Atheism and blind faith

[Oli]

You're acknowledging that you know what the subject is (that you don't believe in)....it is not the same as lacking any belief(s)....

I'm acknowledging that I understand the term and the concept as it has been explained to me by theists. And then I'm saying that I don't believe it - because I have no supporting evidence. Could be true, might not be. So I lack the belief, either way. There's enough people saying they do believe, so there "might" be something in it, but I haven't come across enough data to make me believe.

lacking any type of beliefs is like an ancient person's thoughts about electromagnetism......they are basically agnostic to the concept...

No, that's ignorance - they don't know anything at all about the concept, let alone the reality.

 

[VitalOne]

I'm acknowledging that I understand the term and the concept as it has been explained to me by theists. And then I'm saying that I don't believe it - because I have no supporting evidence. Could be true, might not be. So I lack the belief, either way. There's enough people saying they do believe, so there "might" be something in it, but I haven't come across enough data to make me believe.

Right....so its the same as "believing that God does not exist"

It is not the same as "having no types of belief(s) regarding God", which is what you call ignorance.....

It is faith-based because it is "belief without evidence"....you believe in the non-existence of God without any evidence of absence...

No, that's ignorance - they don't know anything at all about the concept, let alone the reality.

Ignorance is the same as having no types of beliefs or thoughts or knowledge of something....

 

[Sarkus]

But you're the one who doesn't know what atheism is (by definition)

You grow tiresome, VO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Now go away - read up on what Atheism is and isn't.
Then come back and start debating again.

If you are referring to agnostic atheism then it is just as faith-based as anything else....the claim is that "I don't know if God exists or not, but I still believe there is no God" which is faith-based because it is "belief without evidence" why believe that God does not exist if you don't know if God exists or not?

If you continue to use your incorrect understanding - you will continue to reach incorrect conclusions.

Do you understand that there is a difference between:

"I have a positive belief that God does not exist."
and
"I do not have a positive belief that God exists."

Do you?
If you think you do - please explain it to the rest of us so that we can be sure that you are worth responding to in future.

 

[VitalOne]

You grow tiresome, VO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Now go away - read up on what Atheism is and isn't.
Then come back and start debating again.

Yeah it reconfirms just what I'm saying right here:
"Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of god(s) or rejects theism."

If you continue to use your incorrect understanding - you will continue to reach incorrect conclusions.

Do you understand that there is a difference between:

"I have a positive belief that God does not exist."
and
"I do not have a positive belief that God exists."

Do you?
If you think you do - please explain it to the rest of us so that we can be sure that you are worth responding to in future.

The difference is simple...one is atheism the other is agnosticism....

 

[phlogistician]

Right....so its the same as "believing that God does not exist"

NO. It is exactly not that.

The 'a' in 'atheist' means 'lack of' it is not short for 'anti' ie 'against'.

For example, symmetry, and asymmetry. Things that are asymmetrical do not propose that things that are symmetrical do not exist!

So your entire premise is based on a false understanding of the basic terms, and you have failed in your reasoning. Basically, you suck at debate.

 

[Satyr]

That ****** consistently use the ‘prove a negative’ angle to support their desperate beliefs, points to a desire to equate faith in sensual, conscious awareness with faith in imagination and unconscious projections.

Well then, if their reasoning holds some water then not believing in anything is a belief in itself.
Therefore I believe in unbelief.

We see here the consequences of reverse reasoning.
Whereas a healthy mind begins with no preconceived notions or prejudices, as much as this is possible when brought up by parents and in environments that affect the brain before maturity, the ill, retarded mind begins with a certainty reasoning backwards from there.

For it not accepting that there’s an elephant in the room because there is no evidence of one, is no different than accepting that there is one, even though there is no evidence for one.
Reason and emotion are thusly leveled into one and they win, by default, because their “belief” offers a reward and a certainty.

 

[phlogistician]

Yeah it reconfirms just what I'm saying right here:
"Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of god(s) or rejects theism."

Check the discussion on the article;

"The current definition is POV and makes absolutely no sense. Atheism is a lack of belief not a belief. I have tried to correct it many times but my edits keep being reverted and I even was told I was vandalising the page after I corrected it a third time.Zvyer 00:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)"

The guy is correct, the opening sentence on that Wikipedia article is misleading.

The difference is simple...one is atheism the other is agnosticism....

Agnostics are atheists. It's simple, if you don't believe in God, you are an atheist, Agnostics don't believe in God, and add further to the viewpoint that knowing if God exists is unknowable. I think agnosticism rather an arrogant position, as it has made decision based on scant evidence. It's almost as arrogant as believing God exists.

 

[phlogistician]

Actually, I'm so pissed off about that first line I'm going to find out how you start a dispute.

 

[Sarkus]

I think agnosticism rather an arrogant position, as it has made decision based on scant evidence. It's almost as arrogant as believing God exists.

Ah - but agnosticism can also be in reference to your personal level of knoweldge:

"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge." (taken from wikipedia.org).

Hope that helps clarify.

 

[phlogistician]

Ah - but agnosticism can also be in reference to your personal level of knoweldge:

"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge." (taken from wikipedia.org).

.

By that definition, everybody is agnostic! People have faith, because they have no knowledge.

There is a word for people who claim to know God exists. Insane.

 

[Sarkus]

By that definition, everybody is agnostic! People have faith, because they have no knowledge.

There is a word for people who claim to know God exists. Insane.

Maybe. Or maybe merely irrational - claiming knowledge where rationally there is none?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Vital One is right, "ad hominum"... Basically, "Falacia ad hominum" in latin. I can explain further if you´d like, but is basically attacking the person that makes a statement in order to lower the importance of what has been said. Don´t you go insult everyone that disagrees with you people, is just a low form of communication, we are way past that point in our society, at least I like to think so.

Mainly, I believe the whole "existance and non-existance of God argument" is due to the fact that you cannot explain the real experience in common language, or any kind of known language for that matter.

God, as atheists think it is, is not real, so atheists are right.
The thing is God, the way the Enlightened people talk about, does exists, and theists are right about that too.

The tricky part is that normally, we associate this with religion, and we should be associating it with inner-experience, so it is different for everyone.

A common "belief system" for all people, in order to reach that thing theists call God is not real, it is a lie, it is a pathway to certain death.

 

[SkinWalker]

Atheism is a word that shouldn't even exist. We don't have terms to describe people who don't believe in aliens abducting us in the middle of the night shoving probes in our butts; we don't have a term to refer to those that don't believe in astrology or tarot cards; there's no term that describes people who refuse to believe Elvis is still alive or in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

But when 87% of the American public shares the same delusion, they have to agree on what they consider a pejorative term to describe the rational thinkers -those that don't share their delusion.

If 87% of the American public believed Elvis rose from the dead and sings among us in His blue suede shoes, there would be a term -a word for those non-believers. "Anti-Kingites" or maybe "King Haters."

Atheism is merely the lack of belief. Atheists are those that, for whatever reason, don't share the delusion of religion that theists have. My daughter is an atheist -yet I challenge anyone to demonstrate how, exactly, a five-year old denies anyone's god. She hasn't the first clue about gods and the imaginary friends of Christianity.

So whether you just didn't ever buy into the delusions of religions like Christianity or if you were once a devout believer that finally used rational thinking and realized its all poppycock, an atheist doesn't refuse to believe out of "blind faith" but because there simply is no good reason to accept that supernatural and magical beings are worth believing in.

But I'm happy that Vital One has recognized that "blind faith" is a pejorative descriptor and not something to be proud of. He just hasn't the first clue when it comes to applying it to rational thought and reasoned conclusions.

And Jeremy was right, this has been a topic beaten to death. And do you seriously think that pointing out that you're a theist that thinks you know what you're talking about is an ad hominem remark?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Atheism is a word that shouldn't even exist. We don't have terms to describe people who don't believe in aliens abducting us in the middle of the night shoving probes in our butts; we don't have a term to refer to those that don't believe in astrology or tarot cards; there's no term that describes people who refuse to believe Elvis is still alive or in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

But when 87% of the American public shares the same delusion, they have to agree on what they consider a pejorative term to describe the rational thinkers -those that don't share their delusion.

If 87% of the American public believed Elvis rose from the dead and sings among us in His blue suede shoes, there would be a term -a word for those non-believers. "Anti-Kingites" or maybe "King Haters."

Atheism is merely the lack of belief. Atheists are those that, for whatever reason, don't share the delusion of religion that theists have. My daughter is an atheist -yet I challenge anyone to demonstrate how, exactly, a five-year old denies anyone's god. She hasn't the first clue about gods and the imaginary friends of Christianity.

So whether you just didn't ever buy into the delusions of religions like Christianity or if you were once a devout believer that finally used rational thinking and realized its all poppycock, an atheist doesn't refuse to believe out of "blind faith" but because there simply is no good reason to accept that supernatural and magical beings are worth believing in.

But I'm happy that Vital One has recognized that "blind faith" is a pejorative descriptor and not something to be proud of. He just hasn't the first clue when it comes to applying it to rational thought and reasoned conclusions.

And Jeremy was right, this has been a topic beaten to death.

You are mostly right, but if the word "atheist" shouldn´t exists, then the word "God" shouldn´t exist either.

And Jeremy was right, this has been a topic beaten to death. And do you seriously think that pointing out that you're a theist that thinks you know what you're talking about is an ad hominem remark?

No that is not "ad hominem", but all of the people attacking Vital_One for his arguments is in fact, ad hominem.

What you are doing here is judging me, I never claimed to know what I´m talking about, I´ll be glad if you prove my statements wrong, but I don´t think that is possible, because I have been clear in what I seriously believe in. And I´m a racional person, I´m a mathematician, a computer programmer, not easily fooled.

 

[phlogistician]

Atheism is a word that shouldn't even exist. We don't have terms to describe people who don't believe in aliens abducting us in the middle of the night shoving probes in our butts; we don't have a term to refer to those that don't believe in astrology or tarot cards; there's no term that describes people who refuse to believe Elvis is still alive or in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.?

Yes we do. The Sane.

 

[phlogistician]

No that is not "ad hominem", but all of the people attacking Vital_One for his arguments is in fact, ad hominem.

You cannot convolve separate criticisms of his basic premise into an ad hom.

Simply, he uses the term 'atheist' incorrectly, so everything that flows from this point is equally invalid.

If he wants to make an argument, encourage him to base it on a sound basis, and get him to admit that here, he was wrong.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Ok, I expressed myself incorrectly, I posted that comment right after I read:

That ******* consistently use the ‘prove a negative’ angle to support their desperate beliefs...

That is ad hominem, and a lot of people use it in here, and every other forums or discussions, I was just pointing out that fact so they become aware of what they are truly doing, and maybe stop that dumb practice in this thread.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

If he wants to make an argument, encourage him to base it on a sound basis, and get him to admit that here, he was wrong.

Well, he maybe wrong about the concept of atheists, but he is not wrong in the practice of accepting other people´s faith, and not letting us be bothered about other people having different beliefs; as long as these beliefs don´t include negative attitudes towards others that is.

 

[SkinWalker]

Ok, I expressed myself incorrectly, I posted that comment right after I read:



That is ad hominem, and a lot of people use it in here, and every other forums or discussions, I was just pointing out that fact so they become aware of what they are truly doing, and maybe stop that dumb practice in this thread.

Yes, you are correct. I overlooked Satyr's post and edited it to remove the offensive term.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I thought people who didn't automatically believe in alien anal probes and tarot and stuff were called "skeptics"