Can you truly be atheist?

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Apatheist? Wow..didnt know there was a term for it. Or that someone who would use that title for themselves even care to use it or make it...LOL. I only thought it was an unconscious decision..sheeesh, now I have to re-asses my logic again! Thanks Linwood! (snicker, snicker)

Deut, In the words of the immortal Homer...
"Ummmmmmm....Oreoooooo's"

Might I also mention that Homer disproved God while doing his taxes... and you know its right because Ned Flanders called it "Air tight" before burning the evidence.

Such a tragedy.

 

[Rex]

Well Atheism Denies God(s) Exist
-Narrow is just god(s) of theism doesn't exist
-Broad is no god(s) exist

Agnostic think you don't or can't know God




I think it's the Narrow atheist and agnostic who have more in common.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Rex, does'nt your definition of atheism beg the question? It already states that a god/goddesses exists, and that we deny its existance as if we are rebellious. This is a logical fallacy called "shifting the burdon of proof". The burdon of proof sits squarely on the one making the positive claim.

Atheism means "without theism" or "without belief in gods or goddesses."

your broad and narrow I do believe is classically considered strong and weak, but still atheism none-the-less.

with the true definition of atheism (without theism), doesnt that mean that agnostics (without knowledge, in the same context) are really the same as atheists... because you cannot worship or believe in that which you dont, or cannot know.

Perhaps I am being more logical than human, emotional attachment will allow... but then again, the anthropic arguments are common amongst the godites.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

though I do see where you are getting at with your last oppinion. My wife calls herself agnostic, I call her atheist. She says that "any gods and goddesses are possible, but who cares". I tend to agree with her, and extend it to the point of saying, "why does mankind bother with something so elusive, indirect, and ultimately outside of the logical/human realm."

Anthropomorphism explains this question quite well.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Rex, does'nt your definition of atheism beg the question? It already states that a god/goddesses exists, and that we deny its existance as if we are rebellious. This is a logical fallacy called "shifting the burdon of proof".

No, and since you like to pedantically instruct others on logical fallacies (without much in the way of demonstrated understanding), you might wish to look up "reification". Acknowledging the existence of the concept(s) of God(s) in no way prevents one from taking an atheist position on the actuality of God(s).

The burdon of proof sits squarely on the one making the positive claim.

This is not a Jr. High School debate.

Atheism means "without theism" or "without belief in gods or goddesses."

The meaning of words often transcend their etymology.

... with the true definition of atheism (without theism), ...

Again, the "true definition" of a word is temporal, contextual, and cultural.

..., doesnt that mean that agnostics (without knowledge, in the same context) are really the same as atheists... because you cannot worship or believe in that which you dont, or cannot know.

No, it does not. Again you commit the error of reification (hypostatization). Furthermore, ontology is not the same as epistemology.

Perhaps I am being more logical than human, ...

Trust me, that appears to be the least of your problems.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anthropomorphism explains this question quite well.

Anthropomorphism goes a long way in explaining the rise of the Abrahamic religions; likewise anthropopathism. Both fall short in addressing such systems as Daoism, Pantheism, Panentheism, and most forms of Deism. Both this and the history of religion and mythology suggest the projection followed deduction rather than the other way around. We as a species deduce the need for some force behind the weather much as we infer purpose, and we seek to explain both conundrums with the only material at our disposal.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

This is not a Jr. High School debate.

The fact that you say this about the burdon of proof is quite assinine.

The meaning of words often transcend their etymology. Again, the "true definition" of a word is temporal, contextual, and cultural.

So why not say that you like to re-define words in the middle of a debate...its the same thing.

No, it does not. Again you commit the error of reification (hypostatization). Furthermore, ontology is not the same as epistemology..

I stand my ground. I apparently struck a nerve in you with that last post for you to try to say that I am being illogical on something that logic OBVIOUSLY opposes. Burdon of proof is as basic as the law of identity. The mechanics of these two principles go hand in hand.

Trust me, that appears to be the least of your problems..

Does Deut need a hug? Can Deut give me the solution to my "problems"?

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

without much in the way of demonstrated understanding.

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate YOUR OWN understanding...LOL. WOW Deut, thats some strong talk for a forum. Are you capable of standing up to your own standards? And by the way...Have I crossed you in some way?

Would a double fudge oreo help correct this?

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

We as a species deduce the need for some force behind the weather much as we infer purpose, .

Why must we deduce some "force" behind the weather? Isnt the natural laws of science sufficient enough? And why do you suggest that we must infer purpose to this?

and we seek to explain both conundrums with the only material at our disposal.

Gee Deut.. I didnt know that the weather was a conundrum. But the fact that you say we only have the material at our disposal is a lesson in the obvious for a materialist such as I. But the religious might not agree with you, for their god controls everything in their imaginations.
:banghead3

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

..., doesnt that mean that agnostics (without knowledge, in the same context) are really the same as atheists... because you cannot worship or believe in that which you dont, or cannot know.

Deut says- "No, it does not. Again you commit the error of reification (hypostatization). Furthermore, ontology is not the same as epistemology."
_________________________

So that means, according to your own words, that you CAN worship and believe in something that you absolutely cant or dont know. Watch out...You are in a slippery slope. By argueing that I am wrong, that nobody can worship the unknowable, is ultimately argueing against the senses Deut.

 

[Faust]

Halcyon,

Time is relative.
Energy exists. It can not be created or destroyed.
Energy however doesn't have to be self aware.
Faust.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Halcyon,

Time is relative.
Energy exists. It can not be created or destroyed.
Energy however doesn't have to be self aware.
Faust.

True, true. I deal with energy on a day to day basis...high amounts of energy. If it were sentient, then it would'nt be so boring down in those slimy manholes. I would have 13,200 volts of energized conversation...pun intended.

 

[Geoman076]

Hey there, Halcyon. As an atheist, I will try to explain my thoughts on this.

In science, nothing is ever 100% certain, because we do not know 100% of the possible knowledge of the world. Even something such as gravity is not 100%, (technically), because it is always possible, (although probably unlikely), that some new discovery will change part of that theory, etc. That said, not I, nor anyone else, can be 100% certain of anything.

Are you 100% certain that you "can't be 100% certain of anything"??

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Are you 100% certain that you "can't be 100% certain of anything"??

LOL, good one.

 

[Surface]

The statement "god does not exist" is an assertion.

If one is talking about and omnipotent, omniscient god (Christian) then there is no way in which his existence can be disproved.



To make an assertion that cannot be proved is irrational.



Consequently the rational position regarding the Christian god at least is to say that one doesn't believe in him.



This is still atheism from my point of view.

Cheers,

Surface

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

The statement "god does not exist" is an assertion.

If one is talking about and omnipotent, omniscient god (Christian) then there is no way in which his existence can be disproved.



To make an assertion that cannot be proved is irrational.



Consequently the rational position regarding the Christian god at least is to say that one doesn't believe in him.



This is still atheism from my point of view.

Cheers,

Surface

Ok, The christian say "My God exists"
The atheist says "prove it, for I am without God belief"
christian says "My God exists because (insert random logical fallacy here)"
the Atheist says "Your proof is not logical and you have not presented convincing evidence for your positive claim."
Christian- "Prove god doesnt exist!"
atheist- "Prove a goddess doesnt exist!"

Atheism
A= without
-theism = God/goddess belief.

So , to be an atheist, is to be without belief in dieties.

Its quick and easy just to say that, just like christians say about all of the millions of Gods and Goddesses they dont worship, Gods and Goddesses dont exist in my beliefs.

 

[Godless Dave]

What i mean is, if the three possibilities are;
1. God created the multiverse.
2. The multiverse came into being as a result of the uncertainty principle (i.e. no god) p.s. i think this is right but i'm not an expert on cosmology!
3. The multiverse has always existed.

But those aren't the only three possibilities. With as little as we know now, there are an infinite number of possiblities.

 

[Green Man]

The statement "god does not exist" is an assertion.

If one is talking about and omnipotent, omniscient god (Christian) then there is no way in which his existence can be disproved.



To make an assertion that cannot be proved is irrational.



Consequently the rational position regarding the Christian god at least is to say that one doesn't believe in him.



This is still atheism from my point of view.

Cheers,

Surface

The statement"god does not exist." is a recognition of reality.

Why would I want to argue against the existance of a fairy tale?

The rational position regarding the christian God is to recognize the reality of his nonexistance.

 

[Tawn]

Well let me give my view on the original question..

I consider myself an Atheist and not an agnostic. Yet I do accept the small 0.0001% (or whatever) chance that there could be a 'god' of some form.

Let me explain. The definition of Atheist for me is one who BELIEVES there is no god.
Belief is not a definite. It is not a position of absolute truth or knowing.

For example, if I were to suggest that you were living in a 'Matrix' style world and you were just plugged into a machine, you would not be able to say with 100% certainty that that couldnt be the case. However, if I asked you whether you though this reality we percieve was true you would say 'Yes, I believe it is' and not 'Yes, I know with absolute certainty it is'.

So at the end of the day im an Atheist because I believe there is no God.. consider it to be more like an Agnostic who believes the chances are weighed more in favour of no-god. An agnostic by definition could be 50-50 split.. but thats a completely different position to an Atheist as i have defined would it not?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

An agnostic by definition could be 50-50 split.. but thats a completely different position to an Atheist as i have defined would it not?

That is not Huxley's definition, and he's the one who coined the term. Welcome to the forums.