atheism is a (religious position)

[shunyadragon]

But you force me to ask the question: if there is such a thing as a charlatan, and what point does one qualify - not every opinion can be construed as a sincere conviction - there's comes a point where nonsense indicts one's sentiments

You essentially force yourself, don't blame anyone else.

Better nonsense, than egocentric claims of wisdom.

“We can know only that we know nothing. And that is the highest degree of human wisdom.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

"The empty tea cup contains the most."
--- Frank Doonan

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you force me to ask the question: if there is such a thing as a charlatan, and what point does one qualify - not every opinion can be construed as a sincere conviction - there's comes a point where nonsense indicts one's sentiments

One test I use: ask how someone benefits from their claim.

If you can't find a way that they benefit (they don't take tithes, there's no book that they're selling, etc.), then this is a sign they're probably sincere.

 

[DNB]

This was difficult to respond to . . . Faith is wasdom is a highly subjective egocentric claim.IF one is wise . . . Who determines the one who is the most efficacious (?) in the room where everyone in the room believes their faith is true and wise wisdom? Each one accuses the others to be wrong and fools. If faith is the standard of wisdom what standard proves the others wrong?

Subjective faiths do not have an objective standard.

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.”
― Confucius




No one had faith in Einstein in school.

“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
― Albert Einstein

Faith is wisdom - Einstein was surrounded by fools, then

 

[DNB]

One test I use: ask how someone benefits from their claim.

If you can't find a way that they benefit (they don't take tithes, there's no book that they're selling, etc.), then this is a sign they're probably sincere.

Yes, I would agree - if they have no vested interest in what they are promoting or soliciting, outside of gratification to see others share in the wealth of their knowledge, then, yes, these are grounds to initially believe that the person is sincere.

 

[shunyadragon]

Faith is wisdom - Einstein was surrounded by fools, then

Apparently you believe everyone in your world is surrounded by fools except those that agree with you and others that consider them wise and your flock of turkeys are fools.

 

[shunyadragon]

Faith is wisdom - Einstein was surrounded by fools, then

When you understand others, it is intelligence,
When you understand yourself, it is true wisdom
He who knows others is wise.
He who knows himself is enlightened.

When truth presents itself, the wise person sees the light, takes it in, and makes adjustments. The fool tries to adjust the truth so he does not have to adjust to it.

The fools judge people from their own narrow perspective, the wise is intellectually placed. He judges people from other's perspectives as well. The greatest sign of being wise is to engage a thought without agreeing to it.

Wise know the process of coming to logic. Fools make judgments.
Wise is full of questions. fools only know to copy them.
A wise person is quick to identify the truth, the manipulative person pretends that he understands the truth and the fool is happy that the truth is a lie.

Fools always settle for lies, they find it soothing to sow its seed, fertilize it and cultivate lies that they can believe.
Fools settle for lies that's why they have a herd mentality. Fools derive pleasure from being fooled believing that they are wise.
Wise people are always leaders with values. Leaders are always alone... Bcoz they think differently, work differently they have a distinct identity which they protect. They are thinkers and are surrounded by thoughts if not people. Surrounded by thoughts they are never alone.

That's why the wise man can always be found alone.
Fools are synonymous with weak in more than one sense, The fools never try to overcome their weakness, that's why they are higher quality fools and are always found in the crowd, with the crowd is of weaker people.

The weak always look for people who are like them, whom they can influence, they keep changing views. They are laggards, they are followers and have a herd mentality. They are part of the crowd and they follow the crowd as well because they cannot create anything of their own.
The wise have an identity, the weak harps on imitating an identity.

Credit - K. Siddhartha.

 

[DNB]

Apparently you believe everyone in your world is surrounded by fools except those that agree with you and others that consider them wise and your flock of turkeys are fools.

Faith is wisdom - past experiences and evidences impart what the future holds - those with perception and insight interpret the signs with accuracy.
Two people watch the same movie, and you may get two entirely different assessments of the characters and plot - they both can't be correct.
An atheist and theist cannot be said to have the same amount of understanding of the world - they are fundamentally diametrically opposed to each other - one of them is an utter fool, obviously.

 

[DNB]

When you understand others, it is intelligence,
When you understand yourself, it is true wisdom
He who knows others is wise.
He who knows himself is enlightened.

When truth presents itself, the wise person sees the light, takes it in, and makes adjustments. The fool tries to adjust the truth so he does not have to adjust to it.

The fools judge people from their own narrow perspective, the wise is intellectually placed. He judges people from other's perspectives as well. The greatest sign of being wise is to engage a thought without agreeing to it.

Wise know the process of coming to logic. Fools make judgments.
Wise is full of questions. fools only know to copy them.
A wise person is quick to identify the truth, the manipulative person pretends that he understands the truth and the fool is happy that the truth is a lie.

Fools always settle for lies, they find it soothing to sow its seed, fertilize it and cultivate lies that they can believe.
Fools settle for lies that's why they have a herd mentality. Fools derive pleasure from being fooled believing that they are wise.
Wise people are always leaders with values. Leaders are always alone... Bcoz they think differently, work differently they have a distinct identity which they protect. They are thinkers and are surrounded by thoughts if not people. Surrounded by thoughts they are never alone.

That's why the wise man can always be found alone.
Fools are synonymous with weak in more than one sense, The fools never try to overcome their weakness, that's why they are higher quality fools and are always found in the crowd, with the crowd is of weaker people.

The weak always look for people who are like them, whom they can influence, they keep changing views. They are laggards, they are followers and have a herd mentality. They are part of the crowd and they follow the crowd as well because they cannot create anything of their own.
The wise have an identity, the weak harps on imitating an identity.

Credit - K. Siddhartha.

That's not what we are talking about - it's about being firm on your convictions. Faith compels you to make assertions, otherwise all your wisdom is worthless if you can't act upon it with full confidence.
i.e. if I can't tell you whether there's a God or not, what's right and what's wrong absolutely, what's beneficial and what's not, what to denounce and what to promote, etc...

 

[shunyadragon]

That's not what we are talking about - it's about being firm on your convictions. Faith compels you to make assertions, otherwise all your wisdom is worthless if you can't act upon it with full confidence.

It has been very clear what you have been talking about.

considering human nature and belief all the believers in the many different conflicting beliefs are firm and devoted in their beliefs, and fully confident including atheists and agnostics. Yes, there are non-believers and believers that are not firm in their beliefs, but that is the nature of being human. None of the above demonstrates anything significant in who would be considered wase or not. The believers of of many different consider them selves wise and true to their beliefs.

It remains that your in your egocentric view others who believe differently are fools

i.e. if I can't tell you whether there's a God or not, what's right and what's wrong absolutely, what's beneficial and what's not, what to denounce and what to promote, etc...

Objectively you cannot tell whether there is a God or not, or which God is the true God, You believe God exists and your God is the One true God, and those who do not believe as you do are fools.

All religions and cultures have moral standards of what is right or wrong whether they e in your God or not. Some, like Buddhists have higher standards of compassion and understanding toward those who believe differently. See K. Siddhartha post #886..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not what we are talking about - it's about being firm on your convictions. Faith compels you to make assertions, otherwise all your wisdom is worthless if you can't act upon it with full confidence.
i.e. if I can't tell you whether there's a God or not, what's right and what's wrong absolutely, what's beneficial and what's not, what to denounce and what to promote, etc...

It sounds like you just conceded that wisdom and logic alone isn't enough to lead a person to God. Is that what you meant to do?

 

[shunyadragon]

Faith is wisdom - past experiences and evidences impart what the future holds - those with perception and insight interpret the signs with accuracy.
Two people watch the same movie, and you may get two entirely different assessments of the characters and plot - they both can't be correct.

Objectively they both can be wrong as far as their subjective view of the"opinion" of the movie.

An atheist and theist cannot be said to have the same amount of understanding of the world,

Actually as far as an understanding of the science of the physical nature of the world the atheist is more likely more correct. As far as the many diverse conflicting religious beliefs no one has an independent objective standard which is true only the belief..

- they are fundamentally diametrically opposed to each other - one of them is an utter fool, obviously.

Actually considering there is no independent objective standard all are fools.

 

[Starise]

I can say for sure atheism is a position with a belief. Those beliefs are not hinged solidly, same as many other religions.

I don't see cookie cutter atheists. I see individuals who adopted the view for several potential reasons.

A. I don't want a religious nutter on my back so I come at them with this to get rid of them.

B. They are logically convinced their position is as solid and valid as any other or more solid than others.

C. Deep down they really believe in something or that there is a possibility there is something, but are not convinced enough of it to even admit it. These would be closet agnostics.

D. They had some kind of a bad experience with religious people or a religious organization, so they harbor a lot of hate and resentment towards the entire group. Atheism is a great way to vent and have plenty of support for it.

E. They are not the least bit interested in anything religious at all except for this life and have no real interest in pursuing an interest lol. " I really don't care" would be an apt description here.They care about nothing and they believe in nothing. That probably doesn't fit anyone here because you wouldn't care enough to be here.

F. Much like some households are of a certain belief system, there are families of atheists. This is the way they were raised. This is what mom believes. This is what I believe.

I believe we can confirm atheism is a belief system which requires what some would call faith, but could also be described as a group of beliefs which can be seen as a systematic way of logic, and like some religions who don't identify a god, such as zen buddhism and new age, they don't have a deity, but really they do because to rely on their conclusions they make themselves a deity. They evolved according to them and have no need of morals, even though they have them to some extent and can't exactly identify where they came from unless the answer is evolution. The answer for everything is evolution.

Logic stops at anything metaphysical, therefore invalidating it in their minds. Isn't that a belief that can't be established, if only for them?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can say for sure atheism is a position with a belief. Those beliefs are not hinged solidly, same as many other religions.

And what position would that be?

I don't see cookie cutter atheists. I see individuals who adopted the view for several potential reasons.

Yep. The only thing atheists share in common is lack of belief in god(s). That's it.

A. I don't want a religious nutter on my back so I come at them with this to get rid of them.

Come at them with what?

B. They are logically convinced their position is as solid and valid as any other or more solid than others.

Again, what position?

C. Deep down they really believe in something or that there is a possibility there is something, but are not convinced enough of it to even admit it. These would be closet agnostics.

Atheists lack belief in god. A/theism speaks to belief.
Agnostics don't know if it's possible that a god exists or whether it can be detected. A\gnostism speaks to knowledge.
By the way, there are agnostic theists. I myself am an agnostic atheist.

D. They had some kind of a bad experience with religious people or a religious organization, so they harbor a lot of hate and resentment towards the entire group. Atheism is a great way to vent and have plenty of support for it.

We get this one all the time from religious-minded folks who seem to be taught this in a lot of their churches.

E. They are not the least bit interested in anything religious at all except for this life and have no real interest in pursuing an interest lol. " I really don't care" would be an apt description here.They care about nothing and they believe in nothing. That probably doesn't fit anyone here because you wouldn't care enough to be here.

Atheists believe (and don't believe) in lots of things. We're all different.
The only thing we all share in common is a lack of belief in god(s).

F. Much like some households are of a certain belief system, there are families of atheists. This is the way they were raised. This is what mom believes. This is what I believe.

I grew up in a household of Christians. Surrounded everywhere by friends and family who are Christian. I am an atheist.

I believe we can confirm atheism is a belief system which requires what some would call faith, but could also be described as a group of beliefs which can be seen as a systematic way of logic, and like some religions who don't identify a god, such as zen buddhism and new age, they don't have a deity, but really they do because to rely on their conclusions they make themselves a deity.

There is no belief system to atheism. It's just a lack of belief in god(s).

There is no faith required in rejecting a claim that is not supported by good evidence.

They evolved according to them and have no need of morals, even though they have them to some extent and can't exactly identify where they came from unless the answer is evolution. The answer for everything is evolution.

Huh? Not sure where you came up with this. My system of morality is based in humanism. I do actually care about morality, as do many atheists I know. We just don't ground it in subjective authoritative opinions of unprovable god(s).

Also, you're making a common error that a lot of religious folks often make in conflating evolution with atheism.

Logic stops at anything metaphysical, therefore invalidating it in their minds. Isn't that a belief that can't be established, if only for them?

Show me the metaphysical exists and I'll consider it. So will any atheist (or any person) who cares in believing as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible.
Until then, you're just making stuff up.

 

[shunyadragon]

And what position would that be?

That no Gods exist,

Yep. The only thing atheists share in common is lack of belief in god(s). That's it.

That's the position.

Again, what position?

That no Gods exist.

Atheists lack belief in god. A/theism speaks to belief.
Agnostics don't know if it's possible that a god exists or whether it can be detected. A\gnostism speaks to knowledge.
By the way, there are agnostic theists. I myself am an agnostic atheist.

We get this one all the time from religious-minded folks who seem to be taught this in a lot of their churches.

Atheists believe (and don't believe) in lots of things. We're all different.
The only thing we all share in common is a lack of belief in god(s).

True, this is a belief Gods do not exist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That no Gods exist,

That's the position.

That no Gods exist.

True, this is a belief Gods do not exist.

Lacking belief in god is not the same as claiming that there is no god(s).

 

[viole]

True, this is a belief Gods do not exist.

Is the belief that no Gods exists (my position) the same as lacking belief that God exists (held by a possibly bigger set of atheists)?

In other words, is no belief in X, the same as belief in non-X? or is it weaker?

I think the two claims are equivalent, and I think the former is a sort of the average atheist’s cop-out to dodge the burden of proof, but I am really not sure. At any rate, that can only be addressed by logic.

ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That no Gods exist,

That's the position.

That no Gods exist.

True, this is a belief Gods do not exist.

Exactly how do you think someone could take a position on the many gods they've never even heard of?

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly how do you think someone could take a position on the many gods they've never even heard of?

Simply that no Gods of any brand, kind or variety exist regardless of whether they have ever heard of them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is the belief that no Gods exists (my position) the same as lacking belief that God exists (held by a possibly bigger set of atheists)?

I believe there is no difference between the belief "no Gods exist" and "lacking the belief that Gods exist." Two sides of the same coin.

In other words, is no belief in X, the same as belief in non-X? or is it weaker?

Actually both are subjective claims without evidence.

I think the two claims are equivalent, and I think the former is a sort of the average atheist’s cop-out to dodge the burden of proof, but I am really not sure. At any rate, that can only be addressed by logic. including the existence of Xs

I go not believe ether is a copout as such. Logically the burden of proof resides with those that argue for the existence of one or more Gods.

There is and interesting belief in some religions that spiritual realms of some sort exist beyond the physical, but they believe not Gods or gods exist. Traditional atheists essentially believe nothing exists beyond our physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Lacking belief in god is not the same as claiming that there is no god(s).

I believe it is the same by definition of standard English. Splitting frog hairs does not help unless you are defining lack of belief as some sort of apathetic indifference or agnostic view.