DeletedUser
i am talking about nature's power and plutonium, anti-depressants, or fighter jets isn't something old
i am talking about nature's power and plutonium, anti-depressants, or fighter jets isn't something old
DeletedUser
Then why the heck did you use weapons as an example pointing towards a god of war?
DeletedUser
well sorry for that i mean violence war and these human aggression which resulted in god of war like Mars ....
DeletedUser
I thought you might say that. :dry:
I disagree though. Linguistically speaking, "theism" is the belief in gods. The "a" negates it so it becomes "the belief in no gods". The "a-" applies to the "the" not the "-ism". It's still a belief.
Moving away from the linguistics - as atheists you assert that there is no god, right? Upon what do you base that assertion? Is there any scientific evidence to demonstrate that gods don't exist? So, your assertion is based on conjecture or belief. After all, the absence of proof is not the same as the proof of absence.
The absence of belief is "agnosis". An atheist will say "there is no God". An agnostic will say "I don't know whether god exists or not". Atheism denies the possibility of a god without evidence to back up that denial. It's a belief - just like any religious faith.
So, if I'm right, you two are either agnostic rather than atheist or you're clinging to a belief as much as any monotheist, polytheist, animist or pantheist.
DeletedUser
Well if you want to argue semantics I will not indulge you further than saying the belief in no gods equates to a lack of belief in any gods.
I do not have to prove the non-existence of anything.
It is those whom claim that a thing is so whom carry the burden of proof.
This is ridicules. There is no proof leprechauns doesn't exist either, or that there are no invible gnomes living in your closet.
This fallacy has already been covered by previous arguments in this very post, thus require no further answer.
Your conclusion is wrong.
DeletedUser
Er...I think linguistically, you're reading it wrong. Instead of "belief in no gods" it is "no belief in gods".
Depends on the atheist that you talk to. Wikipedia has a good write up on it.
For me, in a sense, I am a strong atheist and in a sense, I am a weak atheist. Let me explain...
With regards to everyday speech, we don't say, "there could be invisible purple dragons doing the tango on my forehead and I can't prove that they aren't there, so I will simply say that I don't believe that they are there". We say, "There's no such thing as invisible purple dragons and there is no reason to think that my forehead would make a suitable dance-floor anyway, so the whole idea is preposterous".
The same with "God".
On the other hand, I fully realize that you can't prove a negative, so no matter how ridiculous I find the idea, I admit that it may be true despite my lack of belief.
Does that make sense?
Because the realm of things that could possibly be true, but aren't, is much much greater than the realm of things that actually are true.
Therefore, unless we have specific reason to believe IN something, we shouldn't believe in it.
Again, this only works if you take the position that Charlie Brown's Great Pumpkin possibly does exist, that it's possible that little green men actually do run your television set and all other nonsense is possibly true as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I agree. However, you don't appear to be open to the possibility that there might be a god. Is that correct? Your assertion that god doesn't exist is based purely on the fact that there's no proof of this. Why feel the need to make an assertion?
In the absence of proof, you can opt not to draw a conclusion rather than blindly stating that something doesn't exist.
And there might just be...they're invisible after all. :dry:
On the contrary...
Look at other words with the same root. Polytheism is the belief in "many gods" - not a multitude of beliefs. Monotheism is the belief in "one god" - not a single belief. The same pattern follows with atheism.
Absolutely. And that, to me, is the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. An atheist denies the existance of gods, whereas an agnostic acknowledges that proof either way is impossible and so absolute statements are futile.
Well, I'm fairly convinced that TV executives come from a small planet in the Sirius system, so they're purple rather than green, but lets not get into that right now... :dry:
Actually, you've both chosen to come up with ridiculous parallels between god and other fantasies. Now, I tend to "believe" that the existance of god is about as likely as the existance of leprechauns or the Great Pumpkin. I don't feel the need to deny the existance of any of them though.
I don't believe in anything without proof but I acknowledge that religion is beyond proof. It's a personal matter to which we shouldn't apply scientific standards. Unless they start pedalling things like Intelligent Design under some pseudo-scientific banner, of course. Then we should crucify them...
DeletedUser
Eh? You may be right. To me it makes little difference, however. Many words have changed from their literal meanings throughout the ages, right?
And, let's face it, arguments about semantics are quite dull. For all I care, you can call yourself a toaster if you want...as long as you properly define your term. You asked us how we define atheism, we told you, and then you try to tell us our definition is wrong.../shrug
The point is that you're barking up against the wrong tree. I am not a strong atheist (at least not in an absolute sense) and so I don't need to defend arguments against strong atheism...
I don't like the term "Agnostic". Somehow it has come to mean someone that either hasn't thought about the issue, or hasn't decided, or otherwise tries to belay the question with a non-answer.
I stand up and proudly say, "I have looked at the available evidence and see no reason to believe in any 'God' or set of gods...therefore I don't believe in any. They are as real to me as intelligent mushrooms living in a cave somewhere on Mars".
And that is why I prefer the term, "weak atheist".
I don't see them as ridiculous parallels at all. They are parallels of ridiculous beliefs...but the parallels themselves aren't ridiculous.
If the belief in the Great Pumpkin or leprechauns were as prevalent as the belief in "God", I'd be as outspoken against those things, as well.
As is the paranoid delusion of the man in the padded cell that little pink ninjas are out to get him?
It seems to me that you have now undercut your authority to speak out against anyone believing in anything that science can't prove or disprove...
DeletedUser
Interestingly enough, I think Einstein was a scientific pantheist. If I recall correctly, he believed that "God" was the sum total of all the natural laws in the universe.
DeletedUser
Bk200, you are indeed missing the point. Let me see if i can put it into perspective:
Religion sees an effect and says, "magic" (size=1)
Religion jumps to a conclusion and says, "someone made the magic" (size=10)
Religion expounds upon the erroneous conclusion and says, "that someone must be a god" (size=100)
Religion fleshes out their erroneous conclusion and creates a book explaining the, "god's plan" (size=1000)
Religion expands upon the "god's plan" by adding in "god's words," which they conveniently pulled out of thin air. (size=10,000)
Religion indoctrinates people who, without merit or evidence, believe what is written in that book. (size=100,000)
Religion creates an institution, imposing moral objectives, based on the plan and the words of the god who created the magic. (size=1,000,000)
Science sees an effect and asks, "what caused that?" (size=1)
Science tries to replicate the effect and asks, "how did it happen?" (size=1)
Science removes the effect from its influences and asks, "why did it happen?" (size=1)
Science, based on their research and examination of evidence, writes a hypothesis and publishes it so that it may be scrutinized by peers. I.e., peer review. (size=1)
Science scrutinizes the hypothesis, breaking it down, attempting to find flaw to it, literally testing to see if it fails. (size=1)
Science breaks the hypothesis (size=0) or it is unable to break the hypothesis, at which point it may be deemed a theory (size=1). If there is substantial measurable, repeatable, uncontestable evidence available, it is deemed a law. (size=1)
So while religion is created on the belief that a god pulled the apple to the ground, the scientific method determines the apple fell due to a force that is labeled gravity, an effect that can be repeated artificially.
You see, religion comes to a conclusion without evidence, whilst science is the process of examining evidence, which invariably results in conclusions. The difference in these approaches is most evident in the manner a religious person reacts to additional data, wherein any new data is dismissed if it does not support their initial conclusion. So contrasting is this to the scientific method. For, in the scientific method, additional data, when determined to not support an existing hypothesis, invariably destroys that hypothesis. In religion, that's like suddenly erasing God, and yet scientists do this every day. It's their job to dispel magic, it's their job to look at ALL the evidence, not merely that which supports their conclusions.
Religion sees an effect and says, "magic" (size=1)
Religion jumps to a conclusion and says, "someone made the magic" (size=10)
Religion expounds upon the erroneous conclusion and says, "that someone must be a god" (size=100)
Religion fleshes out their erroneous conclusion and creates a book explaining the, "god's plan" (size=1000)
Religion expands upon the "god's plan" by adding in "god's words," which they conveniently pulled out of thin air. (size=10,000)
Religion indoctrinates people who, without merit or evidence, believe what is written in that book. (size=100,000)
Religion creates an institution, imposing moral objectives, based on the plan and the words of the god who created the magic. (size=1,000,000)
Science sees an effect and asks, "what caused that?" (size=1)
Science tries to replicate the effect and asks, "how did it happen?" (size=1)
Science removes the effect from its influences and asks, "why did it happen?" (size=1)
Science, based on their research and examination of evidence, writes a hypothesis and publishes it so that it may be scrutinized by peers. I.e., peer review. (size=1)
Science scrutinizes the hypothesis, breaking it down, attempting to find flaw to it, literally testing to see if it fails. (size=1)
Science breaks the hypothesis (size=0) or it is unable to break the hypothesis, at which point it may be deemed a theory (size=1). If there is substantial measurable, repeatable, uncontestable evidence available, it is deemed a law. (size=1)
So while religion is created on the belief that a god pulled the apple to the ground, the scientific method determines the apple fell due to a force that is labeled gravity, an effect that can be repeated artificially.
You see, religion comes to a conclusion without evidence, whilst science is the process of examining evidence, which invariably results in conclusions. The difference in these approaches is most evident in the manner a religious person reacts to additional data, wherein any new data is dismissed if it does not support their initial conclusion. So contrasting is this to the scientific method. For, in the scientific method, additional data, when determined to not support an existing hypothesis, invariably destroys that hypothesis. In religion, that's like suddenly erasing God, and yet scientists do this every day. It's their job to dispel magic, it's their job to look at ALL the evidence, not merely that which supports their conclusions.
DeletedUser
Granted - if you make the distinction between strong atheism and weak atheism, then I don't believe "weak atheism" is a matter of belief.
Why, though, does every question need an answer? Surely there are some things which are unknown or unknowable?
Certainly a stand to be proud of.
You misunderstood me there. I wasn't complaining that the parallels were ridiculous, I was pointing out that they were ridiculous and they were parallels.
I had authority? Awww hell, did I just throw that away?
The way I see it, I don't have the authority to speak out against anyone believing in anything that science can't prove or disprove. None whatsoever. Providing it's not harming anyone else I don't really see why anyone should speak out against it either.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
For the sake of truth, if nothing else
Isn't that a bit like two religious groups arguing with each other because they're both trying to get each other to see the true way?
DeletedUser
They have an ulterior motive. Someone who argues just for the sake of truth doesn't.
Not to mention an argument can be easily made that their beliefs do indeed harm people.
DeletedUser
That is an incorrect interpretation. Theism is the belief in god(s), whilst atheism is the (not) belief in god(s). The error you committed is in your placement of the not, the "no." Basically, you put it in the wrong place, thus changing the meaning altogether.
theism
belief in god(s)
a theism
(not) belief in god(s)
DeletedUser
Every question doesn't need an answer. I am very fond of saying, "I don't know", because there is a heck of a lot that I don't know.
But, when you have looked at the available evidence, seen that there is none for believing in "God", Santa, blood-thirsty tomatoes and other such nonsense, I see no reason why you have to say, "I don't know".
So, children who believe that magically 1 + 1 = 3, shouldn't be corrected? Cults that don't do harm to others, but commit suicide based on their beliefs shouldn't be curbed? The mentally ill shouldn't be given drugs to help treat their disease?
Sorry, I just don't see it.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
You're talking about "truth" as if it's a fundamental fact. It isn't when it comes to gods. You can't be certain that god doesn't exist so why waste your time trying to convince someone of it?
As for ulterior motive, a religious adherent would say that they're trying to save your immortal soul. You're just doing it for kicks. How is that better?
Go on then. Make it. Convince me that someone believing in a god is intrinsically harmful to other people.
DeletedUser
We're not talking about someone simply believing in God though, are we?
DeletedUser
Absolutely, children who think that 1 + 1 = 3 should be corrected. There is, however, a huge gulf between someone believing in a god and someone being mistaken about a fundamental axiom of the natural number system.
Similarly, there's a gulf between someone having a mental illness and a sane person having a belief in a supreme being or beings. There is, isn't there? Or is everyone with faith mentally ill?
As for the cult...well, I tend to believe that everyone has the right to take their own life. Does a cult have the right to encourage people to do so? I think I'd probably put that under the category of "doing harm to other people".
Err - yes. I was.
(Apologies for the multiple posts rather than multiple quotes - they're coming in as I'm typing)
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
If we're simply talking about believing that a "God" exists, then I guess I agree with you.