angos Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 There's a difference between asking people to believe there isn't a god without proof (which an antitheist might do) and asking people to not believe in gods without proof (which an atheist might do). The anti-theist's position might be comparable to that of religious people in terms of belief but the atheist's position isn't. That which is impossible requires no proof of its non existence to know that it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 I lack a belief of any gods based on the available evidence. I'm certainly not looking for absolute proof, if such a thing exists. The same as I do for any so called supernatural phenomenon. That is fair enough, & I wish you well in your endeavours. However the point that I was trying to make is that atheism is not unlike religion, in that to think that it is true requires you to believe something which cannot be proven. In my view agnosticism is the only sensible position to adopt in that as no one has proof either way, it places you in the category of a believer to be a theist or an atheist. Anyway, I'm a bit of a natural born sceptic so it suits me fine. Obviously, we all believe that we are right don't we? And that is only a belief a lot of the time also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 In my view agnosticism is the only sensible position to adopt in that as no one has proof either way, it places you in the category of a believer to be a theist or an atheist. Anyway, I'm a bit of a natural born sceptic so it suits me fine. It's my view that you are an agnostic atheist like me, the only difference being that you don't like the second word so reject it. Embrace it, it simply means you're not a theist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 There's a difference between asking people to believe there isn't a god without proof (which an antitheist might do) and asking people to not believe in gods without proof (which an atheist might do). The anti-theist's position might be comparable to that of religious people in terms of belief but the atheist's position isn't. Richard Dawkins describes himself as an atheist. He is a very aggressive atheist who attacks religious belief. According to your description he is in fact an antitheist as when I've seen him in action he wasn't asking, he was telling. Whichever description you prefer it does not negate my point, believing there is no God still requires a belief as opposed to a certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted December 18, 2013 Author Share Posted December 18, 2013 Richard Dawkins describes himself as an atheist. He is a very aggressive atheist who attacks religious belief. According to your description he is in fact an antitheist as when I've seen him in action he wasn't asking, he was telling. Whichever description you prefer it does not negate my point, believing there is no God still requires a belief as opposed to a certainty. So that would be the same for unicorns, pixies.....etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Richard Dawkins describes himself as an atheist. He is a very aggressive atheist who attacks religious belief. According to your description he is in fact an antitheist as when I've seen him in action he wasn't asking, he was telling. You sure about that? Whichever description you prefer it does not negate my point, believing there is no God still requires a belief as opposed to a certainty. I'm not disagreeing with that but was pointing out that you are confusing atheistism and antitheistism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 The theory that there is no such thing as God without absolute proof. Whilst you can say that on the balance of probability, there is no God, if you cannot provide unquestionable proof then what you are doing is asking people to believe what you believe. Which is what religious people do isn't it? What makes you think that an atheist must believe this? ---------- Post added 18-12-2013 at 22:55 ---------- Whichever description you prefer it does not negate my point, believing there is no God still requires a belief as opposed to a certainty. But not believing that there is a god requires no belief at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 In my view agnosticism is the only sensible position to adopt in that as no one has proof either way, it places you in the category of a believer to be a theist or an atheist. That used to be my opinion, until I got off my metaphorical backside and found out what all those words actually meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 What makes you think that an atheist must believe this? ---------- Post added 18-12-2013 at 22:55 ---------- But not believing that there is a god requires no belief at all So what does an atheist believe. Yes it does, the clue was in the third word of your last sentence. It requires the BELIEF that there is no God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 So what does an atheist believe. He/she doesn't. That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.