|
Post by phludowin on Mar 27, 2017 12:16:33 GMT
I posted exactly why I say your words are false, and instead of discussing it item by item you say "bye" or "goodnight". Yes, I see how equipped you are for discussion alright. Cheers (you're still wrong and with falseness, though -- good night). There isn't a discussion going on here. There is just you refuting a definition so that we can't move on.
Atheism is simply not accepting it as true that a god exists. When you have evidence of one, we'll believe you.
The end.
But the bolded part would also mean: Stop being atheist. I am assuming that j2 is just playing word games. Possibly a bot. Blade 2.0 if you will. Another thing: Who is "we"? I am an atheist, but I am not a member of any atheist community. Don't presume to speak for all atheists.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 27, 2017 12:19:03 GMT
There isn't a discussion going on here. There is just you refuting a definition so that we can't move on.
Atheism is simply not accepting it as true that a god exists. When you have evidence of one, we'll believe you.
The end.
But the bolded part would also mean: Stop being atheist. I am assuming that j2 is just playing word games. Possibly a bot. Blade 2.0 if you will. Another thing: Who is "we"? I am an atheist, but I am not a member of any atheist community. Don't presume to speak for all atheists. Yes, the bolded part means stop being atheist. Just like anything else, if you can prove it's real I'll believe it.
I'm not pretending to speak for all atheists, but I think you'll find the vast majority would believe something when it's presented to them, and I don't know why you're presuming otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 27, 2017 12:22:30 GMT
Yes, the bolded part means stop being atheist. Just like anything else, if you can prove it's real I'll believe it.
I'm not pretending to speak for all atheists, but I think you'll find the vast majority would believe something when it's presented to them, and I don't know why you're presuming otherwise.
Because evidence and truth are relative. In past exchanges you have refused to acknowledge this. So what convinces one atheist might not convince another.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 27, 2017 12:32:14 GMT
*sigh* Bottom line: The lack of belief in any deity is not contingent on a belief that that deity does not exist.
Also your reply entirely ignores the refinement of atheism which has happened in recent years, introduced by philosopher Antony Flew in the late 70's to highlight what he saw as a logical distinction and since then it has since been widely accepted as meaningful and helpful:
"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter." (Flew: The Presumption of Atheism )"
From which, first, we can see that all atheists share a basic lack of belief in the deliberate supernatural.
But Positive 'hard' atheism is, more: it is the position of actively disbelieving a theistic God exists, which is the sort you incorrectly take as representing all those who lack belief.
Negative 'weak' atheism is just the passive position of not believing a theistic God exists. We can see a relationship to agnosticism here since the soft atheist also accepts that there are some things which it is impossible ever to know for certain.
A positive atheist generally speaking is therefore characterised by making a further assertion that 'God does not exist'. A soft atheist lacks belief in God, but most likely admits that he or she could be wrong. Since a lack of belief in God is not contingent on a belief that God does not exist, once can see at once how the distinction is useful and logical.
Clearly, positive atheism is a special case of negative atheism: Someone who is a positive atheist is by necessity a negative atheist, but not conversely.
Finally, further to the reoccurring dispute whether atheism represents a 'belief' of any sort, and the following observation can be made. Since one cannot know anything for sure about God, since a negative as "God does not exist" cannot be proven or disproved, then all statements about God are de facto beliefs, either of a positive or negative sort. But the soft atheist can sidestep this claim since, as already noted, one can lack belief in God without necessarily making any more assertions. What a soft atheist can know, instead, is that he or she might be wrong, (and for me at least, being a 'softy') the admission of such brings intellectual honesty.
Hence when one sees the definition of atheism as "a belief that God does not exist" (usually given as an overall definition by traditional sources) this is actually mainly of the positive or hard sort; but when one defines it as "lacking belief in God" it is of the negative or soft variety. But as already observed, a lack of belief in God does not require any further assertions for it to remain a defensible and logical position.
And, on the basis of the most sensible practice being the asking people first who actually profess something as to how they define it, you may also wish to visit the website of American atheism where indeed they have a clear idea:
"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism/
I hope this helps
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 27, 2017 13:30:08 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 13:38:12 GMT
Atheists (and an embarrassing number of "Christians") are terribly unsystematic in their beliefs. That's why I say atheism is a "belief" but not a "religion." That link looks like just another cheap licensing operation. In non-technical terms, what's the difference between a belief and a religion? I say there is no difference that matters.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 27, 2017 13:51:46 GMT
In non-technical terms, what's the difference between a belief and a religion? The same difference as between liking the music of a band, and being a member of a fan club of that band. Belief is personal, religion is organized. You can like a band without being a member of a fan club. Just like you can have believe in a deity without adhering to a religion that worships that deity. And inversely, you can also be a member of a fan club of a band, even if you believe that their latest album sucks. Just like not every Catholic agrees with what the Church does. Does it make a difference? It probably does to the members of the religion/fan club.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 27, 2017 14:00:22 GMT
Yes, the bolded part means stop being atheist. Just like anything else, if you can prove it's real I'll believe it.
I'm not pretending to speak for all atheists, but I think you'll find the vast majority would believe something when it's presented to them, and I don't know why you're presuming otherwise.
Because evidence and truth are relative. In past exchanges you have refused to acknowledge this. So what convinces one atheist might not convince another. What you are talking about is people being rational or irrational, not whether truth is relative. In the past you've refused to acknowledge this.
2+2=4 This isn't relative to anything.
You can either demonstrate your claim to be true and show that it has reliable results or you can't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 14:06:51 GMT
In non-technical terms, what's the difference between a belief and a religion? Belief is personal, religion is organized. If religion is not about personal belief then why discuss it as if it is?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 27, 2017 14:09:57 GMT
Because evidence and truth are relative. In past exchanges you have refused to acknowledge this. So what convinces one atheist might not convince another. What you are talking about is people being rational or irrational, not whether truth is relative. In the past you've refused to acknowledge this.
2+2=4 This isn't relative to anything.
You can either demonstrate your claim to be true and show that it has reliable results or you can't.
We could go through the entire argument again, but for simplicity purposes I'll just focus on your claim. 2+2=4 That is relative. It depends on the numerical integer system 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..., and on the rules of addition. If we were talking Boolean algebra, 2 were a symbol for true, and + for "OR", then 2+2=2. And Boolean algebra has reliable results.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 27, 2017 14:14:07 GMT
If religion is not about personal belief then why discuss it as if it is? In a secular society/state, religion is a personal matter. But often, religion is not about personal belief. Plenty of people are members of religions from childhood on; not because they adhere to the beliefs of the religion, but because their parents enrolled them. In a perfect world, religion would purely be a matter of choice of the individual. The world is not perfect.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 27, 2017 14:55:18 GMT
What you are talking about is people being rational or irrational, not whether truth is relative. In the past you've refused to acknowledge this.
2+2=4 This isn't relative to anything.
You can either demonstrate your claim to be true and show that it has reliable results or you can't.
We could go through the entire argument again, but for simplicity purposes I'll just focus on your claim. 2+2=4 That is relative. It depends on the numerical integer system 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..., and on the rules of addition. If we were talking Boolean algebra, 2 were a symbol for true, and + for "OR", then 2+2=2. And Boolean algebra has reliable results. No, it really doesn't. If you have two items and you add two items, you now have four items. So of course you try and find a different meaning for 2. Why not.
I'm sorry you're just being absurd.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Mar 27, 2017 16:22:08 GMT
I posted exactly why I say your words are false, and instead of discussing it item by item you say "bye" or "goodnight". Yes, I see how equipped you are for discussion alright. Cheers (you're still wrong and with falseness, though -- good night). There isn't a discussion going on here. There is just you refuting a definition so that we can't move on.
Atheism is simply not accepting it as true that a god exists. When you have evidence of one, we'll believe you.
The end.
And you miss the point. I haven't refuted or said anything against the definition of 'atheism' or anything about trying to convince you (fools) of anything. All I said was that those words which you spoke(typed/expressed/said) and which I pointed out are 'Not true', 'Not true' and 'False' in that specific order. Then I also explained exactly why I said it. You're still wrong and with falseness.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Mar 27, 2017 16:28:14 GMT
There isn't a discussion going on here. There is just you refuting a definition so that we can't move on.
Atheism is simply not accepting it as true that a god exists. When you have evidence of one, we'll believe you.
The end.
But the bolded part would also mean: Stop being atheist. I am assuming that j2 is just playing word games. Possibly a bot. Blade 2.0 if you will. Another thing: Who is "we"? I am an atheist, but I am not a member of any atheist community. Don't presume to speak for all atheists. Thank you for considering I may be a bot or 'Blade 2.0'. I kinda liked the sound of it.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Mar 27, 2017 16:30:15 GMT
Yes, the bolded part means stop being atheist. Just like anything else, if you can prove it's real I'll believe it.
I'm not pretending to speak for all atheists, but I think you'll find the vast majority would believe something when it's presented to them, and I don't know why you're presuming otherwise.
Because evidence and truth are relative. In past exchanges you have refused to acknowledge this. So what convinces one atheist might not convince another. True.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 27, 2017 16:33:33 GMT
If religion is not about personal belief then why discuss it as if it is? In a secular society/state, religion is a personal matter. But often, religion is not about personal belief. Plenty of people are members of religions from childhood on; not because they adhere to the beliefs of the religion, but because their parents enrolled them. In a perfect world, religion would purely be a matter of choice of the individual. The world is not perfect. This is all incorrect.
In a perfect world, people would simply be happy with their individual choice without presuming the reason of the multitudes.
in a secular society, religion is another group that is allowed to practice and promote as they see fit as long as no harm is caused. It should be right up there with Pepsi commercials for a nonreligious person.
Parents cannot enroll their kids for life into a religion. It's silly to think kids grow up to make any number of choices without regard to their parents and yet religion, of all things, is the thing that binds them like shackles.
At worst, the kids grow up to be so indifferent to religion that they don't do anything about it. In all likelihood the correct answer is that many of them actually like it or leave if they don't. I think that there is often a wrongheaded thinking that a kid only has two choices in order to prove they've been brainwashed - atheism or religion.
That's just silly.
Further, religion is not a personal belief. Personal belief is merely opinion and religion is obviously large than that.
It is an institution just like government, family, military, society, education, and a myriad other things.
Theophobiacs can do nothing but frustrate themselves by continually misunderstanding the role religion plays in society and how that role in non-sucky countries they live in gets no worse than a religion not wanting to have anything to do with them...Aka the theophobiac's feelings are hurt.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Mar 27, 2017 16:46:47 GMT
You made no case for your opinion, so its easily dismissed. Thanks for the reply, but I do care how? English not am first language yours?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 27, 2017 16:48:07 GMT
And Boolean algebra has reliable results. No, it really doesn't. I'm sorry you're just being absurd.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Mar 27, 2017 16:49:26 GMT
Yes, blade, you've made it abundantly clear you generally have no idea what you're talking about. Now maybe if the subject was young women whispering you'd have an informed opinion, but in the matters of religion, atheism, and homosexuality you're clueless.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Mar 27, 2017 18:19:58 GMT
*sigh* Bottom line: The lack of belief in any deity is not contingent on a belief that that deity does not exist.
Also your reply entirely ignores the refinement of atheism which has happened in recent years, introduced by philosopher Antony Flew in the late 70's to highlight what he saw as a logical distinction and since then it has since been widely accepted as meaningful and helpful:
"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter." (Flew: The Presumption of Atheism )"
From which, first, we can see that all atheists share a basic lack of belief in the deliberate supernatural.
But Positive 'hard' atheism is, more: it is the position of actively disbelieving a theistic God exists, which is the sort you incorrectly take as representing all those who lack belief.
Negative 'weak' atheism is just the passive position of not believing a theistic God exists. We can see a relationship to agnosticism here since the soft atheist also accepts that there are some things which it is impossible ever to know for certain.
A positive atheist generally speaking is therefore characterised by making a further assertion that 'God does not exist'. A soft atheist lacks belief in God, but most likely admits that he or she could be wrong. Since a lack of belief in God is not contingent on a belief that God does not exist, once can see at once how the distinction is useful and logical.
Clearly, positive atheism is a special case of negative atheism: Someone who is a positive atheist is by necessity a negative atheist, but not conversely.
Finally, further to the reoccurring dispute whether atheism represents a 'belief' of any sort, and the following observation can be made. Since one cannot know anything for sure about God, since a negative as "God does not exist" cannot be proven or disproved, then all statements about God are de facto beliefs, either of a positive or negative sort. But the soft atheist can sidestep this claim since, as already noted, one can lack belief in God without necessarily making any more assertions. What a soft atheist can know, instead, is that he or she might be wrong, (and for me at least, being a 'softy') the admission of such brings intellectual honesty.
Hence when one sees the definition of atheism as "a belief that God does not exist" (usually given as an overall definition by traditional sources) this is actually mainly of the positive or hard sort; but when one defines it as "lacking belief in God" it is of the negative or soft variety. But as already observed, a lack of belief in God does not require any further assertions for it to remain a defensible and logical position.
And, on the basis of the most sensible practice being the asking people first who actually profess something as to how they define it, you may also wish to visit the website of American atheism where indeed they have a clear idea:
"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism/
I hope this helps
Thank you for your reply. I wish I had good time to discuss what you just said in deeper detail (because I think I see some false ground in some of your expressions), but despite of it what you say makes good sense to me. It seems to me that many 'atheists' don't seem to think this way you now express, though. Thank you for taking the time.
|
|