Atheist Activism

[Fool]

This is a good description of the value of belief. Science also employs a similar methodology. One poster here suggested that you might be equivocating atheism with something else...in this case you might be trying to pick a fight with science via atheism. Atheists like to keep these things separate because they are. But like twins they seem to always be around together.

it obviously works from a conscious and sometimes unconscious perspecttive

 

[LuisDantas]

.....and neither is 'theism proper.' The problem here is the fallacy of composition, and though both sides commit it, atheists seem to be more wedded to it. In fact, both sides commit the same brand.

Theists, when some atheistic group does something VERY 'religious like killing people because they are religious, or trying to pass laws prohibiting religious rights and freedoms, attack ALL atheists, not acknowledging that while some atheistic groups may be anti-theist, not ALL are.

Atheistic groups which may be guilty of attempting to limit religious rights, when getting reamed for doing something horrific, claim that since the whole class 'atheism' means only 'non belief in deity,' then ALL atheists have ONLY that property. That is, if 'atheism' is innocent of wrong doing (since it's only property is non-belief) then all atheists are equally innocent of pushing their non-beliefs upon others.

As for me, if it walks like a duck, etc., it's a duck. An atheistic group that does exactly the sort of thing that they claim only religions do (that is, attempt to force their opinions regarding deity upon others by law or means more coercive than talking) that group, to me, is just as 'religious' as any hide bound Puritan 'put 'em in the stocks for being late to meeting" group ever found.

Quack.

I beg to differ.

Theism is a positive assertion, and clearly one capable of creating motivation.

 

[sealchan]

Religion involves belief in a story about something supernatural or supermundane. Science by definition does not.

So this whole atheism is a belief system appears to me to be a failure of communication and a desire to make atheism always about science. This is an attempt to pick a more personal fight with atheists.

The problem with believers who do this is that they are desecrating the sacredness of their beliefs by trying to make them proofs. They are trying to literalize and concretize, that is, reduce Gods Word to that of humanities words. It goes against the very idea of faith to do this.

It's as if a believer is thinking, "well if I can't beat science maybe I will treat my belief system metaphorically, as if it were science and over-extend the metaphor to suit my need to argue. But to do so requires taking the holy right out of the spirit ...

 

[ecco]

yet atheist continue to use belief to support their non-belief.

I refer you back to my post #72 in which I posted a definition of the word "belief".

You do understand that beliefs can be based on facts, don't you?


I believe airplanes can fly.
I believe man landed on the moon.
I believe you posted on this forum.

 

[Fool]

I refer you back to my post #72 in which I posted a definition of the word "belief".

You do understand that beliefs can be based on facts, don't you?


I believe airplanes can fly.
I believe man landed on the moon.
I believe you posted on this forum.

you're using the word believe in reference to indirect knowledge. i don't have a problem with that. i have a problem with atheists claiming they don't have a belief system when qualifying things. like i don't believe in murdering someone, or i do believe in murdering someone. murdering, not murdering, someone is an action from belief. after someone has murdered someone and believing they did is indirect knowledge from fact and not direct experience.

morals are based on personal beliefs. cultures are based on beliefs. that they exist is a fact; if they currently do. that they must exist is a belief.

 

[dianaiad]

I beg to differ.

Theism is a positive assertion, and clearly one capable of creating motivation.

So is atheism, depending upon how one words the definition.

 

[sealchan]

science works with what it doesn't know all the time by speculating. it doesn't drop belief from the process. it works with it by questioning it, not ignoring what it doesn't know but making a best guess even if it might be wrong.

better to believe and question it than not believe and ignore what you don't understand all along. you can't question what you refuse to ignore.

out of sight, out of mind?


the problem with some theist is that they don't question their beliefs. the problem with some atheists is that keep claiming they have no beliefs to question.

atheists aren't all knowing

A belief in God, however, is not necessary in science...or at least in formulating scientific theories about nature.

If behind your argument you are wanting to make room for the Biblical narrative, then you are going to need to put the historicity and literality of that narrative up to scientific scrutiny.

The big problem there is that historicity of the Bible is not being shown in archeology and comparison to other contemporary documents. Even a literary analysis of the gospels speaks against their historicity and first person claims.

Where faith and science meet is in the realm of psychology. There reproducibility is much more difficult and analytical practice techniques reach far out beyond experimental verification.

It is far more likely that science will corner the market on how the Universe was created...it is far more likely that the wisdom of faith will corner the market on human meaning and choice.

Atheism can be simply a lack of a belief just as you may lack a belief in the divinity of Krishna. But atheists still have their ways, as do we all, for making meaning and personal choices in their lives. Are you ready to take the leap of faith required to understand this and give a little of your literality up so that you can see the many faces of faith and belief?

 

[Fool]

I beg to differ.

Theism is a positive assertion, and clearly one capable of creating motivation.

negative or positive the numbers are real

and a belief system is based upon one's behavior towards other's as self and other's behaviors towards self whether they are gods, humans, animals, plants, et al.

 

[Fool]

A belief in God, however, is not necessary in science...or at least in formulating scientific theories about nature.

If behind your argument you are wanting to make room for the Biblical narrative, then you are going to need to put the historicity and literality of that narrative up to scientific scrutiny.

The big problem there is that historicity of the Bible is not being shown in archeology and comparison to other contemporary documents. Even a literary analysis of the gospels speaks against their historicity and first person claims.

Where faith and science meet is in the realm of psychology. There reproducibility is much more difficult and analytical practice techniques reach far out beyond experimental verification.

It is far more likely that science will corner the market on how the Universe was created...it is far more likely that the wisdom of faith will corner the market on human meaning and choice.

Atheism can be simply a lack of a belief just as you may lack a belief in the divinity of Krishna. But atheists still have their ways, as do we all, for making meaning and personal choices in their lives. Are you ready to take the leap of faith required to understand this and give a little of your literality up so that you can see the many faces of faith and belief?

a belief system is based on relationships to other and behavior of self, that other doesn't have to be a god.

negative beliefs are still beliefs. quantifying one thing doesn't deny the quantity of the rest

 

[LuisDantas]

negative or positive the numbers are real

Which numbers?

 

[LuisDantas]

So is atheism, depending upon how one words the definition.

Sure, but that implies losing track of what it means.

 

[sealchan]

a belief system is based on relationships to other and behavior of self, that other doesn't have to be a god.

negative beliefs are still beliefs. quantifying one thing doesn't deny the quantity of the rest

There is a big difference between being against something, for example, believing against abortion and choosing not to believe, for example, choosing not to have children. The one who chooses understands that others choose to have kids but their life won't involve that particular choice.


Can you acknowledge this?

 

[ecco]

From you link...
So to clear things up, here are 17 kinds of atheism,

1. Difference in Knowledge
A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods.
2. Difference in Affirmation
A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist
He then goes on to describe how different people use or act on their belief system.
For example...
5. Difference in Openness
A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.
An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.
So to clear things up, here are NOT 17 kinds of atheism,

I don't understand why you posted that link. What was your purpose? Did you not see that his conclusion about "17 kinds of atheism" is completely bogus? Did you actually read and understand the contents of the article?

so you're arguing the no true scotsman fallacy?

you obviously ignored the hindu atheists and the christian. obviously atheism isn't just about god, or gods. in those instances it was the persons relationship to others and self.

You posted a link to an article. You did not make any statement, in your own words, what the linked article was about. Nevertheless, I went to your link. I read your article. I showed that the article was bogus. Instead of actually responding to my comments, you tried to brush them off with "so you're arguing the no true scotsman fallacy?"

Then you want to criticize me for not following other blind links you posted.

This is nothing new. You do what many people do. You post a link and expect other people to go there and try to figure out why you posted it and what it contains.
Then you ignore their responses.
Then you complain when they don't do it over and over and over.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Three forms of atheism in hinduism:

1.Buddhism
2. Jainism
3. Carvaka


Christian Atheism


Atheism isn't a cut and dry belief system.

Types of atheism

What atheists do outside of the lack of belief in deities is not a part of atheism.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Atheism isn't nothing.

What would you classify your non-belief in Leprechauns as? Is it a belief system?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

so you're arguing the no true scotsman fallacy?

you obviously ignored the hindu atheists and the christian. obviously atheism isn't just about god, or gods. in those instances it was the persons relationship to others and self.

If atheists golf, is golf a form of atheism?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

you're implying atheist don't have mores that they follow? mores are cultural. they are personal choices in relationship to others that were chosen based on belief of what is qualitative to the person, culture.

Atheists have hobbies, but no one thinks collecting stamps is a form of atheism. Atheists have children, but no one thinks having children is atheism. Atheists have jobs, but no one thinks earning a salary is atheism. Just because an atheist does something does not make that something atheistic.

 

[ecco]

you're using the word believe in reference to indirect knowledge.

Previously I stated:

You do understand that beliefs can be based on facts, don't you?
I believe airplanes can fly.
I believe man landed on the moon.
I believe you posted on this forum.
​

How you can read that and reply that I'm using the word "believe" in reference to indirect knowledge?

I have direct knowledge of the fact that airplanes can fly. I've been on them. In the air.

 

[Fool]

this thread has nothing to do with god, or gods.

 

[Fool]

Previously I stated:

You do understand that beliefs can be based on facts, don't you?
I believe airplanes can fly.
I believe man landed on the moon.
I believe you posted on this forum.
​

How you can read that and reply that I'm using the word "believe" in reference to indirect knowledge?

I have direct knowledge of the fact that airplanes can fly. I've been on them. In the air.

good, but a belief is also what you don't know either directly, or indirectly.

knowing something directly dispels belief