I see no value in atheism

[JoStories]

That is still stuff of the world, my kingdom is not of this world....

Ok. But most of us live in this world. The one our corporeal body exists in. I am not sure how one can live and not be at least a part of that on some level, even if trying to acheive enlightenment.

 

[Shad]

But you deceive yourself....."atheists believe that gods do not exist"....and ..'atheists don't believe in gods"....amounts to the same thing!

No, one is a positive claim and one is a rejection of a claim. One can set a parameter in order to distinguish the difference by adding "I reject the claim(s) that god(s) exist due to X, Y, and Z reason. As opposed to "I do not believe God exists due to X, Y and Z reasons". The former is the null hypothesis or lack of convincing evidence which is valid and sound. The later is only valid but not sound since evidence would be required for it to be sound.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I was mostly referring to the rest of the post. But I would think that there is far more to religion than forgiveness.

If you have caught up on where we are at...non-duality....then all illusions, even the sense of being separate from the apparent other is dissolved...forgiveness is effortless when one is one with the oneness.... The means to an end is not different from the end...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you have caught up on where we are at...non-duality....then all illusions, even the sense of being separate from the apparent other is dissolved...forgiveness is effortless when one is one with the oneness.... The means to an end is not different from the end...

That atheists were self absorbed amoral beings.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok. But most of us live in this world. The one our corporeal body exists in. I am not sure how one can live and not be at least a part of that on some level, even if trying to acheive enlightenment.

Understood....but if you discover the underlying unity of all existence...then the time has come to decide where your future lies...the temporal or the eternal. Don't worry....every soul makes it eventually....be in the world, but not of it...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, one is a positive claim and one is a rejection of a claim. One can set a parameter in order to distinguish the difference by adding "I reject the claim(s) that god(s) exist due to X, Y, and Z reason. As opposed to "I do not believe God exists due to X, Y and Z reasons". The former is the null hypothesis or lack of convincing evidence which is valid and sound. The later is only valid but not sound since evidence would be required for it to be sound.

.... err....I stand by..."atheists believe that gods do not exist"....and ..'atheists don't believe in gods"....amounts to the same thing!
Look...."I believe that mermaids do not exist"...means that....'I don't believe in mermaids'...in either case I say what I mean and mean what I say...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That atheists were self absorbed amoral beings.

Context please..what has that to do with forgiveness?

 

[JoStories]

Understood....but if you discover the underlying unity of all existence...then the time has come to decide where your future lies...the temporal or the eternal. Don't worry....every soul makes it eventually....be in the world, but not of it...

While I appreciate your advice, I have been following Buddhist principles for years now and have been through several lifetimes, and no, I wont try to prove that or entertain anyone's derision of my belief. Please don't presume to know where I am on this journey.

 

[JoStories]

.... err....I stand by..."atheists believe that gods do not exist"....and ..'atheists don't believe in gods"....amounts to the same thing!
Look...."I believe that mermaids do not exist"...means that....'I don't believe in mermaids'...in either case I say what I mean and mean what I say...

I don't agree. Atheists don't have a belief about God or gods. They simply have no belief either way.

 

[Shad]

.... err....I stand by..."atheists believe that gods do not exist"....and ..'atheists don't believe in gods"....amounts to the same thing!
Look...."I believe that mermaids do not exist"...means that....'I don't believe in mermaids'...in either case I say what I mean and mean what I say...

There is a difference between the null hypothesis and a positive claim. A claim as accept is not the default position. Every single idea is based on this position first as the first principle of falsification.The null hypothesis is the starting point of every claim until proven otherwise. It is an opposition hypothesis until the positive hypothesis falsifies the null. X drugs cure Y disease (claim). X drug does not cure Y (null). If the claim provides evidence the null is unsound thus the null is falsified. Likewise one can use the null against a positive claim that god(s) do not exist which can be falsified if there is evidence for god(s). You are focused on simple language communication without looking at how the positions can difference when applied in technical argumentation.

What you intend to mean by a statement does not mean I am obligated to use your intended meaning for my statements. Hence why I provided clarification to the meaning of my statements and positions.

You stand by simplistic thinking while apparently refusing to engage in an dialogue which falsifies your oversimplification of statements. When others present the reasoning for a difference you default back to your statement as if no one had said anything.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

While I appreciate your advice, I have been following Buddhist principles for years now and have been through several lifetimes, and no, I wont try to prove that or entertain anyone's derision of my belief. Please don't presume to know where I am on this journey.

Fine...no derision intended...each soul goes through the evolutionary process...God bless...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't agree. Atheists don't have a belief about God or gods. They simply have no belief either way.

Iow, atheists believe they don't have a belief about gods, and simply believe they have no belief either way... got it!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is a difference between the null hypothesis and a positive claim. A claim as accept is not the default position. Every single idea is based on this position first as the first principle of falsification.The null hypothesis is the starting point of every claim until proven otherwise. It is an opposition hypothesis until the positive hypothesis falsifies the null. X drugs cure Y disease (claim). X drug does not cure Y (null). If the claim provides evidence the null is unsound thus the null is falsified. Likewise one can use the null against a positive claim that god(s) do not exist which can be falsified if there is evidence for god(s). You are focused on simple language communication without looking at how the positions can difference when applied in technical argumentation.

You stand by simplistic thinking while apparently refusing to engage in an dialogue which falsifies your oversimplification of statements. When other present the reasoning for a difference you default back to your statement as if no one had said anything.

Hey...I'm about the real on the other side of concepts...this requires a developed intuitive faculty of mind...an evolutionary leap from the conceptual mind that you are coming from... I actually say what I mean, and mean what I say...I am not trying to win a debate...I am explaining that conceptualization will never ever bring about true understanding....

 

[Shad]

Hey...I'm about the real on the other side of concepts...this requires a developed intuitive faculty of mind...an evolutionary leap from the conceptual mind that you are coming from... I actually say what I mean, and mean what I say...I am not trying to win a debate...I am explaining that conceptualization will never ever bring about true understanding....

I agree in part. In the sense that a developed concept does not mean the concept is true, or a true reflection of reality. However this has nothing to do with imposing your definition or intended meaning on to statements others make. This would be in fact a strawman. Hence why I provide clarification my statements and the reason behind each. So while you may conflate two statements as the same, I do not. Hence pointing out your strawman and your apparent inability to understand statements others make outside your narrow scope which only applies to you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I agree in part. In the sense that a developed concept does not mean the concept is true, or a true reflection of reality. However this has nothing to do with imposing your definition or intended meaning on to statements others make. This would be in fact a strawman. Hence why I provide clarification my statements and the reason behind each. So while you may conflate two statements as the same, I do not. Hence pointing out your strawman and your apparent inability to understand statements others make outside your narrow scope which only applies to you.

It is not a strawman...the strawman is about complicating the concept of an atheist as meaning someone who believes in implicit-explicit-strong-weak-agnostic-atheist.blah blah blah....so that they (atheists) can try and evade the fact that they can not disbelieve in a god that is inconceivable...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Context please..what has that to do with forgiveness?

Nothing. You started the post that I had originally quoted was

It has been said that atheists are self-absorbed amoral, elitists who, rather than truly believing that there is no God, are actually mad at Him for not intervening in some past event in their life or the lives of others. Think about it...why would anyone rant incessantly on a religious forum for years, about God not existing, if they really truly believed that God did not exist...it would be a no brainer... I mean how often is it that rats are seen swimming towards a sinking ship...never....it's the other way round....and I know that most RF members of religious faith know this....and are literally exhausted turning their cheeks to the rants of the more traumatized atheists here on RF who feel God has not lived up to their expectations...that's what religion is about...forgiveness....

I said "its been said. But its rarely true"

 

[Shad]

It is not a strawman...the strawman is about complicating the concept of an atheist as meaning someone who believes in implicit-explicit-strong-weak-agnostic-atheist.blah blah blah....so that they (atheists) can try and evade the fact that they can not disbelieve in a god that is inconceivable...

Which is exactly a strawman since you only use your definition for others statements. You refuse to understand the difference thus continue in your strawman. Again look up the null hypothesis and apply this to any other claim, it is valid until falsified. Until the claim has falsified the null, the null still stands. Null is not a positive claim, it is the very first principle of falsification for all claims. This is the difference between strong atheism and weak, a point you refuse to understand. Either you are of incapable of doing so or unwilling to do so.

lecture3

People have put forward a supposedly conceivable god, it is this claim being addressed. You confuse disbelief with rejection of a fact.

Not believing in unicorn can be done via the null position as claims for unicorn's existence has not falsified the default position that unicorns do not exist.

I hate using Youtube but I will so you can get a picture of what I am talking about. Falsification has been the standard for decade in both philosophy and science. Atheism is just not a one off only one reasoning position. You do not seem to understand this. However this is not really my problem but solely on your inability in understand what people are telling you.

 

[Looncall]

Still playing mind games on yourself...silly...in this case...it is not atheism, nor is theism, it's both....its cognitive dissonance....

A clearer way to express what I suppose was meant would be: "So far, I am unconvinced that god(s) exist. So, for now, I will proceed on the basis that they don't. If I come across a good reason to believe in god(s), I will change my mind".

This is different from a firm conviction that there are no gods.

 

[ArtieE]

You're quoting a self-described "agnosticism/atheism expert" who's only credentials seems to be an undeclared and ambiguous MA. (at least, I wasn't able to find out what his credentials are other than that he has an MA in something or other). From what I can tell, he's just another minor media personality riding the current wave of anti-religious popularity.

I posted these earlier: I see no value in atheism | Page 6 | ReligiousForums.com

I see no value in atheism | Page 6 | ReligiousForums.com

I would call these more reliable sources.

Your sources don't differentiate between weak atheists and strong atheists. Only wikipedia saying "Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." has the correct definition of "atheism". The rest define "strong atheism".

Why should we care what he said?

Because it shows how far back the idea of implicit atheism goes.

 

[ArtieE]

Not sure he knows the difference between implicit and explicit atheism either.

But is not Person 1: agnostic?

He would have been if he had said "I don't know if gods exist." But he only talks about what he believes.