Me Myself
Back to my username
This thread has surprisingly become a meaningful discussion
Who would have thought?
-
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!
Why do Atheists exist?
- Thread starter TheReligionofFour
- Start date
This thread has surprisingly become a meaningful discussion
Who would have thought?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Ah, so you understand what I was saying. Good.Ignoring the nature of our own existence is the amazing fallacy
This thread has surprisingly become a meaningful discussion
Who would have thought?
Chocolate was a great discovery!!
shawn001
Well-Known Member
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I see what your saying, but that wasn't my statement.
"If a baby was brought up on a desert Island by chimps without any humans, what religion would that person be?"
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
What religion are the chimps?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Why not?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
" No baby is born believing in the miraculous conception of Jesus, that Muhammad is a prophet or that Joseph Smith was chosen by God to spread Mormonism. Rather children are taught to believe religious doctrines, or adults freely choose them later in life. But even for those who identify as believing Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religion they are still atheists in respect to other Gods. In fact some of the very first people to be called atheists were Christians. They were dubbed so by the Roman authorities for denying the state Gods. Socrates was also branded an atheist for denying the various Greek Gods, even though he still believed in God. Therefore, Christians are atheists when it comes to Zeus, Thor and Dionysus. Atheists simply deny one more God than Christians do."
“We’re All Born Atheists”: A Religious Person Defends Non-Belief « SpeakEasy
“We’re All Born Atheists”: A Religious Person Defends Non-Belief « SpeakEasy
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'd have to meet them before I could give you any meaningful answer.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Photonic
Ad astra!
Such a human-centric view of intelligence.
HUMAN intelligence can be measured possibly in such a way (though love has literally nothing to do with it).
shawn001
Well-Known Member
The true religion surely.
Cause he´ll be dead already
"The true religion surely."
LOL
Everyone's personal religion is "The true religion surely."
Which one would that be?
"Cause he´ll be dead already"
Why is that?
McBell
Unbound
An Atheistic Christian Buddhist with hints of Islamic and Nature Worship.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I get the facetiousness.
But of course it wouldn't be "Christian, Buddhist or Islamic."
Its quite likely "humans" started all religions off with "Nature Worship"
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I'm sure this has been answered several times by now, but I'll answer again.
No. We can disprove claims about God, like whether prayer works or whether certain miracles happen, and that sort of thing. Technically the existence of some kind of vague god-concept that doesn't have any measurable effect whatsoever on the universe could possibly exist and can't be disproved, but then since it doesn't have any effect, it's not really worth considering anyway.
And yes, acknowledging that we can't know whether or not some god exists with certainty would make us agnostics. Not believing a god exists would make us atheists. Hence someone like me is an agnostic atheist.
McBell
Unbound
I just figured if you were going to make stuff up that there is no honest way to answer, then you were not expecting an honest answer.
I get the facetiousness.
But of course it wouldn't be "Christian, Buddhist or Islamic."
Its quite likely "humans" started all religions off with "Nature Worship"
So following your lead, i just made one up.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
That's what I said.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I know why you are saying that, but not everyone agrees with that scale or puts themselves in the pigeon holes subscribed. If you assume they are intellectually honest, then that must mean there is something wrong with the scale or the definitions.
According to your definitions Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, but Dawkin's wouldn't agree with you since he doesn't see himself as agnostic at all.
In fact he says " I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"
You can see this clearer if you look at the scale and definitions he uses:
Dawkins's formulation
Richard Dawkins
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1", no thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher, he suggested he might be '6.9'[3].
- Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
- De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
- Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
- Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
- Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
- De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
- Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
The Dawkins stuff isn't very relevant. The point is "agnostic" has a more useful meaning than "not sure whether God exists". That's one that has become popular, and it's the one Dawkins is using in his quote, but it's not the originally intended one, and it's not the more accurate or better one. The proper definition is "one who submits that we can't know for sure whether or not a god exists". The best and most accurate definition of "atheist" is "one who does not hold the belief 'God exists'". Therefore one can be an agnostic atheist by saying "I don't believe God exists, but it's impossible to prove one way or the other".