RootsBooster Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 You are trying to draw a distinction that does not exist. If you don't believe in a god, then you believe that there is no god. That's not true for me. I have no belief in God and that's as simple as it is. I do not believe or claim that there is no God, I just currently have no reason to believe that there is a God. Does my position not exist? Why anyone would ask them to provide evidence for a belief in a negative I don't know. But it certainly wouldn't put them in a difficult position, it would give them a good laugh at the lack of understanding of the person asking for proof of a negative though. I agree We are certainly born without a belief in a god, Yes, this is atheism in it's barest and broadest form Definition of atheism noun [mass noun] disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods (Oxford) although not born with a belief that there is no god which some people call "positive" atheism, if you read some of the earlier posts since we are incapable of forming beliefs at that point. Yes. So we're automatically atheists in the broadest definition. But your (incorrect) definition is meaningless as it now means that I can describe a rock as an atheist, since it is incapable of forming beliefs.Incorrect definition? PaliRich's, mine and many others' definition does not apply to rocks. It's weak sauce to say "it can't be right or a rock can be atheist". We don't call a rock atheist because it is a term applied to people, human beings. Unless the wrestler "The Rock" is an atheist. Would you call a sheep a vegetarian/vegan? Would you call a stone paralysed? Would you call a tree ignorant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Yes! but that doesn't mean all believers are not analytical in their thinking and reasoning.. Some theists become atheists because of certain painful experiences in their lives that have either been personal or witnessed. I quite understand how that can happen because i've been been close to that position myself in the past. Alternatively some atheists who have been very positive about their lack of belief have developed a faith through an intuitive process which may have occurred as a result of some painful or emotional experience they have encountered at some stage in their life. Faith isn't something anyone can guarantee to have every moment and ever day of their life,once a person of faith accepts that and doesn't let it trouble them.they become more contented. But there will also be those who just go through the rituals of their chosen religion with little if any true devotion. If my memories of my RE school eduction serve me correctly it was Jesus who said of the hypocrites that wail outside of their synogogue -"They praise me with their mouths but their hearts are far from me". They wail not for me but to impress man. It seems he held distain for half hearted followers or insincere self serving acts of generousity and kindness. Which is probably why religion has never appealed to me in any emotional sense since I now acknowledge and fully accept that I'm not the type of person that is able to commit to the level of devotion that Jesus is(according to the new testiment I remember reading at school) requiring from truly devoted followers that don't behave in a way that he considers to be the behaviour likened to that of the hypocrites he alledgedly referred to long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 No it isn't, the evidence points to the fact the universe is infinite and as always existed, the universe is everything that exists not just what is visible. What we can see may have popped into existence from the pre-existing universe, but science most definitely doesn’t think it came from nothing, they just don't know what was before it, but they don’t presume that it was nothing. The big bang wasn't something from nothing and isn't described as something from nothing, they just don't know what was before it, but they don’t presume that it was nothing. You're getting hypothesis and theory mixed up. An hypothesis is an idea not sufficiently tested or without enough evidence to substantiate it. There are many, many hypotheses about where the big bang might have come from or even whether it occurred at all by many respected scientists. A theory is something supported by enough evidence to make it for all intents and purposes a 'fact'. This doesn't mean it is an eternal truth, only that at the present time no other idea has as much supporting evidence. The big bang is such a 'fact', and as such science says at this present time the universe came from a single point, whether that point had a cause or not has not been shown, therefore everything else is at best hypothesis, anything else is speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 That describes agnosticism, not atheism. Can you show me this definition along with a reference/source link please? I've never heard agnosticism described as absence of belief before. If you believe something contrary to proposition a (that there is a god) then you cannot also be ambivalent about prop a, not if you wish to be logically consistent in your beliefs anyway. I don't have any beliefs, that's the whole point. That would be an agnostic. Again, I'm very interested in learning where you got this definition from. That can't be an atheist without holding that opinion. This broadens atheist so much that it encompasses agnostic, and so you end up with people calling themselves agnostic atheists, when simply agnostic would be sufficient to describe their lack of belief. I see where your misunderstanding all stems from, you need to look up agnosticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 It's actually the maximum required to be an atheist. Nothing else is required. Anything less is not atheism. I agree fully, but some people say the word has "evolved" into new definitions. I think this just means that some atheists who have an agenda like to claim that atheism is more. According to the follwing definition... IN SUMMARY ATHEISTS: * Maintain that the scientific method has been outstanding in separating fact from fiction. It has enabled humankind to understand the natural laws and produced the enormous benefits which we presently enjoy. * Declare that, in the total absence of any empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural dimension or beings, all religions based on such beliefs should be rejected, together with the ethical codes based thereon. * Denounce the brainwashing of children which is the pre-eminent method by which religious and political organisations maintain the numbers and strength of their organisations. This is the principal cause of the confrontation and conflict between communities, countries and nations. * Deplore the fact that children in particular are being taught to accept propositions based on myths and superstition and are not being taught to question and reach conclusions through the exercise of reason. * Reject the notion of a scapegoat being an effective alternative to personal responsibility. * Reject the proposition that it is morally acceptable to threaten punishment and promise rewards in a mythical after-life to secure compliance with a particular code of conduct. * Deplore the fact that faith is accorded pre-eminence over reason and not subjected to in-depth evaluation. * Reject the idea of ‘truth’ as being an entity and consider that all propositions ought to be considered on their merit. * Recognise that knowledge is seldom complete and therefore we remain forever ready to change as increasing knowledge requires it. * Insist on the democratic principle of the individual’s right to partake in the framing of all binding laws, be they political, secular, moral or whatever. * Object to any law or code which fails when submitted to rational and empirical scrutiny, particularly those which are based on so-called revelation from some supernatural entity or source. * Reject the proposition that some races are intrinsically superior, that women are inferior to men and that men should have exclusive positions of power and authority. * Reject the proposition that all people are born equal but insist that everyone should be accorded equal rights. * Recognise that no one is an island and therefore it behoves everyone to work for the betterment of all by solving the glaring problems which flawed philosophies and powerful organisations have created. * Recognise that everyone is genetically unique and consider that they have the right to act as they see fit provided that such actions do not have undue negative effect on other individuals or on society. * Consider that society should encourage and assist everyone to reach their full beneficial potential." In very very basic terms the article suggests that - I am an atheist and that single principle leads me to view ethics and morality, and their applications in and to society. in a particular way. ...I must not be an atheist then! I wonder what I am for just not having a belief in any gods, and not being influenced by not believing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 It is not necessarily the situation that all of mankind is confronted with, it is your belief that no one can know (you are agnostic), but you don't know that for sure. I'm sure that I know no more or no less about what god is in actuallity than anyone else. In fact I'm 100% certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 All we can do is work with what we know. We know the universe exists, We know there was only two possibilities, something or nothing. We don't know if nothing is possible and there is no need to invoke it. Logical conclusion, the universe as always existed, any other explanation requires us to invoke nothing or God. Neither of which have been observed nor proven possible. You're tying yourself in philosophical knots and basing your reasoning on your own conclusions rather than the bigger picture. We know of nothing, zero, that has lasted forever. We also know of nothing that came from nothing, they are equal premises. You're confusing the fact that you can't conceive nothing with the idea that there cannot be nothing, they are two different things. Nothing is philosophically as possible as eternity - the difficulty lies in that you can envisage one but not the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I'm sure that I know no more or no less about what god is in actuallity than anyone else. In fact I'm 100% certain. How can you be 100% certain that nobody else knows about God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 How can you be 100% certain that nobody else knows about God? Because to not be 100% certain would require me to have 0.0% of doubt as to whether someone else somewhere in the world has genuine factually accurate knowledge about what god is in actuallity. And I can assure you that there's nowhere near that amount of doubt in my mind which would cause me to doubt that there is no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 It’s logical to conclude that because it exists, it's always existed, since there were only two possibilities, something or nothing, its illogical to presume that there was once nothing and then something which would require the presumption that nothing is possible. Would you concider it logical or ilogical to presume that the universe is always going to exist seeing as it has always existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.