• 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!

I see no value in atheism

Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
ImmortalFlame said:
"Theism" isn't "God exists", theism is "the belief that God exists". So, to withhold theism means "to withhold belief in God".


My weaseling days are way behind me, ever since I got that career-ending injury from Worsel McWeasel in '98, and I ain't never going back without a dramatic weaseling montage.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
ImmortalFlame said:
"Theism" isn't "God exists", theism is "the belief that God exists". So, to withhold theism means "to withhold belief in God".


My weaseling days are way behind me, ever since I got that career-ending injury from Worsel McWeasel in '98, and I ain't never going back without a dramatic weaseling montage.
Click to expand...
So how does a person incapable of belief withhold belief?
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Willamena said:
Three things are necessary for a thing to be reasonably addressed in thought and speech: first, for it to be acknowledged in its identity; second, for it, in its identity, to be acknowledged as the thing and not as something else (at the same time and in the same respect); and lastly for it "to be or not to be," and there is no question about that.

So, how can the thing that we have no knowledge of, no reason to suspect exists, be acknowledged? Existence "is or is not" (true or false) only for things that we know. Things we cannot know can have no truth value.
Click to expand...
Why is "acknowledgment" a requirement. The definition only requires a "lack of belief". There is no requirement for acknowledgement of the idea of God. That is not necessary to "lack" something. The guy on the island "lacks" a washing machine to wash his clothes in even if he isn't aware of it.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
ben d said:
Good...provide a dictionary definition of 'atheist' and we will see....

...and btw...the slight you feel is perhaps due to the cognitive dissonance I suspect is present in a theist who is is as proactive an any proactive atheist....I would still like to see some evidence of your devoted God belief on a religious thread...I'm waiting....
Click to expand...
The slight I feel is due to disrespect/rudeness on your part. You seem to have an obvious bias against atheists .... not "atheism", per say, but atheists.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
ben d said:
No...it's just that you were on my case that I mistook you, a theist, for an atheist and I took you for your word and apologized.. Now I would just like to see some evidence...is that a problem?

...and don't forget the dictionary definition?
Click to expand...
I provided the dictionary definition before you posted this. Look at the comment before yours with the link from Oxford English Dictionary.

I'm perplexed as to why you think that "commenting on a religious forum" from a theistic perspective would be necessary to "prove" my theism. Can you explain why this is necessary for theists? And, do you mean other forums, or on this forum?
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
ben d said:
Precisely...correct me if you think I'm wrong, but the prefix 'a' of atheist, means 'not' yes?

Not what? Not theism yes? The concept of the word atheism is precise in its meaning...not theism.

It does not mean not religion, for some religions like Taoism and Buddhism do not have gods...they non theistic.. Therefore atheism does not mean not belief in non theistic religions...

Now furthermore...to lack a belief in God does not mean an absence of belief, for if there were a real absence in belief, the person would not know what God was in the first place in order to reject the belief in God... In reality, a person must be cognizant of the concept of God to be able to reject it....and it then becomes a belief on the part of an atheist to hold to that rejection. That is what a belief is,,,the holding to a mental memory of a position... Atheists believe that God does not exist...matching precisely the Oxford dictionary definition.. People who do not know of the concept of God on the other hand, unlike atheists, have a real and total absence of a belief in God and therefore equally have a real and total absence of belief in the rejection of belief in God...they can never logically or honestly be ever classified as atheists...

All atheists have a belief about God not existing...simple reality..
Click to expand...
This idea is actually being discussed with another poster. I still have not been provided any evidence supporting this further requirement of "knowing what God is" in order to merely "lack a belief". The definition only requires the absence of belief. That is what the word "lack" means. Any other requirement is simply being added into the definition to strengthen your argument, but it simply isn't true. Why do you think that the word "lack" requires acknowledgment of an idea? Does a man on an island not lack a TV if he doesn't know what a TV is? Of course he does, because he simply doesn't have a TV. That is all that the definition requires.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Willamena said:
The belief, for him, can have no truth value, but I wouldn't call that a "lack." Lack implies that he needs some belief.
Click to expand...
The term "lack" merely means "to be without". "Lack" simply means "the state of being without". Remember, "lack" is not used here with a negative connotation (which would be absurd unless the Oxford English Dictionary was taking a stance against atheism).
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
The slight I feel is due to disrespect/rudeness on your part. You seem to have an obvious bias against atheists .... not "atheism", per say, but atheists.
Click to expand...
Hey...this is life...evolution in space and time...i learn, you learn, from the challenges we face and adapt to, the cosmos is always at peace at the macro level because we keep resolving the differences through the various means available.at the micro level. There will never be peace at this level....we can do our best to be honest and say what we mean and mean what we say according to the moment...people are not equal...some say with an agenda...some just speak without an agenda...which are you....rhetorical to be sure,,,but seriously too...?.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Typist said:
I'm not a theist, and apologize for any frustrations I may have expressed. But, um, I'm guessing some more frustration outbursts are coming...



I was hoping to discuss the nature of the meaning that is sought by those engaging this debate, and posted on that in reply to you earlier.



As I said earlier, theists generally understand faith is involved on all sides of the debate, whereas atheists generally don't.



So the atheists here agree they are operating from faith? Is that what you mean?



Yes, literally thousands of years of this inquiry have not generated an answer to these issues. This raises the question of whether it is rational to continue pursuing such a process, when there is so little evidence it is going anywhere. Forum atheists are always going on about evidence, but this is one piece of crucial evidence that they are eager to ignore. Apparently you are too?



I apologize for my impatience, which is my problem, but honestly, all the definitional dancing which dominates threads like this is so incredibly tiresome and unproductive.

What would be productive would be to try to understand the fundamental human needs which religion is trying to address, and then look for additional ways to meet those needs.



Yes, atheism IS a belief, a belief is required. This is the simplest thing, but it has to be endlessly explained, again and again and again and again. Atheism does not pop in to one's mind from nowhere. Why is that so incredibly difficult for members to grasp???? All these discussions get permanently stalled on such simple issues which a child of 12 could understand.

Seriously all, you really should ask yourself if you have any business discussing these topics at all. Perhaps sports would be a better choice? Politics perhaps?



No, no, no and no. Strong atheism is not another story, it's just an exaggerated version of mild atheism. That's it, no other difference.

All atheism (except that of those who've never heard of god) depends entirely on the UNPROVEN FAITH BASED BELIEF that human reason is qualified to consider questions about the ultimate nature of everything.

Again, no amount of definitional dancing around the room and doing the logic hokey pokey changes this a bit. All of that is just wasted typing, nothing more.
Click to expand...
1. I meant what I said. No other atheists have made the claim on this thread thus far. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

2. Just because we have not gotten to an answer thus far, doesn't mean that one is not attainable. I enjoy discussing this topic, and I do improve my understanding by doing so. One thing is for sure, we won't get anywhere if we just drop it. Giving up is not an option for me.

3. This is an entirely semantic argument. If you find it "tiresome", ignore it. You are under no obligation to participate. But, being disrespectful by trying to bully those that are interested in discussing it is childish.

4. Atheism, in its most general form, merely requires an absence of the belief that God exists. That is the subject of this debate and my argument. I provided the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary to substantiate my claim. If you have another definition that contradicts the one found from Oxford, please provide it with a link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top