• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Yorutenchi said:
Yes it does. My lack of a belief in your god is because the evidence brought to me is not adequate. It makes perfect sense because that is the reality.
Click to expand...

You are conflating why you have lack of belief, with 'atheism', which is not defined by why you have a lack of belief.

example.
''my lack of belief is because Krishna has not been proven''=/=atheism.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Yorutenchi said:
Atheism is exactly that in the broad sense.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself. You are saying EXACTLY THAT and then in the next instant, you say IN THE BROAD SENSE. But aside from that, your statement that you are an atheist because I have not presented evidence to convince you has some real logistical problems. here's some.
1. I'm not trying to convince you
2. I haven't presented evidence , or rather, presented some contextual evidence only
3. My personal perspective, does not define theism, in the broad sense.
So, this is why your statement doesn't make sense. You are using a specific reason why you are an atheist, to define ''atheism'', whereas atheism has it's own meanings, aside from specifics.
My example of 'I'm an atheist because krishna has not been proven'', is similar. A theist could say that they don't believe in Krishna, as well, because it isn't proven, however,/ just believes in a different deity.
 
Last edited:
Y

Yorutenchi

Member
q konn said:
You're contradicting yourself. You are saying EXACTLY THAT and then in the next instant, you say IN THE BROAD SENSE. But aside from that, your statement that you are an atheist because I have not presented evidence to convince you has some real logistical problems. hers some.
1. I'm not trying to convince you
2. I haven't presented evidence , or rather, presented some contextual evidence only
3. My personal perspective, does not define theism, in the broad sense.
So, this is why your statement doesn't make sense. You are using a specific reason why you are an atheist, to define ''atheism'', whereas atheism has it's own meanings, aside form specifics.
My example of 'I'm an atheist because krishna has not been proven'', is similar. A theist could say that they don't believe in Krishna, as well, because it isn't proven, however, just some from a different religion, or who believes in a different deity.
Click to expand...
Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. A subsection of atheism is an active belief that there is no deity.

I lack a belief because of all of the evidence ever presented to me and after actively looking I have not seen any evidence to suggest that there is a god.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yorutenchi said:
Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. A subsection of atheism is an active belief that there is no deity.

I lack a belief because of all of the evidence ever presented to me and after actively looking I have not seen any evidence to suggest that there is a god.
Click to expand...
I prefer to use the words "non-theistic" or "agnostic" in regards to not knowing if there are any deities.
 
Y

Yorutenchi

Member
Curious George said:
As is yours to use atheism as a "lack." The million dollar question is whose preference is better. Explore the various atheism definition threads.
Click to expand...
I have seen some. When it comes to language its how its used and I feel that it is useless otherwise. I will still use the word atheism to describe my lack of belief as will many others. No other usage invalidates it. It blew my mind when I found out so many different definitions of "spring" were .

What the context is more so is the burden of proof. Some want to claim that atheism is a belief so that they have a burden to prove god doesn't exist. However that isn't the arguing point. And arguing the arguing point only ever distracts from the original debate and it seems useless to me. It only ever makes sense to lack a belief in something un-supported. What ever word we use other than that is meaningless.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Yorutenchi said:
I have seen some. When it comes to language its how its used and I feel that it is useless otherwise. I will still use the word atheism to describe my lack of belief as will many others. No other usage invalidates it. It blew my mind when I found out so many different definitions of "spring" were .

What the context is more so is the burden of proof. Some want to claim that atheism is a belief so that they have a burden to prove god doesn't exist. However that isn't the arguing point. And arguing the arguing point only ever distracts from the original debate and it seems useless to me. It only ever makes sense to lack a belief in something un-supported. What ever word we use other than that is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But it now appears you are guilty of the same positioning. Positioning yourself so you do not have a burden of proof so you can avoid a discussion on such a burden is just as tangential as bringing up the burden in the first place.
 
Y

Yorutenchi

Member
Curious George said:
Perhaps. But it now appears you are guilty of the same positioning. Positioning yourself so you do not have a burden of proof so you can avoid a discussion on such a burden is just as tangential as bringing up the burden in the first place.
Click to expand...
Because it is not a position I support. Why would I take up a position I do not support?
 
Y

Yorutenchi

Member
Curious George said:
What is exactly not a position you support?
Click to expand...
English isn't my first language but is your sentence grammatically functional? I am having a hard time reading it.

Did you mean to ask what I don't support? There is a number of things I don't support. In this case I do not support the belief that there is no god.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Yorutenchi said:
There is a number of things I don't support. In this case I do not support the belief that there is no god.
Click to expand...

What bearing does this have on the positioning involved in defining atheism ad a "lack?"

I would imagine you are a skeptic. Thus, your belief is that the existence or non existence of god is equally likely. Perhaps you believe one is more likely but your skeptic nature makes you hesitant to commit to saying you "believe" one over the other. I don't see how that really matters though. You have a position in the subject. You do not lack a position. So the term lack isn't really applicable to you.
 
Y

Yorutenchi

Member
Curious George said:
What bearing does this have on the positioning involved in defining atheism ad a "lack?"

I would imagine you are a skeptic. Thus, your belief is that the existence or non existence of god is equally likely. Perhaps you believe one is more likely but your skeptic nature makes you hesitant to commit to saying you "believe" one over the other. I don't see how that really matters though. You have a position in the subject. You do not lack a position. So the term lack isn't really applicable to you.
Click to expand...
My position is solid. My position is that I am lacking a belief in god. I do not propose that the reverse is true. I define this as atheism as do many others. But despite the definition of atheism this is still my position and where I argue from. I don't care if the definition of Atheism was raw eggs with seal meat.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Yorutenchi said:
My position is solid. My position is that I am lacking a belief in god. I do not propose that the reverse is true. I define this as atheism as do many others. But despite the definition of atheism this is still my position and where I argue from. I don't care if the definition of Atheism was raw eggs with seal meat.
Click to expand...
Hmm, your position lacks a belief in god, but that is not your position. This is sort of like saying my hair color is not blonde. While not being blonde may be a characteristic of my hair color, it is not my actual hair color.
 
Y

Yorutenchi

Member
Curious George said:
Hmm, your position lacks a belief in god, but that is not your position. This is sort of like saying my hair color is not blonde. While not being blonde may be a characteristic of my hair color, it is not my actual hair color.
Click to expand...
My position on god is that I lack a belief in him. Yes that is my position. If we are debating blond and not-blond I am not-blond. If you wanted my actual beliefs then we can discuss those but that isn't what I am debating when we debate god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top