Atheism ( not a bad thing)

[SKULLZ]

If you think that that is the pinnacle of religious apologetics, you need to get out more.

I get out plenty,but i dont argue religion with people very much,an unwritten law says you shouldnt speak politics and religion with people so its often a watered down version of some of the arguments and debate on here,
its ok on here though cos i dont live with you do i!,or work with you,if i get pissed off in the realm of an internet forum my computer has an off switch,i dont have to reply or visit the site again if things got bad and noone needs to be any the wiser,in real life though id be more likely to bite my tongue.

Its not so much religion as just the idea of god,i mean there isnt much inbetween believing and non-believing is there.
I mean you either believe,dont believe or dont know

Its the reasons behind those choices thats the interesting part.

 

[SKULLZ]

Yes, you can. See below.


There are two main types of atheism, weak and strong. Strong atheism says "I believe god does not exist", weak atheism says "I have no belief in god". The difference is strong atheism is a belief, while weak atheism is lack of belief. You seem to fall in the weak atheism category, same as me. In my opinion, "belief" that god does not exist is the same as "belief" that god exists, both are baseless. You can read up more on it at this website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

Well,after reading that i would say i was a weak atheist,yeah now you come to mention it,i didnt know there was different definitions.
Thats why i said; its the use of english language,i was always told you are an atheist if you dont believe in god and thats the end of it and if you had doubts in your convictions you were agnostic,if you believe in god you are theist,there wasnt much more to it than that.

 

[I Am F_AQ2]

Originally posted by: robtex
Did you and the other athiests, go through a similar period of searching for a philosphy to live by, and if so what is a philosphy or set of them that you have chosen to use as a guide to life?

I am an atheist. I do not believe that I have ever gone soul searching. I think Snakelord said it very well. I don’t actually have a philosophy that I can put into words here in this forum. The closest I can get is to say that I take in any information that I can and see if it makes sense. If it does than I can compare it to what I already know and see what the result is. If it doesn’t make sense to me than I discard it. I actually really set about thinking before believing thing when I read one of Carl Segan’s books The Daemon Haunted World when I was a kid. My mother was really into aliens, spiritual healing and the like and it was just known to a boy that age that his parents were always right so I naturally believed it all until I found out that I can think for myself.

Originally posted by: TruthSeeker
Skeptic people are usually close-minded and they are totally unwilling to accept their understanding as wrong. So they shut down anything that doesn't agree with their beliefs.

and

Originally posted by: Pete
You appear to be of the opinion that all theists are unwilling to consider the possibility that there is no God, and that all atheists are unwilling to consider the possibility that there is a God.

Wrong on both counts.

Some people are open minded but I think that if you really step outside yourself and take a completely unbiased truth you will find that 99% of people are unwilling to change their belief system no matter what. It is no coincidence that over 80% of all people grow up to be the same religion as their parents. Discounting those that change their mind at a young age before they truly have a set of beliefs, that leaves very little room for “open mindedness.” Everyone will say they have an open mind, even me, but I think it has a lot to do with making ourselves more secure. If I say I am open minded then I can also believe that my view has stood even though I am open minded and therefore is even stronger.

Reading through this thread has also caused me to look inward and be a little honest with myself. Although I am used to knowing that in the mind of a believer I am a devil worshiper because I do not believe in god I have never bothered to turn it around. Though I think that many would deny it, as an unbeliever I do see most religion as a mental deficiency much the same way theists see unbelief as a sin. I do not look down on the believer but it does alter opinions of their rationally. Looking back on many of the posts I cant find an atheist that does not have a this in some degree or another. I think it has to come with the territory due to the fact that atheism states half the world is suffering from a paranoid delusion and theism says the other half is suffering from the same but opposite delusion.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Is that suppose to be a joke or something, because if so I don't get it. Skepticism is complete openmindedness when it comes to anything.

How can it be openminded if it rejects whatever comes close to it?

You obvious know very little about skepticism. Skeptics accept NOTHING as true

That's my whole point. That's exactly why they are close-minded, because they don't accept anything, they reject whatever comes to them.

so of course they're not going to accept your invisible fairy tale as true.

Which invisible? Which fairy tale?

And of course THEY are the wrong ones. Laff.

Yes.

Skeptics have no beliefs.

They believe nothing is true...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Hi Truthseeker,
While some skeptics are as you claim, the generalisation is far from true.
What is a Skeptic?, by Robert Carroll

Skepticism and Theism are not incompatible.

Skullz,
Many theists are open minded. Being open minded is to consider alternatives, something which many people, (theists and atheists alike) do, and which many people (theists and atheists alike) fail to do.

If a theist considers an alternative, and honestly decides that there is insufficient reason to choose to change their faith, then that is a valid choice.

Very well said....

 

[Godless]

Atheism is not a bad thing!.

I agree with that, and neither is theism a bad thing, only when thiests FORCE!! their ideas on others or vise-versa that an idea becomes a bad thing.

G.

 

[audible]

robtex that's your opinion of of mrs murray-ohair but not mine, mrs O'Hair the americas most famous atheist and such a controversial figure.
mrs O'Hair founded the group American Atheists in 1963 and remained its leading spokesperson until 1995.
when she was murder by a excon and not an atheist.
who wormed is way in only to steal and then kill her and her two children.

explain why you think she was not moral, for i would like to know how you came to that conclusion thank you.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Atheism is not a bad thing!.

I agree with that, and neither is theism a bad thing, only when thiests FORCE!! their ideas on others or vise-versa that an idea becomes a bad thing.

G.

Yeah.... I definetely agree with that...

 

[Cris]

Hi truthseeker,

I see you are still having massive difficulties with simple logic and definitions.

Skepticism is the healthy disposition of doubt towards incredulous claims, e.g. religion. When presented with a proof the skeptic is no longer a skeptic, however, the proof had better be very clear and precise; something that theists have never achieved so any skeptic to them will always appear closed-minded. This is not the fault of the skeptic but the theist’s total failure to present any credible stories.

This is entirely different to the theist who is totally closed-minded to everything except the one single-minded perspective – God did it.

Cris

 

[TheERK]

Atheism would solve alot of problems if everyone followed it,would sept 11th have happened if the terrorists didnt believe in an afterlife or god,no,there wouldnt be any fucking terrorists in the first place.

This is an idiotic viewpoint.

True there could be terrorism for other reasons,but if you knew there was nothing after death it might calm things down a bit.

Next time you realize something that contradicts something you have not even posted yet, go back and edit your post.

Every religious person likes to constantly try to show you thier fantasy is the correct answer,but when you try to shove reality in thier face they throw more fantasy back.

You are wrong. Not every religious person does this.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I see you are still having massive difficulties with simple logic and definitions.

Which means: "since I already know I'm right and you are wrong, there's no point in you presenting logic arguments and definitions because I already believe they are not accurate."

I'm not saying you necessarily think like that, but that is obviously true in your unconscious.

Skepticism is the healthy disposition of doubt towards incredulous claims, e.g. religion.

First of all, a claim is not incredulous from the beginning, it is only incredulous when it is proven incredulous. In other words: a claim is innocent until proven guilty. That is not the idea of skepticism. Skepticism says that every claims is false until proven true. It is the opposite.

When presented with a proof the skeptic is no longer a skeptic,

They are still skeptic. The only difference is that they settle down on the issue. It is not that they believe in it, they just don't disbelieve.

however, the proof had better be very clear and precise; something that theists have never achieved so any skeptic to them will always appear closed-minded.

Or skeptics are so closed-minded that whatever theists say appears to be untrue to them even when you provide a clean logical argument. In other words: you are so sure that you are right that you overlook the logical argument and keep your as true view. That's the problem with skpticism. I'm not saying all skeptics are like that, but the whole idea of skepticism tends to that.

This is entirely different to the theist who is totally closed-minded to everything except the one single-minded perspective – God did it.

I agree many theists are like that, which drives me nuts because they are not necessarily right. But atheists are often like that also. And the whole problem is that this fact (closed-mindness) is usually unconscious to them.

 

[TruthSeeker]

First of all, there's a difference between rejection and non belief. A skeptic approaches a situation with non belief, and after taking in the evidence they form an opinion based upon the facts. Open-mindedness has a few definitions, but in this case I'm talking about "the ability to entertain the thought that any conjecture could be the truth".

I agree with that. However, skeptics tend to form opinions and become closed-minded to an issue, even if they are unconsciously that way. For example, a theist cannot present a valid argument and from then on they disbelieve any argument that a theist presents, even if it is clean and logical. Skepticism tend to that because the whole idea of skepticism is that every idea is guilty until proven innocent.

A theist on the other hand "accepts" that there is a god and "rejects" that there is no god.

That is not necessarily true. There are theists that reach the conclusion that God exists by logical argumentation. Those are usually people that weren't theists in their childhood and become theists later in life. Like me. Altough I always had a strong spiritual element in my life, I had never had much contact with spiritual life, in society. It wasn't until I was 18 years old that I started reading the Bible and decided that I should become a Christian, given the fact that what I was reading was logically accurate. And I must say it is very tricky to get the idea.

A skeptic neither "accepts" nor "rejects" anything, but entertains the thought that either could be true.

That is very often not the case. Many skeptics rejects ideas before even looking at them.

Oh sorry, I was talking about the invisible god in the clouds.

God is unlimited.

Exactly. But the key word is "believe". To "believe" is defined as "to accept something as true".

Do you accept the fact that the sun is a sphere?

Here's a very fine example of accurate theist thinking. Once, I was with a friend from my church, just outside the church. I looked up the sky and I noted that there were clouds everywhere besides right up on us. There was a patch of blue sky which formed a ring around where we were standing. Then I said to my friend: "Look! There are dark clouds all around us, but not right above us!" And my friend suddenly had an insight.

Ok. Here are two interpretations. The first one, is a very childish theist explanation. The second is a mature theist explanation.

1. God is protecting us from the rain. He is shielding us and caring for us because we are special. Praise God for He is mercy! Despite the fact that we are sinful, He still have mercy.

2. No matter where you are or who you are, you are able to feel joy even in the hardest and most painful moments of your life. All that you need to do is to take life as a learning experience. Joy is not something that depends on what is outside, but something that dpends on your choice. Circumstances cannot be changed, but the way you deal with it can make the difference between rivers of tears coming down from the sky, or sunny days. Despite the fact that there are clouds all around you, there will still be clear sky above you.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If a skeptic is "unconsciously being closed-minded" then it's pretty obvious they've heard the same argument being presented to them a million times and no matter how many times you state it it still makes no logical sense. Try reevaluating your argument.

Or you are so sure you are right and everyone else wrong that you completely ignore the arguments despite the fact that they are completely new and different arguments. :bugeye:

I would really love to here this clean and logical argument from a theist, because I, like most skeptics, have heard nothing but circular arguments and rudimentary logical fallacies when theists speak. This has nothing to do with guilt and innocence (I love how your position is obviously the "innocent" one, do you see the biased in that?), but is centered on logic and illogic.

You totally messed up what I said. The "guilt" and "innocence" was a metaphor related to law. The law says that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I was comparing your logic with the opposite of law. This is so ridiculously obvious that I'm on a place where I don't know wheter I should be honest and say you sound completely dumb or be ethically correct and just keep that thought to myself. Please, don't take that as an insult, I'm just confused by the fact that I wasn't expecting such a twisted answer :bugeye:

Theists? Logical? Argumentation? Haha, sorry I find that rather funny. I've known many, many theists and heard every reason in the book about how they came to god, but I've never heard "logical argumentation" as the reason.

Or maybe you are in denial, once again...

The bible is logically accurate? I would love to hear your "tricks to get the idea" that these verses are logical:

I didn't say there are ""tricks" to get the idea," I said it is tricky to get the idea. It is a totally different idea. The worst is that I don't know wheter you are just dumb or wheter you are purposefully twisting my words to prove yourself "right". I really don't know what is the worst case scenario. Maybe the first one...

It's logical to kill FOURTY-TWO KIDS because they called some guy "baldhead"? The bible is full of this kind of shit.

The Bible is full of historical accounts on what happened. Most of those historical "facts" were written by men, many times to justify their wrongdoings, sometimes going as far as blaming God for their actions. Does that mean that the Bible is not true? Certainly not. It just means that that is what was written. And you have to be careful and separate what people say and what God says.

For example, Leviticus is a historical document that listed all the laws that existed at the time the law was written. Does God care wheter you put incense in His temple? Hell, no! Does God want you to sacrifice animals to cleans yourself for your sins? Totally not! That's total stupidity and has nothing to do with what God thought. But people, kept being futile. How do I know that? I've read the New Testament. In the New Testament Jesus says things such as "God gaves us one Law and men created many futile Laws" (not the right words, but that is the idea). He also says that God doesn't care and doesn't want animals as sacrifices. And so on....

If you give a skeptic a book and say this book is infallible of course they are going to reject all your "ideas", because they are based on the fallacy that some piece of paper is the truth.

If I write on a piece of paper "I have three eyes," the fact that I wrote that is true even tough the fact itself is not.

That is personal definition and makes no claims that can be refuted. The Internet is cool. Profound argument isn't it?

I wasn't arguing, I was answering your question.

First of all, I would need to know what you define as a sphere. A sphere is normally defined as a perfectly round shape. Is the sun perfectly round? Could be, but I don't see anyone making that claim since there are sun flares that jet from the surface rendering it non-spherical. A more accurate question would be: "Out of all the basic three dimensional shapes, do you accept the fact that the sun most closely resembles a sphere?" My answer would be: No, it's my opinion that the sun resembles a sphere, since strong evidence supports that conclusion, but I don't accept it as a fact because it still has the chance of being proven wrong.

So.... is the sun square?

Skeptics answer:
3. Since the hole in the clouds seems to be moving westward, it will start raining here in about 10 minutes.

Duuhhh, that's obvious. But the whole idea is that you can take something and have an insight, based on symbolism, that goes beyond what is obvious.

 

[Pete]

skeptics tend to form opinions and become closed-minded to an issue

That generalisation applies well to people as a whole, and less well to skeptics.

People tend to form opinions and become closed-minded to an issue.

The whole idea of skepticism is to be aware of this natural tendency and consciously work against it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

That generalisation applies well to people as a whole, and less well to skeptics.

People tend to form opinions and become closed-minded to an issue.

The whole idea of skepticism is to be aware of this natural tendency and consciously work against it.

I don't find that to be true. My experience with skeptics as well as the very definition of skepticism seem to prove the very opposite. How can skeptics be open-minded if they fail to accept anything as true?

 

[Pete]

I think you misunderstand the definition of skepticism. Have you looked it up? (dictionary.com)
A skeptic is one who assumes doubt as a default state in order to ensure that they do not form unfounded opinions, but that doubt may not (and usually does not) last long in a functional way.

Note also that not accepting something as necessarily true does not mean to believe that it is false. It means to withhold judgement pending evidence and analysis - the very definition of an open mind.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Ok. It is just that it usually seems that doubt does last long in a functional way....

 

[Pete]

That's because the long-lasting doubts are the ones you notice - the short-lived ones aren't around long enough to be visible!

 

[TruthSeeker]

It does make sense....
But that doesn't mean that is true to all skeptic people...

 

[Pete]

That's right. Some who self-identify as skeptics are closed minded cynics.