-
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!
Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?
- Thread starter Patrick66
- Start date
quantum entanglement device?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your definition of atheism is incorrect. it is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism is usually a from of atheism. If we do not know the default position is a lack of belief if one is reasoning rationally.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Am I?
Not what I am talking about.
No. Do the words subtle and nuanced mean anything?
I don't think I have ever said a rock is spiritual, per se. Albeit the whole of creation is an expression of the Divine itself, so in that sense it does manifest God. Surely, you've read the Bible where it speaks of the rocks crying out, no? Not sure about you, but that sounds like Jesus recognized the Divine in everything. "Consider the lilies of the field, for they neither toil nor spin, yet not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like any one of these". And you call me silly for simply hearing what Jesus himself saw in nature?
That's what this "convoluted nonsense" is about. And by the way, that certainly is not all I can talk about. But since you seem far less interested in understanding as opposed to simply being right in your own mind and others full of nonsense, as you call my words, you wouldn't understand the deeper principles when you call the basic simpler principles, those "lilies of the field", convoluted nonsense.
No it's no incorrect. Babies are not atheists.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They don't believe in a god. That would make them atheists.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Well I personally consider it foolish to allow logic and reason to become the bars of a cage behind which we imprison intuition and imagination.
But that wasn’t the point; the post I was responding to did claim that atheists are immune to emotional thinking, and somehow above talking nonsense; a nonsensical statement if ever I heard one.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you are still misinterpreting that post. Context matters.
Well, there are no demonstable facts for any religious belief. But critical thinkers tend to be atheists (non-theists) and they do follow facts to make judgments and draw valid conclusions. Religious claims are made but not defended with evidence or valid arguments.
Arguably all of us are agnostic when it comes to religious concepts since there are no facts to guide us to valid conclusions. Non of us know. Atheists and agnostics are essentially non-theists no matter thje way they ponder religious concepts. And let's not ignore that theists don't believe in all other concepts, esvecially those that conflict. What makes a Catholic confident in thir belief but ignore or reject Islam or Hinduism? The hostility against atheists doesn't suggest there is unity among all other believers.
But there aren't facts to form a valid conclusion that no gods exist. All a critical thinker can do it listen to the claims, and the claims of evidence, and not be impressed, therefore remain a non-theist. Jurors being selected for a trial need to be open and unbiased, and that means they need to hear the evidence without some prior belief about guilt or innocence. The same applies to how critial thinkers approach any religious claim. Not being a theist is a natural and unbiased position.
Could it be you are biased? What facts do theists offer for anyone to analyze?
What makes you think critical thiunkers aren't open minded?
And why wouldn't a thinker approach claims neutral, as a non-believer? It is the evidence that llows someone to conclude it is true or likely true. And you didn't explain how it's faith.
But what if the idea is false, and you already believe before you've been presented evidence, or realize there isn;t any? See the dilemma? That's why you don't start out as a believer, and the default is non-belief. Are you open to being wrong, and then reverseing yourself?
Explain what "true spiritual faith" is and how it differs from blind belief. How do you end up using this and coming to consclusions that critical thinkers don't find valid? Show us the reliability that is superior to reason.
Kids will adopt most anything, and that is because they don't have cognitive development capable of reasoning, and of course don't have reasoning skill.No, that's just indoctrination of ideas, or "education" if you will. But like anything, young minds just accept what is taught them then in elementary schools. 3rd graders generally don't do the work of researchers.
In what way does any religion teach anything related to critical thinking?
What biases? There's a claim, where is the evidence? Could it be your bias at work here?
Well I can't wait to see you expose all the flaws in how critical thinkers think. Be sure to not rely on your beliefs and assumptions when doing this, but only facts. And remember to be open to the possibility it is you that is mistaken, right?
Again you are being shallow and biased. Do you really think critical thinkers don't have intuition, nor have imaginations?
Critical thinkers have the skill to avoid the trap of assuming what is imagined is true when it isn't.
How would you know if you have bias against critical thinking?
Critical thinking is a tool, and it is used when necessary. Non-theists are as human as anyone else.
Atheist means non-theist. Babies aren't theists. They are taught to become theists, well before they are capable of quetioning the ideas.
I don't recognize a single one of those as "fact." In fact, all you can do is say they are facts, but you will not be able to show one iota of evidence for any of them -- while I can show plenty of evidence contradicting each and every one of them. "Facts" should be made of sterner stuff than that.
If you want to try that argument, consider it with respect to fairies, hippogryphs, centaurs, flying horses and push-me-pull-yous. I suspect that you are not, by default, "agnostic" about any of those. And why not? Because even though you have encountered the terms before, nothing in life has ever suggested to you that such things might exist. Therefore, you are not agnostic about them, you dismiss them as unworthy of your even bothering to wonder what each might be like, should you encounter one.
I am not agnostic about gods because, even though I've heard the word endlessly (including with a capital "C" to give pretence to personhood), I have seen exactly as much reason to suspect their existence as I have for that list above. And more to the point, I have seen a lot of evidence that the gods (or God) that have been described to me patently do NOT exist, because the world as I encounter it contains far too many contradictions to make that hypothesis tenable.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
This is indeed a fact-claim, although for it to be considered a fact it would have to be demonstrated to be true through logical argumentation. Facts are true descriptive statements.
This is a value-claim, which is distinct from a fact because it is an evaluative statement rather than a descriptive statement. This means it's closer to an opinion than a fact, although it might be relative to some particular standard. It's not the same type of statement that facts are.
This is a normative statement, which is also a distinct type of statement from a fact.
Another value-claim, so not a fact.
This is another fact-claim, like the first statement, it would also have to be demonstrated to be true to be considered a fact.
I'm not sure if you mean this in this sense that he is literally a ruler or if you mean that he "rules" in the sense that he's... jive or hip or whatever the kids call it these days. I'm going to say that this one is ambiguously worded because of that. If it's the former, it's a fact-claim, but if it's the latter, then it's a value-claim.
So out of your 6 supposed facts, only 2 of them clearly qualify as fact-claims, which is at least a 67% error rate before we even account for whether these two statements can be classified as true or not.
I think it makes sense for you to call fact-claims that you believe are true "facts." I think it's worth pointing out that the truth of these statements is controversial and subject to debate, but as long as you can make arguments to support them, that's what this section of the forum is for.
I thought someone should tell you that you seem to be misusing the word "fact," and that's regardless of whether your statements are true or not. Personally, outside of "man is wicked," I think every single statement you made in this post is false, so I don't think you listed a single fact, but it's of a greater concern to me that you seem to not even know what a fact is.
They are born without belief in gods, therefore they are by definition... Atheist.
Only later in their life are some of them indoctrinated
So are cats then, so are trees, by such a bizarre and meaningless sweeping definition of atheism. "Atheism is everything else that is not theism", in other words. The whole of creation is Atheist, except for theists then. Right?
It's just game playing with words and makes the meaning of atheism, meaningless. And atheists complain when people say everything is God, and then say why not just call that nature then? Yet, they are fine in claiming babies and cats and dogs and cows and trees are atheists? It's so absurd it doesn't merit serious consideration.
So then cows are atheists too? I'm pretty sure they lack beliefs too.
Sounds about right.
Can you demonstrate that babied are born with and accept knowledge of god?