The extent of atheistic thought (Jehovah, Christianity, choices, agnostic)
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.
Peter600's mind tends to be the mind of the vast majority of atheists I know, myself included. Belief in a god is jumping to conclusions that haven't been tested and verified, just as believing there can't ever be a god is jumping to conclusions that haven't been tested and verified.
Atheists like those I can relate to and completely accept. I was such an atheist until my encounter. Would that more of them were posting here instead of the more demanding ones.
To me the default position is no claims (positive or negative), no beliefs (positive or negative), no assumptions (positive or negative). The default position is the empty state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by id77
Peter600's mind tends to be the mind of the vast majority of atheists I know, myself included.
Wouldn't Peter600 be an Agnostic by definition? The key difference between an Atheist and Agnostic being an Atheist doesn't believe in a god or divine being (a belief stance) wherein an Agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a religious doctrine.
Wouldn't Peter600 be an Agnostic by definition? The key difference between an Atheist and Agnostic being an Atheist doesn't believe in a god or divine being (a belief stance) wherein an Agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a religious doctrine.
From Wikipedia (I know not the definitive source but the first I found):
"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities."
I ask whether my brain contains a "belief in the existence of deities?" It doesn't. So the "belief in the existence of deities" is absent in my case. Which would make me an atheist by that definition. I would also qualify under most definitions of agnostic.
Atheists like those I can relate to and completely accept. I was such an atheist until my encounter. Would that more of them were posting here instead of the more demanding ones.
I'd say there are many, if not most of us, that are like Peter who is, BTW, also "demanding" proof, although putting it in the term of 'requiring'.
"You" just resent it when you're asked to provide it.
I'd say there are many, if not most of us, that are like Peter who is, BTW, also "demanding" proof, although putting it in the term of 'requiring'.
"You" just resent it when you're asked to provide it.
Yeah I'm not demanding proof, but I'm saying that if you wish for me to listen to a claim that you make, you must first give me a reason to do so. Otherwise I'll stay in the default position.
The key point being the claim-maker is the one who has an obligation to give a reason. The claim-receiver has no obligations or burdens whatsoever and may stay in the default position.
And this is true of any claim. The claims "reality is God," "bigfoot is a real," "UFOs are aliens" are just a few claims, out of an infinite number of different claims that can be made.
Wouldn't Peter600 be an Agnostic by definition? The key difference between an Atheist and Agnostic being an Atheist doesn't believe in a god or divine being (a belief stance) wherein an Agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a religious doctrine.
I view agnosticism as the belief that there exists a god but it is unknowable. As I heard it once, an atheist doesn't believe and an agnostic doesn't know.
If one really wants to split hairs, I'd fall under the agnostic atheist category since I choose to say there is no god until such time as one is shown to exist, whereas someone who believes in a deity but doesn't know whether it's part of any religion, or even what form it takes would fall under agnostic theist.
Atheists like those I can relate to and completely accept. I was such an atheist until my encounter. Would that more of them were posting here instead of the more demanding ones.
its easy to accept because is just so dern logical. Its what we do with it from that point. Omitting lines of logic to maintain ignorance of people is exactly what the lesson on the cross was.
When we, as atheist, stop talking to each other about how and what we believe and only focus on howwrong religion is, that starts to look like something else other than "just here to discuss beliefs and why we hold"
most of here agree how dangerous religion is.
its is amazing to me that some seemly smart people will say in one post "majority doesn't mean right" then in the next breath use rep points as the indicator of how they are reliable they think they are. The numbers of people that agree with them are motivating them.
We are dealing with something else than rational here really.
We are the "irrational ones". we look at the system. Ask ourselves "what the best thing(s) we can say about that system. Can I compare what people are saying to that system to get a handle on who is doing what.
That , in my opinion, is more reliable than the base premise of "Lets form up and fight religion" in this type of forum.
I a sorry ... I don't how many people are repping people that attack religion. ask me am I for or against religion over all ... I see religion as very dangerous and I hope it losses power.
But that, If I omit logic in favor of "fight religion" so more people agree with me ...well, two dead wrongs don't make it right.
More imporatantly .... both sides can be partly right.
his "If they are wrong so everybody else must be right" is just stupid. Or even worse, "they are wrong ... and we don't care about anything else." is not the best we can do.
I view agnosticism as the belief that there exists a god but it is unknowable. As I heard it once, an atheist doesn't believe and an agnostic doesn't know.
If one really wants to split hairs, I'd fall under the agnostic atheist category since I choose to say there is no god until such time as one is shown to exist, whereas someone who believes in a deity but doesn't know whether it's part of any religion, or even what form it takes would fall under agnostic theist.
again, great base statement. Its a perfect starting pointing.
How do you feel about the statement "we don't need evidence for a belief" and when offered evidence about a belief its deemed "That belief doesn't get us anywhere."
and, since I always look at both sides, when are those statements a valid statement?
again, great base statement. Its a perfect starting pointing.
How do you feel about the statement "we don't need evidence for a belief" and when offered evidence about a belief its deemed "That belief doesn't get us anywhere."
and, since I always look at both sides, when are those statements a valid statement?
The first statement is valid, but it can also be dangerous when it stops being a personal belief (as I feel all beliefs should be). I have no problems with agnostics or even Christians who choose to worship a god. The problem arises when they impose that belief lacking evidence as law or truth to be enforced upon others.
The second statement is also valid and equally dangerous when used by one who believes differently (or not at all) to deprive another of a personal belief.
If everyone lived and let live, all religion or lack thereof could co-exist happily. The problem is that people can't seem to do that.
Yeah I'm not demanding proof, but I'm saying that if you wish for me to listen to a claim that you make, you must first give me a reason to do so. Otherwise I'll stay in the default position.
The key point being the claim-maker is the one who has an obligation to give a reason. The claim-receiver has no obligations or burdens whatsoever and may stay in the default position.
And this is true of any claim. The claims "reality is God," "bigfoot is a real," "UFOs are aliens" are just a few claims, out of an infinite number of different claims that can be made.
I think that Old Cold and Peter are stating this well, although I'm not willing to get into the formal debate mode (such as using terms like "default position").
I just ordered a new sound bar through Amazon for my television set. I didn't just take Bose's word for the quality of its product. I read quite a few of Amazon's customrer reviews on the product, then read half-a-dozen product reviews that were on websites or on online magazines. And this is common for me. I don't just impulse shop.
It would be fair for someone to say, "Hey Victor, you already rejected christianity". True enough. But there is hardly a week that goes by -- in fact, hardly a day that goes by -- that I am not somehow influenced by christianity. When I was a teacher it was the occasional christian parent who came in to TELL me that my teaching of evolution was a sin and I would pay a price for teaching it; nevermind that as an earth science teacher it was part of the state-approved MANDATORY curriculum. Or later, as a principal, the frequent kerfuffles over why should Jewish students' holy days affect the rest of the school; nevermind that the christian students had "christmas vacation", "easter break", and that it was no problem for student absences for christian students on ash friday. There's hardly a week that goes by that some christian-affiliated organization isn't trying to influence the American political system, or that some church isn't involved in a lawsuit (including fairly often the Supreme Court). In just the past fews days the governor of Florida (who has his eye on the presidency) signed into law a statute REQUIRING a moment of silence in the morning in each public school...and as we saw for decades, that was and is a slippery slope. I've told the story before about Buddhist and Jews and atheists having to sit through long christian prayers to attend an HOA meeting. I could go on and on for pages. But the bottom line is that christianity is truly intrusive in the the lives of non-christians. So yes, I/we still have a vested interest in posing the tough questions and being part of the discussion. And the way christians get that to stop, is to stop trying to influence the lives of others.
So go ahead christians. Worhsip as you wish in your homes, in your minds, in your churches. Almost no one is suggesting you shouldn't have the right to do that. But stop influencing the rest of us, and then we can stop saying, "Now wait just a minute..."
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.
