Doesn't matter, the point is: atheists are just as capable of proselytizing and generally being comically overzealous as any other religious fundamentalists.
Doesn't matter, the point is: atheists are just as capable of proselytizing and generally being comically overzealous as any other religious fundamentalists.
You know... I don't really truly know which religion I follow. Maybe I'm Christian(?). But I don't believe in everything the bible says, or … moreat the least disagree with some things in it. Like I believe there's a god and a devil. The supernatural plane, and such. Not everything can be explained logically at first. Some things are meant to be unexplained in one place, and to be explained in the next. And I'm actually quite open about other things, like Greek gods, the Japanese gods, etc. Maybe our world is secretly like Skyrim sort of? But anyway, I'm less focused on religion (I will sometimes pray but really only for the ones I care about, I don't pray for myself much), and more focused on the world in front of me and I have the power to choose my path and outcome. I go by along this line "Life how you play is a game of cards. The cards you've been given, the cards of which have been removed, what's in your hand, how you play the game will affect the outcome of your life and those of close ties around you."
I find religion to be illogical, inconsistent, obnoxious, and, most importantly, pernicious. It's a complete abdication of free will and the creation of values in favor of centuries old fairy tales.
I have relatively strong beliefs against religion (could you tell?) but I'm especially pissy today because some evangelical randomly came up to me on the subway today. A mix of two things I hate, people I don't know try to talk to me about Jesus, and people I don't know coming up to me and asking me where I'm from. I basically just didn't say anything - hopefully he just imagined I didn't speak English, I don't to be that rude to somebody's face. I save that for the internet, apparently.
I know a lot of atheist who had awful personal experiences with religion. It tends to drive them far to the other end if the spectrum and make them hold a grudge against organized religion.
Christian. I don't have a vendetta against atheists as I respect what they want to believe in, but I do have a problem with the whole notion… more that being a Christian somehow makes you an inept, stupid, piece of shit according to some atheists namely the young ones. I'm also not a huge fan of some atheists claiming every Christian is full of shit and shouldn't be respected at all and should be mocked and bullied, now I know atheists suffer this too from some Christians but I feel like too many times atheists try look like the victims even if they're the ones who started the fight and asked for a fight.
I don't really see the difference. One side believes in a higher power, the other believes there is not. It's not as if atheists are refraining from forming an opinion. There isn't an absence of belief, as they believe that there is no higher power, just as someone might believe there is a higher power. Your argument makes more sense for agnosticism.
I know a lot of atheist who had awful personal experiences with religion. It tends to drive them far to the other end if the spectrum and make them hold a grudge against organized religion.
That is a common misconception. If atheism is a belief, then bald is a hair color. Or, my favorite, if atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sex position. It is not "something", it is "not something". Opinions can be formed on the nonbelief of gods, but atheism is not a belief. An important distinction.
I don't really see the difference. One side believes in a higher power, the other believes there is not. It's not as if atheists are refrain… moreing from forming an opinion. There isn't an absence of belief, as they believe that there is no higher power, just as someone might believe there is a higher power. Your argument makes more sense for agnosticism.
I'm not seeing how any of those things are comparable.
Atheism gives it's own answer to the idea of a higher power, just as religion does. The answers are different, but both are personal beliefs. Choosing to not believe in a higher power is not an absence of belief if you go on to believe in the other side of the spectrum. Atheism believes that there is not a higher power, just as religion believes that there is. Agnosticism falls under the lines of "not something", Atheism does not. A difference in opinion does not make Atheism a non belief.
That is a common misconception. If atheism is a belief, then bald is a hair color. Or, my favorite, if atheism is a religion, then abstinenc… moree is a sex position. It is not "something", it is "not something". Opinions can be formed on the nonbelief of gods, but atheism is not a belief. An important distinction.
Okay, so say someone says that leprechauns exist. You cannot prove they do not exist, but you find it improbable that they do. With no evidence to support the claim, you disagree with the people that believe in leprechauns. The claim that leprechauns exist is a positive claim, therefore not believing in them is not a belief that they do not exist, only that you do not believe they exist. It is not an article of faith to say that you do not believe in leprechauns. To be completely transparent I still mistake one for the other on occasion, but it is just that, a mistake. Nonbelief is not belief. The analogies above are perfect examples of the error being presented in more comprehensible terms. If you still do not understand the difference then I apologize, I cannot appropriately display the difference between the two to you.
EDIT: perhaps if I put it like this (I have not checked the logical soundness of the presented information, but I believe it is acceptable):
A belief is a claim (a weak claim, and perhaps one not openly discussed, but a claim nontheless). If I believe that God exists, I claim that he exists. If I believe God does not exist, I claim he does not exist. If I do not believe that God exists, I do not claim that he does not exist. The first two are beliefs, the second is a nonbelief.
I'm not seeing how any of those things are comparable.
Atheism gives it's own answer to the idea of a higher power, just as religion does… more. The answers are different, but both are personal beliefs. Choosing to not believe in a higher power is not an absence of belief if you go on to believe in the other side of the spectrum. Atheism believes that there is not a higher power, just as religion believes that there is. Agnosticism falls under the lines of "not something", Atheism does not. A difference in opinion does not make Atheism a non belief.
I see what you're trying to say, but even the analogy that you just gave me is not equatable. Religion and Atheism are answers to an identified unknown, that being our origin. It can't reasonably be compared to a completely baseless question. To put that in perspective, If there just so happened to be random rainbows leading to magical pots of gold, and literally no human what so ever had placed them there, then in looking at that hypothetically real situation, one could put their belief into why this is happening. One group could believe that some entity is doing it (leprechauns?), others could believe that it is simply a natural phenomenon. Both groups have an answer to the situation, both groups have their own beliefs as to why there are inexplicably rainbows leading to pots of gold. Another group may decide not to place their belief into any specific answer, and refrain from answering the very real and present question. They would be the only group not forming any particular beliefs on the matter.
Do you see the difference? Atheism is a response to our existence, and by extension a response to a higher power. Comparing it to a completely made up, unknown situation doesn't make sense. Again, choosing to not believe in any particular answer to the question of our existence is one thing, but Atheism is not that. That would be Agnosticism.
A belief is a claim (a weak claim, and perhaps one not openly discussed, but a claim nontheless). If I believe that God exists, I claim that he exists. If I believe God does not exist, I claim he does not exist. If I do not believe that God exists, I do not claim that he does not exist. The first two are beliefs, the second is a nonbelief.
That isn't what Atheism is, though. Atheism claims that God does not exist. It doesn't abstain from answering the question.
Okay, so say someone says that leprechauns exist. You cannot prove they do not exist, but you find it improbable that they do. With no evide… morence to support the claim, you disagree with the people that believe in leprechauns. The claim that leprechauns exist is a positive claim, therefore not believing in them is not a belief that they do not exist, only that you do not believe they exist. It is not an article of faith to say that you do not believe in leprechauns. To be completely transparent I still mistake one for the other on occasion, but it is just that, a mistake. Nonbelief is not belief. The analogies above are perfect examples of the error being presented in more comprehensible terms. If you still do not understand the difference then I apologize, I cannot appropriately display the difference between the two to you.
EDIT: perhaps if I put it like this (I have not checked the logical soundness of the presented information, but I beli… [view original content]
Again, I apologize. I can't sufficiently explain to you the difference between believing something and not believing something. I don't know if you posted before I was able to enter my edit, but if that does not explain the difference to you, then I'm not sure in what other context I can put it that would. (Normally most concede by this point, so I have little experience in trying to break it down this far, so thank you for the opportunity.)
I see what you're trying to say, but even the analogy that you just gave me is not equatable. Religion and Atheism are answers to an identif… moreied unknown, that being our origin. It can't reasonably be compared to a completely baseless question. To put that in perspective, If there just so happened to be random rainbows leading to magical pots of gold, and literally no human what so ever had placed them there, then in looking at that hypothetically real situation, one could put their belief into why this is happening. One group could believe that some entity is doing it (leprechauns?), others could believe that it is simply a natural phenomenon. Both groups have an answer to the situation, both groups have their own beliefs as to why there are inexplicably rainbows leading to pots of gold. Another group may decide not to place their belief into any specific answer, and refrain from answering the very real and present question. They would be the … [view original content]
I totally understand what you're trying to explain, it just doesn't make sense in the context of what we're looking at, which is what I explained in my previous post. I did get your edit, and edited my response to it into my last post. I'll place it here as well:
A belief is a claim (a weak claim, and perhaps one not openly discussed, but a claim nontheless). If I believe that God exists, I claim that he exists. If I believe God does not exist, I claim he does not exist. If I do not believe that God exists, I do not claim that he does not exist.The first two are beliefs, the second is a nonbelief.
That isn't what Atheism is, though. Atheism claims that God does not exist. It doesn't abstain from answering the question.
(Normally most concede by this point, so I have little experience in trying to break it down this far, so thank you for the opportunity.)
Hey, no problem. I'm glad you see it as an opportunity rather than seeing it as me being obnoxiously stubborn
Again, I apologize. I can't sufficiently explain to you the difference between believing something and not believing something. I don't know… more if you posted before I was able to enter my edit, but if that does not explain the difference to you, then I'm not sure in what other context I can put it that would. (Normally most concede by this point, so I have little experience in trying to break it down this far, so thank you for the opportunity.)
Agnostic atheist, if i had proof of a god, I would believe in one. I find religion to be contradictory, illogical and can be damaging to your self esteem.
I am very annoyed with this forum right now! I had first typed out my response to your second misconception as an edit in the previous post, but then upon trying to enter a second edit it deleted the first edit! Then I typed out the response as a post to your reply, but I clicked backspace and it took me back a page! Anyways, third times a charm.
That is another common misconception. Atheism makes no claim about god existing indirectly through saying that our origins were by other means, because atheism makes absolutely no claims about our creation or origin. It only states that the title's holder does not believe in god. Theories can be formed from atheism which can attempt to explain these things, but atheism does not do that.
EDIT: Last edit. From now on all addendums I will put in the posts following.
In simplistic terms, atheism does not say: I do not believe in God, therefore "X". It just says I do not believe in God.
I totally understand what you're trying to explain, it just doesn't make sense in the context of what we're looking at, which is what I expl… moreained in my previous post. I did get your edit, and edited my response to it into my last post. I'll place it here as well:
A belief is a claim (a weak claim, and perhaps one not openly discussed, but a claim nontheless). If I believe that God exists, I claim that he exists. If I believe God does not exist, I claim he does not exist. If I do not believe that God exists, I do not claim that he does not exist.The first two are beliefs, the second is a nonbelief.
That isn't what Atheism is, though. Atheism claims that God does not exist. It doesn't abstain from answering the question.
(Normally most concede by this point, so I have little experience in trying to break it down this far, so thank you for the opportunity.)
Hey, no problem. I'm glad you see it as an opportunity rather than seeing it as me being obnoxiously stubborn
That is another common misconception. Atheism makes no claim about god existing indirectly through saying that our origins were by other means, because atheism makes absolutely no claims about our creation or origin. It only states that the title's holder does not believe in god. Theories can be formed from atheism which can attempt to explain these things, but atheism does not do that.
It does make a claim about our origin, in the fact that it does not believe in creation by design. Obviously if an Atheist doesn't believe in God, they don't believe God is the answer to our existence. Atheism is directly tied to having an opinion on our existence, just as religion is.
In simplistic terms, atheism does not say: I do not believe in God, therefore "X". It just says I do not believe in God.
I disagree. Opinions that branch off of the simplistic idea of not being believing in God are part of the same personal beliefs. That's all it boils down to really, despite how anyone would want to label it.
I am very annoyed with this forum right now! I had first typed out my response to your second misconception as an edit in the previous post,… more but then upon trying to enter a second edit it deleted the first edit! Then I typed out the response as a post to your reply, but I clicked backspace and it took me back a page! Anyways, third times a charm.
That is another common misconception. Atheism makes no claim about god existing indirectly through saying that our origins were by other means, because atheism makes absolutely no claims about our creation or origin. It only states that the title's holder does not believe in god. Theories can be formed from atheism which can attempt to explain these things, but atheism does not do that.
EDIT: Last edit. From now on all addendums I will put in the posts following.
In simplistic terms, atheism does not say: I do not believe in God, therefore "X". It just says I do not believe in God.
No. Theorize a person that has never questioned our existence, in a place with a religion that does not question their origin and the religion there only states that God is a mighty being that controls their lives after they are born, and when asked if he believes in god he answers "No". That is literally all atheism does, it does not question our existence, only the existence of god (which, yes, by extention will inevitably lead to the question of origin, but it does not question origin). And since it is not a claim to say one does not believe in god, there is no belief that God does not exist. Yes, obviously people go on to base theories upon their atheistic perspective, big bang, abiogenisis, this or that, but atheism does not make a claim itself. Atheism does not answer the question "How were we created?" it only answers "Do you believe in god?". If the answer is yes, then you do believe in god and you are a theist. If the answer is no, then you do not believe in god and you are an atheist.
That is another common misconception. Atheism makes no claim about god existing indirectly through saying that our origins were by other mea… morens, because atheism makes absolutely no claims about our creation or origin. It only states that the title's holder does not believe in god. Theories can be formed from atheism which can attempt to explain these things, but atheism does not do that.
It does make a claim about our origin, in the fact that it does not believe in creation by design. Obviously if an Atheist doesn't believe in God, they don't believe God is the answer to our existence. Atheism is directly tied to having an opinion on our existence, just as religion is.
In simplistic terms, atheism does not say: I do not believe in God, therefore "X". It just says I do not believe in God.
I disagree. Opinions that branch off of the simplistic idea of not being believing in God are part of the same personal beliefs. That's all it boils down to really, despite how anyone would want to label it.
Well, I used to be Christian, but, am now an agnostic. My opinion is that its cool that you have a religion, but don't force it or your views on anyone else.
I believe in God but don't go to Church. I did when I was younger but I stopped going. I honestly don't care to have friends who don't believe in God. Life is short so I like to live it up, every single day. I don't really have an opinion on religion to be honest.
Sorry for suddenly cutting out of the conversation before, had to go off to work.
No. Theorize a person that has never questioned our existence, in a place with a religion that does not question their origin and the religion there only states that God is a mighty being that controls their lives after they are born, and when asked if he believes in god he answers "No". That is literally all atheism does, it does not question our existence, only the existence of god
There are many implications that come with saying you do not believe in God, whether those are explicitly stated or not. If we're being realistic here, it's not as if an atheist's thought process actually begins and ends at the idea of blankly forming an opinion on whether a higher power exists or not without considering context and the overall picture of what it actually means to believe in a higher power. If they put any real critical thinking into the question whatsoever, they have to arrive at the necessary implications. Simply understanding what a higher power is supposed to be to begin with is enough that an atheist couldn't possibly form an opinion without looking at the total package. In denying the existence of a higher power, you deny everything that comes with it, and in doing so follow a set of beliefs of your own. Atheism is the absence of belief in God, but it is not the total absence of belief in regards to the topic.
Anyway, even looking at this in it's simplest form, Atheism is still a belief. If it were truly an absence of belief, there would be a suspension of judgement; there would be no assertion that God does not exist (Atheists do assert this, if they didn't do so they wouldn't be atheist, they would be agnostic). This obviously isn't the case with Atheism. Let's define "belief", just to further paint the picture here. Belief: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
By definition, atheism is a belief.
Edit:
I want to touch on something that you said to another poster way at the beginning of this conversation chain. You mentioned that a lack of belief in of itself is not necessarily a belief. This statement is true, but it does not represent atheism. It represents agnosticism. If all of your arguments here were in regards to agnosticism, I would totally be on board with you. Atheism simply takes things a step further, and cannot be categorized in the same fashion.
No. Theorize a person that has never questioned our existence, in a place with a religion that does not question their origin and the religi… moreon there only states that God is a mighty being that controls their lives after they are born, and when asked if he believes in god he answers "No". That is literally all atheism does, it does not question our existence, only the existence of god (which, yes, by extention will inevitably lead to the question of origin, but it does not question origin). And since it is not a claim to say one does not believe in god, there is no belief that God does not exist. Yes, obviously people go on to base theories upon their atheistic perspective, big bang, abiogenisis, this or that, but atheism does not make a claim itself. Atheism does not answer the question "How were we created?" it only answers "Do you believe in god?". If the answer is yes, then you do believe in god and you are a theist. If the answer is no, then you do not believe in god and you are an atheist.
All I can say is that atheism does not deal with origin, as the theorized person above does not believe in god but has not considered origin and is still an atheist. Atheism does not question existence, only the aforementioned question of belief. The implications are irrelevant, because they are seperate from the question being asked. But at this point we are chasing tails.
Sorry for suddenly cutting out of the conversation before, had to go off to work.
No. Theorize a person that has never questioned our … moreexistence, in a place with a religion that does not question their origin and the religion there only states that God is a mighty being that controls their lives after they are born, and when asked if he believes in god he answers "No". That is literally all atheism does, it does not question our existence, only the existence of god
There are many implications that come with saying you do not believe in God, whether those are explicitly stated or not. If we're being realistic here, it's not as if an atheist's thought process actually begins and ends at the idea of blankly forming an opinion on whether a higher power exists or not without considering context and the overall picture of what it actually means to believe in a higher power. If they put any real critical thinking into the question whats… [view original content]
Well, a cult is usually way smaller and is much more focused on using the followers for personal gain for something or someone. A good example for a cult would be the Heaven's Gate cult which that crazy bastard Applewhite started.
They killed Jesus because he undermined the doctrine of the Jewish fundamentalists in that time period, and he swayed a lot of people with him. Or at least that's what the scriptures say. And the situations aren't really comparable, since we live in a democratic society where people have the right to express themselves without being crucified for it.
They don't judge you, rather, they judge your beliefs. Ignorance of what? It depends. I think the determination was made when a definition for the word "cult" was coined. It's just a word, but it symbolizes a certain situation, and most religions fit that definition if you look it up. It could be that some Christians would call you a cultist because their beliefs in some things differ from yours, but I think this is one of the things that show the biggest flaws in the big religions.
I am saying that people shouldn't judge others, when they live in total ignorance
. They killed Jesus because they said he was the leade… morer of a "cult."
Who makes that determination?
I have my own religious beliefs that don't go with the mainstream, so i guess a "true Christian" would call me a cultist.
Like I said in my previous response though, it's impossible to avoid the implications, simply because these implications are part of what actually defines a higher power in the first place. If you deny the existence of a higher power, you deny everything that comes with it. Unless you're totally void of all logical, critical thinking on the matter, you can't possibly consider an answer to the question without having things such as origin in mind, as these things are basic parts of what defines a higher power to begin with. Being realistic, I think we can admit that atheists actually do consider these things, despite how you're trying to define atheism itself.
Also in my previous response, I detailed that even if you want to ignore this point, atheism is still a belief, by definition. I'll just re-post what I said earlier, as the point still stands: Even looking at this in it's simplest form, atheism is still a belief. If it were truly an absence of belief, there would be a suspension of judgement; there would be no assertion that God does not exist (Atheists do assert this, if they didn't do so they wouldn't be atheist, they would be agnostic). This obviously isn't the case with atheism. Let's define "belief", just to further paint the picture here. Belief: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
Atheism is a belief, by the very definition. I honestly don't understand why so many atheists want to deny this lol.
All I can say is that atheism does not deal with origin, as the theorized person above does not believe in god but has not considered origin… more and is still an atheist. Atheism does not question existence, only the aforementioned question of belief. The implications are irrelevant, because they are seperate from the question being asked. But at this point we are chasing tails.
So you believe there has never been a single person that has not made a judgement call about their thoughts on our origin, and did not believe in god? What about communities that deal only with personal experience and "the now" such as the Hi'aiti'ihi people. They are atheists, and as far as I know are uninterested in origin theories and do not consider them. Atheism at its core is nothing more than a nonbelief of a single individual, it is not directly linked to anything but the answer to the question I've stated before, "Do you believe in god?"
That definition does not support your stance. As stated earlier "A belief is a claim (a weak claim, and perhaps one not openly discussed, but a claim nontheless). If I believe that God exists, I claim that he exists. If I believe God does not exist, I claim he does not exist. If I do not believe that God exists, I do not claim that he does not exist. The first two are beliefs, the second is a nonbelief." Again, a belief is a claim, a nonbelief is not.
Atheism is a title of nonbelief, nothing more. It literally means nothing besides I do not believe in god. Nothing about origin, nothing about creation. Absolutely nothing. It does not continue after that single question. Other things may build off of this, but that is the end of atheism.
But, as I said earlier, we are chasing tails and getting nowhere. You're repeating yourself, as am I, and so it appears we are at an end. Until next time.
Like I said in my previous response though, it's impossible to avoid the implications, simply because these implications are part of what ac… moretually defines a higher power in the first place. If you deny the existence of a higher power, you deny everything that comes with it. Unless you're totally void of all logical, critical thinking on the matter, you can't possibly consider an answer to the question without having things such as origin in mind, as these things are basic parts of what defines a higher power to begin with. Being realistic, I think we can admit that atheists actually do consider these things, despite how you're trying to define atheism itself.
Also in my previous response, I detailed that even if you want to ignore this point, atheism is still a belief, by definition. I'll just re-post what I said earlier, as the point still stands: Even looking at this in it's simplest form, atheism is still a belief. If it were truly an a… [view original content]
So you believe there has never been a single person that has not made a judgement call about their thoughts on our origin, and did not believe in god?
Not necessarily, no. You're looking at this backwards though, and not in the way that I had stated it. I'm straight up talking about belief in a higher power, and by extension, thoughts on our origin come into play, because this is part of what defines a higher power. It's not the other way around (obviously it can be, but that wasn't what I was talking about).
What about communities that deal only with personal experience and "the now" such as the Hi'aiti'ihi people. They are atheists, and as far as I know are uninterested in origin theories and do not consider them. Atheism at its core is nothing more than a nonbelief of a single individual, it is not directly linked to anything but the answer to the question I've stated before, "Do you believe in god?"
See, this is the problem. How can one possibly declare God to not exist without even understanding what it is that they're claiming to not exist? It just doesn't make any sense. The nature of being a creator is an extremely basic, integral part of what defines a higher power. Basic questioning of the viewpoint proves all of this. If you go up to an atheist and ask them what it means to not believe in a higher power, what would they say? Let's say they say something along the lines of not believing in God. Okay, so let's go further and ask them "what is God"? They say, "a supreme being". Great, so what does it mean to be a supreme being? Everything tied to that question is part of what defines the entity that atheism claims does not exist. If atheists don't even ponder what they're dismissing, then they might as well not even have an opinion. As I have said already, it's not as if atheists are not actually mindful of the things that I am talking about here. It all ties together with them not believing in a higher power. I mean, you wouldn't honestly argue that not believing in a Creator has nothing to do with atheism.. right?
Even if atheists want to keep their opinions on questions such as our origin separate from the label of atheism from some weird reason, it doesn't really matter if they turn around and then have opinions/ beliefs on these topics. The point is that the person still holds a set of beliefs of their own. In simply holding a stance on the matter (ignoring all religious connotations here) they have a belief. Again, why do atheists want to pretend that they don't have beliefs of their own? Why are they so adamant about this?
That definition does not support your stance.
How doesn't it? Could you elaborate? We're simply looking at the basic definition of what a belief is. There was nothing about it that has contradicted anything that I have said.
As stated earlier "A belief is a claim (a weak claim, and perhaps one not openly discussed, but a claim nontheless). If I believe that God exists, I claim that he exists. If I believe God does not exist, I claim he does not exist. If I do not believe that God exists, I do not claim that he does not exist. The first two are beliefs, the second is a nonbelief." Again, a belief is a claim, a nonbelief is not.
The second one 100% represents atheism, though, which ruins the point that you are trying to make. Atheists absolutely believe that God does not exist. The third sentence of your argument here is not a complete representation of what atheism is, and is instead more of a representation of agnosticism. Agnostics do not necessarily believe that God exists, but they do not nesescarily believe that he does not exist either. They do not claim that he does not exist. This isn't true in the case atheism. They do not leave their stance open ended, they are straight up of the mindset that God does not exist. Atheists do not refrain from claiming that God does not exist. In not believing in God, they believe that he does not exist. If it were otherwise, they would not be an atheist, they would be an agnostic.
But, as I said earlier, we are chasing tails and getting nowhere. You're repeating yourself, as am I, and so it appears we are at an end. Until next time.
I don't know, I feel like I moved the conversation forward with this latest post. If what I posted is still incorrect or incomplete, I'm definitely open to an explanation as to why that is. I'm curious.
So you believe there has never been a single person that has not made a judgement call about their thoughts on our origin, and did not belie… moreve in god? What about communities that deal only with personal experience and "the now" such as the Hi'aiti'ihi people. They are atheists, and as far as I know are uninterested in origin theories and do not consider them. Atheism at its core is nothing more than a nonbelief of a single individual, it is not directly linked to anything but the answer to the question I've stated before, "Do you believe in god?"
That definition does not support your stance. As stated earlier "A belief is a claim (a weak claim, and perhaps one not openly discussed, but a claim nontheless). If I believe that God exists, I claim that he exists. If I believe God does not exist, I claim he does not exist. If I do not believe that God exists, I do not claim that he does not exist. The first two are beliefs, the second is a nonb… [view original content]
They killed Jesus because he undermined the doctrine of the Jewish fundamentalists in that time period, and he swayed a lot of people with h… moreim. Or at least that's what the scriptures say. And the situations aren't really comparable, since we live in a democratic society where people have the right to express themselves without being crucified for it.
They don't judge you, rather, they judge your beliefs. Ignorance of what? It depends. I think the determination was made when a definition for the word "cult" was coined. It's just a word, but it symbolizes a certain situation, and most religions fit that definition if you look it up. It could be that some Christians would call you a cultist because their beliefs in some things differ from yours, but I think this is one of the things that show the biggest flaws in the big religions.
Thread: My life's philosophy in two comic book panels.
A couple of years ago I read the Fantastic Four tie-in for Age of Ultron. In it, Reed Richards says goodbye to his children. Two panels really struck me:
The funny thing is, this isn't even a very good comic. But these words echo and summarize how I approach life so nicely. This is how I approach every day of life. Nothing matters, so EVERYTHING matters. If there is no afterlife, and there probably isn't because... well, the second law of thermodynamics basically rules it out, then this is our only life and our only chance to live. Everything matters, every single moment, because it is all we have.
Ohhh boy. You're lucky I'm a good Christian and I'm not gonna shoot you down for believing this. But I gotta extremely disagree with "what we do doesn't matter". Karma is not a religious belief, my friend. Trust me, what you do does indeed matter.
Ohhh boy. You're lucky I'm a good Christian and I'm not gonna shoot you down for believing this. But I gotta extremely disagree with "what we do doesn't matter". Karma is not a religious belief, my friend. Trust me, what you do does indeed matter.
I'm not really interested in a theocratic debate. Never had been Christian, never will be. I also think you missed the point entirely - i.e. everything matters.
Also, Karma is essentially fairy dust, in my eyes. You are free to present evidence to the contrary, but I am certain there is none.
Ohhh boy. You're lucky I'm a good Christian and I'm not gonna shoot you down for believing this. But I gotta extremely disagree with "what we do doesn't matter". Karma is not a religious belief, my friend. Trust me, what you do does indeed matter.
You can still be a good person without believing in religion. And a person who is religious can also still be a good person while they also believe in God. Just because someone likes to adhere or follow a certain religion or set of guidelines for whatever reason, doesn't mean that their religion limits how they live their lives as perhaps they can't imagine living their life any other way than the structure their belief system provides. (and to be honest, even if their is no heaven or hell or God, I've seen a lot of people happy with what the scripture has taught them or how it's influenced them to live. Though it's not for everyone.) And again, if you don't believe in God and hate religion you can still have a set of structured rules and morals that you live by because you instinctively know that something is right or wrong.
Comments
It kind of is a belief though. Athiests just believe all that religion stuff is BS.
Doesn't matter, the point is: atheists are just as capable of proselytizing and generally being comically overzealous as any other religious fundamentalists.
I've heard the argument before, even made it, but no. Not having something is not the same as having something.
But it does matter. Putting a nonbelief on the same playing field as a belief without reason is erroneous. They are not equatable.
plz, believing FSM is the most beautiful thing one can do, nothing edgy about it.
Hey you, Alduin is the devil.
You make a good point, sir and I do know the difference. But, I was making a rhetorical point not an objective comparison.
Actually, that would be Mehrunes Dagon or Molag Bal. Alduin was just the dragon apocalypse leader.
Yeah, i decided to look it up after i posted that comment.
I find religion to be illogical, inconsistent, obnoxious, and, most importantly, pernicious. It's a complete abdication of free will and the creation of values in favor of centuries old fairy tales.
I have relatively strong beliefs against religion (could you tell?) but I'm especially pissy today because some evangelical randomly came up to me on the subway today. A mix of two things I hate, people I don't know try to talk to me about Jesus, and people I don't know coming up to me and asking me where I'm from. I basically just didn't say anything - hopefully he just imagined I didn't speak English, I don't to be that rude to somebody's face. I save that for the internet, apparently.
I know a lot of atheist who had awful personal experiences with religion. It tends to drive them far to the other end if the spectrum and make them hold a grudge against organized religion.
I don't really see the difference. One side believes in a higher power, the other believes there is not. It's not as if atheists are refraining from forming an opinion. There isn't an absence of belief, as they believe that there is no higher power, just as someone might believe there is a higher power. Your argument makes more sense for agnosticism.
And those people have my sympathies and I wish them good luck.
That is a common misconception. If atheism is a belief, then bald is a hair color. Or, my favorite, if atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sex position. It is not "something", it is "not something". Opinions can be formed on the nonbelief of gods, but atheism is not a belief. An important distinction.
I'm not seeing how any of those things are comparable.
Atheism gives it's own answer to the idea of a higher power, just as religion does. The answers are different, but both are personal beliefs. Choosing to not believe in a higher power is not an absence of belief if you go on to believe in the other side of the spectrum. Atheism believes that there is not a higher power, just as religion believes that there is. Agnosticism falls under the lines of "not something", Atheism does not. A difference in opinion does not make Atheism a non belief.
Okay, so say someone says that leprechauns exist. You cannot prove they do not exist, but you find it improbable that they do. With no evidence to support the claim, you disagree with the people that believe in leprechauns. The claim that leprechauns exist is a positive claim, therefore not believing in them is not a belief that they do not exist, only that you do not believe they exist. It is not an article of faith to say that you do not believe in leprechauns. To be completely transparent I still mistake one for the other on occasion, but it is just that, a mistake. Nonbelief is not belief. The analogies above are perfect examples of the error being presented in more comprehensible terms. If you still do not understand the difference then I apologize, I cannot appropriately display the difference between the two to you.
EDIT: perhaps if I put it like this (I have not checked the logical soundness of the presented information, but I believe it is acceptable):
A belief is a claim (a weak claim, and perhaps one not openly discussed, but a claim nontheless). If I believe that God exists, I claim that he exists. If I believe God does not exist, I claim he does not exist. If I do not believe that God exists, I do not claim that he does not exist. The first two are beliefs, the second is a nonbelief.
I see what you're trying to say, but even the analogy that you just gave me is not equatable. Religion and Atheism are answers to an identified unknown, that being our origin. It can't reasonably be compared to a completely baseless question. To put that in perspective, If there just so happened to be random rainbows leading to magical pots of gold, and literally no human what so ever had placed them there, then in looking at that hypothetically real situation, one could put their belief into why this is happening. One group could believe that some entity is doing it (leprechauns?), others could believe that it is simply a natural phenomenon. Both groups have an answer to the situation, both groups have their own beliefs as to why there are inexplicably rainbows leading to pots of gold. Another group may decide not to place their belief into any specific answer, and refrain from answering the very real and present question. They would be the only group not forming any particular beliefs on the matter.
Do you see the difference? Atheism is a response to our existence, and by extension a response to a higher power. Comparing it to a completely made up, unknown situation doesn't make sense. Again, choosing to not believe in any particular answer to the question of our existence is one thing, but Atheism is not that. That would be Agnosticism.
That isn't what Atheism is, though. Atheism claims that God does not exist. It doesn't abstain from answering the question.
Again, I apologize. I can't sufficiently explain to you the difference between believing something and not believing something. I don't know if you posted before I was able to enter my edit, but if that does not explain the difference to you, then I'm not sure in what other context I can put it that would. (Normally most concede by this point, so I have little experience in trying to break it down this far, so thank you for the opportunity.)
I totally understand what you're trying to explain, it just doesn't make sense in the context of what we're looking at, which is what I explained in my previous post. I did get your edit, and edited my response to it into my last post. I'll place it here as well:
That isn't what Atheism is, though. Atheism claims that God does not exist. It doesn't abstain from answering the question.
Hey, no problem. I'm glad you see it as an opportunity rather than seeing it as me being obnoxiously stubborn
Agnostic atheist, if i had proof of a god, I would believe in one. I find religion to be contradictory, illogical and can be damaging to your self esteem.
I am very annoyed with this forum right now! I had first typed out my response to your second misconception as an edit in the previous post, but then upon trying to enter a second edit it deleted the first edit! Then I typed out the response as a post to your reply, but I clicked backspace and it took me back a page! Anyways, third times a charm.
That is another common misconception. Atheism makes no claim about god existing indirectly through saying that our origins were by other means, because atheism makes absolutely no claims about our creation or origin. It only states that the title's holder does not believe in god. Theories can be formed from atheism which can attempt to explain these things, but atheism does not do that.
EDIT: Last edit. From now on all addendums I will put in the posts following.
In simplistic terms, atheism does not say: I do not believe in God, therefore "X". It just says I do not believe in God.
It does make a claim about our origin, in the fact that it does not believe in creation by design. Obviously if an Atheist doesn't believe in God, they don't believe God is the answer to our existence. Atheism is directly tied to having an opinion on our existence, just as religion is.
I disagree. Opinions that branch off of the simplistic idea of not being believing in God are part of the same personal beliefs. That's all it boils down to really, despite how anyone would want to label it.
No. Theorize a person that has never questioned our existence, in a place with a religion that does not question their origin and the religion there only states that God is a mighty being that controls their lives after they are born, and when asked if he believes in god he answers "No". That is literally all atheism does, it does not question our existence, only the existence of god (which, yes, by extention will inevitably lead to the question of origin, but it does not question origin). And since it is not a claim to say one does not believe in god, there is no belief that God does not exist. Yes, obviously people go on to base theories upon their atheistic perspective, big bang, abiogenisis, this or that, but atheism does not make a claim itself. Atheism does not answer the question "How were we created?" it only answers "Do you believe in god?". If the answer is yes, then you do believe in god and you are a theist. If the answer is no, then you do not believe in god and you are an atheist.
Well, I used to be Christian, but, am now an agnostic. My opinion is that its cool that you have a religion, but don't force it or your views on anyone else.
I believe in God but don't go to Church. I did when I was younger but I stopped going. I honestly don't care to have friends who don't believe in God. Life is short so I like to live it up, every single day. I don't really have an opinion on religion to be honest.
Sorry for suddenly cutting out of the conversation before, had to go off to work.
There are many implications that come with saying you do not believe in God, whether those are explicitly stated or not. If we're being realistic here, it's not as if an atheist's thought process actually begins and ends at the idea of blankly forming an opinion on whether a higher power exists or not without considering context and the overall picture of what it actually means to believe in a higher power. If they put any real critical thinking into the question whatsoever, they have to arrive at the necessary implications. Simply understanding what a higher power is supposed to be to begin with is enough that an atheist couldn't possibly form an opinion without looking at the total package. In denying the existence of a higher power, you deny everything that comes with it, and in doing so follow a set of beliefs of your own. Atheism is the absence of belief in God, but it is not the total absence of belief in regards to the topic.
Anyway, even looking at this in it's simplest form, Atheism is still a belief. If it were truly an absence of belief, there would be a suspension of judgement; there would be no assertion that God does not exist (Atheists do assert this, if they didn't do so they wouldn't be atheist, they would be agnostic). This obviously isn't the case with Atheism. Let's define "belief", just to further paint the picture here. Belief: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
By definition, atheism is a belief.
Edit:
I want to touch on something that you said to another poster way at the beginning of this conversation chain. You mentioned that a lack of belief in of itself is not necessarily a belief. This statement is true, but it does not represent atheism. It represents agnosticism. If all of your arguments here were in regards to agnosticism, I would totally be on board with you. Atheism simply takes things a step further, and cannot be categorized in the same fashion.
All I can say is that atheism does not deal with origin, as the theorized person above does not believe in god but has not considered origin and is still an atheist. Atheism does not question existence, only the aforementioned question of belief. The implications are irrelevant, because they are seperate from the question being asked. But at this point we are chasing tails.
I am saying that people shouldn't judge others, when they live in total ignorance
. They killed Jesus because they said he was the leader of a "cult."
Who makes that determination?
I have my own religious beliefs that don't go with the mainstream, so i guess a "true Christian" would call me a cultist.
They killed Jesus because he undermined the doctrine of the Jewish fundamentalists in that time period, and he swayed a lot of people with him. Or at least that's what the scriptures say. And the situations aren't really comparable, since we live in a democratic society where people have the right to express themselves without being crucified for it.
They don't judge you, rather, they judge your beliefs. Ignorance of what? It depends. I think the determination was made when a definition for the word "cult" was coined. It's just a word, but it symbolizes a certain situation, and most religions fit that definition if you look it up. It could be that some Christians would call you a cultist because their beliefs in some things differ from yours, but I think this is one of the things that show the biggest flaws in the big religions.
Like I said in my previous response though, it's impossible to avoid the implications, simply because these implications are part of what actually defines a higher power in the first place. If you deny the existence of a higher power, you deny everything that comes with it. Unless you're totally void of all logical, critical thinking on the matter, you can't possibly consider an answer to the question without having things such as origin in mind, as these things are basic parts of what defines a higher power to begin with. Being realistic, I think we can admit that atheists actually do consider these things, despite how you're trying to define atheism itself.
Also in my previous response, I detailed that even if you want to ignore this point, atheism is still a belief, by definition. I'll just re-post what I said earlier, as the point still stands: Even looking at this in it's simplest form, atheism is still a belief. If it were truly an absence of belief, there would be a suspension of judgement; there would be no assertion that God does not exist (Atheists do assert this, if they didn't do so they wouldn't be atheist, they would be agnostic). This obviously isn't the case with atheism. Let's define "belief", just to further paint the picture here. Belief: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
Atheism is a belief, by the very definition. I honestly don't understand why so many atheists want to deny this lol.
So you believe there has never been a single person that has not made a judgement call about their thoughts on our origin, and did not believe in god? What about communities that deal only with personal experience and "the now" such as the Hi'aiti'ihi people. They are atheists, and as far as I know are uninterested in origin theories and do not consider them. Atheism at its core is nothing more than a nonbelief of a single individual, it is not directly linked to anything but the answer to the question I've stated before, "Do you believe in god?"
That definition does not support your stance. As stated earlier "A belief is a claim (a weak claim, and perhaps one not openly discussed, but a claim nontheless). If I believe that God exists, I claim that he exists. If I believe God does not exist, I claim he does not exist. If I do not believe that God exists, I do not claim that he does not exist. The first two are beliefs, the second is a nonbelief." Again, a belief is a claim, a nonbelief is not.
Atheism is a title of nonbelief, nothing more. It literally means nothing besides I do not believe in god. Nothing about origin, nothing about creation. Absolutely nothing. It does not continue after that single question. Other things may build off of this, but that is the end of atheism.
But, as I said earlier, we are chasing tails and getting nowhere. You're repeating yourself, as am I, and so it appears we are at an end. Until next time.
Not necessarily, no. You're looking at this backwards though, and not in the way that I had stated it. I'm straight up talking about belief in a higher power, and by extension, thoughts on our origin come into play, because this is part of what defines a higher power. It's not the other way around (obviously it can be, but that wasn't what I was talking about).
See, this is the problem. How can one possibly declare God to not exist without even understanding what it is that they're claiming to not exist? It just doesn't make any sense. The nature of being a creator is an extremely basic, integral part of what defines a higher power. Basic questioning of the viewpoint proves all of this. If you go up to an atheist and ask them what it means to not believe in a higher power, what would they say? Let's say they say something along the lines of not believing in God. Okay, so let's go further and ask them "what is God"? They say, "a supreme being". Great, so what does it mean to be a supreme being? Everything tied to that question is part of what defines the entity that atheism claims does not exist. If atheists don't even ponder what they're dismissing, then they might as well not even have an opinion. As I have said already, it's not as if atheists are not actually mindful of the things that I am talking about here. It all ties together with them not believing in a higher power. I mean, you wouldn't honestly argue that not believing in a Creator has nothing to do with atheism.. right?
Even if atheists want to keep their opinions on questions such as our origin separate from the label of atheism from some weird reason, it doesn't really matter if they turn around and then have opinions/ beliefs on these topics. The point is that the person still holds a set of beliefs of their own. In simply holding a stance on the matter (ignoring all religious connotations here) they have a belief. Again, why do atheists want to pretend that they don't have beliefs of their own? Why are they so adamant about this?
How doesn't it? Could you elaborate? We're simply looking at the basic definition of what a belief is. There was nothing about it that has contradicted anything that I have said.
The second one 100% represents atheism, though, which ruins the point that you are trying to make. Atheists absolutely believe that God does not exist. The third sentence of your argument here is not a complete representation of what atheism is, and is instead more of a representation of agnosticism. Agnostics do not necessarily believe that God exists, but they do not nesescarily believe that he does not exist either. They do not claim that he does not exist. This isn't true in the case atheism. They do not leave their stance open ended, they are straight up of the mindset that God does not exist. Atheists do not refrain from claiming that God does not exist. In not believing in God, they believe that he does not exist. If it were otherwise, they would not be an atheist, they would be an agnostic.
I don't know, I feel like I moved the conversation forward with this latest post. If what I posted is still incorrect or incomplete, I'm definitely open to an explanation as to why that is. I'm curious.
[removed]
Stay away , my kool aid is contagious.
Thread: My life's philosophy in two comic book panels.
A couple of years ago I read the Fantastic Four tie-in for Age of Ultron. In it, Reed Richards says goodbye to his children. Two panels really struck me:
The funny thing is, this isn't even a very good comic. But these words echo and summarize how I approach life so nicely. This is how I approach every day of life. Nothing matters, so EVERYTHING matters. If there is no afterlife, and there probably isn't because... well, the second law of thermodynamics basically rules it out, then this is our only life and our only chance to live. Everything matters, every single moment, because it is all we have.
Just some food for thought.
Ohhh boy. You're lucky I'm a good Christian and I'm not gonna shoot you down for believing this. But I gotta extremely disagree with "what we do doesn't matter". Karma is not a religious belief, my friend. Trust me, what you do does indeed matter.
Why should we trust you on this? Where are your facts?
I'm not really interested in a theocratic debate. Never had been Christian, never will be. I also think you missed the point entirely - i.e. everything matters.
Also, Karma is essentially fairy dust, in my eyes. You are free to present evidence to the contrary, but I am certain there is none.
And....... saved. I only wish I was better at making "do's" that matter
You can still be a good person without believing in religion. And a person who is religious can also still be a good person while they also believe in God. Just because someone likes to adhere or follow a certain religion or set of guidelines for whatever reason, doesn't mean that their religion limits how they live their lives as perhaps they can't imagine living their life any other way than the structure their belief system provides. (and to be honest, even if their is no heaven or hell or God, I've seen a lot of people happy with what the scripture has taught them or how it's influenced them to live. Though it's not for everyone.) And again, if you don't believe in God and hate religion you can still have a set of structured rules and morals that you live by because you instinctively know that something is right or wrong.