I see no value in atheism

[dgirl1986]

Agnostics and gnostics....there's a complementary opposite concept for all beliefs....

The Cosmos is the indivisible one absolute existence...all that exists...

Why should agnostics and gnostics been classed seperately when they are related to atheism and theism. Not everything comes in pairs.

SO the cosmos is life?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why should agnostics and gnostics been classed seperately when they are related to atheism and theism. Not everything comes in pairs.

SO the cosmos is life?

Yes...every thing comes in pairs with just one exception....gnostic means knowing...agnostic means not knowing....all beliefs come in pairs....name something that doesn't?

Yes, the cosmos as I use the concept is everything.....infinite...eternal...

 

[ArtieE]

Because how could you or anyone in existence claim disbelief in a concept prior to learning the concept even existed...it's plain nuts?

Because disbelief means "no belief" and to have no belief in something doesn't require you to even know that that something exists. Is it necessary for an isolated amazonian tribesman to know what a car is in order to not have one? He's managed to not have a car all his life and that even without knowing what a car is. How many things has he managed to not have, how many different beliefs has he managed to not have but other people have without knowing they existed?

 

[ArtieE]

Agnostics and gnostics....there's a complementary opposite concept for all beliefs....

To believe there are gods (theist) and to believe there are no gods (strong atheist) are opposites. They believe the opposite. To not believe anything about gods, to neither believe they exist nor believe they don't exist describes a "weak atheist".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because disbelief means "no belief" and to have no belief in something doesn't require you to even know that that something exists.

Is it necessary for an isolated amazonian tribesman to know what a car is in order to not have one? He's managed to not have a car all his life and that even without knowing what a car is. How many things has he managed to not have, how many different beliefs has he managed to not have but other people have without knowing they existed?

You can't be serious?

You actually know of the concept of god.....you have heard of it, read about it, etc., and decided to believe it was not true...you disbelieve..yes?

Forget about amazonian tribesman....your example is nonsense..nay..insane,,,let's get it from the horse's mouth...give me an example of a disbelief you have of something that you do not know exists?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

To believe there are gods (theist) and to believe there are no gods (strong atheist) are opposites. They believe the opposite. To not believe anything about gods, to neither believe they exist nor believe they don't exist describes a "weak atheist".

So?

 

[Bunyip]

To believe there are gods (theist) and to believe there are no gods (strong atheist) are opposites. They believe the opposite. To not believe anything about gods, to neither believe they exist nor believe they don't exist describes a "weak atheist".

I don't understand the phrase - 'to neither believe they exist or nor believe they don't exist'. Surely that is just two ways of wording the same thing? What is the difference?

You can't be serious?

You actually know of the concept of god.....you have heard of it, read about it, etc., and decided to believe it was not true...you disbelieve..yes?

Forget about amazonian tribesman....your example is nonsense..nay..insane,,,let's get it from the horse's mouth...give me an example of a disbelief you have of something that you do not know exists?

Unicorns?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Unicorns?

Yes...but he knows the concept of Unicorns exists...it has to be a concept that has never entered his mind...

 

[ArtieE]

You actually know of the concept of god.....you have heard of it, read about it, etc., and decided to believe it was not true...you disbelieve..yes?

I have neither decided to believe that god exists (theist), nor have I decided to believe that god does not exist. (Strong atheist). That makes me an atheist (weak atheist.)

 

[Bunyip]

Yes...but he knows the concept of Unicorns exists...it has to be a concept that has never entered his mind...

Oh ok. So 'God's I am not aware of."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have neither decided to believe that god exists (theist), nor have I decided to believe that god does not exist. (Strong atheist). That makes me an atheist (weak atheist.)

That's fine...my point stands though...one can only disbelieve or believe in the concept of something after they have come across it, not before...

 

[ArtieE]

I don't understand the phrase - 'to neither believe they exist or nor believe they don't exist'. Surely that is just two ways of wording the same thing? What is the difference?

The phrase is "to neither believe they exist nor believe they don't exist." The difference is that if you do not believe something you do not automatically believe the opposite. If I say I don't believe that soccer team will win the match it doesn't automatically mean that I believe the other team will win. I might believe it'll be a draw, I might not have made up my mind which team will win and so forth.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh ok. So 'God's I am not aware of."

My head is beginning to hurt...

 

[Bunyip]

The phrase is "to neither believe they exist nor believe they don't exist." The difference is that if you do not believe something you do not automatically believe the opposite. If I say I don't believe that soccer team will win the match it doesn't automatically mean that I believe the other team will win. I might believe it'll be a draw, I might not have made up my mind which team will win and so forth.

But it does mean that the other soccer team will win - if you don't believe team 'A' will win, you therefore believe team 'B' will win. Unless they draw - but it does mean that you are favouring one team.

What is the difference to you?

What is the difference between not believing god exists and believing god doesn't exist? (In practice)

 

[ArtieE]

But it does mean that the other soccer team will win - if you don't believe team 'A' will win, you therefore believe team 'B' will win.

No I don't. I haven't said anything about that. I might believe neither team 'A' nor team 'B' will win. I might believe in a draw. Or I might not have any positive beliefs who will win at all.

What is the difference between not believing god exists and believing god doesn't exist? (In practice)

"Not believing god exists" makes me a weak atheist (not theist) without a belief. "Believing god doesn't exist" makes me a strong atheist with a belief.

 

[paarsurrey]

When babies are born, I don't think we would even refer to them as atheists.

I agree that by nature one is theist.

Like one believes in one's parents very naturally from birth to start with, later the latent concepts could evolve, grow and become stronger as one's knowledge and experience increase with one's journey into maturity.

Core of every revealed religion is same and in origin they are from the same One-True-God.
In that sense every person born in any part of the world or belonging to whatever ethnicity/language is a theist naturally.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree that by nature one is theist.

As you saw from the link I provided, A reason to believe, belief in the supernatural and gods simply evolved because the beliefs gave a survival advantage, not because Poseidon and Zeus actually exists. Here's the evolutionary tree of myth and religion. Here's an Awesome Map of the Evolution of Religions

 

[leibowde84]

The question makes no sense. Something true is known.

You've essentially asked how can something true be true. What is is.

"Something true is known" is an illogical assertion. What about all of the things that are "true" that certain people don't "know". There are certainly many people who do not "know" many of the "truths" in our world.

 

[leibowde84]

I can't answer it any differently than I already have.

You haven't answered anything. You erroneously equated "truth" with "knowledge", which doesn't make any sense.

"knowledge" = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

"truth" = the quality or state of being true.

• that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
  noun: the truth
• a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
  plural noun: truths
  
  So, again, my question is how can "truth" be the same as "knowledge" when "truths" are the subject of "knowledge", which is attained. In other words, "knowledge" is the attainment of "truths". "Truths" are what are "known" through the process of attaining "knowledge". So, logically, they cannot be the same and are not interchangeable.

 

[leibowde84]

Heaven's sake... No one is hijacking anything, it's just a semantical discussion. The term strong atheist fits my beliefs, and I've just been explaining how. If you feel the very definition of the term is threatened by that, that's your problem.

My argument is that "atheist" surely is not the same as "strong atheist", as "strong atheist" (deducted using simple linguistics) is a subcategory of atheist. According to your definition, "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" could not both be considered as subcategories.