What exactly is atheism?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

greenberg,

Was this decision made with an adulterated, impure, chaotic mind then?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's fair enough, IMO, as they have opposition who equally have no real basis in their conclusions.

I would question the claim, which doesn't appear to have anything to do with Jesus, or real religion in general.

Maybe if Hinduism, or Buddishm became tools of the powerful we would begin to see the same kind of ultimatums.

I would have thought your business would be what Jesus says.

Yes.

jan.

 

Of course ...

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.

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?

 

greenberg,

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.

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.

Your imagination would be correct.

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 Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

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.)

 

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.

jan.

 

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 and tell me what you think.

 

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

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 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.

 

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.

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.

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.

Negative proof = logical fallacy

I'm getting used to them coming from you already

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why the roll-eyes?
I suggest you read the statement you actually responded to;

jan.

 

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.

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.

It seems to me that unless I am able to refute that premise, I am obligated to believe it as true and good.

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.

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.