Belief is inherent of knowledge. The alternative, on the other hand, is that she doesn't believe it.
-
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!
Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?
- Thread starter Segev Moran
- Start date
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Does it make you feel good to insult people? Or do you prefer to be jack donkey?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Going by her view, she does. It's a fact to her. The word belief isn't strong enough.
It should be. It's been demeaned.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Well, she was indoctrinated and went into ministry school; so, ...
Kartari
Active Member
Hi Segev,
I agree. It's a common misunderstanding of atheism.
You describe the difference between asserting that no gods exist (i.e. hard atheism) and lacking belief in gods' existence (i.e. soft atheism). The former implies a firm resistance to believing in gods, while the latter is a more open-minded view amenable to being convinced otherwise.
I agree. It's a common misunderstanding of atheism.
You describe the difference between asserting that no gods exist (i.e. hard atheism) and lacking belief in gods' existence (i.e. soft atheism). The former implies a firm resistance to believing in gods, while the latter is a more open-minded view amenable to being convinced otherwise.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Your methodology /word usage, actually infers that Theism is the default position.
If atheism were the default position, then the Theist would be the person being ''convinced'' or whatever, from atheism.
Either atheism is a asserted position, or it is not the default position. It can't be both.
Not sure if you realized that
Kartari
Active Member
Hi syncretic,
No it doesn't. Why would my choice of the word "convinced" convince you otherwise? I more specifically view weak atheism (i.e. lack of belief in gods) as the default position btw.
No it doesn't. Why would my choice of the word "convinced" convince you otherwise? I more specifically view weak atheism (i.e. lack of belief in gods) as the default position btw.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Weak atheism has to be specified then ,whenever you are trying to indicate the 'default position'. It has it's own specific meaning, you can't just say ''atheism'', to describe weak atheism.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Not a problem, just clarifying that distinction.
also, ''weak atheism'' can indicate a tendency to atheism, as opposed to a tendency to theism. Clearly this is inaccurate.
Last edited:
Correct, but if we observe the manner in which he treats his wife, and says things like, "I would sacrifice my life for her," that would enter into territory of treating her as primary influence on his life. That has power over his fortune or fate within this lifetime.
What you are getting across is not really setting it up as accurate for how any type of worship may look, as all of it when expressed is 'figure of speech.' But within context of person's life and experience, it may paint a picture of treating this in the way people routinely treat, talk of, think about, act with regards to, teach about, learn about god(s).
When a fan of science says, "the scientific method is the best around" that clearly is a figure of speech, as the method isn't really followed (rigorously) by practicing scientists. Perhaps the newly initiated might follow that recipe, but that be about it. Thus the fan of science is just using a figure of speech that is not really accurate with the world we live in.
Well, I was responding to previous post you wrote, where you said: then, you don't say anything about what the god you DO believe in is like.
So, you don't accept that, and seem to outright reject it without interest in discovering / understanding more. But no longer can you say (without being disingenuous) that 'you don't say anything about the god you DO believe in is like.
When the reality is you simply can't accept what is being said and are observably closed minded to understanding it. I dunno, me stating that might have you show up less close minded?
All based on circular reasoning. Not that the other view isn't, but gonna make a choice, either way between the two (Masters).
I don't doubt the person Jesus existed I'm still waiting for any evidence there was something supernatural about him.
I have always regarded atheism as shorthand for weak atheism.
But the scientific method IS the best around whether it's followed or not.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I don't know if it's a language difference, or a culture difference, but usually, here, if someone is using the label atheist, there is no 'agnostic', or weak atheism, position to it inferred. It's usually an asserted position of dis-belief. The 'weak atheism' that you're referring to, is here usually referred to as simply ''agnostic''. Hence the 'gnosis', here is not really a factor. Theism, as well, here, is really never assumed to be agnostic; Unless the person specifies their agnosticism, any theistic adherence here is generally a 'gnostic' position.
note : gnostic and agnostic, being completely subjective, don't actually tell us anything, besides a description that the person for whatever reason is attaching to the 'theist or 'atheist' label
Last edited:
Agnosticism is very different from weak atheism. It can even be theistic.
Why should we refer to agnosticism when we are discussing atheism? Why change the subject? The subject when we are discussing theism/atheism is BELIEF or absence of BELIEF. Why start talking about gnosticism/agnosticism which is about knowledge not belief and is a different subject?
It tells us that the person knows or doesn't know and the theist label tells us the person knows gods exist and the atheist label tells us the person knows gods don't exist.