Sir Anthony Hopkins: I couldn’t be an atheist

John99 said:
Spidergoat,
You are going be the standards organised religions have set for "God" but those standards are not all there is becuase many have there own impression of what a god or the only god would be like or is. They can even be a part of organised religion but not go by every detail of that religion.
Click to expand...
I don't care. An impression is not enough to evaluate a concept. Therefore, the idea of god is meaningless.



John99 said:
Depends on how advanced they are and the natural part i really dont understand what you are saying there.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. It doesn't matter how advanced they are, they are still natural. If the supernatural is just a form of the natural, then the concept is meaningless.



John99 said:
That is a mistake because we dont know all the laws of physics although we may do know a lot but i have to say what we view as supernatural may be very natural.
Click to expand...
No, by definition it is not natural, it's a way to avoid the limitations of known physics by suggesting something that does not and can not exist. Why? Because of one's desire to believe something, and that isn't valid way to achieve knowledge.
 
Lets see:

Epic fail... No - atheism is the lack of belief in God(s) - which may or may not include the belief that there is(are) no God(s).
Click to expand...

That whole statement makes no sense to me.

You lack belief in god but that does (may or may not) not include that you lack belief there are no god(s). ???
 
Let's please not argue semantics. God is the idea that something made the universe, something which was not made, and which has personality and a plan. That's like saying the cause of the universe is something which is at once similar to a human king, and beyond investigation. This isn't an idea anyone should take seriously.
 
John99 said:
Lets see:

That whole statement makes no sense to me.

You lack belief in god but that does (may or may not) not include that you lack belief there are no god(s). ???
Click to expand...
No.

Lack of belief in God(s) != belief there are no God(s).

One is a lack of belief, one is a belief.
 
In other words, recognizing subtle (but important) distinctions isn't his forte.
 
spidergoat said:
Not really, in modern popular use, an atheist is someone who believes there is no god or gods and nothing supernatural whatsoever. Please stop being a pedantic bore.
Click to expand...

The problem is that most atheists (at least the ones that I know), when pressed, don't actually characterize their position that way. They will typically say things like "I don't believe in God" rather than "I believe that the existence of God is an absolute impossibility". They call themselves atheists but are in fact agnostic atheists, which is a term I have indirectly advocated for around here.

Being pedantic is important sometimes, if we want to be accurate.
 
It's not so important, since even the most ardent atheist doesn't say that it's an absolute impossibility.
 
spidergoat said:
It's not so important, since even the most ardent atheist doesn't say that it's an absolute impossibility.
Click to expand...

There are those who believe that God is a logical impossibility.

The main problem is that theists often claim that atheism is just as much faith based as theism, because atheists are making the "claim" that there is no God. In response to this atheists are perpetually having to clarify their position, usually by stating that they aren't making any "claims" at all. It would be useful then, for any atheist who is not actually claiming that God is an impossibility, to characterize themselves as agnostic atheists, which would go some way towards solving the problem.
 
I think it's impossible to say whether it's possible or impossible because it's not a coherent concept. I have a high degree of certainty that there is no truth to it, and refuse to call myself an agnostic.
 
People have the false idea that we have a 3 way switch with Theist on one end, Atheist on the other and Agnostic in the middle. But this is not true, the middle setting is also Atheist.

And it amazes me how so many people have a hard time wrapping their little brains around this concept.

BTW - I will agree with you that the idea that the cause of the universe is something which is at once similar to a human king, and beyond investigation is ludicrous and not worth any serious thought. But that is not everyone's concept of "god".
 
Yazata said:
Anthony feels trapped by real life, apparently. He's getting up in years, so maybe religion offers him hope of an escape from his own mortality.

I'm sympathetic, but not impressed.
Click to expand...


A theist has no need to impress with theism unless he has revelations from God i.e. he's a prophet.
 
This was best covered by Russell in his 1947 essay Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.
Click to expand...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm

Theists are constantly trying to bait atheists into making positive claims so they can then portray us as being dogmatic.
 
gmilam said:
People have the false idea that we have a 3 way switch with Theist on one end, Atheist on the other and Agnostic in the middle. But this is not true, the middle setting is also Atheist.

And it amazes me how so many people have a hard time wrapping their little brains around this concept.
Click to expand...


Some wise theists know this.

gmilam said:
BTW - I will agree with you that the idea that the cause of the universe is something which is at once similar to a human king, and beyond investigation is ludicrous and not worth any serious thought. But that is not everyone's concept of "god".
Click to expand...


And the idea that the one who caused the universe is not at once similar to a human king and beyond investigation is not ludicrous and worth serious thought.
 
JuNie said:
I had a lot of respect for Anthony Hopkins, but he doesn't realize something. BELIEFS KILL. Just like that abortion doctor that was killed. The Fort Hood Shooting. The persecution of gays. So it's not unbelievable that some Atheists think religion poisons people against reality and causes them to be hostile vs people of opposing views. Imagine the constitution without the separation of church and state. Atheists have a right, just as any religious group to say what they think and be as vocal as they want to about it.

Sir Anthony Hopkins...is a moron.
Click to expand...


Do atheists realize that beliefs seem to kill because theists and athiests must share the world otherwise there would only be people killing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top