I enjoy facts and logic and being an ATHEIST...I am aware of the definition.
The real cost of religious Faith
- Thread starter Beefbisquit
- Start date
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Agnosticism is a question of knowledge, atheism is a question of belief. Agnosticism asks whether or not something is knowable, atheism asks whether or not you believe in a deity. So, it breaks down like this:
Agnostic theist - one who believes in god, but does not think god is knowable.
Gnostic theist - one who believes in god, and thinks god is knowable.
Gnostic Atheist - one who does not believe in god, but thinks god is knowable (never met one of these)
Agnostic Atheist - one who does not believe in god, and does not think god is knowable.
Athiests in general are not saying that there is absolutely no deity, they are stating that they are unconvinced by the arguments for a deity, thus they do not believe. Only a very small subset of atheists make the positive claim that there is no deities, and that position does require faith. You either believe in a deity or you don't, if you don't positively believe you are an atheist. In your post, you list harm that religious beliefs cause (endorsement of slavery, oppression of women, and banning gay marriage), and that you envision a utopia where these beliefs don't exist. In the same post you state that we should shut the fuck up about these beliefs as they don't concern us. These beliefs concern us very much, as they dramatically effect our lives. These beliefs have led to the three atrocities you listed, plus: the banning of promising medical research such as stem cells, the threat of Intelligent Design and creationism be taught to our children in public schools, the oppression of atheists (our president stating to the nation that we shouldn't be considered patriots or even citizens) and the fact that we cannot hold a public office no matter how qualified, and tax exempt status of religious institutions which puts a much greater burden on the rest of us, just to name a few. These things effect all of us in dramatic ways, I think it would be irresponsible for us not to be concerned with these beliefs and there consequences...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
This logic doesn't hold. We cannot disprove elves, fairies, smurfs, dragons or alien abduction, either. Does that mean that all of these things have merit because we can't disprove them, and is it hypocritical to not believe they exist?
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Funny how opinions can differ so much. They are in my reality quite easy to compare. They all lack the ability to let logic control their imagination, wishful-thinking, bias, dogmas, etc, etc. They all do what "I" consider idiotic things based on 'believe'. Dangerous. I cannot respect that, at all. I instantly lose all respect for anyone who claims there's a man in the sky and whatnot. I do not consider them sane, which makes it hard to respect the person he/she would be after a de-brainwashing session (a technique being used in Japan for example to get ex-cult members back into reality) cause I don't really know him/her.
I was reading something about kids being separated from their moms because mom used mj (for medical reasons) getting pissed off, while I would be all for taking children away from Christians (and suicide bombers and racists) so they are halted in mentally abusing and brainwashing their children. Break the circle, stop spreading the nonsense, heal the world.
doniboy
Well-Known Member
LOL you are incorrect sir... The definition of an Atheist: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities", and Agnostic is not a belief in god; it's a logical belief that there's no way anyone can know one way or another. I think you should take time to google and research the difference because you're way off the mark. Agnostic is a question of both belief and knowledge much like religion is. We "believe" that no one on earth could possibly have "knowledge" of a god's existence, so we do not "believe" that there is or isn't a god. Google it, find out how wrong your definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism are, and then get back to me.
Next you completely missed the point and it went way over your head when I said that religion caused endorsements and that everyone should shut the fuck up and mind their business. People's believes don't affect our lives, but rather their actions do. My point was that if the people who thought their God endorsed slavery, oppression of women, and banning gay marriage, etc, only worried about themselves and not trying to enforce aka take actions to enforce their beliefs on others, then the world would be a better place even with religion it... I do not care if for religious reasons, someone hates blacks, gays, women, men, aliens, sex, stem cells research, Christians, Muslims, etc. They have a right to think and believe what they want to think or believe in just as long as their beliefs do not turn into actions that affect those who do not wish to be affected...
doniboy
Well-Known Member
It makes perfect sense and is logical to come to the conclusion for me to say that what someone else believes in is not true because they can not prove it's true when I also can not prove that it is not true is hypocritical.The argument is contingent on proof. If I say someone is wrong and I'm right because they have no proof when I do not either, that's the very definition being a hypocrite; I just accused someone of something that I am also guilty of... At one point of time is was common knowledge that the earth wasn't round. Point being that we as humans do not know a lot of things. No I do not "think" based on my life experience and based on facts that I've been taught that elves, fairies, smurfs, dragons or alien abduction exist; however, that does not make it a fact that they do not. I can not prove that they do or do not exist, and neither can you...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Can you imagine if someone actually lived as you are suggesting? Every stupid claim made would have equal validity, even contradictory claims. If I told you I had an invisible dragon in my garage with magical powers, you probably wouldn't believe me. Why? After all, you couldn't disprove it. There is this amazing useful concept called 'The burden of proof' that makes all of our lives much simpler than that. It states that the party making the positive claim has the burden of proving that claim. It's not the skeptical audience's chore to disprove every whacky claim people make, we'd have time for nothing else. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...
doniboy
Well-Known Member
Again you need to read what i said. You're trying to prove me wrong by talking about validity when I'm talking what can be proven... what's true or false. To some Atheist the belief in God is a stupid claim and to a Christian it is not. To a Christian their belief in God has validity and to an Atheist it does not. My point that you're failing to get is we can not prove or disprove the things you mentioned. No, the things you mentioned do not have validity to me. Validity is subjective and I'm not discussing validity, I'm arguing what's fact. What can be proved or disproved be fact. Back to he topic, no one can prove or disprove that any religion or God exist or doesn't exist.
And as far as burden of proof goes, that's a legal term that doesn't apply here... We aren't in court lol.. It's not my burden to prove to you or convince you that what I believe is true... If I believe something is true and you disagree, so what? You're just entitled to your own belief and I'm entitled to mine. I'm not obligated prove anything to you....
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
You made my point for me in the definition of atheist you just posted: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities". Atheists do not believe in deities, they are not making the positive claim that no deities exist. An example of this would be a child brought up in a remote area who was never exposed to the idea of a god. The child would not believe in god because they weren't exposed to the concept. By definition, the child is an atheist, but is not making the claim that there are no gods (again, because they haven't been exposed to the concept)...
I've spent dozens of hours researching these meanings, and so have many other regulars here. There are dozens of threads in this very sub-forum that meticulously go over the semantics, origins (like studying the term agnostic from Huxley, the man who coined it), etc. of these terms in order to better communicate clearly. I suggest you take time to look through them, I'm sure you'll learn a lot. Welcome to S&S&P...
I agree that those beliefs wouldn't concern me if they were not acted upon. The problem is that is not the way the world works. People rarely believe things without those beliefs influencing their actions, i.e. if one believes that a certain stock will rise significantly, that belief may lead one to invest money in that stock. Similarly, if one believes they will perish in hell if they do certain deeds, that belief may cause one to steer clear of those actions. If one believes they'll get much pussy, power and peace in the afterlife for strapping on a C4 vest and taking out some infidels (i.e. anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs), they may actually do it. Children are the least prepared for the trauma their parents' religious beliefs may inflict on them: circumcision (both male and female), the threat of hell and the guilt instilled for the pursuit of normal, healthy pleasures, instilling in-group/out-group mentality, and even hell camps -
[video=youtube;6RNfL6IVWCE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE[/video]
I think we can all agree that belief does often influence action...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
The bolded is the point, what can be proven. This is why the Burden of Proof is such a valuable time and energy saver; it insists that the person making the claim provide evidence for that claim, instead of putting the onus on the audience of every claim made to run out and disprove them all before making a judgment...
I think it's apparent to all that I get what you're saying, I'm agreeing that we cannot prove or disprove these extraordinary claims. It seems you are having trouble with my point, which is that just because we cannot disprove a thing doesn't mean it has any merit or is likely to exist, are you familiar with Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Invisible Dragon? They are philosophy 101, and they make my point better than I can. When there are two opposing viewpoints, the probability of either being true is not always 50/50. Sometimes the probability is 70/30, 90/10, and sometimes it's 9.99999999/.00000001.
Burden of proof may refer to legal burden of proof, philosophical burden of proof, or scientific burden of evidence. I was clearly using it in a philosophical and scientific context, so it most certainly applies here (check out the title of the sub-forum you find yourself in). Of course you can hold any beliefs you like, but if you bring them to a public forum and want others to take them seriously, you need to be able to back up your shit...
doniboy
Well-Known Member
Dude I made no points for you and you're all over the place with your arguments...
You said:
What you're going off the deep end and arguing about is not reality and everyone obviously is not talking about the rare chance of someone never being exposed to some type of God when they talk about Atheism. This is a debate about religion and those who have been exposed and think it's BS and those who have been exposed and think it's not. Why you would even go to left field with this is beyond me...
Atheist = In Layman's terms and to 99% of people other than you, God does not exist at all.
Agnostic = In Layman's terms and to 99% of people other than you, God may or may not exist... No way I could know.
"Athiests in general are not saying that there is absolutely no deity, they are stating that they are unconvinced by the arguments for a deity, thus they do not believe." Yea well I have not been convinced that pigs can fly, so I do not believe pigs can fly, BUT I'm not absolutely saying pigs cannot fly. Yea that makes since lol... If you do not believe something and have not been convinced that something is true, how are you not saying that it isn't true to you at that moment and time? lol
Edit: Arguing religion and politics is a waste of time to me, and I shouldn't have even gotten into it.... You can have the last word I'm gone from this thread...
You said:
All the Atheist I've ever know claim that there is no god. The definitions listed above is how the most would define Atheism when they claim to be one...
If the child has never been exposed to the concept of there being any type of God, so the child does not believe there's a God, yes the child is an Atheist in that example. The child at that point and time would say that there is no God. The child would say with certainty at that time that there was no God because to the child who's never heard about a God, there wouldn't be a God. Just like you have not been exposed to and haven't been brought up to believe the idea that there are 3 head Gods living in my basement, so if I were to ask you about it right now, you would most definitely make a claim that my basement living god does not exist. lol.... The point that you're trying to make by saying that if I never brought it to your attention that there's a 3 headed god, thus not giving you a chance to deny my gods exists means that you're not claiming my god doesn't exist is straight idiotic to even bring up..
What you're going off the deep end and arguing about is not reality and everyone obviously is not talking about the rare chance of someone never being exposed to some type of God when they talk about Atheism. This is a debate about religion and those who have been exposed and think it's BS and those who have been exposed and think it's not. Why you would even go to left field with this is beyond me...
Atheist = In Layman's terms and to 99% of people other than you, God does not exist at all.
Agnostic = In Layman's terms and to 99% of people other than you, God may or may not exist... No way I could know.
"Athiests in general are not saying that there is absolutely no deity, they are stating that they are unconvinced by the arguments for a deity, thus they do not believe." Yea well I have not been convinced that pigs can fly, so I do not believe pigs can fly, BUT I'm not absolutely saying pigs cannot fly. Yea that makes since lol... If you do not believe something and have not been convinced that something is true, how are you not saying that it isn't true to you at that moment and time? lol
Edit: Arguing religion and politics is a waste of time to me, and I shouldn't have even gotten into it.... You can have the last word I'm gone from this thread...
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Agnostic Atheist - Doesn't know if god exists, and don't believe god exists.
Gnostic Atheist - Knows god doesn't exist, and don't believe god exists.
Agnostic Theist - Doesn't know if god exists, but believes god exists.
Gnostic Theist - Knows god exists, and believes god exists.
FACT.
Gnostic Atheist - Knows god doesn't exist, and don't believe god exists.
Agnostic Theist - Doesn't know if god exists, but believes god exists.
Gnostic Theist - Knows god exists, and believes god exists.
FACT.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Actually he is quite correct.
Do you accept or reject the god hypothesis? There are only two positions you can have, either you accept the claim of a god/gods or you don't. A theist says, "I think there is a thing that exists that we call god." This makes theism a position on the positive existence of a god. The prefix a- before a consonant, meaning not, without: amoral; atonal; achromatic. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a-]
Therefore atheism is 'not-theism or without-theism. Simply, one that doesn't hold the theistic viewpoint. Therefore, anyone that is not a theist is by definition atheist, including those that don't think the answer is knowable, agnostics.
If I ask you directly, "do you believe that a god or gods exist?" the answer is yes or no. Agnostic is not a valid answer to that question.
If I ask you whether you think it is possible to know whether gods exist, and you answer no, that is the agnostic position.
Correct. It does not answer the ontological question about whether one believes or not, only the epistemological one about the ability to know.
Our current understanding of modern cosmology posits the existence of universes outside of our own, i.e that we live in a multiverse. There is a problem that if we are stuck in our own universe it is quite likely that there cannot be any evidence that will tell us whether this view is correct or not. If you are agnostic on the idea of other universes, all that says is that you don't think it is possible to know. It can be either unknown, or even unknowable. However, if I ask you whether you think/believe that other universes exist outside our own, you can respond either yes or no regardless of whether or not the actual answer can be known.
In short, agnostic is an epistemic word that needs to be coupled with an ontology in order to make any sense.
As I just pointed out, belief about the ability to know something and primary existential belief are two separate things and Google will tell you the same thing or different depending on who you read. However, if you read T.H. Huxley, the man that coined the term agnostic, you would find this -
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
Of course we can use Bertrand Russel's definition which is a bit different than Huxley's --
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.
<em>[video=youtube;swkAGExZCII]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkAGExZCII[/video]
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
The definitions you list above are precisely what I've been saying. You seem to be having trouble with the difference between knowledge and belief:
1. I am an atheist and I do not believe deities exist.
2. At the same time I acknowledge that I could not possibly know for sure if some deity actually exists in objective reality.
Sentence #1 pertains to what I personally believe. Sentence #2 pertains to my knowledge. Many people admit to choosing to believe in god, but that they don't know for sure if one actually exists (thus the need for faith). Similarly in a court of law one is deemed guilty or not guilty, not guilty or innocent. The jurors cannot positively deem that one on trial absolutely did not commit the alleged crime (innocent), but they can deem if the prosecution failed to make their case (not guilty). Not sure where the difficulty lies in understanding this...
Not likely. A child is more likely to answer, 'I don't know'. Children are learning new things all the time and a programmed to take what caregivers say at face value. If a parent describes a fruit with which the child is unfamiliar, the child's tendency would not be, 'there's no such thing!'
No, the claim I would make is that I don't believe you...
Why? What are you having difficulty with?
I was attempting to give a very simple example of an atheist who did not make a positive claim that cannot exist. It seems it was not simple enough...
I understand there is a misuse of these terms, that is why I am trying to clarify. I think the misuse is often intentional in order to create strawmen to argue against. It is easy to criticize (as you have) someone who makes a positive claim about something that they couldn't know. It is much more difficult to criticize someone who rejects a claim, but makes no positive claim of their own...
You have it!
And you lost it...
I think you did pretty well. I believe we'll hear from you again, but I cannot know for sure
Grojak
Well-Known Member
Why this debate on god/bible vs atheists? To think I at one time called my self Athiest is almost disgusting at this point. I just say I'm practical or a scientific thinking (not to be confused with scientology) by such I believe in things I can see, taste, touch, feel.
Religion nuts stay in your lane, atheists stay in your lane... how is an atheist pushing their beliefs any better than a christian? This is mainly why I disassociate with the label of Atheism, I don't give a fuck what you believe in as long as you don't try to convince me you're right (which is funny because most religion nuts do lean to the RIGHT).
Religion exists for 2 reasons:
1. Mind control of the masses - lets face it it works as the percentage of Catholics and Christians out number EVERYTHING.
2. It gives those weak minded, weak willed lost souls something to believe in, something to look forward to. Lets face it some folks need that others don't, personally I believe in self control, self awareness and I have a sense of caring and for the well being of others, but I would never help someone in need and THAN try to convert them to my way of thinking, in reality that's no better than a tow truck driver offering to help ya out on the side of the road than right before leaving writing you a bill!!
Athiest vs Agnostic.... I'm an Idontgiveafuckiest about labels or the existence or non existence of a diety. For one I "ain't" going to waste my time following a set of rules outside those set by the government (even than I may chose not to follow some) or sitting in pews listening to a man who by all accounts is "lesser" of a man than me spew stories, I can goto the child section at the library and probably have a cuter female read to me. Did I just say that the pastor or priest were lesser of a man than me... oh I did, what would qualify them to be a better person than me and why the fuck don't churches have to pay taxes???? These million dollar new churches being built don't pay taxes, complete bullshit. We're worried about the deficit Tax the 1% and Tax the fucking churches!!
Religion nuts stay in your lane, atheists stay in your lane... how is an atheist pushing their beliefs any better than a christian? This is mainly why I disassociate with the label of Atheism, I don't give a fuck what you believe in as long as you don't try to convince me you're right (which is funny because most religion nuts do lean to the RIGHT).
Religion exists for 2 reasons:
1. Mind control of the masses - lets face it it works as the percentage of Catholics and Christians out number EVERYTHING.
2. It gives those weak minded, weak willed lost souls something to believe in, something to look forward to. Lets face it some folks need that others don't, personally I believe in self control, self awareness and I have a sense of caring and for the well being of others, but I would never help someone in need and THAN try to convert them to my way of thinking, in reality that's no better than a tow truck driver offering to help ya out on the side of the road than right before leaving writing you a bill!!
Athiest vs Agnostic.... I'm an Idontgiveafuckiest about labels or the existence or non existence of a diety. For one I "ain't" going to waste my time following a set of rules outside those set by the government (even than I may chose not to follow some) or sitting in pews listening to a man who by all accounts is "lesser" of a man than me spew stories, I can goto the child section at the library and probably have a cuter female read to me. Did I just say that the pastor or priest were lesser of a man than me... oh I did, what would qualify them to be a better person than me and why the fuck don't churches have to pay taxes???? These million dollar new churches being built don't pay taxes, complete bullshit. We're worried about the deficit Tax the 1% and Tax the fucking churches!!
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
^^ So... you're not religious, then?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Typically, atheist is a term that is used as an accusation against the godless heathens. The only thing that atheists agree on is that they don't believe in a god or gods. Atheist says nothing about what a person DOES believe. To self-identify as an atheist is typically only as a response to take ownership of the label sort of the same way as gays did with their insulting labels.
You are correct to identify yourself as to your positive positions on things. I have called myself a rational naturalist and a skeptical rationalist. As Sam Harris said,
In fact, ”atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
Atheists don't have a worldview, so there is no belief to push. However, many atheists are like me and are just scientifically based skeptics and it is THIS position that they will argue. However, I think saying 'push' their beliefs is well-poisoning. Defense of and arguing the of the rational, skeptical, logical position on a topic, whether gods, aliens, afterlife, pyramid power or Reiki, is not pushing beliefs. It is exposing the art of critical thinking to people that may have never even learned a lick of logic. It is defense of defensible views and critical of indefensible ones such as those based on faith. Convincing other people of the soundness and correctness of a position is in fact what the art of debate is all about. Why are you against people trying to convince you their position is right? Persuasion is the reason many of us bother to participate in online discussions. For me it is the way I learn new things as well as the way I decide whether the things I think are true actually are actually reasonable. If no one tried to convince me of things, I would not know as much as I do. Every piece of scientific literature is attempting to convince me of something. I find it interesting you say you are practical and scientific in your thinking yet don't want to be convinced of something.
Labels are merely shortcuts to longer arguments. There is nothing inisdious about labels. Problems arise when someone uses a term in a way that is different than other people use it and then attempt to paint those that self-describe in a way that, intentionally or not, is contrary to the actual position they hold. When people try to tell me that atheism is about pushing the doctrine of non-belief, I will take exception to that and attempt to explain how I and millions of others use the term. They are still entitled to believe that if someone calls themselves an atheist, that is their position, but ignoring and arguing against how actual self-identified atheists truly act, is ignorant and IMO merely an attempt to marginalize those that disagree with them.
Likewise, when people attempt to use the term agnostic as a middle ground between theism and atheism, they are entitled to that position but to argue against those that use the term agnostic different is just stupid. It's ironic that you say you don't give a fuck about labels but earlier in your post you use labels in accusatory manner and lumping people with very diverse beliefs and opinions into a single category. It only demonstrates to me that you also find labels useful at least in some cases.
This is why when I use labels to make generalizations, I attempt to be specific if I can. I rarely say things about 'all theists' but I might make a generalization about Christians in general or fundamentalist Christians, or maybe I will use the term believers. Conversely I might discuss skeptics rather than non-believers in general since, for example, many people that are truly atheists by definition, are hardly skeptical and quite gullible such as many in the New Age crowd.
Not sure where I'm going with this but I think this purple cheese makes me ramble.....
Grojak
Well-Known Member
To say Atheists don't have a view is misleading, every atheist that argues against christians is trying to convince someone that there isn't a god...
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
That is incorrect. There's a difference between saying there isn't a reasonable justification for belief in god, and that there is no god.
One is the rejection of an already standing claim (that gods exist), the other is an entirely new claim that requires its own evidence (that no gods exist).
Unless you can provide evidence that god does not exist, it's just a belief. In this particular case it is the most likely belief, as the default position of a rational person is always non-belief until belief is justified.
Most atheists, myself included, do not claim that god does not exist for certain; only that they have no reasonable evidence to support a belief at this time.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
What I was attempting to say is that someone's view in that respect is not because they are an atheist, which is about what they don't believe, it is because of something else which they take a positive position on. For example, I argue against Xians all of the time. However, I readily admit that I am an anti-theist, anti-Xian, etc. I think most religion causes harm. I actively dislike most religion. The fact that I don't believe in a god is not what drives me to argue that Xianity is full of shit and there is no extra-biblical evidence that Jesus even existed, it's the things I do believe and the positive positions I hold, not the negative ones. My non-stamp collecting does not make me want to argue against philatelists. However, if stamp collectors had a history of violence, prejudice and oppression and actively sought to affect our laws based on whether you were a good philatelist or not and marginalized us non-stamp collectors in society, then not only would I be arguing against stamp collecting but I bet the accusatory term aphilatelist would be common in our lexicon.