Jimmy, the fact is that by actively believing in the non-existance of god you are performing an act of faith. You can not prove there is no god (due to the both incomprehensible nature of its definition and you can never prove something isn't) , so it is not neccisarily true therfore so you have faith that there is no god.
Tricksy world-play there. There's no such thing as "actively believing in the non-existence of blah blah blah". I know this is a difficult concept to get but try to bear with us. Atheism is the LACK of belief. It is NOT an active belief in blah blah blah...by even characterizing it in that way you're making it far more complicated than it really is.
How often do you hear someone say "I don't believe in God" (I hear people say this all the time) vs. "I believe there is no God" (I have never heard anyone say this in all my years of living)
See how ridiculous it is to characterize atheism as a belief when it's actually the exact opposite?
EDIT: On second thought, I'm going to delete the first stuff I wrote and just leave this here because I think it really is the crux of the theist's argument against atheism (which is an odd thing to argue against since it just is, there's not really anything to argue against).
this focuses on a semantic argument and also ignores that atheism means different things to different people. There are different kinds of atheism depending on the definitions.
Atheism relates to a belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity, or whether the person associates any meaning to the terms "God" or "deity."
Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity; this is sometimes referred to as "strong Atheism." It is the most common dictionary definition for the term "Atheist," and is probably the definition used by most theists.
Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. This is the belief promoted by the American Atheists group and many individual Atheists.
Atheism often promote the belief that all Gods and Goddesses (as well as angels, demons, ghosts, etc.) are nonexistent entities created by human minds.
It seems what you and Jimmy pursue is the model proposed by the "American Atheists", arguing that atheism is the absence of belief and therefore does not involve faith. This seems to be a newish, local standpoint that is still not the mainstream definition of atheism.
This is an interesting view, i don't like it as i think that there is nothing wrong with faith and belief. In fact i see is an essential part of being or holding onto a sense of identity. We have faith in our memories for example. Faith in ourselves and our loved ones give us motivation.
The absence of belief seems to be another bizzarre abstract to me.
"I don't believe in god" is a direct denial of another's belief. Belief itself is defined as "an acceptance that a statemnet is true or that something exists". "I don't believe in god" is accepted as a personal truth which to me requires belief.
As i said though it is an interesting standpoint and will need to think on it and possible even readjust my views. At this stage i am in the "strong atheism" camp, i positively assert that there is no god and hold to that assertion as an act of faith. Just the same as any christian positively asserts that there is no Zeus.
See how ridiculous it is to characterize atheism as a belief when it's actually the exact opposite?
Just to point out here that you are not arguing the opposite of belief but the absence.
Jimmy, the fact is that by actively believing in the non-existance of god you are performing an act of faith. You can not prove there is no god (due to the both incomprehensible nature of its definition and you can never prove something isn't) , so it is not neccisarily true therfore so you have faith that there is no god.
Tricksy world-play there. There's no such thing as "actively believing in the non-existence of blah blah blah". I know this is a difficult concept to get but try to bear with us. Atheism is the LACK of belief. It is NOT an active belief in blah blah blah...by even characterizing it in that way you're making it far more complicated than it really is.
How often do you hear someone say "I don't believe in God" (I hear people say this all the time) vs. "I believe there is no God" (I have never heard anyone say this in all my years of living)
See how ridiculous it is to characterize atheism as a belief when it's actually the exact opposite?
EDIT: On second thought, I'm going to delete the first stuff I wrote and just leave this here because I think it really is the crux of the theist's argument against atheism (which is an odd thing to argue against since it just is, there's not really anything to argue against).
this focuses on a semantic argument and also ignores that atheism means different things to different people. There are different kinds of atheism depending on the definitions.
Atheism relates to a belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity, or whether the person associates any meaning to the terms "God" or "deity."
Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity; this is sometimes referred to as "strong Atheism." It is the most common dictionary definition for the term "Atheist," and is probably the definition used by most theists.
Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. This is the belief promoted by the American Atheists group and many individual Atheists.
Atheism often promote the belief that all Gods and Goddesses (as well as angels, demons, ghosts, etc.) are nonexistent entities created by human minds.
It seems what you and Jimmy pursue is the model proposed by the "American Atheists", arguing that atheism is the absence of belief and therefore does not involve faith. This seems to be a newish, local standpoint that is still not the mainstream definition of atheism.
This is an interesting view, i don't like it as i think that there is nothing wrong with faith and belief. In fact i see is an essential part of being or holding onto a sense of identity. We have faith in our memories for example. Faith in ourselves and our loved ones give us motivation.
The absence of belief seems to be another bizzarre abstract to me.
"I don't believe in god" is a direct denial of another's belief. Belief itself is defined as "an acceptance that a statemnet is true or that something exists". "I don't believe in god" is accepted as a personal truth which to me requires belief.
As i said though it is an interesting standpoint and will need to think on it and possible even readjust my views. At this stage i am in the "strong atheism" camp, i positively assert that there is no god and hold to that assertion as an act of faith. Just the same as any christian positively asserts that there is no Zeus.
See how ridiculous it is to characterize atheism as a belief when it's actually the exact opposite?
Just to point out here that you are not arguing the opposite of belief but the absence.
Interesting. As atheism is a state of being and not a philosophy I don't really relate to the idea of there being different "forms" of atheism. I am an atheist because I lack a belief in a god. Trying to frame atheism as a "belief in the non-existence" is RIDICULOUS.
And here's why:
Do I have a belief in the non-existence of purple unicorns? No. Because that requires me having an active belief which I do not in this case. It's the same with gods. No difference at all in my mind.
If you've decided that we are "those kinds of atheists", why would you frame the argument with "other kinds of atheists" in mind? That's not effective at all. In order to argue with Jimmy and I you have to argue from our perspective. I reject the notion of atheism being a "belief in the non-existence of blah blah blah" so you won't get far by trying to ram that idea down my throat. It just won't work. You'll have to find an atheist that accepts that framing of the argument and I have never met one that does.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. You do not decide to become an atheist, you simply are an atheist. If at some point in your life you develop the belief in a god then you choose to become a theist. If you lose that belief you are not choosing to become an atheist, you're going back to your original state of being, which for all human beings is atheism.
Given my stance on purple unicorns, I don't understand why the absence of belief seems so bizarre to you. Where do you stand on the indomitable issue that has plagued philosophers throughout time known as purple unicorns? I can only assume you have a belief in them since you reject the notion of lacking a belief. Or maybe you've taken a strong stand on the issue and now have a BELIEF in the nonexistence of purple unicorns. In that case, where do you stop? You could end up having a belief in the nonexistence of thousands, nay millions of mythological fantasy creatures! I really hope you don't have a limit on the number of beliefs you're allowed to have, because you're going to be filling up pretty quick! Nevermind that they're beliefs in the nonexistence of something, a belief is a belief right?
See, this is why theists shouldn't bother wasting their time attacking atheism because not only is it pointless, it's ineffective. You will never convert an atheist by convincing him that he doesn't lack a belief, but rather has a belief in the non-existence and thus really is a believer!! Wow!! Just about the only people I know of that accept that line of reasoning are....get ready for it...theists!
I think what throws Theists through a loop is the -ism at the end of Atheism. Atheism is a misnomer, it is not an -ism at all. It's the A- part that is important. Really Atheism needs a new, non -ism name. Which is why I choose be known as a nonbeliever.
Interesting. As atheism is a state of being and not a philosophy I don't really relate to the idea of there being different "forms" of atheism. I am an atheist because I lack a belief in a god. Trying to frame atheism as a "belief in the non-existence" is RIDICULOUS
Do I have a belief in the non-existence of purple unicorns? No. Because that requires me having an active belief which I do not in this case. It's the same with gods. No difference at all in my mind. If you've decided that we are "those kinds of atheists", why would you frame the argument with "other kinds of atheists" in mind? That's not effective at all. In order to argue with Jimmy and I you have to argue from our perspective. I reject the notion of atheism being a "belief in the non-existence of blah blah blah" so you won't get far by trying to ram that idea down my throat. It just won't work. You'll have to find an atheist that accepts that framing of the argument and I have never met one that does. The interesting thing was i had never heard of your definition until i started investigating your post above. So my first post was without the understanding of the possition that you and Jimmy hold. Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. You do not decide to become an atheist, you simply are an atheist. If at some point in your life you develop the belief in a god then you choose to become a theist. If you lose that belief you are not choosing to become an atheist, you're going back to your original state of being, which for all human beings is atheism. Given my stance on purple unicorns, I don't understand why the absence of belief seems so bizarre to you. Where do you stand on the indomitable issue that has plagued philosophers throughout time known as purple unicorns? I can only assume you have a belief in them since you reject the notion of lacking a belief. Or maybe you've taken a strong stand on the issue and now have a BELIEF in the nonexistence of purple unicorns. In that case, where do you stop? You could end up having a belief in the nonexistence of thousands, nay millions of mythological fantasy creatures! I really hope you don't have a limit on the number of beliefs you're allowed to have, because you're going to be filling up pretty quick! Nevermind that they're beliefs in the nonexistence of something, a belief is a belief right? I think what throws Theists through a loop is the -ism at the end of Atheism. Atheism is a misnomer, it is not an -ism at all. It's the A- part that is important. Really Atheism needs a new, non -ism name. Which is why I choose be known as a nonbeliever. And here's why:
You are attempting to make straw man with the purple unicorn, the funny thing is, i can not say there isn't a purple unicorn. i don't know everything. In the common context, i suspect that there isn't one, but can't prove this to be the case.But as the youtube link above says, "just because we can't prove there isn't one doesn't mean there is"
If someone comes to me and says that a purple unicorn wrote a book about how to live my life and that i need to obey the purple unicorn. then the following conversation would ensue.
Me: I don't believe in the purple unicorn, do you have any evidence?
Faithful: the purple unicorn is unknowable! you can only be happy if you beleive in him!
Me: i beleive you are wrong.
It is this last statement that i am talking about. when you say "i don't believe in god" it is in reference to someone who does believe in god. As such you are saying very clearly and concicely "you are wrong" the fact of the matter is that you can't prove them wrong. so more correctly you are saying "i believe you are wrong"
The possition, "i have an absence of belief" is an intrigueing one for sure. You see it as easily understandable as any "self evident truth" i am not so sure.
When you talk to someone who is Christian (for example) and you say that "i don't believe in god" and mean "I have an absence of belief in god" do you believe the christian is wrong? could they be right?
I think maybe the "absence of belief" is trying to sidestep making a comment. That due to your absence of belief, you can't say they are right or wrong. All you can say is "i have an absence of belief" and step away. This fits in with your standpoint that they can't continue the argument based of faith.
I think i have the moral resposibility and corage to say that "If you believe in god, not only do i believe you are wrong but you are doing yourself damage and here is why..."
So I found myself in a discussion about religion the other day. For the record, I don't run around announcing to the world that I'm an atheist or insulting religious people at every opportunity. Yet, if someone asks me point blank about my religious leanings then I reply plainly and honestly. It's usually at this point that the bullshit occurs. Once a religious person finds out that I'm an atheist they usually proceed to try and call me out on my "beliefs." I use scare quotes because atheism is the lack of belief altogether. I don't believe. I've tried to believe. At one time I really, really wanted to believe. But I don't believe. This fundamental misunderstanding is what brings me to this topic. Theists always want non-believers to answer for their point of view. They demand explanations. The problem with this is that atheists don't have answers in regard to religion. Atheists only have question about religion that have never been adequately answered. Here's a short list: Where did God come from? This is a big one. This is a question so simple that most five year olds jump right on it. To clarify, if the universe is so large and complex that it requires an intelligence that is an order of magnitude more complex to design it, who made that intelligence? And who made the maker's, maker's, maker? This question leads to an infinite loop. As far as I'm concerned, this is the knockout punch. Theists go to great lengths to avoid this issue for a reason. If God loves us so futher mocking much, why does he inflict pain and death on us? Pushing on past the first question, we reach for the all knowing / loving / powerful aspect. It's the Epicurean question. Is God willing and able to prevent evil? Your average theist will answer yes right off the cuff, but then why is there evil. Theists will then counter with man's free will which means that God is indeed unable and therefore not omnipotent. Theists will then revise their answer that God chooses not to interfere with man's free will which means that God is unwilling and therefor malevolent. You can have one or two, but not all three. Why only one God? Why not a thousand, or even a million? Whenever this issue comes up I'm usually asked to prove that there is no God. But this cuts both ways. Why don't you prove that there are no other Gods than your God...? Exactly! Why doesn't God heal amputees? God heals tumors, mental illness, blindness, deafness, paralysis, etc., yet no amputee has ever regrown a limb at a faith healers tent. WTF?! And the questions go on from there. While different people have different reasons for being atheists, many of us simply don't believe because religion provides nothing but unanswered questions. It's that simple.
Where did God come from? He is. He was. He will be. Fact is, whether you believe in God or not, you must believe in the faith of infinite/eternity. Something had to always exist, or we do not exist. Time is a measurement man has used to more or less measure the movement of molecules, the ability to pace the constant change of the universe. Something was before time. Something has always existed.
You can't explain infinite, because we are finite beings. So you can't explain the existance of God.
God doesn't inflict pain. We inflict pain upon ourselves. In fact, God gave us two great gifts, redemption, and free will, it's like winning the lottery. The trick is, is that we have to use the second one, to get the first one. Pain and suffering is the antithesis of God, the further we are away from him, the further we delve into pain.
For God to force his will on us, his will of peace, love, and health, would make it artificial. God is not a dictator, someone who forces others to his will. Otherwise you would not be having this conversation.
What do you define as a god? That's the question.
In the hebrew language that was translated into the old testament bible, many times what they translated into God, was actually the hebrew word elohim, the plural version of eloha. Which would explain why in genesis there is a line that says, "Let *us* make man in *our* own image". There are many beings that have god-like powers. But there is only one YHVH, and there is only one savior, one son of the infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God.
As for the last question, I believe someone else already answered that. Many faith healers are bogus. And only wish to manipulate the congregation into giving them their money, they're heardly doing the will of God.
Originally posted by Rajai
well my intelligent friend..
why is it that if god can make evil ... why can't he unmake it?
why does he create man in his image but allow him to sin?
then i ask them if it makes too much sense to them
#1. God didn't make evil. True evil is the absence of God. Evil is the antithesis of God's will. If everyone was perfect, evil could still be created, but not by God, but rather whoever strayed away from God. The great cherub Lucifer, the first to stray from God, he would have been the first progenitor of evil. But we are all it's creators.
#2. Because to truly make him in His image, he would have to give man the ability of free will. The same reason why Christ was given the chance to sin, but was wise enough not to.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Interesting. As atheism is a state of being and not a philosophy I don't really relate to the idea of there being different "forms" of atheism. I am an atheist because I lack a belief in a god. Trying to frame atheism as a "belief in the non-existence" is RIDICULOUS
Do I have a belief in the non-existence of purple unicorns? No. Because that requires me having an active belief which I do not in this case. It's the same with gods. No difference at all in my mind. If you've decided that we are "those kinds of atheists", why would you frame the argument with "other kinds of atheists" in mind? That's not effective at all. In order to argue with Jimmy and I you have to argue from our perspective. I reject the notion of atheism being a "belief in the non-existence of blah blah blah" so you won't get far by trying to ram that idea down my throat. It just won't work. You'll have to find an atheist that accepts that framing of the argument and I have never met one that does. The interesting thing was i had never heard of your definition until i started investigating your post above. So my first post was without the understanding of the possition that you and Jimmy hold. Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. You do not decide to become an atheist, you simply are an atheist. If at some point in your life you develop the belief in a god then you choose to become a theist. If you lose that belief you are not choosing to become an atheist, you're going back to your original state of being, which for all human beings is atheism. Given my stance on purple unicorns, I don't understand why the absence of belief seems so bizarre to you. Where do you stand on the indomitable issue that has plagued philosophers throughout time known as purple unicorns? I can only assume you have a belief in them since you reject the notion of lacking a belief. Or maybe you've taken a strong stand on the issue and now have a BELIEF in the nonexistence of purple unicorns. In that case, where do you stop? You could end up having a belief in the nonexistence of thousands, nay millions of mythological fantasy creatures! I really hope you don't have a limit on the number of beliefs you're allowed to have, because you're going to be filling up pretty quick! Nevermind that they're beliefs in the nonexistence of something, a belief is a belief right? I think what throws Theists through a loop is the -ism at the end of Atheism. Atheism is a misnomer, it is not an -ism at all. It's the A- part that is important. Really Atheism needs a new, non -ism name. Which is why I choose be known as a nonbeliever. And here's why:
You are attempting to make straw man with the purple unicorn, the funny thing is, i can not say there isn't a purple unicorn. i don't know everything. In the common context, i suspect that there isn't one, but can't prove this to be the case.But as the youtube link above says, "just because we can't prove there isn't one doesn't mean there is"
If someone comes to me and says that a purple unicorn wrote a book about how to live my life and that i need to obey the purple unicorn. then the following conversation would ensue.
Me: I don't believe in the purple unicorn, do you have any evidence?
Faithful: the purple unicorn is unknowable! you can only be happy if you beleive in him!
Me: i beleive you are wrong.
It is this last statement that i am talking about. when you say "i don't believe in god" it is in reference to someone who does believe in god. As such you are saying very clearly and concicely "you are wrong" the fact of the matter is that you can't prove them wrong. so more correctly you are saying "i believe you are wrong"
The possition, "i have an absence of belief" is an intrigueing one for sure. You see it as easily understandable as any "self evident truth" i am not so sure.
When you talk to someone who is Christian (for example) and you say that "i don't believe in god" and mean "I have an absence of belief in god" do you believe the christian is wrong? could they be right?
I think maybe the "absence of belief" is trying to sidestep making a comment. That due to your absence of belief, you can't say they are right or wrong. All you can say is "i have an absence of belief" and step away. This fits in with your standpoint that they can't continue the argument based of faith.
I think i have the moral resposibility and corage to say that "If you believe in god, not only do i believe you are wrong but you are doing yourself damage and here is why..."
I'm sure you were itching to call it a straw man, but the fact is that you're over-complicating a very simple issue. Gods and goddesses are the equivalent of purple unicorns. At least, I think that was the message I was trying to convey...
Oh wait, no it wasn't. The message was "belief in the non-existence of..." is a nonsensical way to frame this issue.
Pay attention to the highlighted part of what I've quoted because it's important. In the first sentence you say "I don't believe in the purple unicorn". You do NOT believe. You LACK a belief. Notice you didn't say "I believe there is no purple unicorn".
In the second sentence you express a belief that the person you are conversing with is wrong. "I believe you are wrong". That's very different from believing there is no purple unicorn. In this scenario the belief is that the person is wrong.
In those two sentences alone you unconsciously typed out the conversation and essentially made my point for me without even realizing it. Deep down inside you know what atheism really is, and that all this trying to reframe it into something its not is a circus act.
Saying "I do not believe in god" does not take into account the other person's belief in ANY WAY. "I do not believe in god" is not the same thing as saying "I believe you are wrong". That's an insane leap in logic. After all...who is wrong? The Christian? The Muslim? The Hindu down the street? The speaker in this sentence is expressing a lack of belief "in god" which would seem to reference a monotheistic religion, but beyond that there is no qualifier so what "god" is he expressing a lack of belief in?
I doesn't matter whether the Christian is wrong or right. That's not what is at issue. What's at issue is theists trying to make atheism something it isn't. I've already covered how expressing a lack of belief in a god is in no way reflective or judgemental of the person of faith.
It's not sidestepping a comment because there is no comment to be made. The atheist's lack of belief is not a critique on religion. Many atheists attempt to critique religion and belief in gods as the OP attempted to do. But that is not atheism. Atheism is not a way of thinking, it's not a religious doctrine, it's not a philosophy, it's not anything beyond a lack of belief in a god. There are a number of religions on earth that are atheistic and it has nothing to do with being anti-religious. It is only anti-theist which explains the name quite well, don't you agree?
Originally posted by Finwe
Fact is, whether you believe in God or not, you must believe in the faith of infinite/eternity. Something had to always exist, or we do not exist.
What exactly is "the faith of infinite/eternity" and why must I believe in it? And what does eternity have to do with an intelligent overlord? Let me see if I can follow this logic train:
>> Eternity exists, so gods must exist <<
Now, I only had one semester of philosophy but I'm pretty sure that isn't a logical argument.
I'll also note that eternity only exists as it relates to the material universe. There's no evidence whatsoever of a spiritual world, let alone an eternal one.
Originally posted by KorususOriginally posted by Finwe
Fact is, whether you believe in God or not, you must believe in the faith of infinite/eternity. Something had to always exist, or we do not exist.
What exactly is "the faith of infinite/eternity" and why must I believe in it? And what does eternity have to do with an intelligent overlord? Let me see if I can follow this logic train:
>> Eternity exists, so gods must exist <<
Now, I only had one semester of philosophy but I'm pretty sure that isn't a logical argument.
I'll also note that eternity only exists as it relates to the material universe. There's no evidence whatsoever of a spiritual world, let alone an eternal one.
No no no. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying eternity exists so therefor God exists. I am saying, in the original argument, he was argueing that a creator must always also be the created, so it creates an infinite loop of finite beings(A contradiction really), so there must be something that was never created, for it to "birth" the creation.
Let's give the big bang for example, where did the energy or matter come from that came from the big bang? Was it always there? If so, eureka, infinite!
The finite, must come from the infinite.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
I doesn't matter whether the Christian is wrong or right. That's not what is at issue. What's at issue is theists trying to make atheism something it isn't. I've already covered how expressing a lack of belief in a god is in no way reflective or judgemental of the person of faith. It's not sidestepping a comment because there is no comment to be made. The atheist's lack of belief is not a critique on religion. Many atheists attempt to critique religion and belief in gods as the OP attempted to do. But that is not atheism. Atheism is not a way of thinking, it's not a religious doctrine, it's not a philosophy, it's not anything beyond a lack of belief in a god. There are a number of religions on earth that are atheistic and it has nothing to do with being anti-religious. It is only anti-theist which explains the name quite well, don't you agree?
hmm, this seems to summarise your point quite well. Seems that atheists are getting a bad rap due to multiple general misunderstandings. (not to mention the atheism=evolution crowd)
Yep, i will take this anti-theist stance and run with it, thank you very much. i will edit my above dialogue.
I doesn't matter whether the Christian is wrong or right. That's not what is at issue. What's at issue is theists trying to make atheism something it isn't. I've already covered how expressing a lack of belief in a god is in no way reflective or judgemental of the person of faith. It's not sidestepping a comment because there is no comment to be made. The atheist's lack of belief is not a critique on religion. Many atheists attempt to critique religion and belief in gods as the OP attempted to do. But that is not atheism. Atheism is not a way of thinking, it's not a religious doctrine, it's not a philosophy, it's not anything beyond a lack of belief in a god. There are a number of religions on earth that are atheistic and it has nothing to do with being anti-religious. It is only anti-theist which explains the name quite well, don't you agree?
hmm, this seems to summarise your point quite well. Seems that atheists are getting a bad rap due to multiple general misunderstandings. (not to mention the atheism=evolution crowd)
Yep, i will take this anti-theist stance and run with it, thank you very much. i will edit my above dialogue.
Although, now i don't really see any point to atheism.
You're still trying to see atheism as an -ism when I've demonstrated (I thought clearly) that it isn't an -ism at all. Atheism can no more have a point to it than being your age. You didn't choose what age you are. You just are that age. It doesn't really mean anything except whatever meaning you yourself attach to it. I am called an atheist because I lack a belief in a god. No more, no less. I'm not trying to accomplish anything by it, in fact there's no active participation on my part at all. Thus no "point".
I'm glad you now know the difference between an antitheist and an atheist however, that's half the battle right there.
BTW, I've known a number of atheists that do not believe in evolution, so sorry to blow that theory out of the water.
Originally posted by Finwe
Originally posted by KorususOriginally posted by Finwe
Fact is, whether you believe in God or not, you must believe in the faith of infinite/eternity. Something had to always exist, or we do not exist.
What exactly is "the faith of infinite/eternity" and why must I believe in it? And what does eternity have to do with an intelligent overlord? Let me see if I can follow this logic train:
>> Eternity exists, so gods must exist <<
Now, I only had one semester of philosophy but I'm pretty sure that isn't a logical argument.
I'll also note that eternity only exists as it relates to the material universe. There's no evidence whatsoever of a spiritual world, let alone an eternal one.
No no no. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying eternity exists so therefor God exists. I am saying, in the original argument, he was argueing that a creator must always also be the created, so it creates an infinite loop of finite beings(A contradiction really), so there must be something that was never created, for it to "birth" the creation.
Let's give the big bang for example, where did the energy or matter come from that came from the big bang? Was it always there? If so, eureka, infinite!
The finite, must come from the infinite.
Ah I didn't put it in the context of the OP's original argument. That makes a little more sense.
I doesn't matter whether the Christian is wrong or right. That's not what is at issue. What's at issue is theists trying to make atheism something it isn't. I've already covered how expressing a lack of belief in a god is in no way reflective or judgemental of the person of faith. It's not sidestepping a comment because there is no comment to be made. The atheist's lack of belief is not a critique on religion. Many atheists attempt to critique religion and belief in gods as the OP attempted to do. But that is not atheism. Atheism is not a way of thinking, it's not a religious doctrine, it's not a philosophy, it's not anything beyond a lack of belief in a god. There are a number of religions on earth that are atheistic and it has nothing to do with being anti-religious. It is only anti-theist which explains the name quite well, don't you agree?
hmm, this seems to summarise your point quite well. Seems that atheists are getting a bad rap due to multiple general misunderstandings. (not to mention the atheism=evolution crowd)
Yep, i will take this anti-theist stance and run with it, thank you very much. i will edit my above dialogue.
Although, now i don't really see any point to atheism.
You're still trying to see atheism as an -ism when I've demonstrated (I thought clearly) that it isn't an -ism at all. Atheism can no more have a point to it than being your age. You didn't choose what age you are. You just are that age. It doesn't really mean anything except whatever meaning you yourself attach to it. I am called an atheist because I lack a belief in a god. No more, no less. I'm not trying to accomplish anything by it, in fact there's no active participation on my part at all. Thus no "point".
I'm glad you now know the difference between an antitheist and an atheist however, that's half the battle right there.
BTW, I've known a number of atheists that do not believe in evolution, so sorry to blow that theory out of the water.
not really sure what the problem here is, i say atheism has no point, you say atheism has no point, we agree, yes?
i also know many people who believe in god who also agree that evolutionary science is of benefit.
i suspect you didn't get my joke about the atheism=evolution thing, the ID crowd is using the word evolution in place of atheism ( or even anti-theism). they are reinforcing this so that when people hear "the school teaches evolution" they consider it to mean "the school teaches atheism".
Originally posted by Zerocool032 And things are infinite.I wonder if computers or future robots ask each other who made them. Oh wait they dont have a consciousness. What makes you think a random process can produce the act of thought? This simply defines our being.
That is by far the worst argument for God's existence ever. Robots will ask the same thing and not know!
why is it that if god can make evil ... why can't he unmake it?
why does he create man in his image but allow him to sin?
then i ask them if it makes too much sense to them
You are looking at this from a religious perspective.
Who says God can or can not make evil?
Christians.
Who says God created man?
The Bible.
Who says anything God does has to make sense to us?
The followers of Cthulhu.
Are the things we do as a species required to make sense to ants or any other species?
Dogma.
You are assuming the nature of God is "just like us". One of us but all powerful and nothing else to do but spectate us. This is what religion tells us, right? God is omnipotent, correct? We are a very conceited species to think that the omnipotent forces of the universe have nothing else to do but watch us scurry around with our day to day activites and actually be interested. Maybe they are maybe they are not. Look into the sky tonight (if you can still see it ) see the universe and say "I understand". If you do, come and tell us what the true nature of God and the universe really is.
Christians believe that, like the angels, god created us in "His image" and the fact that we can do evil is the work of the devil and his influence on us is apparently apparent.
Would you or me be so presumptuous as to claim that you know the mind of an omnipotent force? Would you claim to understand the mind of God whatever it may be?
lets see! it seems that we may have people who want scientific evidence that a God Exists!
Personally - I have faith that a God exists and i know a God exists.. this world is too complex to NOT have a creator.. plus.. women are too perfect.. (like i've stated earlier..)
for example - research the complexity of DNA and the human body.. is that not sufficient evidence?
what about the processes of life and how everything works off of something else to survive?
what about Robert Cornukes research and discoveries with finding aquatic animal material (bones, shells ect) up 10k+ feet in elevation while in search for noahs ark?
I don't see why one can't accept all religions as a possibility rather than devoting himself to one and having absolute faith in that.
Personally I don't believe as humans we can understand god or how it works, I imagine it stretches beyond our imagination. Nor do I think that anyone can preach its teachings and what not. I don't believe the bible is the word of god mainly due to it was written by man. Kind of makes me think of scientology, it was based off some sci-fi fantasy book if im not mistaken, course scientology is a joke imo so w/e's
I do believe that their is a "god" being, heck maybe an entire race of em. I don't think any human has the right to say that they understand god's work or its plans for us.
You know you can be an agnostic and an atheist a theist or a deist.
Agnostic does not mean inbetween theist and atheist, nor does it mean openminded like some people use it, it means a person that believes that the concept of god is unknowable. The Opposite of this is Gnostic, which means a person that thinks it is possible to know if there was a god or not.
I am just an atheist, not agnostic, I am not willing to jump to the conclusion that it is impossible to know whether a god/s existed or not. Let the people making claims worry about proving them.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
i do have evidence taht God exists lets see! it seems that we may have people who want scientific evidence that a God Exists! Personally - I have faith that a God exists and i know a God exists.. this world is too complex to NOT have a creator.. plus.. women are too perfect.. (like i've stated earlier..) plus.. YOU GUYS WTF? what about the women..
I'm not sure Billy Graham would use this line of reasoning to argue for the existence of God, but your point is well taken. However, out of curiousity, I looked at your profile page and noticed that you are 20. That would perhaps explain your view of the "perfection" of women. Give it about 10 years and I think you might knock them down a peg or two on the perfection scale. Don't get me wrong, they are awfully nice, but to say they are perfect is to be thinking with more than just your brain, if you know what I mean.
I've only been following this thread intermittantly so I'm not in a position at this point to make an extended response, but the fact remains that everything in life that is unknown requires faith on some scale. Therefore atheists cannot look down on believers for having faith in God, because it takes at least as much faith to not believe in a creator as well. Even more, imo.
lets see! it seems that we may have people who want scientific evidence that a God Exists! Personally - I have faith that a God exists and i know a God exists.. this world is too complex to NOT have a creator.. plus.. women are too perfect.. (like i've stated earlier..) for example - research the complexity of DNA and the human body.. is that not sufficient evidence? what about the processes of life and how everything works off of something else to survive?
what about Robert Cornukes research and discoveries with finding aquatic animal material (bones, shells ect) up 10k+ feet in elevation while in search for noahs ark?
plus.. YOU GUYS WTF? what about the women..
God made boobs and Women for men.. okay thats my proof
okay thats my
Sweet GODALLMighty IM Convinced those are nice.We are like the only self aware beings in this Known universe.I can change and Dominate my environment.I can control who or what can have sex with,Its by far to perfect to be random chance.If u can't improve the beauty of the baron desert or the sweet smell of the night breeze then their is nothing left to say.This is the big mystery HIM spoke of.Or that is that no known one knows why.
Most of you know I live on a 90 acre farm in the country,in South Carolina,not much farming goes on tho.Well I got a red tail fox breaking into my daughters rabbit cage's in the back yard.And she is doing the same thing to my neighbors cage's also.she has been doing this for 3 months, same path,same time' every 2 weeks.This bitch has gotten past every known trap thats available to me.and I have yet to catch her.she is so hard to see at night and so fast it makes it imposable to shoot her...all tho I would not even try.not much of a hunter here,but. So last week my buddy lets me use his night vision goggles,so the wait begins,I wait and wait and sleep and wait,and finely she shows up and to my surprise she has a littler of pups with her,and I just freak out.thats was one just one moment in my life I knew their was a God.I just put rabbits in the garage and shut the door,and put some chickens in the cages instead. and I did track her to her den some 3/4 of a mile from my home to a hole on the side of a stump. and I put my scent all over the den instance which will cause her to move the pups, I pissed all over the entrance in other words.I'M so smart ,yep we ain't seen her nor have we heard from her .I believe God speaks to us all in a Vary ICONIC ways,soft ways,ways we least expect.its just my view of things.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
So I found myself in a discussion about religion the other day. For the record, I don't run around announcing to the world that I'm an atheist or insulting religious people at every opportunity. Yet, if someone asks me point blank about my religious leanings then I reply plainly and honestly. It's usually at this point that the bullshit occurs. Once a religious person finds out that I'm an atheist they usually proceed to try and call me out on my "beliefs." I use scare quotes because atheism is the lack of belief altogether. I don't believe. I've tried to believe. At one time I really, really wanted to believe. But I don't believe. This fundamental misunderstanding is what brings me to this topic. Theists always want non-believers to answer for their point of view. They demand explanations. The problem with this is that atheists don't have answers in regard to religion. Atheists only have question about religion that have never been adequately answered. Here's a short list: Where did God come from? This is a big one. This is a question so simple that most five year olds jump right on it. To clarify, if the universe is so large and complex that it requires an intelligence that is an order of magnitude more complex to design it, who made that intelligence? And who made the maker's, maker's, maker? This question leads to an infinite loop. As far as I'm concerned, this is the knockout punch. Theists go to great lengths to avoid this issue for a reason. If God loves us so futher mocking much, why does he inflict pain and death on us? Pushing on past the first question, we reach for the all knowing / loving / powerful aspect. It's the Epicurean question. Is God willing and able to prevent evil? Your average theist will answer yes right off the cuff, but then why is there evil. Theists will then counter with man's free will which means that God is indeed unable and therefore not omnipotent. Theists will then revise their answer that God chooses not to interfere with man's free will which means that God is unwilling and therefor malevolent. You can have one or two, but not all three. Why only one God? Why not a thousand, or even a million? Whenever this issue comes up I'm usually asked to prove that there is no God. But this cuts both ways. Why don't you prove that there are no other Gods than your God...? Exactly! Why doesn't God heal amputees? God heals tumors, mental illness, blindness, deafness, paralysis, etc., yet no amputee has ever regrown a limb at a faith healers tent. WTF?! And the questions go on from there. While different people have different reasons for being atheists, many of us simply don't believe because religion provides nothing but unanswered questions. It's that simple.
i think the third question there was kinda pushin it
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
You know you can be an agnostic and an atheist a theist or a deist. Agnostic does not mean inbetween theist and atheist, nor does it mean openminded like some people use it, it means a person that believes that the concept of god is unknowable. The Opposite of this is Gnostic, which means a person that thinks it is possible to know if there was a god or not. I am just an atheist, not agnostic, I am not willing to jump to the conclusion that it is impossible to know whether a god/s existed or not. Let the people making claims worry about proving them.
Isn't an athiest someone that positively does not believe in god? In much the same way that a theist positvely believes in their god?
Where did God come from? If God loves us so futher mocking much, why does he inflict pain and death on us? Why only one God? Why doesn't God heal amputees?
1. If god exists, he is defined as the ultimate cause. Therefore, if something has an origin, it cannot be god himself.
2. We are able to suffer because we decided to stay away from god. God himself cannot suffer, neither can the saints who are truely reunited with their true nature.
3. There is only one ultimate cause.
4. Miracles, by definition, break the laws and limitations of physics. If god exists and does perform miracles, i.e. breaks the laws of the creation he himself created, he can also heal amputees. Or turn iron into gold. Or extinct the sun. Or terminate the creation.
Isn't an athiest someone that positively does not believe in god? In much the same way that a theist positvely believes in their god?
This was always my understanding of atheism, which is why I always considered myself agnotic (with no belief in existence or non-existence). I can neither prove nor disprove any higher power. Being a person of faith requires a belief structure, as does atheism in my opinion. Building a belief structure around nothingness seems odd none-the-less.
Some people use the term atheist in that manner. But others including myself use it to mean lacking belief, or in other words not convinced, some people call this weak atheism. Not making a positive assertion that something does not exist, simply not believing that it does untill proven otherwise.
In statistics terms
Ho - There is only nature
Ha - There is a god
And since Ha hasn't been proven yet I don't believe it, not saying that it is impossible or a god does not exist just that I have no reason to believe it does.
Like I said, agnostics can also be theists or atheists, there are different types of agnostics, so in this regard I am a weak atheist and a mild agnostic, also a skeptic, an apatheist, an anti-theist, and a nihilist, but who is counting.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Comments
Jimmy, the fact is that by actively believing in the non-existance of god you are performing an act of faith. You can not prove there is no god (due to the both incomprehensible nature of its definition and you can never prove something isn't) , so it is not neccisarily true therfore so you have faith that there is no god.
Tricksy world-play there. There's no such thing as "actively believing in the non-existence of blah blah blah". I know this is a difficult concept to get but try to bear with us. Atheism is the LACK of belief. It is NOT an active belief in blah blah blah...by even characterizing it in that way you're making it far more complicated than it really is.
How often do you hear someone say "I don't believe in God" (I hear people say this all the time) vs. "I believe there is no God" (I have never heard anyone say this in all my years of living)
See how ridiculous it is to characterize atheism as a belief when it's actually the exact opposite?
EDIT: On second thought, I'm going to delete the first stuff I wrote and just leave this here because I think it really is the crux of the theist's argument against atheism (which is an odd thing to argue against since it just is, there's not really anything to argue against).
this focuses on a semantic argument and also ignores that atheism means different things to different people. There are different kinds of atheism depending on the definitions.
www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
It seems what you and Jimmy pursue is the model proposed by the "American Atheists", arguing that atheism is the absence of belief and therefore does not involve faith. This seems to be a newish, local standpoint that is still not the mainstream definition of atheism.
This is an interesting view, i don't like it as i think that there is nothing wrong with faith and belief. In fact i see is an essential part of being or holding onto a sense of identity. We have faith in our memories for example. Faith in ourselves and our loved ones give us motivation.
The absence of belief seems to be another bizzarre abstract to me.
"I don't believe in god" is a direct denial of another's belief. Belief itself is defined as "an acceptance that a statemnet is true or that something exists". "I don't believe in god" is accepted as a personal truth which to me requires belief.
As i said though it is an interesting standpoint and will need to think on it and possible even readjust my views. At this stage i am in the "strong atheism" camp, i positively assert that there is no god and hold to that assertion as an act of faith. Just the same as any christian positively asserts that there is no Zeus.
Just to point out here that you are not arguing the opposite of belief but the absence.See how ridiculous it is to characterize atheism as a belief when it's actually the exact opposite?
Jimmy, the fact is that by actively believing in the non-existance of god you are performing an act of faith. You can not prove there is no god (due to the both incomprehensible nature of its definition and you can never prove something isn't) , so it is not neccisarily true therfore so you have faith that there is no god.
Tricksy world-play there. There's no such thing as "actively believing in the non-existence of blah blah blah". I know this is a difficult concept to get but try to bear with us. Atheism is the LACK of belief. It is NOT an active belief in blah blah blah...by even characterizing it in that way you're making it far more complicated than it really is.
How often do you hear someone say "I don't believe in God" (I hear people say this all the time) vs. "I believe there is no God" (I have never heard anyone say this in all my years of living)
See how ridiculous it is to characterize atheism as a belief when it's actually the exact opposite?
EDIT: On second thought, I'm going to delete the first stuff I wrote and just leave this here because I think it really is the crux of the theist's argument against atheism (which is an odd thing to argue against since it just is, there's not really anything to argue against).
this focuses on a semantic argument and also ignores that atheism means different things to different people. There are different kinds of atheism depending on the definitions.
www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
It seems what you and Jimmy pursue is the model proposed by the "American Atheists", arguing that atheism is the absence of belief and therefore does not involve faith. This seems to be a newish, local standpoint that is still not the mainstream definition of atheism.
This is an interesting view, i don't like it as i think that there is nothing wrong with faith and belief. In fact i see is an essential part of being or holding onto a sense of identity. We have faith in our memories for example. Faith in ourselves and our loved ones give us motivation.
The absence of belief seems to be another bizzarre abstract to me.
"I don't believe in god" is a direct denial of another's belief. Belief itself is defined as "an acceptance that a statemnet is true or that something exists". "I don't believe in god" is accepted as a personal truth which to me requires belief.
As i said though it is an interesting standpoint and will need to think on it and possible even readjust my views. At this stage i am in the "strong atheism" camp, i positively assert that there is no god and hold to that assertion as an act of faith. Just the same as any christian positively asserts that there is no Zeus.
Just to point out here that you are not arguing the opposite of belief but the absence.See how ridiculous it is to characterize atheism as a belief when it's actually the exact opposite?
Interesting. As atheism is a state of being and not a philosophy I don't really relate to the idea of there being different "forms" of atheism. I am an atheist because I lack a belief in a god. Trying to frame atheism as a "belief in the non-existence" is RIDICULOUS.
And here's why:
Do I have a belief in the non-existence of purple unicorns? No. Because that requires me having an active belief which I do not in this case. It's the same with gods. No difference at all in my mind.
If you've decided that we are "those kinds of atheists", why would you frame the argument with "other kinds of atheists" in mind? That's not effective at all. In order to argue with Jimmy and I you have to argue from our perspective. I reject the notion of atheism being a "belief in the non-existence of blah blah blah" so you won't get far by trying to ram that idea down my throat. It just won't work. You'll have to find an atheist that accepts that framing of the argument and I have never met one that does.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. You do not decide to become an atheist, you simply are an atheist. If at some point in your life you develop the belief in a god then you choose to become a theist. If you lose that belief you are not choosing to become an atheist, you're going back to your original state of being, which for all human beings is atheism.
Given my stance on purple unicorns, I don't understand why the absence of belief seems so bizarre to you. Where do you stand on the indomitable issue that has plagued philosophers throughout time known as purple unicorns? I can only assume you have a belief in them since you reject the notion of lacking a belief. Or maybe you've taken a strong stand on the issue and now have a BELIEF in the nonexistence of purple unicorns. In that case, where do you stop? You could end up having a belief in the nonexistence of thousands, nay millions of mythological fantasy creatures! I really hope you don't have a limit on the number of beliefs you're allowed to have, because you're going to be filling up pretty quick! Nevermind that they're beliefs in the nonexistence of something, a belief is a belief right?
See, this is why theists shouldn't bother wasting their time attacking atheism because not only is it pointless, it's ineffective. You will never convert an atheist by convincing him that he doesn't lack a belief, but rather has a belief in the non-existence and thus really is a believer!! Wow!! Just about the only people I know of that accept that line of reasoning are....get ready for it...theists!
I think what throws Theists through a loop is the -ism at the end of Atheism. Atheism is a misnomer, it is not an -ism at all. It's the A- part that is important. Really Atheism needs a new, non -ism name. Which is why I choose be known as a nonbeliever.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
You are attempting to make straw man with the purple unicorn, the funny thing is, i can not say there isn't a purple unicorn. i don't know everything. In the common context, i suspect that there isn't one, but can't prove this to be the case.But as the youtube link above says, "just because we can't prove there isn't one doesn't mean there is"
If someone comes to me and says that a purple unicorn wrote a book about how to live my life and that i need to obey the purple unicorn. then the following conversation would ensue.
Me: I don't believe in the purple unicorn, do you have any evidence?
Faithful: the purple unicorn is unknowable! you can only be happy if you beleive in him!
Me: i beleive you are wrong.
It is this last statement that i am talking about. when you say "i don't believe in god" it is in reference to someone who does believe in god. As such you are saying very clearly and concicely "you are wrong" the fact of the matter is that you can't prove them wrong. so more correctly you are saying "i believe you are wrong"
The possition, "i have an absence of belief" is an intrigueing one for sure. You see it as easily understandable as any "self evident truth" i am not so sure.
When you talk to someone who is Christian (for example) and you say that "i don't believe in god" and mean "I have an absence of belief in god" do you believe the christian is wrong? could they be right?
I think maybe the "absence of belief" is trying to sidestep making a comment. That due to your absence of belief, you can't say they are right or wrong. All you can say is "i have an absence of belief" and step away. This fits in with your standpoint that they can't continue the argument based of faith.
I think i have the moral resposibility and corage to say that "If you believe in god, not only do i believe you are wrong but you are doing yourself damage and here is why..."
Where did God come from? He is. He was. He will be. Fact is, whether you believe in God or not, you must believe in the faith of infinite/eternity. Something had to always exist, or we do not exist. Time is a measurement man has used to more or less measure the movement of molecules, the ability to pace the constant change of the universe. Something was before time. Something has always existed.
You can't explain infinite, because we are finite beings. So you can't explain the existance of God.
God doesn't inflict pain. We inflict pain upon ourselves. In fact, God gave us two great gifts, redemption, and free will, it's like winning the lottery. The trick is, is that we have to use the second one, to get the first one. Pain and suffering is the antithesis of God, the further we are away from him, the further we delve into pain.
For God to force his will on us, his will of peace, love, and health, would make it artificial. God is not a dictator, someone who forces others to his will. Otherwise you would not be having this conversation.
What do you define as a god? That's the question.
In the hebrew language that was translated into the old testament bible, many times what they translated into God, was actually the hebrew word elohim, the plural version of eloha. Which would explain why in genesis there is a line that says, "Let *us* make man in *our* own image". There are many beings that have god-like powers. But there is only one YHVH, and there is only one savior, one son of the infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God.
As for the last question, I believe someone else already answered that. Many faith healers are bogus. And only wish to manipulate the congregation into giving them their money, they're heardly doing the will of God.
#1. God didn't make evil. True evil is the absence of God. Evil is the antithesis of God's will. If everyone was perfect, evil could still be created, but not by God, but rather whoever strayed away from God. The great cherub Lucifer, the first to stray from God, he would have been the first progenitor of evil. But we are all it's creators.
#2. Because to truly make him in His image, he would have to give man the ability of free will. The same reason why Christ was given the chance to sin, but was wise enough not to.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
You are attempting to make straw man with the purple unicorn, the funny thing is, i can not say there isn't a purple unicorn. i don't know everything. In the common context, i suspect that there isn't one, but can't prove this to be the case.But as the youtube link above says, "just because we can't prove there isn't one doesn't mean there is"
If someone comes to me and says that a purple unicorn wrote a book about how to live my life and that i need to obey the purple unicorn. then the following conversation would ensue.
Me: I don't believe in the purple unicorn, do you have any evidence?
Faithful: the purple unicorn is unknowable! you can only be happy if you beleive in him!
Me: i beleive you are wrong.
It is this last statement that i am talking about. when you say "i don't believe in god" it is in reference to someone who does believe in god. As such you are saying very clearly and concicely "you are wrong" the fact of the matter is that you can't prove them wrong. so more correctly you are saying "i believe you are wrong"
The possition, "i have an absence of belief" is an intrigueing one for sure. You see it as easily understandable as any "self evident truth" i am not so sure.
When you talk to someone who is Christian (for example) and you say that "i don't believe in god" and mean "I have an absence of belief in god" do you believe the christian is wrong? could they be right?
I think maybe the "absence of belief" is trying to sidestep making a comment. That due to your absence of belief, you can't say they are right or wrong. All you can say is "i have an absence of belief" and step away. This fits in with your standpoint that they can't continue the argument based of faith.
I think i have the moral resposibility and corage to say that "If you believe in god, not only do i believe you are wrong but you are doing yourself damage and here is why..."
I'm sure you were itching to call it a straw man, but the fact is that you're over-complicating a very simple issue. Gods and goddesses are the equivalent of purple unicorns. At least, I think that was the message I was trying to convey...
Oh wait, no it wasn't. The message was "belief in the non-existence of..." is a nonsensical way to frame this issue.
Pay attention to the highlighted part of what I've quoted because it's important. In the first sentence you say "I don't believe in the purple unicorn". You do NOT believe. You LACK a belief. Notice you didn't say "I believe there is no purple unicorn".
In the second sentence you express a belief that the person you are conversing with is wrong. "I believe you are wrong". That's very different from believing there is no purple unicorn. In this scenario the belief is that the person is wrong.
In those two sentences alone you unconsciously typed out the conversation and essentially made my point for me without even realizing it. Deep down inside you know what atheism really is, and that all this trying to reframe it into something its not is a circus act.
Saying "I do not believe in god" does not take into account the other person's belief in ANY WAY. "I do not believe in god" is not the same thing as saying "I believe you are wrong". That's an insane leap in logic. After all...who is wrong? The Christian? The Muslim? The Hindu down the street? The speaker in this sentence is expressing a lack of belief "in god" which would seem to reference a monotheistic religion, but beyond that there is no qualifier so what "god" is he expressing a lack of belief in?
I doesn't matter whether the Christian is wrong or right. That's not what is at issue. What's at issue is theists trying to make atheism something it isn't. I've already covered how expressing a lack of belief in a god is in no way reflective or judgemental of the person of faith.
It's not sidestepping a comment because there is no comment to be made. The atheist's lack of belief is not a critique on religion. Many atheists attempt to critique religion and belief in gods as the OP attempted to do. But that is not atheism. Atheism is not a way of thinking, it's not a religious doctrine, it's not a philosophy, it's not anything beyond a lack of belief in a god. There are a number of religions on earth that are atheistic and it has nothing to do with being anti-religious. It is only anti-theist which explains the name quite well, don't you agree?
What exactly is "the faith of infinite/eternity" and why must I believe in it? And what does eternity have to do with an intelligent overlord? Let me see if I can follow this logic train:
>> Eternity exists, so gods must exist <<
Now, I only had one semester of philosophy but I'm pretty sure that isn't a logical argument.
I'll also note that eternity only exists as it relates to the material universe. There's no evidence whatsoever of a spiritual world, let alone an eternal one.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
What exactly is "the faith of infinite/eternity" and why must I believe in it? And what does eternity have to do with an intelligent overlord? Let me see if I can follow this logic train:
>> Eternity exists, so gods must exist <<
Now, I only had one semester of philosophy but I'm pretty sure that isn't a logical argument.
I'll also note that eternity only exists as it relates to the material universe. There's no evidence whatsoever of a spiritual world, let alone an eternal one.
No no no. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying eternity exists so therefor God exists. I am saying, in the original argument, he was argueing that a creator must always also be the created, so it creates an infinite loop of finite beings(A contradiction really), so there must be something that was never created, for it to "birth" the creation.
Let's give the big bang for example, where did the energy or matter come from that came from the big bang? Was it always there? If so, eureka, infinite!
The finite, must come from the infinite.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
hmm, this seems to summarise your point quite well. Seems that atheists are getting a bad rap due to multiple general misunderstandings. (not to mention the atheism=evolution crowd)
Yep, i will take this anti-theist stance and run with it, thank you very much. i will edit my above dialogue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Although, now i don't really see any point to atheism.
hmm, this seems to summarise your point quite well. Seems that atheists are getting a bad rap due to multiple general misunderstandings. (not to mention the atheism=evolution crowd)
Yep, i will take this anti-theist stance and run with it, thank you very much. i will edit my above dialogue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Although, now i don't really see any point to atheism.
You're still trying to see atheism as an -ism when I've demonstrated (I thought clearly) that it isn't an -ism at all. Atheism can no more have a point to it than being your age. You didn't choose what age you are. You just are that age. It doesn't really mean anything except whatever meaning you yourself attach to it. I am called an atheist because I lack a belief in a god. No more, no less. I'm not trying to accomplish anything by it, in fact there's no active participation on my part at all. Thus no "point".
I'm glad you now know the difference between an antitheist and an atheist however, that's half the battle right there.
BTW, I've known a number of atheists that do not believe in evolution, so sorry to blow that theory out of the water.
What exactly is "the faith of infinite/eternity" and why must I believe in it? And what does eternity have to do with an intelligent overlord? Let me see if I can follow this logic train:
>> Eternity exists, so gods must exist <<
Now, I only had one semester of philosophy but I'm pretty sure that isn't a logical argument.
I'll also note that eternity only exists as it relates to the material universe. There's no evidence whatsoever of a spiritual world, let alone an eternal one.
No no no. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying eternity exists so therefor God exists. I am saying, in the original argument, he was argueing that a creator must always also be the created, so it creates an infinite loop of finite beings(A contradiction really), so there must be something that was never created, for it to "birth" the creation.
Let's give the big bang for example, where did the energy or matter come from that came from the big bang? Was it always there? If so, eureka, infinite!
The finite, must come from the infinite.
Ah I didn't put it in the context of the OP's original argument. That makes a little more sense.
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
hmm, this seems to summarise your point quite well. Seems that atheists are getting a bad rap due to multiple general misunderstandings. (not to mention the atheism=evolution crowd)
Yep, i will take this anti-theist stance and run with it, thank you very much. i will edit my above dialogue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Although, now i don't really see any point to atheism.
You're still trying to see atheism as an -ism when I've demonstrated (I thought clearly) that it isn't an -ism at all. Atheism can no more have a point to it than being your age. You didn't choose what age you are. You just are that age. It doesn't really mean anything except whatever meaning you yourself attach to it. I am called an atheist because I lack a belief in a god. No more, no less. I'm not trying to accomplish anything by it, in fact there's no active participation on my part at all. Thus no "point".
I'm glad you now know the difference between an antitheist and an atheist however, that's half the battle right there.
BTW, I've known a number of atheists that do not believe in evolution, so sorry to blow that theory out of the water.
not really sure what the problem here is, i say atheism has no point, you say atheism has no point, we agree, yes?
i also know many people who believe in god who also agree that evolutionary science is of benefit.
i suspect you didn't get my joke about the atheism=evolution thing, the ID crowd is using the word evolution in place of atheism ( or even anti-theism). they are reinforcing this so that when people hear "the school teaches evolution" they consider it to mean "the school teaches atheism".
Yes, but you shouldn't even be looking for a point to atheism in the first place. That's my point
----------
Life sucks, buy a helmet.
That is by far the worst argument for God's existence ever. Robots will ask the same thing and not know!
You are looking at this from a religious perspective.
Who says God can or can not make evil?
Christians.
Who says God created man?
The Bible.
Who says anything God does has to make sense to us?
The followers of Cthulhu.
Are the things we do as a species required to make sense to ants or any other species?
Dogma.
You are assuming the nature of God is "just like us". One of us but all powerful and nothing else to do but spectate us. This is what religion tells us, right? God is omnipotent, correct? We are a very conceited species to think that the omnipotent forces of the universe have nothing else to do but watch us scurry around with our day to day activites and actually be interested. Maybe they are maybe they are not. Look into the sky tonight (if you can still see it ) see the universe and say "I understand". If you do, come and tell us what the true nature of God and the universe really is.
Christians believe that, like the angels, god created us in "His image" and the fact that we can do evil is the work of the devil and his influence on us is apparently apparent.
Would you or me be so presumptuous as to claim that you know the mind of an omnipotent force? Would you claim to understand the mind of God whatever it may be?
Yes.
zOmGwTFtrailerpark
Trump 2016
i do have evidence taht God exists
lets see! it seems that we may have people who want scientific evidence that a God Exists!
Personally - I have faith that a God exists and i know a God exists.. this world is too complex to NOT have a creator.. plus.. women are too perfect.. (like i've stated earlier..)
for example - research the complexity of DNA and the human body.. is that not sufficient evidence?
what about the processes of life and how everything works off of something else to survive?
what about Robert Cornukes research and discoveries with finding aquatic animal material (bones, shells ect) up 10k+ feet in elevation while in search for noahs ark?
plus.. YOU GUYS WTF? what about the women..
God made boobs and Women for men..
okay thats my proof
okay thats my
I'll never understand why be athiest when you can be agnostic?
O_o o_O
Why be agnostic when you can be Deist?
I don't see why one can't accept all religions as a possibility rather than devoting himself to one and having absolute faith in that.
Personally I don't believe as humans we can understand god or how it works, I imagine it stretches beyond our imagination. Nor do I think that anyone can preach its teachings and what not. I don't believe the bible is the word of god mainly due to it was written by man. Kind of makes me think of scientology, it was based off some sci-fi fantasy book if im not mistaken, course scientology is a joke imo so w/e's
I do believe that their is a "god" being, heck maybe an entire race of em. I don't think any human has the right to say that they understand god's work or its plans for us.
Thats my idea anyway, /endrant
You know you can be an agnostic and an atheist a theist or a deist.
Agnostic does not mean inbetween theist and atheist, nor does it mean openminded like some people use it, it means a person that believes that the concept of god is unknowable. The Opposite of this is Gnostic, which means a person that thinks it is possible to know if there was a god or not.
I am just an atheist, not agnostic, I am not willing to jump to the conclusion that it is impossible to know whether a god/s existed or not. Let the people making claims worry about proving them.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Why be agnostic when you can be Deist?
One's apathy to the belief or disbelief in a higher power seems unrelated to one's views on the origin of morality. That's just me.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I'm not sure Billy Graham would use this line of reasoning to argue for the existence of God, but your point is well taken. However, out of curiousity, I looked at your profile page and noticed that you are 20. That would perhaps explain your view of the "perfection" of women. Give it about 10 years and I think you might knock them down a peg or two on the perfection scale. Don't get me wrong, they are awfully nice, but to say they are perfect is to be thinking with more than just your brain, if you know what I mean.
I've only been following this thread intermittantly so I'm not in a position at this point to make an extended response, but the fact remains that everything in life that is unknown requires faith on some scale. Therefore atheists cannot look down on believers for having faith in God, because it takes at least as much faith to not believe in a creator as well. Even more, imo.
Sweet GODALLMighty IM Convinced those are nice.We are like the only self aware beings in this Known universe.I can change and Dominate my environment.I can control who or what can have sex with,Its by far to perfect to be random chance.If u can't improve the beauty of the baron desert or the sweet smell of the night breeze then their is nothing left to say.This is the big mystery HIM spoke of.Or that is that no known one knows why.
Most of you know I live on a 90 acre farm in the country,in South Carolina,not much farming goes on tho.Well I got a red tail fox breaking into my daughters rabbit cage's in the back yard.And she is doing the same thing to my neighbors cage's also.she has been doing this for 3 months, same path,same time' every 2 weeks.This bitch has gotten past every known trap thats available to me.and I have yet to catch her.she is so hard to see at night and so fast it makes it imposable to shoot her...all tho I would not even try.not much of a hunter here,but. So last week my buddy lets me use his night vision goggles,so the wait begins,I wait and wait and sleep and wait,and finely she shows up and to my surprise she has a littler of pups with her,and I just freak out.thats was one just one moment in my life I knew their was a God.I just put rabbits in the garage and shut the door,and put some chickens in the cages instead. and I did track her to her den some 3/4 of a mile from my home to a hole on the side of a stump. and I put my scent all over the den instance which will cause her to move the pups, I pissed all over the entrance in other words.I'M so smart ,yep we ain't seen her nor have we heard from her .I believe God speaks to us all in a Vary ICONIC ways,soft ways,ways we least expect.its just my view of things.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
i think the third question there was kinda pushin it
I hope some day we can all put aside our racisms and prejudices and just laugh at people
Isn't an athiest someone that positively does not believe in god? In much the same way that a theist positvely believes in their god?
O_o o_O
1. If god exists, he is defined as the ultimate cause. Therefore, if something has an origin, it cannot be god himself.
2. We are able to suffer because we decided to stay away from god. God himself cannot suffer, neither can the saints who are truely reunited with their true nature.
3. There is only one ultimate cause.
4. Miracles, by definition, break the laws and limitations of physics. If god exists and does perform miracles, i.e. breaks the laws of the creation he himself created, he can also heal amputees. Or turn iron into gold. Or extinct the sun. Or terminate the creation.
This was always my understanding of atheism, which is why I always considered myself agnotic (with no belief in existence or non-existence). I can neither prove nor disprove any higher power. Being a person of faith requires a belief structure, as does atheism in my opinion. Building a belief structure around nothingness seems odd none-the-less.
Some people use the term atheist in that manner. But others including myself use it to mean lacking belief, or in other words not convinced, some people call this weak atheism. Not making a positive assertion that something does not exist, simply not believing that it does untill proven otherwise.
In statistics terms
Ho - There is only nature
Ha - There is a god
And since Ha hasn't been proven yet I don't believe it, not saying that it is impossible or a god does not exist just that I have no reason to believe it does.
Like I said, agnostics can also be theists or atheists, there are different types of agnostics, so in this regard I am a weak atheist and a mild agnostic, also a skeptic, an apatheist, an anti-theist, and a nihilist, but who is counting.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit