You can say both. You technically just said both.
I see the first as contradictory and am more than willing to debate it.
Again, you just said both.
Same as above.
-
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!
Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
You can say both. You technically just said both.
I see the first as contradictory and am more than willing to debate it.
Again, you just said both.
Same as above.
Nor did I say that. But some of you (atheists) might say that. It is not a representation of atheism, but might be what the atheist thinks.
But that's not atheism. And some of you aren't saying this.
And if there is evidence (arguably there is), you can still maintain position of atheism, thus atheism is regardless of any evidence (to the contrary).
Not for atheism. For an atheist, that may be a tangential concern.
So, if you want to discuss this tangent, fine. I observe lots of evidence for gods, and pretty sure atheists understand this, but reject certain implications, hence the debate.
It can change right now. Even if there was, in your mind, abundance of evidence, atheism would still be a viable position.
Perhaps if you're still in the kindergarten version of philosophy.
Science clearly rests on faith as well.
I Have Faith that you'll understand that you are wrong
Good luck!
I'd really like to parse the words "doesn't accept the idea" and what that actually means. For if atheism allows atheists to discuss gods, then do they cease to be engaged in atheism? For they are observably accepting the idea that gods may exist. I.E. - atheist wishes to discuss if gods exists, how come He/they doesn't heal amputees? And then proceeds to discuss a whole lot of ideas about what god can/should do or can't do, based on their understanding/definition for what god 'must be.' (Along with their understanding of god(s) capabilities). Truly seems like many atheists have (lots of) ideas about gods. And aren't in consistent mode of non acceptance of plausible existence.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
As to what is the evidence that there is no God..
I Don't think there can be one
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
So it is you who mixed it up..
The atheist is not convinced there is a god..
Agnostic doesn't know...
two different things entirely
And again, Absence of believe is not knowing there is not...
Yet again.. the key word here is BELIEVE
I Never met an atheist that told me he believes there is no God..
[/QUOTE]
Agnostic theist: Doesn't know if gods exist but believes one or more do.
For me it was clear...
Please read the things you wrote and see if my statement was true or not..
Lets put it again:
The Atheist doesn't know if God exists! (That's obviuosly true as if an atheist knew god existed he wasn't an Atheist)
UNLIKE AGNOSTIC, The atheist doesn't BELIEVE that there is a God based on the current evidence (Or lack of them)
Cheers
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Yep... So technically I can also say A brown Cat is green...
Technically I can Theists are convinced there is no God
And i can technically say I am a very smart dumb man...
but when we talk, there is more than technicality.. when I say you can't say something (And I guess you knew it but just wanted to play with the concept a bit) it means that it has no meaning or is something that cannot be interpreted as a valid statement.
"Brown cats are Green" : Valid, Contradiction, False
"Theists are convinced God doesn't exist: Valid, False
"I Am a very smart dumb man": Invalid, Contradiction, Error
You just said all these things, observably.
I was being technical, but you were being vague.
The "I don't know anything" is IMO, as meaningful as "I know I don't know anything." Again, not going to shy away from that discussion. Not sure how pertinent it is to this thread, but I'm not interested in hashing it out here, as I would be in a thread that is focused on that tangent.
As a poet, artist, creative type, all the other things are ideas I'd certainly want to play around with, and manifest into some sort of expression to provide a way to understand how they are valid in a creative way. Philosophically, I'd really want to take to task what precisely is making them show up as not valid. I recognize they likely are (not valid), but doesn't suffice for me to assume they are and not explore it. Kinda like your "insufficient evidence" thing. I want to research them more. Or even research them again after initially researching them (as I kinda have previously).
Given what I wrote in post #207, the shortened version of that is "I am sometimes an atheistic theist." And yes, that makes sense to me.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
I have never heard an atheist claiming there is no God!
I Heard they say They don't believe there is a God
They don't find any evidence to the existence of God
And the probability of there being a God is very very very very small due to the way our universe works.
Anything other that that, is not an Atheist, rather someone who claims to know things he can't really know (Hmmm, Kinda reminds me of theism
)The fact there was a dude named Jesus is not a proof of God.
EVEN if Jesus really resurrect, this does not prove a God!
Even if Afterlife was a true thing, This doesn't prove a God!
Even if there are things beyond our understanding this does not prove a God!
What do you mean? So there is an evidence but only some people can see it? weird...
Well.. I Have an evidence that dragons are real, Unfortunately, only those who believe in dragons can see the evidence
Give me one please?
Indeed it can, yet it haven't yet...
Your wrong. If there was an evidence, I Could change my position!
If i had evidence that the earth is flat... a true undeniable evidence, I Would probably think it is so!
same goes for anything I consider to be true in life!
Really, wow... Is there a right and wrong in philosophy?
Is one philosopher better than the other?
Is there a philosophy that is a true statement without doubt?
Can someone with no philosophy degree or understanding have a philosophic theory?
If you answer Yes to any of this questions, I think you really miss the idea of what philosophy is.
Give my one example of a scientific fact that is based on faith, please.
Working on it
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
I Agree, Everyone is an Atheist about something.. with no exception whatsoever.
I lack a belief that you have never heard this from an atheist.
Which I take as a matter of faith, fundamentally. Might be followed up with reasoning that may or may not pertain to actual atheism (probably doesn't).
But that's not atheism.
Debatable, but clearly not atheism saying this.
You're off on the tangent. I'm saying atheism has zero to do with evidence. For atheists that may be a tangential point, but is not what atheism is about.
For some people, money is their god. If you observe money anywhere, you are observing some people's god.
But atheism doesn't have to do with evidence.
Show me the definition of atheism that includes the word evidence. Go ahead and start a thread on it. I'll be interested in how other (alleged) atheists respond to that definition.
The earth is observably flat. And it is in fact round. It can be both.
Not what I was getting at, but arguably they all are. At the fundamental level the axioms that make for scientific inquiry (and subsequent methodologies) rest on faith that physical world exists. Understanding how that exists rests on circular reasoning.
What you don't apparently agree with, though I don't expect you to (yet), is that everyone is a theist about something (and arguably all the time).
The definition of an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in gods. You would have to ask him to find out what he thinks he knows about gods. The definition of an agnostic is a person who doesn't know if gods exist. Of course he can believe whatever he wants in addition to being an agnostic.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
Maybe, but I reckon he was more a mystic, because he decided it would be good
for his creation to consist of atheists and agnostics too.
Augustus
…
It is a proper noun, not a description. You know who it refers to. Thus it is not misleading.
Whether or not a proper noun is literally true when treated as a description doesn't matter. Man utd are referred to as the Red Devils, but they are not literally devils. Nobody pretends they don't understand what the phrase means because they are not literally red devils.
In a previous discussion I showed you examples of New Atheists, including Sam Harris, using the term themselves. IIRC you were claiming it was a pejorative term invented by theists, when it was simply a label coined by an atheist journalist.
It is pointless pedantry to pretend you don't understand what it means.
I don't believe you. It seems you are being purposely obtuse. In previous discussions you managed to respond accordingly which suggests you do understand. Not to mention Quintessence has already explained it.
Dawkins, Harris et al have a clear ideology: Outwardly anti-theistic, humanistic scientism.
It is abusing language to claim that a proper noun must be a literally perfect description.
That's like saying is the name Luis 'truthful'.
It's a proper noun that is supposed to identify the group/ideology that you are referring to. In my experience it functions perfectly acceptably in this regard.
Wrong. I truly do not. There were four specific names, but they are hardly any significantly different from any other atheists.
Quite wrong.
Your problem.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Indeed I don't...
I am not a Theist about anything.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
So lets look at an example:
If someone comes to me and tells me he can do 100 push-ups on one hand, does that mean that I KNOW he can't?
No.. It just means I don't think he can...
If he will make 95 push-ups on one hand, than I Will probably think is probable he can do 100 push-ups also.
If I Don't believe something, It doesn't mean i Know it is false!
Not everyone even has a conception of deity.
For this claim to make sense, you would have to begin by defining what you mean by "theism". And in so doing you will unavoidably clash with other people's definitions.
Particularly noteworthy is that for it to be true on top of having a clear meaning you would also need to widen the definiton of theism to a ludicrous, actually unworkable level.
It's precisely the same evidence as for the claim that there is an adult African elephant in my living room.