Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lets look at claims other then a deity, in terms of a belief/spirituality/god, and see where "Lack belief" fits.
OK... Going on this and some input from Peter600 on another thread where you post similar thoughts, I would term your concept as being "belief neutral". The realm between Theism (belief in God/religion) and Atheism (belief there is no God/basis for religion) Both theism and atheism being belief systems as described.
IMO a belief neutral person is an Agnostic. So in a roundabout way you are giving some press here to what is half the namesake of the forum, but gets far less than half the discussion/attention. Agnostics do not really have "claims" but they can add spirituality a la carte as they see fit such as adopting spiritual elements or Paganism. Note that I do not label spiritual adoption as "belief".
One can take solace and reverence in the natural world and experience joy and spiritual uplifting/renewal from same without crossing a line into a "belief" system. I can walk through a quiet wooded landscape in a grey sky with perfectly still air and a dry/fine snowfall and it all exists to me, no proof necessary, my spirit is uplifted though I walk the woods as a "lack believer" or 'belief neutral" person.
OK... Going on this and some input from Peter600 on another thread where you post similar thoughts, I would term your concept as being "belief neutral". The realm between Theism (belief in God/religion) and Atheism (belief there is no God/basis for religion) Both theism and atheism being belief systems as described.
IMO a belief neutral person is an Agnostic. So in a roundabout way you are giving some press here to what is half the namesake of the forum, but gets far less than half the discussion/attention. Agnostics do not really have "claims" but they can add spirituality a la carte as they see fit such as adopting spiritual elements or Paganism. Note that I do not label spiritual adoption as "belief".
One can take solace and reverence in the natural world and experience joy and spiritual uplifting/renewal from same without crossing a line into a "belief" system. I can walk through a quiet wooded landscape in a grey sky with perfectly still air and a dry/fine snowfall and it all exists to me, no proof necessary, my spirit is uplifted though I walk the woods as a "lack believer" or 'belief neutral" person.
thats fine and dandy. Then we, as atheist, don't hyper focus on a deity. and state things like "There are no god or gods of any type.". Because my god, better stated as people misunderstanding the system, is solely based on the traits of life in any science book.
so one can be neutral. And not shun, limit evidence, personally attack people, and call all beliefs lunacy. There is never need to say things like ...
"Sortagod cannot be allowed to pass through inattention or being worn down with constant nagging, because it hands theism the logical default for free. Without their having to produce anything but fallacious arguments."
In terms of evidence based beliefs ... the only thing that matters ... a mechanism, make predictions, and how consistent with observations a claim is.
we, as atheist, don't believe in a deity ... why are we so hyper focused on one? Why is that the primary focus?
For an Agnostic, there is a god, but it is not a man-made god like the Yahweh-thing or the Jesus-thing or any of the god-things from other cultures.
This god is unknowable, because it is not possible to comprehend the nature of god and this god might not even be a living thing; it could be a force.
As a consequence, this god is not a personal god, has no idea you even exist, and plays no role in your life, and so there's no point in praying because this god would never do anything for you. More or less, that god would see you no differently than the crap you flush down the toilet everyday.
For Atheists, there's nothing to comprehend or not comprehend, because there's nothing out there. It's just a random series of chaotic events.
We're not here because some god-thing created us or had a plan.
We're here because a celestial body a little smaller than Mars collided with Earth and knocked Earth from its location in the Asteroid Belt to its present location and then a comet or asteroid with the life-bearing organic material landed here and then a whole series of random chaotic events, including the Chicxulub Asteroid, paved the way for us.
Agnostics differ from Deists who believe you can know and comprehend a god-thing who isn't necessarily one of the man-made god-things.
For people who aren't sure if there is or isn't, I suppose we can label them as "Unsurists."
1) Why the scientism?
2) Thank you for admitting you have no evidence for your god.
I said we can't parse it, meaning it is ALL evidence of God defined as the source of all existence. This kind of obtuseness to actual science and its implications is probably the reason this forum is dying.
we, as atheist, don't believe in a deity ... why are we so hyper focused on one? Why is that the primary focus?
Sometimes I thing Atheists can be more focused on the actions of the believers/followers of religion more than religion itself. It certainly manifests itself on the Joke thread that way.
If an Atheist came across a magic box with two buttons as follows:
Green Button: Religion and its followers remain going forward but all genocide/corruption/atrocities/discrimination/etc. caused by religion will magically disappear and never happen or manifest.
White Button: All religion will cease going forward and everyone will become Atheist/Agnostic. But all the problems religion would have caused in the future contained in the green button will carry out and manifest. (just go with it/accept as given and don't ask how this would happen without religion/followers).
What button would they push?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That is not classic Agnosticism.
Agnostics are not ambivalent.
For an Agnostic, there is a god, but it is not a man-made god like the Yahweh-thing or the Jesus-thing or any of the god-things from other cultures.
For people who aren't sure if there is or isn't, I suppose we can label them as "Unsurists."
Well according to Agnosticat from PrepScholar the classic definition of an Agnostic is as follows:
"Agnostics of all varieties believe that there's no way to know whether God is real. Because of that, agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve that a higher power exists."
That's a textbook definition of "belief neutral" or possibly falling into a category of "Unsurism". But in either regard, there is no God in that realm between neither believing or disbelieving.
22 pages and still counting! I did not expect this. I expected 3/4 of a page, maybe 2 pages max. And then I expected oblivion. It seems as though many of you prayed on this and now everything is back to life. Yippie!
Sometimes I thing Atheists can be more focused on the actions of the believers/followers of religion more than religion itself. It certainly manifests itself on the Joke thread that way.
If an Atheist came across a magic box with two buttons as follows:
Green Button: Religion and its followers remain going forward but all genocide/corruption/atrocities/discrimination/etc. caused by religion will magically disappear and never happen or manifest.
White Button: All religion will cease going forward and everyone will become Atheist/Agnostic. But all the problems religion would have caused in the future contained in the green button will carry out and manifest. (just go with it/accept as given and don't ask how this would happen without religion/followers).
What button would they push?
nipped for space ...
.
I would add one bottom ... the that removes "evil them" from the discussions and allows us to only focus in the information we have to best describe the system as it is.
I ok with recovery for people. I get it. "recovery" is not the standard for deciding what beliefs are more reliable and what ones are less reliable. And only presenting science and commonsense through the lense of "We must be careful how we say it so theist can't use it and make atheism harder to sell." is what.
Atheism is stronger than that. And when atheist have to team and discuss how to present information to sway people ... "those "beliefs don;t get us anywhere" ... thats religion-ist thinking. We have not only become them ... we are them.
In fact, the scientific method tries to remove such deep seated biases ...
22 pages and still counting! I did not expect this. I expected 3/4 of a page, maybe 2 pages max. And then I expected oblivion. It seems as though many of you prayed on this and now everything is back to life. Yippie!
You singlehandedly jumpstarted the forum by starting a thread noting its potential demise....
You know what this means don't you? You now have to join Iris Dement in singing "Let The Mystery Be"...
I'm opening my window here in New York, sing loud enough for me to hear you please...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
