There is no faith involved with a lack of proof.You attest? But what does that mean? ... It still sounds like a matter of faith to me.
Then henceforth let your experience recall that not all atheists claim god does not exist.Well what other criteria am I supposed to use if not my own experience?
Ridiculous and illogical.That’s entirely up to you, people do it anyway.
Are you willing yet to change your thinking and recognize that there is more (or is it Less?) to atheism then what you have claimed in your statement above?And yet they will attest to the fact that God "does not" exist...
And yet you base your whole system of "beliefs" upon this lack of proof. Sorry, I won't buy it! Man, by his very nature is religious.Originally posted by BoulderHead
There is no faith involved with a lack of proof.
If you believe in nothing then there would be "nothing" to do. Are you saying there's nothing which adds meaning to your life?"I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief." -Dan Barker
Still sounds like agnosticism to me. Perhaps what you're saying is you're not a "died in the wool" Atheist, which still smacks of Agnosticism ... What the hell I don't know, the only difference between an Atheist and Agnostic is just a matter of degree. Although I think an agnostic would be more "honest" about his uncertainty.Then henceforth let your experience recall that not all atheists claim god does not exist.
Well at least we agree upon something here ...Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables us to recognize a mistake, when we make it again.
Like water off a ducks back ...Ridiculous and illogical.
I think Atheism as a "system of beliefs" sucks. And that Atheists are just as much in denial as the people who claim they know all about God, i.e., when they don't.Originally posted by BoulderHead
I intend to hold your feet to the fire until you see the error in your statement that;
Are you willing yet to change your thinking and recognize that there is more (or is it Less?) to atheism then what you have claimed in your statement above?
Please try to refrain from straying from the source of our disagreement, agreed?
The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny "God," which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think Atheism as a "system of beliefs" sucks. And that Atheists are just as much in denial as the people who claim they know all about God, i.e., when they don't.
Perhaps I will? ... And yet I'm afraid to say that everything we do is predicated upon belief, and that smacks of religion. For example let's say I believed (whether probable or not) my next door neighbor had a gun and he was going to shoot me, I can assure you I would not remain his next door neighbor. Or, let's say I believed my car was about to break down (due to some funny noise I heard), then that would be about the time to go have it checked. Or, if I believed that if I didn't go to work I would get fired, then perhaps I had better go to work.Originally posted by BoulderHead
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms
and try to broaden your understanding.
Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God, but he says "I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The word God to me is a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."
-- Charles Bradlaugh
And yet this would seem to infer that they know who God is, based upon the testimony of someone else which they won't accept? ... It doesn't make sense? And yet it still boils down to a matter of what "they believe."Originally posted by BoulderHead
The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny "God," which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.
-- Annie Besant
Incorrect, there is a difference between not knowing God, and knowing someone's attempt at defining such a thing to be ridiculous and impossible.Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet this would seem to infer that they know who God is, based upon the testimony of someone else which they won't accept? ... It doesn't make sense? And yet it still boils down to a matter of what "they believe."
The hope that my car will start when I turn the key does not, IMO, mean that I am religious, sorry.Originally posted by Iacchus32
Perhaps I will? ... And yet I'm afraid to say that everything we do is predicated upon belief, and that smacks of religion. For example let's say I believed (whether probable or not) my next door neighbor had a gun and he was going to shoot me, I can assure you I would not remain his next door neighbor. Or, let's say I believed my car was about to break down (due to some funny noise I heard), then that would be about the time to go have it checked. Or, if I believed that if I didn't go to work I would get fired, then perhaps I had better go to work.
These are still words which concern a religious standpoint. Not unlike the Greeks perhaps, in that their beliefs were based upon reason and an open mind, which is why I believe the Christian Church migrated to Greece, as this was the only place it could have been properly understood and taken root.Originally posted by BoulderHead
Incorrect, there is a difference between not knowing God, and knowing someone's attempt at defining such a thing to be ridiculous and impossible.
Only when viewed through the distorted lens of a religionist.Originally posted by Iacchus32
These are still words which concern a religious standpoint.
Is there a sales pitch in what I'm trying to say here? No, I don't think so. And yet if it wasn't for the fact that I was more neutral about it than anything else, I wouldn't be allowed to see what I see and say what I have to say about it.Originally posted by BoulderHead
The hope that my car will start when I turn the key does not, IMO, mean that I am religious, sorry.
There is a mental trap that people fall into, believing that everyone must either believe in God, or believe that God does not exist. The reality is more complex than this.
Because I'm Jesus Christ man! ... Or, that would be tantamount to saying it, if I came right out and said I knew for a fact that God exists!Originally posted by BoulderHead
Then why not alter your woefully lacking definition of atheism so we can end this spamming session!
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Then maybe we are speaking about the same God? And yet all you're really conveying to me is that people are out of touch with life.Originally posted by BoulderHead
Are you telling me that;
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?" -Dan Barker
Fair enough. I just didn't care to have three or four people ganging up on me for what seemed like an insignificant statement, otherwise I would have dropped it a long time ago.Originally posted by Tom
Boulderhead has clearly set out his position, and you keep twisting it around into a "belief system". That is called a straw man fallacy, and it does not belong in the Philosophy forum.
Either stop being difficult, or drop it. This is really dumb.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But could you please tell me what the nature of belief is,
and why it should not be included in a philosophical discussion?
I'm beginning to get the distinct impression here, that Atheists do not in any way shape or form like to be called "religious."
Originally posted by Tom
Atheists try to strip off all unneccesary beliefs, and they have total disdain for religion.
But does this not become like the "holy cow" of religion, which is not to be touched? And, by making such a comment, are you not facing off "squarely" and asking for a confrontation? Or, would that be too much for a philosophical forum to handle? Is it out of audacity that Atheists say such things, merely to mock religion? Sounds to me like somebody needs to be taken down a notch or two.Originally posted by Tom
Atheists try to strip off all unneccesary beliefs, and they have total disdain for religion.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2357" ...
Oh I see, you made "the inference" to mystery, but may not necessarily choose mystery over paradox either. Sorry ... Of course I don't know what else that leaves you with?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But does this not become like the "holy cow" of religion, which is not to be touched?
And, by making such a comment, are you not facing off "squarely" and asking for a confrontation? Or, would that be too much for a philosophical forum to handle?
Is it out of audacity that Atheists say such things, merely to mock religion? Sounds to me like somebody needs to be taken down a notch or two.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you asking anyone to argue in favor "of" religion? Because it sounds like you've already concluded there's no need for it. Except of course that it would be nice if we could somehow find a way to convince those poor deluded souls who haven't realized it yet, that it wasn't necessary.Originally posted by Zero
I know there are plenty of people here who consider themselves to be skeptical, but is there a common outlook for all of us? I personally see it broken up into at least two camps. One is the type who says 'that's nonsense' to most everything not accepted by science, and leaves it at that. The second group attempts to show reasons behind why an idea is wrong, and suggests alternate explanations and avenues of inquiry.
I don't know if I have a point, except to say that the first group is useless, and the second group may be useful in certain situations.
I'm not even a religious person (spiritual perhaps?), and yet the problem is not religion, it's what people do with religion. And this is the key, because religion is so close to the core of what we are -- as "creatures of belief" -- that it's subject to so much exploitation. And indeed, this is what gives it bad name ... while also explaining the nature of addiction.
And, while there's no doubt a good percentage of people who go to church who are under such delusions, I don't think the solution would be to outlaw religion, because people still need their "fixations." Ironically, just like Prohibition! And yet if properly understood, religion can ultimately provide the means by which to overcome our "earthly fixations," and possibly "escape the Matrix" so to speak.
This I'm afraid is what science fails to understand, that people can't help but be this way, for they need time to mature and open their eyes to reality. And yet the problem with Mother Church, is that She becomes so possessive about the whole thing (again, the nature of addiction), that She won't allow Her little children to do grow beyond the need for Mother Church, and become independent "spiritual beings." But doesn't this sound like a problem with most parents?
So the problem is not religion (which isn't to say there aren't things which couldn't be addressed about "formalized religion"). The problem is to understand why we have the need for religion ... And hey, it might even be possible for Science and Religion to get together and bridge some of their differences. Now wouldn't that be something!
Originally posted by Mohaamad
God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality.