Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Then not believing is believing that the statement could be true or false. The only other possibility could be not to believe that the statement is a statement but does God exist is clearly a statement.
Again not knowing would be under beliving that the statement could be true or false.
Usually the creationist do not work with that hypothesis but the hypothesis that the world was created 10,000 years ago etc. I don't think it was ever their intent to prove that God exists.
There is some real "creationist" research such as http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ In most cases creationist are merely skeptical about the theory of evolution, but not offering another scientific theory.
People/scientists will have/will/do disagree/d on what the exact 'judgment'/interpretation of a particular research endeavour should be. What makes you think your judgement is any more sound than another's? Faith in your rationale? I think so...
Great, you finally seemed to have gotten my attempted point. But can you use the fact that we have experiences as evidence of our existence or would it be we exist therefore we have experiences? It's just another way of saying we exist therefore we exist. Evidence is of such a nature that it cannot be analagous to whatever it should support within our existence.
Evidence of our existence cannot be within our existence itself... it has to come from somewhere outside of it. So existence itsef has no scientific basis. Yet scientists take it 'for granted' as you said... another way of saying they take it on pure simple faith. Thus, we all have faith, gathering that we think we exist. Another ramification of your analysis is that you seemed to have been giving suppot to the subjective for a while;
"All of our experiences have led us to believe that our existence is real (at the very least, it is real as far as we are concerned). This is not belief without evidence; hence it is not faith."
Based on that we can simply say that religious believers on a whole have no faith. Because the "most faithful?" ones present the same argument.
The only difference between the biblical and secular "definitions" is the fact that the bible indicates faith comes from God and the Christian hope is born out of this. Of course atheists don't want to believe in God so definitely they won't want to accept that faith comes from God. They'll just have to accept it as sommmmme evolutionary characteristic developed to ensure 'survival of the fittest'. As studies have shown; the 'faithful' as you would label them do tend to live longer. If evolutionary concepts apply, barring any other variables, the 'religious' will outlast the 'non-relgious' to become a race of faithful believers. Heh heh.
It seems to me that you are arguing that since acceptance that there is an objective reality in which "we" exist is an act of faith, anything goes regarding faith. After the initial assumption "This is real.", how do you discern which faith is the right one to indulge? "whatever works for you."? I'd say that's fair enough except in matters where the authenticity of said belief is in question (like this conversation). At THAT point, It is fair to say that there is no reasonable means to conclude that a particular faith should be preferred over all others. This is all of course implicit to the initial assumption. If you don't make that one, you don't exist to make any others. If you do, you should stop at that one at least when trying to argue that your position can withstand scrutiny.
Christians don't claim to know the truth as God. All truth must emanate from God and He posesses knowledge of all truth. We don't possess this knowledge. We believe we will gain more understanding of our existence after we leave this phase of it. But that doesn't preclude us trying to gain as much as possible during this stage of it. Hence my reply to one of Cris's typical rants.
We are all on a search for truth. It just has to be clear that the road that some are taking won't lead them to it. I have faith in God. I believe that his road will lead me to His truth; The Truth.
We are all on a search for truth. It just has to be clear that the road that some are taking won't lead them to it. I have faith in God. I believe that his road will lead me to His truth; The Truth.
This is ridiculous gibberish as far as I'm concerned. If I heard someone speak like this to my ears in front of my face, saying; "I disbelieve it/I do not believe it... In other words "I'm not sure/I don't konw", I'd laugh them to scorn and then laugh them to death.
But then you don't take advice that you agree with. You have a problem arguing this way because your argument is based on something that you cannot defend as we JUST said. Sure, you can defend it to YOU, but when you take that same argument and put it out for people to criticize and disassemble, what do you expect? It is not logically sound nor reasonable, so people will GUT IT based on that. That may not weigh much in your mind, but it DOES have weight in terms of debate.
Originally posted by MarcAC
Christians don't claim to know the truth as God.
The degree of generalization in that comment renders it a moot point.
All truth must emanate from God and He posesses knowledge of all truth.
How is that relevant to the argument. That is simply dogmatic and you know it. You just agreed that you can't really justify your beliefs to people who think they are stupid, then you go trying to do it again. It's just disgusting. I like you, so stop making me sick. You know better. Your faith is PRIVATE in its religious aspect. The minute you make it public is the minute you are WRONG.
We don't possess this knowledge.
Says you and your stupid book. Speak for yourself cult-boy. Why should I care about your baseless point? Sure, I care about YOU, because I like you, but your baseless point it superfluous and tends to instigate annoyance in atheists. I suppose I can appreciate that for the purposes of amusement, but again, it's directly contrary to what you just agreed to. In general I think that is why I'm annoyed by your leap of faith.. it seems to give you a license to try to be a goddamn kangaroo. I don't mind kangaroos, but I certainly don't attempt to have conversations with them.
We believe we will gain more understanding of our existence after we leave this phase of it.
"We believe". Is that a cult mindset? Yes. It is. Stop it. Keep it to yourself so we don't have to ridicule your lack of discernment. Oh wait, it's your lack of discernment that makes you say stupid shit like this in the first place. It's your lack of discernment that alllows you to promote things on the basis of "we believe" or "the bible says". Dude, you're not stupid and I DO respect your intellect, but you sound like a fucking idiot. You argument about this and that thing that you don't have any evidence for but insist is true is diabolocal and writhing. It just sickens me to my core that you'd agree to my last post fully, then descend into this type of cultish rant about afterlives, invisible sadists and mythology that's true.
I'm so offended because you're a liar. I don't know shit about "the afterlife". I don't know shit about "god". You don't either. To say "I believe... whatever" regarding something that there is not even any clear evidence to go on.. that makes you a liar. Worst part about it is that in order that your silly beliefs maintain integrity in your fragile mind, you have to justify them ad infinitum. You are required by your belief system to lie to you.
Sure everyone does it, but when you can.. shouldn't you stop it? Yet you refuse. *sigh*
But that doesn't preclude us trying to gain as much as possible during this stage of it.
*sigh*
the fact that you would base such a statement on the pure presumption of "this stage of it". argh. oh yeah, the bible told you that. that shit is sick.
We are all on a search for truth.
Yeah I see where you're trying to go, but as I've established, you're not really. You're on a path that is the result of a pack of lies that you tell yourself. Your "faith" in god. Your "faith" in the bible. You have no objective basis to illustrate its degree of correctness. The best you can do is "it's possible", which is technically probably not true, since the abrahamic god is an illogical construct.. but nonetheless, I'll give you "it's possible". You are on the search to justify your presumption and you do it at almost every possible turn.
It just has to be clear that the road that some are taking won't lead them to it.
A relatively simple logical implement yields that the bible has no bearing on universal things like the hypothetical proposition that is god, nor is it likely to be "the word of god" or whatever. If I use my powers of anthropological thinking, I can explain in general how the bible came to be and it's main motivations, reason's for being, why it says magical stuff happened, etc. You simply don't want to hear it because it threatens your assumptions. I'd say it is perfectly clear that the road you're does not lead to truth other than the truth of your own delusion.
I have faith in God.
I might ask "why do you need it" but I'm afraid more circular evasiveness might push me over the edge.
I believe that his road will lead me to His truth; The Truth.
That's all nice and everything but uh, why would you hold that your somewhat random (yet popular) belief system has any bearing on what anyone else should think? Aargh. Man, you're amazingly convoluted for a smart guy. It perplexes me.
Of course you're entitled your your rather illogical opinion as I am entitled to trash it.
On this forum, the only point I attempt to make is that as a self-declared 'rational' and 'reasonable' person who discerns fact from fiction using the current scientific method, you do have faith due to the fact that you accept existence without any scientific evidence to back it up, and considering that you cannot simply dismiss the faith that other people have as "pure b.s." as atheroy said.
I do not seek to gain acceptance from anyone, obviously: if I wanted to do that I'd just pose as an atheist. In other words, I'm not trying to justify my beliefs to anyone as it is already justified within me and my life. The statement I made in no way cancels the fact that you cannot justify to others a subjective experience, unless they experience it themselves, and can describe it exactly as you did - in which case it obviously becomes objective.
We don't possess this knowledge.I doubt any sane person could claim knowledge of all truth, yet.I always do Wes, and I pray that God is speaking through me. And I'd be careful of whom I label a cult member lest you find yourself amassed with this growing cult of "consequent atheists". Atheism is becoming a full fledged religion huh? Even branching off into sects.
We all believe something Wes, so you fall right into this set.
Nowhere did I "insist is true" anything bro. I made a statement, you can take it as you wish. If you stated you were a woman ("I am a woman.), is that forcefully insisting that it is true that you are a woman and I will accept it or you will "suicide bomb" me like a radical muslim? You read too much into a statement Wes, not every statement is a proposed argument. Only idiots argue about what should/cannot be argued about.Too much catharsis Wes. You can't rationally tell me what I do or do not know. You would be doing that which you so detest. Come on Wes, do better than that.So you are trying to say I say "I believe" but I really don't? And so I'm lying to myself. Well, for thesake of sanity I'll drop that one.We all have to justify our beliefs ad infinitum Wes. The whole world of science is a belief system based on observation, like any other, and scientific research still continues. So what's so bad about justifying your beliefs? Isn't that the rational thing to do. Mind you, I justify them to myself and God, I need not justify them to anyone else, they should do that one their own. This last sentence illustrates the gist I got from your post and the point of my reply.
Whew, so you accept that everyone does it, scared for a moment there Wes. Has it ever been stopped? No.However you look at it Wes, this is a stage of our existence. Even if you look at us as an amalgam of quarks leptons gluons and bosons. These elements work together in one stage of their existence. Just a way of organising your thoughts and concepts... or maybe God's way of organsing his [hint hint].If your attempted enterprise is correct then noone is on a search for truth.First you say this, then you say this...As you should have guessed by now - as far as I'm concerend - objective/subjective are amplitudes on the same wavefront. My subjective basis is good enough for me.First you tell me that I'm telling myself a "pack of lies', then you say it's possible. In other words you just don't know. I really don't want to justify my beliefs to you or anyone Wes, seriously, you're a cruelly nice guy as I can see through your attempted abuse, but not that important in my "stupid book" . You have to justify them for yourself, if you see the need. If not, I can't force you.
I teach a couple of 10-12 yr old kids who ask the same questions many atheists do and put forward the same arguments within their knowledge limitations. The seem strikingly similar mind you. There are many ways to 'explain away' the Bible and anything.There are many ways to interpret such a statement. Such as "Whatever you believe to be true will be true for you". So theists go to heaven, atheists disappear, and antichrist go to live with Satan in hell, and agnostics stay confused... Or "The road you are on has a chasm up ahead and you'll have to turn back". So Christianity is bull crap and well, I discover that and change my beliefs. My point was that, what is clear is that there is one truth of all truths, and not the many different roads that we take will lead us to it.Exactly, but I'll do it anyway, for you, since you like me so much; we all need faith. It's that simple.I might ask "why do you need it" but I'm afraid more circular evasiveness might push me over the edge.Again, Wes, you are reading too much into the statement. I wasn't even attempting to make that point. However, since you brought it up, it does influence what you think, obviously, do I have to argue that for you to see it?
Of course Wes, but try to would be an appropriate infinitive don't you think?
Accolades to Wes, you seriously know how to "utilize" a person's valuable time. Replies to your posts are always long. Why?
That study referred to religious believers on a whole and I'm sure you know that you cannot apply the "Die if you don't believe!!!:bugeye:" concept to every relgion, no matter which way you look at it. Studies have also shown that the brain may actually be 'hardwired' to be 'faithful', to believe in something greater thatn you. Wanna live long? Become religious. Wanna live forever? Become a Christian.
Buuuuuuuut if you don't wanna well suit yourself.
The statement was based on the assumption that God exists. You notice the 'must' and 'should' in it? So what part of it is pure b.s.?
On this forum, the only point I attempt to make is that as a self-declared 'rational' and 'reasonable' person who discerns fact from fiction using the current scientific method, you do have faith due to the fact that you accept existence without any scientific evidence to back it up, and considering that you cannot simply dismiss the faith that other people have as "pure b.s." as atheroy said.
Yes, I can dismiss your faith in god(s) or whatever eronious bullshit because it is eronious bullshit. Tell me, what is the downside of believing I exist? Where is the opportunity cost? Certainly I'll be wrong if I don't, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE? It is not the same with eronious belief - and the opportunity costs, especially for christians and the lot, are sky high.
Oh, and I don't neccessarily employ the scientific method for everyday analysis. I use the ever-mystical "reason", always keeping in mind that it's possible that I'm dumb. Faith in reason = Faith in doubt. Where is your doubt of your god? Are you required by your eronious belief not to doubt? Argh, cults are annoying. It's basically a testament to weakness of man - the tendency of the masses to huddle in fear of that which they don't think it is possible to understand. *sigh* So it is as it shall be until the nature of man changes.
Yes, I can dismiss your faith in god(s) or whatever eronious bullshit because it is eronious bullshit. Tell me, what is the downside of believing I exist? Where is the opportunity cost? Certainly I'll be wrong if I don't, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE? It is not the same with eronious belief - and the opportunity costs, especially for christians and the lot, are sky high.
Oh, and I don't neccessarily employ the scientific method for everyday analysis. I use the ever-mystical "reason", always keeping in mind that it's possible that I'm dumb. Faith in reason = Faith in doubt. Where is your doubt of your god? Are you required by your eronious belief not to doubt? Argh, cults are annoying. It's basically a testament to weakness of man - the tendency of the masses to huddle in fear of that which they don't think it is possible to understand. *sigh* So it is as it shall be until the nature of man changes.
My definition of atheism is someone who chooses what to believe as an individual and declines belonging to a group of believers.
It is essientially being a individual on matters of spirituality and rejecting the group.
In addition an atheist will have changing beliefs as they learn new things, usually they'll weigh up new thoughts and ideas and decide what to believe or not, again their own choices.
Lastly a atheist will just choose not to have beliefs, that is they will leave things inconclusive and accepting probabilities about facts. That is they wont define their beliefs if asked, and they wont have any particularly intense feeling towards any particular idea or argument, choosing to be knowledgable only as opposed to a supporter.
It is essientially being a individual on matters of spirituality and rejecting the group.
In addition an atheist will have changing beliefs as they learn new things, usually they'll weigh up new thoughts and ideas and decide what to believe or not, again their own choices.
Lastly a atheist will just choose not to have beliefs, that is they will leave things inconclusive and accepting probabilities about facts. That is they wont define their beliefs if asked, and they wont have any particularly intense feeling towards any particular idea or argument, choosing to be knowledgable only as opposed to a supporter.
Definition of an atheist
I really like your definition of atheism. By your definition, I guess I am an atheist!
I really like your definition of atheism. By your definition, I guess I am an atheist!
really?
you know, i think this says something about the limitations of the theist rather than the atheist. atheists are still able to use the same objections or questions a 10 year old can come up with because the theist isn't able to formulate a satisfiable answer in their LIMITS. i have to tell you you sound like a dick always going on about atheists being limited. there are many ways to explain away the bible because it's a bunch of crap, only in YOUR limits you are blind to this.
venomx that is a really sweet definition of what i consider myself to be. thanks for sharing.
well, i think i'll stick to my genes thanks- the average age a member of my family lives to is verging on 90 for us males. i think this hardwired belief people have is a bred trait, it ensures survival etc. if you really want me to explain myself i will, but that is sufficient information for you to use your rational thinking and scientific method (by the way i don't agree, you're baised therefore you are not) to deduce what i am talking about. and seeing you bring this up, who the hell wants to live forever? being christian doesn't ensure this, heaven is such a cliche i'm surprised people have the gaul to believe in it. it would be eternal boredom- suit yourself to your blanket if it makes you feel better, but i believe it should be the other way around- unfortunately religion doesn't teach this. infact, it teaches precious little useful information, just prejudices and closed thought:bugeye:
i not even gonna try. if you can't see the flaws, the contradictions, the appalling attempt by humanity to place ourselves, then there is no way anyone else is going to be able to point the bs out to you. you're a contradiction yourself. this is not rational nor is it reasonable, and you are hardly any sort of authority to decide what is fact and what is fiction. you think way too much of yourself (christian flaw. you can't be blamed for it) if this is what you claim yourself to be.
Correct. It is an absence of belief that the statement is true or false.
These hypotheses are based on the creation myths of a bunch of Middle-Eastern Bronze-Age goat herders, whereas the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are based on observation and empirical evidence.
A creationist defined (by Oxford) is one who espouses “a theory attributing all mater, biological species, et cetera, to separate acts of creation, especially according to a literal interpretation of Genesis”. If the majority of creationists about whom you speak are simply skeptical of other scientific theories such as evolution and Big Bang, then why would they label themselves as creationists, taking on all the ridiculous beliefs that come along with that term?
I hope you don't think I'm mad, I'm just passionate about truth. I'm sure you feel similarly. While sometimes I find conversations with you a little frustrating, I've dealt with you enough to think of you as a good and kind man.. so please pardon me if I've repeatedly offended you.
BTW, I'm assuming you meant there's no downside to assuming I exist?
That's assuming there is something outside of existence, an assumption that also has no evidence on which to be based. If you absolutely have to assume something (which we seem to agree you do in this case), then it is logical to make the simplest possible assumption. It is simpler to assume that reality is what it is than to assume that there is something outside of reality that must provide meaning to reality as we know it.
It sounds like you are talking about belief, not faith. Merriam-Webster points out that while both belief and faith mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance, belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer, while faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. Again, we are left with the problem of what can really constitute evidence when we are seeking to determine whether evidence is really reliable in and of itself, but I believe I have addressed that above.
Perhaps they can claim that it is not a matter of faith, but of knowledge in their so-called spiritual realm. The fact is, however, that there is no evidence that such a realm exists. Therefore their claims of knowledge are unimportant in the "real world".
If that is how it turns out, then that is the way it was meant to be, and who am I to argue with the natural course of evolution? I, however, will be happy to have lived a shorter life without faith than a longer one in self-delusion.As studies have shown; the 'faithful' as you would label them do tend to live longer. If evolutionary concepts apply, barring any other variables, the 'religious' will outlast the 'non-relgious' to become a race of faithful believers. Heh heh.
And besides, perhaps one of the main reasons why studies have shown that people with faith live longer is because they live in a little fantasy world where everything is just peachy. Well, I can't speak for all atheists, but I have found peace and contentment in accepting whatever life has to offer, and nothing more. Perhaps I'll live longer after all.
Last edited:
Just what I was saying, but stated in a different way. Basically, it's the principle of Occam's Razor.