Because atheism basically claims nothing.
Hard to agree when you are not saying anything...
-
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 reject atheism?
- Thread starter beenherebeforeagain
- Start date
Hard to agree when you are not saying anything...
This is not a debate thread. However, I can state my viewpoint.
I understand that when I reject a view, I hold counter positive view of the view that I reject. And that counter position will have some valid justification from my POV.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Isn't that the same what atheists told you and you took it as proof. Are your words proof that you are bothered more than you admit?
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Look when a atheist comes to me and starts in all because of who I am, then they came to me and not me to them.
Atheists do not bother me, only when they confront me, and then I will stand my ground against them. Other than that, if they walk their way and I will walk my way.
No Problem.
Fair enough!
Nope. It's not a proper noun. Only needs a capital when commencing a sentence. Same as theist.
Or figure.
You said a number of things that weren’t compatible with a reasonable definition of atheism.
Right.
So then that person would lack belief in gods and therefore be an atheist.
But the person you described wasn’t “rejecting atheism.”
Wrong. That person still either has a belief in at least one god (theist) or he doesn’t (atheist).
Wrong. Belief doesn’t have to be belief with certainty (“being sure”). Even an agnostic still either believes in at least one god (theist) or he doesn’t (atheist).
Wrong. Not caring whether you're a theist or an atheist doesn't make you not a theist or an atheist; it makes you a theist or an atheist who doesn't care that they're a theist or an atheist.
But none of those ways work, for the reasons I outlined.
Look at how you yourself defined "atheist:" someone who lacks belief in any kind of deity. There's nothing in that about certainty of belief or caring about whether you're an atheist.
Again: read your own definition: any kind of deity.
I wasn't the one to come up with this approach. I agree that the question of whether a person is a theist or an atheist would be utterly irrelevant if not for how dominated our world is by religion.
Not sure what you're going at here. Are you saying that categorizing gods as gods disrespects those gods - or your ancestors - somehow? If so, I'm not sure why you'd think this or why you think it's relevant.
Odd. You are attempting to deny the very existence of atheism. And of course, you are doomed to fail at that.
I guess we would have to see what you mean by that. Being questioned and being subject to changes in our environment are not really avoidable, after all.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I understand the agnostic viewpoint, and am a former skeptic. I don't understand how someone can assert "no God", which would require near-omniscience to demonstrate. And it's not "pink unicorns don't exist" because most people believe in God or something numinous/metaphysical...
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If you noticed, I used the word "tend." As in, there is a general trend but it's not 100%. Even with such things, generally we tend to find cultural prohibitions against murder even where Jehovah was entirely unknown.
The true origins I don't know. But generally and typically slaves come from groups outside of those doing the enslaving.
Being relegated to a piece of inheritable property and it permitted to beat a slave as severely as you want as long as you don't kill them is not being "treated fairly."
What is "savagery?" Why cannibalism automatically bad?
Sure. But I can listen to John Lennon to hear that and without the "kill those who not want that I should reign over them" or the screwy part about cursing an out-of-season fruit bearing tree for having no fruit.
At one point. But places like Oxford aren't ran like they used to be, and what they teach today doesn't resemble what they taught centuries ago.
Just as you can't deny the negative influence it has had on society. Political regimes who have ran amok, wars against both Christians and non-Christians, fatal superstitions and violent wars, up to and including thinking that everything, including the laws of a secular land, should revolve around them and cater to their desires.
That has pretty much been discarded as inaccurate.
Or genetics, environmental factors, exposure to trauma, way more than just education.
Why can't you understand it? You do it yourself for every god besides the one you believe in.
For 99.999...% of gods, your assertion if their non-existence is much more extreme than the position of a typical atheist (i.e. something like "belief in gods isn't justified").
Epistemologically, demonstrating the non-existence of a pink unicorn is basically equivalent to demonstrating the non-existence of a god, provided that the person asserting the god is clear enough about what they mean.
... though there is a difference because of how god-concepts are used by theists: a pink unicorn that exists out there somewhere beyond the knowledge of any person would mean that the claim "pink unicorns exist" is true. However, a god that exists out beyond the knowledge of any him isn't the god that any real-world theist actually believes in.
I mean, take the Christian position: any god thay didn't create the Earth and people, do miracles in front of Pharoah, carve the Ten Commandments for Moses, have a son who came to Earth in human form (who either was or wasn't God himself, depending on the flavour of Christianity), etc., etc. isn't the god that they're talking about.
With most gods, it's a given that the god is known to humanity. This means that a lot of the stuff about how "you can't prove a negative" doesn't apply: all that is based on the idea that we can't know what we don't know... but gods generally can't be in the "what we don't know" category, because any "god" that's completely unknown to humanity is a "god" that no human being has ever worshipped and is not the focus of any human religion ever.
Last edited:
I may not be understanding what you are saying.
However, I already said that I prefer to differ. I do not think that I can reject ‘x’, without holding ‘not x’. I have no fear of failing, because I am not aiming to win anything. I never understand your strong language. Sorry.
Last edited:
There is the ‘ahimsa’ or non violence beliefs of the Hindus and the influence of Buddhism on Asia. Humanity, collectively has gone through stages of childhood, adolescence and now is approaching its long awaited maturity when confrontation and wars will give way to peace and reconciliation through consultation.
All along during our history, the Prophets have always been there encouraging us to reach greater heights of humaneness according to our capacity.
To discount the enormous beneficial influence these Great Educators have had for the betterment of humanity and civilisation is to be in denial of the facts.
I tend to expect a bit more of an effort for accuracy from those such as you, Atanu, who dwell on very abstract concepts.
Particularly given how daring you are on your statements.
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I think it is rather safe to say that everyone you know is an atheist with respect to at least one god fable, in fact, in most cases, they are an atheist with respect to all but one god fable.
Come to think of it, there is very little useful information in the number of gods that anyone believes in, even when those numbers are extreme or unstable.
It is far more significant to establish what belief in any god means for the specific person, and how that meaning correlates to those of other people.
What accuracy and what daring you are talking of? This is not a debate thread and we are not in battle.
I repeat that before I can reject ‘x’, I need to accept its counter positive. Else, I do not know what I am rejecting.
I refer to your post #197 in this thread, where you apparently give yourself the authority to know better what atheism is than the atheist himself does.
That does not actually make sense when applied to atheism, though.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
I hope you would not seriously claim that Bahaullah was the first person in human history to forbid slavery. The Buddha didn't allow slavery.
Zoroaster, as I understand it- did not allow slavery either. In fact, Zoroastrianism contains the strongest religious condemnation of slavery I've ever read.
In the Avesta (Zoroastrian scriptures) it says if you're walking along and see someone ordering a slave- you are to kill that person and let the slave go free, because Ahura Mazda really finds slavery that detestable.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
The OP was :
My point is that the questions themselves are already answered by all the participants here since:
You are missing the point, while that may be more significant, it is not the question that is on the table, a question that most every participant should find easy to answer since most every participant is, as I observed, an atheist with respect to at least one god fable.