the term atheist. I'm equally aunicornist.
There is a lot more evidence for the existence of God than a unicorn, tooth fairy, or bigfoot.
What evidence do you have for God? Other than faith in him, belief in his existence and Biblical text? It's one thing to want to believe. It's another thing entirely to claim proof.
The argument from design, first causes, and, of course, my own personal testimony from experiencing God. The constants in the universe and the physical earth are also so exact that it could not come from some random act in space. A designer was behind it. Many physicists are coming to this conclusion as they study the expansion of the universe and the fact that we are running out of energy. Actually, some of them are ticked off that they cannot find any credible answers other than that a Creator formed and started all these things.
The promise of joy and peace have come true in my personal life as I have turned to Jesus by prayer. Call me crazy, deluded, or whatever. I could care less (I am not saying you would do this). My sadness has been replaced by joy. I made this decision 27 years ago and I have not looked back.
The forum has been an interesting place. It can get a little testy, but the blessing of hearing people's view points has been very interesting.
I agree. These forums are interesting.
I see a unity of form. There is beauty to the patterns repeated again and again.
I don't doubt that some scientists may become frustrated. Every answer brings a thousand questions. But that isn't proof of God.
I don't want to argue. You seem a good egg. I just recently stepped away from Christianity. I can assure you, I've heard all of the arguments. Made a few myself. But belief in those teachings cannot be resolved to reality. There are too many holes in the dam.
(There is a lot more evidence for the existence of God than a unicorn, tooth fairy, or bigfoot.)
God? You mean Allah? Thor? Jupiter?
Or are you atheist in regards to Allah, Thor and Jupiter? If so, why?
I do agree that it takes more faith to believe that there isn't a God than it is to believe that there is a God!
No, it is not at all. Believing in God's existence or non-existence, is completely separate from faith. Faith in God requires putting your belief that He exists in action, through trust. You can believe that God is able to do something, without having the faith to trust Him to do it.
Faith is the substance for things unseen. To trust in God says that you believe in his existence. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
They that come to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligent seek Him. But as it has been mentioned it is impossible to please God without faith.
How is he a rewarder of those that deligently seek him, while I have seen those that seek him suffer?
Mathew 7:7 says, ask and it shall be given unto you. Who are you really asking your God or Jesus?
You can not see God. It takes a lot of effort to have faith in something or someone you can not see? How do you think God was created and what do you say about evolution?
Allah, Thor and Jupiter have not proven themselves to exist. They haven't created anything. They cannot walk, talk or hear.
(Allah, Thor and Jupiter have not proven themselves to exist. They haven't created anything. They cannot walk, talk or hear.)
Let me totally refute your argument in like manner:
P1: Yes, they have.
P2: Sure, they did.
P3: Wanna bet?
Therefore, my assertions are valid. (from P1, 2, 3)
(There is a lot more evidence for the existence of God than ...bigfoot.)
Wow. You mean someone has plaster cast images of footprints left by god? There is 16mm film taken by horseback of god walking by a stream in the forest? There are sound recordings of god screams?
Of course, none of this Bigfoot-like evidence is proof of anything more than attempts at fraud - kind of like Benny Hinn and the healing ministry is proof of the power of exploitation of desperation.
The faith of th atheist is same as the religious.
They are both based on ignorance.....neither knows Truth or God.
How will ignorance see any and all things that are separate and apart from its ownself?
Will it's declarations cause a change itself...
What is it's perception of it's ownself...?
Is it this perception True or False?
What does it need to do in order to see?
That is because believers are unable to step beyond the boundaries of belief to that of thinking and understanding, hence everything they know about anything or anyone is based on belief and faith.
I wouldn't call C.S. Lewis, Augustine, Isaac Newton, J.R. Tolkien non-thinking or ignorant. Could it be that the Atheist is ignoring the evidence and not moving beyond their belief system?
Minstrel, what you are missing here is that you are the only one bringing faith to the table. Before the idea of God came to be, the world was not a population of self called atheists. Atheism is the natural order of things. God is an idea created by man, and rejected by some who were referred to as atheists to the theists.
I consider myself to be an Atheist but only because I don't believe that any religion really has it all the way right. I've probably been to church 5 times in my life, and I can assure you that I am very moral, kind, loving, passionate, and I would never harm another person in the name of any God.
I think the message is lost in translation honestly. God is the totality of everything in the cosmos. We are the cosmos (god's) way of experiencing itself. We came from the same stuff that everything is made up of, so that is why we are all connected. There is only what is and we are all a part of that...call it nature.
The only time you can experience the object of your faith is when you are in a state of delusion. The only other people who get similar results are delusional as well.
Don't compare this to one's acceptance of reality.
How utterly desperate!
What I find to be deperate are those who feel the need to belittle others for a question that, when looked at objectively; is a fair one.
You are, perhaps, referencing this definition for faith.
belief and trust in and loyalty to God
Because you do not appear to be able to view the question asked in an unemotional manner, you can't see past this one definition of the word.
If you consider the fact that the OP might define faith in this way:
something that is believed especially with strong conviction
You see that it is not an attempt to imply that you are doing anything but being firmly convinced of your opinion.
And before you get upset about the use of the word belief; bear in mind there are multiple definitions.
I don't understand your question.
Is English your native language?
Because a lack of faith and faith are not the same thing. Atheists do not have faith that there is no God they are merely unconvinced that there IS one.
Atheists hide behind semantics. You believe in Atheism!!! You believe in no God!!! You believe in a closed universe where the physical world is all there is!!!!
I actually wrote a hub on this called "Does Atheism Require as Much Faith as Theism?" I brought up the fact that if you claim that rejecting a nonprovable belief requires as much faith as accepting a nonprovable belief, then you have to apply that standard to everything. I brought up the Heavens Gate cult whose members committed mass suicide because they believed that a spaceship traveling behind the Hale-Bopp comet would take their souls to Heaven. Do you believe that not believing in the spaceship requires the same level of faith as believing in it? Does believing in Scientology's galactic overlord Xenu require as much faith as not believing in him?
Many theists think that God belief should be held to a different standard than the spaceship or Xenu based on the popularity of God belief. But if you look at ancient times, a lot of ideas were popular that no one in modern times accepts. Human sacrifice was common in much of the world because people believed that it appeased the gods. Did the popularity of this belief make it true?
Many theists make the equivalence claim when it suits them and reject it when it suits them. If you ask a Christian if rejecting Islam takes as much faith as accepting Islam, most insist there is no equivalence. But when it comes to their own personal beliefs they want to apply the equivalency standard.
It is a step of courage and conviction from the basis of Philosophical thought and common sense. No faith is a decision, a life change not a leap of faith.
Believeing in Religious Doctrine by re-enforced behavior is also "NOT" a leap of faith but a Product of brainwashing, and forced behavior modifications to justify the teaching. Nothing more.
Freedom in the mind is courage.
I'm not quite sure how you reach your conclusion on your doctrinal beliefs?
by being indoctrinated like that from a child and having the courage to step away from the repeated brainwashing and clear my head.
Nothing about Religions follow God, They follow sects of belief changed for like minded people to stand and approve of but they are not God's.
There is a very big difference between church the people and Jesus Christ. How we have evolved to the mess we have from what is actually written is Nuts. And, the Churches can not escape the O.T. and the Contradictions to the N.T. They do not line up so well when you really study them. And they can not explain it clearly and abandon any logic to do it.
Standard Sunday School rap is: The bible is not a Litteral word, it is not understood by inteligence?????? What the.....
The only way to stay with a story like that is to be brainwashed into beliving it is all truth...it is not when you really study it
You can drive Trucks through it, as you can see by the loose arguments in the Threads in the forum as well as other gatherings where legit people ask real questions and get noting by attacks, because some-one is actualy questioning thier brainwashed convictions and they have no defense and get insulted.
I do not know what or who is really in charge, it appears with the complexity of order of the planets and universe and the make up of humans biologicaly that something may be possible, but after many years of studying this now,?
it is not a God like the Chrches have pegged, or so called figured out.
If I wanted to feel that constantly guilty, I'd go live with my Mother!
Free up and heal
I believe in the God of Abraham..
And I agree with most of what you said above.
I believe that the prophesy as written in the Old Testament is true and has been fulfilled.
I also believe that the New Testament concerning those prophesy are true and have been fulfilled.
The problem with the churches today is that ,,,,, for the last 1650 years ... they have been INTERPRETING away the truth that is written.
When we carefully read that which is written, it is easy to see that the church is not teaching prophesy to mean what it clearly says.
If I believe Jesus ????? (And I do ) ...Why would I change the meaning of his clearly spoken message.
It is also written in scripture that the masses will do this.
This is what John (in 96 AD) is talking about when he wrote Rev. 13.
And almost 240 years later this prophesy began its fulfilment.
Here we are today ( a time times and half a time later ) ...
the last acts of prophesy is on the verge of being fulfilled.
The seventh trumpet is about to be sounded simultaniously with the seventh bowl being poured out.
The prophesy of scripture ... when NOT interpreted spells it out quite clearly.
I don't know WHY!
Here is where their faith is demonstrated though!
Atheist statement of FAITH, in visual form!
Why do you always insist in forging artificial and false facts to trumpet your pet dogma?
This progression you present is not linear - all the primates should branch off from an earlier species and the chimps, orangutans, and gorillas that your picture depicts as extinct, replaced by man, should be part of the picture alongside man.
You can't even tell a convincing lie - speaking of which, how is that Italian angel Moroni doing these days - still trying to become godfather?
Simply because they adhere to a theological anti-premise, from years of theistic riddle. For them to concur they have actually taken a 'step of faith' would nullify the non-theological existence/non-existence of Creator and they as Creator-reflected.
As long as either a believer or disbeliever expresses acute dismissive behavior, they remain true to their roots -theism. Because "tunnel vision" dismissive is exactly what both sides of the Ism do. They see only what they want, dismiss and apply only what they want --regardless of what is right there in front of them, or visible now, having begun one million "light years" ago, yet still warms their faces.
They can argue and spew about "truth this or that", "myth this or that" or "ridiculous this or that", but at the end of the day, like it or not, are still limited by those parameters (rules; laws; limitation; death; etc). Faith has no parameters, no boundaries, no restrictions, no acceptance or dismissal. It simply is without need. One "the step" is fully taken, faith swallows up all necessity to believe or disbelieve.
As for directly pointing to atheists: Atheists are the side effect 'left wing' of a fail(ed; ing) Humanism. As a result they have become Determinist, independent of course, less they organize by most standards, and be deemed a branch of theology. note they still carry the bitterness and post-theological argument. Rather than leaning to Altruist, and following through of their claim of 'humanity is benefited without the belief in a G/god concept', have chosen quite emphatically to disbelieve by the same measures of static belief systems.
The philosophical & the Altruist see no 'reason' to apply belief or disbelief. It is argued Philo's are "in the middle of the road" -not hot or cold- when in reality, are just that- Realistic. What is presented in all of creation is perfect. Therefore the human also perfect. By applying either a belief or disbelief, one becomes limited to either or, or both. Any limitation is in contrast to the natural human being].
Yes ... Provided, the Step taken, is in the Right Direction.
Erm, because it's not?
This argument is a great way to show your own ignorance.
Living is a step of faith. It's called having faith in oneself to discern truth. Now, since you are pushing religious faith. That is not faith in oneself to discern truth. That is convincing oneself that what some book has said is actually true/truth.
No one specific book would give truth and anyone who claims it does, apparently hasn't bother to actually understand their life.
Life doesn't require any knowledge of any god to be understood.
Life doesn't require any knowledge of any god to be lived.
Therefore, no god required.
As for discerning truth- Truth is Truth. It can be seen when recognized and it always gets revealed.
I agree, to an extent. It is faith in your own judgement. I realize you will automatically come back with the argument one must trust in God. The way I have always seen it is, whatever the answer to that question; we have a brain. We have a right to use it, if we choose to. If there is a God who made us, he wouldn't begrudge it. If he did, then I would have no use for him anyway.
If God is good, and God is love; he would certainly be able to see the confusion any intelligent person has on the topic of religion and would expect them to share the questions they had, so those not willing to take the time to think about it might benefit.
I understand what motivates your question. It's natural to worry about your fellow man. I'm pretty sure the atheists worry about what you have faith in too.
I agree, faith in God or any philosophical belief system is a personal choice. No one can force anyone to believe in anything. The issue then becomes what informational cliff do I feel the most secure to jump off from?
I'm not a fan of the idea of jumping off of a cliff. Something concrete under my feet feels more comfortable. With the scenario you present, I suppose I'd be a bungee jumper. Try to have something of substance tied to my ankle anytime I look at any spiritual philosophy. I think atheism might be that cord.
Okay, you are placing your trust in the bungee cord of Atheism. That's fine. It's your choice. The others in this forum call it a form of enlightened understanding that they possess rather than trust or belief. Whatever. if I cannot dissect it in some lab or break it down by some mathematical formula, then it is just theoretical and a level of faith is required.
Actually, I was just following your argument. I don't have trust in anything other than my ability to see the sense of things. I don't accept, or deny, the existence of something on a level of consciousness we cannot understand. I simply accept the fact that religions are attempting to define something which they have no concrete proof of, and have no trust worthy sources to turn to.
If reliable information were to present itself I'd be vey curious to review it.
Fair enough. The argument from design and first causes are pretty strong for the existence of a creator. Yet, it is still a step of faith. This, however, doesn't prove that Jesus was the Son of God.
This set of proofs needs to be experienced by testing his promises made in the Bible.
(I think atheism might be that cord.)
Naw, atheism is when you finally figure out just how stupid it is to jump in the first place.
Morning JC. I guess it ultimately boils down to a matter of semantics; could the non-belief in alien visitation be described as a leap of faith too, or the existence of the tooth fairy?
Morning to you wags.
You are definitely right. It is semantics. When you put it that way, there is no faith involved in atheism.
Really? The Atheist is basing their decision on a theory or theories! They, or you, cannot prove your philosophical system to the nth degree of certitude. I cannot either. There is a chasm that needs to be crossed by faith. I just think the Theist has a lot more evidence to back up his or her step of faith.
No evidence is not a lot. All you have as "evidence" is a bronze aged myth that makes the claim for itself.
The evidence from design and first causes carries tremendous weight. If you believe that the intricacy of the eye or hand or the constants in our physical world came from some random act in space, then you are believing in this theory by faith. You are in essence saying, "I believe it and that's that. Isn't this a form of circular logic on your part."
The argument from design and first cause are not evidence but logic arguments - both soundly refuted - but I grant you that refutation and arguments all are open to opinion about who won.
Such is the nature of logic and debate.
However, if you could please produce a one-pound piece of "first cause" so we could examine it, weigh it, measure it, and test it, then we just might accept the evidence.
Otherwise, your "first cause" is as ephemeral as "energy" - something that supposedly does a lot but try to buy it by the pound at WalMart or the grocery story and you'll go nuts in the attempt
I respectfully disagree. The scientist discovers truths that can be repeated and affirmed. The truths that the theist embraces can never be repeated or affirmed. They must be taken on faith.
Where the bedrock of science is experimentation with controls that make them repeatable and verifiable, nothing of the kind directs the belief of the theist.
This does not make one ultimate truth and the other not, but to equate them is simply dishonest or ignorant of how they differ.
The Theist has a book to back up his beliefs, everything else is unsubstantiated hearsay. The atheist has the same book to support his lack of belief, supported by the logic and reason of the world around him.
A Theist believes that 2 + 2 = God.
An Atheist believes that 2 + 2 = 4.
I'm an atheist. I love believing in nothing. It's great.
Have you ever heard of a ratchet jaw? Similar to chatter. OMG One day soon every knee will Bow and KNOW HE is LORD. Never say no one told you. May God intervene on your heart so you can see the Light. There is hope until there is none. Maybe one day you will take off the Blinders. In Christ. I pray you do.
And pigs might fly!
How massively condescending of you!
I would bare my *ss not bend my knee to the psychotic invisible no show pretend entity if it were true.
The bible has enough hate in it to sink itself, which it has been doing for some time now.
There are only so many times that one can deny the stupidity of religious threats before they are seen as the psychotic fear inducing rhubarb that they are.
well, if god is omnipresent like theists claim, god will already have seen your *ss!
Not only that, but if Paraglider is right (which he almost always is,) then god is my *ss!
God is onmipresent and he does see everything and everybody therefore we should be mindful what we say and do!
and what is your definition of omnipresent?
Who is the designer and creator of the universe? Is it man or is it someone with supreme power that's higher than mankind?
I'll ask again, what is your definition of omnipotence?
I understood it to mean everywhere at the same time. So not only in your *ss, but also in the devil
(he does see everything and everybody therefore we should be mindful what we say and do!)
It only makes sense that someone named after a children's breakfast cereal would also believe that.....
you better watch out,
you better not cry,
you better not pout,
I'm telling you why,
omnipresent's coming in town"
"He knows if you are sleeping,
He knows if you're awake,
He knows if you've been bad of good,
so be good, for goodness sake."
used for passive-aggressive parenting - 'god is always watching you, so better not do something naughty'
I can say that because God is not like you nor I because He's a spirit therefore He can be everywhere at the same time unlike you and I who are bound by the now! We are trapped in the third dimention of time therefore we can't move time back or move time forward, we can only live in the now. God then is in eternity which is outside of time therefore making him limitless or bound to time. God cannot be bound to the laws of phycsis such as we are. God is present in the universe, not by compulsion or obligation, but by the free act of His will. He is the creator of space and therefore, not subject to it! "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heavens of heavens cannot contain thee." I Kings 8:27
applejack explains the mysteries of Santa to a Santatheist
Doubter: How can Santa know if everyone in the world has been bad or good so he will then know which to leave, a nice gift or a lump of coal in their stocking?
applejack: (I can say that because (Santa) is not like you nor I because He's a spirit therefore He can be everywhere at the same time unlike you and I who are bound by the now!)
Doubter: O.K. But how can Santa deliver presents to everyone in the whole world in just one single night - there just isn't enough time for all that?
applejack: (We are trapped in the third dimention of time therefore we can't move time back or move time forward, we can only live in the now. (Santa) then is in eternity which is outside of time therefore making him limitless or bound to time.)
Doubter: O.K, even saying all that is true, how can he go down chimneys when not everyone lives in a house with a chimney? What about houses without chimneys? What about apartments and condos and tents? How does Santa get inside there?
applejack: ((Santa) cannot be bound to the laws of phycsis such as we are. (Santa) is present in the universe, not by compulsion or obligation, but by the free act of His will. He is the creator of space and therefore, not subject to it!)
Twas the Night Before Christmas, Chapter 2, verses 3-12
Wow - and I always thought Santa was a legend.
well, god is in your *ss if god is everywhere
(And pigs might fly!)
Is this Pascal's Wager applied to Francis Bacon?
(One day soon every knee will Bow and KNOW HE is LORD.)
Yes, and he will do this before this generation passes away, and some here will not taste death before he comes in glory.
Damn! That was a First Century claim! And it's now what? The 21st?
Why do I read this "stuff?"
I sit and read and am astounded at the profound depth of ignorance being exhibited by responders!
The primitively based proclamations, referring to the existence of that which humans can only imagine, are disgustingly ludicrous!
They, to my way of thinking, portray extant man as the intellectual infant he is proving himself to be!
If it wasn't so damned pitiful and sickening, it would be funny.
My pessimism grows stronger every day I live as my awareness of human assininity negatively effects the lives of every living entity on our planet!
We could be oh so wonderful, if only we would!
Tsk, tsk, tsk!!!
And not so far into the future .... You/WE will be looking at the things we believe today ... as oolishness.
That is a whirlpool that humanity is caught up in ... and will be as long as we survive in this plane.
And on the other hand, todays foolishness is tomorrows NEW Truth .. or so we will believe. And so on and so on and that is the way that we go..
"We shall reap what we sow"
Trite but oh so true!
(My pessimism grows stronger every day)
This will really depress you, then. Imagine this - the U.S. is the greatest military force the world has ever known - and 53% of us believe that man was made out of a handful of dirt and the devine breath of an invisible god in a garden that contained a talking snake.
We believe this so strongly that we go to war against the peoples of nations who believe that their prophet flew to heaven and back on the back of a winged creature that looked something like a mule, and who so strongly believe their flying mule trumps a talking snake that they are willing to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up themselves and anyone unfortunate enough to be in their vicinity when they do just to prove their point.
The Founding Fathers screwed the pooch - it shouldn't have been freedom of religion but freedom FROM religion.
That puts a very scary face on the world politic! Unfortunately it is true.
sigh, religionists just don't get it. Their entire world view is based on non-provable, allegorical stories from primitive man that they call faith and because they can form some belief system with no evidence, they think everyone else does too.
Agnostics and atheists don't cling to any one view of the world. They lean toward where there the evidence lies. I don't worship the big bang or evolution blindly, but I have to say there is evidence there, some empirical, some observational and that leads me to believe there is something there.
But with religion, hundreds of years pass with nothing, no proof, no advancement, nothing but some words in a book and a persons "personal"' connection with god or sunsets or whatever.
Can't you see these approaches to living are diametrically opposed to each other?
I would love there to be some higher power up there that promises eternal life and such but there is just no evidence of it and just because scientists haven't cracked the code of the universe does not automatically equal a creator, it just means more work is needed.
Please quote from Quran in this connection. Quran is the first and foremost source of guidance for Muslims, whatever the denomination.
(Sahih al-Bukhari (Arabic: صحيح البخاري), as it is commonly referred to, is one of the six canonical hadith collections of Sunni Islam. These prophetic traditions, or hadith, were collected by the Persian Muslim scholar Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari, after being transmitted orally for generations)
Are you claiming al-Buraq (the flying mule) as described in this hadith is not part of Islamic beliefs?
Hadith is collected 250/350 years after Muhammad's death.
Actually it was freedom from and of religion that the founding fathers established. We were not established under any religion, as opposed to what GW may have you believe...
Again, you don't get it. Nobody hates anything, we just have a burden of proof and legitimate doubts to be overcome to accept such an idea and religion never puts anything credible forward so we have stalemate.
Put forth some real evidence of your point of view and every atheist and agnostic will be glad to hear it out, but don't put up superstition and scribbling from 2000 years ago - thats not proof.
So you are saying eyewitness accounts mean nothing? Just because soemthing is old does not mean it is useless or worthless.
I also see how athesists use propoganda. Using terms like Sky Faries, Sky Daddy, Superstitions, etc. . . is a form of propoganda and nothing more. Thopse terms have no place in a real debate and are used to ridicule.
If you have something intelligent to say, then say it.
What eyewitness accounts? there haven't been any in 2,000 years!!
People back then also believed in a thunder god, witches and sea serpents so are you are throwing your proof in with that?
The earths populations is going to be maxing out at around 10 billion people in about 50 years. Don't you think that would have been a better time for god to reveal himself so as to have maximum impact rather than 2,000 years ago?
He reveals Himself on a daily basis.
A lot of what else you posted is still propoganda. Using terms that are easily dismissed as nonsense making everyhting else seem nonsense.
Eyewitness accounts should attest to fact, right? Should they be believed over top of anything we can prove or see today?
So glad you asked for proof! Well let's start with science. The question has always been how did mankind and the universe get here? As you know, that there are numerous theories in our soceity today that give us something to espouse too. The bible say's in Romans 1:19 & 20 "Because that which may be known of God is evident among them; For God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divine nature; so that they are without excuse." We can argue the logical existence of God all day but seeing as though you asked for factual evidence, I'll attempt to honor your request.Would you agree that everything that currently exists had to have a beginning? Mankind didn't just evolve did we? It takes a woman to give birth to a child therefore a woman had to come from some other source than herself!! Some would believe that mankind evolved from an ape or some type of animal. God being the most intelligent supreme being known to man, would not have said in the bible "let us make man in our image and after our likeness" if he wanted us to be fashioned after an ape of somekind! So than when God said in Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth He begin the world as we know it to be today! I've been taught the" BIG BANG THEORY" and I agree that there was a Bang but the Bang came from when God said let there be light and there was light that's when the bang took place. Allow me to submit to you a quote from Thomas Aquinas from the book "The Philosophy Of Religion Reader" edited by Chad Meister published 2008. In this book, Aquinas mentioned five ways to prove the very existence of God. Though I'm only going to give you the second way he proves his theory. He say's, "the second way is from the notion of efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that cause it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity,there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes, all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God." Science is an act by which to discover and defind. One of the names of God is Omniscience which mean he's all knowing. The knowledge of God is far beyond mankind's comprehension. Not only does God know our beginning but he also knows our future. " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isa. 55:8-9
I'll give you another quote from William Evans " All the evidence points to the conclusive fact that this universal faith in the existence of God is innate in man, and comes from rational intuition."
Ok...I see alot of words...but I see no proof...you stated "let's start with science" and the first thing you did is quote the bible...If you are going to show proof to someone who doesn't believe the bible as factual, you have to use what they do consider factual...
You believe the bible... I can use it within its proper context to prove you are not a god obedient christian as you so claim...But of course your defense will be that I, someone with formal biblical studies, do not understand the meanings... because it would not agree with your previous indoctrinations. So it is a moot point...
Bottom line...use evidence that the opposite party agrees with to prove a point
Of course evidence is relative to ones own belief and understanding. Science hasn't dissproved that God exist! Though you believe that he doesn't exist which is odd because that would mean you do believe he does! Science prove that whatever begins to exist has a cause and the universe begin to exist therefore, the universe has a cause.
LOL...I never said if god existed or not.. you are assuming facts not spoken by me.
I agree that science hasn't proven that god exists or doesn't (last I checked, science wasn't attempting either)
I said, use proof that the opposite party views as factual to prove your facts to them...
And I said, that I could use your proof...The Bible...to prove that you are not the god obedient christian that you claim to be...
And I can assume from the way you write and the wording that you use, That you are a white male in his mid to late 20's...Just because I assume that doesn't make it true...
But, I can tell you when you will know the truth, with no doubts or arguements, when you die...Until that time, I am choosing to actually live my life free of guilt or displeasures.
No, it is not. It matters not in the least what you believe and what you understand, the evidence always stands on it's own.
everyone has a different name for it.
No worries Mate.
Atheism is still a step of faith. It's amazing what can transpire from a simple, but true statement. I'm cool with freedom of choice. Just admit that Atheism is another belief system out of all the other belief systems. You don't have a corner market on certitude. You too have to cross the chasm of uncertainty by faith just like the rest of us.
This forum was to discuss the issue of belief, but you won't admit the obvious: Atheism is a belief system. In order for it to be a belief system you need to believe in it. It cannot get any more clearer than this. You cannot prove to the nth degree of certitude in a lab or through a mathematical formula that God doesn't exist so you believe in a theory. Theories are open for debate.
Hey minstrel. I agreed with you that atheism is a step of faith. It is not, however, a belief system. It is simple non belief. Absence of proof does not require belief. Atheism is the product of simple observation.
But you are believing in your observations to support your Atheism. You are believing in non-belief.
Wow. That's kind of cute, but no. Maybe it's believing in my non belief of the belief of belief. Or, my belief in the belief of believing in nonbelief. Or........
Nah. I'm pretty sure it's simple non belief. I get too confused if I try to put too much emphasis in explaining it away as a form of belief in non belief.
Actually, it is the other way round, it is the believers who cannot offer anything at all to show their gods exist, so instead we use theories and mathematical formulas to explain our world.
And when we do use them, mathematical formulas actually do prove with great precision and accuracy the theories they support.
Really? Mathematically prove how the world was created beyond a theoretical doubt.
And none of those theories threatens the possible existence of a life form way beyond our ubderstanding. Not even Stephen Hawking presumes that his theories negate that possibility. At least he is honest about it.
Mathematics merely supports the reality of the perfection of the creation. Something the so-called "believers" have known all along. The creation is perfect. On that we all agree.
I just believe God was and is The Great Mathematician.
I always thought you'd picture him more as a magician....
Then, why are there no mathematics in scriptures?
(I just believe God was and is The Great Mathematician.)
I always pictured him more like The Great Pretender
Oh, yes, I'm The Great Pretender
Pretending that I'm doing well
Of course, there are theories about rogue asteroids and comets that could wipe out all life on the planet, there are theories about the sun in which show the fusion process will come to an end and the sun will expand outwards becoming a red giant and destroying the earth.
Sorry, are you changing the topic to honesty? You?
Do you presume me to be Atheist?
If so you are wrong.
It is so easy for people to read what is not written into a statement.
Sometimes what is not written is more important than what is.
Sigh. Atheism is no more a faith than being bald is a hair-color.
This was amply treated in atheism.about.com:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyth … ialGod.htm
Now, the religious people will ignore this (or all other aspects of education and philosophy), but others are free to read it and will be more and more enlightened. The whole "Myths Against Atheism" section there is great.
Myths against Atheism don't get started because they are TRUE. They get started because religions need PRISON BARS to pen in their inmates like the sheep they are. But if you want to follow the example of the most devout religious people who were ALSO the most intelligent ones, realize that the prison-door is open if you only give it a push. THEY quit the religion; a good number of Atheists were former devout believers. If they quit, and they are shining examples of people, you too can quit. Because Atheists don't live under unrealistic expectations, or expect to find a demonic enemy behind every bush, they lead much less stressful lives, and commit less crime than the religious. So there are advantages galore. Religion is your gateway to stress, unrealistic expectations, and very, very BAD sex (since even religious ADULTS are too afraid to ask about it, can you believe that?) I'd almost feel like writing a Hub to help them find out about it, but that is not allowed. For help and information, look elsewhere, just about anywhere else but a religious source will help you learn how to live.
The Supreme Court defines atheism as a set of beliefs or belief by which you live your daily life...also the definition of religion. Atheism is a religion. Being health conscious can be your religion, and the local bar can be your church (Ha) I call what I believe, spirituality. That is something no one can claim an atheist to be.
Well if that's what you want to call atheism then I think you shall find most of the people on here will cease to call themselves atheists as will I.
I am simply someone who doesn't believe in a god. I am not theist nor am I atheist.
Argue against that.
Sorry guy. That is what the word means A-Theist, like A-sexual Theists believe in a god or godhead, A-theism is the absence of a god concept. So no god=Atheist. No matter how much you throw yourself on the floor, kickyour feet and scream and cry. No god=Atheist. Getoverit
Thats the definition of the word that I adhere to you insulting, condescending, moron.
You make the point against yourself. Asexual has nothing to do with belief or nonbelief in sex.
Did I say that Asexual is a belief? I was referring to the prefix "A", as in the state of being "without" , therefore, asexual would be "without" sex and atheism would be "without" theistic belief. Regardless, the attitude of some here is too pugnacious for me. I really think they are agnostic. LOL
Religion is defined as the belief in a superhuman controlling power or a deity.
(asexual would be "without" sex and atheism would be "without" theistic belief)
Yes, but I am not sure this distinction is understood. The negation of theism is a funciton of the Law of Non-Contradiction, if P then not-P. If theism means belief in a god or gods, then not-theism would mean a rejection of the belief in a god or gods.
In other words, atheism is a rejection of another's beleif system, not its own belief system.
Argue against that
Hmm, easy argument.
And I quote: "I am simply someone who doesn't believe in a god" -is the application of atheism.
And I quote, again: "I am not theist". -Then do tell where your notion of a G/god concept came from? A theist and an atheist are the same root stock, different fruit (neither tasty or nutritious). Why? Simple: both adhere to the same concept, else neither would exist (oh that we could wish).
I dont adhere to anything. What on earth are you talking about? You said that atheism is a religion and a set of beliefs which you live your life by.
If THAT is how YOU define atheism, then by YOUR definition I am not an atheist.
Of course, by MY definition of atheism (the lack of belief in a god) then I AM an atheist.
If you are correct in stating you do not adhere to anything: kindly tell me where your "lack of belief" in/of a G/god concept came from?
Simple request, I'd imagine.
Where did my lack of belief come from? I simply dont believe people that tell me there is a god just like you wouldnt believe someone who told you he could run at 300 miles per hour.
What do you mean where does it come from? Where does a babies lack of belief come from?
Now, not to beat at a dead horse. Do you believe that we just popped outta nowhere, unassisted, or that we had help? Do you conduct your life mindful of physics and evolution? then those are the beliefs by which you live your daily life. Everybody believes something. I believe that if I don't brush my teeth, they will fall out, so I brush them RELIGIOUSLY.
Being able to see and understand the facts does not require faith. I believe what is known to be a fact.
As for what I believe, that has nothing to do with atheism. This hub states that atheism requires faith, and since aheism is simply the lack of belief and not a belief in itself, the hubs statement is incorrect.
What I do believe, is irrelevant.
Babies? Goodness, man. Babies have no 'beliefs' nor 'disbelief'.
In fact, babies are a perfect example of Altruism!
Belief and disbelief come from indoctrination, education, observation, experimentation, engagement of humanism.
You should pay closer attention to reality.
As for you accepting or rejecting what 'other people' say, it is neither here nor there. Where did your 'disbelief' come. Surely you have some evidence, documentation, etc to provide validity as to where it came from, yes? Else, I am inclined to 'believe' you are a post-theist (a Determinist) and judging by any 'atheist' engagement (at least here on HP) of theist dialogues would be my evidence supporting the 'belief' you are still a theist. Maybe an 'intangible' theist, but nonetheless of the same rootstock.
So, again, show me, please, where your disbelief comes? What is its root? Its manifesto? Its purpose and goal within or without the crutch of humanism?
When did use the term DISbelief? I said LACK OF BELIEF. There is a difference and you are simply changing the original argument for what reason I can only infer that you realised you were wrong so changed the question.
Yes babies LACK BELIEF which makes them Atheist (LACK of belief in a god. NOT DISbelief).
Babies have no concept of g/gods, so they are not 'lacking' anything !!! lol!
You are spinning the wheels of humanism JW! Put rubber to the road, man, and explain what I asked. Stop squealing tires and smoking up the air, trying to create a smoke screen, like any good theist would. If that's all you have, so be it. But at least explain where YOUR 'lack of' comes from, its purpose apart from humanism.
ps: An Atheist 'lacks' belief in? Oh yes a g/God or the concept of said g/God. So without the 'a g/God' you would not be an atheist or a theist (or a humanist for that matter).
My lack of belief comes from me not believing people like you who tell me there is a god.
It is mind numbingly simple.
As for you saying that babies do not LACK belief in a god, then you are saying that they believe in a god since they dont LACK the belief.
Do you know what LACK means?
Oye, stop with the cyclical deflective mentality!!!
What "I" or "They" or "Them" tell IS IRRELEVANT. I am asking where YOUR lack of comes from. And if that lack comes from someone else (no offense) you have serious confidence and intellectual issues.
Also, When did "I" say there was such a thing as a g/God? Hmmm. I didn't. Seems you are like most post theists caught in the web of your own post indoctrination (which explains the hostility), pro or anti or lacking --same thing really.
Babies neither lack nor hold ANY belief nor counter belief.
They don't need to.
Babies are not lacking any thing.
That is the brilliance of being a child.
You attempting to use the 'innocence' of a child to supplement or validate your 'testimony' regarding atheism is well, remarkably silly. Atheism and theism are just that, silly. They ' lack ' even a basic understanding of the working fundamentals of the humanism they exist and wallow in.
So maybe it is you who does not understand what a 'lack of' is...
Besides, if you need to engage theism, to dispute it, you are -like the theists -kicking yourself in the head. And why would any rational human being do that to themselves? Oh, they have a ' lack of ' rationale.
If a baby does not lack belief then that, by definition means that the baby HAS belief.
Stop talking nonsense.
You claim a 'lack of' is not disbelief, yet say a baby 'not lacking' means they have a belief. Hmm, then you just proved my argument --by your own words. Your 'lack of' is the same as disbelief. Because, as you said ' not lacking' is having a belief, in the case of a child.
Be careful, JW, or you'll step on your humanistic shadow --again.
Disbelief is a means that leads to lack of belief. They are not the same and they are not synonymous. I was hoping you might have a basic understanding of the English language when you started conversing.
keep spinning those wheels, fella.
A better preacher I have never met!
Sigh. humans, what can you do.
I should know better than to argue with theists or atheists, no getting through to either...
Take care "Shuck" (sheep-duck [avatar])!
They are innocent, the children or babies or whatever. They, at that point have no belief system, which makes them something other than an atheist, since atheism counts as a belief system. They are more on a level with the animals, god is within them also, but on a completely subliminal level. They are, therefore in a state of grace, and backing this up with scripture: "Harm not one single hair on the head of one of these, my little lambs, for it would be better for you had you never been born."
Atheism is NOT a belief system. THAT IS THE POINT. Like I said earlier, if YOU are redefining atheism as a belief system then I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.
Argue w/ the supreme court. If you believe in something which qualifies as intangible, then no, you are not a redneck... I mean atheist. If you believe in something which is tangible, provable as physically there, then, you are as they say, an atheist. Babies aside. Everybody believes something, and generally walk the path that is appropriate to what they believe.
(They are, therefore in a state of grace, and backing this up with scripture: "Harm not one single hair on the head of one of these, my little lambs, for it would be better for you had you never been born.")
One cannot help but admire the consistency of the bible.
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Okay, since when is a religion simply a "set of beliefs or belief by which you live your daily life"? That is a gross oversimplification.
The OED states that religion is "action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances."
Since atheism does not "revere" a god, it is not a religion. Case closed. The only argument here is whether or not you trust this definition (which, by the way, originates from as early as 1225 AD).
you state: "Atheism is no more a religion than being bald is a hair-color..."
Now, I would ask you to think -not spew Memorex recordings --like most theists do (written or verbal) and tell me, a Philo, what precisely atheism is? From where did atheism come? Its root? Its manifesto? Its liberation? It validity or vindication?
If you please.
(ps, being bald does not negate hair color, as baldness is surface loss of hair, but is (( and this I love )) still hair at its root. It is just not evident above skin). Atheism would be the 'intangible/invisible' theist.
If you look at the language and the origin of the prefix "A" from Latin, it would mean this.
The prefix of "A" means without. It is the negative.
Theism - Belief in a god
"A"theism - Without belief in a god
That is the logic as to the Latin origin of the word and the meaning of the prefix "A".
How you define "Atheism" is up to you, but that is the original meaning of the Latin prefix of "A" which I agree with.
If you are going to give it a different meaning, then I am not an atheist.
Any of the three elements: a priori, priori, posteriori say one is an atheist, when one considers or applies the negation or negates the concepts/doctrines of theism. A Theist is one who considers or applies pro or protects the concepts/doctrines of g/Gods.
So, if you are 'not' an atheist (a polar theist) why do you mention again this concept of G/god(s) and engage such dialogues regarding said concept?
SO...YOU said that you don't believe in god therefore you are an atheist. What about that term scares you? Talk about morons. And I'll thank you to keep your opinions about me to yourself. You read the def, and then act like your statement isn't contradictory. Forget your meds this morning, or what?
I am not saying "I" believe or disbelieve the concept of G/gods. The other fellow mentioned he was an atheist. I am merely pointing out how silly it is for one to say: 'not believing in the concept of G/god' is different from saying they 'believe in the concept of G/god'. Either way the 'concept of G/god' is the core of both the belief and disbelief.
As you said: A-Sexual is the same as any other Sexual.
The core is the sexuality.
I am talking to the dippy hippy. He thinks that atheism is disbelief in god, but atheism replaces that belief sys with a different bset of beliefs. Maybe all this semantics got me confused as to who is saying what...time for my Oregonian Medical Assist. Be right back!
How about you stop talking right about now. I wrote an entire post claiming that atheism is NOT Disbelief.
You are either a liar or a moron.
I also wrote another post explaining the origin and the original Latin meaning of the prefix "A" which means WITHOUT. It does not mean disbelief it means LACK of belief.
Why don't you tone down your rhetoric. All I am saying is that Atheism qualifies as a religion. There is no reason to get all hot and bothered. OK? Peace, and may knowledge increase. Good day to you, sir.
He's even closer than that...LOOK OUT. You almost stepped right on him! So close, if he was arattler you'd be dead! You are a drop of water, claiming the ocean doesn't exist.
I think you're going to have to provide more clear proof of God than the insufferable, worn-out "we are wiggly worms who can't possibly see God" arguments. This fails to explain how religious clerics, the most uneducated segment of our society, manage to see this God if they are ALSO wiggly worms.
No, we're not going to have your arguments with implied put-downs that "only" holy people or "only" people living in the past can see God. We want DIRECT PROOF IN FAVOR, according to the Scientific Method which has given our world explosive human progress and not the silly navel-gazing of mystics. Scientists hold the MONOPOLY on proving unseen things: X-rays, planets past Saturn, the electron. You get to flap your gums electronically through the efforts of scientists, and it gives you the LUXURY of talking about non-existent things to very existing people you can't even see. But I have never seen ONE instance of religious people proving an invisible thing and making it plain to the world.
So...what you are really saying is that within three feet of us somebody is saying' Oh God! Oh God! OOOH Gaaawwwddd!"
Hahah, prophecy. Those who think Bible Prophecy works keep remembering it selectively. I would like to point to Ezekiel 29:12 where it says God will make the land of Egypt desolate for 40 years, dispersing its citizens to other lands.
But Egypt has been one of the most continuously inhabited places in the whole world, with an unbroken history thousands of years old. Hmm, I think I'll wait until Egypt has been desolate for 39 and a half years and then, MAYBE, I'll consider believing in Jesus Christ and that whole Bible thing. Haha. Until then, it would be a Fail to do so. Or I suppose that, by the time it happens, I will have been dead and decomposed irreversibly into gases, beyond the power of anyone, even God, to re-make. Even if there IS a God and it's his sick hobby of fashioning photocopies of dead people only to cast them into Hell, there is NO PROOF that what he makes will really be me.
That particular prophecy was fulfilled in ancient times. The forty year time of famine was the delineation between the dynasties of the oldest Pharonic line and the line that preceeded the Ptolemaic dynasty which was ushered in by Alexander.
Sometimes what one searches for is hiding within. Search outwardly all you wish.
No, fool, the Bible didn't say a temporary famine. It said COMPLETE DEPOPULATION OF EGYPT. Please show where that happened before.
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists
The term atheism originated from the Greek "atheos", meaning "without god", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.... The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.
In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or nonspiritual. However, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods while Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually...
Dictionary: the doctrine that there is no deity;
Harvard | Atheism.com :
"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity, which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as "implicit atheism", is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who "lacks" theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called "agnostic atheism" because most people who self-consciously "lack belief" in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as "explicit atheism", goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they "claim to know" in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist." - Atheism.com
My Philosophical Opine:
So, if therefore, theism is in contrast to theism, to the largest acceptable definition, and can be considered its root & cornerstone, real atheism would NOT and CANNOT exist without theistic presence. Atheism is then a "niche idea" and not necessarily a fully organized system, nor a philosophy, carrying one specific manifest or creed, less the single line of :no god concepts are valid "scientifically". Atheism is ultimately a "disbelief in the belief" of a deity --based on Science, not logic or reason-- and not an Independent Ideology, but more of a Motive ( ad emotum ). It is therefore, a bastardized idea, dismissing one side of the coin for another, without structure to support the notion, as it does not provide validity that no gods exist while equally and often emphatically stating they know it with absolution. Granted, atheism might not be a religion --yet-- but it certainly cannot sustain its argument without some form of theistic approach. This means atheism is inferior to itself and by application, is the counterweight to theology as scientific operations are often titled.
In short, without both sides of the Ism, atheism would not exist. As atheism is the application of the idea or notion that no deity exists. This could not include children, as no child is conscious of the idea pro or con a deity and certainly not able to apply a critique for either side using methods of sensation or equation.
That would be the definition I agree with since it is black and white.
This definition I disagree with. Strong and weak infers a grey area to which confusion arises. It creates two meanings for the term atheism (lack of belief and belief in no gods) which I do not agree with due to the complicating nature of the claim.
Neither defintion said anything about science. You just made that up entirely. Based on science? What a liar you are.
The latter defintion which I disagree with said that "weak atheism" is the broadest and most general conception but you latch onto the strong atheism dont you? Even though it is not the most common stance. Why is that? Who here is claiming that there is no god? Who are you arguing against? Certainly not me. Are you just making a strawman?
Religion is the belief in a deity you idiot.
There is no argument for lack of belief. Just a simple LACK of belief.
Again, it is NOT the most common or generally accepted defintion of the term so why are YOU latching onto it? I dont agree with the term atall and I certainly do not say there is no god. Again, Who are you arguing against? Me?
If you bothered to read my post earlier that explained the origin of the word "atheism" and the meaning of the Latin prefix
"A", then you wouldn't be talking such utter nonsense.
You dont have to study the facts to LACK a belief.
Actually the Wiki and Harvard || americanatheist.com both state Science and scientific methods in their manifests. I shortened the articles for the sake of HubSpace. Even still, scientific "escape clauses" do not justify a "lack of" faith by either sensation or equation --and certainly is not justified by the ultimate expression of ad emotum, in light of Philo's priori.
Sorry old boy, mustard is still mustard. At least where I'm from. Sometimes bland, sometimes spicy. Even the French can agree on that.
Science is secular in nature; it has got nothing to do with Atheism Agnosticism .
Science is a part of religion; and all revealed religion accept its facts.
The definitions are generally cohesive and consensus. It is very clear whether "weak" or "strong" atheism is a form of sensation bound to equation in a very odd, odd sense. The "lack of" which you are constantly spitting out like theists do their text) is irrelevant, the "lack of" is actually the EFFECT, not the Cause or even a measure of Causality. Atheism's claim is bogus, with or without application of equation (science or theology). In fact, it doesn't even fit into a social ideology or philosophy. That leaves just one parameter - ad emotum. An equation paradox driven by sensation, that is likened to a teen male in puberty. Precisely like the theist who cannot validate claims they make --instead preferring to justify their Motive by whatever parameters they can adhere to first --that fit. No doubt, 99% of atheism (and if I did a full critique of it would prove) is the result of a failed theistic approach to living -a failure of the "right wing" humanism.
So now they boast against the theist from whom they once ate at the same trough, like it was no tomorrow...
Fine. If you think Atheism means the belief that there is no god (despite two definitions stating it is not the most common stance) then I am not an atheist. Have it your way.
Go and argue against people who say there is no god. That is a belief. As I told you before, I dont believe that.
The way YOU define atheism leaves confusion and grey areas. The way I define it is black and white.
If you claim that there is no god then you are GNOSTIC atheist.
Atheism and theism are claims of belief. Gnosticism and Agnosticism are claims to knowledge. I am an agnostic atheism by the way I define the words (the way without confusion).
Anyone who claims there is no god is a GNOSTIC atheist. I am not one of those and there are very few of them (as stated in your definitions).
Just to summarise MY definitions;
Theism - Beleif in a god
Atheism - Without belief in a god
Gnosticism - Claim to knowledge
Agnostcism - Without knowledge
Gnostic Atheist - Claim to knowledge that there is no god
Agnostic atheist - Without belief or knowledge of a gods existance
I hope this clears up this pointless discussion. I know most people dont adgree with these defintions for whatever reason is beyond me since they make the most sense and leave no room for confusion as do yours.
In my experience, only theists agree with your defintions in. what I can only imagine to be a feeble attempt to drag people down and make them feel like they are not the only ones with an unfounded belief system.
I dont have faith in anything. For the last time.
And fo the record, I NEVER believed in any god. I always questioned the claim as a child, so no, I am not a "failed theist" as you claim. I have NO IDEA what the hell you are going on about there.
Why do you answer your own post?
Are you arguing with yourself, or just agreeing?
Oh that was meant for twentyonedays who seems to think he knows everything about my life and my beliefs. I figured he'd know what I was thinking too and know that the post was meant for him.
...and precisely when or where did I mention YOUR life in any way? What I did was present the information scribed by other humans. Seems it hit a nerve. As for my opine, it was quite black-n-white.
Atheism is simply an idea.
It has no Cause only Effect.
It doesn't matter if this idea is supported by a former theistic system or a scientific one. Without either, atheism --in any varietal of -- cannot be sustained. I would call that "ad emotum" or a teenage temper-tantrum. Here one minute, gone the next.
By all measures of reason and thought - Atheism is considered irrational and hugely ignorant to reality. It is 100% subjective (as again it is only an effect; an idea spawned by the result of some other Cause --religion or what have you). I would go so far as to say the twins of theology and science have some type of structured system --albeit a failed one-- but at least "they" gave it a thorough go. [Not that I am defending religion or science.]
Atheism [collectively titled] appears to lack the courage and conviction to admit it has nothing to offer the whole of humanity, even as it clings to its parental comforts.
(Atheism is simply an idea.
It has no Cause only Effect).
The cause of atheism is theism. Theism is not god but a belief in a god(s). Atheism is a rejection of that belief.
(Atheism [collectively titled] appears to lack the courage and conviction to admit it has nothing to offer the whole of humanity)
This is actually a better argument against your position, in that it shows that there is no collective atheistic belief system and thus no dogmatic ambitions to further.
I am not entirely convinced that Theism (sensation | religion) is the sole Cause of atheism. And while I respect the Idea called Atheism, imo, lacks any substance that could be applied by the human collective based on the 'rules' of humanism.
This is why I say [It] lacks the courage and conviction behind itself. Like a baloon that someone opened, it is spinning recklessly all over the place, and losing air. At some point, it will just "plop" and yet another idea disappear. As said, at least the two sides of duality within humanism (and are humanism) gave it a go.
Even still, Altruism would be a better approach to such a concept/idea.
Every time you stated that atheists believe this, and atheists used to be that.
Let me guess, you're talking about atheism as if it is the claim that there is no god again arent you? Why? Noone is saying that and if thats all you think atheism is then for the third time, I am not an atheist.
Why are you arguing against ALL of atheism as if it is the belief that there is no god? Hardly ANY atheists claim there is no god so who are you arguing against?
Atheism lacks courage? What the hell are you going on about now? Does astrology lack bravery? Does not collecting stamps lack love? You talk the most nonsense I have ever seen.
I dont believe that there is OR isnt a god so what is your point? How can my stance lack courage? Im simply being honest in saying I DONT KNOW.
And obviously not believing in a god has nothing to offer humanity just like not collecting stamps has nothing to offer a hobbyist. Why the hell should it?
If your position is there is not enough evidence either way to make a truth statement about the existence of god, you are not an atheist. You are an agnostic.
Atheists do not believe in god or gods.
Agnostics believe there is no way to know, so they leave it at that.
Your position seems like the latter.
I define "atheist" as without belief in a god. I am without belief in a god. I define "agnostic" as not having any knowledge about wether or not a god exists. I dont have any knowledge about any gods. I define myself as an agnostic atheist.
I know there is much confusion about what the word atheist means. Many seem to think it means belief in no god and/or no belief in a god which I find rather confusing and pointless since the claim "there is no god" is a claim to knowledge and that should be adressed with the term "gnostic" before the word "atheist".
Theism and atheism are claims to belief.
Gnosticism and agnosticism are claims to knowledge.
I dont know why people deliberately confuse the two. It only creates misunderstanding and confusion and as you can see from the previous posts here, it makes no sense.
You are confusing word roots with definitions.
An agnostic does not believe, nor disbelieve, but feels there is no way to attain that knowledge.
An atheist has come to a conclusion.
Not believing in a god does not require disbelief just like not collecting stamps is not a non-hobby.
I explained in my previous posts the origin and meaning of the word "atheist". I explained the origin and the meaning of the lati prefix "a" meaning "without".
"A"theist - without belief in a god. A baby is without belief in a god without reaching any conclusion first.
You also seem to adhere to the definitions that confuse claims of belief with claims of knowledge.
You are suggesting a baby can be an atheist?
Atheism is an active stance, a position. I have not met the baby that can do that.
You seem to be ignoring my definition based on the actual origins and actual meanings of the word "atheist".
Without belief in a god.
Yes, a baby is without belief in a god.
Atheism is an active stance in the same way that not collecting stamps is an active hobby.
If you're suggesting a baby cannot be without belief in a god, then by definition, the baby must be with belief in a god.
Now thats crazy talk if you ask me. A baby that believes in god.
This is my point. You are confusing the word origins with their definitions. The definition of the word is more than simply translating the roots and then combining them. They point you toward the definition, but a baby can be neither an atheist or a believer. They both require a willful taking of a position. Atheism is not a state of being, but a philosophical position that puts someone in the state of being "against" or "without" a deity.
This is not "my" definition, as you stated yours was. This is the dictionary definition. There are massive amounts of literature defending this way of thinking. This is not some secret code that anyone is hiding from you.
Word origins are not definitions. They are building blocks.
People define words and I define it in the way that makes the most sense and avoids confusion.
I have met many people who define atheism the same way I do so clearly there is altering views on the defintion of the word.
You cannot say one is wrong and one is right because we define the words and that is how word definitions change with time.
I dont agree with your defintion and neither do I agree with the dictionary that you used to obtain it.
The definition acheived by understanding he origin of the word, makes the most sense and does not leave any grey area.
Your defintion confuses claims of knowledge with claims of belief.
If we were to take your defintion, then everyone on the planet is an atheist because they all reject at least one god. Or are they? Do you have to have heard about ALL the gods in order to disbelieve in ALL of them? I certainly havent heard about all the gods. Have you?
Maybe NOONE is an atheist?
Your definition has more than a few problems...
Here Here ...
Any word can mean many different things depending upon its application. But the word can never live up to every definition at the same time. Ya think ??
Of course. That is the fundamental problem with people giving "Atheism" a million and one different defintions and meanings.
When people ask me if I'm an atheist, it takes 3 hours to establish an answer since more often then not, they hold to a different definition then me.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction … sh/atheist
Here are three sources to prove my point. I can supply as many more as necessary.
You are repeatedly saying this is how YOU define the word. I can define "monkey" as a reptile, but I will have a hard time defending my position.
Further, your idea that everyone is an atheist because they disbelieve in at least one deity does not pass the smell test either. The term means an active disbelief in any form of deity.
Why are you fighting this? I'm confused by your need to redefine a common term with an accepted meaning. There is no ambiguity to this. Your argument that everyone is an atheist if they disbelieve one god is a desperate flight from logic. It's just bad thinking, dude.
Words have meanings. All of the definitions that I have supplied, and the many others that I can, will indicate the willful disbelief, the choice not to believe.
I'm really perplexed by your need to redefine this.
Yes well since there are many, many more people who adhere to the same defintion as I do, then that clearly shows there is confliction on the actual defintion of the point.
How can you have an active disbelief in any form of deity of you havent heard about them all? Do you have an active disbeleif in Mithratas or is this the first time you heard of that god? Can you have an active disbelief in any gods that you never heard of?
Because I disagree with you. You jumped in and corrected me remember.
Actually that is how I have always defined the word since "without belief in a god" was the first definition I found when I first heard of the word "atheist".
Ok then. So how about the FACT that you cannot actively disbelieve in a god until you have heard of them first? Do you have to have heard of ALL the gods to actively disbelieve in ALL of them before you are an atheist? Or is it just an active disbelief in one god? In which case, everone IS an atheist since everyone disbelieves in at least one god.
You jumped in and corrected me not the other way around.
So lets clarify. Are you atheist if you actively disbelieve in one god?
Or are you atheist if you actively disbelieve in all gods (requiring you to actively decide that every single god ever spoken of is not real)?
It is the active disbelief in the concept of any deity.
If many share your opinion, please post valid sources to support your idea.
That should be easy, right?
Hang on a minute, active disbelief in the CONCEPT of a deity? Thats not what you said before. I think you're moving goalposts and there is only one reason why anyone would do that.....
No matter, my question still works with concepts. It is a simple question. Since you define the term to be an active disbelief in any concept of a god then you are going to have to clarify.
In order to actively disbelieve in anything, you have to first, have knowledge of that something Ie a concept of a god.
You already said that you are not atheist if you only actively disbelieve in one god. (Of course we have to change this to "concept" of a god now since you moved the goalpost) Do you agree?
So how many concepts of a god do you have to actively disbelieve in, in order to qualify as an atheist? All of them?
Read the definitions.
No goalposts moving. Just a very stubborn guy that refuses to admit he's wrong.
The concept of a deity is not the same thing as a belief in a specific god. It is the disbelief in the idea of gods at all. That is the crux of atheism.
I can support what I'm saying. I have asked you to do the same. You have been unwillingly to show any supportive evidence outside of your own deeply held opinions. If you don't want to engage the evidence that has been presented, and don't want to present your own, then I am not dealing with a serious person, just a desperate one.
Ok you're just lying now. You NEVER used the word "concept" in your orignal definition. You defined it as the, and I quote "disbelief in any god". Now you changed it to "disbleief in any concept of a deity".
As for me admitting I am wrong. You clearly dont understand that PEOPLE define words. Not books. People write the books and that is how definitions change. If you think I am "wrong" then you dont understand how language evolves.
Oh so THATS why you changed your definition half way through. Its all clear now.
Again, you clearly dont understand how languages work. Definitions for words change for the same reason we are having this argument.
YOU butted in to correct me and you're calling ME desperate?
Here is a definition I found in order to make you shut the hell up because you're beginning to annoy me with your constant whining in ignorance of how languages work.
"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Note the words "MOST INCLUSIVELY".
It was the very first hit on atheism which was wikipedia. I still dont think you get it though do you? You think people who define a word different to a dictionary are "wrong".
What do you do when you get two dictionaries with two different definitions?
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
The words "rejection", "position" indicate a willfulness. A decision. The last sentence in their opening paragraph indicates
why your argument that disbelief in one deity would make one an atheist is non-sensical.
If you want to observe how absurd you're being, start a forum called "All infants are atheists", and see how many people rush to support your concept. That is a fundamental conclusion of your definition, isn't it?
When the public rushes to your side, you will have started to make a case that the principle in language of general use will have started to support your re-definition. If they don't, then you have the public and all scholarship against you.
Looking forward to it.
Actually, at the time YOU defined atheism as the active disbelief in any god. One god, is any god.
I have already stated MULTIPLE TIMES that there is dispute over the term. Can't you read or are you deliberately being obtuse?
Anyway, I'll end by repeating myself. You're a liar. You are dishonest. You are belligerant and you can F off.
Maturely argued and resolved.
The only dispute regarding this term is between you and humanity. I can read that you say so, I just have seen no evidence to support your position.
Please point out my lies and dishonesty.
Why should I give you any evidence? Are you calling me a liar? You are deliberately obtuse. "Im right you're wrong blah blah blah".
Try reading the 120 responses to this dispute that according to you does not exist and is only in MY head. When you have done that I will be waiting for your apology for accusing me of being a liar.
Oh lets see, considering I ALREADY pointed it out to you twice. You changed your defintion of the word "atheist" by adding the word "concept" half way through the argument because you realised you were wrong. You deliberatley did not admit this mistake and claimed that you did not change your definition making you a LIAR.
If you dont believe me, then go back and read your posts you belligerant prick.
Breitbart is an outlier, as is freethinker. But let's engage him anyway, shall we?
In his bubble depicting what atheist means, his quote says "I don't believe in any gods!" This is the statement you declared me assinine for, as who could possibly claim such a thing if one did not know every god myth available? Since he and I used precisely the same terminology, I must assume you think Breitbart to be an ass, too.
You have tried to characterize me as a liar for "changing my words" from "not believing in any god" to "not believing in the concept of god" as my working definition for atheism. If one does not believe in the concept of god, it will necessarily lead to the result of not believing in any god. I presumed a reasonably intelligent person would understand the connection between the two. I still presume that.
Breitbart makes the silly connection between infants and atheism, leading me to understand where you got it. I suggest this to you, to prove your sincerity to your cause. Go to the freethinker site and post two comments. One, that you are in full support of Breitbart's idea that all infants are atheists, and see how much support you get, even in that venue. Second, tell him what an idiot he is for declaring that atheist means disbelief in any god. Stand up, man. Don't let him get away with such rhetorical heresy!
As for beligerence, I suggest you read our posts and see who can not maintain a basic level of civility. I have not sworn at you nor called you names. I have not done "I'm right, you're wrong" but rather provided highly respected sources to support my position.
So much for "that's the last time I'm going to talk to him!" ultimatum.
Did it really take you a whole day to find a source, albeit obscure, to support your position?
By the way, we aren't really far off from each other in terms of our theological positions. I just happen to be closer to being an agnostic theist, the position Breitbart characterizes as nearly impossible.
Same terminology? No you didn't. You tried behemently to assert that atheism was the disbelief in any gods. Not believing in any god does not require disbelief. You're lying AGAIN and the rest of that paragraph is irrelevant.
Yes but you (probably deliberately) got that the wrong way around because not believing in any god does not require you to not believe in the concept af a god. How deceiptful of you. AGAIN.
Actually it is my own inference that would appear to be shared by other people who I have never heard of. I guess that is evidence of the dispute you claim doesnt exist?
heresy? You REALLY dont understand how languages work. that much is clear. There is no right and wrong. For the THIRD TIME.
I consider undermining my intelligence, level of maturity and ability to understand a concept an insult and a prime example of belligerance. No matter how "polite" you are about it.
No, it took me 2 minutes. I have been asleep but thanks for another polite insult.
I agree with him on that. If you believe a god exists then you cannot say I dont know wether or not a god exists. Either you believe or you dont. I wrote an entire hub about it but it has been suspended due to a link to a dictionary for some reason.
Oh, and one last thing, I was pointed to one of slarty o'brians hubs earlier. It would appear that he defines atheism as the lack of belief in a god as do I.
There is controversy on the topic. It is a simple situation. Can you not accept that there is disagreement on the term? Is there something pathologically wrong with you that you cannot accept that people disagree on a term?
Will you never understand that this is the reason why words get new definitions?
I think you have a giant head full of ego and the eagerness to be "right".
Definitions of words are subjective. Not always will a definition be accepted by everyone. Only a dumbass cannot understand that.
Ducks phlegm totem septuagent.
If you don't understand that sentence, you just don't understand that words can mean whatever I say they mean. It doesn't make me wrong! Words are subjective!
Not believing doesn't require disbelief? Did you really say that?
Asking for evidence is not calling someone a liar. It is a request that someone support their position, to make a logical argument, not unconnected vehement statements.
Exactly. You never heard of regional dialect? How about were the same word means different things in different countries? How about siblings that make up their own language? Does that make them "wrong" just because YOU dont agree with them?
You will never understand. That much is very clear. You are the most stubborn guy I have ever had the displeasure of conversing with.
Yes I did, and if you dont understand the difference between not believing and disbelieving then thats your problem not mine.
Well you did deny my claim that there was dispute on the term and requesting evidence shows a lack of belief indicating that you think I am being fraudulent.
Anyway, You are NEVER going to accept that people define atheist as different things no matter what. You have made that very clear even though I, even on my own, am proof of the dispute.
Have fun laughing. On your own.
"You never heard of regional dialect? How about were the same word means different things in different countries? How about siblings that make up their own language? Does that make them "wrong" just because YOU dont agree with them?"
We are not talking about a regional dialect. We are not talking about childhood jibberish. We are talking about communicating with the greater world as a whole. Words have meaning, or communication is impossible.
Not defending your parsing of "not believing" and "disbelieving" sends a message of a lack of argument to me. But if you've given up on trying to communicate your ideas, so be it.
You suggest that we should be able to state anything we wish and not be asked to defend out position, and if we are asked, we are being called liars and cheats. Put on your big boy pants.
Trust me, I'm laughing.
Oh look, controversy on the topic.
http://hubpages.com/question/120728/wha … swer283655
Exactly what you were denying to exist.
Isnt that a funny thing.
By the way, as language changes, it gets reflected in the reference resources of a culture. Language doesn't change because a guy on the internet changes it. It changes over time with overwhelming use in the general lexicon. Dictionaries begin to reflect these changes.
That is correct; the dictionaries change as the people of the language change.
Yes well considering about 90% of all atheists I have spoken to over the last 5 years define atheism the same way I do then I suggest you F off with your belligerance and your condescending "I am right, you are wrong" attitude.
I stated hours ago that there was clearly dispute on the topic but you still INSIST on being "correct".
Not to mention you accuse me of being desperate when YOU are the one stooping to lying instead of admitting making a mistake.
Dont bother talking to me anymore. I dont feel the need to ever converse with you for any reason ever again.
don't you feel if you are without belief in God you are therefore saying you are in fact in belief of God? How can one be in disbelief of something that doesn't appear?
Definition of "disbelief" from oxford dictionary;
"inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real"
I think they are arguing from a standpoint that god is real and they have knowledge of this truth in order to assert the above.
Its a crazy world...
Easily. Do you believe in humans that live exclusively underwater? Does your disbelief in them indicate they exist?
Atheism is a religious construct. That is the whole story.
Darn. Are they going to want 10%? If so, I'm out of there.
! (i spit my coffee on my iMac. That was perfect!)
The Babylonian says 10% of all you earn is yours to keep, meaning they get 90% --sounds like American or UE Taxation.
The Heb's say tithe 10% of your livestock to the high priest.
The Christians say 10% to the church.
How would an atheist collect the 10%. What's 10% of nothing?
In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:
In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
That makes sense. To be honest, I only use the term to say I'm not a theist. I'm as bad as everyone else. I do believe in something more. I simply consider it undefined and indefinable at this time.
I am an apatheist - I don't care whether there is or isn't a god.
It is a new word for me; it is described:
Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism) is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life
How does it interest you?
Do you think there is a meaning and purpose of human life?
(How does it interest you?)
As a human being, I am always concerned (and therefore interested) about people who act on their delusional belief systems to torture to death ten of thousands (Chrisitanity, the Inquisition) or blow up themselves and others in suicide bombings (violent Muslims). I consider it my duty to combat all delusional beliefs and to promote reason in lieu of fantasies.
Like Sam Harris said (paraphrased), I've never seen a country get into trouble because it became too reasonable.
(Do you think there is a meaning and purpose of human life?)
Not purpose or meaning forced upon us by any outside intelligence - the only meaning and purpose we have is that which we create for ourselves.
Now, I answered your questions - you never answered mine. I'll try again.
Is al-Buraq (the winged mule-like creature) considered part of the Islamic belief system, regardless of the origin of the story?
what 'label' do you use as an alternative to atheist?
It hardly takes faith to realize this evolution is what actually happened, as we find more and more intermediate forms to the point where an offspring is not really a separate species from its parents, but the slow changes over millions of years makes it possible. How does that take faith? However, imagining someone just "blinks" all species into existence like what was done in the amusing 60's series BEWITCHED or I DREAM OF JEANNIE, *that* is what takes faith.
There are no valid intermediate stages. You are mistaken. The theory of evolution is just that: A THEORY.
(The theory of evolution is just that: A THEORY....It is not based on fact or truth!!!!!!)
Speaking of proof, you have just reached the point of idiocy where you have proven that any further dialogue with you in an adult manner is a ludicrous and futile attempt at reasoned discourse. You simply want to regurgitate what your pastors have taught you, without critially examining their claims for accuracy or validity.
You are either willfully ignorant or as stupid as a rock, and neither condition produces the intellectual honesty that grown-ups insist upon in adult conversation.
Evolution is fact. Evolution by natural selection is Darwin's theory that has withstood over 150 years of attempted falsifications.
!!!!! - these are exclamation points - not truth daggers - their use is highly favored by those who have nothing intelligent to say but who have lots of enthusiasm for saying it, anyway.
What many creationists don't seem to understand is that in the scientific community the word "theory" does not mean "a guess". It means a statement backed up by copious research and evidence.
Linear? Who said linear?
"Branched off " ? 1; That,s a faith statement in itself.
2 ; There never was any "branching", according to experts scientists specializing in DNA
The real lie is with you, not me, on this one I'm afraid. ( well, not afraid, just DJ expression)!
(Linear? Who said linear?)
Perhaps you struggle with ordinary comprehensions. You produced an illustration that supported a claim of a linear (in a line) progression from monkey to man, with each step eliminating the previous species.
That is a distortion of the evolutionary theory - a lie, in other words, used by the human apes who swing through the trees at the Discovery Institute. Just like all the other half-truths and lies they propagate to try to deny evolutionary theory.
Unfortunately, their distortions of fact work on some - the lame, the infirmed, the slow-witted, the intellectually dishonest, the deeply religious, the fundamental cult member, and the less-evolved apes among us. This leads to their posters being reproduced on forums, as if they represented fact.
And then the poster denies what he has done. Linear? What's that? It is an odd form of circularity where the poster goes round-n-round chasing his tail, not realizing he lost his tail billions of years ago when he evolved to walk upright, but he still tries to prove his glaring falsehoods to people too bright to be taken in by such simpleminded gimmickry.
It is amusing, though, to watch. Thanks for the example.
You talk too much!
This image was actually used by Mark, some time ago, showing me his understanding of "fact" about evolution.
Your whole treatise was misplaced!
There was NO branching. PERIOD. Timeline or no timeline. The whole thing is fabricated!
Let me see if I understand your positions. Evolution, the idea that all species evolved over time from a common ancestor, branching out like limbs of a tree and supported by 150 years of failed attempted falsification by science is fabricated.
But the Mafia Hit-Angel Moroni and his magic seer stones are fact.
O.K. But I'm gonna have to get R-E-A-L-L-Y drunk this time. :-)
Maybe it will be best if you do get drunk. You just might make more sense than sober.
1, I don't believe in evolution. FULL STOP. Common ancestor, or not (irrelevant) So you can drop that one!
2 Moroni....what??? Please explain what I'm supposed to believe about this.
(1, I don't believe in evolution.)
Could you enhance this explanation? Believe means what to you? What part of evolution do you not accept as factual? Do you dispute that mutations occur and are passed on to subsequent generations? If so, you contradict the sworn court testimony of the high priest of ID, Michael Behe.
Dr. Behe acknowledges evolution as the best explanation in many instances.
(Common ancestor, or not (irrelevant) )
Yes, if you insist on equating faith on equal footing to natural explanations then your belief in creation would make this point moot - for those of us who do not settle for willful ignorance, common ancestor is well explained and well-documented as a viable explanation.
(2 Moroni....what???) Sorry, I thought you were a Mormon.
I don't believe in macro evolution.
IE Life from non-life.
Slime to jungle.
Bacteria to Human.
Fish to mammals to whales.
Life from non life has nothing atall to do with evolution. Evolution explains how living beings mutate and change, not how chemicals form organisms.
Life from non life is explained by the abiogenesis theory.
Am I to understand that you accept organisms mutate and change slightly but you cannot accept that millions of small changes over millions of years will result in something very different?
Are you saying that you think there is a magic force that stops things from evolving too far?
I was referring to the theory that fish came out of water, adapted to land, with limbs and all, and then returned to the sea (whales...as only one example of all of them).
I'm guessing it's easier for you to believe that an invisible being that used to talk to people made a man out of dirt and then a woman from a rib? Let their children interbred & then outlaw incest.
And believe there is a multi-headed dragon that likes to eat babies
Actually, you've not shown to be honest by any stretch of the imagination.
Honesty would be such if you admitted not knowing anything about evolution and only respond that you don't believe in it because you have heard people come from monkeys and that it places serious question on your belief in creationism.
That would be honest.
It's unfair to say I know NOTHING about evolution.
It's about the same as me telling you that you know nothing about religion.
Honesty is all about speaking what you believe to be true.
Lying is speaking what you know to be false, as though it were true.
So, I have never lied!
'no branching. PERIOD' - according to whom?
J. Craig Venter, Ph.D. In a video recording of a debate in ASU, directed the comment squarely ar R. Dawkins, who was stunned to hear it.
I din't keep the link to the video, but can try to find it for you, if you like.
I looked him up - he wasn't proposing linear progression. He was saying it was more like a bush than a tree with one trunk.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat … 01-20.html
Dr Craig Venter has also synthesised a fully functional cell with synthetic DNA.
Saying that the 'tree of life' is one trunk is actually a simplistic - the mitocondria in our bodies have bacterial ancestory - from gene transfer between early organisms
No such video exists. You can watch this one though of Dawkins and Venter.
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/4012-c … interviews
You accuse me of lying, but what do I say about you?
You are obviously lying yourself, or showing your ignorance. (or both)
I said before that talking with you is a waste of my time, and that you are the one who has nothing constructive to contribute.
Here's your non existent video.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqaXVqmc … re=related
Funny, nowhere in that video does the conversation follow your remarks:
"J. Craig Venter, Ph.D. In a video recording of a debate in ASU, directed the comment squarely ar R. Dawkins, who was stunned to hear it."
I missed nothing. I don't see how that video in any way supports your words. Sorry.
no branching according to expert scientists? Where did you get this false claim?
(no branching according to expert scientists?)
You have to understand that to the neo-creationist (i.e., ID proponent), all it takes to be an expert is a Ph.D., a published book, and a claim that you are such.
For example, Michael Behe, Ph.D. is a "fellow" for The Discovery Institute, but his own school's science department refuses to acknowledge his positions as valid or ID as science.
This does not stop Dr. Behe from continuing his claims that ID is science - but in open court testimony he was forced to admit that ID is only science when the definition of science is altered to fit not only ID but astrology, as well. Of course, we all know how much science there is in astrological forecasts. :-))
Evidence of big foot existence
That could have been you superwags. Just walking... hehehe
What, is he a Mormon? The Book of Mormon is disassembled and hypertextually criticized here:
Everytime someone mentions Mormonism I get this mental picture of Marlon Brando in "The Godfather", from the POV of the visitor, down on one knee, kissing this guy's ring and saying, "Don Moroni, you do us great honor by visiting this house on the day of my son's wedding. What is it you would have me do?"
Mormons were the subject of the very first Sherlock Holmes story, "The Sign of the Four". The Guardian Angels were a Mafia-like group in Utah, enforcing orthodoxy, killing people. Sherlock Holmes hears an account of a murder and solves it from his office in London.
Atheism is a relativistic term. I don't beleive in evolution therefore I am an atheist to that religeon.
one more thing, jesus was a hippy,
where did I call you a liar? quote me please.
have a great day!
As I already explained, (but I'll do it again since you seem to be slow on the uptake what with you asking me to explain everything twice.....) you said there is no controversy on the topic and asked me for evidence.
That implies that I am lying.
I have faith that there are no atheists in foxholes ,tonadoes ,hurricanes , or sinking boats .
You have just proved that faith is unreliable. Just because you have faith that something is true, does not mean that it is. You will find atheists in all of those places. Atheists don't turn to a nonexistent being in times of crisis because they know it does no good. I have been through times of crisis, and I never turned to a nonexistent being for help. So, you can have faith in something, that turns out to be false.
If people only believe in religion because they are terrified then that doesn't make a very good case for religion, does it?
by Brittany Williams3 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by enderw1ggins2 years ago
The debate is Theism Vs. Atheism. The spirit of this particular thread is solely for a more formal discussion of the topic. There are rules...which obviously can be broken but should be followed out of courtesy.1.)...
by augustine725 years ago
Is atheism non-belief in the existence of God or belief in the non-existence of God?
by Tim Mitchell3 years ago
Does belief require something to be a known (to know) to exist? Does to know something mean there is belief (rather than simply suggest) that it exists? If there are more than a singular known existing as truths, then...
by Julie McFarland3 years ago
I'm currently in a university class on critical thinking, and it's forcing me to think about a lot of things from perspectives that I've never examined previously. I abandoned my faith in god over the process of...
by Alexander A. Villarasa5 years ago
Is atheism an anchronistic non-belief system? Of all the "isms" that has bedeviled man's existence, it could be said that atheism takes the cake for being inexplicably incongrous...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.