Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
If you make the person and know which way they will choose when you make them, isn't that a pointless test?
It isn't a knowledge claim. Its the absence of a knowledge claim.
Headway to what though? Where is my answer leading me?
That's completely incorrect. Atheism is not about beliefs, what you are putting forward is the most basic misconception of what Atheism is.
I thank you though, for bothering at all to answer our questions. It's appreciated my friend
That's not an accurate description of the majority of self-identified atheists I have come across. They are confident in the fact there is no god/gods.
Perhaps they are using the wrong term but I'd suggest it's more that their definition is currently different from the one you are going by.
When you say "come to know him", do you mean worship him? Supposedly he has revealed himself to many non-believers over the years, so what's the difference between revealing himself to individual people here and there and to everyone at the same time? We are all his children and he wants us all to come to heaven, yet he sets up life on earth as some sort of quest to find him rather than making it as good as possible for everyone.. Clearly he is fine with the way things are now where 80% of us goes to hell, and the kicker is that he has known that it would turn out that way since the beginning of time.
Saying that he's malicious is an understatement.
He's right about it, at least that's what the fundamental definition of being atheist.
Also claiming than 1+1=2 is more of an axiom, it isn't having a belief per se and the equivalent in religion would be the dogmas.
Then you're talking to morons.
No you are wrong. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. The only other option to Atheism and Theism, is agnosticism.Headway to what though? Where is my answer leading me?
That's completely incorrect. Atheism is not about beliefs, what you are putting forward is the most basic misconception of what Atheism is.
I thank you though, for bothering at all to answer our questions. It's appreciated my friend
If I did a survey, and asked one hundred people who identified as atheist, if there was a god/gods, do you think I'd get more answers saying 'no' or answers wishing not to give a binary answer?
Cause, I'm pretty sure I'd get more in the 'no' camp.
The "a" in Atheism means without or lack of.
Asexual - lack of or without sexual preference.
Atheism - lack of or without belief in god
I suppose one would have to put themselves in a variety of categories to examine further. I'd imagine most atheists are in the number 6 category. I don't believe in God but am only 99.999% confident in my view and still leave the door open that if presented with tangible evidence, that there may infact be a God/creator/designer etc.
Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric
- Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
- De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
- Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
- Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
- Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
- De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
- Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
It's a stupid question - that's the first problem. No one knows.
Essentially you're asking an opinion. Some people who identify as atheists don't wish there to be a God - that doesn't mean they claim to know for sure he/she doesn't exist.
Off topic but asexuality is the absence of sexuality. Not the absence of preference. Your description sounds more like pansexuality.
I think that's true.
The absence of belief in a God, is......wait for it........unbelief LOL
It's like saying, if there's an absence of belief in a chair's ability to hold your weight, you have no faith in that chair.
No. You're wrong. If I ask you the question "Do you believe in god?" your answer can only be yes or no.
Yes = Theist
No = Atheist.
You can't not know if you believe in something.
Agnosticism is a separate entity entirely.
That's about right.
That wasn't the original question.
Indeed. This is getting confused.
Maybe not. But it's in reply to the definition of Atheist. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity, simple as that. The prefix "a", means lack of/ without/ absence of
For what it's worth though, lets go back to the original statement. That Atheism requires faith because it is a "knowledgeable claim". That is something I'd disagree with. Let's say I did believe that to be atheist, you had to firmly believe that there is no god. I'd still regard myself as atheist. To equate that to being a believer in god is ridiculous.
Atheists look at the absence of all evidence and draw the most logical conclusion. That is, that god does not exist, because there is zero evidence to support the claim. However, if evidence was presented to the contrary, I along with most atheists would make a new assessment based on the new evidence.
For me, the whole Atheists "believe" there is no god thing is little more than a red herring for religious folk who are annoyed by the presence of atheists constantly questioning them, to discredit the atheist view and generally obfuscate from the fact that the religious can't prove that their own beliefs are tangible.
I think it's an important distinction, personally. As someone who doesn't identify as an atheist, nor has faith in any god/gods, it leaves a gap where I can identify without being associated with religious nuts or tedious ignorant atheists (there are many cool religious people and cool atheists, but we all know the moderates are not the ones who get prominence and thus not people's expectation of the terms).
I don't think this is quite correct Raoul, as Christians we don't seek proof - we are saved by faith alone. Understanding that then obviously there would be no need to attempt to "Prove" anything would there?
Quite. It is sort of the point of 'faith' that it isn't proven.
EDIT - Could I ask you about your religion (I think you and our Penna are Catholic but I know little beyond that) either in this thread or via PM? I am interested.
And so we are always going to be unable to attempt to prove anything if asked to.
Good point. I think the fundamental problem of faith to the atheist is that it all seems made up. If you can have faith in Christ, then you can also have faith in Zeus, Thor, Fire, etc, at which point the very concept of faith seems like little more than a philosophical device to commit yourself to something in your own mind.
I think that is how the Atheist may see it but no, we do not feel it is a device or in our own minds
Interesting. If its not tangibly real and it's also not in your mind, then where is it ?I think that is how the Atheist may see it but no, we do not feel it is a device or in our own minds
EverywhereInteresting. If its not tangibly real and it's also not in your mind, then where is it ?
A bit like Quantum Physics maybe..
Always comes in handy.
Yeah, so atheism isn't a knowledge stance. Classic misdirection from the brainwashed.
Yeah, so atheism isn't a knowledge stance. Classic misdirection from the brainwashed.
Interestingly, in Quantum Mechanics there is no reality independent of choice of measurement, which in philosophical terms may have some similarities to the way our brains interpret the concept of faith. What we perceive as reality depends on our earlier decision on how to measure reality.Everywhere
A bit like Quantum Physics maybe..
That's interesting isn't it?
It's a nice picture but I dispute the idea that it's definitions of terminology accurately describe current usage.Always comes in handy.
Yeah, so atheism isn't a knowledge stance. Classic misdirection from the brainwashed.
How would you categorize a no. 6 with the believe that he lives like he wants in the believe that when he is really his god he would be living with the same values he has?
If people misuse a word, it's their fault, not the word's.
Although you are right that the vast majority of atheists don't use the precise label.
That statement agrees with what I said.
This is not true. Ignorance, deception, or defiance can all influence faith and unbelief.
True.
I understand where you're coming from - you're using the same definition that Christopher Hitchens used to use. That's not how the word is defined in philosophical circles, however. As the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy puts it - ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
If the religious could tangibly prove their beliefs, there would no longer be faith. Think of it like a relationship between a boyfriend girlfriend. Both will believe they are true to each other, but if one wants tangible proof, trust (faith) goes out the window.
Words change meaning. It's a thing that happens. We can wish it didn't, for clarity, but it does.