Any atheists in here?
POSTED BY: BlackCollarBrowncoat
UPDATED: Sunday, March 12, 2006 20:19
VIEWED: 38267
PAGE 15 of 18
Nah, I was just specifically referring to the 'debate' or whether atheism was a religion, which really just looks like a waste of time. Without getting dragged into it, atheism is not a religion, and many religions do not revolve around the existance of God.
In fact, no religions really do. The so called western religions, I say so called because there's really nothing western about them, since all three originated on the continent of asia, actually speculate that one can curry divine favor by worshipping Yhwh, God of War to the exclusion of other middle eastern deities. They neither confirm nor deny the existance of other non-Yhwh gods, and they don't spend a lot of time worrying about the existance of 'God'.
Atheism is not attached to the idea, it's a rejection of the idea. Whether or not one is an atheist is probably not too relevant to the existance of God, I suppose, technically, you could believe in the existance of God and yet not worship Him.
I myself am not an atheist, and am absolutely certain of the non-existance of God in the tradition so called western sense. The concept is absurd, and has little purpose other than to cause intellectuals to waste time rather than pragmatically approach problems which affect their actual lives. And everyone else's.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you eat the toothpaste, it makes your tongue tingle.
Just sayin...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Sorry but you are just completly ignoring the issue at hand and are now trying to back peddle because that is not just what you were saying earlier, you were trying to equate belief or non-belief in God as being equally a matter of faith which they are patently not because of the need for evidence for one but not the other.
I do not believe that non-belief in god requires proof, I have never said I do. (If I did it was accidental and I would appreciate it greatly if you would point out where I said it.) I have repeatedly said that I believe it doesn't require proof.
I have however said that failure to accept a thing is different than accepting the negation of that thing.
This is a point that you have been avoiding.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Not believing in something for which no evidence exists is not faith.
Which I have said I agree with how many times?
So you're admitting that your earlier arguments were logically false?
This is what I have said all along and you know it.
Quote:
Or are you saying you didn't say what you said earlier?
Would you point out where I said it.
Quote:
Or that you didn't mean what you said?
If I did say what you claim I said I certainly didn't mean it, but I do not remember saying it and after looking through all of my posts I have yet to come across a place where I did say it. You have also not quoted a place where I said that.
If I did say that please point out where I said it. If you would, if you can, it would save us both a hell of a lot of trouble.
Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
"I believe U is false."
I believe they should have to offer proof, or evidence, or admit that they believe it on faith.
But that is not quite what you were saying earlier is it (be honest now)
That is exactly what I was saying earlier. The fact that I was saying, "the existence of god" instead of "U" changes nothing.
Quote:
In any case the burden of truth vis a vis the existance of God must lie primarily with the Theist wouldn't you say?
The burden of proof for existence lies on the theist, but a lack of that proof is not reason to believe in the non-existence. A lack of proof against a belief (even a belief in non-existence) is not a reason to conclude that belief is correct.
If one wants to take a stance either way without proof they must show evidence or admit faith. If they do not have evidence and they deny that they take it on faith they are being dishonest (perhaps even to themselves.)
Quote:
You are still utterly missing, or perhaps avoiding, the point. YOU EQUATED BELIEF IN A GOD WITH NON-BELIEF IN THAT YOU MAINTAINED THEY BOTH REQUIRE PROOF. THIS IS THE LOGICAL FALLACY YOU DENIED MAKING.
No. I equated belief with god with belief in a universe without a god by claiming that unless there is evidence to support them both of those beliefs require faith.
You seem very intent on putting words into my mouth. I have repeatedly said that non-belief is something that requires neither proof nor faith.
Quote:
The fact that there is no proof of the non-existance of God is utterly irrelevant to the debate. The burden of proof lies solely with the theist.
The burden of proof lies with whoever has a belief. Only non-believers do not have the burden put upon them. It does not matter whether the position is a positive or a negative, only whether or not it is a position of belief.
If I say that there is nothing unsafe in the stream water, for example, I had better have some kind of evidence for it before I start making Kool-Aid for my friends.
(Personally I always bring my own water, safer that way since I know my water has been through purification processes. But then again I don't make Kool-Aid anyway.)
Quote:Quote:Quote:
"The belief that there is no god is a belief about god."NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Just butting in to say this is a pointless argument. You're time cna be better spent by hand painting all those little gravel bits in the driveway different colors. Just saying.
Can't argue with that.
But it's hard for me to ignore because of the insidious nature of what they're doing. It reminds me of the intelligent design non-argument, where the point isn't so much to win the argument but to promote an acceptance of an idea that has no logical support. In that case it's the idea that 'intelligent design' is legitimate science, in this case the idea that atheism is a religion. The tactic in general is to throw up a fallacious argument and through sheer repetition and volume try to convince people there's real debate going on.
I'm just really put off by those who attempt to push social agendas by redefining words and foisting their 'newspeak' on the popular conscience. So I find it hard to keep quiet when I see it going on. If you have something worth promoting you don't need to resort to this kind of deception.
Chris keeps pushing this idea that atheists have faith in the non-existence of god. I've never heard any atheist utter a mangled phrase like this. Why would they? It doesn't make any sense. They just don't believe. No atheist I know of would say, for example, "It is impossible that anything like a supreme being could ever exist". Certainly its possible, but since there's no compelling evidence that it's true, many us don't feel like pretending. That's all it amounts to. Concocting this 'faithful atheist' straw man and then flailing away against it is just another part of the con game that is being promoted.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you eat the toothpaste, it makes your tongue tingle.
Do you have to eat it eat it, or can you just put it on your tongue?
SergeantX,
Glad for the post.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
what are you arguing about? we here do not believe in a god or gods because there is no evidence to compel us to believe in a god or gods. it doesn't matter whether not believing in something is an act of faith or not. IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!! so stop fighting over this. and us atheists wonder why we cant talk sense into religious folks. just look at the stuff we bicker about. its completely ridiculous!GAH!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's very simple.
If someone asks you, "Is there a god?" and you give a straight answer based on your personal opinion there are only three possibilities I know of:
1 Yes.
2 No.
3 Maybe.
((A very, very simple definition of hard atheist is someone who would answer, "No," to the question, "Is there a god?"))
"Yes," and, "No," are both statements about the nature of reality. There is no wiggle room, there is no non-belief, there is a simple statement of either:
There exists at least one god.
or:
This entire universe is completely devoid of gods.
These are statements presented as solid fact and unless the person saying, "Yes," or, "No," does not believe they are telling the truth the statements meet the definition of belief:
“Acceptance of the truth of something.”
The definition of faith is:
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Unless there is logical proof or material evidence backing up the non-existence of god (which I'd hope someone would have brought up by now if they knew of it) that belief is one of faith.
Quote:
They just don't believe.
Then they aren't hard (or "strong" if you prefer) atheists now are they?
Quote:
No atheist I know of would say, for example, "It is impossible that anything like a supreme being could ever exist".
Actually some do but that is hardly the point. I don't need to believe it is impossilbe for a purple unicorn to exist to believe that one doesn't.
And I certainly do believe that they don't exist.
Quote:
That's all it amounts to. Concocting this 'faithful atheist' straw man and then flailing away against it is just another part of the con game that is being promoted.
I didn't invent them. There are some people who hold the belief that there is no god.
Just because your are adamant that you are not one of them does not mean they don't exist.
I suppose it is possible that all people who claim there is no god either do not believe it to be true or have proof that they have simply chosen not to share.
-
From the website StrongAtheism.net:
Strong atheism is the position that we should affirm the non-existence of a god or gods.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've only skimmed this thread, and I'm probably not going to keep coming back to argue with anyone who has specific issues with my post, but nonetheless I felt I had to make at least one contribution.
I'm an athiest. I don't want to get involved in semantics over hard/soft/strong/weak athiesm or agnosticism. I simply look at all the evidence and see nothing to suggest that any gods exist.
Additionally there is some evidence (eg. injustice, suffering, etc) to suggest that the supposedly caring gods of some popular religions don't exist.
Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that there are no gods. The idea that my position is as much a matter of faith as the position of thiests is simply false.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have faith that I do not know enough about the 'Verse to say if there is a God(s) or not.
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The definition of faith is:
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
But until one makes itself apparent to me, I'll have to go with Buddha.
At One with himself (sometimes) Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I have faith that I do not know enough about the 'Verse to say if there is a God(s) or not.
Very nice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME