What exactly is atheism?

[Jan Ardena]

A point that is often made by athiests when discussing with theists, is that they don't have a full understanding of 'atheism.
This thread is based on a discussion myself and phlogistian is currently having, who believes I do not understand atheism, and atheists.

My understanding of 'atheism' is simply this; one who does not believe in God for whatever reason. I believe this is an adequate definition of atheism, anything more just confuses the issue.

So what is atheism? The first place to look for definitions is the dictionary, and everyone i have looked in more or less agrees with my definition.
Next is to look at the definitions given by atheists themselves, as they seem to believe only they have full understanding.
I will examine the definition given by Cris, as he is a respected, and intelligent atheist on these forums.
My aim is to show that no matter how much spin you cast on the term, it means nothing more than my definition. one who does not believe in God for whatever reason.

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Cutting through the verbiage, he says here that "Atheism is characterized by an "bsence of belief in the existence of gods."
The difference between this def, and my def, comes down to 1word, "absence. Other than that it is basically as I stated; one who does not believe in God for whatever reason. "Absence" means, not there, not present. So ones belief in God is
not present, meaning one does not believe in God.

Next, Cris says

"Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Let me remind you of my definition; one who does not believe in God for whatever reason.
Whether or not one is regarded as a "weak" or "strong" atheist, their position of being an "atheist" does not change. They still adhere to my definition of atheism.

Cris goes on to say;

"t is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Here, all that Cris is saying is that there are different variations of atheism. It actually makes no difference in real terms whether one is weak or soft, the underlying thing is, they don't believe in God, for whatever reason, which is what atheism actually means.

Please note that these are also relivant to theism.

So please explain where I have misunderstood the atheism.

jan.

[Enmos]

Atheism is pure evil.

[Enmos]

Seriously.. I don't get what the difficulty is.

Atheist = someone that lacks belief in any deity.

[S.A.M.]

You can't lack belief, you disbelieve

[spidergoat]

I would emphasize that it's not simply disbelieving in God (monotheism), but also Gods (polytheism), spirits, demons, ghosts, angels, miracles, and any supernatural concepts. The word describes both actively disbelieving and simply an absense of belief, and thus is somewhat imprecise.

[Enmos]

You can't lack belief, you disbelieve

Ok.. :rolleyes:

[mike47]

Atheism is pure evil.
Who said religion is not pure evil also ? !.

[Enmos]

Who said religion is not pure evil also ? !.

Relax..

[greenberg]

My understanding of 'atheism' is simply this; one who does not believe in God for whatever reason. I believe this is an adequate definition of atheism, anything more just confuses the issue.

Would you say that I am the same kind of atheist as -to give some names so as to provide examples- Cris, Phlogistician, SnakeLord, Spidergoat, Avatar, Enmos etc. ? And that I should be spoken to and discussed with in the same manner as they?

I would not call myself either "theist" or "atheist", as I do not feel close to either of these labels - but in effect, this does make me an atheist.


You say an atheist is "one who does not believe in God for whatever reason". Do you think that "for whatever reason" is irrelevant?

People arrive at atheism for a number of reasons, reasons that they are not necessarily aware of, or able or willing to verbalize.
I suppose that if a person's purpose is to bring them back to God, these reasons would need to be taken into account. I think there is a difference between the atheist who claims to be an atheist "because there is no evidence of god(s)" and the atheist who is an atheist because he thinks God hates him, and so on.

Surely theistic arguments per se are objective and can stand on their own - but communication with atheists is not a strict theistic discussion, is it? I think it is preaching, acting on the intent to bring people back to God. And as such, I think the individual atheist's karma needs to be taken into account - in the sense that the preacher chooses those theistic arguments that the individual atheist will be able to understand and implement the instructions given.

[Myles]

Would you say that I am the same kind of atheist as -to give some names so as to provide examples- Cris, Phlogistician, SnakeLord, Spidergoat, Avatar, Enmos etc. ? And that I should be spoken to and discussed with in the same manner as they?

I would not call myself either "theist" or "atheist", as I do not feel close to either of these labels - but in effect, this does make me an atheist.


You say an atheist is "one who does not believe in God for whatever reason". Do you think that "for whatever reason" is irrelevant?

People arrive at atheism for a number of reasons, reasons that they are not necessarily aware of, or able or willing to verbalize.
I suppose that if a person's purpose is to bring them back to God, these reasons would need to be taken into account. I think there is a difference between the atheist who claims to be an atheist "because there is no evidence of god(s)" and the atheist who is an atheist because he thinks God hates him, and so on.

Surely theistic arguments per se are objective and can stand on their own - but communication with atheists is not a strict theistic discussion, is it? I think it is preaching, acting on the intent to bring people back to God. And as such, I think the individual atheist's karma needs to be taken into account - in the sense that the preacher chooses those theistic arguments that the individual atheist will be able to understand and implement the instructions given.

Most people , myself included, arrive at atheism because there is no objective evidence to support the notioon of god.

It is illogical to suggest that someone is an atheist because he believes god hates him. To believe I am hated by god presupposes god's existence.

I don't think we need preachers.

[glaucon]

You can't lack belief,
...


Incorrect.
You can lack belief in that which you have no conception of.


...
you disbelieve

In this case, entirely correct.



:-)

[greenberg]

You can't lack belief, you disbelieve

To "disbelieve" implies one has reasons -in the form of specific counterarguments or evidence to the opposite- to believe otherwise.

But sometimes, a person has neither specific counterguments nor evidence to the opposite; so in that case, the person actually "lacks belief" in either option.

[greenberg]

Incorrect.
You can lack belief in that which you have no conception of.

Or when you have or know of several conceptions, but can neither accept nor reject any of them.

[glaucon]

Or when you have or know of several conceptions, but can neither accept nor reject any of them.

Hey gb.



Hmmm.. well.. this could segue right off into semantics but... I have to disagree.

There is a distinct difference between a conception, and the act of assertion or denial of said conception. In other words, the inability to accept and/or reject a conception necessarily implies a preexisting conception. Without it, there can be no object to assert/deny.

[greenberg]

There is a distinct difference between a conception, and the act of assertion or denial of said conception. In other words, the inability to accept and/or reject a conception necessarily implies a preexisting conception. Without it, there can be no object to assert/deny.

Agreed, I need to be more specific.


A person can know of several conceptions about God, but can neither accept nor reject any of them, on account that they have no personal realization about either conception, other than the realization that they have no realization about said conceptions.

The crux with some conceptions of God is that they require bodily death, a miracle, long-time practice and study, divine intervention, or other qualifications in order to be realized. IOW, some conceptions of God are such that they themselves state that one cannot know the truth about them unless one dies, or a miracle happens, or one gains qualification through long-time practice and study, or God intervenes, or something else previously specified happens.
Such conceptions can neither be rightfully accepted as true nor rightfully rejected as untrue unless the specified requirement is in place.

One can of course still more or less immediately accept or reject a conception, but then on the criterion of its potential usefulness, not truthfulness. This, however, opens the door to wilfully choosing delusion ...

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Would you say that I am the same kind of atheist as -to give some names so as to provide examples- Cris, Phlogistician, SnakeLord, Spidergoat, Avatar, Enmos etc. ? And that I should be spoken to and discussed with in the same manner as they?

An atheist is an atheist; one who does not believe in God, for whatever reason; this is the point of my thread.

A - what kind of a murderer are you?
B - the kind that likes to shoot people in the head
A - don't you drown your victims?
B nah!
A - so you're a murderer then?
B - i guess so.

I would not call myself either "theist" or "atheist", as I do not feel close to either of these labels - but in effect, this does make me an atheist.

What you call yourself, and what you actually believe can be two different things.

You say an atheist is "one who does not believe in God for whatever reason". Do you think that "for whatever reason" is irrelevant?

That is the most relevant part.

People arrive at atheism for a number of reasons, reasons that they are not necessarily aware of, or able or willing to verbalize.
I suppose that if a person's purpose is to bring them back to God, these reasons would need to be taken into account. I think there is a difference between the atheist who claims to be an atheist "because there is no evidence of god(s)" and the atheist who is an atheist because he thinks God hates him, and so on.

I think you are right, there is a difference.

Surely theistic arguments per se are objective and can stand on their own - but communication with atheists is not a strict theistic discussion, is it?

I think you are mixing theism with religion.
It is possible (imo) to be religious, and not be theistic. And, to be theist, and against religion.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Incorrect.
You can lack belief in that which you have no conception of.


Whether you like it or not, you do have a concept of God.

jan.

[glaucon]

Agreed, I need to be more specific.


A person can know of several conceptions about God, but can neither accept nor reject any of them, on account that they have no personal realization about either conception, other than the realization that they have no realization about said conceptions.


Ah, but is it the act of making a decision then the criterion of belief?
I can be unable to assert or deny as to whether or not a Yeti exists , and yet I [B]can (strictly: am able to) make a statement as to the status of my belief with respect to it. In short, if a concept can be so much as mentioned, one must have an accordant belief concerning it.



The crux with some conceptions of God is that they require bodily death, a miracle, long-time practice and study, divine intervention, or other qualifications in order to be realized. IOW, some conceptions of God are such that they themselves state that one cannot know the truth about them unless one dies, or a miracle happens, or one gains qualification through long-time practice and study, or God intervenes, or something else previously specified happens.
Such conceptions can neither be rightfully accepted as true nor rightfully rejected as untrue unless the specified requirement is in place.


Alas, this all entails that one must have specific, particular, personal, and complete knowledge of a thing (your "personal realization") to be able to have a belief status of it. If this were the case, then none of us could properly said to have any beliefs at all....


One can of course still more or less immediately accept or reject a conception, but then on the criterion of its potential usefulness, not truthfulness. This, however, opens the door to willfully choosing delusion ...

Ah, now this is interesting. I agree with you here.

I would say then (and do) that those who are Theists are in fact willfully deluding themselves (not that I would be the first to say so...).



Annnd.. as usual.. I completely derail a thread....

Sorry folks.


On an aside note, I cannot believe that I am defending SAM of all people....

Damn impartiality.....

:-)

[glaucon]

Whether you like it or not, you do have a concept of God.

jan.

As I pointed out in my very next comment.

Read the whole thread if you're going to join.

[Jan Ardena]

Most people , myself included, arrive at atheism because there is no objective evidence to support the notioon of god.

It is illogical to suggest that someone is an atheist because he believes god hates him. To believe I am hated by god presupposes god's existence.


Your conclusion presupposes that god does not exist, yet you are atheist because of a lack of objective evidence, which suggests you do not know whether god exists or not.

jan.

[S.A.M.]

Incorrect.
You can lack belief in that which you have no conception of.


A mind without a concept? Hmm. Can you give me an example?

[glaucon]

A mind without a concept? Hmm. Can you give me an example?

No I cannot.

Thus, my point.

[S.A.M.]

To "disbelieve" implies one has reasons -in the form of specific counterarguments or evidence to the opposite- to believe otherwise.

But sometimes, a person has neither specific counterguments nor evidence to the opposite; so in that case, the person actually "lacks belief" in either option.

To lack belief would, in my opinion, imply the absence of any preconception. For that a person would have to lose all sense of perspective or definition. I don't believe that is possible for anything, we conceptualize even what we imagine to be true. Standard atheism is a rejection of those concepts, which makes me wonder about the basis for that rejection. What exactly, according to an atheist would be defined as God?

[John99]

What exactly, according to an atheist would be defined as God?

They would ask the same of a theist.

[greenberg]

To lack belief would, in my opinion, imply the absence of any preconception.

There is also the problem of what "believe" means.

It seems to me that atheists and theists mean different things when they say "belief" or "believe".

Generally, to "believe" means to "to hold to be true". Some people use it to imply "to agree".
Theists sometimes have it to mean "to have faith".
Which are two different things.

I suggest we should abandon using the words "belief", "believer", "believe" for some time, and instead make an effort to phrase what we each mean by using some other words. This will hopefully make communication clearer.


Standard atheism is a rejection of those concepts, which makes me wonder about the basis for that rejection.

Of course ... People tend to like to appear rational, and we also have the tendency of choice-supportive bias - ie. we will find or make up justifications for a decision after the decision has been already made.

I think most reasons that atheists list as reasons to reject God are such postdecisional rationalizations. Which also explains why directly addressing those "reasons" and showing them to be questionable or even unsupportable doesn't work - as it wasn't those reasons that made the atheist arrive at his atheist position in the first place, and it's possibly not those reasons either that make the atheist remain in his atheist position.

[greenberg]

Ah, but is it the act of making a decision then the criterion of belief?

See above my comment on the meaning of "belief".


I can be unable to assert or deny as to whether or not a Yeti exists [because I have no accordant realization of it (per your analysis..)], and yet I can (strictly: am able to) make a statement as to the status of my belief with respect to it. In short, if a concept can be so much as mentioned, one must have an accordant belief concerning it.

Sure. But what when you have many beliefs, competing, even mutually exclusive ones, and there seems to be no resolution of this conflicting multitude in a foreseeable time?


Alas, this all entails that one must have specific, particular, personal, and complete knowledge of a thing (your "personal realization") to be able to have a belief status of it.

In roundabout, yes.
But here we get into the problem of how things exists - whether they exists as things an sich selbst, what role does human perception play, how does human perception work ... I think we know the drill by now ... :o


If this were the case, then none of us could properly said to have any beliefs at all....

Why would that be so?

I am not convinced that it is impossible that some people have a realization of God. Perhaps some do. I do not have a realization of God, so I can neither tell who has it nor who doesn't.


One can of course still more or less immediately accept or reject a conception, but then on the criterion of its potential usefulness, not truthfulness. This, however, opens the door to willfully choosing delusion ...

I would say then (and do) that those who are Theists are in fact willfully deluding themselves

Why? Do you think it is impossible that something be both true and useful?

[glaucon]

See above my comment on the meaning of "belief".


I don't understand.


Sure. But what when you have many beliefs, competing, even mutually exclusive ones, and there seems to be no resolution of this conflicting multitude in a foreseeable time?

Right.. which I would say is pretty much the situation...


[QUOTE=greenberg;1959197]
In roundabout, yes.
But here we get into the problem of how things exists - whether they exists as things an sich selbst, what role does human perception play, how does human perception work ... I think we know the drill by now ... :o


lol.. nice.
Yep.. sliding towards ontology.

Suffice it to say that it's my position that belief is a predicate. That is, one must believe in something, or have a belief about something. All beliefs necessarily require an attendant conception.




Why would that be so?


Because we cannot satisfy the requirements.
We can never have complete knowledge of something. We do not always have personal, particular knowledge of something.



I am not convinced that it is impossible that some people have a realization of God. Perhaps some do. I do not have a realization of God, so I can neither tell who has it nor who doesn't.


Exactly. But you can use the word nontheless, and not confuse it with Tooth-Fairy.

(OK.. I'm making a small joke here.... just a little jab..)



Why? Do you think it is impossible that something be both true and useful?

Not at all.
But I think that 'true', also qualifies as a belief.

As well.. I think Theists must be delusional (or, at the very least, dishonest with themselves).

[spidergoat]

To lack belief would, in my opinion, imply the absence of any preconception. For that a person would have to lose all sense of perspective or definition. I don't believe that is possible for anything, we conceptualize even what we imagine to be true. Standard atheism is a rejection of those concepts, which makes me wonder about the basis for that rejection. What exactly, according to an atheist would be defined as God?

You could argue that since it is impossible to have any conception of God that comes close to the "real thing", all atheists simply lack belief. It's impossible to accept something that can't be quantified in the first place. Even theists only believe in their own conceptions.

[greenberg]

I don't understand.

I said above in post 25:

It seems to me that atheists and theists mean different things when they say "belief" or "believe".

Generally, to "believe" means to "to hold to be true". Some people use it to imply "to agree".
Theists sometimes have it to mean "to have faith".
Which are two different things.


Sure. But what when you have many beliefs, competing, even mutually exclusive ones, and there seems to be no resolution of this conflicting multitude in a foreseeable time?

Right.. which I would say is pretty much the situation...

So what to do in such a case?


Because we cannot satisfy the requirements.

Why not? Surely, some of the requirements are such that we cannot satisfy them right here on the spot, but "long-time practice and study" is something that is potentially possible to do. And also "death of material body" which is the requirement in some Christian doctrines - "When you die, you will know the whole truth about God" or something to this effect is a possibility.


We can never have complete knowledge of something. We do not always have personal, particular knowledge of something.

There might be some things that we might have such knowledge of.
I realize, I am arguing from a very weak perspective ... But my point is that doing as if we had proven a negative is not right either.


As well.. I think Theists must be delusional (or, at the very least, dishonest with themselves).

Do expand on this.

[greenberg]

What you call yourself, and what you actually believe can be two different things.

To know what I believe, I would have to know what exactly this I is ...


Surely theistic arguments per se are objective and can stand on their own - but communication with atheists is not a strict theistic discussion, is it?

I think you are mixing theism with religion.
It is possible (imo) to be religious, and not be theistic. And, to be theist, and against religion.

Perhaps ... What I was trying to get at was that the communication that theists have with atheists, at least here at these forums, is often one where there is little or no common ground established, where atheists tend to persist in their own, non-scriptoral definitions of God, soul, self, and so on. In contrast, two people from the same religious tradition would have quite a different type of discussion as they would both keep in line with the normative descriptions provided by their reference scriptures and other specific guidelines.

[(Q)]

My understanding of 'atheism' is simply this; one who does not believe in God for whatever reason. I believe this is an adequate definition of atheism, anything more just confuses the issue.

Cutting through the verbiage, he says here that "Atheism is characterized by an "bsence of belief in the existence of gods."
The difference between this def, and my def, comes down to 1word, "absence. Other than that it is basically as I stated; one who does not believe in God for whatever reason. "Absence" means, not there, not present. So ones belief in God is
not present, meaning one does not believe in God.

So please explain where I have misunderstood the atheism.

jan.

Well Jan, although Cris has provided a very nice explanation, which you seem to agree with, I think the definition can be better refined without causing more confusion, in fact, we can give it more clarity.

Not only are there gods to contend with in religion, there are demons, angels, devils, ghostly spirits and all sorts of imps and cherubs, including a talking snake, of all things. And of course, atheists will have a tendency to not believe in those as well. So, the definition requires some updating, we're not strictly dealing with gods.

Cris' definition also has a flaw in that it begins from the position that god IS an entity, but that the entity god is not believed by atheists. Again, this could use some updating.

So, how do we fix it?

Gods and demons and learning to lie are written in scriptures, and scriptures were written by men. Whether or not they are the word of god is another debate, but theists certainly believe them to be.

A 'claim' is a state that is asserted or affirmed as true or existing. Scriptures makes a number of claims that include gods and demons and learning to lie.

So essentially, scriptures can be regarded as a book containing a number of claims, and it is these claims that 'atheists' have a problem believing. They are simply not accepted. And since any given set of scriptures is so widely interpreted by it's followers, we find theists contriving all kinds of claims, hence we cannot accept theirs either.

Perhaps then, we can further define 'atheism' thusly:

"Not accepting the claims of scriptures or theists."

[Betrayer0fHope]

theres a clear difference between weak and strong Atheism, some do not believe god exists, others claim to KNOW he doesn't exist.

[James R]

As a starting point, I have no problem at all with Jan's definition of "atheist" as somebody who doesn't believe in gods for whatever reason.

Of course, just as "theist" encompasses many types of belief, "atheist" equal covers many types of belief.

I don't know why so many religious people, especially here, seem to struggle with the concept of atheism.

[Carcano]

I don't know why so many religious people, especially here, seem to struggle with the concept of atheism.
The struggle really is only about trying to force atheism into the same position as religion...so they can make the same criticisms.

[Tht1Gy!]

So what is atheism? The first place to look for definitions is the dictionary, and everyone i have looked in more or less agrees with my definition...
jan.

Please cite your sources, as every dictionary I've looked it up in says "It's the belief that there is no god."
Thx.

[Tht1Gy!]

... Atheists... ... some do not believe god exists, others claim to KNOW he exists.
???
:bugeye:

[Vkothii]

Can an atheist still know their god, despite believing in a "nonextistent-god"?

[shaman_]

The struggle really is only about trying to force atheism into the same position as religion...so they can make the same criticisms.Spot on.

It's hard to attack Atheism as it doesn't make any claims. Theists wishing to do so need to change the definition first.

[Myles]

Your conclusion presupposes that god does not exist, yet you are atheist because of a lack of objective evidence, which suggests you do not know whether god exists or not.

jan.

There is no evidence for tooth fairies. Do you entertain the possibility of their existence ? I don't.

Despite claims to the contrary, nobody knows whether god exists. I reject the idea of god for the same reasons that I reject the existence of tooth fairies.

[greenberg]

As a starting point, I have no problem at all with Jan's definition of "atheist" as somebody who doesn't believe in gods for whatever reason.

Of course, just as "theist" encompasses many types of belief, "atheist" equal covers many types of belief.

I don't know why so many religious people, especially here, seem to struggle with the concept of atheism.

Because '"atheist" /.../ covers many types of belief' ...

You will have noticed that the vocal atheists tend to put all theists into the same group, as if all theisms would be the same.


The struggle really is only about trying to force atheism into the same position as religion...so they can make the same criticisms.

In general, atheists do have a tendency to desire to be considered "separate from the religious folk". It appears that atheists have the desire to be considered as a separate group to theists. It's the "we vs. them" social phenomenon again ...

[Jan Ardena]

Well Jan, although Cris has provided a very nice explanation, which you seem to agree with, I think the definition can be better refined without causing more confusion, in fact, we can give it more clarity.

Not only are there gods to contend with in religion, there are demons, angels, devils, ghostly spirits and all sorts of imps and cherubs, including a talking snake, of all things. And of course, atheists will have a tendency to not believe in those as well. So, the definition requires some updating, we're not strictly dealing with gods.

Cris' definition also has a flaw in that it begins from the position that god IS an entity, but that the entity god is not believed by atheists. Again, this could use some updating.

So, how do we fix it?

Gods and demons and learning to lie are written in scriptures, and scriptures were written by men. Whether or not they are the word of god is another debate, but theists certainly believe them to be.

A 'claim' is a state that is asserted or affirmed as true or existing. Scriptures makes a number of claims that include gods and demons and learning to lie.

So essentially, scriptures can be regarded as a book containing a number of claims, and it is these claims that 'atheists' have a problem believing. They are simply not accepted. And since any given set of scriptures is so widely interpreted by it's followers, we find theists contriving all kinds of claims, hence we cannot accept theirs either.

Perhaps then, we can further define 'atheism' thusly:

"Not accepting the claims of scriptures or theists."

You're just confusing the issue. Atheism is non- belief in God, you have just added the for whatever reason.
Neither atheist or theist can prove they are right. To do that they must step outside their designation.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

To know what I believe, I would have to know what exactly this I is ...

That's like saying, 'to know how to drive a car, I must know exactly what a car is. The truth is you don't.

Perhaps ... What I was trying to get at was that the communication that theists have with atheists, at least here at these forums, is often one where there is little or no common ground established, where atheists tend to persist in their own, non-scriptoral definitions of God, soul, self, and so on.

This is the ...for whatever reason part of my definition. They are simply, atheists, looking to defeat the theist.

In contrast, two people from the same religious tradition would have quite a different type of discussion as they would both keep in line with the normative descriptions provided by their reference scriptures and other specific guidelines.

It works the same way for atheists as well.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

James R,


I don't know why so many religious people, especially here, seem to struggle with the concept of atheism.

They don't James, there's nothing to struggle with as it is a simple case of an atheist is a person who does not believe in God for whatever reason.
How can anyone struggle with that?

The atheist is the one who struggles. They struggle to stay in a discussion by adding that the theist has no understanding of atheism.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Please cite your sources, as every dictionary I've looked it up in says "It's the belief that there is no god."
Thx.

We are in agreement as my definition is; one who does not believe in God for what ever reason
All the other stuff, we are; rational, logical, more intelligent, have a sense of humour, and many more descriptions bestowed on atheists, mainly be atheists. Is the for whatever reason part of my definition.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

There is no evidence for tooth fairies. Do you entertain the possibility of their existence ? I don't.

If you can find a society which believes the tooth fairy is an actually real phenomenon, and have at their desposal, ancient scriptures, precisicion built places of worship, exquisite art, music , philosophy, etc.. and whatever exquisitness is devoted to God.
Get back to me and we shall resume. Otherwise you're just wasting my time. :)

Despite claims to the contrary, nobody knows whether god exists. I reject the idea of god for the same reasons that I reject the existence of tooth fairies.

Yes..."for whatever reason".

jan.

[Myles]

Myles,



If you can find a society which believes the tooth fairy is an actually real phenomenon, and have at their desposal, ancient scriptures, precisicion built places of worship, exquisite art, music , philosophy, etc.. and whatever exquisitness is devoted to God.
Get back to me and we shall resume. Otherwise you're just wasting my time. :)



Yes..."for whatever reason".

jan.

The Christiam scroptures are of unknown provenance, they contradict each other in places, not to mention those of Muslims . Hindus and others. Of course they are all true.Then we must consider Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

I said to you recently that you cannot reason and I'm telling you again. not that I thnk it will make a scrap of differece.

The existence of temples, scriptures , priests and all the other baggage that goes with religion proves nothing other than a lot of people believe in god. It offers no proof whatever that god exists. Remember when everyone believed the world was flat ?

Bye

[Jan Ardena]

The Christiam scroptures are of unknown provenance, they contradict each other in places, not to mention those of Muslims . Hindus and others. Of course they are all true.Then we must consider Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

I said to you recently that you cannot reason and I'm telling you again. not that I thnk it will make a scrap of differece.

The existence of temples, scriptures , priests and all the other baggage that goes with religion proves nothing other than a lot of people believe in god. It offers no proof whatever that god exists. Remember when everyone believed the world was flat ?

Bye

How is it possible to prove whether God exists or not, by scriptoral accounts?
You accuse me of not being able to reason properly, yet you constantly ask for physical evidence for the existence of God. What is the reason for such a request, based on scriptoral religion?
In light of the fact that all scriptoral religions give their account of God being the original, spiritual cause to our perceptions, it is futile to attempt to seek God outside of our own selves as a rule, to make the decision as to whether we should believe in his existence. No scriptures endorse this, so what are you actually talking about when refer to religion, or scripture?

You and I come into conflict simply because I bypass the idea that God is a physical being. And as far as scriptoral religion goes, I am right. You on the other hand cannot function in the correct parameters of such a religion, to make your point, and as such, have to alter the information in such a way in order facilitate your line reasoning.

The truth of the matter is, you don't believe in God, period, but have taken it upon yourself to show that God doesn't exist, by whatever means you deem necessary. Your line of reasoning is actually irrelevant, and being exposed of this is distateful to you.

jan.

[(Q)]

You're just confusing the issue. Atheism is non- belief in God, you have just added the for whatever reason.
Neither atheist or theist can prove they are right. To do that they must step outside their designation.

jan.

You are confused, Jan. An atheist doesn't accept your claims for gods, angels and everything else you might say about your religion. Atheists ARE NOT making any claims, hence they have nothing to demonstrate that they are right, they simply do not accept your claims.

How much simpler can that be, Jan?

[Jan Ardena]

You are confused, Jan. An atheist doesn't accept your claims for gods, angels and everything else you might say about your religion. Atheists ARE NOT making any claims, hence they have nothing to demonstrate that they are right, they simply do not accept your claims.

How much simpler can that be, Jan?

So. An atheist doesn't believe in God because......
Let's go with, there is no evidence to suggest that there is such a being.
That is a claim. You are claiming that if there was such a being, then it would be detected by scientific means.

jan.

[(Q)]

So. An atheist doesn't believe in God because......
Let's go with, there is no evidence to suggest that there is such a being.
That is a claim. You are claiming that if there was such a being, then it would be detected by scientific means.

jan.

What about the devil? What about angels? Why have you chosen to leave these out? Religion is not just about gods, Jan.

Responding with the fact that there is no evidence to back up your claims isn't making a claim. It is a response to a claim, Jan.

And, in fact, atheists ALWAYS ask for evidence to claims of theists. By asking for evidence in no way is the same as making a claim, Jan.

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

What about the devil? What about angels? Why have you chosen to leave these out? Religion is not just about gods, Jan.

People can believe in angels, fairies, ghosts, and all manner of supernatural beings and not believe in God. Theism is a belief in God.

Responding with the fact that there is no evidence to back up your claims isn't making a claim. It is a response to a claim, Jan.

Claiming that God can only be detected via scientific evidence is a claim.

jan.

[spidergoat]

So. An atheist doesn't believe in God because......
Let's go with, there is no evidence to suggest that there is such a being.
That is a claim. You are claiming that if there was such a being, then it would be detected by scientific means.

jan.

If God has any interaction with the physical world at all, which religions claim he does, it could be detectable through scientific means. I wouldn't say it must already have been detected, since it might be detected one day, but so far it hasn't.

[spidergoat]

Claiming that God can only be detected via scientific evidence is a claim.

jan.

I claim that scientific evidence is the only claim I can trust, and even that is provisional. People may claim to detect God in other ways, but such claims are historically much less reliable than scientific ones.

[Myles]

How is it possible to prove whether God exists or not, by scriptoral accounts?
You accuse me of not being able to reason properly, yet you constantly ask for physical evidence for the existence of God. What is the reason for such a request, based on scriptoral religion?
In light of the fact that all scriptoral religions give their account of God being the original, spiritual cause to our perceptions, it is futile to attempt to seek God outside of our own selves as a rule, to make the decision as to whether we should believe in his existence. No scriptures endorse this, so what are you actually talking about when refer to religion, or scripture?

You and I come into conflict simply because I bypass the idea that God is a physical being. And as far as scriptoral religion goes, I am right. You on the other hand cannot function in the correct parameters of such a religion, to make your point, and as such, have to alter the information in such a way in order facilitate your line reasoning.

The truth of the matter is, you don't believe in God, period, but have taken it upon yourself to show that God doesn't exist, by whatever means you deem necessary. Your line of reasoning is actually irrelevant, and being exposed of this is distateful to you.

jan.

Just tell me why you introduced the topic of scriptures in the first pllace ! Are you now agreeing that it is irrelevant ?

You won't learn, will you ? I have not taken it upon myself to show god doesn't exist; you are putting words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the notion that there is a god. Where have I said that god is a physical being ? And which scriptures do you favour becaus a lot of them are inconflict.

Are you serious about Satan and angels ? The year is 2008 !


If you must distort things, may I suggest you visit a few Creationist sites, where you will be welcomed with open arms

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

I claim that scientific evidence is the only claim I can trust, and even that is provisional.

And I claim that there is more to understanding life, and, ourselves, than what can be observed through science, irregardless of trust.

People may claim to detect God in other ways, but such claims are historically much less reliable than scientific ones.

If something is true, it is true whether anyone knows it or not, the trick is, how do get to know what is true.
Does a tree make a sound when it falls, if no one is there to hear it?
No amount of scientific observation can answer such a simple question, unless it involves us hearing the phenomena, or not.
Whether we regard claims as more or less reliable, is irrelevant to actual truth.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Just tell me why you introduced the topic of scriptures in the first pllace ! Are you now agreeing that it is irrelevant ?

You won't learn, will you ? I have not taken it upon myself to show god doesn't exist; you are putting words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the notion that there is a god.

If you must distort things, may I suggest you visit a few Creationist sites, where you will be welcomed with open arms

You introduced the topic of scriptures when you said;

The Christiam scroptures are of unknown provenance, they contradict each other in places, not to mention those of Muslims . Hindus and others. Of course they are all true.Then we must consider Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

Unless of course you actually meant "scroptures", then I apologies.

I have come to the conclusion that you are incapable of conducting a reasonable discussion regarding this subject.

jan.

[spidergoat]

Anything may indeed be true, all our science may be wrong, but I think it's history of reliability as a method of finding things out exceeds that of religion. One may simply feel that something is true, and that's fine, but to proclaim it as universal, to convince rational people, requires something more.

[Myles]

James R,



They don't James, there's nothing to struggle with as it is a simple case of an atheist is a person who does not believe in God for whatever reason.
How can anyone struggle with that?

The atheist is the one who struggles. They struggle to stay in a discussion by adding that the theist has no understanding of atheism.

jan.

Can I take that the question in your op is rhetorical as you have just answered it. Pity you didn't do so earlier !

[Jan Ardena]

Can I take that the question in your op is rhetorical as you have just answered it. Pity you didn't do so earlier !

I did give a definition as to what i think atheism is, maybe you missed that part. Here it is again;

non-belief in God, for whatever reason.

[Myles]

You introduced the topic of scriptures when you said;



Unless of course you actually meant "scroptures", then I apologies.

I have come to the conclusion that you are incapable of conducting a reasonable discussion regarding this subject.

jan.

Yet again you are twisting things. You asked about the tooth fairy ans scriptures etc. Look back and yoi will see.

There is really nothing to discuss. Bye. Give my regards to the angels. thrones. dominions and the choirs cherubim and seraphim.

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

Anything may indeed be true, all our science may be wrong, but I think it's history of reliability as a method of finding things out exceeds that of religion.

I agree. But only with phenomena that can be explained via naturalistic means, otherwise there is no way of verification.

One may simply feel that something is true, and that's fine, but to proclaim it as universal, to convince rational people, requires something more.

If you are refering to God, then there are methods and disiplines one can undertake, as in religious rules and regulations.

jan.

[iceaura]

They don't James, there's nothing to struggle with as it is a simple case of an atheist is a person who does not believe in {any} God for whatever reason.

How can anyone struggle with that? Damned if I know, but as pages of thread on this forum will attest, trying to persuade some of the theists around here that atheism (in general) is an absence of belief is a long, uphill slog.

[(Q)]

Claiming that God can only be detected via scientific evidence is a claim.

jan.

That is not the claim atheism makes. That is the claim anyone can make and it has NOTHING to do with theism or atheism. It is simply a statement of logic.

[greenberg]

To know what I believe, I would have to know what exactly this I is ...

That's like saying, 'to know how to drive a car, I must know exactly what a car is. The truth is you don't.

Please justify why you think the analogy with the car applies in this case.

To go with what I believe is the Vedic understanding - Entangled in material nature, my mind is unable to discern what is the soul and what is the working of material nature. I identify with my body, my thoughts, my feelings, my possessions. I can't tell where the line is between the body, thoughts, feelings, possessions, and the soul. To know which it is that I -the spirit soul- believe would require that I be able to discern between material nature and the spiritual.

This part of the discussion was begun when you said:

What you call yourself, and what you actually believe can be two different things.

When I call myself this or that - what is it that does the calling? What am I actually calling that way? The body or the soul?
It is possible that simply due to my worldy conditioning, I automatically consider myself an atheist as I was told from early on by other people that I am an atheist. While at the same time, I also cannot really relate to being called this.
On the other hand, it could be that I really am a hardcore atheist God-hating soul, who is currently mellowed by the workings of material nature to appear to be neither a theist nor an atheist.
Or I could be someting else entirely.

Bottomline, I don't know, but it appears to be important to know what it is that I really I am.

I spoke to a brahmacari a while back, and asked him what it would take, what I would have to do or learn, or what requirements I would have to meet in order to come to their weekly public meetings. He said that I only needed a "sincere desire to come there". I went. But I am not sure I had such a sincere desire, because I don't know what a sincere desire is like to begin with. I went there a few times, and it occured to me that I would have to figure ou what it is that I really believe, what is it that I really am -a theist or an atheist or something else- if I am to continue going there.


Not to make this about me - but my point is that it seems important to know what one really is - whether one is a theist or an atheist or something else.


This is the ...for whatever reason part of my definition. They are simply, atheists, looking to defeat the theist.

Do you think I am trying to defeat you?

[greenberg]

One may simply feel that something is true, and that's fine, but to proclaim it as universal, to convince rational people, requires something more.

Sure. And the something more that is required might be necessary for both the speaker as well as the audience.

[spidergoat]

spidergoat,



I agree. But only with phenomena that can be explained via naturalistic means, otherwise there is no way of verification.



If you are refering to God, then there are methods and disiplines one can undertake, as in religious rules and regulations.

jan.


Contrary to popular opinion, Science is not the explanation of things by natural means. It attempts to find the reasons for all things, natural or otherwise.

[lightgigantic]

Contrary to popular opinion, Science is not the explanation of things by natural means. It attempts to find the reasons for all things, natural or otherwise.
what is an example of a (mainstream) scientific claim that isn't based on naturalistic phenomena?

[lightgigantic]

Q

“ Originally Posted by Jan Ardena

Claiming that God can only be detected via scientific evidence is a claim.

jan. ”

That is not the claim atheism makes. That is the claim anyone can make and it has NOTHING to do with theism or atheism. It is simply a statement of logic.
what is the logic behind the statement?
(what are the premises)?

[Jan Ardena]

Damned if I know, but as pages of thread on this forum will attest, trying to persuade some of the theists around here that atheism (in general) is an absence of belief is a long, uphill slog.

Absence, meaning the belief is not there, hence, you do not believe in God.
There can be no uphill struggle to understand that.

jan.

[spidergoat]

what is an example of a (mainstream) scientific claim that isn't based on naturalistic phenomena?

No non-naturalistic claims have become mainstream, but I suggest that is because there is nothing non-naturalistic. It is entirely possible this will be shown to be wrong. It hasn't yet. Perhaps something like quantum theory's "spooky action at a distance" qualifies, but non-naturalistic explanations have not yet been ruled out.

[Fraggle Rocker]

You can't lack belief, you disbelieveThat's just semantic hair splitting. Take it to the Linguistics board. ;)I think there is a difference between the atheist who claims to be an atheist "because there is no evidence of god(s)" and the atheist who is an atheist because he thinks God hates him, and so on.Huh??? In order to believe that a god hates you, you must first believe that he/she/it exists. In which case you can hardly be an atheist.

What exactly, according to an atheist would be defined as God?god (lower case G): an imaginary, mythological, metaphorical, etc. creature, usually portrayed in human or nearly human form, which exists in an unobservable and illogical supernatural universe, has supernatural powers that it uses to perturb the functioning of the natural universe, often in inscrutable, capricious or punitive ways, usually focusing its attention on and intervening in the affairs of humans. Gods are found in the mythology of all cultures in all eras and are thus a Jungian archetype: an instinctive belief in a pre-programmed synapse, from a common ancestor who had the coding for it in his DNA and for any of a variety of reasons was wildly successful in reproducing and passing it on.There is also the problem of what "believe" means. It seems to me that atheists and theists mean different things when they say "belief" or "believe". Generally, to "believe" means to "to hold to be true". Some people use it to imply "to agree". Theists sometimes have it to mean "to have faith". Which are two different things.The rest of us also use the word in that sense. I believe in America, I believe in the power of rock and roll, I believe in my friend as he struggles to prove himself innocent of a recent crime.I think most reasons that atheists list as reasons to reject God are such postdecisional rationalizations.Atheism is not necessarily a decision. There are those of us who were raised in atheistic households. I never heard of religion until I was about seven, and I laughed my head off when some kid in school started telling me about it. I assumed it was a joke. My parents explained that it was more like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, and that little boy's parents had chosen to tell him that fairytale instead of the ones I heard. I was several years older when I had the horrible realization that there are also adults who believe in this particular fairy tale. I spent several more years wondering why no one had ever had the decency to tell them the truth. Then when I became old enough to take it upon myself to tell one of them the truth, I witnessed the damage that is done by allowing a child to grow up believing in a fairy tale. He can't bear the thought that it's not true because it has become part of his identity.I don't know why so many religious people, especially here, seem to struggle with the concept of atheism.If they're Christians and Muslims, one of the cornerstones of their particular religions is the directive to evangelize. They believe their god requires them to convince the rest of us that their particular religion is the only correct one. (And of course they disagree to the point of warfare and genocide on which of the two it is.) They have a long history of encountering people who believe in the same god but just have a different version of the religion in which to place it, so they're comfortable with that confrontation. When they meet someone who believes in a different god, they're still on relatively solid ground because they have so much in common and they're just arguing over the details. But when they run into one of us with who sees the god motif as a metaphor rather than a literal description of how the universe works, they are uncomfortable. Our ability to see that in the first place means we have clearer vision than theirs, so we are superior to them in at least one way, and they can't tolerate that.So. An atheist doesn't believe in God because...... Let's go with, there is no evidence to suggest that there is such a being. That is a claim. You are claiming that if there was such a being, then it would be detected by scientific means.Once we have studied science we can put it in much more precise language:

The fundamental theory of science is that the natural universe is a closed system; that there is no supernatural universe full of whimsical creatures who meddle with our lives out of pride, selfishness, anger and paternalism. This is the cornerstone of the scientific method, and in good scientific fashion it is recursive.

The theory that the natural universe is a closed system has been tested and peer-reviewed in earnest for half a millennium since the Enlightenment, and less zealously for a long time before that. This is the most-tested theory in the scientific canon, because anyone who succeeds in falsifying it will be one of the most famous people in history.

Yet despite this zeal, it has never been falsified. No evidence, experimentation or reasoning has ever been discovered or developed to challenge the notion that natural laws are all there is, and that everything derives from them.

Like all scientific theories, this one can never be proven true. But, to use the language of the law since the language of science totally sucks as a tool for communicating with laymen, it can be and has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. That means just what it says. Although we can never be certain that a supernatural universe full of angry gods does not exist, to believe that it does is unreasonable.

We then apply the Rule of Laplace, another cornerstone of science: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.

Assertions of the existence of supernatural phenomena are accompanied, if at all, by the most pathetic evidence. But the existence of gods goes far beyond that because those assertions are accompanied by no evidence at all.

People who believe in gods do so because humans are programmed to believe in gods; it's in our DNA. Those archetypal kinds of beliefs simply feel true, and that makes those beliefs stronger than any beliefs based on learning, reasoning and experience. People rarely consider where archetypal beliefs come from, so they never wonder where the evidence for them is. They just assume it's there somewhere and they're comfortable with that.

The rest of us aren't. If you're going to tell us a fairy tale, you'd better have a thousand trustworthy witnesses with videocameras. Or just one, and we'll at least finally be obligated to treat your fairy tale with respect, even if we still find it to be just a fairy tale.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Please justify why you think the analogy with the car applies in this case.

It's quite simple; one does not need to know everything there is to know about a car, in order to understand the essential reason for its existence.

When I call myself this or that - what is it that does the calling? What am I actually calling that way? The body or the soul?

One thing is for sure, when calling yourself, it's not the this or that.
If one minute you're dave, then you change your name to mick, then you call yourself sally the transexual, then i would say you are calling the body.

Another thing to notice is, the caller never changes.

It is possible that simply due to my worldy conditioning, I automatically consider myself an atheist as I was told from early on by other people that I am an atheist. While at the same time, I also cannot really relate to being called this.

If you love ice cream, and all your life you were being told you hate ice cream, what happens when you taste it.
The confusion is most probably due to the term "atheist".
If it were possible to be atheist to ice cream, it would only mean you don't believe, the essence, is what it actually is, to you. :)

On the other hand, it could be that I really am a hardcore atheist God-hating soul, who is currently mellowed by the workings of material nature to appear to be neither a theist nor an atheist.
Or I could be someting else entirely.

Most likely, you are, like me and most others in the western world, atheistic.

I spoke to a brahmacari a while back, and asked him what it would take, what I would have to do or learn, or what requirements I would have to meet in order to come to their weekly public meetings. He said that I only needed a "sincere desire to come there". I went. But I am not sure I had such a sincere desire, because I don't know what a sincere desire is like to begin with. I went there a few times, and it occured to me that I would have to figure ou what it is that I really believe, what is it that I really am -a theist or an atheist or something else- if I am to continue going there.

Maybe take a look at things simply, try not to look for the answers to those questions. The truth must already be there, and the point of knowledge is to understand the truth. There are some things we must accept on faith, and that goes for everybody, atheist and theist alike.

Not to make this about me - but my point is that it seems important to know what one really is - whether one is a theist or an atheist or something else.

Theist = belief in God
Atheist= non belief in God
Maybe you're an in-betweeny. Have you ever thought about that?

Do you think I am trying to defeat you?

I would be disappointed if you wasn't. ;)

jan .

[iceaura]

Absence, meaning the belief is not there, hence, you do not believe in God.
There can be no uphill struggle to understand that. Tell that to the general run of theists on this forum.

[Jan Ardena]

Fraggle Rocker,

The fundamental theory of science is that the natural universe is a closed system; that there is no supernatural universe full of whimsical creatures who meddle with our lives out of pride, selfishness, anger and paternalism. This is the cornerstone of the scientific method, and in good scientific fashion it is recursive.

Have there been studies of such creatures, and supernatural universes?
No?
Then wtf are you talking about?

Like all scientific theories, this one can never be proven true.

Good point.

We then apply the Rule of Laplace, another cornerstone of science: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.

The thing is, it's not extraordinary.

Assertions of the existence of supernatural phenomena are accompanied, if at all, by the most pathetic evidence. But the existence of gods goes far beyond that because those assertions are accompanied by no evidence at all.

What would you accept as evidence of the one God described in every scripture?

People who believe in gods do so because humans are programmed to believe in gods; it's in our DNA.

Another theory?


Those archetypal kinds of beliefs simply feel true, and that makes those beliefs stronger than any beliefs based on learning, reasoning and experience. People rarely consider where archetypal beliefs come from, so they never wonder where the evidence for them is. They just assume it's there somewhere and they're comfortable with that.

Really?

The rest of us aren't. If you're going to tell us a fairy tale, you'd better have a thousand trustworthy witnesses with videocameras. Or just one, and we'll at least finally be obligated to treat your fairy tale with respect, even if we still find it to be just a fairy tale.

I'll bear that in mind. Thanks for your input.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Tell that to the general run of theists on this forum.

I cannot see how any theist could get this wrong, perhaps you can give a few examples.

jan.

[Myles]

I cannot see how any theist could get this wrong, perhaps you can give a few examples.

jan.

You cannot see and never will !

[Enmos]

What is this ? A theist arguing that atheists do not believe in god rather than believe god does not exist ? :confused:

[greenberg]

You cannot see and never will !

And you are omniscient, riiight.

[greenberg]

It's quite simple; one does not need to know everything there is to know about a car, in order to understand the essential reason for its existence.

This is backwards.
To know what is essential, one has to know the whole, for only in reference to the whole can one assess what is essential.
However (and this seems to be what you have in mind), one can take on faith or gamble/risk and this way get to know the essential.
Knowledge of the essential might thus be the same in both approaches, but the ways this knowledge has been arrived at, is different.

The difference between the two is practical: The first approach would take forever (as there is no way around getting to know everything, you'd have to get to know everything which would take forever). The second approach might work in the first attempt, or after many mistakes, or take forever.

There is no guarantee that the seeker will find; but his chances are better with the second approach than with the first one.

So, strictly formally seen, acting on faith or gambling/risking is better than trying to figure everything out for oneself from scratch.

So I sort of agree with you on the above-quoted point.


Another thing to notice is, the caller never changes.

But he calls different names ... This is because the caller is entangled into material nature?


If you love ice cream, and all your life you were being told you hate ice cream, what happens when you taste it.

Oddly enough, I've had a similar experience recently. My whole life, I've had this idea that eating spicy food, especially eating food seasoned with black pepper is bad and riles up the senses. I felt bad whenever I ate anything spicy, especially when seasoned with black pepper. Then recently, I've learned to make a sauce of green peppers, tomatoes, ground red paprika, and soy bits, seasoned with salt and black pepper. Served with mashed potatoes or softly cooked and mild rice. My, is that yummy! And my passions didn't get riled up, even though I was eating such spicy food.
It was a really strange experience, very pleasurable, but strange.


The confusion is most probably due to the term "atheist".
If it were possible to be atheist to ice cream, it would only mean you don't believe, the essence, is what it actually is, to you.

"Belief" isn't very reliable, is it? We believe all sorts of things ... and then after some time, we believe some other things ...


Maybe take a look at things simply, try not to look for the answers to those questions. The truth must already be there, and the point of knowledge is to understand the truth. There are some things we must accept on faith, and that goes for everybody, atheist and theist alike.

What do you think - which things should be accepted on faith, and which should not? What would be the criteria for such acceptance?


Theist = belief in God
Atheist= non belief in God
Maybe you're an in-betweeny. Have you ever thought about that?

Do you mean that a spirit-soul can possibly be an "in-betweeny"??

1. What scriptoral reference do you have for that suggestion?
2. It appears that an "in-betweeny" cannot be truly happy, ever. If a spirit- soul is an "in-betweeny" and the spirit-soul is part an parcel of God, and an "in-betweeny" can never be truly happy, then parts of God are never truly happy. -??


Do you think I am trying to defeat you?

I would be disappointed if you wasn't.

I want to be enlightened sooner than you!! ;)

[greenberg]

I think there is a difference between the atheist who claims to be an atheist "because there is no evidence of god(s)" and the atheist who is an atheist because he thinks God hates him, and so on.

Huh??? In order to believe that a god hates you, you must first believe that he/she/it exists. In which case you can hardly be an atheist.

People who call themselves "atheists" are not exempt from holding mutually exlcusive stances. :o


Atheism is not necessarily a decision.

In that case, if a person did not make a decision to be atheist, such an atheist is not rational about his atheism. His atheism is merely a matter of indoctrination/habit/conditioning.


There are those of us who were raised in atheistic households. I never heard of religion until I was about seven, and I laughed my head off when some kid in school started telling me about it. I assumed it was a joke. My parents explained that it was more like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, and that little boy's parents had chosen to tell him that fairytale instead of the ones I heard. I was several years older when I had the horrible realization that there are also adults who believe in this particular fairy tale. I spent several more years wondering why no one had ever had the decency to tell them the truth. Then when I became old enough to take it upon myself to tell one of them the truth, I witnessed the damage that is done by allowing a child to grow up believing in a fairy tale. He can't bear the thought that it's not true because it has become part of his identity.

Just like you are the child who has become an adult who "can't bear the thought that /atheism/ is not true because it has become part of his identity".
It goes both ways.
Unless, of course, you wish to assert omniscience.


But when they run into one of us with who sees the god motif as a metaphor rather than a literal description of how the universe works, they are uncomfortable. Our ability to see that in the first place means we have clearer vision than theirs, so we are superior to them in at least one way, and they can't tolerate that.

Wow. What an ego. The way to think you are wonderful is by portraying others as stupid.


Yet despite this zeal, it has never been falsified. No evidence, experimentation or reasoning has ever been discovered or developed to challenge the notion that natural laws are all there is, and that everything derives from them.

You conceive it as a closed system, this is why you can not conceive that there could be any evidence to the contrary, and even if there would be, you would interpet it in line with the notion of the closed system.


Like all scientific theories, this one can never be proven true.

And yet you have the nerve to speak truisms such as:

But when they run into one of us with who sees the god motif as a metaphor rather than a literal description of how the universe works, they are uncomfortable. Our ability to see that in the first place means we have clearer vision than theirs, so we are superior to them in at least one way, and they can't tolerate that.

and

People who believe in gods do so because humans are programmed to believe in gods; it's in our DNA.


We then apply the Rule of Laplace, another cornerstone of science: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.

Nobody can make you treat any claims with respect. But this will not make those claims go away, nor the people who make those claims. You have to live with them, somehow. And so far, you have shown that the only recourse you have is to your own declarations of grandeur and superiority. For someone seeking to be a decent scientist, this is one really shabby way to be.
You are setting an ugly example.


And don't try to accuse me of an ad hominem: Your whole line of argument against theism is based on an ad hominem. The science you bring in is just feathers to mask that what you really are in it for is a battle of wills.

[Enmos]

Atheists are labeled as atheists by theists..

[greenberg]

Oh no. Many atheists make a point of calling themselves "atheists".

[greenberg]

I cannot see how any theist could get this wrong, perhaps you can give a few examples.

Iceaura has a point, though. Some Christian proselytizers hold a stance like this: "Everyone already believes in God and knows God. But some people are evil and refuse to admit that they believe in God, and they also deliberately try to blind themselves before the truth."
Hence the difficulty of understanding there could be such a thing as "lack of belief in God".

[Enmos]

Oh no. Many atheists make a point of calling themselves "atheists".

Sure, but they have been labeled as such by theists.

[Jan Ardena]

What is this ? A theist arguing that atheists do not believe in god rather than believe god does not exist ? :confused:

Believing God does not exist is the (for whatever) reason for non belief in God (atheism), and considered a rather foolish one at that.

jan.

[Enmos]

Believing God does not exist is the (for whatever) reason for non belief in God (atheism), and considered a rather foolish one at that.

jan.

Uh.. what ?

Are you saying that believing God does not exist is the reason for not believing in God ?

Do you see a difference between the two bold parts ?

[Yorda]

atheism is devilworship.

and if you believe in atheism, you automatically also believe in evolution, rationality, materialism, determinism and many other things. atheists don't believe in afterlife because they believe in materialism. an atheist is almost the same thing as scientist.

science and evolution is the religion of atheists. they claim that evolution is just a theory, like the theory of gravity or thermodynamics. those theories don't say anything about how we should live our life, but evolution does!

evolution is a worldview (almost like a religion). and when (young, ignorant) people apply it to their life they become nihilists! if you believe in evolution you automatically believe that you are an animal and your life has no meaning. you become depressed because you don't believe in free will because your brain is controlled by natural laws.

i know what i'm talking about because i live in a country where there are 85% atheists...

that's not true, yorda... most atheists are nice and happy people.

[Myles]

atheism is devilworship.

and if you believe in atheism, you automatically also believe in evolution, rationality, materialism, determinism and many other things. atheists don't believe in afterlife because they believe in materialism. an atheist is almost the same thing as scientist.

science and evolution is the religion of atheists. they claim that evolution is just a theory, like the theory of gravity or thermodynamics. those theories don't say anything about how we should live our life, but evolution does!

evolution is a worldview (almost like a religion). and when (young, ignorant) people apply it to their life they become nihilists! if you believe in evolution you automatically believe that you are an animal and your life has no meaning. you become depressed because you don't believe in free will because your brain is controlled by natural laws.

i know what i'm talking about because i live in a country where there are 85% atheists...

that's not true, yorda... most atheists are nice and happy people.

True to form Yorda. you have given us an intelligent, well put argument. Now you only have to support it.

[Jan Ardena]

Uh.. what ?

Are you saying that believing God does not exist is the reason for not believing in God ?

Do you see a difference between the two bold parts ?

Yes, on both counts.
What is your point exactly?

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

This is backwards.
To know what is essential, one has to know the whole, for only in reference to the whole can one assess what is essential.

We are automatically drawn to the essential. That is its attractive quality.
There is no need to understand the physical make up of ice cream in order to access its essential quality.

However (and this seems to be what you have in mind), one can take on faith or gamble/risk and this way get to know the essential.

You misunderstand me.

Knowledge of the essential might thus be the same in both approaches, but the ways this knowledge has been arrived at, is different.

Knowledge of the essential is second rate understanding.
The gopis, in the stories of Krishna, were not interested in God, or whether or not he exists, they only wanted to be in the company of Krishna.
And they were regarded as Krishna's (Gods') most devoted devotees.

There is no guarantee that the seeker will find; but his chances are better with the second approach than with the first one.

Faith is required through trying to understand everything. The devotee who surrenders to God, has no need of faith. He has come to the end of knowledge by dint of service to the essence (santana dharma).

So, strictly formally seen, acting on faith or gambling/risking is better than trying to figure everything out for oneself from scratch.

Why do you think faith is a gamble? If I put my faith in the words and deed
of Jesus Christ, what exactly have I gambled. Especially if, within his words and deeds, I come into contact with the essence.

But he calls different names ... This is because the caller is entangled into material nature?

Yes, the caller who remains the same, calls himself by different names. Irregardless of the condition of the caller, he still remains the same. This is true is it not? Sally the tranvestite, who used to be Larry the lorry driver, is still essentially the same person.

I've got to go now.
I will finish responding to the rest of your post later on.

jan.

[greenberg]

We are automatically drawn to the essential. That is its attractive quality.
There is no need to understand the physical make up of ice cream in order to access its essential quality.

Excuse me, I haven't eaten ice cream in ages. What would be the essential quality of ice cream? Or apples or bananas for that matter?


Knowledge of the essential is second rate understanding.
The gopis, in the stories of Krishna, were not interested in God, or whether or not he exists, they only wanted to be in the company of Krishna.
And they were regarded as Krishna's (Gods') most devoted devotees.

But they had the opportunity to spend time with Krishna. For real.
If I go to tend cows, will there be a beautiful young man with bluish skin?

(It's funny that you mention this, because earlier I was thinking how pictures of Govinda are my favorites.)


Faith is required through trying to understand everything.

Sure, but it is a very general faith - namely the faith that if you apply yourself and seek to be as rational as possible, this will yield positive results.
As opposed to, for example, the faith that acting in line with the Catholic doctrines will yield positive results, even though you currently do not find those doctrines very meaningful or don't know whether they are true.


The devotee who surrenders to God, has no need of faith. He has come to the end of knowledge by dint of service to the essence (santana dharma).

I'm not disputing that.


Why do you think faith is a gamble? If I put my faith in the words and deed
of Jesus Christ, what exactly have I gambled. Especially if, within his words and deeds, I come into contact with the essence.

If you doubt whether Jesus existed, or if you have not come into contact with the essence, then putting faith in either Jesus or that essence is a gamble.


Yes, the caller who remains the same, calls himself by different names. Irregardless of the condition of the caller, he still remains the same. This is true is it not? Sally the tranvestite, who used to be Larry the lorry driver, is still essentially the same person.

Allright.


I've got to go now.
I will finish responding to the rest of your post later on.

Thank you.

[(Q)]

Believing God does not exist is the (for whatever) reason for non belief in God (atheism), and considered a rather foolish one at that.

jan.

Aliens on the planet Vulcan lack a belief in your god, Jan. Does that meant they are atheists and claim to NOT believe in your god?

[greenberg]

Aliens on the planet Vulcan lack a belief in your god, Jan.

So you think you are omniscient or think we should take your words as unquestionable authority?

[(Q)]

So you think you are omniscient or think we should take your words as unquestionable authority?

Huh? :shrug:

[greenberg]

Huh? :shrug:

You said:

Aliens on the planet Vulcan lack a belief in your god, Jan.

Which says that you know there are aliens on the planet Vulcan (and that aliens and planet Vulcan exist), and that they lack belief in a particular god.
(Way to go, Q, you have just asserted the existence of aliens on planet Vulcan!)

As it is safe to say that most of us have no way of finding out whether planet Vulcan, aliens etc. exist, or what their beliefs are, we simply have to take your word for it as you speak with such conviction! :o

[(Q)]

For the sake of Greenberg, I'm now forced to use the obligatory, "Imagine, for the sake of argument" in front of that statement.

For your sake, Greenberg, just for you. Happy? Sheesh.

[Tht1Gy!]

Excuse me, I haven't eaten ice cream in ages. What would be the essential quality of ice cream? Thank you.
Sweet Creamy Goodness!!:D

[Tht1Gy!]

Aliens on the planet Vulcan lack a belief in your god, Jan. Does that meant they are atheists and claim to NOT believe in your god?

First of all, they're not aliens. They are from Vulcan! And no they are not atheistic, they believe in the Great Arkelsneezure. And all of them believe.:D

[Myles]

Sweet Creamy Goodness!!:D

Now that's what I call a sloppy post. You failed to address the question of appleness and bananess.

[Enmos]

that's not true, yorda... most atheists are nice and happy people.

I'm glad you eventually figured that out yourself.

[Enmos]

Yes, on both counts.
What is your point exactly?

jan.

Explain ?

[Tht1Gy!]

Now that's what I call a sloppy post. You failed to address the question of appleness and bananess.

Ice Cream and Bananas. Mmmm. Add some nuts and chocolate sauce, mmmm.

Baked Alaska. Mmmmm.

[iceaura]

Tell that to the general run of theists on this forum.
”
I cannot see how any theist could get this wrong, perhaps you can give a few examples.

Well, just backing up a page or two in this thread, we hit this:

To lack belief would, in my opinion, imply the absence of any preconception. For that a person would have to lose all sense of perspective or definition.

And we have an entire thread entitled "Atheism is a belief" in the General Philosophy section.

And so forth. Probably the single most common general assertion by theists about atheists, actually - that atheists have a belief based in faith, just as theists do.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Oddly enough, I've had a similar experience recently. My whole life, I've had this idea that eating spicy food, especially eating food seasoned with black pepper is bad and riles up the senses. I felt bad whenever I ate anything spicy, especially when seasoned with black pepper. Then recently, I've learned to make a sauce of green peppers, tomatoes, ground red paprika, and soy bits, seasoned with salt and black pepper. Served with mashed potatoes or softly cooked and mild rice. My, is that yummy! And my passions didn't get riled up, even though I was eating such spicy food.
It was a really strange experience, very pleasurable, but strange.

I wouldn't say that was a similar experience, as you weren't told by authorities that you hate spicy food.
That is more like the atheist position, without the surrender. :D

"Belief" isn't very reliable, is it? We believe all sorts of things ... and then after some time, we believe some other things ...

The pursiut of understanding requires belief.

What do you think - which things should be accepted on faith, and which should not? What would be the criteria for such acceptance?

Things that we cannot be known directly via the senses, off the top of my head.

Do you mean that a spirit-soul can possibly be an "in-betweeny"??

A conditioned spirit-soul, yes, according to scriptoral authority.

1. What scriptoral reference do you have for that suggestion?

BG.ch14, Verse 5.

Material nature consists of the three modes--goodness, passion and ignorance. When the living entity comes in contact with nature, he becomes conditioned by these modes.

PURPORT

The living entity, because he is transcendental, has nothing to do with this material nature. Still, because he has become conditioned by the material world, he is acting under the spell of the three modes of material nature. Because living entities have different kinds of bodies, in terms of the different aspects of nature, they are induced to act according to that nature. This is the cause of the varieties of happiness and distress.

2. It appears that an "in-betweeny" cannot be truly happy, ever. If a spirit- soul is an "in-betweeny" and the spirit-soul is part an parcel of God, and an "in-betweeny" can never be truly happy, then parts of God are never truly happy. -??

The reason we are in-betweenies is because we desire to become separate to God. Once we understand our true position we become blissful.
Does that make sense?

I want to be enlightened sooner than you!! ;)

Last one to enlightenment doesn't get any ice cream.
On your marks........get set.......! :D

Jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Aliens on the planet Vulcan lack a belief in your god, Jan. Does that meant they are atheists and claim to NOT believe in your god?

What do you think?

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Excuse me, I haven't eaten ice cream in ages. What would be the essential quality of ice cream? Or apples or bananas for that matter?

Ask anyone who loves it.

But they had the opportunity to spend time with Krishna. For real.
If I go to tend cows, will there be a beautiful young man with bluish skin?

But they didn't know he was God, and quite frankly couldn't give a monkeys, but their position was one that despite their lustful tendancies, their percieved lack of scientific, philosophic knowledge, and faith in God, their senses were attracted to God in the form of Govinda.

Sure, but it is a very general faith - namely the faith that if you apply yourself and seek to be as rational as possible, this will yield positive results.
As opposed to, for example, the faith that acting in line with the Catholic doctrines will yield positive results, even though you currently do not find those doctrines very meaningful or don't know whether they are true.

Faith is apparent, according to the individual. The trouble with people whose faith is situated at extreme ends of the spectrum is that they have become extremists and cannot see anything outside of their own position.
But the rest of us can discuss the issues of God, religion, and spirituality in a rational manner. :)

If you doubt whether Jesus existed, or if you have not come into contact with the essence, then putting faith in either Jesus or that essence is a gamble.

Why would you doubt Jesus' existence?
There is no way you can not have come into contact with the essence of Jesus' words and deeds, if you have read and understood them. You would simply be in a state of non-belief for whatever reason.

The type of person who would put their faith into something they do not believe in, or does not exist (in their mind), is either controlled by some force, or, does not exist.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Explain ?

It's simple;

A are you an athiest

B yes


C why?


D because god does not exist


jan.

[Jan Ardena]

iceaura

And we have an entire thread entitled "Atheism is a belief" in the General Philosophy section.

This is not a definition of atheism, but an opinion about atheists.

Jan.

[Enmos]

It's simple;

A are you an athiest

B yes


C why?


D because god does not exist


jan.

Wrong.

Because it's unlikely in the extreme that God exists.

[iceaura]

This is not a definition of atheism, but an opinion about atheists. It is both. It is an opinion of what defines someone as an atheist. And it is very common among theists, here and everywhere.

[Jan Ardena]

Wrong.

Because it's unlikely in the extreme that God exists.

Not to the atheist who believes God does not exist.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

It is both. It is an opinion of what defines someone as an atheist. And it is very common among theists, here and everywhere.


The op in the thread you mentioned describes atheism as; the belief that there is no god.

jan.

[Enmos]

Not to the atheist who believes God does not exist.

jan.

I am not aware of any though..

[Jan Ardena]

I am not aware of any though..

I see your predicament.

jan.

[Enmos]

I see your predicament.

jan.

What's the predicament ? I simply don't believe in any god, I don't necessarily identify with other atheists..

[iceaura]

The op in the thread you mentioned describes atheism as; the belief that there is no god. Yep. So, as I pointed out, that is very common among theists; what you describe as something obvious and simple is denied by many - at least a large minority - theists.

[Myles]

A message to Jan,

I can honestly say I have seldom read a greater load of tripe that your post 104.

You make the most outrageous statements without offering any supporting evidence.

Read your post a para. at a time and explain what each one means and how you know it to be true. I'm particularly interested in what we can know without the senses.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a troll. Your recent threads ask the same things about atheism in different ways. You are merely seeking a platform to promote your belief in so-called Eastern wisdom. Can I suggest you start some more threads such as what colour is atheism ?, what does atheism taste like?. how can an atheist be sure he is an atheist ?, do atheists eat babies ? and so on.

Then you can treat us to dissertations on souls, transendence, gross material as opposed to spiritual nauures. You should also address the deep question of whether god eats curry.

Do you ever worry that you may be an atheist in your next incarnation ?

[Yorda]

I'm glad you eventually figured that out yourself.

a lot of people in my country are depressed because they teach evolution in school. everyone thinks they're just animals without souls and when they die they rot in the ground and their life has no meaning.

but the same could be said about christianity and islam... they also cause people to become sad. for example many people fear hell because of chrsitianty.

[Enmos]

a lot of people in my country are depressed because they teach evolution in school. everyone thinks they're just animals without souls and when they die they rot in the ground and their life has no meaning.

but the same could be said about christianity and islam... because of those religions, many people are afraid of hell.

Where do you live ?

[Yorda]

Where do you live ?

sweden.

[Enmos]

sweden.

Either post 118 or post 120 is a lie.

[Yorda]

Either post 118 or post 120 is a lie.

why? both are true.

[Enmos]

why? both are true.

a lot of people in my country are depressed because they teach evolution in school. everyone thinks they're just animals without souls and when they die they rot in the ground and their life has no meaning.

Evidence ?

[Yorda]

Evidence ?

i see evidence of that every day because i live here. you know, maybe that guy was right after all... evolution is an evil lie from satan (the devil): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZxoU6Y0LRs

[Enmos]

i see evidence of that every day because i live here. you know, maybe that guy was right after all... evolution is an evil lie from satan (the devil): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZxoU6Y0LRs

lol posting links to that moron isn't going to earn you any respect.. :rolleyes:

Can you link me to some articles that say lots of people in Sweden are depressed because of evolution being taught in schools ?

[Enmos]

evolution is an evil lie from satan (the devil): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZxoU6Y0LRs

So you say evolution is a lie because it supposedly gets people depressed ?

[Yorda]

lol posting links to that moron isn't going to earn you any respect.. :rolleyes:

i think he's funny...

[Enmos]

i think he's funny...

He's beyond funny to me..

[Tht1Gy!]

Funny? That's funny to you? He's a lunatic! My apologizes to those truly affected by the moon.

[greenberg]

I wouldn't say that was a similar experience, as you weren't told by authorities that you hate spicy food.
That is more like the atheist position, without the surrender.

I'm not sure I understand. To go with the analogy of the food - refusing foods seasoned with black pepper would be atheism, but trying out something new would be the surrender?
The voice in my head telling me black pepper was bad seemed quite authoritative, it still comes back at times. Anyway, this might seem like a trifle, but considering that I felt bad whenever I ate something spiced with black pepper and the lenghts it took to avoid eating such food here where black pepper is a very common spice (even though I had cravings for it) ... it becomes relevant.


The pursiut of understanding requires belief.

You mean that for a time, we believe something, treat it as if it was true even though for that time, we do not have any evidence or understanding that it is true?
E.g. you can't solve a math problem unless you believe that a certain formula that is prescribed for such problems is the right one to use in that case. -?


What do you think - which things should be accepted on faith, and which should not? What would be the criteria for such acceptance?

Things that we cannot be known directly via the senses, off the top of my head.

So things that we accept on faith are, for example, our meaning of life, where we come from and where we are going, that tomorrow the workplace will still be there so it makes sense to go there in the morning ... -?


Do you mean that a spirit-soul can possibly be an "in-betweeny"??
BG.ch14, Verse 5.

Material nature consists of the three modes--goodness, passion and ignorance. When the living entity comes in contact with nature, he becomes conditioned by these modes.

Oh, I see what you mean now by "in-betweeny".


The reason we are in-betweenies is because we desire to become separate to God. Once we understand our true position we become blissful.
Does that make sense?

I see. I first thought that by "in-betweeny" you meant the kind of spirit-soul whose true position is to always be somewhere in-between, never really out of samsara.


But they didn't know he was God, and quite frankly couldn't give a monkeys, but their position was one that despite their lustful tendancies, their percieved lack of scientific, philosophic knowledge, and faith in God, their senses were attracted to God in the form of Govinda.

So they were basically worshipping God in effect, but lacked the according theistic motivation (which is expressed in words, such as "I worship the one and only true God who is Jehovah")?

I find it strange that God would be content with the Gopis. I mean, from the Christian perspective (which is strongest in my mind, but not that I like it or agree with it), it certainly would not suffice. There would have to be baptism, declaring Jesus as your savior and so on. Without that formal act of declaring one's faith, no matter what a person would do or say, it would be all for naught and they would be sentenced to hell eternal.


Why would you doubt Jesus' existence?

Would you risk my life for it? Would you risk your life for it?
I mean, I have no way to prove whether Jesus as described in the Bible and other accounts really existed, or whether the whole thing is a myth or some other story.
I won't say that something is true if I cannot personally vouch for it. And Jesus' existence I cannot vouch for.
Hence my doubt whether Jesus existed or not.


There is no way you can not have come into contact with the essence of Jesus' words and deeds, if you have read and understood them.

Who is to say whether I understood them or not? I might think that I understand something - but later it might turn out that I don't, or someone corrects me. And this is an open-ended situation, the corrections could go on forever, it seems.


The type of person who would put their faith into something they do not believe in, or does not exist (in their mind), is either controlled by some force, or, does not exist.

Look, we were told we have to put our faith in Jesus. Whether we thought that Jesus existed or not, whether we liked what Jesus was supposedly teaching - that never mattered. It was said that the truth was that Jesus existed, and if we have doubts or qualms about that, then this is simply proof of our fallen state, and indicative that we need Jesus' help and should thus turn to Jesus.
I have never understood these things, but was usually told that that doesn't matter and that I should just ... put my faith in Jesus. Whatever that means.
Anyway, this whole thing is relevant to me because I am afraid it is possible that I will go to hell for all eternity if I don't accept Jesus as my savior.

[Myles]

Greenberg,

I'm truly sorry that you have not yet rid yourself of the shackles that were put on you at an impressionable age.Have you tried having a few discussions with someine a bit more enlightened than a run-of-the-mill guy with his collar onback to front. ? Can I put it to you that someone who is sensitive and thoughtful is always at the mercy of the cock-sure ignoramus who never feels the need to question his beliefs.

Before abandoning religion some sixty years ago, I made several visits to a Jesuit Seminary for weekly discussions. Talk about chalk and cheese ! I found a much more open approach to what I could not accept than I ever got from any of my local priests.

In the end, we agreed to differ, so I went my own way. I have never once regretted doing so in all those years.

It might help you to do something similar. Never forget when talking to some religionists, that their confidence is born of ignorance and they are unlikely to have given an ounce of thought to the things which are important to you. They "know" they are right. Nothing else matters to them. Subtlelty is not their strong suit.

Myles

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

I'm not sure I understand. To go with the analogy of the food - refusing foods seasoned with black pepper would be atheism, but trying out something new would be the surrender?

The surrender was, at some point you gave in to your prejudice only to find out it wasn't what you thought.

The pursiut of understanding requires belief.

You mean that for a time, we believe something, treat it as if it was true even though for that time, we do not have any evidence or understanding that it is true?

Unless you are capable of understanding something instantly, or can understand something totally, there has to be some kind of belief.

E.g. you can't solve a math problem unless you believe that a certain formula that is prescribed for such problems is the right one to use in that case. -?

Something like that.

So things that we accept on faith are, for example, our meaning of life, where we come from and where we are going, that tomorrow the workplace will still be there so it makes sense to go there in the morning ... -?

Yeah.

So they were basically worshipping God in effect, but lacked the according theistic motivation (which is expressed in words, such as "I worship the one and only true God who is Jehovah")?

I suppose you could use the term "worship", though not in the sense you have described. They loved Krishna unconditionally, and served him in that mood. He was the absolute center to their lives, so it didn't matter whether he was God or not.
It is extremely difficult to grasp the nature and complexity of the relationship,
between Krishna and the gopis, for a non-devotee, and ten times more difficult for a non-devotee to explain it. I suggest you read or hear more about it from the correct source.

I find it strange that God would be content with the Gopis. I mean, from the Christian perspective (which is strongest in my mind, but not that I like it or agree with it), it certainly would not suffice.
There would have to be baptism, declaring Jesus as your savior and so on. Without that formal act of declaring one's faith, no matter what a person would do or say, it would be all for naught and they would be sentenced to hell eternal.

There are lots of Christian perspectives. It would be easier to try to look at it from Jesus' perspective.

Why would you doubt Jesus' existence?

Would you risk my life for it? Would you risk your life for it?

I don't understand your questions.

I mean, I have no way to prove whether Jesus as described in the Bible and other accounts really existed, or whether the whole thing is a myth or some other story.

Why would you want to prove whether Jesus existed or not?
Why would anybody go to such length to to create such a person?

I won't say that something is true if I cannot personally vouch for it. And Jesus' existence I cannot vouch for.
Hence my doubt whether Jesus existed or not.

All you have achieved is to doubt that Jesus existed.

Who is to say whether I understood them or not?

You are.

I might think that I understand something - but later it might turn out that I don't, or someone corrects me. And this is an open-ended situation, the corrections could go on forever, it seems.

This applies to all knowledge, imo.

The
type of person who would put their faith into something they do not believe in, or does not exist (in their mind), is either controlled by some force, or, does not exist.

Look, we were told we have to put our faith in Jesus. Whether we thought that Jesus existed or not, whether we liked what Jesus was supposedly teaching - that never mattered. It was said that the truth was that Jesus existed, and if we have doubts or qualms about that, then this is simply proof of our fallen state, and indicative that we need Jesus' help and should thus turn to Jesus.

That comes under "controlled by some force" category.

never understood these things, but was usually told that that doesn't matter and that I should just ... put my faith in Jesus. Whatever that means.
Anyway, this whole thing is relevant to me because I am afraid it is possible that I will go to hell for all eternity if I don't accept Jesus as my savior.

It seems you are prepared to believe these threats, to the point of even doubting your own intelligent ability.
What are you going to do about this fear?

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

What's the predicament ? I simply don't believe in any god, I don't necessarily identify with other atheists..

Apologies. I thought you meant you weren't aware of atheists who believe God does not exist.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Yep. So, as I pointed out, that is very common among theists; what you describe as something obvious and simple is denied by many - at least a large minority - theists.

We all agree that "atheism" means no belief in God, you pointed to that thread as an example of theists who misunderstand its meaning. I find that in fact the description in that thread is correct. So what is your point?

Sometimes it may be expressed that atheism is a belief system, but that has to default to atheists, because without believers there is no belief system.
From that perspective, it most definately is a belief system.

Please try and understand the difference.

jan.

[Enmos]

We all agree that "atheism" means no belief in God, you pointed to that thread as an example of theists who misunderstand its meaning. I find that in fact the description in that thread is correct. So what is your point?

Sometimes it may be expressed that atheism is a belief system, but that has to default to atheists, because without believers there is no belief system.
From that perspective, it most definately is a belief system.

Please try and understand the difference.

jan.

Could you lay out this belief system please ?

[Jan Ardena]

Could you lay out this belief system please ?

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.

An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."

Faith based ideals, in technicolor.


jan.

[iceaura]

Please try and understand the difference. ? The difference between what and what ? Between the insistence that atheism is a faith-based belief in the nonexistence of God, and what exactly ?

I'm trying to understand how I failed to make myself clear.

As I pointed out, convincing the theists around here of what you claim to take as simple and unarguable is a long slog.

[Enmos]

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.

An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."

Faith based ideals, in technicolor.


jan.

I'm not even sure above "ideals" go for all atheists.
Anyhow, they are all mirrored off theism.. so they don't apply.

You should have put:

1. You have only one life, you should make the best of your life and enjoy life while your still alive.

2. You have to work to make something of your life, success isn't going to be handed to you.

3. To get by in life you better understand other people to a degree (seems obvious enough). Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

These are all just survival strategies, no faith ideals.

[greenberg]

It is extremely difficult to grasp the nature and complexity of the relationship,
between Krishna and the gopis, for a non-devotee, and ten times more difficult for a non-devotee to explain it. I suggest you read or hear more about it from the correct source.

I see. What are the criteria for being counted as a devotee?


There are lots of Christian perspectives. It would be easier to try to look at it from Jesus' perspective.

I don't know what exactly Jesus' perspective would be. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways, to support or refute pretty much anything.


Why would you doubt Jesus' existence?

Would you risk my life for it? Would you risk your life for it?

I don't understand your questions.

Are you so sure that Jesus existed that you would devote your life to Jesus, exclusively?
Are you so sure that Jesus existed that if someone threatened to kill me, saying "Do you believe in Jesus, Jan? If you don't, I will kill Greenberg." - would you say you do believe in Jesus?
Although I realize the second example might not be relevant to you; for one because it is an immoral request from the threat-maker, and because you hold that the soul cannot be killed anyway (at least this is what I think you hold).


Why would you want to prove whether Jesus existed or not?

How else can one have faith in Jesus and salvation by Jesus otherwise?


Why would anybody go to such length to to create such a person?

It needn't be that the desire to create such a person was there in the beginning. Perhaps it all started small and insignificant, and then over time, a number of different ideas were merged into one character, for the sake of simplicity and efficiency of delivering a story.


I won't say that something is true if I cannot personally vouch for it. And Jesus' existence I cannot vouch for.
Hence my doubt whether Jesus existed or not.

All you have achieved is to doubt that Jesus existed.

Would you declare that something is true, despite knowing that you cannot vouch for the truthfulness of it?


Who is to say whether I understood them or not?

You are.

I'm afraid that this is not a good criterion. See, just before, I thought I understood the essence of the relationship between Govinda and the Gopis - and then you suggested that I don't. I then changed my mind. Although this means that it was I who decided whether I understood it or not, so I agree with your point above.


That comes under "controlled by some force" category.

What could I do about that?


It seems you are prepared to believe these threats, to the point of even doubting your own intelligent ability.

Of course I am prepared for that. And I see that believing those threats is basically saying that fear is a better judge in what would be a good thing to do than intelligence could ever be; or that choices made in fear are more true and more justifiable than choices made in intelligence. Many people live like that, don't they? It makes for a shitty life, but there is the benefit that the feeling of justification is quite strong - I mean for a run-of-the-mill person, fear is among the strongest and most pervasive sensations, if not the strongest and most pervasive one, and as such it is the most reliable one.


What are you going to do about this fear?

I don't know anymore. I experience it as a hindrance, but at the same time, it is the most reliable sensation in my life. A few years back, I took up Buddhist meditation and studies, I read a lot of Western psychology and philosophy, then went to reading the Bhagavad Gita and chanting the Maha mantra, discussing various topics more or less closely related to this fear with myself and with all sorts of people, changed my diet, but also pursued various distractions. What all this accomplished is that I am now more able to put this fear into words, to reflect on it - while in the years before, it was just one big impenetrable mass sucking the life out of me; but this fear is still here, and in some ways, it feels stronger than ever before.
But frankly, I am tired, exhausted from this struggle. It's not clear what helps against this fear and what doesn't, and it's not clear either whether it is right to attempt to do something about this fear to begin with.

[Myles]

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.

An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."

Faith based ideals, in technicolor.


jan.


You have made a good case why people turn to or stay with theism,. Unable to face reality they grovel about on their knees seeking help from a non-existent entity.

Blessed are the Weak.....a new beatitude for your collection.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

I see. What are the criteria for being counted as a devotee?

BG, chapter 12, explains it perfectly.

I don't know what exactly Jesus' perspective would be. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways, to support or refute pretty much anything.

You say you don't know exactly. What do you know of his perspective, irregardless of your doubt?

Are you so sure that Jesus existed that you would devote your life to Jesus, exclusively?

Devotion is indirectly for God, through Jesus. The essence of God is displayed through Jesus' words and deeds. If Jesus was fake, then his words and deeds would be fake, and likewise if he was real. So whether Jesus exited in the physical is not important from a trancendental point of view.
Let's say Mozart didn't really exist, would the music still contain those great qualities?

Are you so sure that Jesus existed that if someone threatened to kill me, saying "Do you believe in Jesus, Jan? If you don't, I will kill Greenberg." - would you say you do believe in Jesus?

I can't imagine what I would do in such bizzare situation.

How else can one have faith in Jesus and salvation by Jesus otherwise?

He sets an example, you follow it.
He can be understood by his words and deeds.

It needn't be that the desire to create such a person was there in the beginning. Perhaps it all started small and insignificant, and then over time, a number of different ideas were merged into one character, for the sake of simplicity and efficiency of delivering a story.

Why?
Mohammad is of similar stature within the muslim religion, and yet he was real. Why would Jesus be any different?

Would you declare that something is true, despite knowing that you cannot vouch for the truthfulness of it?

To the level of my understanding of that thing.

I'm afraid that this is not a good criterion. See, just before, I thought I understood the essence of the relationship between Govinda and the Gopis - and then you suggested that I don't. I then changed my mind. Although this means that it was I who decided whether I understood it or not, so I agree with your point above.

You understand it up to a point, as do I. If we want to understand more, then we have to be able to understand it, and for this there are regulative principles to follow. It is a qualification, much like any other pursuit of qualification.
Some of us don't want to follow rules and regs, so we whimsically try and understand, and then claim it is not true, or, change the standard to suit ourselves.


What could I do about that?

Nothing.

Of course I am prepared for that. And I see that believing those threats is basically saying that fear is a better judge in what would be a good thing to do than intelligence could ever be; or that choices made in fear are more true and more justifiable than choices made in intelligence.

If you had children would you want them to follow in that vain?

I mean for a run-of-the-mill person, fear is among the strongest and most pervasive sensations, if not the strongest and most pervasive one, and as such it is the most reliable one.

I see your point.

I don't know anymore. I experience it as a hindrance, but at the same time, it is the most reliable sensation in my life. A few years back, I took up Buddhist meditation and studies, I read a lot of Western psychology and philosophy, then went to reading the Bhagavad Gita and chanting the Maha mantra, discussing various topics more or less closely related to this fear with myself and with all sorts of people, changed my diet, but also pursued various distractions. What all this accomplished is that I am now more able to put this fear into words, to reflect on it - while in the years before, it was just one big impenetrable mass sucking the life out of me; but this fear is still here, and in some ways, it feels stronger than ever before.
But frankly, I am tired, exhausted from this struggle. It's not clear what helps against this fear and what doesn't, and it's not clear either whether it is right to attempt to do something about this fear to begin with.

So you are saying no matter what you have learned upon becoming an individual adult, no matter how you can see that the source of this fear is completely unjustified in their actions, it will never, ever, go away, as long as you live? The fear of going to hell to burn for long as you can be conscious of it.

If that's how you see it, then there's not much I can say.
Do you understand that?

jan.

[greenberg]

BG, chapter 12, explains it perfectly.

Thank you for the reference.


I don't know what exactly Jesus' perspective would be. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways, to support or refute pretty much anything.

You say you don't know exactly. What do you know of his perspective, irregardless of your doubt?

I won't quote Bible verses because I don't have a Bible anymore and I don't feel like searching for the passages online, so I'll have to go by memory. So, in brief -
As far as I know, Jesus perspective was that only by him can there be salvation, and that he that is not with him is against him. He made the point that love and charity are important.

But like I said, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, and I am not sure which of these interpretations (the Calvinist, the Catholic, the Lutheran etc.) would be Jesus' perspective, if any. I have the impression that there is a Catholic Jesus, a Calvinist Jesus, a Lutheran Jesus and so on. So far, I think I haven't been able to read the Bible without the influence of those various interpretations.


Devotion is indirectly for God, through Jesus. The essence of God is displayed through Jesus' words and deeds. If Jesus was fake, then his words and deeds would be fake, and likewise if he was real. So whether Jesus exited in the physical is not important from a trancendental point of view.
Let's say Mozart didn't really exist, would the music still contain those great qualities?

Sure. But people usually don't put their hopes into Mozart's music to save them from eternal hell.


It needn't be that the desire to create such a person was there in the beginning. Perhaps it all started small and insignificant, and then over time, a number of different ideas were merged into one character, for the sake of simplicity and efficiency of delivering a story.

Why?

Consider fictional characters in didactic stories for children, as can be typically found in the West. Often, those characters aren't even human -and are instead bears, foxes, all sorts of animals, dolls etc.-, but they are designed to bring across a certain kind of morality. Perhaps similar is the case with some whom we generally consider to be historical persons.


Mohammad is of similar stature within the muslim religion, and yet he was real. Why would Jesus be any different?

I have similar doubts about Mohammed as well, just as about anyone who has ever lived.
The more worldly the person, the less extraordinary their deeds and promises, the easier it is to believe that they existed - but one can't be sure. However, if the person that lived in the past is purported to be relevant to this day, for everyone, then this is another matter. I don't really care whether Ghengis Khan, for example, existed or not. Ghengis Khan isn't purported to be someone I should put my faith in. But Jesus is ascribed to have extraordinary powers, and is purported to be the one and only way to achieve salvation, to avoid eternal hell. So there should be more to Jesus than being a mere didactic device that has been created over time by people, don't you think?

Would you declare that something is true, despite knowing that you cannot vouch for the truthfulness of it?

To the level of my understanding of that thing.

Hm. I suppose you are not all that concerned that you wouldn't be able to answer any and all questions put to you by anyone?


You understand it up to a point, as do I. If we want to understand more, then we have to be able to understand it, and for this there are regulative principles to follow. It is a qualification, much like any other pursuit of qualification.
Some of us don't want to follow rules and regs, so we whimsically try and understand, and then claim it is not true, or, change the standard to suit ourselves.

I appreciate rules and regulations; otherwise, it all gets a mess.
But personally, I feel downright threatened by the approach many Christians have, that "You don't need rules and regulations - all is already in your heart, you only need to look within. You are wasting time trying to learn definitions - God or love or compassion cannot be defined." I crumble under these people's self-confidence. But this isn't limited to Christians, it can be found in all walks of spiritual pursuit - I've seen it among Buddhists, Spiritual Universalists, Humanists.
I've usually made an effort to keep to scriptoral definitions and approaches, but socially, this was quite a setback. Many people would treat me as if I don't have a clue, that I am "less advanced" than them, that I must be patronized and treated like a child. Needless to say, these things were very frustrating for me, and sometimes, I slipped, left the scriptoral references behind and did "free style" just to be more socially interesting.
I'm bringing this up to point out the importance of the social aspect and how social pressures can make one slack, too, not only one's laziness and impatience. But also, I am not sure that keeping with the scriptoral definitions is necessary. Some people don't care about them much, and they seem to be just fine.

Of course I am prepared for that. And I see that believing those threats is basically saying that fear is a better judge in what would be a good thing to do than intelligence could ever be; or that choices made in fear are more true and more justifiable than choices made in intelligence.

If you had children would you want them to follow in that vain?

Of course not. Which is one of the main reasons I don't have children.

So you are saying no matter what you have learned upon becoming an individual adult, no matter how you can see that the source of this fear is completely unjustified in their actions, it will never, ever, go away, as long as you live? The fear of going to hell to burn for long as you can be conscious of it.

If that's how you see it, then there's not much I can say.
Do you understand that?

I am not saying that I think this fear will be forever, but I am afraid that it might be forever. I'm afraid that it might be that ultimately, human action is all for naught, and that samsara is forever.
I don't have faith that "all will be well in the end" - perhaps it will, perhaps it won't.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

As far as I know, Jesus perspective was that only by him can there be salvation, and that he that is not with him is against him.

It stands to reason, who else was there at that time, and in that region, who had direct access to God?

He made the point that love and charity are important.

If possible get chapter and verse.

But like I said, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, and I am not sure which of these interpretations (the Calvinist, the Catholic, the Lutheran etc.) would be Jesus' perspective, if any. I have the impression that there is a Catholic Jesus, a Calvinist Jesus, a Lutheran Jesus and so on. So far, I think I haven't been able to read the Bible without the influence of those various interpretations.

Anything can be interpreted in anyway. The best way to understand anything, IMO, is to see it as it is. "Thou shalt not kill" does not need outside interpretation, unless you wanted to disobey the rule, but still be accepted as upholding it.

Sure. But people usually don't put their hopes into Mozart's music to save them from eternal hell.

But the music would still contain all the essential qualities that it does, whether it was composed by him or not. The point is, Jesus is known through his words and deeds, and if you needed to know of his flesh and blood existence in order to convince yourself of God, then quite frankly you'd have missed the point.

Consider fictional characters in didactic stories for children, as can be typically found in the West. Often, those characters aren't even human -and are instead bears, foxes, all sorts of animals, dolls etc.-, but they are designed to bring across a certain kind of morality. Perhaps similar is the case with some whom we generally consider to be historical persons.

All these characters were created after scriptures. They are simply aspects of spiritual/religious outputs. There are no such things as human morals outside of that, and if you can point to any such structure, I would be glad to see/hear it.

But Jesus is ascribed to have extraordinary powers, and is purported to be the one and only way to achieve salvation, to avoid eternal hell. So there should be more to Jesus than being a mere didactic device that has been created over time by people, don't you think?

It depends on what that didactic device is.
Is your reluctance due to the simplicity of it, or is there some other reason?

Hm. I suppose you are not all that concerned that you wouldn't be able to answer any and all questions put to you by anyone?

Nobody can answer all question put forth, about anything. We can only go as far as our understanding of that thing, if we are being truthful. Things that we don't fully understand, but infer, or speculate about are backed ultimately by faith.

I appreciate rules and regulations; otherwise, it all gets a mess.
But personally, I feel downright threatened by the approach many Christians have, that "You don't need rules and regulations - all is already in your heart, you only need to look within.

I doubt every Christian sees it like that, but even if they did; so what?
That is their business.

You are wasting time trying to learn definitions - God or love or compassion cannot be defined." I crumble under these people's self-confidence.

Why do you?
You seem like an intelligent guy who could smash these weak arguments to pieces.

But this isn't limited to Christians, it can be found in all walks of spiritual pursuit - I've seen it among Buddhists, Spiritual Universalists, Humanists.

Now we're getting somewhere. This is not a religious thing, it is false-ego gone crazy. The more spiritual religion becomes less in any society, the rise of false-ego will become greater.

've usually made an effort to keep to scriptoral definitions and approaches, but socially, this was quite a setback. Many people would treat me as if I don't have a clue, that I am "less advanced" than them, that I must be patronized and treated like a child. Needless to say, these things were very frustrating for me, and sometimes, I slipped, left the scriptoral references behind and did "free style" just to be more socially interesting.
I'm bringing this up to point out the importance of the social aspect and how social pressures can make one slack, too, not only one's laziness and impatience. But also, I am not sure that keeping with the scriptoral definitions is necessary. Some people don't care about them much, and they seem to be just fine.

Without scriptoral injunction, there can be no understanding of God, or spiritual religion. Without such understanding, the powerful can do as they please.
It is in the interest of the powerful to deem the scriptures nonsense.

Of course not. Which is one of the main reasons I don't have children.

Is this past experience affecting your decision to have children, a human right (although if some had their way it would not be)?

I am not saying that I think this fear will be forever, but I am afraid that it might be forever. I'm afraid that it might be that ultimately, human action is all for naught, and that samsara is forever.
I don't have faith that "all will be well in the end" - perhaps it will, perhaps it won't.

I have faith that "all will be as it should be, in the end".

jan.

[greenberg]

It stands to reason, who else was there at that time, and in that region, who had direct access to God?

I think I know where you are heading with this, and I am familiar with this line of argument - namely that at that time and that place, Jesus was the only one through whom salvation could be obtained, but that at other times and other places, other persons or means of salvation were/are possible.


He made the point that love and charity are important.

If possible get chapter and verse.

I apologize, I can't do that from memory. I would have to read the Bible again to give you exact references. Anyway, you asked what I knew of Jesus' perspective, not what Jesus' perspective was.


Anything can be interpreted in anyway. The best way to understand anything, IMO, is to see it as it is.

Sure. But seeing things as they are requires a pure, unified, unadulterated mind. I wouldn't dare claim that my mind is such or that I have such a mind at my disposal. For the time being, it appears I am stuck with interpretations (even when I can quote verse and chapter).


But the music would still contain all the essential qualities that it does, whether it was composed by him or not.

There actually is a historic example of this phenomenon: Shakespeare. When theories started to surface that the works we commonly know to be Shakespeare's, might have been written by someone with some other name, or by several authors, there was quite an uproar in the literary community, people were having doubts as to whether to continue valuing texts like Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet etc.


The point is, Jesus is known through his words and deeds, and if you needed to know of his flesh and blood existence in order to convince yourself of God, then quite frankly you'd have missed the point.

But Jesus is ascribed to have extraordinary powers, and is purported to be the one and only way to achieve salvation, to avoid eternal hell. So there should be more to Jesus than being a mere didactic device that has been created over time by people, don't you think?
It depends on what that didactic device is.
Is your reluctance due to the simplicity of it, or is there some other reason?

There have been several instances where Christian proselytizers argued that since there is archaeological and historical and other scientific evidence for the existence of the people and phenomena described in the Bible, this is proof of Jesus' existence, and the solid basis upon which to build one's faith in Jesus.
IOW, it is sometimes Christians themselves who expect that one believes that Jesus existed in the flesh and blood, and that archaeology, history, physics, biology etc. support this.
When it is pointed out to them that such a faith in Jesus is only as strong as archaeology, history, physics etc. - and that these are all relativistic and subject to change and reinterpretation when new evidence is discovered - then those Christians argue that the archaeological etc. findings about Jesus (and some others) are absolute, not subject to change.
To anyone who knows what a soft science archaeology and history are, that even hard science like physics is still about theories and not about absolutes - the above Christian outlook is of course a nightmare.
But yes, as far as I was taught, it was expected that we believe that Jesus actually walked the earth, in flesh and blood, and that there is historic proof for it. That this belief was crucial to faith in Jesus, and that if we didn't believe thusly, we didn't have the right or the sufficient faith.

So for me, in regard to Jesus, it always seemed crucial to believe Jesus existed as a person in flesh and blood, and that to have faith in Jesus also means to give your word of honor that archaeology and history are accurate and absolute sciences. Heaven knows I would not do that.

But also as I said earlier - Jesus is purported to be the one and only way to salvation, and that everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will burn in hell for all eternity - that humans have this one lifetime to make the right choice or be damned for ever and ever. With stakes high like this, surely it is understandable to want as much proof and justification as possible for one's choice, no?

Conversely, in regards to Buddhism and Hinduism, for example, I have never struggled with these problems - even if the Buddha and some others are nothing but didactic devices, they have the benefit of being more detailed, more practical, their instructions more actionable than Christianity's, and most of all, they don't preach eternal damnation if you "don't get it right" in this lifetime. By this I don't mean they suggest slacking or laziness - it is just that they do not put a person under such paralyzing pressure as the common Christian outlook does.


I doubt every Christian sees it like that, but even if they did; so what?
That is their business.

Is it solely their business? If they are right and Jesus is the only way to salvation, and I want to be saved, then what Christians say is my business.
The problem with wanting to know God or wanting to be saved is that one is put at the mercy of everyone who claims to know God or who claims to know the way to salvation.

You are wasting time trying to learn definitions - God or love or compassion cannot be defined." I crumble under these people's self-confidence.

Why do you?
You seem like an intelligent guy who could smash these weak arguments to pieces.

I don't know. It seems I only give my own arguments value if the opponent agrees I am right and changes their position. If they don't, I feel I am wrong, no matter what my arguments are.


Is this past experience affecting your decision to have children, a human right (although if some had their way it would not be)?

You mean whether I feel I am being deprived or am depriving myself of something that I would otherwise want? If that - no.
I really don't think people like me should have children, even if we have the right to. But like I said earlier, this is only one of the reasons why I don't have children. The other reasons have to do with the state of the world economy, my health and the health of the planet.


I have faith that "all will be as it should be, in the end".

Even if this means that you will burn in hell for all eternity?

[Simon Anders]

You can't lack belief, you disbelieveYou can lack a belief, but it is unlikely you could merely do this AND mock believers, post complicate arguments against the liklihood of God, and find these kinds of activities interesting. That lack in this case has a causal power that we generally don't attribute to nothingnesses.

Being an atheist here at Sciforums seems to include often a number of the following charactoristics.

1) the urge to engage in arguments with theists
2) the urge to imply or state that theists are irrational
3) some facility in responding to and recognition of a variety of arguments intended to prove God's existence
4) a strong interest in atheism not being seen as a belief
5) the belief that empirical research and deduction from known truths are the only way to arrive at new truths.
6) anger at past and current and potential future wrongs committed by theists

Not all atheists here have all these traits, however a good many are present in most atheists I would guess.

This is a lot of momentum and interest generated from a lack.

[S.A.M.]

You can lack a belief, but it is unlikely you could merely do this AND mock believers, post complicate arguments against the liklihood of God, and find these kinds of activities interesting. That lack in this case has a causal power that we generally don't attribute to nothingnesses.

Being an atheist here at Sciforums seems to include often a number of the following charactoristics.

1) the urge to engage in arguments with theists
2) the urge to imply or state that theists are irrational
3) some facility in responding to and recognition of a variety of arguments intended to prove God's existence
4) a strong interest in atheism not being seen as a belief
5) the belief that empirical research and deduction from known truths are the only way to arrive at new truths.
6) anger at past and current and potential future wrongs committed by theists

Not all atheists here have all these traits, however a good many are present in most atheists I would guess.

This is a lot of momentum and interest generated from a lack.


I love this post, it exemplifies all my beliefs about the atheists here. ie for a definition based on something they are not, they sure get excited way too much.:xctd:

[(Q)]

Being an atheist here at Sciforums seems to include often a number of the following charactoristics.

1) the urge to engage in arguments with theists
2) the urge to imply or state that theists are irrational
3) some facility in responding to and recognition of a variety of arguments intended to prove God's existence
4) a strong interest in atheism not being seen as a belief
5) the belief that empirical research and deduction from known truths are the only way to arrive at new truths.
6) anger at past and current and potential future wrongs committed by theists

1) We could ask first why theists would come to a science forum to preach their religions and denounce science? The reason (apparently) there is a religion section here is to scrutinize it the same way science is scrutinized.

2) More than that. Many theists here use lies and deceit, and at the very least, intellectual dishonesty to make their arguments. They are beyond irrational.

3) Theists lack the education necessary to support these types of arguments from a scientific perspective and usually make false or fallacious assertions.

4) One of many theists false or fallacious assertions.

5) A reasonable conclusion for a science forum.

6) When theists promote and extol the virtues of their religion on one hand and flatly deny the atrocities committed, being committed and will be committed in the name of their religion on the other, denounce science as the biggest "evil" on earth, hold exclusively their scriptural versions of absolutism as the number one priority of mankind, when their churches and temples are allowed to operate tax free while I pay their taxes, then yes, it's easy to get angry. :)

[iceaura]

This is a lot of momentum and interest generated from a lack.
”

I love this post, it exemplifies all my beliefs about the atheists here. There is another factor.

Most of the specifically atheist posting here is in reaction. And the reaction is to things like Creationist school meddling, inflammatory accusations, and so forth.

So we have things like Most mass murderers are atheists, and that's why Dawkins is a dangerous maniac. And if someone is interested in that, and generates "momentum" in responding to the various details that come up, and so forth, sooner or later comes the accusation - and that's what it is - that too much effort is in evidence from a claimed lack of belief.

It's not the lack of belief in the Deity involved that generates the heat.

Only some of the atheists here are bothering with this stuff. Those that do are not always well motivated. But anyone raised in the US should be excused for taking a serious interest in the kinds of theistic BS that should be easy to ignore on abstract grounds: they have shown an ability to get police backing, and the support of armed force. You let these people repeat this crap too much without occasionally pointing out that it is crap, and pretty soon you can't get a beer on Sunday to watch the game with. Women can't get birth control at the drugstore. Clerics are writing your science textbooks for your high schools. Or your President has to suck up to self-righteous and violent whackos with apocalyptic fantasies that actually influence US foreign policy.

[lixluke]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God. It is the antithesis of Theism which is the belief there is a God.
A belief is 100% certainty in something.
You can only abide by 3 categories:
Atheism: 100% certainty there is no God.
Theism: 100% certainty there is a God.
Neither: Do not know if there is a God.

[greenberg]

Jan,


Here are some links for you -

It stands to reason, who else was there at that time, and in that region, who had direct access to God?

They say Jesus is the only way to salvation, there is no other, ever:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84257


The point is, Jesus is known through his words and deeds, and if you needed to know of his flesh and blood existence in order to convince yourself of God, then quite frankly you'd have missed the point.

It seems not according to -
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84257


Is your reluctance due to the simplicity of it, or is there some other reason?

If you continue in your rejection. Yes to the lake of fire you will go.
...
There is no safety in rejecting the Messiah Jesus and no arguments, no matter how well constructed, will stand to protect those who reject God's Word.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1969641&postcount=19

Are you not afraid that you will go for all eternity to hell if you don't accept Jesus as your savior?
And if not - why not?

[s0meguy]

You can't lack belief, you disbelieve

This is false. You can lack belief when you do not have a stance on something, you are neutral and you don't believe either way. Also when you believe that the color red is red, you lack belief that the color red is blue. Same goes for atheism, they lack belief in the existence of god.

[lixluke]

Say there is a box. Is there a bomb in the box? There can either be a bomb in the box or no mob in the box. There cannot be neither a bomb and no bomb in the box. There cannot be both a bomb and no bomb in the box. This is obvious.

1. You are 100% cetain there is a bomb in the box.
2. You are 100% certain there is no bomb in the box.
3. You are not 100% certain whether or not there is a bomb in the box.

You can only abide by those 3. There is no other possible position to take in logic. Same goes for the question of God. Atheism is #2 with respect to the question of God's existence. You cannot group Atheismin to different categories like strong or weak. It's silly and illogical.

Neutral or not, the question remains. Are you 100% certain about God existing or not existing? If you are not 100% certain, you are neither theist or atheist.

[Simon Anders]

1) We could ask first why theists would come to a science forum to preach their religions and denounce science? The reason (apparently) there is a religion section here is to scrutinize it the same way science is scrutinized.

2) More than that. Many theists here use lies and deceit, and at the very least, intellectual dishonesty to make their arguments. They are beyond irrational.

3) Theists lack the education necessary to support these types of arguments from a scientific perspective and usually make false or fallacious assertions.

4) One of many theists false or fallacious assertions.

5) A reasonable conclusion for a science forum.

6) When theists promote and extol the virtues of their religion on one hand and flatly deny the atrocities committed, being committed and will be committed in the name of their religion on the other, denounce science as the biggest "evil" on earth, hold exclusively their scriptural versions of absolutism as the number one priority of mankind, when their churches and temples are allowed to operate tax free while I pay their taxes, then yes, it's easy to get angry. :)

What you have done is given the reasons why what I described as the qualities of atheists is justifiable. IOW what I said was correct and these are the reasons why. Great. As long as we can see that this seems like something other than a mere 'lack of belief.' As I have stated many times. I think there are people for whom atheism is a mere lack of belief. There may even be some here at sciforums. I do not think however that people who fulfill the description in my list merely lack a belief. Whether they are right or wrong is a whole other issue.

As a side issue: How many theists here at sciforums do you think this describes....
[they]
promote and extol the virtues of their religion on one hand and flatly deny the atrocities committed, being committed and will be committed in the name of their religion on the other, denounce science as the biggest "evil" on earth, hold exclusively their scriptural versions of absolutism as the number one priority of mankind, when their churches and temples are allowed to operate tax free while I pay their taxes, then yes, it's easy to get angry

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Simon Anders- well said.

I guess I am considered a 'theist' though I don't deny any of the atrocities carried out in the name of my personal preferred religion-christendom. I joined these forums, my very first post, was to discuss the difficulty we have in reasonably proving our own existence or subsequent existence of reality. I entered into the religious forum not to preach, but because there was a supposed "proof that God does not exist". I even entered into a debate over a"proof that God exists" against the idea because I saw an obvious flaw in reasoning.

Any belief requires faith. I believe the computer I am sitting at will not erupt in self-immolation. I have faith in this. Atheism is not lack of faith, by my understanding, but a very firm faith that God is not. People who think God is unworthy or that God hates them are not Atheists, they do not have faith that God is not.

[shaman_]

Time to dust off the old favourite - atheism is a belief the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The ‘a’ in Atheism means without. Without a belief in gods. The atheist is not making an assertion. You can make claims of certainty if you want to but that isn’t atheism. If someone makes claims about the non existence of every god you can call that strong atheism if you want to. But strong atheism is not atheism.

Whether an atheist enjoys debating these points doesn’t change the definition. It just means they are argumentative and/or frustrated with people still embracing superstition in the year 2008.

[lixluke]

Time to dust off the old favourite - atheism is a belief the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The ‘a’ in Atheism means without. Without a belief in gods. The atheist is not making an assertion. You can make claims of certainty if you want to but that isn’t atheism. If you really must then you can call that strong atheism, but strong atheism is not as atheism.

Whether an atheist enjoys debating these points doesn’t change the definition. It just means they are argumentative and/or frustrated with people still embracing superstition in the year 2008.
By definition, Atheism is 100% certainty that God does not exist.
A in Atheism specifies that God does not exist.
A in front of something whereas the that something is a belief in X is not without the belief in X, but the belief in the antithesis of X.
Amoralism is not simpley without the belief in morals, but the belief that morals do not exist. If you are not 100% certain that God does not exist, you are not an atheist.

[Simon Anders]

Whether an atheist enjoys debating these points doesn’t change the definition. It just means they are argumentative and/or frustrated with people still embracing superstition in the year 2008. It might mean that atheist is not a relevent concept here in science forums. If most people who are calling themselves atheists here in fact have a belief that there is no god or some other belief - such as 'the chances that there is a God are infinitesmally small. ' - and a set of beliefs and behavior that indicate more than a simple lack of a belief, I think another term would be appropriate.

Given the definition you gave I think very few people who engage in repeated philosophical scuffles with theists - unless they are cornered by them in their houses - about the existence of God
qualify.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

and hilarity ensues ROFL

I actually laughed so hard my tears welled up.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

more seriously, should they call themselves, possibly, adeists? To mean without a belief in deism/belief that there are no deities?

[Simon Anders]

Most of the specifically atheist posting here is in reaction. And the reaction is to things like Creationist school meddling, inflammatory accusations, and so forth. I do not think this is true. How many threads here have been started by people suggesting that Creationism should be taught in schools. Atheist appear in many religion section discussions, including discussions between theists about things that have very little impact on the public or private lives of atheists.

So we have things like Most mass murderers are atheists, and that's why Dawkins is a dangerous maniac.
Jimmy started it.

But, again, like Q, you are leaping past my post in response to it. I was putting forward the idea that atheists here have more than simply a lack of belief. Now you are saying WHY that is the situation without acknowledging I am correct in my assertion. IOW what you said above strengthens my case that atheists are more than simply people who lack a belief.

And if someone is interested in that, and generates "momentum" in responding to the various details that come up, and so forth, sooner or later comes the accusation - and that's what it is - that too much effort is in evidence from a claimed lack of belief. It seems to me a lack of belief would not make one join in the discussion in the religion section. How could a lack of belief do that?

It's not the lack of belief in the Deity involved that generates the heat. I agree. But I disagree that these 'atheists' do not share a set of qualities that pits them in fights with the theists in the sandbox and then boths sides say the other started it.

Only some of the atheists here are bothering with this stuff.
I would argue that given the definition of an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in God it is much more likely that those not bothering with this stuff are the real atheists. Which I said earlier.

Those that do are not always well motivated. But anyone raised in the US should be excused for taking a serious interest in the kinds of theistic BS that should be easy to ignore on abstract grounds: they have shown an ability to get police backing, and the support of armed force. You let these people repeat this crap too much without occasionally pointing out that it is crap, and pretty soon you can't get a beer on Sunday to watch the game with. Women can't get birth control at the drugstore. Clerics are writing your science textbooks for your high schools. Or your President has to suck up to self-righteous and violent whackos with apocalyptic fantasies that actually influence US foreign policy. Or you could focus on those issues.

I also notice that atheists here very, very rarely point out the weak logic and critical thinking that are used by other atheists in relation to theists. It's like

'well, we know they are wrong, so let's keep a unified front.' Rationality need not be used.

Personally my education was conducted by primarily secular public school teachers. What a hallucinated set of beliefs they handed down about, for example, history and current events.

I think self-proclaimed atheists think that irrationality hinges primarily theism. I just don't see it. I see a world filled, primarily, with loons. And not the wonderful birds.

[iceaura]

] What you have done is given the reasons why what I described as the qualities of atheists is justifiable. And the fact that Q does not speak for even a majority of the atheists here, let alone "atheism" in general, is one reason to temper your description.
By definition, Atheism is 100% certainty that God does not exist. I am atheist - I believe in no Gods, and in my judgment the common Gods of the extant religions do not exist as believers describe them.

But 100% certainty in anything of that nature - a question of real existence or non-existence - is impossible for the educated and sane. By that definition, neither atheists nor theists exist in significant numbers among them.
It might mean that atheist is not a relevant concept here in science forums. Difficulty in further defining a category that is a catchall for many different basic philosophies and approaches to life is a given.

But such negatively established categories do have validity for some approaches to some questions - the category "cold-blooded", for example, even though it potentially includes everything from arthropods to octopi, has some uses.

[shaman_]

By definition, Atheism is 100% certainty that God does not exist. No. Percentages and certainty have nothing to do with the definition. You are adding them in. It is merely not having a belief in any gods. This is how we are born and this is how many of us choose to stay.


You are using your own personal definition because you want to equate atheism with theism.


A in Atheism specifies that God does not exist.
A in front of something whereas the that something is a belief in X is not without the belief in X, but the belief in the antithesis of X. Amoralism is not simpley without the belief in morals, but the belief that morals do not exist. No.

amoralism
the state or quality of being without morality or of being indifferent to moral standards. —

So amoralism is not a belief that morals don’t exist. It is the lacking of morals. The prefix ‘a’ means without.


If you are not 100% certain that God does not exist, you are not an atheist.That could also be incorrect because you could believe in different gods. Yahweh is but one of many gods which humans have followed. Theists sometimes prefer to avoid thinking about that.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Thus I posit that until we can prove that we do or do not exist and that reality does or does not exist that we cannot say, without a doubt, God does or does not exist. It is a question of belief/faith that God/Deities do or do not exist. "Proof" is not possible given our current state.

[lixluke]

But 100% certainty in anything of that nature - a question of real existence or non-existence - is impossible for the educated and sane. By that definition, neither atheists nor theists exist in significant numbers among them.
You are not defined as an atheist unless you believe that there is no God. Belief is 100% certainty of something.
Furthermore, the belief that nobody can be 100% certain of anything is skepticism which is far from atheism. Which you are clearly not.
All skeptics are agnostics, but not all agnostics are skeptics.

[lixluke]

No. Percentages and certainty have nothing to do with the definition. You are adding them in. It is merely not having a belief in any gods. This is how we are born and this is how many of us choose to stay.


You are using your own personal definition because you want to equate atheism with theism.

No.

amoralism
the state or quality of being without morality or of being indifferent to moral standards. —

So amoralism is not a belief that morals don’t exist. It is the lacking of morals. The prefix ‘a’ means without.

That could also be incorrect because you could believe in different gods. Yahweh is but one of many gods which humans have followed. Theists sometimes prefer to avoid thinking about that.
This is not about personal definition or about wanting anything. This is about fact. And the fact is, your definitions are incorrect.
FACT: Belief is an individual's 100% certainty about something.
FACT: Amoralism is 100% certainty that morals do not exist.
FACT: Atheism is 100% certainty that there is no God.
FACT: The belief that no man can be 100% certain of anything is Skepticism.

EXAMPLE OF SKEPTICISM:
100% certainty in anything of that nature - a question of real existence or non-existence - is impossible for the educated and sane.

[iceaura]

FACT: The belief that no man can be 100% certain of anything is Skepticism. The belief that anyone can be 100% certain of anything involving existential reality - not a statement in an abstract, defined, axiomatic system - is Delusion.

That's no more a belief than any other observation is - no one is immortal, no one is omniscient, these are just observations. I don't believe in mortality or fallibility, I just think they are universal and inevitable, because that makes sense to me and agrees with the rest of the world. That could be wrong, but such is not the way to bet.

FACT: Belief is an individual's 100% certainty about something. Now the sane and educated are not allowed to have any beliefs. It keeps getting worse.

[shaman_]

This is not about personal definition or about wanting anything. This is about fact. And the fact is, your definitions are incorrect.
FACT: Belief is an individual's 100% certainty about something. .. and atheists are just those without a particular belief.

FACT: Amoralism is 100% certainty that morals do not exist. Open a dictionary and stop making things up. I have already posted a definition that shows that amoralism is a state without morals. It is not about being certain that morals don’t exist. The prefix means ‘without’ it doesn’t mean ‘100% certain of the non existence of’.

FACT: Atheism is 100% certainty that there is no God. Putting ‘fact’ in capitals before your definition doesn’t make it any less incorrect.

[lixluke]

The belief that anyone can be 100% certain of anything involving existential reality - not a statement in an abstract, defined, axiomatic system - is Delusion.

That's no more a belief than any other observation is - no one is immortal, no one is omniscient, these are just observations. I don't believe in mortality or fallibility, I just think they are universal and inevitable, because that makes sense to me and agrees with the rest of the world. That could be wrong, but such is not the way to bet.

Now the sane and educated are not allowed to have any beliefs. It keeps getting worse.
Nobody ever said you need to be immortal to have believe something. In other words have 100% certainty about something. The point is that skeptics are no more educated or sane than anybody else. They are no less delusional than anybody else. Skeptics are walking contradictions. You believe that nobody can be 100% certain about anything. And you believe it is delusional to believe you can be 100% certain about anything. Well i'm pretty certain that skeptics have 0 education, and 100% delusion.


.. and atheists are just those without a particular belief.
Open a dictionary and stop making things up. I have already posted a definition that shows that amoralism is a state without morals. It is not about being certain that morals don’t exist. The prefix means ‘without’ it doesn’t mean ‘100% certain of the non existence of’.

Putting ‘fact’ in capitals before your definition doesn’t make it any less incorrect.
Either way none of your nonsensical claims have any basis in the facts presented. You clearly do not know what the prefix means or the connotation of the definition.

[iceaura]

. You believe that nobody can be 100% certain about anything. And you believe it is delusional to believe you can be 100% certain about anything. It's not a matter of belief - I observe that I am not omniscient, and you aren't, and apparently nobody is, and that 100% certainty about a matter of existential reality (anything that isn't axiom based) requires omniscience.

And I think that many non-omniscient people, even those who know they are fallible and could be wrong about something, nevertheless have beliefs.

Do you disagree ?

[shaman_]

You clearly do not know what the prefix means or the connotation of the definition.So 'asexual' is a life form with 100% certainty that sex doesn't exist?

The prefix means 'lacking' or 'without'.

[s0meguy]

Time to dust off the old favourite - atheism is a belief the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.


Wrong - atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

It is a belief. Atheists believe that god does not exist. A belief based on evidence or lack of evidence (the latter for me)

[shaman_]

Okay, atheism is a belief in the way that you not thinking that there are monkeys in my kitchen cooking me pancakes.. is a belief. If you want to call that a belief then fine.

[(Q)]

And the fact that Q does not speak for even a majority of the atheists here, let alone "atheism" in general, is one reason to temper your description.


Hey pal, if you've got a problem with me, come see me. I'd be happy to straighten you out.

And if you're so adamant I'm wrong, feel free to jump in and correct me.

[greenberg]

Thus I posit that until we can prove that we do or do not exist and that reality does or does not exist that we cannot say, without a doubt, God does or does not exist. It is a question of belief/faith that God/Deities do or do not exist. "Proof" is not possible given our current state.

And yet you think it is perfectly allright to declare eternal damnation to everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their savior?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

yes

[(Q)]

And yet you think it is perfectly allright to declare eternal damnation to everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their savior?

yes

Didn't you say in another post that you wouldn't want to be killed simply because you "changed your mind?" :rolleyes:

Why would you wish eternal damnation to those who might change theirs?

Do unto others... remember?

[sniffy]

Thus I posit that until we can prove that we do or do not exist and that reality does or does not exist that we cannot say, without a doubt, God does or does not exist. It is a question of belief/faith that God/Deities do or do not exist. "Proof" is not possible given our current state.

I don't think anyone gets this ham.
All arguments about whether god is or isn't, are circular. at the end of the day it is up to the individual and their circumstance which side of the fence they are on or whether they are actually sitting on the fence itself.

One can say god exists; one can say god does not exist but neither viewpoint can be proven above or beyond the personal level.

Or one can bang one's head repeatedly against a wall.

[Simon Anders]

And the fact that Q does not speak for even a majority of the atheists here, let alone "atheism" in general, is one reason to temper your description. I am not basing my my ideas about atheism just on Q. I see a number of self-proclaimed atheists here who have rarely battled here, as far as I can tell, with Creationism calls from theists, but rather engage regularly in a variety of threads related to religion.

I am atheist - I believe in no Gods, and in my judgment the common Gods of the extant religions do not exist as believers describe them.
So your atheism has a belief. A belief that the Gods of the extant religions do not exist as believers describe them.

But 100% certainty in anything of that nature - a question of real existence or non-existence - is impossible for the educated and sane. By that definition, neither atheists nor theists exist in significant numbers among them.
Difficulty in further defining a category that is a catchall for many different basic philosophies and approaches to life is a given. Sure.

But such negatively established categories do have validity for some approaches to some questions - the category "cold-blooded", for example, even though it potentially includes everything from arthropods to octopi, has some uses.
I think in a way you have hit a core issue. Not believing is seen as a more rational position per se - not simply in relation to God - by what I have been calling in other threads 'reasonists'. Where one draws the line and decides not believing is better must, I think, be based on intution. For example most reasonists rarely challenge people's belief in a self that continues through time.

I appreciated the tone of your response by the way.

I am responding to what I find an interesting phenomenon. It is very important for a number of atheists here to assert that atheism is not a belief. These same atheists seem to have a belief or set of beliefs that is part of their atheism. Their atheism does not seem like a lack.

I keep picturing for me what an archetypal atheist would be like. One that simply lacks a belief. Some guy who works with his hands, perhaps. Believes in what he can touch and what he experiences affects him - he may very well be an intellectual, by the way - and when asked 'Do you believe in God?' he shrugs and says he sees no reason to and goes back to things that interest him.

Someone who spends quite a bit of time combatting theism - in a discussion forum - and having the qualities I listed earlier seems to me has something more than a lack.

[iceaura]

So your atheism has a belief. A belief that the Gods of the extant religions do not exist as believers describe them. How did that judgment, considered and made on various evidence and long experience, etc, come to be "a belief" in your eyes ? At a minimum, even if you want to stretch the word "belief" to cover such judgments, shouldn't it be different "beliefs" for the different Gods (and other supernatural entities) thought not to exist ?
It is very important for a number of atheists here to assert that atheism is not a belief. These same atheists seem to have a belief or set of beliefs that is part of their atheism. Their atheism does not seem like a lack. But that is not very important for other atheists, or even those of that number in other or all situations.

Also, you are extending from that "number" to make conclusions about the atheists here who have been forced to insist that atheism is not "a belief" in the course of defending dismissals of a literal Noah's Ark, the intrinsic atheism of all evildoers, the necessity of Deity for morality, and similar Fundie nonsense. Those are not the "same atheists". And you have overlooked the matter of who started things in particular cases - the assertion of "belief" is frequently an accusation of irrationality, meant and taken personally. And so forth.

If you want to discuss a subset of the category "atheist" that you find important, nothing wrong with that. There are such atheists as you describe. Fraggle, for example, is not one of them.
I keep picturing for me what an archetypal atheist would be like. It's a negatively defined catchall category. There is no such thing as an "archetype" atheist. It is probably misleading to even name it, but you can't stop theists from doing that - and so as with other pejoratives, it's been coopted.
Someone who spends quite a bit of time combatting theism - in a discussion forum - and having the qualities I listed earlier seems to me has something more than a lack. As long as you take care in not extending those "qualities" (or the conclusions drawn from them) to atheists and atheism in general, no problem.

For some of the others, if you require a motive to explain an intensity of involvement: How about a fear ? Or a political wariness ? Or a resigned and pragmatically acquired willingness to take care of business experience has shown to be significant ?

[s0meguy]

Okay, atheism is a belief in the way that you not thinking that there are monkeys in my kitchen cooking me pancakes.. is a belief. If you want to call that a belief then fine.

how is it not a belief, if i think that there are no monkeys in your kitchen cooking you pancakes? quote me pls, because when checking for replies, I search the page for my nickname using the browser search feature.

how is it any different than the belief that a god does not exist, in terms of being a belief?

[lixluke]

Do you disagree ?
Of course I disagree. It is absurd. It's a classic epistemological topic that has been debated over years. You can't impose your ideals onto a discussion, and discredit everybody that does not abide by those ideals.

1. The belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Thus man will never know anything with 100% certainty.

2. The belief that there is such thing as absolute truth. However, man will never know the truth with absolute certainty.

3. The belief that there is such thing as absolute truth. However, there are only some truths man will know with absolute certainty and some man will never know with absolute certainty.

4. The belief that there is such thing as absolute truth. The belief that man can be 100% certain of truth.


FACTS:
-#4 is the foundation of objective logic.
-Not eerybody believes in objective logic.
-Discussions require the prerequisite of objective logic to form objective conclusions.
-Knowledge implies belief.
I know X = I believe X. I know X, and I do not believe X is a contradictory statement in logic. I believe X, but I don't know X for sure is a contradictory statement in logic.
All knowledge is what you believe.




You cannot have a productive discussion when you start mixing up truth and belief. Truth is absolute, but perception is relative to the individual. An individual may be 100% certain X is true. This does not mean X is objectively true. It only means the individual believes that X is objectively true = It only means the individual is 100% certain that X is objectively true. Do not try to make it seem like an individual being 100% certain of X = X is true. Individuals can be correct or incorrect.

I am 100% certain there is a bomb in the box. I can be either correct or incorrect.

This is all basic epistemology.
Belief that X is true = 100% certainty that X is true. 100% certanty that X is true is either correct or incorrect objectively. Anything other than 100% certainty that X is true is not the belief X is true.

1. Theism = 100% certainty God exists.
2. Atheism = 100% certainty God does not exist.
3. Anything otherwise is neither Theism or Atheism.

[lixluke]

You clearly do not know what the prefix means or the connotation of the definition.
So 'asexual' is a life form with 100% certainty that sex doesn't exist?
You clearly do not know what the prefix means or the connotation of the definition.
Unfortunately, you are misinterpreting all these definitions wihtout regard to connotation.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I am 100% certain there is a bomb in the box. I can be either correct or incorrect.

But you are neither correct nor incorrect until you make a measurement.

Belief that X is true = 100% certainty that X is true. 100% certanty that X is true is either correct or incorrect objectively. Anything other than 100% certainty that X is true is not the belief X is true.

be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe)of Old English gelafa; see leubh- in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms: belief, credence, credit, faith
These nouns denote mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; has no faith in a liar's assertions. See Also Synonyms at opinion.
Antonym: disbelief

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
belief
Noun
1. trust or confidence: belief in the free market
2. opinion; conviction: it's my firm belief
3. a principle, etc., accepted as true, often without proof
4. religious faith
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

[Mr. Hamtastic]

So. There's the definition of belief. Where does it say ,"to the exclusion of all other possibilities?"

[shaman_]

how is it not a belief, if i think that there are no monkeys in your kitchen cooking you pancakes?

I am saying that is as much a belief as atheism. If you want to call atheism a belief then you not thinking that there are monkeys in my kitchen cooking pancakes for me is also a belief. To me it sounds more accurate to say that you don't have the belief that there are monkeys in my kitchen cooking pancakes, as opposed to saying that you have a belief that there aren't monkeys ect ect.

Otherwise it would mean you have beliefs regarding everything you can possibly imagine.

[lixluke]

I am 100% certain there is a bomb in the box. I can be either correct or incorrect.

But you are neither correct nor incorrect until you make a measurement.
Wrong. Make all the measurements you want or make no measurements. There remain only 2 possibilities about your position. Either you are correct or incorrect. Open the box, use all your senses etc. There will always be 2 and only 2 posibilities regarding the validity of your belief.

[lixluke]

So. There's the definition of belief. Where does it say ,"to the exclusion of all other possibilities?"
Nobody needs to add that phrase to the definition of belief.
It is not a relevant phrase anyway.
As stated, X can only be either true or false.
Your belief is whatever position you take.
Exclusion or inclusion of other possibilities do not come into play because there are only 2 possibilities, and 3 possible positions.
1. X is true.
2. X is false.
3. Uncertain of wheter X is true or false.

X can only be True or False. - 2 Possibilities.
An individual can only choose one of the 3 possible positions about X.

Why try to include/excluse any irrelevant phrases to the concept of belief?

[iceaura]

4. The belief that there is such thing as absolute truth. The belief that man can be 100% certain of truth.


FACTS:
-#4 is the foundation of objective logic.
-Not eerybody believes in objective logic. Axiomatic systems of 'objective" logic are nto what we are talking about. We are talking about an existential claim - the actual existence of a Deity, not a deduction from premises.

Of course people can be 100% certain of deduced and logically valid conclusions given accepted premises. But they cannot be 100% certain about claims regarding the world as it exists - about which premises, for example, are in fact consistent with reality.

[sniffy]

One can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong.

[greenberg]

One can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong.

Yeah, but some people apparently don't care about that. :rolleyes:

[sniffy]

Yeah, but some people apparently don't care about that. :rolleyes:

That, then, is their problem not anyone else's.

[lixluke]

There are 2 basic forms of Skepticism.
1. The belief that nothing can be known for certain.
2. The belief that some things can be known for certain, but not everything.

How each form of Skepticism relates to the 3 T/F-Statement positions:
A. True
B. False
C. I don’t know.

Skepticism #1 can only make the claim C. Furthermore, Skepticism #1 believes that C can be the only claim that anybody can make. Thus, nobody can make the claim A or B about any statement.

For Skepticism #2, it depends on the statement. If the statement does not fall under #2's idea of the things that can be known for certain, Skepticism #2 abides by the same rules as Skepticism #1. C is the only claim they or anybody can make.


Objectivism:
1. Certain knowledge is possible in all statements.
2. Certain knowledge of any statement can be either correct or incorrect.

How Objectivism relates to the 3 T/F-Statement positions:
A. True
B. False
C. I don’t know.

Anybody can make any of these claims.


Definitions of words regarding the existence of God.
A. Theism: Certain knowledge is possible. God certainly does exist.
B. Atheism. Certain knowledge is possible. God certainly does not exist.
C. I don’t know.

For, C there are a number of possibilities:
i. Certain knowledge is possible. I don’t know if God exists or does not exist.
ii. Certain knowledge is not possible. Thus, nobody can know if God exists or does not exist. Skepticism #1 - Agnosticism.
iii. Certain knowledge is sometimes possible, but not in this case. Thus, nobody can know if God exists or does not exist. Skepticism #2 - Agnosticism.




One can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong.
Correct in objectivism.

[shaman_]

Unfortunately, you are misinterpreting all these definitions wihtout regard to connotation.No, regarding the prefix you are adding rules that don't exist. As with asexual and your own example, amoral, the prefix clearly means 'without'. You are changing it to mean something closer to 'anti'.

Perhaps antitheist should become a commonly used term.

[lixluke]

No, regarding the prefix you are adding rules that don't exist.
Get real. You do not know what the "A" in "Atheism" means. You are making false claims out of air. No "ism" on the face of the earth has ever implied neutrality. The without in atheism has never and never will imply neutrality towards theism. Any "ism" implies belief. Thus people who take the "I don't know" position do not fall under any "ism". Thus, it is often misinterpreted that they fall under Agnosticism which they in fact do not.

You sound like an acolyte. Acolytes are religious fanatics that defend their skewered beliefs to the death. Infedel Acolytes have been discussed all over this forum also to the death. Go away.

[lixluke]

I might as well post this again. This information should really be attatched to the Religion section. (It probably would be if it wasn't being run by acolytes.)

NOTE REGARDING INFIDELS.COM
There are legitimate theists and legitimate atheists. No matter what you believe, it is your duty to impose it to an extent. If what you believe is the truth, by all means, let others know about it. However, regardless of what it is, when somebody gets caught up in self-righteousness (disrespect of the beliefs of others) fanaticism about it to the point he/she starts taking things personal, they lose all objectivity, and are no more than a lunatic zealot. It is perfectly OK to believe there is a God. It is perfectly OK to believe there is no God. It is perfectly OK to spread what you believe whether it is religious or not. All topics around here are typically discussing our beliefs with others.

The Infidels website is a nonsense bloated site full of doctrine by fanatical self-righteous atheists for fanatical self-righteous atheists who give real atheists a bad name. With these idiots running around with their "weak/strong passive/active" stupidity in the name of atheism, they give real atheists a bad name. They are a mockery to real atheism which simply does not abide by theism, does not abide by doctrine such as exemplified in the garbage infidels website, does not attempt to impose atheism on others, and does not self-righteously consider themselves more righteous and better than anybody else with any other belief.

I do not consider them atheists, but religious fanatical loons. They have converted countless legitimate atheists into fanatical acolytes. These acolytes who buy into it, and go forth to impose their doctrine to those whom they believe don't know any better. Many people in sciforums and all over the internet are fanatical acolytes spreading the word of this BS doctrine claiming to be atheism. What a joke. Atheism is and always has been the belief that God does not exist.

If you are fanatical and self-righteous about atheism, I would consider you to be a religious fanatic. Which is what I consider the jack asses proliferating and imposing the BS doctrine of the Infidels website - a bunch of self-righteous religious fanatics claiming to be legitimate atheists. Don't buy into that bullcrap. There is no such thing as weak/strong atheism. I would suggest any legitimate atheist be weary of these loons.

There are many dilemma’s of their misrepresentation of legitimate atheism. The dilemma is when you become one of their followers defining atheism as they do, you end up with everybody being atheists. They even use the term "atheist-agnostic". This is so pathetically ridiculous. It's as if that website what created by kindergarteners. They go around spreading their word throughout the internet, and morons buy into this infantile inanity to the point even Wikipedia references them as a serious source regarding their article on atheism.

The idiotic Wikipedia article for Atheism is completely incorrect. This includes their false claims about the "A" in atheism. Wikipedia can be edited by any moronic bloke. It has lots of great facts that you can rely on, but there are times when some of the articles are garbage. Atheism is one of them. I am simply disputing the bullcrap definitions for atheism being proliferated around the internet, and being accessed by idiots who know nothing to the point that they reference false definitions as serious articles. I would say this is an insult to any real atheist. The attempt has been made by many people to correct the nonsense in the Atheism article. The atheism article in Wikipedia invalid because of idiots who buy into the kindergarten nonsense doctrine from the Infidels website.

The infedels website has no academic validity and no historical validity. It is for all purposes, a hoax. A very successful one.

[shaman_]

Get real. You do not know what the "A" in "Atheism" means. You are making false claims out of air. Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes Look it up.


No "ism" on the face of the earth has ever implied neutrality. The without in atheism has never and never will imply neutrality towards theism. Any "ism" implies belief. ... and with the 'a' there it means without that belief. Interestingly you are keen to tell me the definition of the suffix 'ism', but instantly discard the definition of the prefix 'a' when it suits you.

Once again, I think you are confusing 'a' with 'anti'.


Thus people who take the "I don't know" position do not fall under any "ism". Thus, it is often misinterpreted that they fall under Agnosticism which they in fact do not. You sound like an acolyte. Acolytes are religious fanatics that defend their skewered beliefs to the death. You are the one clinging to a false definition of amoral.

[lixluke]

Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes Look it up.

... and with the 'a' there it means without that belief. Interestingly you are keen to tell me the definition of the suffix 'ism', but instantly discard the definition of the prefix 'a' when it suits you.

Once again, I think you are confusing 'a' with 'anti'.

You are the one clinging to a false definition of amoral.
The "ism" in Atheism implies belief just like the "ism" in all other isms.
The "A" in atheism implies the lack of the subject at hand.
Belief in without God.
Atheism is belief that God does not exist.
Same type of thing for moralism. Even Gnosis.

Gnosis - Spiritual knowledge is attainable.
A-gnosis - Spiritual knowledge is unattainable.
Agnosticism - The belief that spiritual knowledge is unattainable.

There is no such thing as an "A" in front of any "Ism" that signifies the lack of the "Ism" itself.
The "A" in any "Ism" signifies the opposition of the subject. The "Ism" of the opposition of the subject is a belief in the opposition of the subject.

[shaman_]

The "ism" in Atheism implies belief just like the "ism" in all other isms. The suffix ‘ism’ doesn't always refer to belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism


The "A" in atheism implies the lack of the subject at hand. .. and the subject at hand is ‘theism’ - A belief in god/gods. Atheism is therefore a lack of belief in gods. Why won’t you accept this?


Belief in without God. You need to move the words around first to interpret that definition.

Atheism is belief that God does not exist. Same type of thing for moralism. Even Gnosis. You example of moralism undermined your argument and supported what I am saying. You think that because there is ‘ism’ at the end that it must be about belief. You are incorrect. The suffix ‘ism’ can be used to represent a state. Amoralism would be a state without morals.



Gnosis - Spiritual knowledge is attainable.
A-gnosis - Spiritual knowledge is unattainable.
Agnosticism - The belief that spiritual knowledge is unattainable. .Again you are changing the definitions to suit your needs. Gnosis is “A knowledge of spiritual mysteries”. It doesn’t refer to whether it is attainable.


There is no such thing as an "A" in front of any "Ism" that signifies the lack of the "Ism" itself. Amoralism, achromatism?


The "A" in any "Ism" signifies the opposition of the subject. The "Ism" of the opposition of the subject is a belief in the opposition of the subject. Even if we do take ‘a’ to mean ‘not’, then the word still breaks down to not a belief in gods. While similar, this is not the same as a belief that all the gods don’t exist.

[lixluke]

The suffix ‘ism’ doesn't always refer to belief.
It does in the case of isms such as Atheism. My example of moralism affirmed my argument. Your assertion that the "A" in Atheism refers to without belief is completely concocted absurdity. You do not know the context of the term, Atheism. The "ism" in Atheism always has been and always will be meant to describe those who take the opposing view of theism. While those who abide by theism affirm that God clearly exists, those who abide by atheism affirm that God clearly does not exist. The "ism" in Atheism never has and never will describe those who do not take up either side. It certainly does not as you proclaim describe both those who affirm that God does not exist as well as those do not take up either side. Your claim is a misinterpretation of the proper connotation for the term "atheism".

You are proclaiming that Atheism is used to describe both:
A. The position that God does not exist.
and
B. Those who don't take up either position.

Unfortunately, B does not and will never fall under the proper connotation for atheism. Those in the B category are not atheists. Anybody that does not take up the category-A are not Atheists.

[shaman_]

It does in the case of isms such as Atheism. My example of moralism affirmed my argument.
amoralism - the state or quality of being without morality or of being indifferent to moral standards.

Amoralism is a state without morals. This contradicts your definition and certainly does not help your argument.



Your assertion that the "A" in Atheism refers to without belief is completely concocted absurdity. You do not know the context of the term, Atheism. The "ism" in Atheism always has been and always will be meant to describe those who take the opposing view of theism. The closest definition of the word is ‘without a belief in gods’. I have demonstrated this and shown you to be wrong on several points. Your circular argument is that atheism can’t possibly mean that because that is not what atheism means. ?



You are proclaiming that Atheism is used to describe both:
A. The position that God does not exist.
and
B. Those who don't take up either position.I am proclaiming that anyone who doesn't believe in any gods is an atheist.

[lixluke]

amoralism - the state or quality of being without morality or of being indifferent to moral standards.

Amoralism is a state without morals. This contradicts your definition and certainly does not help your argument.


The closest definition of the word is ‘without a belief in gods’. I have demonstrated this and shown you to be wrong on several points. Your circular argument is that atheism can’t possibly mean that because that is not what atheism means. ?


I am proclaiming that anyone who doesn't believe in any gods is an atheist.
You are proclaiming that anything that isnt theism is atheism.
This includes those who do not know, agnosticism, and real atheism.
Your claim is absurd and incorrect. Your claim about amoralism is abusurd and oncorrect.

Ypu are misinterpreting my argument.
The closest definition to atheism is the correct definition of atheism. Not the incorrect definition of atheism. You cannot take the A in atheism out of context, and use it to support your argument. You are arguing a definition of a term.
I can say what the "a" is for, and I could say what the "ism" is for. The fact is when discussing a term, the breakdown is irrelevant to the definition. Anything with an A in front of it, and anything with an ism in front of it can mean any noun, verb, adjective, etc.
The point of how the A and the Ism in atheism is used in a particular term is not relevant to how it is used in other terms. I am simply stating what those prefixes/suffixes are typically used for. In the case of atheism, it is not meant to describe anybody who does not abide by theism. Atheism certainly is not meant to describe anybody who abides by any form of skepticism. This includes agnosticism.

Describing those who take the position of God does not exist. Any term could have been used to describe this. It didn't have to be atheism. I could have been any word under the sun you could make by putting any amount of letters together. It just so happen that the word is atheism.

You can claim that A prefix is used to describe indifference. You can claim that B prefix is used to describe indifference. You can claim whatever you want. It does not make it valid.

Atheism was is and never will be intended to describe anybody that isn't theism. Atheism was is and always will be intended to describe anybody who abides by the opposing position - There is no God. If you do not take that position you might take the position of agnosticism, you might not take any position. You certanly do not take the position of atheism.

[greenberg]

That, then, is their problem not anyone else's.

It becomes your problem when you are such a person's child, or when your head is at gunpoint, and so on, or when you simply live in a country where there is plenty of people who are certain about something and are still wrong, and you then suffer under the decisions passed by their votes, and the pollution and so on.

[electrafixtion]

It's my understanding that the concept of no creator because of evolution is flawed.

Many scientific minds contend it takes as much faith to accept evolution from nothing as it does to accept creation from nothing.

Is their proof of either?

As far as "evidence" is concerned, the problem is that there is TOO MUCH "evidence" supporting both notions. Disbarring "evidence", what proof is there that evolution is fact? Observation? Isn't observation itself flawed by the concept of perceptive reality?

I here to learn ONLY and not because I fully support either notion. Please show me that which constitutes proof that creation has not taken place.

[iceaura]

There are 2 basic forms of Skepticism.
1. The belief that nothing can be known for certain.
2. The belief that some things can be known for certain, but not everything. You are still confusing abstract systems based on logic and axiom, in which things can be known for certain and we deal in Truth and Falsity, with existential claims about the real world, in which nothing can be known for certain and we deal in evidence and probability.

You are requiring of atheists that they share your confusion, otherwise they are to be known as "agnostics" or the like, according to you. Likewise theists, apparently.

I would regard the claim of 100% certainty about anything in the evidence and probability sphere as good evidence of delusion. But any description of myself as anything other than atheist would be misleading - even dishonest. I have not suspended judgment in the matter, nor have I any claim to infallibility, and in the normal course of the world that would allow me to describe myself as theist or atheist without serious objection.

[lixluke]

It's my understanding that the concept of no creator because of evolution is flawed.

Many scientific minds contend it takes as much faith to accept evolution from nothing as it does to accept creation from nothing.

Is their proof of either?

As far as "evidence" is concerned, the problem is that there is TOO MUCH "evidence" supporting both notions. Disbarring "evidence", what proof is there that evolution is fact? Observation? Isn't observation itself flawed by the concept of perceptive reality?

I here to learn ONLY and not because I fully support either notion. Please show me that which constitutes proof that creation has not taken place.
Irrelevant. The question is "What is athesim?" The question has nothing to do with whether or not the theory of evolution proves there is no creator.

[shaman_]

You are proclaiming that anything that isnt theism is atheism.
This includes those who do not know, agnosticism, and real atheism.
Your claim is absurd and incorrect. Your claim about amoralism is abusurd and oncorrect. It was not a claim but a definition cut from an online dictionary……

Don’t even think about responding until you look up the meaning of amoralism. I mean look it up from somewhere other than your head.


Ypu are misinterpreting my argument.
The closest definition to atheism is the correct definition of atheism. Not the incorrect definition of atheism. You cannot take the A in atheism out of context, and use it to support your argument. You are arguing a definition of a term.
I can say what the "a" is for, and I could say what the "ism" is for. The fact is when discussing a term, the breakdown is irrelevant to the definition. Anything with an A in front of it, and anything with an ism in front of it can mean any noun, verb, adjective, etc.
The point of how the A and the Ism in atheism is used in a particular term is not relevant to how it is used in other terms. I am simply stating what those prefixes/suffixes are typically used for. In the case of atheism, it is not meant to describe anybody who does not abide by theism. Atheism certainly is not meant to describe anybody who abides by any form of skepticism. This includes agnosticism.

Describing those who take the position of God does not exist. Any term could have been used to describe this. It didn't have to be atheism. I could have been any word under the sun you could make by putting any amount of letters together. It just so happen that the word is atheism.

You can claim that A prefix is used to describe indifference. You can claim that B prefix is used to describe indifference. You can claim whatever you want. It does not make it valid.

Atheism was is and never will be intended to describe anybody that isn't theism. Atheism was is and always will be intended to describe anybody who abides by the opposing position - There is no God. If you do not take that position you might take the position of agnosticism, you might not take any position. You certanly do not take the position of atheism.So even though all the examples posted so far confirm what I am saying, even though I have clearly demonstrated that you are wrong and that is what the word means you are going to continue with your baseless, ironclad guarantee that you are correct, although you can’t show me why. O..K.

You are welcome to cling to your personal definition of the word. Your argument appears to be with the English (and Greek) language, not me.

[lixluke]

It was not a claim but a definition cut from an online dictionary……

Don’t even think about responding until you look up the meaning of amoralism. I mean look it up from somewhere other than your head.

So even though all the examples posted so far confirm what I am saying, even though I have clearly demonstrated that you are wrong and that is what the word means you are going to continue with your baseless, ironclad guarantee that you are correct, although you can’t show me why. O..K.

You are welcome to cling to your personal definition of the word. Your argument appears to be with the English (and Greek) language, not me.
All of your examples are baseless and irrelevant. None of them confirms your assertion. The only thing you have clearly demonstrated are nonsensical ideas about atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Sure. But seeing things as they are requires a pure, unified, unadulterated mind. I wouldn't dare claim that my mind is such or that I have such a mind at my disposal. For the time being, it appears I am stuck with interpretations (even when I can quote verse and chapter).

Was this decision made with an adulterated, impure, chaotic mind then? :D

IOW, it is sometimes Christians themselves who expect that one believes that Jesus existed in the flesh and blood, and that archaeology, history, physics, biology etc. support this.

That's fair enough, IMO, as they have opposition who equally have no real basis in their conclusions.

But also as I said earlier - Jesus is purported to be the one and only way to salvation, and that everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will burn in hell for all eternity - that humans have this one lifetime to make the right choice or be damned for ever and ever. With stakes high like this, surely it is understandable to want as much proof and justification as possible for one's choice, no?

I would question the claim, which doesn't appear to have anything to do with Jesus, or real religion in general.

Conversely, in regards to Buddhism and Hinduism, for example, I have never struggled with these problems - even if the Buddha and some others are nothing but didactic devices, they have the benefit of being more detailed, more practical, their instructions more actionable than Christianity's, and most of all, they don't preach eternal damnation if you "don't get it right" in this lifetime. By this I don't mean they suggest slacking or laziness - it is just that they do not put a person under such paralyzing pressure as the common Christian outlook does.

Maybe if Hinduism, or Buddishm became tools of the powerful we would begin to see the same kind of ultimatums.

Is it solely their business? If they are right and Jesus is the only way to salvation, and I want to be saved, then what Christians say is my business.

I would have thought your business would be what Jesus says.

Even if this means that you will burn in hell for all eternity?

Yes.

jan.

[greenberg]

Was this decision made with an adulterated, impure, chaotic mind then? :D

Of course ...


I would have thought your business would be what Jesus says.

Sure. But as I myself am not sure I know what Jesus said -and what are merely interpretations of what he supposedly said-, I am left to those who claim to know what Jesus says.


Even if this means that you will burn in hell for all eternity?
Yes.

Explain.
Under what conditions would you be willing to burn in hell for all eternity?

For example, if God Himself ordered you to be an example to all other living beings of what happens if one defies God, and you have full obedience to God, then I imagine you would have no objection to such an order and would willingly carry it out, and be happy with your situation.
But on the other hand - if God, with no explanation, nothing whatsoever, condemned you to eternal hell with no chance of redemption, would you just take this upon yourself and be happy with it?

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Sure. But as I myself am not sure I know what Jesus said -and what are merely interpretations of what he supposedly said-, I am left to those who claim to know what Jesus says.

Well, go with the interpretations, and see what matches up to other words and deeds of other great saints and personalities, and of course, BG.

Explain.
Under what conditions would you be willing to burn in hell for all eternity?

That's like asking me; under what condition would I be willing to serve life imprisonment, undergo the death sentence.
To avoid such sentences would be dependant on my actions.

For example, if God Himself ordered you to be an example to all other living beings of what happens if one defies God, and you have full obedience to God, then I imagine you would have no objection to such an order and would willingly carry it out, and be happy with your situation.

Your imagination would be correct.

But on the other hand - if God, with no explanation, nothing whatsoever, condemned you to eternal hell with no chance of redemption, would you just take this upon yourself and be happy with it?

That's like saying, if God with no explanation, condemned me to living in the UK, with a beat up car, and no chance of immortality, would I just take it upon myself, and be happy with it?
The answer is yes, but I don't have to be happy with it. :)

jan.

[greenberg]

That's like asking me; under what condition would I be willing to serve life imprisonment, undergo the death sentence.
To avoid such sentences would be dependant on my actions.
/.../
That's like saying, if God with no explanation, condemned me to living in the UK, with a beat up car, and no chance of immortality, would I just take it upon myself, and be happy with it?
The answer is yes, but I don't have to be happy with it.

Please bear with me. I am exploring your stance on the fire and brimstone notions.

Say for example that there would be a religious instruction that you personally find morally repugnant, but which would promise you salvation from samsara. Would you act in line with that instruction?

(This is a good question. I'll post a separate thread for it.)

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Please bear with me. I am exploring your stance on the fire and brimstone notions.

Say for example that there would be a religious instruction that you personally find morally repugnant, but which would promise you salvation from samsara. Would you act in line with that instruction?

(This is a good question. I'll post a separate thread for it.)

The answer is quite simple (to me).
If I came to the conclusion that the religious instruction was "personaly, morally repugnent, I wouldn't accept that instruction.

jan.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Irrelevant. The question is "What is athesim?" The question has nothing to do with whether or not the theory of evolution proves there is no creator.The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the first life. To claim so is a red herring that the evolution denialists are fond of tossing at people who haven't given the matter a lot of thought. The theory of evolution describes how species have evolved from previous species, and like any canonical scientific theory it is based on mountains of evidence: in fossils, DNA, and observation of mutations and breeding.

The hypothesis--not theory--that the first living matter arose from non-living matter is called "abiogenesis." There is very little evidence to support it and it is all indirect or logically reasoned, hardly enough to qualify as a "theory." Nonetheless it has more supporting evidence than divine creation, which is not a scientific theory at all since it violates the defining theory of science: that the natural universe is a closed system.

[greenberg]

The answer is quite simple (to me).
If I came to the conclusion that the religious instruction was "personaly, morally repugnent, I wouldn't accept that instruction.

But something might be the Absolute Truth, even though you find it morally repugnant. What then, how do you resolve this dilemma?
For me, this is a very relevant personal dilemma - namely that even though I find something morally repugnant, it might still be the truth and so I would do better to act in accordance with it.
I would appreciate it if you would look at this post here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1963991&postcount=20) and tell me what you think.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

But something might be the Absolute Truth, even though you find it morally repugnant. What then, how do you resolve this dilemma?

I don't understand how the Absolute Truth could be morally repugnant, let alone understand that it is morally repugnant, outside of my own personal reasons for finding something morally repugnant

For me, this is a very relevant personal dilemma - namely that even though I find something morally repugnant, it might still be the truth and so I would do better to act in accordance with it.

Daniel Dennet, a well known atheist said; "“If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.”
Which of the two do you find morally repugnant?
My point is, what we find "morally repugnant" is based on our understanding of everything, and how it works.

I would appreciate it if you would look at this post here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1963991&postcount=20) and tell me what you think.

I think your whole premise is out of step;

Introduction:
There is the possibility that the truth is something I find repugnant; such as "It indeed is an act of love to torture your child in hell for all eternity."

You keep returning to this same spot, and I cannot understand why. There is enough information for you to update your conclusions, enough to form a richer understanding of who and what God, is, regardless of your belief choice.
It makes no sense that God, in His understanding, would harm a being against his sincere will, for what we can understand as forever.
In light of becoming an adult, and devoloping good intelligence, good discrimination, why would you still accept that premise as a possibility?

jan.

[synthesizer-patel]

It's my understanding that the concept of no creator because of evolution is flawed.


Quite right - but then evolution makes no comment as to the existence, or otherwise, of a creator of life.
Evolution only takes place after life arises in the first place - perhaps this is why only a tiny minority on the lunatic fringe of extremist religions reject evolution for this reason - the rest of the theists have no problem with it as evolution leaves ample space for God or some other creator if you want it to.


Many scientific minds contend it takes as much faith to accept evolution from nothing as it does to accept creation from nothing.


You have made similar claims several times and yet you are unable to name and cite them - very telling.
Name 7 and cite evolutionary biologists who have made this claim in the past 5 years - or publicly retract your claim.


As far as "evidence" is concerned, the problem is that there is TOO MUCH "evidence" supporting both notions. Disbarring "evidence", what proof is there that evolution is fact? Observation? Isn't observation itself flawed by the concept of perceptive reality?


really? Too much evidence for creation?
Challenging you to cite 12 peer review papers that provide evidence in favour of creation should not pose a problem for you then - cite or retract

with regards to perceptive reality - explain with a specific example relating to evolutionary biology how and why this may cause a problem.


I here to learn ONLY and not because I fully support either notion. Please show me that which constitutes proof that creation has not taken place.

Negative proof = logical fallacy

I'm getting used to them coming from you already

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[Jan Ardena]

synthesizer-patel,



I here to learn ONLY and not because I fully support either notion. Please show me that which constitutes proof that creation has not taken place.


Negative proof = logical fallacy

I'm getting used to them coming from you already

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof


It is only fallacious if he is asserting that creationism is true because it has not been proven to be false, which he has not done.

jan.

[synthesizer-patel]

synthesizer-patel,








It is only fallacious if he is asserting that creationism is true because it has not been proven to be false, which he has not done.

jan.

Read his other posts Jan :rolleyes:

[Jan Ardena]

Read his other posts Jan :rolleyes:

Why the roll-eyes?
I suggest you read the statement you actually responded to;

I [am] here to learn ONLY and not because I fully support either notion. Please show me that which constitutes proof that creation has not taken place.

jan.

[greenberg]

I don't understand how the Absolute Truth could be morally repugnant, let alone understand that it is morally repugnant, outside of my own personal reasons for finding something morally repugnant

What if your personal reasons are completely wrong?

Have you considered that perhaps the fire and brimstone Christians are right (and that they are the ones who have the proper understanding of the Bible), or that God is evil, or that the Bhagavad-Gita is wrong?
I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, and this is what scares me.


Daniel Dennet, a well known atheist said; "“If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.”
Which of the two do you find morally repugnant?

I am not sure what Dennet there meant by "religion". If he meant fire and brimstone Christianity, then I agree with him. I think what those Christians are doing to those they wish to convert, is spiritual rape.

Yet I see no way to prove that those Christians aren't right, so I am left to wonder what to do.
Perhaps there is only this one lifetime, and if I don't "get it right", I will burn in hell for all eternity.


I think your whole premise is out of step;

Introduction:
There is the possibility that the truth is something I find repugnant; such as "It indeed is an act of love to torture your child in hell for all eternity."

You keep returning to this same spot, and I cannot understand why. There is enough information for you to update your conclusions, enough to form a richer understanding of who and what God, is, regardless of your belief choice.

It seems to me that unless I am able to refute that premise, I am obligated to believe it as true and good.


It makes no sense that God, in His understanding, would harm a being against his sincere will, for what we can understand as forever.

Why not? It is one of the basic premises of a popular line of Christian thinking. Millions of people across the world and history have believed it to be true and good - so it's not that I am afraid of something completely outlandish or peculiar to myself.


In light of becoming an adult, and devoloping good intelligence, good discrimination, why would you still accept that premise as a possibility?

What are that intelligence and discrimination against a god who is willing to torture me in hell for all eternity?

Moreover, I don't have personal realization or insight, I am not enlightened, I don't have direct perception - so I can't say how things really are. I am merely left with possibilites of all kinds. Considering the worst-case scenario (ie. God is evil / I have to get it right in this one lifetime or I will burn in hell forever) seems like the best path of caution to take.

[synthesizer-patel]

Why the roll-eyes?
I suggest you read the statement you actually responded to;



jan.

The roll eyes are for the child-like and somewhat petulant reasoning skills thus far demonstrated by EF.

while he may claim to be open to both viewpoints, his posts demonstrate otherwise - albeit mostly in another thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84373

[Jan Ardena]

The roll eyes are for the child-like and somewhat petulant reasoning skills thus far demonstrated by EF.

while he may claim to be open to both viewpoints, his posts demonstrate otherwise - albeit mostly in another thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84373

I'm afraid you are mistaken as he
is holding the same position as in this thread.

On one hand you appear to be like the adult,
gently showing the youth the error of his ways.
But on the other hand it seems you recieved some serious
injuries from your last encounter, and now wish to seek vengence. :)

Just my observation.
jan.

[synthesizer-patel]

I'm afraid you are mistaken as he
is holding the same position as in this thread.

On one hand you appear to be like the adult,
gently showing the youth the error of his ways.
But on the other hand it seems you recieved some serious
injuries from your last encounter, and now wish to seek vengence. :)

Just my observation.
jan.

No injuries - other than the insults to both my, and his own intelligence

Actually if you read the posts, he says he is certain that humans are intelligently designed - and that intelligent design is a distinct possibility - so clearly not open to both sides of the argument as he claims.

On the other hand while I accept that ID may be a substitute for evolution, and that supernatural creation may be resonsible for abiogenesis, the preponderance of evidence that contradicts these views means they are vanishingly improbable - in no way can the 2 contrasting views - as EF seems to assert - be viewed on an equal footing in terms of science or philosophy - it is only through a religious/supernatural special pleading that we can relegate one and/or promote the other.

Thus the accusation of a logical fallacy on his expectation for a proof of negative, is a fair and just one.

I suggest however that we let EF stand up for him/her self, by answering some of the questions posed with the evidence he claims to have access to.

ps - never call me an adult again :D

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

What if your personal reasons are completely wrong?

Then they are wrong.

Have you considered that perhaps the fire and brimstone Christians are right (and that they are the ones who have the proper understanding of the Bible), or that God is evil, or that the Bhagavad-Gita is wrong?
I don't see why this wouldn't be possible, and this is what scares me.

To merely consider something, then base a belief on that consideration, to the point where you feel you have come to the end of knowledge, is non-different to blind-faith, IMO.
If you read the gospels, you will understand that the idea of burning in hell for eternity, because you didn't believe in Jesus, is non existent. (If I am wrong about this then please eloborate.)
If someone purports something in the name of God, or Jesus, but it cannot be found within the scripture, then their purport is of no value, IMO.

I am sure you have read BG. So please explain how God can be evil?
As for whether BG is right or wrong, cannot be the point of belief.
Whatever you can understand of it, must relate to you personally, as in experience. This, in my mind, is reality.

I am not sure what Dennet there meant by "religion". If he meant fire and brimstone Christianity, then I agree with him.

By "religion", he could only have meant the idea of worshiping a God, or gods, which for him do not exist. Given the choice he would choose a society where rape is accepted in the way religion is accepted. In effect, he is showing how much he hates religion, or more to the point, worship of God.

I think what those Christians are doing to those they wish to convert, is spiritual rape.

Why?

Yet I see no way to prove that those Christians aren't right, so I am left to wonder what to do.


What do you mean, you see no way to prove that those Christians aren't right?

Christians = followers of Jesus Christ
Jesus' words and deeds have been written down.
If Christians deviate from said words and deeds, they aren't right.
How hard is that to understand.

Perhaps there is only this one lifetime, and if I don't "get it right", I will burn in hell for all eternity

Perhaps you are taking the words of these people too seriously, without bothering to see if they actually have a point. Did Jesus ever say or imply, believe in me or you will burn forever in hell? If he didn't, then why believe people who say that he did?
I just don't get it.

It seems to me that unless I am able to refute that premise, I am obligated to believe it as true and good.

Okay.
What is this premise based on?
Let's start the refutation process with an answer to that.

Why not? It is one of the basic premises of a popular line of Christian thinking. Millions of people across the world and history have believed it to be true and good - so it's not that I am afraid of something completely outlandish or peculiar to myself.

Millions of people were duped into thinking that the coalition went to war with Iraq because it was proven that they had WMD's.
Millions of people were duped into thinking that Africans were of a sub-human origin, and felt no remorse (for a long time) in the brutal enslavement of these innocent people.
The actual truth to these claims were very simple to unravel, as is your particular claims.
The question is, do you want to unravel it, or are satisfied with your current understanding?

What are that intelligence and discrimination against a god who is willing to torture me in hell for all eternity?

Show me where this is stated in scripture.

Moreover, I don't have personal realization or insight, I am not enlightened, I don't have direct perception - so I can't say how things really are.

You are a human being, you have a brain, a mind, just like Dennet, or any philosopher who wishes to shout his claims.

I am merely left with possibilites of all kinds. Considering the worst-case scenario (ie. God is evil / I have to get it right in this one lifetime or I will burn in hell forever) seems like the best path of caution to take.

Then it must be true for you.
Either that or you are attracted to this idea.

jan.

[greenberg]

Then they are wrong.

Aren't you afraid of being wrong? But I suppose even if you do have such fear, it isn't nearly as crippling as for me.


To merely consider something, then base a belief on that consideration, to the point where you feel you have come to the end of knowledge, is non-different to blind-faith, IMO.

I agree. It's having fear or other forms of duress determine one's thinking.


If you read the gospels, you will understand that the idea of burning in hell for eternity, because you didn't believe in Jesus, is non existent. (If I am wrong about this then please eloborate.)

There is this (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1969700&postcount=2) and all that about weeping and gnashing of teeth (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=gnashing&qs_version=31), and Matthew 12:30. And some nasty things in the Pauline epistels, but I didn't feel like looking that up.


I think what those Christians are doing to those they wish to convert, is spiritual rape.

Why?

This would require a detailed explanation of some psychological and cognitive phenomena. But basically, what I think spiritual rape is about :

1. Using many logical fallacies. Unless one has formal training in logics, it will be difficult not to be disturbed by the use of fallacies. The average, untrained person when faced with fallacious reasoning will tend to feel that there is something wrong, but can't put their finger on it - meanwhile, the proselytizer continues to pound on the person with more fallacies, effectively confounding the person. Once this is achieved, it is difficult to recover from it. Research even suggests that people continually exposed to double binds (such as "You must love God, but you must love God freely - or you will go to hell" - must and freely are mutually exclusive) can become schizophrenic or develop other milder or harsher psychological disorders.

2. Exploiting a person's trust, goodness and honesty. This goes hand in hand with the above. Many people, by nature, are very attached to being good and honest, to the extent of admitting terrible things about themselves, and being liable to extreme self-doubt. Some Christian proselytizers know how to play on this card, and how to get the person on a guilt-trip that will make them believe all sorts of horrible things about themselves.


But of course, a person equipped with a good knowledge of and confidence in the power of straight thinking and who is not too attached to always being Mrs or Mr Nice will not so likely be a target and victim of proselytizing. But those who are weak in these aspects, are. It's not right to harp on those weak people and use their weakness against them.

What do you mean, you see no way to prove that those Christians aren't right?

Christians = followers of Jesus Christ
Jesus' words and deeds have been written down.
If Christians deviate from said words and deeds, they aren't right.
How hard is that to understand.
/.../
Perhaps you are taking the words of these people too seriously, without bothering to see if they actually have a point. Did Jesus ever say or imply, believe in me or you will burn forever in hell? If he didn't, then why believe people who say that he did?
I just don't get it.

To understand this means to be sure I understand the Bible correctly. I would not dare to declare I understand the Bible correctly. It's as if I am the victim of my own admission that I am not perfect. So the problems continue. However ...

It seems to me that unless I am able to refute that premise, I am obligated to believe it as true and good.

Okay.
What is this premise based on?
Let's start the refutation process with an answer to that.

I really don't feel like going into that specific premise. It seems to me my problem with it is more general - I tend to think that if I cannot refute something, I am obligated to accept it as true. I even posted a thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74664) on this once. If I would solve this formal problem of cognition, I predict many other problems that I struggle with would be done away too - all those odd claims I feel obligated to accept as true.

Millions of people were duped into thinking that the coalition went to war with Iraq because it was proven that they had WMD's.
Millions of people were duped into thinking that Africans were of a sub-human origin, and felt no remorse (for a long time) in the brutal enslavement of these innocent people.
The actual truth to these claims were very simple to unravel, as is your particular claims.
The question is, do you want to unravel it, or are satisfied with your current understanding?


Actually, I had another discussion about this topic elsewhere, and this occured to me: I don't find Jesus or Christianity per se so bad. But what I find absolutely repulsive is that if I accepted Jesus as my savior, I would have to become like all the other people who have also done that. Meaning I should have no problem with meat-eating, drinking coffee and real tea, illicit sex, looking down on logical reasoning even to the extent of becoming a fideist, and more such things that I find to be wrong. And that I would have to associate with people who do that. I did that for quite some time in the past, and I was usually on the verge of crying and puking when with them.
I remember that even when I was a small child, I never understood why people who claimed to know God and be saved had to drink alcohol and eat meat and go hunting and such. I figured that if one knew God and loved God, then one wouldn't have to engage in such raw pleasures and distractions. Or when some natural disaster struck, like a hailstorm or drought - why did all those (supposedly) God-loving, God-knowing people complain and were distraught over what happened.


I am merely left with possibilites of all kinds. Considering the worst-case scenario (ie. God is evil / I have to get it right in this one lifetime or I will burn in hell forever) seems like the best path of caution to take.
Then it must be true for you.
Either that or you are attracted to this idea.

Apparently I am attracted to it, for better or worse.

[tepidepic]

If god exist's and I am neither acknowledging the possibility nor the improbability;

Then it would stand to reason that if he is omnipotent and all powerful, then surely he could create a rock so big that he himself could not lift it!

Waiting for the bolt of lightning to strike me down where I sit... Nope nothing zilch... He created the world in seven days and night's but proclaimed that on the 7th day no man or woman should work as this was the holy holiday, the sabbath. But who the hell gets out of bed to go to work on a Sunday, theirs never anyone in the office anyway!

So if that's indeed the case and Sunday is everyones day off and we're all supposed to hit church and pray, it's no wonder our prayers never get answered, he's having a day off... "God speaking, haha, fooled you, I'm not in right now, please leave your message after the beep!"

The problem with the story of creation, well lets see god created the first man, Uh huh, ok, then he created the first woman.. Um, yeah.. following so far..

Then how did we beget others, are we expected to believe we've been fucking our own brothers and sisters.. Oh nice I'll have a side plate of incest please.. Sorry but thats a pretty repugnant idea...:bugeye:

Religion exists to bring law to the lawless, the 10 commandments, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal.. Is it not then safe to assume that without the basis of law their would be anarchy. Paradise awaits for those who adhere to these commands and hell awaits those who do not.. umm yeah.:bugeye:

That must be why so many mass murderers suddenly find religion sitting on deaths row. . . Repent now and ye shall be saved! God understands you never meant to eat all those people you butchered, he forgives you and welcomes you into the gates of heaven with open arms.. Right, so you can go on and eat the wings on an angel and blow up the pearly gates in the afterlife.. Oh please.. I nearly said "God give me strength!" but that would be a contradiction.:D

Sun worshipers still worshiping 'Ra's' golden chariot as it flys across the heavens. . .

Have you spoken to god lately? Does he speak to you often? See your Doctor and tell him you can talk to him and he listens to you. . . He will prescribe a cure, its called Medication!

Next thing they'll be screaming on about signs of his existence, right, god exists because you found his name written in Arabic in a tomatoe. No wait they found the likeness of Jesus in a knotty old tree stump.

So because there are crop circles I should believe in ET as well eh!

[Mr. Hamtastic]

You must be one of M*W's students!

pleasepleaseplease start a new thread of your very own where we can discuss your interesting perceptions of christianity. I'm begging you.

[audible]

one who does not believe in God for whatever reason.This is a little over simplified, as this includes all other religions as Atheist. Whereas to lack belief in god/gods as pointed out by cris covers any supernatural fantasy.

[SnakeLord]

First time I think we agree on something Jan :)

An atheist is anyone that doesn't believe in gods (for whatever reason).

[lixluke]

The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the first life. To claim so is a red herring that the evolution denialists are fond of tossing at people who haven't given the matter a lot of thought. The theory of evolution describes how species have evolved from previous species, and like any canonical scientific theory it is based on mountains of evidence: in fossils, DNA, and observation of mutations and breeding.

The hypothesis--not theory--that the first living matter arose from non-living matter is called "abiogenesis." There is very little evidence to support it and it is all indirect or logically reasoned, hardly enough to qualify as a "theory." Nonetheless it has more supporting evidence than divine creation, which is not a scientific theory at all since it violates the defining theory of science: that the natural universe is a closed system.
Is is not relevant what the theory of evolution claims or does not. The points of what atheism is remain.

Whether or not Jesus created the universe, the fact remains that atheists belive that there is no creator.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Aren't you afraid of being wrong?

I don't think fear comes into it, unless you are knowingly wrong.

There is this (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1969700&postcount=2) and all that about weeping and gnashing of teeth (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=gnashing&qs_version=31), and Matthew 12:30. And some nasty things in the Pauline epistels, but I didn't feel like looking that up.

I cannot see where it says one goes to hell because one doesn't believe. Meaning that un-belief, irregardless of actions, is the sole reason.

To understand this means to be sure I understand the Bible correctly. I would not dare to declare I understand the Bible correctly. It's as if I am the victim of my own admission that I am not perfect. So the problems continue. However ...

No, it means you have to understand the teaching of Jesus. And I don't think his teachings are hard to understand. They are hard to live up to, as his disciples demonstrated, but simple to understand.

jan.

[greenberg]

I cannot see where it says one goes to hell because one doesn't believe. Meaning that un-belief, irregardless of actions, is the sole reason.

Are you aware of the disputes that different Christian traditions have amongst themselves about the requirements for salvation?


No, it means you have to understand the teaching of Jesus. And I don't think his teachings are hard to understand. They are hard to live up to, as his disciples demonstrated, but simple to understand.

How do I know whether I understand them or not?
Every Christian I have discussed this with pointed out that I don't understand Jesus' teachings. Either that since I do not have the Holy Spirit, it is completely impossible that I could understand Jesus' teachings correctly; or because I am not chosen to understand them correctly; or because I am not a practising Christian; or because I am sinful.

And if Christians aren't the authority on the Bible and Jesus' teachings, then who is?

I don't have the self-confidence to read the Bible and make up my mind for myself, like you seem to suggest.
The Bible could mean a million things. Whichever I would choose, could be wrong.
So I am not going to investigate the Bible. To me, there is only one question that needs to be settled: whether God is evil or not.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

Are you aware of the disputes that different Christian traditions have amongst themselves about the requirements for salvation?

Yes, but I have come to the understand, at my own peril, that that is nonsense.

How do I know whether I understand them or not?

I cannot imagine why you would not understand them, they are designed for ordinary people to understand.

Every Christian I have discussed this with pointed out that I don't understand Jesus' teachings.

Just like every atheist will point out that theists do not understand science, logic, and are not rational. It is the penultimate attempt to snatch victory because their argument has become defunct. The final straw is personal attack.

Either that since I do not have the Holy Spirit, it is completely impossible that I could understand Jesus' teachings correctly; or because I am not chosen to understand them correctly; or because I am not a practising Christian; or because I am sinful.

The institute of christianity, and Jesus' teaching is not necessarily harmonious.

And if Christians aren't the authority on the Bible and Jesus' teachings, then who is?

Does such an authority really matter?
Are they going to make you a follower of Jesus, because they are an authority?

I don't have the self-confidence to read the Bible and make up my mind for myself, like you seem to suggest.
The Bible could mean a million things. Whichever I would choose, could be wrong.
So I am not going to investigate the Bible. To me, there is only one question that needs to be settled: whether God is evil or not.

I assume you have an idea of how God could be evil, if he were?

jan.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

tepidepic
Registered User (20 posts)
08-30-08, 04:39 PM #226

If god exist's and I am neither acknowledging the possibility nor the improbability;

Then it would stand to reason that if he is omnipotent and all powerful, then surely he could create a rock so big that he himself could not lift it!

Stranger ========== Absurd.

[greenberg]

Yes, but I have come to the understand, at my own peril, that that is nonsense.

At your own peril, yes. For some reason, you were apparently willing to take that risk and ignore the sectarian disputes of Christians.


Just like every atheist will point out that theists do not understand science, logic, and are not rational. It is the penultimate attempt to snatch victory because their argument has become defunct. The final straw is personal attack.

Actually, with Christians, it's not a personal attack. It is part of their doctrines. There is all that about the Original Sin and how humans are inherently sinful. One of the first things a person must understand -so some Christian doctrines- is that people are inherently sinful and deserve to burn in hell for all eternity.


Does such an authority really matter?

The principle of authority matters.


Are they going to make you a follower of Jesus, because they are an authority?

No, but I might burn in hell for all eternity if I don't accept their authority.


I assume you have an idea of how God could be evil, if he were?

Imagine a god like a wolf in a sheep's skin - who, in his evil sense of humor, gets a kick out of confusing people and making them suffer, making empty promises to them, while all along pretending to be "just and loving".

Frankly, this is what the god that Christians usually describe, seems like to me. If I would read in the Bible that Jesus ate the meat of animals, drank alcohol and had casual sex - I would not be surprised.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

No, it means you have to understand the teaching of Jesus. And I don't think his teachings are hard to understand. They are hard to live up to, as his disciples demonstrated, but simple to understand.

Teachings like cursing a fig tree because it had no fruit in the off season?
Telling his disciples he spoke in parables so that not everyone would understand?
Commanding that you preach to animals?
Telling slaves to obey their masters with no hint of disapproving slavery?
Saying he would return within the lifetime of some people there with him?
Hate your mother & father?
Let the dead bury the dead?
Give everything to the poor?
Telling a story involving multiple brides for 1 man yet no hint of disapproval?
Never confirming he was the son of god when asked tho often saying he's the son of man?
Telling you to eat his body & drink his blood?
Giving Judas implied approval of what he was about to do?
Expressing doubt while on the cross?
Giving actual physical proof to Thomas but not to us?
I come not with somethingorother but with a sword?
Allowing contradictory stories of his life, which is goofy, despite any arguments on whether a christian must believe the entire Babble?
Being rude to his mother?
And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee (Peter), That this day, [even] in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice???
Praying to his other self, asking the burden of being crucified be taken from him???
There will be gnailing & washing of teeth?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Looks like that stopped this thread. Maybe I should post it in several others.
1111

[Jan Ardena]

Teachings like cursing a fig tree because it had no fruit in the off season?
Telling his disciples he spoke in parables so that not everyone would understand?
Commanding that you preach to animals?
Telling slaves to obey their masters with no hint of disapproving slavery?
Saying he would return within the lifetime of some people there with him?
Hate your mother & father?
Let the dead bury the dead?
Give everything to the poor?
Telling a story involving multiple brides for 1 man yet no hint of disapproval?
Never confirming he was the son of god when asked tho often saying he's the son of man?
Telling you to eat his body & drink his blood?
Giving Judas implied approval of what he was about to do?
Expressing doubt while on the cross?
Giving actual physical proof to Thomas but not to us?
I come not with somethingorother but with a sword?
Allowing contradictory stories of his life, which is goofy, despite any arguments on whether a christian must believe the entire Babble?
Being rude to his mother?
And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee (Peter), That this day, [even] in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice???
Praying to his other self, asking the burden of being crucified be taken from him???
There will be gnailing & washing of teeth?

Why don't you choose some of the quotes, and show them in their true context. Then we'll have more idea of what you're getting at.
Otherwise this is just a bunch of words. :)

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

At your own peril, yes. For some reason, you were apparently willing to take that risk and ignore the sectarian disputes of Christians.

Actually, christianity wasn't my concern.

Actually, with Christians, it's not a personal attack. It is part of their doctrines. There is all that about the Original Sin and how humans are inherently sinful. One of the first things a person must understand -so some Christian doctrines- is that people are inherently sinful and deserve to burn in hell for all eternity.

What is there to say?
This is some idea of God and religion, not related to Jesus the person who is purportedly looked up to in that religion.

The principle of authority matters.

The principles of authority have broken down. Whoever shouts the loudest, and weaves the most power, becomes the authority by force.

Tribalism. ;)

No, but I might burn in hell for all eternity if I don't accept their authority.

And what is their authority based on, why it would have such a profound effect on your very essence?

Imagine a god like a wolf in a sheep's skin - who, in his evil sense of humor, gets a kick out of confusing people and making them suffer, making empty promises to them, while all along pretending to be "just and loving".

Then imagine a god, who is Krishna, and put the two imaginations side by side.

Frankly, this is what the god that Christians usually describe, seems like to me. If I would read in the Bible that Jesus ate the meat of animals, drank alcohol and had casual sex - I would not be surprised.

Christianity seems to have successfully damaged real religion.
Best look elsewhere, where people do not deviate from their scripture, that way you will always have a reference.

jan.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Why don't you choose some of the quotes, and show them in their true context. Then we'll have more idea of what you're getting at.
Otherwise this is just a bunch of words.
jan.

Absurd.
If you want to attempt to defend any of that, go ahead. None of it is defensible but defending less than half would make no difference in my overall point.
1111

[Jan Ardena]

Absurd.
If you want to attempt to defend any of that, go ahead. None of it is defensible but defending less than half would make no difference in my overall point.
1111

Who said anything about defence?

jan.

[lixluke]

First time I think we agree on something Jan :)

An atheist is anyone that doesn't believe in gods (for whatever reason).
Misonception.

Throughout history, philosophers discuss their views on various subjects. Some views building on others. Typically, when there is a popular view, there tends to be those with a counterviewpoint.
View = X
Counterview = -X

Those who for whatever reason do not praticipate or are undecided/uncertain about the subject have no reason to be labled under any "ism". There is the "ism" of View X. Then there is the "ism" of View X's counterview which is View Y. There is no reason to label those who do not participate.


This is an article from the internet discussing the propaganda being spread to redefine atheism:
It has come to my attention that some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.



Some proponents of this definition can be found in the alt.atheism newsgroup and at the following web sites:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_atheism101.htm

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/questions/atheist.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism



A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.



These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay.



But first I will try to illustrate the problem by using three groups of people:

Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).

Group B neither believes that at least one god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.

Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).



It is generally agreed that the people in group A are atheists and the people in group C are not. The main point of disagreement is whether the people in group B are considered atheists or not. The people who want a “lack of belief” definition would define group B as atheists while most people, and all reputable dictionaries, do not. Many of the people who are pushing a “lack of belief” definition call group A “strong atheists” and call group B “weak atheists.



One of the main problems of a “lack of belief” definition is that it is too broad. If someone told you they were an atheist, you would still not know if they were agnostic, undecided, believed that gods don’t exist, or never thought about it. This makes the word nearly useless.



Another problem with a “lack of belief” definition is that it is not accepted by the vast majority of people. I personally don’t know anyone who considers babies atheists because they lack belief in gods. I also don’t know of any people who are agnostic or undecided about the existence of God who call themselves atheists.



The lack of public acceptance for a “lack of belief” definition of “atheism” is reflected in the fact that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. However, this has not kept a few morons from incorrectly claiming that various dictionary definitions have a “lack of belief” definition. On page three I have posted and examined many reputable dictionary definitions. On page four I have posted excerpts from reputable Encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica.



On the next page I have posted some of the arguments these people have used, and I explained why why they are so damn stupid. But first this would be a good time to read the following links.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

greenberg,
I don't think fear comes into it, unless you are knowingly wrong.
I cannot see where it says one goes to hell because one doesn't believe. Meaning that un-belief, irregardless of actions, is the sole reason.
No, it means you have to understand the teaching of Jesus. And I don't think his teachings are hard to understand. They are hard to live up to, as his disciples demonstrated, but simple to understand.
jan.

Who said anything about defence?
jan.

You strongly implied, if not stated outright, the teachings of Jesus are easy to understand & should be followed.
I showed a small part of the evidence that is not true.
You then think it's up to me to explain it further. It's not. At this point, anyway.
Do you think those things I mentioned are easy to understand & should be believed & followed & lived by as a good example?
1111

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

lixluke
No matter how many references you cite, how many people agree or don't or how many times & ways you say it, it does not make sense.
1111

[lixluke]

lixluke
No matter how many references you cite, how many people agree or don't or how many times & ways you say it, it does not make sense.
1111
I stated it very simple. Please show me what part of my post doesn't make sense.

[SkinWalker]

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in gods. Whatever definition you want to come up with, this is the one with the most utility and the one that is at the base of all humanity since everyone starts out as an atheist -without any belief of gods.

God beliefs are then indoctrinated upon atheist children by their parents, family, and the culture they are raised in, in much the same manner as cultural beliefs of gender roles, morals, and taboos.

Coolskill, you were once an atheist. You're still an atheist with regard to most of humanity's gods, you just choose to believe in the gods of Christianity.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Well said. But who's Coolskill???
1111

[SkinWalker]

Lixluke was coolskill but changed his screen name. I have no idea what the "licking" thing is about or who luke is.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I have much doubt about anyone 25 (probably much younger) or older being an actual atheist then becoming a theist. With enough information available, it turns out they believed long before the time they claim to have converted.
1111

[Sarkus]

Lixluke, that "article" is flawed due to the simple fact that it does not understand what agnosticism is.

It treats agnosticism as a middle path - between "believing in X" and "believing in not-X"... the undecided.
But this is an incorrect understanding of agnosticism... and as such the rest of the article is rather moot.

FYI - agnosticism is the position that the object in question (e.g. God) is inherently unknowable, or that one lacks personal knoweldge of the object.
Usually, but not always, this leads rationally to a position of atheism (i.e. lack of belief in God) but you DO get agnostic theists: people who understand God to be unknowable, but nevertheless believe in his existence.

Until you, and I presume whoever wrote that article you posted, can understand and appreciate what agnosticism actually is, I guess you will forever be misunderstanding the term "atheism".

To recap for you:

Theism / atheism is one's stance on the existence of God.
Agnosticism is a stance on the epistemology of God - i.e. whether God is knowable, personally or inherehently.

I, for one, am an agnostic atheist.
But I know agnostic theists - and surely their very existence sure scuppers your entire argument, no? Afterall, how could one possibly be both agnostic AND a theist?? :o