Religion question?

[Gilly]

As always the atheists take the religion thread to semantics.

You can argue what the words mean as much as you want, but that won't stop atheism being a faith based position.

Uncertaincy principles align with agnosticism, which is outwith atheism. There should be no such thing as an agnostic atheist. They are opposed.

 

[estebanrey]

Just found this brilliant quote....

"The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell." [Armand Salacrou]

 

[ubersonic]

There is insufficient evidence that a god exists. You do not need faith to know that but you do need faith to ignore that fact.

You do need faith to believe the is no god as it cannot be proven, and a reasonable argument can be made that in all likenesses this existence did not come about purely by accident/randomness. Just like the existence of Aliens is in all likeliness true, but unproved.

 

[estebanrey]

As always the atheists take the religion thread to semantics.

Love it when someone tries to tell you that you have the meaning of a word wrong, you argue back and they come back claiming you are arguing semantics. Oh the irony

You can argue what the words mean as much as you want, but that won't stop atheism being a faith based position.

Well it does, if you knew what the word actually meant rather than pretending it only applies to the Richard Dawkins activist type then you would see the flaw in your argument.

Uncertaincy principles align with agnosticism, which is outwith atheism. There should be no such thing as an agnostic atheist. They are opposed.

I know you will accuse me of sematics again but here goes.

Theist vs Athiest.

Can you not see the two terms above are a binary choice? You either believe in a God or you don't, there is no third option.

 

[Gilly]

I know you will accuse me of sematics again but here goes.

Theist vs Athiest.

Can you not see the two terms above are a binary choice? You either believe in a God or you don't, there is no third option.

Of course there is. Absence of a decision either way.

No faith means not believing there is a god and not believing there is no god. It is absolutely not a binary choice.

In a theist v atheist argument there is no third choice, but not everyone has faith and therefore not everyone fits into those two categories. However much atheists would like to think they do.

 

[Castiel]

Faith is believing in something without the need to go looking for 'proof'.

You, like a lot of others, need scientific proof that something exists beyond your reasoning. Telling a Christian he needs proof is rubbish. Faith is massive. Having real faith is what separates a 'Believer' from some who needs proof to believe.

It is hard for someone who doesnt believe in God etc to accept someone who has 100% faith in his or her own beliefs.

I never mentioned scientific proof....I am not one of those who only accepts scientific proof as the only kind. What I meant, and though I explained is that your faith is underpinned by a range of proofs and reasoning that you accept as valid as a way of informing your faith. Surely you do not belive simply because someone else told you to, you have a personal reasoning for why and what you believe?

I would hope so anyway, I have faith in a wide range of things, all of them based on reasoning and what I consider valid evidence to support that faith.

 

[estebanrey]

Of course there is. Absence of a decision either way.

Eh? If you haven't decided whether you actively believe in a God or not then at that point you don't hence you are an atheist.

You either believe in a God or you don't. You can be undecided on the question as to whether God actually exists but you can't be undecided whether you actively belief and worship him or not.

I know people will get sick of me posting this video but let Penn Jilllete explain where you are going wrong with this better than I can...

 

[Gilly]

Eh? If you haven't decided whether you actively believe in a God or not then at that point you don't hence you are an atheist.

I do not believe in god (or gods) and do not actively disbelieve in god (or gods) either and am therefore neither a theist nor an atheist.

 

[ubersonic]

You either believe in a God or you don't.

Or your agnostic, so not a binary choice then

 

[Gilly]

Or your agnostic, so not a binary choice then

The guy he refers to thinks it is a different question, and used it to sell his book.

He refers to 'in my book' and 'pretty much' quite often. I don't see it as source material for defence of a binary choice.

 

[ubersonic]

The guy he refers to thinks it is a different question, and used it to sell his book.

He refers to 'in my book' and 'pretty much' quite often. I don't see it as source material for defence of a binary choice.

To be honest I didn't bother watching his video, I already know your right

I don't believe in a god but neither do I believe the is no god so I'm not religious or an atheist.

 

[Castiel]

I'm neither a Theist or an Atheist either...I am essentially an Ignostic. I think that you first have to universally define God before you can even begin to prove whether such a concept exists or not.

There is a lot of debate over the terms and definitions of Atheism, dependent on your particular bias. Atheism is not really an opposition to religion either as Atheist concepts exist within many religions. Effectively in these types of conversations and the positions that are being forwarded Gilly is right in what he says are the definitions regarding Atheist positions, however Estebanrey is also correct insofar that Atheism is not so narrowly defined in all cases.

In this thread (and most others) the term atheist is referring to the position that there are No Gods or that they definitively reject any belief in Gods, rather than the position of simply absence of any belief.

 

[fluffmct]

The guy he refers to thinks it is a different question, and used it to sell his book.

He refers to 'in my book' and 'pretty much' quite often. I don't see it as source material for defence of a binary choice.

Even if you don't accept Penn Jillette's interpretation of the terms, which is fairly standard by the way, you can still break it down into absolute or practical truth.

If I ask you whether the sun will rise tomorrow, you will tell me yes it will - which is a practical truth because there's no evidence or reason to believe otherwise.

If I ask you whether you are 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, you will probably say "well, it will rise but I'm not absolutely certain - it could blow up or something before then" - this is absolute truth and is in no way useful when having a day to day conversation.

I am atheist in the practical sense but I'm agnostic in the absolute sense, therefore I can be both atheist and agnostic. The problem with absolute truth is that it is too philosophical and you can't say that anything is absolutely true.

If I ask you whether your position on the sun is a faith based one, I'd like to think you'd say it wasn't.

 

[Spook187]

religious people are deluded, get a life jesus heads.

 

[doofer]

 

[Gilly]

I would tell you that the sun doesn't rise, has never risen and is completely ignorant of insignificant mortal beings and their relative location on a slightly less so but still insignificant ball of rock.

 

[hurfdurf]

That rejection requires faith.

Theism - there is at least one god.
Atheism - there is no god.
Agnostic - there is no way, other than reliance on faith, to decide my position so I will suspend my belief either way.

Just because atheists don't like being told their position is a faith based one, so decide to include agnosticism in atheism (which is inherently wrong), doesn't make it right.

Atheists are perfectly willing and accept there is a god, they are not willing to believe in one purely based on faith. Not believing in something is not a leap of faith, just like not stamp collecting isn't a hobby.

Unless you want to go down the spiral of solipsism, at which point it is you who is arguing disingenuously and from semantics.

 

[Castiel]

I would tell you that the sun doesn't rise, has never risen and is completely ignorant of insignificant mortal beings and their relative location on a slightly less so but still insignificant ball of rock.

Indeed.

 

[estebanrey]

I don't know why you guys are finding this so hard to understand.

Q) Does god exist
Here you can either say yes, no or I don't know. Saying yes doesn't make you a theist, saying no doesn't make you an atheist (well not directly anyway). Saying I don't know makes you an agnostic.

Q) Do you believe in and/or worship a (specific) god
You can only answer this yes or no. If you say yes you are a theist and saying no means you are an atheist .

You can't "not know" whether you believe and worship a specific god or not.

The point of all this is Athiesm is NOT the rejection and denial of a god's existence (as posed in the first question above) it is the lack or belief and/or worship in one.

Now I'll admit the word atheist has been misused a lot in recent years, to portray a Richard Dawkinesque type who not only has a lack of belief but also a fervant desire to disprove any belief is stupid and I can understand why so many people thus want to distance themselves from the word by claiming they are 'agnostic' (makes you seem less controversial and all) but it simply is a different issue.

Anyone without a knowledge of god, be that from being too young to be taught about the subject or just never come into contact with religion (let's say some aboriginal tribe that hasn't come into contact with anyone else) is an atheist. Likewise anyone that doesn't actively believe in or worship a specific god is an atheist. They are all 'without God', the very definition of the word.

 

[Haggisman]

Atheists are perfectly willing and accept there is a god, they are not willing to believe in one purely based on faith. Not believing in something is not a leap of faith, just like not stamp collecting isn't a hobby.

However actively believing one doesn't exist is a leap of faith, just like destroying stamps is a hobby (albeit a very weird one!! )