Threads about Atheism and what it is.

[Desert Snake]

We are talking here about verses John 20:19-29
I believe everyone interprets this verse wrong. When you read all these verses very careful and when you can read between the lines you see a complete different meaning of this verse. Which makes sense for a "true Christian" as well as a "true Buddhist" IMHO.

I don't know what you're inferring, here, but I'm not a 'real christian'.

 

[stvdv]

13 jun 2018 stvdv 011 08

I don't know what you're inferring, here, but I'm not a 'real christian'.

But you are a diciple of Jesus. That feels even much better to me. Although "real christian" for me means a diciple of Jesus.
What was your interpretation of this verse? Sofar I heard only this "The best believers are those who have not seen, yet believe".
This makes no sense to me, especially not in this context. Does it makes sense to you?

 

[Desert Snake]

But you are a diciple of Jesus. That feels even much better to me. Although "real christian" for me means a diciple of Jesus.
What was your interpretation of this verse? Sofar I heard only this "The best believers are those who have not seen, yet believe".
This makes no sense to me, especially not in this context. Does it makes sense to you?

Makes sense to me, yes.

 

[stvdv]

13 jun 2018 stvdv 011 09
In this context it sounded strange to me. At least what I understood reading this is that other disciples saw Jesus first and Jesus showed them His wounds. Then after some time they told Thomas about this and Thomas said "I only believe it if I also see His wounds".

So basically that was the same criteria as the others. They all saw the wounds.

And in the end is said "Blessed is he who does not see, yet believes". It seemed here that Jesus compared the group, who also saw to Thomas who has seen. That did not make much sense to me. If all saw the same, why mention this in this moment. Unless it was a prediction to the future of course.

 

[Desert Snake]

In this context it sounded strange to me. At least what I understood reading this is that other disciples saw Jesus first and Jesus showed them His wounds. Then after some time they told Thomas about this and Thomas said "I only believe it if I also see His wounds".

So basically that was the same criteria as the others. They all saw the wounds.

And in the end is said "Blessed is he who does not see, yet believes". It seemed here that Jesus compared the group, who also saw to Thomas who has seen. That did not make much sense to me. If all saw the same, why mention this in this moment. Unless it was a prediction to the future of course.

Hmm yes, I believe that that statement may just be a separate statement.

 

[Willamena]

examples of abusing not having something?

Is abstinence a sex position?

Yes, abstinence is a view on sex (presuming you didn't mean a sexual position).

The main example that comes to mind is the idea that people can somehow "fail" to have the belief in god that others so obviously have, to which I invariably have to reply that no particular belief is a requirement of being.

 

[Ponder This]

They say there is no evidence for god or gods, which is absolutely true and the atheist position.

Sorry if following the evidence upsets your debate

Either there is evidence to support a claim or there is no evidence to support a claim. What is your claim?

 

[ChristineM]

Either there is evidence to support a claim or there is no evidence to support a claim. What is your claim?

That's was pretty obviously in my post, ill repeat it

They say there is no evidence for god or gods,

 

[Ponder This]

That's was pretty obviously in my post, ill repeat it

They say there is no evidence for god or gods,

The problem is that the claim 'There is no evidence for god or gods' is not opposed to the claim 'God(s) exist'. Therefore, you have not engaged in a proper debate.

The opposing claim to 'God(s) exist' is 'God(s) do not exist'.
The opposing claim to 'There is no evidence for god or gods' is 'There is evidence for god or gods'.

Making opposing claims is the basis of proper debate.
Making non-opposing claims is just talking past each other.

 

[ChristineM]

The problem is that the claim 'There is no evidence for god or gods' is not opposed to the claim 'God(s) exist'. Therefore, you have not engaged in a proper debate.

The opposing claim to 'God(s) exist' is 'God(s) do not exist'.
The opposing claim to 'There is no evidence for god or gods' is 'There is evidence for god or gods'.

Making opposing claims is the basis of proper debate.
Making non-opposing claims is just talking past each other.

The claim is relevant to atheism. And i asked relevant to the title of the thread

Seems you a are the one making the opposing claims in trying to tell atheists that they think of atheism in religious termes because you cannot comprehend any alternative

 

[Ponder This]

The claim is relevant to atheism. And i asked relevant to the title of the thread

Are you suggesting that 'atheism' is 'the disbelief or lack of belief in evidence for a god or gods'?
I think you may be confused. Atheism is 'disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods'.
The relevant claim is 'God(s) do not exist'.

Seems you a are the one making the opposing claims in trying to tell atheists that they think of atheism in religious termes because you cannot comprehend any alternative

When people engage in a proper debate, they make opposing claims.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'thinking of atheism in religious terms'?
What are the 'alternatives'? World view? Science? Belief System? Mental disorder?

 

[Cacotopia]

Yes, abstinence is a view on sex (presuming you didn't mean a sexual position).

The main example that comes to mind is the idea that people can somehow "fail" to have the belief in god that others so obviously have, to which I invariably have to reply that no particular belief is a requirement of being.

I meant as a sex position, which it isn't, like off being a tv channel.

 

[ChristineM]

Are you suggesting that 'atheism' is 'the disbelief or lack of belief in evidence for a god or gods'?
I think you may be confused. Atheism is 'disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods'.
The relevant claim is 'God(s) do not exist'.



When people engage in a proper debate, they make opposing claims.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'thinking of atheism in religious terms'?
What are the 'alternatives'? World view? Science? Belief System? Mental disorder?

No, you are skewing my statement to your own intellect


I was asking a question based on fact using normal english words, it was not that difficult to understand if you refuse to answer (your prerogative) or continually try to twist the question to suite your sensibilities i think we are are done here

 

[Ponder This]

I was asking a question based on fact using normal english words, it was not that difficult to understand

The claim is relevant to atheism. And i asked relevant to the title of the thread

Seems you a are the one making the opposing claims in trying to tell atheists that they think of atheism in religious termes because you cannot comprehend any alternative

I'm sorry. I don't understand. Perhaps your post was incomplete or your question is from another post I didn't see.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm sorry. I don't understand. Perhaps your post was incomplete or your question is from another post I didn't see.

Ok lets break it down

I said "They say there is no evidence for god or gods, which is absolutely true and the atheist position."

You said "Either there is evidence to support a claim or there is no evidence to support a claim. What is your claim?"

I said "That's was pretty obviously in my post, ill repeat it - They say there is no evidence for god or gods"

You said "The problem is that the claim 'There is no evidence for god or gods' is not opposed to the claim 'God(s) exist'. Therefore, you have not engaged in a proper debate."

I said "The claim is relevant to atheism. And i asked relevant to the title of the thread"

Etc... Ect.. Back and forth, back and fort with you trying to manipulate what i stated so it jells your mindset.

I will repeat my original statement again. Its what i said and what i meant. It is not meant as a definition, it is meant, as stated, the atheist position.

Quote "They say there is no evidence for god or gods, which is absolutely true and the atheist position."

If you disagree , where is the evidernce?


And please don't try putting the blame on me because no wont accept my statement

 

[`mud]

It all goes back to proving a negative, doesn't it ?
How does one prove an absence ?
How does one prove a belief ?
NuffStuff

 

[England my lionheart]

It is a bad sign that in general atheists are easily annoyed.

If they do it's probably because they are told atheism is everything other than what it is.

 

[dfnj]

Why, why can't you people just read the dictionary before asking questions that only expose your ignorance of a subject.

Atheism is not a belief system, Atheism is a position on belief, the lack of belief in a deity.

Atheism is not a world view, although atheists hold world views that are similar, atheism is still just a position of lack of belief.

Is atheism a science?

wut?

Atheism claims there are no gods,

wrong again, anti theism claims this, and those that identify as Anti theist are also classified as Atheists. Which I can remotely see how it might be confusing.

Atheism is a position on belief or the lack of beliefs.

How can so many people get it wrong so consistently.

just a quick search negates the need of all of these arguments/

My theory why theists cannot accept the atheist's version of the definition is this: Some theists belief in God is so fragile anyone not believing in God is a threat to collapsing their own belief in God.

 

[dfnj]

The definition of atheist changed, from not having a god, greek, to not believing in a god or gods.
C.
The fault lies directly with atheists who changed the meaning into a nonsensical inference, that assumes that god belief, isn't inherent, thereby making your own definition problematic, because it makes the atheist position, one of belief.

Based on 500 years of science proving silly superstitions false, some atheists interpolate that therefore in all likelihood God does not exist. You have to admit Nature is absolutely relentless is abiding by the laws of physics.

But most atheists with half a brain know you can't prove a negative. I can't prove God doesn't exist because at some point in the future there may be irrefutable evidence. Most atheists claim all atheism is is a lack of belief in God.

What is really nonsensical is the way theists claim not having something IS something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That doesn't make them atheists.

And the people reporting themselves as some sort of Christian on the census probably don't all believe in God.