Why reject atheism?

[Faithofchristian]

atheism and science don't agree on much!

So if your right, but yet Atheist will argue to the point, saying you have to have scientific evidence to back up your claim.

But now your showing that Atheists. Can not agree with the scientific world.
If it doesn't fit into their Agenda.
Now that's amazing.

So in other words, it's not what the scientific world has to say, but what Atheists has to say.
So to come down to it, That Atheists are saying, they know more than the scientific world knows with all their Technology knows.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So if your right, but yet Atheist will argue to the point, saying you have to have scientific evidence to back up your claim.

But now your showing that Atheists. Can not agree with the scientific world.
If it doesn't fit into their Agenda.
Now that's amazing.

So in other words, it's not what the scientific world has to say, but what Atheists has to say.
So to come down to it, That Atheists are saying, they know more than the scientific world knows with all their Technology knows.

Well, scientific evidence can be a very subjective term

[science] "such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain

 

[siti]

People who are not Catholics are not necessarily rejecting Catholicism at all.

So someone who rejects "non-Catholicism" (e.g. someone who - for example, accepted the virgin birth, transubstantiation, the trinity etc.) would necessarily be a Catholic? That's the issue I'm having with @9-10ths_Penguin 's question about rejecting atheism. I don't understand why I (for example) must be a theist (which I am not) just because I don't necessarily agree that there is insufficient evidence to support theism (which is what atheism amounts to). I am neither a theist nor an atheist - and neither am I necessarily agnostic. I mean I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be sufficient evidence if only we knew where to find it - but we don't. I think I'm an "ignorantist" - I think the only honest answer is that we just don't know. Ignorance is bliss - but probably only when you are unaware of it. And sometimes RF sure seems like heaven to me! (To quote and old 'theist' song).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@lewisnotmiller I was raised an agnostic, did you know that?

I never considered a lot of the philosophical arguments concerning belief and disbelief, or had the occasion to hear them.

Whenever I did- I realized how much I'd taken for granted as a skeptic.

Didn't know it, but not surprised. A lot of people either dont think, or just parrot others.
For what it's worth, you don't seem to, hence my interest in your opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If you were to ask any Atheist, what happens to them, when they die, Atheist will tell you, nothing I'm just dead.

The question is, How exactly do you know this for sure. When in fact the scientific world of scientist can not prove what happens after a person die's.

So what does the Atheist have that the scientific world does not have ?

I could only guess, that the scientific world would definitely would like to know, That with all their scientific technology and they can't prove what happens to a person after they die.
But yet for some unknown reason, Atheist knows more than all the technology that the scientific world has available.

I have this to say, before you make a comment to me, bring your evidence to show that you know more about what happens to person after they die, that you have the evidence.
That with all the technology that the scientific world has. You know more about what happens to a person after they die.
Than all the scientific world has with all their Technology has.

So how do you know for sure that nothing happens ?

Atheist doesn't need a capital 'A'. We are just atheists. As, perhaps, you are a theist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So someone who rejects "non-Catholicism" (e.g. someone who - for example, accepted the virgin birth, transubstantiation, the trinity etc.) would necessarily be a Catholic? That's the issue I'm having with @9-10ths_Penguin 's question about rejecting atheism. I don't understand why I (for example) must be a theist (which I am not) just because I don't necessarily agree that there is insufficient evidence to support theism (which is what atheism amounts to). I am neither a theist nor an atheist - and neither am I necessarily agnostic. I mean I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be sufficient evidence if only we knew where to find it - but we don't. I think I'm an "ignorantist" - I think the only honest answer is that we just don't know. Ignorance is bliss - but probably only when you are unaware of it. And sometimes RF sure seems like heaven to me! (To quote and old 'theist' song).

Nah, no issue with any of that. It's just semantic labelling, to some degree. The core belief or otherwise doesn't fit neatly into our human constructs, neccessarily.

But, yeah...youd be Catholic if you believed in all Catholic beliefs. Believing in some, you could be almost anything.

 

[Jumi]

You know, you just proved my point, Why you let things bother you, if you do not believe in it.
You just proved my point, to let something bother you, is not only ridiculous but also unlogical, and a weak.

Why be bothered about atheists and what they do, if you aren't an unbeliever?

 

[siti]

Nah, no issue with any of that. It's just semantic labelling, to some degree. The core belief or otherwise doesn't fit neatly into our human constructs, neccessarily.

But, yeah...youd be Catholic if you believed in all Catholic beliefs. Believing in some, you could be almost anything.

So - just to be on the safe side - is it also OK if I am not an atheist but also not a theist?

You're right, I think about it being largely semantic but if you take the terms etymologically then atheism is really athe-ism not a-theism (i.e. without-god-ism rather than without-theism) - yes? So I could quite legitimately say I'm not without god(s) (i.e. reject atheism) and still not accept theism - which is, by any reasonable interpretation of current usage, only one part of a spectrum of ways of believing in some kind of deity.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So - just to be on the safe side - is it also OK if I am not an atheist but also not a theist?

You're right, I think about it being largely semantic but if you take the terms etymologically then atheism is really athe-ism not a-theism (i.e. without-god-ism rather than without-theism) - yes? So I could quite legitimately say I'm not without god(s) (i.e. reject atheism) and still not accept theism - which is, by any reasonable interpretation of current usage, only one part of a spectrum of ways of believing in some kind of deity.

Heh.. long as we understand each other, I don't much care about labels.
They're just shorthand.

Some be my guest!

 

[siti]

...be my guest!

Excellent thanks! There - I got staff permission to be a non-atheist and a non-theist at the same time! I can hardly contain my glee!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Excellent thanks! There - I got staff permission to be a non-atheist and a non-theist at the same time! I can hardly contain my glee!

When you say 'staff', just remember I'm Australian. I suspect I was part of some sorta minority hiring policy.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I know a lot of people who do.

And this is based on?

Why? We're social animals, and social animals tend to not kill those most familiar to them.

What about the tribes of Arabia who used to bury their first born alive in the desert sand if it was a female? After Muhammad came that tradition was discontinued and outlawed. Were these social animals before Muhammad came who wouldn’t harm a fly?

Where did slavery come from. The social being who tends not to hurt or harm? The Bible at least regulated it and tried to ensure slaves were treated fairly until Baha’u’llah has appeared and abolished it entirely.

Man has been often been sunk in cannibalism and savagery until he was educated by the Prophets and taught to be virtuous, kind and good.

Christ taught love thy neighbour do we not credit God for that?

Schools, charities, orpahanages, hospitals, universities founded by Christians and Muslims revived civilisation. Their teachings came from God.

The positive influence on human civilisation by religion cannot be denied. Human beings are a clean slate at birth. Education alone can bring out the good or bad in them. All the Great Educators such as Buddha, Jesus, Baha’u’llah have always taught virtue and good characters and morals.

 

[siti]

When you say 'staff', just remember I'm Australian. I suspect I was part of some sorta minority hiring policy.

Don't worry about that - "Australian" is just a label after all... I'm just made up that I don't have to be either an atheist or a theist.

 

[siti]

What about the tribes of Arabia who used to bury their first born alive in the desert sand if it was a female? After Muhammad came that tradition was discontinued and outlawed. We’re these social animals before Muhammad came who wouldn’t harm a fly?

Where did slavery come from. The social being who tends not to hurt or harm? The Bible at least regulated it and tire dto ensure slaves were treated fairly until Baha’u’llah has appeared and abolished it entirely.

Man has been often been sunk in cannibalism and savagery until he was educated by the Prophets and taught to be virtuous, kind and good.

Christ taught love thy neighbour do we not credit God for that?

Schools, charities, orpahanages, hospitals, universities founded by Christians and Muslims revived civilisation. Their teachings came from God.

The positive influence on human civilization by religion cannot be denied. Human beings are a clean slate at birth. Education alone can bring out the good or bad in them. All the Great Educators such as Buddha, Jesus, Baha’u’llah have always taught virtue and good characters and morals.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear - but at least people can see why I don't want to be a theist even if I'm not an atheist - even if they are just labels!?? By the way - the answer to your first few questions: cannibalism (esp. of the ritual variety), slavery and the overwhelming desire for male progeny were all religious imperatives. You can hardly claim the moral high ground just because Muhammad/Jesus/Baha'u'llah etc. changed some of the rules for the better. Where the flippin' 'eck (for want of a more expressive phrase) was God before the man Jesus, the man Muhammad and the man Baha'u'llah came along? This kind of thinking is the absolute epitome of irrational theistic nonsense that does not belong in the 21st century human psyche at all - it does neither God nor man any credit and is exactly why I don't want to be labelled 'theist' even though I refuse to reject the idea of a deity.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Don't worry about that - "Australian" is just a label after all... I'm just made up that I don't have to be either an atheist or a theist.

Yeah, but I like that label. It's an indication to the world of how incredibly good looking I am whilst allowing me to remain too humble to say it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Well, scientific evidence can be a very subjective term

[science] "such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact" Mark Twain

Not when scientific evidence is fact, then it can not be a subjective term.

Which in this case, scientific evidence is fact, that there is no possible way to know what exactly happens to a person after they are die.


Look I got the picture, as long as science fits the narrative of atheists they are willing to go along with it
So when the next time I'm out shopping and i come across an atheist and they start going against what scientist will say, I will just tell them, your nothing but a hypocritical person.

That as long as science fits your agenda, then your ok with it, even though science is right, you will stand against scientist all because you don't want to look like a complete Fool.

This is what you saying, that atheists are hypocritical, as long as something fits their agenda then they are ok with it. But if something like when a person dies, then atheists will go against the their scientific world. Which could make them look like a fool.

So now the next time I'm out shopping and I come across them again, I will know beforehand, where they maybe heading, so I will know exactly when and what to say. before they can say anything.which by their own words will defeat them.

 

[atanu]

No, nothing like that. Perhaps I can try and be clearer, using Catholic belief purely as an example.

What I mean is that Catholicism has specific meaning. Whether it be Trinitarianism, or belief in the infallibility of ecumenical councils , or transubstantiation, there is a set of beliefs under the umbrella of 'Catholicism'. People who are Catholics are (broadly) declaring belief in them. People who are not Catholics are not necessarily rejecting Catholicism at all.

Atheists may be rejecting God, I suppose, although personally I find that hard to understand. But atheism itself isn't rejection of God. It's a lack of theism. There are millions of belief systems I'm ignorant of, and I wouldn't claim to be able to prove there is no God. I've actively rejected those religions I've explored. But my atheism is almost nothing. It's just that I'm not a theist. Some might call that agnosticism, but I think agnostic atheist (or even implicit atheist) is a more accurate description.

Mind you, rejection of certain philosophies and beliefs commonly associated with atheism (say, materialism) seems entirely possible and meaningful.

We must agree to differ on the point of the bold part.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Atheist doesn't need a capital 'A'. We are just atheists. As, perhaps, you are a theist.

Atheist does need a capital ( A) when stressing a point. Go Figure

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why be bothered about atheists and what they do, if you aren't an unbeliever?

Why be bothered about Atheists, and what they do,
When it affects me, then I have my right to stand my ground and voice my opinion.

So What goes around comes around.

 

[LuisDantas]

We must agree to differ on the point of the bold part.

Really?

What is your take on the matter?