|
Post by Paragon on Apr 18, 2007 21:02:48 GMT -5
However as anyone who has read your faith in Atheism, denying all other religions, Including Christianity, is what your all about. ;D Not true at all. Atheism is the absence of belief in theism, and does not entail denying any religions at all, nor the belief that God cannot exist. Some atheists believe that. I believe the Christian God does not exist, because the different aspects that define such a being are contradictory. This does not mean I believe no other supreme being can exist, merely that I have not encountered a theory I believe yet (which isn't saying much, I've not encountered many religions, relatively speaking). Maybe I'd believe in Buddhism, but I can't really call myself a Buddhist until I know what they believe and whether I believe it, can I? To put this in perspective, I used to be Catholic, devout, some would say hard-core (apparently I only choose extremes). When I was Catholic, I still believed the inclusion of those sayings was a bad idea, despite the fact that they affirmed my own God! Is lack of a saying atheist? Sure, it is the lack of a theist saying. But atheism is not a belief. The belief that religion is bad is not atheism, it is something else, anti-religious. I am not suggesting an anti-religious saying be used. Nor that they would? The idea that "All men are created equal" seems also to entail beliefs, and suggest that they are equal. Inclusion of relgious statements on legal tender suggests that they are not all equal, but that one is superior.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2007 22:56:50 GMT -5
But nobody walks into Apple Bee's and screams that they have to stop letting people smoke, or not smoke, which is neutrality. You seem to believe your making a big sacrifice by denying all religions the right of being put on the country's coins. Including Christianity, which I affirm also. However as anyone who has read your faith in Atheism, denying all other religions, Including Christianity, is what your all about. ;D I think Paragon has already mentioned this in another thread, but Atheism is not a belief at all. It is a lack of belief in a God or many gods. To be atheist you don't have to believe in anything. What you are referencing in your post is called 'Antitheism'.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 18, 2007 23:15:47 GMT -5
But nobody walks into Apple Bee's and screams that they have to stop letting people smoke, or not smoke, which is neutrality. You seem to believe your making a big sacrifice by denying all religions the right of being put on the country's coins. Including Christianity, which I affirm also. However as anyone who has read your faith in Atheism, denying all other religions, Including Christianity, is what your all about. ;D I think Paragon has already mentioned this in another thread, but Atheism is not a belief at all. It is a lack of belief in a God or many gods. To be atheist you don't have to believe in anything. What you are referencing in your post is called 'Antitheism'. You believe in the inexistence of God, so therefore you are not without faith.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2007 0:01:57 GMT -5
I think Paragon has already mentioned this in another thread, but Atheism is not a belief at all. It is a lack of belief in a God or many gods. To be atheist you don't have to believe in anything. What you are referencing in your post is called 'Antitheism'. You believe in the inexistence of God, so therefore you are not without faith. That would be Anti-Theism. Atheism is lacking belief, therefore no belief at all is involved in Atheism.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 19, 2007 11:38:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 25, 2007 14:27:56 GMT -5
You believe in the inexistence of God, so therefore you are not without faith. That would be Anti-Theism. Atheism is lacking belief, therefore no belief at all is involved in Atheism. Answer me three questions. - Is evolution true?
- Does God exist?
- Do you think what you're saying is credible?
I'd like you to reply to this too Paragon if you don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by thatguy on Apr 25, 2007 17:39:20 GMT -5
Is Evolution True? Given the most recent scientific data across many disciplines I would say that evolution is the best explanation for the many forms of life we see. As well as why the web of life is so intricate. Does god exist? When I look at pictures of space, think about the vast distances, and huge numbers of galaxies and stars I find it so unlikely that some mystical geni was sitting around boared and decided to just create the universe. The possibility of a supernatural santa claus is so small and the universe is so big that I would say that God does not exist. Do you think that what you say is creditable? This sounds like a trap .....but.....ummm yeah I do.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 26, 2007 22:29:32 GMT -5
I will wait for Alien and Paragon before i reply to your flaw.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 27, 2007 15:53:05 GMT -5
- I find it very likely.
- Define God.
- Its "you're", and yes, with about 95% confidence.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 30, 2007 10:46:51 GMT -5
Then you are not without faith, Since you believe in Evolution, and yourself! An Atheist believes in nothing, only what he can see and what is concrete. Supposedly your absence of a system of faith is a system of faith in itself! By saying you deny God, you have put forth your faith since God cannot be disproved! And for that matter, neither can Evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on May 1, 2007 12:22:42 GMT -5
Then you are not without faith, Since you believe in Evolution, and yourself! Everyone has beliefs. According to whom? Atheist does not mean lack of belief in anything, it means lack of belief in theistic belief set. Logic, probability, myself, evoltion; none of these are theistic beliefs, therefore it is not contradictory to call myself atheist while still believing them. Some "versions" of god can, in my opinion, be disproved. The traditional Christian God is one of them. The existance of some undefined supreme being on the other hand, is not verifiable. Without a definition, there is nothing to test, and nothing that can contradict itself. Just so you know, I do believe it is possible that some god or being exists, atheism is not strictly the denial of any god (yes, very similar to, if not the same as agnosticism). The process of evolution can be proven (it just takes a damn long time), the history of evolution cannot. To some people, not all. I find spelling mistakes themselves give a not so desirable impression of the poster.
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on May 2, 2007 16:32:18 GMT -5
Hmmm.... I do not beleive in a cosmic bell hop, nor in a cosmic Santa Claus. I realize that some people do, but they are not Christian.
Atheism is indeed "not God" in its orientation. Atheists hold that life may be approached purely through rational context, a notion certainly not unique to atheism. The issue at stake is that atheists cannot formulate a moral or ethical basis without becoming self-serving. Some success can be acheived via the concept of the Ideal Observer, but even atheists appealing to the noion admit that it is dangerously close to deity. All that aside, modern atheists must ignore Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in order to proceed on such a course of rationale.
Incidentally, a "proof" must be completed in order to be a proof. So, "taking a long time" is an admission of "no proof."
|
|
|
Post by thatguy on May 3, 2007 15:51:45 GMT -5
What do you mean by ethical basis? Also, why are athiests incapable of formulating one without becoming self-serving? On another note I have no problem with regecting Kant's Critique of Pure Reason as I generally have little or no respect for philosophers in general.
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on May 3, 2007 16:41:29 GMT -5
having little or no respect for philosophers is of little or no consequence to dealing with notions and thought systems! I have little or no respect for Karl Marx, who was a terrible male pig when it came to relationships with women. Yet, his ideas stimulate many people, including ironically the modern women's movement! I would enjoy reading your refutation of Kant's Critique. Atheists must argue for a source of an ethical or moral basis since matters of faith are most frequently used for such things. Inevitably, ethical and moral values seem to arise "from outside" of one's own self concept. If not, then the self is the only frame of reference for these values. This boils down to "whatever is good for me is what is good." The problem is that even atheists have difficulty with such a notion; it flies in the face of all human history. People who act like this are found in prisons or mental institution, suffering from a variety of personality disorder. But all of this is rather academic. I do not wish to patronize you and have no idea how much of the basics I need to cover.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on May 3, 2007 17:55:19 GMT -5
Atheism is indeed "not God" in its orientation. It is not. Some atheists may believe no god can exist. Some may not. As I've stated before, atheists simply subscribe to no theological beliefs. I'd like to ask that you kindly refrain from applying false definitions us, it confuses others, and is insulting to me. Once again, wrong. While this may often be true and is true for myself, not all atheists believe that. Some atheists are atheist not because they see lack of logical evidence, but because they never learned about religious theory, or never cared whether there was any god or not. The only thing that atheists have in common is that they are people who are not religious. That is all. Any other statement you make about atheists is false. They may be true in some cases, but not in all. I'll explain below. The Critique of Pure Reason is long, and makes many points. Which ones do you refer to in particular? Any particular chapter? Incidentally, the word "can" as opposed to "has" suggests that while something may not have been done, it is within the realm of possibility for it to be done. When I said "evolution can be proven" I meant exactly that. Thank you for pointing out that I'm not an idiot, though. And here's where I explain why the idea that atheists have no ethical code I cannot think of a mature alternative way to express my disgust for your opinion; You've left out reference by empathy. The short version is, "whatever is good for me is good for others." That doesn't quite sum it up, so I'll give some examples. It is good for me to not starve :: therefore :: It is good for others to not starve.
It bad for me to be poor :: therefore :: It is bad for others to be poor.
It is good for me to feel loved :: therefore :: It is good for others to feel loved.
It is good for me when my personal liberty is not violated :: therefore :: It is good for others when their personal liberty is not violated.That certainly doesn't seem self-serving to me, nor based around faith or theology. The logic behind it is rather clear too; I am a human. I think and feel. It is likely that other humans think and feel.
As a human, I express my thoughts and emotions in the same way other humans express their thoughts and emotions. It is likely that other humans experience the same thoughts and emotions as I.
Certain things that happen to me create particular emotions in me. It is likely that the same things, or similar things, create the same emotions in other humans.
I prefer some emotions over other emotions. It is likely that other humans prefer the same emotions over other emotions.Of course, one must still decide to help other humans get what they want.
|
|