So I ask again: why do you bother posting here?
There is no point in talking about ''my belief'
Seems you are both without the uncommon common sense
So I ask again: why do you bother posting here?
There is no point in talking about ''my belief'
You should be aware that good and evil are subjective terms and do not exist in a objective sense
I think there are things we can call evil, but that doesn't mean evil is objectively real. Is a shark evil for eating a person alive? What about a person who does the same thing to another person? Someone may think abortion is evil while another thinks it's morally neutral. Acknowledging the subjectivity of evil is not the same thing as endorsing evil acts.AND that is exactly what every psycopath and sociopath believe as well and count on.
I think there are things we can call evil, but that doesn't mean evil is objectively real. Is a shark evil for eating a person alive? What about a person who does the same thing to another person? Someone may think abortion is evil while another thinks it's morally neutral. Acknowledging the subjectivity of evil is not the same thing as endorsing evil acts.
You should be aware that good and evil are subjective terms and do not exist in a objective sense
AND that is exactly what every psycopath and sociopath believe as well and count on. You are in infamous company
but i know evil exists
I am unaware logic is quantifiableYour logic is low though you assume it isn't.
Acknowledging the subjectivity of evil is not the same thing as endorsing evil acts.
Not everything that is real is tangible as in an object you hold in your hand
it's more insidious but it definitely exists as it shows itself in motivation.
But this statement right here is more loaded than it seems and is not only an indicator but answer to why it is the way it is and why it probably will never be resolved
This to my thinking reinforces the concept the Universe is totally oblivious of us
Evil has a purpose
He is not the only one, it's quite popular amongst the atheist crowd as well as some theists.
Yes, of course.The main reason I think it is used in the definition of atheist: "lack belief that god(s) exist" is simply so as not to imply the stronger position of actually holding belief that god(s) do not exist, again without any implication of a need for that belief.
MIA 2,000 years minimumThere is no dogma in holding such a position, especially if one is open to changing one's mind should new evidence come to light.
It just hit me, a marketing opportunity, all these people leaving the churches got to go somewhere.. So I am working on a new age model to capitalise on what would seem at potential market.HELP ARREST FALLING ATTENDANCE
Mmmmmm taxadvantages...
Alex
The beauty of the internet is there will be a percentage who will go for it.
Do you really really think that marketing god as a female whale who identifies as a transgender dolphin would work?
So it's not the act itself, but the motivation of the person doing the act that makes it evil? And motivation is not a subjective determination?i would say evil is not subjective at all but that the acts may be because it's about what the purpose is and at what cost and to whom and why. Evil has a purpose as it's not just about the act itself, it's the effect it has on it's victim which is the discomfort, fear, pain, suffering, loneliness, etc that they want to elicit.
Atheists have actually set out to correct the incorrect assumption that a lot of theists automatically make. Those theists assume that when somebody says "I'm an atheist" it means that the atheist holds a dogmatic position that God does not exist. Whereas, as most atheists appreciate, all it really means is that the atheist does not (currently) believe that God exists. There is no dogma in holding such a position, especially if one is open to changing one's mind should new evidence come to light.
It is forgivable for a theist encountering an atheist for the first time to blunder into the mistake that "you're an atheist, so you must believe that God doesn't exist". But it is the height of rudeness for the theist to keep insisting on that once the atheist has explained what atheism really means.
I don't like that definition, because (1) it implies that new-born babies and even stones are atheists which seems ridiculous, and because (2) it is often part of a rhetorical strategy in which atheists insist that they have no burden of proof for their atheist assertions. I find that a little disingenuous.
I prefer to define 'atheist' as it is most often defined in the academic world:
"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist."
Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64
-------------------------
"Atheism. Disbelief in the existence of any GODS or of God. This may take the form of (a) dogmatic rejection of specific beliefs, e.g. of THEISM, (b) skepticism about all religious claims, or (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, or irrational, or meaningless."
The Penguin Dictionary of Religions pp. 53-4
--------------------------
"Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied."
The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76
___________________________
"According to the most usual definition, an "atheist" is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence "God exists" expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence "God exists" expresses a true proposition. On our definition, an "atheist" is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that "God exists" expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious..."
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Paul Edwards ed., 1st ed. vol.I , p. 175
I think that it's the height of intellectual dishonesty for self-styled atheists to suggest that they possess no beliefs about God, religion or the transcendent that require any justification or defense.
Especially when that assertion is often made immediately prior to launching into assertions that belief in God is unfounded, superstitious and unjustifiable, that religious belief has been the cause of no end of harm in human history, that religion is somehow incompatible with science and even with reason itself, and that the eventual elimination of religious belief is a desirable and "progressive" goal.
It's exceedingly rare for atheists to be satisfied with 'I don't have any views on God, transcendence or the divine one way or the other'.
I am not sure how you arrive at that implication.I don't like that definition, because
(1) it implies that new-born babies and even stones are atheists which seems ridiculous, and because
Yes. Like there is no burden of proof for the assertion of a lack of unicorns or orbiting teapots. Neither of these are extraordinary claims.(2) it is often part of a rhetorical strategy in which atheists insist that they have no burden of proof for their atheist assertions.
This is pretty nasty, personal stuff, birch. Please consider dialing it back a bit. You could have made the same point without getting all personal like this.AND that is exactly what every psycopath and sociopath believe as well and count on. You are in infamous company.
....
AND You should know that is meaningless in every way possible and even more retarded a statement than it seems. As retarded, out of context, insane, non-sensical as saying all things are made of atoms, so everything is an atom as an answer to all.
....
PLEASE VOLUNTEER TO BE MUTILATED/TORTURED, RAPED AND MURDERED for others viewing pleasure.
....
This is my serious message to Michael345 and those who believe evil does not really exist but merely a perception: I strongly wish for yourselves as well as your friends and family to be subject to the worst forms of harm and torture imaginable and to have your lives destroyed and then afterwards would like you to come back on sciforums and repeat again very detachedly and in the most sterile fashion that it doesn't exist.
Of course you don't like it, because you see atheists as individuals who are intellectual adversaries rather than atheism as the concept of a pure philosophical lack of a particular belief. Atheism isn't the opposing team, they don't find your arguments compelling.I don't like that definition, because (1) it implies that new-born babies
Atheist are redefining it. Lack of belief in God includes belief that god doesn't exist, so it' s a broader definition. Dictionaries are written by members of the dominant culture.Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.
Well it's the truth. You suggest there is a God, so you prove it. Until then, lack of belief in your proposition is logical. This is called the burden of proof. I do have a view on the arguments for god, which are not assertions, they are reactions to an assertion.I think that it's the height of intellectual dishonesty for self-styled atheists to suggest that they possess no beliefs about God, religion or the transcendent that require any justification or defense.
I agree with you. To hold a position on a question such as the existence of God, you need to understand the concept you're talking about, and you need to have considered the matter and made a conscious decision as to where you stand on the question. If you ask somebody "Do you believe in God?" and they say "What's God?" or "Goo goo ga ga?" or "I've never really thought about it" then I don't think it's fair to then label them "theist" or "atheist". So, there are no baby atheists in my world.I don't like that definition, because (1) it implies that new-born babies and even stones are atheists which seems ridiculous...
I am somewhat interested in what you regard as "atheist assertions". It seems to me that the only required thing an atheist needs to assert is that he or she does not believe in God. Anything beyond that has to do with other things.... and because (2) it is often part of a rhetorical strategy in which atheists insist that they have no burden of proof for their atheist assertions. I find that a little disingenuous.
Most atheists would say that they reject all Gods, Christian or otherwise. The history of atheism as an idea is a largely Western tradition, so its interaction with Christianity is understandable. Also, atheism as an acceptable "practice" is generally more available to those in Western cultures than elsewhere at present. But many atheist philosophies actually date back at least to the ancient Greeks, with Epicurus being a particularly influential thinker.I prefer to define 'atheist' as it is most often defined in the academic world:
"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist."
Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64
This seems reasonable."Atheism. Disbelief in the existence of any GODS or of God. This may take the form of (a) dogmatic rejection of specific beliefs, e.g. of THEISM, (b) skepticism about all religious claims, or (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, or irrational, or meaningless."
The Penguin Dictionary of Religions pp. 53-4
I don't much like this one."Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied."
The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76
No major complaints here."According to the most usual definition, an "atheist" is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence "God exists" expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence "God exists" expresses a true proposition. On our definition, an "atheist" is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that "God exists" expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious..."
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Paul Edwards ed., 1st ed. vol.I , p. 175
Which atheists say they have no beliefs about religion?I think that it's the height of intellectual dishonesty for self-styled atheists to suggest that they possess no beliefs about God, religion or the transcendent that require any justification or defense.
All of those things come after atheism, or in addition to atheism, except perhaps the parts about superstition and justifiability and foundedness (because those tend to be common reasons that atheists declare themselves as such).Especially when that assertion is often made immediately prior to launching into assertions that belief in God is unfounded, superstitious and unjustifiable, that religious belief has been the cause of no end of harm in human history, that religion is somehow incompatible with science and even with reason itself, and that the eventual elimination of religious belief is a desirable and "progressive" goal.
I agree. Just as it is exceedingly rare for theists to hold an isolated belief in God, without any other views on religion, transcendence, the compatibility of religion and science, etc.It's exceedingly rare for atheists to be satisfied with 'I don't have any views on God, transcendence or the divine one way or the other'.