Fed up of non believers

[salsafan]

You guys are way too much with these kind of numerous definitions. This is too too much. If a child is born, she is not likely to know this. Nor am I going to be the one judging her and define her already based on what I think is knowledge, or written in a book. How does a person grow to be anything if we already pigeon-hole them to something ? As we mentioned before, "what is life" ? Science, and this way of deduction is really a concept if nothing more than this alone. It is intangible. You cannot feel it, or touch it.

[skinz]

You guys are way too much with these kind of numerous definitions. This is too too much. If a child is born, she is not likely to know this. Nor am I going to be the one judging her and define her already based on what I think is knowledge, or written in a book. How does a person grow to be anything if we already pigeon-hole them to something ? As we mentioned before, "what is life" ? Science, and this way of deduction is really a concept if nothing more than this alone. It is intangible. You cannot feel it, or touch it.

 

This just sounds like a poorly written script from Master Po to Grasshopper.

[Alcoblog]

You guys are way too much with these kind of numerous definitions. This is too too much. If a child is born, she is not likely to know this. Nor am I going to be the one judging her and define her already based on what I think is knowledge, or written in a book. How does a person grow to be anything if we already pigeon-hole them to something ? As we mentioned before, "what is life" ? Science, and this way of deduction is really a concept if nothing more than this alone. It is intangible. You cannot feel it, or touch it.

 

Everything you feel, touch, hear, smell and see is science ... all these senses are explained by science, not some dim-witted deity!

[RootsBooster]

I can't believe you can't see it roots. It's as plain as day to me. They keep saying "by definition if you don't believe, you disbelief".

 

I am saying that disbelief is an action (the dictionary definition backs me up on that point), it is an activity of mind. Whereas, a lack of belief is not an action, it is the absence of (the mental activity of) belief.

 

I don't see how I can be any clearer. Am I being unclear! or not making sense?

Yes, I do see it now. I apologise, I was looking for the actual words "absence of belief".

It would have been more appropriate to say "by definition if you don't believe (in gods), you are an atheist, either through absence of belief, belief of absence or disbelief".

 

Let's forget about the pope finger thing...

up to you

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 05:53 ----------

 

As I said, produce an alternative definition to that of the professors by an equally qualified person and we'll carry on that particular debate.

 

You can't, You are wrong but being the type you are, you don't have the character to admit it.

 

All the straw clutching diversionary tactics in the world aren't going to make you look less foolish.

 

You really are becoming tiresome you know. Tell me, did you leave school, go to college, attend university and then start teaching?

 

Or have you actually at some point had a proper job and experienced what the real worlds like?

 

It strikes me as probably the former, never having had to deal with other adults on an equal footing.

 

Mixing with immature kids all day, not having to deal with any opposing viewpoint, unable to handle it when it comes, and resorting to childish taunts when confronted.

 

I know quite a number of teachers including several cousins, a niece and two friends.

 

On a few occasions I have had to gently ( I like them ) remind some of them that they are not addressing a classroom when speaking to me.

 

Your little jibe about psychology went badly wrong didn't it?

 

My retort regarding your lack of affection hit home didn't it?

I've already asked you to share your source for Rowe's opinion, so I can read it in it's full context rather than try to comment on a clipped quote.

[ivanava]

I wrote before that some of you have a "deductive" mind, right ? The above demonstrates precisely that. You seem to think that other people also see the world as an "either" "or" way, but I am also siding with those others on this thread who is saying, "no, this is not the only way".

 

I presume that you know spirituality, and religion is not limited to language itself, right ?

 

When your children are born, they are born without knowledge or language, but it does not mean they are without spirituality. It is an intuition.

 

If one is certain that they are not a theist, then it does not automatically means that they are an atheist. It seems to me that, in your mind, of whatever information and knowledge you hold, need to pigeonhole him into a particular position. THIS Is what he is fighting you on. He already stated that he is "neither this, nor that". He just "is" right now. And who can challenge a man about his belief than he himself ? Surely it is his choice, and not for you to judge what he is, but for him to tell you who he is ? I do not understand why you must give him a label. Which is the whole point of social antagonism, and the kind that the OP is speaking of.

 

If he says that "My name is Mike, and I am a believer", then just accept it. Why the need to challenge this ? There can be a grey area of non-conclusion, or non-definitive and limiting position to hold.

 

The analogy is like, I say I am a woman, I have the attributes of a woman, but you keep labelling me that I am not because you found out that I work in IT say, which is a man's career. So these two pieces of premise do not add together, and you think that this is not then true or plausible or possible. How about just acknowledging them separately for what it is? It does not have to link together.

 

It's like that experiment with Dr Emoto. He did literally said a blessing. Those sound waves did hit that area and its environment. The lake did then change and life did grow from that place for the first time in many years. Do I conclude that he is Jesus, or a reincarnation of Jesus? No. But, those things that he did, those are true premises and true facts. There does not have to be a theory to link it all sometimes, although it seems that you are more comfortable in knowing if that is the case.

 

It doesn't matter what he says, language is used for communication and words have definitions for a good reason, its save confusion if we all use the same definition for the same word.

This should highlight my point.

 

I can define myself as a chimpanzee, I can tell everyone that I am a chimpanzee, but it won't change the indisputable fact that I am human and everyone will see me as human and not chimpanzee. If you can't find it in your self to believe that God exists, you can call yourself whatever you like, but most people will define you as atheist, because that is what the word means, its not an insult, it just describes your lack of belief in God.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 07:12 ----------

 

As I said, produce an alternative definition to that of the professors by an equally qualified person and we'll carry on that particular debate.

 

 

You seam to be under the impression we should believe every word that is uttered by someone just because they are a professor. This particular professor as already accepted that he was wrong.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 07:16 ----------

 

 

 

I'm less qualified than the Pope in Godly matters, but that doesn't change the fact that he can't give me proof that God exists, in fact one could even say that he is biased because God is how he makes his living, everything he says should be taken with a pinch of salt because he needs people to believe him. I on the other hand have nothing at all to gain by claiming that God does not exist, it doesn't matter to me if I was the only person on the planet to think the way I do.

Edited March 3, 2014 by ivanava

[Guest]

Science, and this way of deduction is really a concept if nothing more than this alone. It is intangible. You cannot feel it, or touch it.

 

You know that keyboard you used to type that post? That thing that you can touch and responds to you touching it? You know what made that possible? Science.

[ivanava]

I can't believe you can't see it roots. It's as plain as day to me. They keep saying "by definition if you don't believe, you disbelief".

 

I am saying that disbelief is an action (the dictionary definition backs me up on that point), it is an activity of mind. Whereas, a lack of belief is not an action, it is the absence of (the mental activity of) belief.

 

I don't see how I can be any clearer. Am I being unclear! or not making sense?

 

 

This might make what I have said clearer.

 

Disbelief in God is different to belief that God doesn't exist, so if you don't believe in God, you disbelieve.

 

An Atheist's Yellow Shirt

 

Do you believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt? To put the question more technically, do you believe the proposition "Austin is wearing a yellow shirt" is true? It's a simple question where the meanings of all the terms are relatively straightforward, so there shouldn't be any issue with comprehension. There are lots of people wearing yellow shirts every day, so there is no issue with logical or physical impossibility.

 

The biggest problem is ignorance: you really have no way of knowing what I am wearing right now. I might not even be wearing a shirt, never mind a yellow one. There's just no reasonable basis for you to believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt. You should believe that it's possible that I'm wearing a yellow shirt, and you might reasonably believe that I sometimes wear a yellow shirt, but you shouldn't believe that I am wearing one right now.

 

By the same token, though, you also shouldn't believe that the proposition "Austin is wearing a yellow shirt" is false. Your ignorance of what I am wearing should prevent you from denying this proposition the same way it prevents you from affirming it. As you can see, not believing that this proposition is true isn't the same as believing the proposition is not true: not affirming that I am wearing a yellow shirt doesn't entail denying that I am wearing a yellow shirt.

 

This describes the most basic level of disbelief: you don’t actively believe my claim, but you don’t deny it either. Many atheists take this position with respect to theistic claims when those claims are too vague or incoherent to adequately evaluate. Obviously such claims don’t merit rational belief, but there simply isn’t enough substance to say anything more about them.

Edited March 3, 2014 by ivanava

[Karis]

It occurred to me the other day that if you took a group of people and hid them away from society that they would invariably develop their own religion over time - and that religion would have nothing to do with Christianity (or any earthly religion).

 

But again, isn't it a huge plot hole from God that this group would never - ever - have any chance to learn about his religion - so unless he'd be planning to send down some angels - they'd never know the truth.

[mjw47]

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 07:12 ----------

 

 

You seam to be under the impression we should believe every word that is uttered by someone just because they are a professor. This particular professor as already accepted that he was wrong.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 07:16 ----------

 

 

 

No he hasn't, he has come to the conclusion that he was wrong with regard to his belief in God(s).

 

That shows him in a good light in my opinion. It shows that despite at one time being an evangelical Christian he kept an open mind and kept on thinking.I disagree with his conclusion but respect his right to hold it.

 

It does not in any way invalidate his whole life's work.

 

In fact with regard to definitions if anything it actually makes him more of an expert. He has obviously thought long and hard about the differing beliefs and their meanings.

[ivanava]

It occurred to me the other day that if you took a group of people and hid them away from society that they would invariably develop their own religion over time - and that religion would have nothing to do with Christianity (or any earthly religion).

 

But again, isn't it a huge plot hole from God that this group would never - ever - have any chance to learn about his religion - so unless he'd be planning to send down some angels - they'd never know the truth.

 

Is that because our very nature causes us to ask questions, and when we can't find the answer to those questions our imagination fills in the gaps. Its much easier to imagine a God than it would be to imagine the complexities of how the universe and organisms developed.