Religion question?

[hurfdurf]

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

NOM8

Destroying stamps could easily be a hobby, not destroying stamps, as well as not stamp collecting, would not be a hobby.

Atheists don't believe in a specific god, there is no evidence for one, people don't believe in Unicorns for the same reason, how ever, if one presented itself, they would. Athiests believe in what known, we do not know if there is a god or not, so if there is, it hasn't shown itself, so why believe in something so vague with no basis. Better to go along with what we do know thanks to science than to start guessing. That is not actively believing a specific god doesn't exist, its just the absence of believing in a specific god or anything else that there is no evidence for.

 

[hurfdurf]

The Bible, which isn't a literal text anyway.

Then what good is it if its teaching are ultimately derived from men who are free to pick and chose anyway?

 

[fluffmct]

No, you didn't, but you made a statement unrelated to my point that I countered by mentioning religion and reasonable people. How have you missed that?

I don't think it counters my point at all. Being religious has baggage alongside it, which I'll admit isn't always bad, whereas atheism doesn't. There is no atheist doctrine that dictates what people should say or do whereas once you take the leap from deist to theist, there's a questionable acceptance of a truth outside of what has been shown to be true that dictates how you should live your life

 

[Gilly]

Then what good is it if its teaching are ultimately derived from men who are free to pick and chose anyway?

Huh?

I don't think it counters my point at all. Being religious has baggage alongside it, which I'll admit isn't always bad, whereas atheism doesn't. There is no atheist doctrine that dictates what people should say or do whereas once you take the leap from deist to theist, there's a questionable acceptance of a truth outside of what has been shown to be true that dictates how you should live your life

That's nothing to do with what I said though.

 

[elmarko]

Double post.

 

[fluffmct]

That's nothing to do with what I said though.

You said that atheists are just as forceful with their opinions as religious folk.

My point before was showing that it can be argued that atheists aren't opinionated because of their atheism, whereas theists can be.

Basically, I'm pointing out that it's more complicated than just "forceful people will be forceful" - and if that was your original point then I think you're wrong for the aforementioned reasons

 

[elmarko]

dp

 

[RDM]

I generally describe myself as an atheist because if you describe yourself as agnostic you tend to get accused of sitting on the fence.

At the end of the day none of the numerous explanations of a god or gods that I have so far encountered stand up to my own internal rationale. So I don't believe in god which the term "atheist" most closely matches.

 

[krooton]

I still don't get why it is almost just a numbers game.

If enough people believe something relatively fantastical, regardless of proof, then it's ok.

If only one person believes something fantastical, then they have mental issues.

If you go and find some desert-based tribal community, whose beliefs revolve around nature/weather/the sun/etc, and tell them there is an all-powerful god that made us in his image and has a bunch of rules you have to follow, they would think you insane...

 

[Haggisman]

NOM8

Atheists don't believe in a specific god, there is no evidence for one, people don't believe in Unicorns for the same reason, how ever, if one presented itself, they would. Athiests believe in what known, we do not know if there is a god or not, so if there is, it hasn't shown itself, so why believe in something so vague with no basis. Better to go along with what we do know thanks to science than to start guessing. That is not actively believing a specific god doesn't exist, its just the absence of believing in a specific god or anything else that there is no evidence for.

You're thinking of agnostics.

Atheists actively believe that god doesn't exist, in much the same way as someone who destroys stamps is actively not collecting them (it really is a terrible analogy, perhaps I should have used a stamp giver-awayer. Wouldn't that be a philanthropic philatelist? )

Both are actively doing something with stamps, but at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Meanwhile everyone else is going about their daily lives ignoring stamps altogether, i.e. agnostic.

 

[elmarko]

You're thinking of agnostics.

Atheists actively believe that god doesn't exist, in much the same way as someone who destroys stamps is actively not collecting them (it really is a terrible analogy, perhaps I should have used a stamp giver-awayer. Wouldn't that be a philanthropic philatelist? )

Both are actively doing something with stamps, but at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Meanwhile everyone else is going about their daily lives ignoring stamps altogether, i.e. agnostic.

Agnosticism concerns knowledge, atheism concerns belief.

You can be agnostic & believe in god or not believe in god.

A baby is an atheist, implicit (simply because it lacks belief in a god due to circumstance).

I'm an explicit atheist because I've rejected the concept of a god.

It's a common tactic by the religious to misrepresent atheism as a form of belief, when in reality it's a label ascribed to people who reject the assertion that "either one or more gods exist" (usually due to a lack of evidence).

 

[Gilly]

Atheism is a form of belief.

 

[Haggisman]

Agnosticism concerns knowledge, atheism concerns belief.

You can be agnostic & believe in god or not believe in god.

A baby is an atheist, implicit (simply because it lacks belief in a god due to circumstance).

I'm an explicit atheist because I've rejected the concept of a god.

It's a common tactic by the religious to misrepresent atheism as a form of belief, when in reality it's a label ascribed to people who reject the assertion that "either one or more gods exist" (usually due to a lack of evidence).

Rejecting the assertion that "either one or more gods exist" is akin to stating definitively that no god(s) exist. Or rather than you believe that no god(s) exist, since at present it is impossible to prove that no god(s) exist.

The statement "there is/are no god(s)" is based on belief, not evidence.

 

[trojan698]

Tesla:

“There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without.”

 

[Castiel]

Agnosticism concerns knowledge, atheism concerns belief.

You can be agnostic & believe in god or not believe in god.

A baby is an atheist, implicit (simply because it lacks belief in a god due to circumstance).

I'm an explicit atheist because I've rejected the concept of a god.

It's a common tactic by the religious to misrepresent atheism as a form of belief, when in reality it's a label ascribed to people who reject the assertion that "either one or more gods exist" (usually due to a lack of evidence).

That is somewhat all twisted about. To begin with you can be an atheist and believe in God of some kind...the term atheist is defined by its context.

Also although Agnosticism does concern knowledge, a baby has no knowledge so they are not an atheist (that would require some form of decision to be made by the baby)....they are closer to agnostic if you can ascribe such a label to them at all considering you are assuming what a baby believes or disbelieves or what it is thinking about such things at all. Trying to assign philosophical positions to a baby is an exercise in futility in itself. Effectively a baby neither believes or disbelieves, they are simply ignorant. You could just as easily argue that everyone is born with an inherent belief in God that they lose (or don't) as they learn to communicate such complex concepts as they grow......its better and simpler to assume a state of ignorance of either position.

It is a common tactic by the anti-religious to try to broaden their particular position to include as many people as possible in an attempt to strengthen that position by dint of numbers of adherents.

Besides you don't have to be religious to believe in God, people seem to consistently confuse or lump atheism in with anti-clericalism and anti-theism. Many people who call themselves atheist are in fact anti-theists rather than simply atheists.

It is these meaningless and circular semantic arguments that make such debates pointless, you can call yourself whatever you want and define it however you want, the whole range of philosophical positions overlap so much that you can justify just about anything. It's better to stick to the specifics and leave the labels out of it except in the broadest of terms.

 

[elmarko]

Rejecting the assertion that "either one or more gods exist" is akin to stating definitively that no god(s) exist. Or rather than you believe that no god(s) exist, since at present it is impossible to prove that no god(s) exist.

The statement "there is/are no god(s)" is based on belief, not evidence.

You are not getting it.

I'm not making the statemen "there is/are no god(s)", neither are most atheists who have considered the subject in any depth.

Rejection somebody elses assertion isn't the same as making a counter-assertion.

Explains it better than I can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

That is somewhat all twisted about. To begin with you can be an atheist and believe in God of some kind...the term atheist is defined by its context..

It depends on the definition, if by atheism you mean "lacks belief in a god/god's" then no, you can't be an atheist and believe in a god.

Also although Agnosticism does concern knowledge, a baby has no knowledge so they are not an atheist (that would require some form of decision to be made by the baby)....they are closer to agnostic if you can ascribe such a label to them at all considering you are assuming what a baby believes or disbelieves or what it is thinking about such things at all. Trying to assign philosophical positions to a baby is an exercise in futility in itself. Effectively a baby neither believes or disbelieves, they are simply ignorant.

A baby isn't agnostic - as agnosticism concerns knowledge & requires a level of understanding to hold that view.

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable."

A baby can't comprehend the above in any rational way to hold the view that it's unknownable.

But a baby is capable of simple lacking a belief - as lacking something doesn't require any ability or information.

You could just as easily argue that everyone is born with an inherent belief in God that they lose (or don't) as they learn to communicate such complex concepts as they grow

I would love to see somebody try.

It is a common tactic by the anti-religious to try to broaden their particular position to include as many people as possible in an attempt to strengthen that position by dint of numbers of adherents.

Not really, I'm simply pointing out that sub-categories exist & one label isn't sufficient & that the assertion that atheism is a belief system is logically flawed.

Besides you don't have to be religious to believe in God, people seem to consistently confuse or lump atheism in with anti-clericalism and anti-theism. Many people who call themselves atheist are in fact anti-theists rather than simply atheists.

I never mentioned religion so it has no bearing on my point (I was talking about theism/atheism), but yes you are right.

It is these meaningless and circular semantic arguments that make such debates pointless, you can call yourself whatever you want and define it however you want, the whole range of philosophical positions overlap so much that you can justify just about anything. It's better to stick to the specifics and leave the labels out of it except in the broadest of terms.

It does matter when people attempt to change the meaning of a basic term, or imply that you think something that you don't.

I lack a belief in a god/god's, I don't believe that a god exist - neither do I believe a god doesn't exist (As both views would require evidence which does not exist).

Agnosticms isn't some "middle ground", it's a totally different question - I'm agnostic to most religious claims as they are unknowable (But not all are) so it's pendant on the specific theistic claim.

If person X says to me "God exists for certain", I say "I reject your assertion due to the lack of evidence".
If person Y says to me "God does not exist for certain", I say "I reject your assertion due to the lack of evidence".

I retain my default position of not believing in anything, while making no commitments to either side of a futile argument.

 

[Gilly]

He is getting it. Absence of belief != atheism.

 

[elmarko]

He is getting it. Absence of belief != atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

"Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist."

"Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none"

It's very simple.

Group 1.

Theist. (Believes in some form of god/god's)

Group 2

Explicit Positive Atheist (Believes that no gods exist).

Group 3

Explicit Negative Atheist (Lacks a belief in god due to a concious rejection of the idea while holding no beliefs that they explicitly don't exist).

Group 4

Implicit Negative Atheist (Lacks a belief in a god due to cirmuncstance or never having consdiered the notion) - people in isolated tribes, very young children, babies fit into this category - or simply adults who have never really thought about it either way.

Then on top of that all of the above groups could hold a view of agnosticism regarding the main religious claims.

Note (obviously you can't have an implicit positive atheism as it's a contradiction)

 

[Stretch]

I think most atheists are actually agnostic but rate the likelihood of there being a god so infinitesimally small it's not worth further consideration.

You can't discount the possibility of god, just as you can't discount the possibility of winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life, even though you don't buy tickets.

 

[Skidder]

I think most atheists are actually agnostic but rate the likelihood of there being a god so infinitesimally small it's not worth further consideration.

You can't discount the possibility of god, just as you can't discount the possibility of winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life, even though you don't buy tickets.

As I have said on here before, the thinking man's position:Agnostic atheism (from wiki), also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.