Great! Create a feeling for me. Thanks in advance.
Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
- Thread starter Trek
- Start date
Zero Point Native
Registered Senior Member
Do most or all the atheists on sciforums agree with this definition? Because I’ve noticed different atheists tend to have their own definition that differs from others.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I don't care that much. For a few decades I would say "I'm not religious enough to be an atheist." Now I just don't bother.
Still like making believers look like morons. The best part is they are unwitting helpers so often.
Still like making believers look like morons. The best part is they are unwitting helpers so often.
Zero Point Native
Registered Senior Member
Hehe, I have to admit, I do like to challenge people’s extremely tightly held beliefs.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
The vast majority of believers have been programmed from birth. My parents weren't religious and I didn't get the brainwashing. (So many believers don't need brainwashing, they're good with a light rinse and a blow-n-go.)
It always amazes me that believers can be blindly selective, picking and choosing imaginary friends from the buck and then saying the rest of the bucket is just silly superstition or the like. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?
It always amazes me that believers can be blindly selective, picking and choosing imaginary friends from the buck and then saying the rest of the bucket is just silly superstition or the like. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Just like with theists, there are flavours.
For example, I include most metaphysical phenomena - luck, fate, kismet, destiny etc. under the same umbrella as god. Many others might not.
It could be considered splitting hairs though. Whether or not an atheist in luck is immaterial to the question of God. Really, all one can say with confidence about atheists is that they don't believe (or accept) that God exists. That is not the same as saying they believe God does not exist.
Some believe God does not exist. That's a belief, but it's pretty hard to back up.
I, for example, am not convinced God exists, and if I were a betting man, I'd put money on it. However, I would not say I believe he does not exist.
Zero Point Native
Registered Senior Member
Sounds more like agnosticism.
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
RE: Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
SUBTOPIC: The Philosophy of Science and the Application to Reality
⁜→ Zero Point et al,
(PREFACE)
By the very nature of the Anti-Theists (opposing belief in this regard) or Atheists (non-believers in such a supernatural power) - have a common component between them; that is - their position holding a positive denial in the exsistance.
SOURCE: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, Volume Athabasca thru Athos, © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Pg 124
Thus the positive denial in the exsistance of The Super Entity or in The Great Deity (AKA: "First Cause," the "Creator," the "Ultimate Intelligent Power of the Universe," or the "Supreme Being") allows all those that follow that path that can define the exsisyence in question in nearly any manner they adopt. That is because no description can be accurate of something that does not exist
(THE EXCEPTION)
In the study of analytic philosophy there is a theory that contridicts the generally accepted notion of "nothing." (A classic illustration might be Heidegger’s supposition that ‘nothing’ must designate something, though a very peculiar something.) Unanimity, especially on the subject that is infinite (like a Super Entity, The Great Deity, and concetsof applied Infinity) is very difficult to achieve.
Most Respectfully,
R
......
SUBTOPIC: The Philosophy of Science and the Application to Reality
⁜→ Zero Point et al,
(PREFACE)
By the very nature of the Anti-Theists (opposing belief in this regard) or Atheists (non-believers in such a supernatural power) - have a common component between them; that is - their position holding a positive denial in the exsistance.
SOURCE: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, Volume Athabasca thru Athos, © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Pg 124
(RESPONSE)
Thus the positive denial in the exsistance of The Super Entity or in The Great Deity (AKA: "First Cause," the "Creator," the "Ultimate Intelligent Power of the Universe," or the "Supreme Being") allows all those that follow that path that can define the exsisyence in question in nearly any manner they adopt. That is because no description can be accurate of something that does not exist
(THE EXCEPTION)
In the study of analytic philosophy there is a theory that contridicts the generally accepted notion of "nothing." (A classic illustration might be Heidegger’s supposition that ‘nothing’ must designate something, though a very peculiar something.) Unanimity, especially on the subject that is infinite (like a Super Entity, The Great Deity, and concetsof applied Infinity) is very difficult to achieve.
Most Respectfully,
R
......
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
They are not mutually exclusive, this a common mistake.
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
RE: Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
SUBTOPIC: The Philosophy of Science and the Application to Reality
⁜→ Zero Point, et al,
(PREFACE)
Agnosticism is hedging the belief/non-belief. On the roulette Table, it is equivalent to placing a bet n both Red and Black on the same spin.
Most Respectfully,
R
......
SUBTOPIC: The Philosophy of Science and the Application to Reality
⁜→ Zero Point, et al,
(PREFACE)
Agnosticism is hedging the belief/non-belief. On the roulette Table, it is equivalent to placing a bet n both Red and Black on the same spin.
(INPUT)
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia said:
Most Respectfully,
R
......
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I disagree.
I am an atheist I do not believe in the existence of gods and goddesses.
I am not convinced in the arguments for gods heaven hell the soul and the devil.
Do I KNOW there is no god? No, how could I? God may have a sense of humour and make the universe look there is no god, whilst chuckling to himself on a planet in Andromeda.
In that sense, no one actually knows for certain and in terms of god being knowable in the scientific, logical or any other sense, this is clearly not possible.
So I am an agnostic atheist, they can exist together.
For me “agnostic” is therefore redundant but we can stick in there anyway, for fun.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This seems quite wrong to me. Agnosticism simply means not knowing.RE: Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
SUBTOPIC: The Philosophy of Science and the Application to Reality
⁜→ Zero Point, et al,
(PREFACE)
Agnosticism is hedging the belief/non-belief. On the roulette Table, it is equivalent to placing a bet n both Red and Black on the same spin.
(INPUT)
Most Respectfully,
R
......
Not knowing something is not at all the same as "hedging". Hedging is making a provision, or placing a bet, to cover both outcomes, as indeed you indicate with your roulette example. But someone who does not know something is not placing any bets or making any provisions. They just don't know.