E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
Actually, there's a discussion to be had about the way fetishizing the unknown has assumed a moral dimension. That is, believers think it's virtuous to assume there's certain things we can't know. Hence God.
-Nato
-
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!
Ambiguity of Atheism
- Thread starter Acim
- Start date
-Nato
Orias
Left Hand Path
E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
Orias
Left Hand Path
Ah, so virtue is more a thing of compliance rather than crassness.
Thats all you had to say
E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
Still pretty cold. But so colorful!Ah, so virtue is more a thing of compliance rather than crassness.
Thats all you had to say
What I meant was that sane people seldom attribute natural phenomena to divine agency nowadays. We don't seriously believe that earthquakes only happen to bad people, diseases to the sinners, etc. I realize there are still pockets of such folly out there, but by and large that's not something we consider reasonable.
However, people still consider it virtuous to hold beliefs about the existence of God, the afterlife, and many other things we can't support empirically. Faith is considered a good thing, as if the very absence of evidence makes it incumbent on believers to justify their beliefs in such phenomena.
-Nato
Orias
Left Hand Path
It is hard to justify that which we have created.
The position of the Atheist is no different, that being his justified reason of compliance.
As humans we generally assert that a label will provoke or exalt our status quo, when really it just makes us bite on a well baited hook.
Virtue isn't just limited to those of crass justification, but simply to those that comply.
The position of the Atheist is no different, that being his justified reason of compliance.
As humans we generally assert that a label will provoke or exalt our status quo, when really it just makes us bite on a well baited hook.
Virtue isn't just limited to those of crass justification, but simply to those that comply.
Last edited:
E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
Except for the justification part.
That what we've been saying throughout this entire thread. As far as the existence of gods are concerned, the null hypothesis actually has rational justification.
-Nato
But there are those who claim that it needs no justification because it's the null hypothesis that we (some of us) argue against.
And I've argued if it's just the null hypothesis, it's not genuine atheism, atheism being actually derived (concluded), meaningfully.
Sorry, Orias, but I'm not following your post.
I don't understand what creation you're talking about, nor why it might need to be "justified."
Could you also clarify what you're comparing the atheist's position to, and what atheists are complying to?
Isn't a label just a word, an abstract sound signifying some idea or thing? Most labels don't provoke or exalt anything.
Finally, you seem to be equating virtue following rules. Am I getting that right?
The thing about it is it is only meaningul to the theist. Is it meaningful whether I don't believe in Yahweh, Allah or whatever Zorgons believe in? It is only meaningful to Muslims if I don't believe in Allah. Christians wouldn't care if I believe in Allah as long as I believe in Yahweh or Yeshua. That is why no belief is meaningful but once presented an idea of a specific god with specific attributes then you are only atheist for that particular brand of god.
The atheist in me strongly disagrees.
What about the rest of the post. We are all atheist to a dozen or more gods. I happen to be theist for only one brand cause Cheerios is the best brand.The atheist in me strongly disagrees.
E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
It sounds like you're saying you can only be vegetarian in a "meaningful" way if you can name every conceivable species of organism you won't eat.
Let's be reasonable instead.
-Nato
I agree completely.
I'm saying that it is possible to be atheist of all being whether someone have brought it to your attention or not. Some others are saying that some type of theism would need to be brought to your attention in order to make atheism "meaningful" but I ask why that is reasonable. Cause then every brand of theism needs to be brought up for it to be even more meaningful.
edit: That is why the so called ambiguity of atheism is relative to the ambiguous claims of theists.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Not really sure what you're trying to get at here................
Orias
Left Hand Path
To those who comply to the atheist rational of course, different mind sets do exist though, since it is hard to test what is commonly defined as God, and it is hard to signify "rational", unless of course you belong to a group of people that thinks like yourself. What's not so hard is determining whether or not this symbol known as "God" has a strong influence on the people, and how much the people invoke such a term.
Atheists and theists use the term alike, or so I have gained from observation.
What we have brought forth and invoked into existence, such as God and what we use on a daily basis, speech, art, science, religion.
It justifies itself in sort of fashion, which is why it is impossible to deter those who have chosen their path.
It is easier to remain with a mutual acquaintance that doesn't result in claiming proper use of logic and ration. When really, these things exist to learn from, and to strive to destroy such a thing is destroy a part of ourselves.
The position of a label, simply, that which we chose to describe.
Just a word, yet you use abstract to describe significance.
Yes, most labels don't provoke anything except the usage of them and the desire to commune such aspects.
It doesn't always exalt things though, that I can agree with. Individually perhaps, or to some peoples view, a strong spiritual belief can lead one to believe that they are eternal in spirit, which in a sense is a tactic used satisfy or exalt one into a position that only exists in a psychological state.
Not necessarily to "rules", more so ambition, the way in which people attain statuses, and fortitude. Basically, a virtuous path is one that people think is "right" or more compliable with their own person.
That I reserved space in that post for other comments to be added in that vein (other comments about atheism - means from persons not self identified as atheists).
Yet, would be where split in types of atheism is born. I'm even willing to grant it could be just 2 types. Regardless of what self identified atheists might say otherwise.
Because lacking beliefs is meaningless if not aware of what you are lacking the belief in. Hence why babies are plausibly born atheists. But adult humans who are beyond infant awareness are likely strong atheists, because they reject any/all forms of theism.
Not necessarily. I would say unlikely.
No. For me (OP) ambiguity is in line with people who make claims that are saying, "all atheism is...is this" and then one like me gets to hear several variations on that. I'll admit that this thread so far doesn't cover that as much as I had anticipated. But to be sure, it is around. At most, I've reviewed 1% of threads where "atheism" (or atheist) is mentioned. At at time I was making this thread, it seemed like 2 to 5 times a day I was hearing variation often about 'all atheism is.'
In just looking over p. 1 where self identified atheists are speaking, here is some of that:
- my atheism is only one expression for me of freethought.
- Atheism is the only rational position to hold
- atheism isn't just a matter of falling into some default position because theism doesn't cut the mustard. IMO, the atheist position really does make sense on its own merits.
> Granted 2 of the above are from same person. But if / when I pick up this thread, I truly believe there will be dozens of quotes from I would say at least 25 different people where atheism is something more than the 2 common definitions. And not just something more personally, but stated in vein of "only rational position to hold" type hyperbole.
Hence the reason I think it is ambiguous (ambiguous meaning: open to more than one interpretation. In this case, likely many.)
How many ways can you say "do not believe in god(s)". Don't think there are gods, lack belief in god, gods don't exists, gods probably do not exist. No matter how you say it, it's saying the same thing, not theism.