spike
New Member
No, they're not discounting Jesus.
Religiosity statistics
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
- Status
No, they're not discounting Jesus.
I'm great, thanks, been having lots of work lately and I spend most of my free time with Lisette.
I also avoid TRW and occasionally post on the other forums.
randomJACKASS
Banned
Understandable, but nice to know you are still around....
I'm going to correct you a little here. You mention that atheism is "faith based as any religion". Faith is defined as belief that is not based on logical proof or material evidence. Atheism would be a lack of faith rather than having faith. If there is no proof of a god(s) and one believes there is a god(s), then that is faith. Since it is not necessary to prove that something does not exist (because that would just get ridiculous if you can imagine all of the possible arguments that would follow) then this is not faith.
What you describe as "I do not have the belief that there is no god" would be Agnostic.
Oh, I'm an Atheist.
chcr
Too cute for words
Theism is a belief in god(s)(ess)(esses). The prefix "a" merely changes it to a lack thereof. That's what it means. A belief that there is no god is just that, a belief based on the evidence available. It is in no way based on faith. I believe that leprecchauns do not exist. I believe that fairies do not exist. I believe that vampires do not exist. I will continue to believe there is no god in the exact same way until someone proves to me that one exists. Calling that belief faith based is semantic bullshit. It means nothing. I wonder if you're familiar with Russell's Teapot?
I would point out that the burden of proof always rests with those claiming that something for which there is no credible evidence exists. Just like cold fusion.
If you have a belief that there, is/is not, a deity, you are expressing faith in your belief. Why does your thinking that God does not exist have one iota more weight than someone who has full faith that God does exist? They are opposite sides of the same coin.
I do not belive in a deity (God). I do not claim that there is none. I have no more proof than the one who claims there, is/is not, one.
An agnostic typically believes in some version of a deity. I do not share that belief. I do not share the belief that there is a God. I do not share the belief that there is no God. I have no belief in a God but have no logical irrefutable evidence that I am correct. I do not ask you to prove to me either way since I've seen evidence on both sides & each is strong.
A-theism is not a faith. We could go round and round with this but like I explained, the word "faith" has a definition and that definition is a belief that is not based on logical proof or material evidence this, by definition, rules out Atheism as "faith based".
Just for the record, I did not say that Atheism held more weight than faith based religions, though that would not really need to be said. If I believed that faith in a deity was the right choice I would believe without proof that one existed. But I don't.
Christians believe they are right. Muslims believe they are right. Jews think they are right. Buddhists believe they are right. Hindus believe they are right. Each believes their religion, either chosen or followed because of familial tradition, is the correct path. Otherwise they would not have any need to follow the rules/religious laws of their religion and might even convert to one they think had "more weight".
An Agnostic does not necessarily believe in god/gods/godesses but does not rule out the possibility. Most Agnostics believe that we can not possibly understand or know if there is or is not a god. This is why I believe you fall into that category. It was not meant to insult or cause an argument.
As for the rest, I second what chr said.
randomJACKASS
Banned
Which can be easily argued that this is a highly subjective opinion. Many people believe to have seen a lot of evidence that there is a god. Just because you haven't seen any evidence does not in any way mean that no evidence exists. I'd say that yes, atheism is based on a kind of faith. At very least a faith that all the bizarre little coincidences in our lives can all be explained away as random chance.
Dictionary.com said:
Semantics? If you say so, but I don't, we all have faith in various ways.
chcr
Too cute for words
Fine. Show me.
Evidence is reproducible on demand. If you can't reproduce it it's not evidence. Just as a point of information, I've looked extensively.
In fact a lot of people have seen something that they have convinced themselves reinforces their faith. A lot of other people haven't and yet continue to have faith anyway. Your arguing apples and oranges but don't feel bad. It's one of the more common tactics used in this discussion.
Do you believe in leprechauns and fairies? You can't prove they don't exist so why not? "Just because you haven't seen any evidence does not in any way mean that no evidence exists."
randomJACKASS
Banned
No you've looked extensively for every proof that there is no god so you've found it. Congratulations, enjoy your upcoming afterlife of being worm food!
chcr
Too cute for words
Nice. Well, if that's the discussion you want to have. Seems a bit childish as a debating technique.
In fact, I figured out that the whole business was a myth when I was thirteen. I spent the next fifteen years or so looking for any evidence that could not be easily debunked. You go ahead and believe what you want. You will anyway.
I don't think anyone will "enjoy" an afterlife. If I'm right, you'll never know it.
randomJACKASS
Banned
My point is, that you are completely closed minded to any new evidence and I am absolutely convince that you are wrong! I wasn't trying to be rude, just to discourage further debate. I have found you to be somewhat reasonable and open minded on most subjects, but not this one. I am completely dead set in my opinion, so what is there to discuss? m Neither of us is going to convince the other, but I still stand by the statement. Atheists, who claim to have searched for evidence almost invariably only search for evidence to support the idea that there is no god.
This is your right and I have my opinion, even about how you came to your conclusions, but I have no problem with you being an atheist, and have no wish to convince you otherwise. I personally think you will be very pleasantly surprised when you die, because I am not a believer in that one has to believe to avoid hell. There is nothing at all wrong with being an atheist, but there is nothing wrong with me having opinions about it either, just as I am quite sure you have beliefs and opinions on how we who have faith come to have it.
If you are offended by my opinion about you looking only for evidence of the non-existence of god, then consider that some of us may find some offense when atheists tell us faith is based on zero evidence because it isn't.
randomJACKASS
Banned
Dictionary.com said:
By that definition, I have seen more than enough evidence in my lifetime to convince me there is something more than just nothing and the randomness of chance, yet I am an agnostic and I don't have as much definition of it as most religious people. Stop trying to tell me my faith is not based on evidence. Just because that evidence does not convince you, does not make it false evidence.
Whether you see it or not you come off condescending on this issue. I may too, but I am well aware of that, and so I am trying to explain it here the best I can.
chcr
Too cute for words
In this context, Mark. In this context. In fact, in science or in a court of law evidence that cannot be reproduced will not be accepted and in this case if you cannot reproduce it for me I won't accept it either. Would you?
Of course you are. I'd be surprised if you weren't. I am equally convinced that you are.Mark said:
I do find it interesting that you think you know what I think because I don't believe in telepathy either. (that was a joke)(honest)
BTW, I realize that I come off as condescending. I don't really do it on purpose but I also no longer apologize for it. Make of that what you will. In general, I suspect it's because of my idiomatic way of writing (I tend to talk this way too, only with more use of expletives) and my extensive vocabulary. Note that I in no way think that this makes me particularly more intelligent than anyone else and I really don't find it all that useful. Too late to change now. As for sounding condescending in this discussion, I wonder if you can imagine how many times I've had it? When your an atheist, virtually everyone who is not another atheist is ready to tell you why you're an atheist and why you're wrong. The arguments are always strikingly similar and equally fallacious. I've heard them all dozens of times and I honestly get a little snippy (okay, more than a little) when I respond. Patience has never been my watchword either. One question I frequently ask when I have this discussion: If you're so certain that what you believe is right, why does it bug you so much that a few people don't believe it?
As for religion in general, in my experience each person who espouses a religion has a different interpretation (sometimes wildly different) of what that religion means, of what their particular god's "plan" is. From my point of view, if you guys really think there's a planner, you need to speak to him about his work because it doesn't look very competent from where I'm sitting.
I think the problem here is that you think I'm trying to convince you of something. I'm not. When I say, "Believe what you want," that's just what I mean. You will anyway.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
- Status