Whatever works for you, I guess.
At least you still have that going for you.
Glad you found it amusing. But just because you don't appreciate the distinction doesn't mean it is not there. Cheers.
Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
wesmorris,
I nearly split a gut reading your last post in this thread on August 19. You are a funny man, although much more blunt than I think I could ever be.
Glad to see you think there is still hope for humanity.
I nearly split a gut reading your last post in this thread on August 19. You are a funny man, although much more blunt than I think I could ever be.
You must not live in the United States if you think atheists are more accepted than Christians.
We’ve already been through this. Atheism is not a religion anymore than (as ConsequentAtheist put it) health is a disease.
If you believe your beliefs are worth justifying, I guess. But it’s a lot harder to justify faith than it is to justify science.
True, you can “explain away” anything. But the test of a good explanation is how reliable the evidence on which it is based is.
I don’t know that it is clear that there is one truth of all truths. Do you?
No need for self-delusion, thanks.
If so, it’s only because the human brain is hardwired to make things simple and has not yet evolved to accept the more complex realities of existence. Don’t worry, we’ll grow out of our need for fairy tales in time.
It seems we’re on the same wavelength again.
Glad to see you think there is still hope for humanity.I believe MarcAC was referring to wesmorris with that description, not himself.
hmm atheists are starting to scare me. How can you make the claim that atheism is true unless if it was a belief? Can anything but a statement be true? Or maybe your faith is emptyness and your practice is Occam's Razor. Christians have an edge on you though because we worship the Sword while you worship the razor. Hmm wonder whose going to win this one. The fact that atheism was a religion was used to try to block the pledge of allegiance. (We should not have pledges to goverment anyways but that's besides the point.) How can the "I believe in God" infringe on your freedom of religion unless if atheism is a religion. If atheism really don't have a religion, are you willing to give up your freedom to practice religion on this one. There is no freedom not to practice religion. I'm not sure how this would work. The freedom to do nothing? Now I only said that atheism should not be discused here out of exasperation from the apparant illogical behavior of some atheists who are otherwise really logical people. It was not to prove a logical point but to be funny. I suppose there is real truth to the fact that atheist are grumpy. Also I still don't know what atheism has to do with religion if it is not a religion.
Forcing school children to learn that this is "one nation under God" would be state sponsored propaganda brainwashing children to believe religious dogma thereby prohibiting the free excersize of religion.
Being free to exercise any religion you wish would include freedom to not exercise at all.
Beyond that, not every religion believes in one God, not all religions believe in a conscious cognizant diety and some believe in no God at all.
Okinrus,
1. Believe the claim is true because there is proof that it is true (rational belief).
2. Believe the claim is false because there is proof that it is false (rational belief).
3. Believe the claim is true without proof (irrational belief, i.e. faith).
4. Believe the claim is false without proof (irrational belief, i.e. faith).
5. Don’t know whether the claim is true or false (rational position).
6. Disbelieve the claim is true because there is no proof it is true (rational position).
I’m taking ‘proof’ to mean independently verifiable by a scientific method. I understand that some religionists might disagree with this but there is no other universally accepted definition for proof.
The religionist position is always (3), since faith is always stressed as a need for religious belief.
The strong atheist would fall under (2), although such claims of proof might be disputed, and many under (4).
The weak atheist and the dominant form of atheism falls under (6).
The agnostic is essentially (5) for the purpose of this discussion.
Note that a disbelief that something is true (6) is not the same as believing it is false (2 or 4).
For strong atheism that would be OK, for weak atheism no claim is being made.
When faced with a claim there are 6 possible responses –
1. Believe the claim is true because there is proof that it is true (rational belief).
2. Believe the claim is false because there is proof that it is false (rational belief).
3. Believe the claim is true without proof (irrational belief, i.e. faith).
4. Believe the claim is false without proof (irrational belief, i.e. faith).
5. Don’t know whether the claim is true or false (rational position).
6. Disbelieve the claim is true because there is no proof it is true (rational position).
I’m taking ‘proof’ to mean independently verifiable by a scientific method. I understand that some religionists might disagree with this but there is no other universally accepted definition for proof.
The religionist position is always (3), since faith is always stressed as a need for religious belief.
The strong atheist would fall under (2), although such claims of proof might be disputed, and many under (4).
The weak atheist and the dominant form of atheism falls under (6).
The agnostic is essentially (5) for the purpose of this discussion.
Note that a disbelief that something is true (6) is not the same as believing it is false (2 or 4).
LucidDreamer
Registered Senior Member
Okinrus,
Atheism, by itself, does not reject God or the concept of God with empirical evidence. That is a separate school of thought, namely Gnosticism – claimed knowledge regarding the existence of God. The Atheist simply rejects God based on belief or the absence of belief. That being said, all Atheists are either Gnostic – they claimed that their rejection of God is based on knowledge, or they are Agnostic – they claim no knowledge of God and leave it up to the Gnostic Theists to provide the evidence.
Atheism, by itself, does not reject God or the concept of God with empirical evidence. That is a separate school of thought, namely Gnosticism – claimed knowledge regarding the existence of God. The Atheist simply rejects God based on belief or the absence of belief. That being said, all Atheists are either Gnostic – they claimed that their rejection of God is based on knowledge, or they are Agnostic – they claim no knowledge of God and leave it up to the Gnostic Theists to provide the evidence.
Interesting idea, but weak atheism (usually simple skepticism) does not require faith. Note also that strong atheism doesn't require faith if the belief that God or gods do not exist is based on evidence (i.e. the fact that all the alleged "evidence" of God is, as Raithere puts it, anecdotal at best).
Such a silly metaphor says nothing about whether Christianity is better than atheism.
Well, look at that! We finally agree on something! I suspect, however, that our reasons for agreeing on that statement are completely different.
I don't really think that we can escape irrational faith in our lives. Even rational observation and skeptism requires faith that we are seeing all or even some of the evidence and there is also the assumption that God would really show us scientific evidence. So any belief, which is basically anything we think is true, has an element of faith. What I'm not sure about is why the major push for atheism not to be a religion. I mean don't atheist want equal standing with religions? I understand that for most atheist, it is the rejection of all (other) religions. However the rejection of everything religious is a religious statement.
Yes I forgot. If atheism isn't a religion, then we are comparing apples to oranges.
Okinrus,
If a claim is made that is false and can be shown to be false then rejection is fully rational. Faith is not required.
If a claim is made that cannot be shown to be true then there is no reason to believe the claim.
Rejection of an idea is only irrational when it is believed to be false without justification.
Withholding belief in the absence of proof is a neutral rational position.
That cannot be true.
If a claim is made that is false and can be shown to be false then rejection is fully rational. Faith is not required.
If a claim is made that cannot be shown to be true then there is no reason to believe the claim.
Rejection of an idea is only irrational when it is believed to be false without justification.
Withholding belief in the absence of proof is a neutral rational position.
Any rejection requires some faith that the evidence is valid.
Alright take anarchy. I've always been taught that it is a form of goverment despite it being rejection of all other forms of goverment. Why? Because it makes for a nice classification scheme where the only law is that there is no goverment. However because it does impose a system of governing it could be considered a form of goverment. Likewise I just haven't heard good arguments to why atheism should be considered a religion. It makes claim about a deity: That God does not exist or we should atleast have no belief in God. Neither of these two claims can be fully proven.
Hope is a strong reason but I will skip the emotional appeal on this one
Alright take anarchy. I've always been taught that it is a form of goverment despite it being rejection of all other forms of goverment. Why? Because it makes for a nice classification scheme where the only law is that there is no goverment. However because it does impose a system of governing it could be considered a form of goverment. Likewise I just haven't heard good arguments to why atheism should be considered a religion. It makes claim about a deity: That God does not exist or we should atleast have no belief in God. Neither of these two claims can be fully proven.
You are confusing faith with belief. Both mean to assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance, but faith is belief without evidence. We have evidence to believe (as opposed to having faith) that observation is a good way to perceive reality. As for your latter assumption, it is irrelevant to atheists.
Not unless there is no evidence for the belief.
Because it simply is not.
Religion involves faith. As detailed above, skepticism is not faith, and is therefore not religious.
Now you've got it!
Okay, perhaps this is why you’ve been having misconceptions about atheism. Anarchy is not a form of government, nor does it impose a system of governing. It is simply absence of government, just like atheism is absence of belief in God or gods. Absence of belief cannot be faith because faith requires belief and that this belief be without proof.
Atheism, by itself, makes no claim about a deity. Strong atheism might include a claim that no deity exists, but this is based on evidence (for example, the spurious nature of the claims of Christianity or other “revealed” religions). Also, atheism isn’t about saying that other people should have no belief in God (although I believe it is arguable whether this statement can be shown to be true). It is merely a personal lack of belief in an individual or a group of people. I also personally believe that it cannot be “proven” that God does not exist. I simply dismiss the claim that God does exist as highly unlikely given what we know about reality.
Not quite. There is evidence given in fatima, Zeitun and the other witnesses given by the prophets in the bible and elsewhere. You do not believe because you do not accept the evidence as valid.
"Not unless there is no evidence for the belief."
There is evidence. You just have faith in rejection of the evidence.
Ah, the google evidence puts my view ahead at 51 hits verses your 7 hits. <a href = "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2B%22anarchy+is+not+a+form+of+government%22">Not a form of goverment</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2B%22anarchy+is+a+form+of+government%22">Form of goverment</a> Of course I suspect that anarchy would decay into a loose form of democracy where majority rules anyways.
Indeed, because it is all anecdotal evidence and not scientific.
You can't have faith in a rejection. Rejection is a stance. If the stance is based on proof, then faith is not required. If the stance is not based on evidence or proof, then faith is required.
You are making the assertion that the more people who believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. This is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad numerum). Merriam-Webster and Oxford define anarchy in terms of an absence of government. Absence of government, by the very use of the word "absence", is not a type of government.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the discussion of whether anarchy is a form of government.
70,000 saw the dancing sun at fatima and thousands saw the apparition at Zeitun. The photographs at Zeitun add considerable weight to the testomony of the people who saw the apparition and there were also many medicle miracles. The main difference between this evidence and scientific evidence is that scientific evidence must be repeatable. However I see no reason to doubt what the people who were there said because it is not entirely scientific. So my faith is "irrational" somewhat but still based upon evidence.
No, I don't think it is fallacy here. The definition of words is based upon conventual usage and this is based upon numbers. While anarchy is the abstance of goverment, it can still be defined as a system of goverment because it has one law of goverment: "There is no goverment". The goverment is defined entirely by individuals but the rule "there is no goverment" is universal and could be considered part of a govern system.