Do you believe that?
-
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!
Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?
- Thread starter Sheldon
- Start date
And it all depends on the underlying concept. When we humans judge an idea/concept/claim, and we judge it true or false, we are referring to a specific idea. Generally in religious debate we are dealing with a specific concept: god exists. We judge this idea or claim, and how we judge it, whether we judge it true via social pressure or judge it false via reasoning, is how we stand on the proposition.
Rarely do we deal with the idea/concept/claim: god does not exist. How often is this claimed by anyone in a debate? Seldom. It is very rare. But if someone does introduce this idea/concept/claim in a debate then we can judge this specific notion as true or false. Since it is a very specific claim, and proving a negative (which is possible if a specific god concept is being referred to and we can assess it) it is a dead end.
Theists do try to introduce the concept: "God does not exist" into debates where the actual concept is: God exists.
PureX
Veteran Member
By believing that it's wrong, false, or invalid because it's unproven according to what you believe to be the valid criteria for proof.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I find it ironic that the worst traits associated with religious fundamentalism, are exhibited all over this forum by a handful of atheists.
I don't expect you to appreciate how absurd a thing a crusading atheist is, but it's hard to think of a better adjective for such a phenomenon.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Doesn't look like any unicorn I have ever seen a fan (or prospective believer) of unicorns either describe or produce an image for - but okay - that thing existed. What does this prove? That God exists? Hahahaha... oh man. Let me wipe the tear of astounding joy from my eyes.
Also, from the article:
If someone wants to call that a "unicorn" they can go right ahead. I'm not going to stop them. My daughter at age 6, however, would have had an earful for them - let me tell you.The bad news is it looked nothing like the mythical creatures portrayed in so many fairy tales.
Real unicorns -- not so pretty.
It was fatter and furrier, and in reality more rhino than stallion. It did, however, have a huge horn.
Little girls all over America will be wanting one of these now. Do they come in pink, and with glitter?
Altfish
Veteran Member
Why not ...
Strong atheism....I don't believe there are any gods.
Weak atheism....I don't believe gods exist.
Being opinionated?
So are you admitting that fervent Christians are wrong in their beliefs about a God existing?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I agree, and have no problem with those sub categories, and since atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity, it covers both categories, since holding a belief no deity exists would also mean you lacked the belief a deity exists. However if the definition is changed to mean a belief no deity exists, then it clearly excludes the second category of weak atheism, so it is nonsensical to redefine atheism to exclude a large amount of atheists. Even if some theist seem very keen to do this.
PureX
Veteran Member
Both ideologies are fueled by very much the same blinding need to be right, so as to avoid at all cost the possibility of being wrong. The 'self' has become entwined with the ideology, so the ideology must triumph or the self will face a profound internal dissonance. And people will do almost anything to avoid that.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Really - Conservapedia!!
I was an editor there....briefly.
Did a little surgery on entries regarding atheists.
The only thing I don't like about the graphic is that it says "It is not possible to be 100% certain". That is likely meant to be the most extreme of that side, but I think it can be misleading.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Absurd to you. Let's get that straight... to you. Not to me. There is a key distinction to be made there. Mainly that you are not me - your values are not my values - your principles are not my principles.
The reality is, however, that a believer would very likely state that they prize some of the same principles and values that I prize that would (if employed consistently) see them entirely rejecting any and all religious claims just as fervently without hard and fast evidence. In fact, I would imagine they employ those principles regarding many other subjects and avenues of thought and activity throughout the rest of their lives and livelihood. There are probably just a few hold-outs, and religion must necessarily be one of them.
There is, of course, the chance that the believer doesn't value any of the things I do... and if that is the case, then they can be on about their business and when they want to come trying to convince me of the value of their core, they should be prepared with the justifications and evidence that such is what I should be using. That's exactly what I am trying to do here - which I doubt you would ever be willing to recognize or at least not willing to admit that you recognize. In the end, if someone believes in God based on what they have been told by others, or have read in a book of prose and fancy, or have witnessed only as some form of coincidence or symbolism, then that person does not have good justification to be believing that thing. Because the truth is that otherwise, if that crap were valid justification to believe a thing, then they should necessarily be believing ALL things that have only that as their justification. Including ALL other forms of religion that have at least that set of things for justification, and even some works of fiction by authors who didn't even intend anyone to "believe in" them. But they DON'T. And that is exactly why I mentioned consistency. I at least try to have it. "Believers" flaunt their lack of consistency like it is a virtue.
Last edited:
The Constitution protects atheists from not being beheaded by fervent Christians for not being good believers.Huh?
Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others.
An opinion is a belief, surely?
Does everybody who disagrees with you automatically gain the title 'liar'?
Nice.
Or maybe it's burned at the stake.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
1) Being intolerant of the opinions of others.
2) I share the belief that God exists, so no.
I think it is utterly unproductive, ill mannered and foolish, for anyone to impose their beliefs on others; there's only one subset, of one particular belief system, who I see doing that on this forum every day. Which, given that they claim not to even have a belief system in the first place, is pretty damn funny. You, I believe, can probably appreciate that.
Common usage is exactly as I quoted it from the article. I even hightled it in bold, which you appear to have missed. What I quoted from them is its "typical" use, which is as I stated from the outset. That is the most "common use".
The most common use, is a statement of belief about the proposition of the existence of God. Period. If you mean atheism is most commonly spoken of as the philosophical use, it is not.
The strawman argument is yours, not mine. Read the article I linked to.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That's not what he asked, he asked "how is not believing something a belief? You misrepresented his claim as an a prior belief.