Atheism is a belief.
- Thread starter Tht1Gy!
- Start date
Heathen.I don't believe it.
I don't believe it.
Now, now I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs.
Merely your definitions. You asked for evidence, I gave evidence.
I didn't prove anything.
After all this time, you apparently still do not understand my position on (belief in) God.
As far as I could tell, I am the only one on this forum who holds such a position and I have seen it in other people elsewhere perhaps a handful of times, no more.
My position on (believing in) God is that it is cognitively and morally corruptive to believe one has been created by a supreme being. This is because believing in a supreme being, one will ultimately not take responsibility for one's own happiness and suffering.
I do not go into seeking, providing or arguing evidence for or against the existence of God. I find it irrelevant whether God exists or not. The only thing that I do find relevant in relation to (belief in) God is what this means for the person believing or not believing in God.
Oh really...
As is mine. Atheist.
Nor do I. Atheist
As do I. Atheist.
Same exact thing here. Atheist.
I think we understand each other perfectly well. You will find no atheist here seeking evidence for or against the existence of a god(s). Every one uf us, given the difinitions of gods, finds it irrelevant whether "it" exists or not. And all of us here are mainly interested in why some people choose to follow a completly unsupported set of doctrines and abandon free thinking.
And yet we have so many differences.
You contradict yourself.
If it doesn't matter to you whether God exists or not, then why wonder why someone would "choose to follow a completly unsupported set of doctrines"?
And also - whence this interest in what other people do and why they do it?
When I have interest in what other people and why they do it, it is mostly to detect my own attitudes and assumptions and to deal with them, or to get to know the other person.
There is no contradiction here.
The assertion of the irrelevance of a deity does not necessarily exclude confusion as to why one opts to follow a flawed system. A flawed system (even one of belief) can obtain beyond the specification of a deity.
He calls those theistic doctrines about God "completely unsupported set of doctrines".
If he holds that (1) it is irrelevant whether God exists or not and if he holds that (2) he doesn't seek or argue about the evidence for or against the existence of God and if he holds that (3) one either has evidentiary support for believing something, or one has merely blind faith -
then why would it matter to him whether those doctrines about God are unsupported?
If one holds the position that whether God exists or not is irrelevant to one's belief or lack of belief in God, then calling theistic doctrines "unsupported" is misleading, to say the least.
If one's real reason for not believing in God is an ethical one, then why present one's reason for not believing in God as an evidentiary one?
If he holds that (1) it is irrelevant whether God exists or not and if he holds that (2) he doesn't seek or argue about the evidence for or against the existence of God and if he holds that (3) one either has evidentiary support for believing something, or one has merely blind faith -
then why would it matter to him whether those doctrines about God are unsupported?
If one holds the position that whether God exists or not is irrelevant to one's belief or lack of belief in God, then calling theistic doctrines "unsupported" is misleading, to say the least.
If one's real reason for not believing in God is an ethical one, then why present one's reason for not believing in God as an evidentiary one?
Yes.
Yes.
Oh no you don't. I said:
I argue about the lack of evidence all the time. I state it outright. Read my statement.
Why does a biologist study roundworms?
Why? It's a simple statement of fact if, by unsupported, we mean lacking any scientific evidence.
Because it is an evidentiary one. It's got nothing to do with ethics.
Aegiltheugly
Registered Member
Yes Atheism is a belief syste! The true Athiest I know are just as strident about it as the fundamentalist of of any religion. We have no idea what caused the big bang or what existed before it. Ask a true Athiest if if that leaves room for the possibility for a supreme being as the initiating factor and they get somewhat apoplectic.
It all boils down to this then -
?
If we said that it is irrelevant whether God exists or not, then we are also implying that matters of belief in God are not an evidentiary issue.
?
If we said that it is irrelevant whether God exists or not, then we are also implying that matters of belief in God are not an evidentiary issue.
Woah, woah. It's irrelevant whether God exists or not, because there's not only no evidence, but the very construct precludes evidence or repeatable observation.
Exactly.
Which leaves a fair number of false atheists who are not strident, who don't (for instance) use exclamation points or large fonts or similar shouting typographies for insisting on the character traits of the theists present.aeg said:
Because it is worth thinking about, maybe, let me repeat again a factoid I ran across several years ago that struck me as suggestive: a fair percentage of Catholic priests are atheist. It's something like 1% - 4% IIRC, depending on the particular phrasing of the question and definition of "atheist" chosen.
Do they have the "belief system" you require of the "true atheist"? Do the Buddhist atheists ? The Taoist atheists ? The Islamic atheists, if any ? Are they strident, evangelical and fervent in their belief in - - - what, exactly, do the Taoists and Maoists and Dawkins and myself and atheist clerics of various theistic religions have in common ?
They do? Odd. Most of the presumably false atheists around here would just point out that you are arguing a God of the Gaps again, and that gap doesn't have room for Abrahim's God - if that's the one you were arguing for.aeg said:
Last edited:
Theistic religions sometimes give a specific requirement: faith, or accepting a particular set of propositions. With those in place, "evidence" and "repeatable observation" are possible.
You, on the other hand, demand to believe in God on your terms. Not on theism's terms. No suprise you end up with "no evidence" of God.
If someone sets out to interpret and use science on their own terms, and not on science's terms, you would claim they do wrong, right?
But you refuse to do theism this same justice. This speaks of your integrity.
All evidentiary arguments against theism are weak; they hold only as long as no new evidence comes in. A true empiricist who holds that the reason he doesn't believe in God is because there is no evidence for God, would have to agree to believe in God should the evidence be presented.
But imagining this potential situation - would the empiricist actually believe in God, once the evidence would be presented?
I would say No, because the truth is most likely that he doesn't want to believe in God. The whole thing with focusing on evidentiary support is merely a pseudoscientifically correct sham.
Your brand of atheism is just as helpless and hopeless as the faith of many theists: both of you are depersonalizing yourselves, relying on some external authority -be that science and reason, or God- to get validation and meaning from, both of you are hyping yourselves up in idealized despair.
The relevant problem with believing in God isn't about evidentiary support or whether the very construct precludes evidence or repeatable observation.
It is much simpler: Who or what do you turn to for your happiness and freedom from suffering?
Theists say to turn to God. Scientific Atheists say to turn to science. Philosophical Atheists say to turn to philosophy. Materialistc Atheists say to turn to consumerism or hedonism.
All of them are saying to turn to someone or something else, leaving the self behind.
I am sick of this waiting for bloody Godot.
Last edited:
Your imagination regarding what other people you have never met would or would not do in an unspecified hypothetical situation - this is the basis for some kind of argument ?greenberg said:
That doesn't even address the actual empiricist's claim, in its initial strong form: it is belief that requires evidence, not disbelief. You are arguing that imagined wants and psychologies are sufficient to actually dismiss the positive assertions of the empiricist (that they would believe with sufficient postive evidence) while not even being admissable as doubt-casters on the negative assertions of the theist (that they are justified in believing given insufficient negative evidence).
Most atheists I know say turn to friendship, understanding, faith, and good works. What kind are they ?greenberg said:
Do they practice what they preach? Are they understanding and tolerant? Friendly? To everyone?
I'd say this entire post speaks of your integrity.
Don't be absurd. We're just like everyone else, except we don't endorse fairy tales and blind acceptance as a way of life.Do they practice what they preach? Are they understanding and tolerant? Friendly? To everyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale
-me
"when a number of people are, from a standpoint of common sense, observing the same object, there are likenesses and differences in their percepts."
-science
I hope you are sufficiently advanced to doubt everything you see, hear or taste. And hence, think.
Perception is so subjective.