The extent of atheistic thought (Creator, created, body, percentage)
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by id77
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.
I would say it comes down to whether or not holding out the prospect of or otherwise allowing that God or a deity might exist constitutes some form of "belief" or a a lesser/truncated version of full blown belief. Does leaving the door open even just a crack let a small amount of belief in?
A dyed in the wool Atheist may claim they "know" God doesn't exist, don't even bring up the "B" word.
A not so dyed in the wool one may state they "believe" God doesn't exist.
A dyed in the wool Agnostic may say they assume God does not exist and will do so, changing their mind only in evidence God exists and/or God presenting him/her/itself.
A not so dyed in the wool Agnostic may say they believe there is a possibility God exists. This may or may not take things up a notch out of assumption just enough to create a "belief" stance, even though it may be a lesser stance or fraction of 100% belief.
If you think of Atheism and Agnosticism as two circles that intersect/overlap partially like in geometry, with the extremes the part of the circles unto themselves, and the intersecting area various hybrid combinations it may aid in visualizing these examples/thoughts.
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.
I agree totally ... again it is how we behave that separates us ... what steps to we take to suppress beliefs so that ours maintain an air of "equality" when, if discussed in the open, they fail misrely.
Yes, it can be dangerous. The truth is like the sun. Its doesn't care how nice you are, how good you are to people, what a reasonable and logical person we seem to be. Run naked on the African savanna and you might just be a cooked meal.
Omitting lines of logic that clearly show where its really about an agenda of fight religion is equally dangerous. "Beliefs" are just not created equally. Thats a basic and dangerous truth.
"beliefs" are not equal. "Belief" that are more consistent with observation are more reliable than those that aren't. Deity and lack belief are not consistent with observation. And actively taking steps to omit lines of logic to protect an agenda is deceitful.
"fight religion" uses "all beliefs are equal" and "omit some lines of logic because it doesn't get us anywhere." and "beliefs don't need evidence" also. I believe that is as dangerous as any religion, in fact, I say it is religion-ist (I call fundy think type) thinking.
If we applied the same standard to ourselves first, then "them" ... well, yeah.
but that's not what we have. we have seriously scarred and recovering people deciding how to evaluate reality. On both sides.
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").
Nipped for space ...
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..."
wow ... I so have you pegged ... No, you are not going to veer off of "lets keep the formation tight to fight religion"
I would say it comes down to whether or not holding out the prospect of or otherwise allowing that God or a deity might exist constitutes some form of "belief" or a a lesser/truncated version of full blown belief. Does leaving the door open even just a crack let a small amount of belief in?
A dyed in the wool Atheist may claim they "know" God doesn't exist, don't even bring up the "B" word.
A not so dyed in the wool one may state they "believe" God doesn't exist.
A dyed in the wool Agnostic may say they assume God does not exist and will do so, changing their mind only in evidence God exists and/or God presenting him/her/itself.
A not so dyed in the wool Agnostic may say they believe there is a possibility God exists. This may or may not take things up a notch out of assumption just enough to create a "belief" stance, even though it may be a lesser stance or fraction of 100% belief.
If you think of Atheism and Agnosticism as two circles that intersect/overlap partially like in geometry, with the extremes the part of the circles unto themselves, and the intersecting area various hybrid combinations it may aid in visualizing these examples/thoughts.
The definition for atheism I use is much simpler than the one for agnosticism. As per the definition I posted yesterday, the only requirement to be an atheist is as follows:
Ask yourself the question "Does my brain contain a belief in God." If the answer is "No," then you are an atheist. I asked myself that question, the answer was "No," so I call myself an atheist.
Regarding the definition of agnostic, definition (from wiki again) that I agree with:
"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."
Regarding your Venn diagram, I agree. The atheism circle and agnosticism circle have an overlap, but also have parts that don't overlap.
You've posted this before. I have nothing to add to my prior responses.
no, you have nothing to add. That is evidence by your choices.
Disconnects between seemly rational people can be shown at the base axiom level. Those axioms that drove the choices people make.
You posted you are here to fight religion before and will again. I will then post that when evaluating beliefs and discussing beliefs that base/reason to be here is a less reliable base position than using commonsense to see if some beliefs match observation or not.
I would say it comes down to whether or not holding out the prospect of or otherwise allowing that God or a deity might exist constitutes some form of "belief" or a a lesser/truncated version of full blown belief. Does leaving the door open even just a crack let a small amount of belief in?
A dyed in the wool Atheist may claim they "know" God doesn't exist, don't even bring up the "B" word.
A not so dyed in the wool one may state they "believe" God doesn't exist.
A dyed in the wool Agnostic may say they assume God does not exist and will do so, changing their mind only in evidence God exists and/or God presenting him/her/itself.
A not so dyed in the wool Agnostic may say they believe there is a possibility God exists. This may or may not take things up a notch out of assumption just enough to create a "belief" stance, even though it may be a lesser stance or fraction of 100% belief.
If you think of Atheism and Agnosticism as two circles that intersect/overlap partially like in geometry, with the extremes the part of the circles unto themselves, and the intersecting area various hybrid combinations it may aid in visualizing these examples/thoughts.
how about this ...
Learn about what is happening around us. Discuss what we think about it. And don't even worry about what agnostic and atheism, and theism definitions say?
When somebody makes a claim, do we answer to atheism, agnostic, and theism. Or is it more reliable to answer based on a mechanism, repeatable predictions, and how consistent with observation the claim is?
also, when is putting forth statements like "I don't know what I am talking about so I lack belief" acceptable? and when is it unacceptable?
no, you have nothing to add. That is evidence by your choices.
Disconnects between seemly rational people can be shown at the base axiom level. Those axioms that drove the choices people make.
You posted you are here to fight religion before and will again. I will then post that when evaluating beliefs and discussing beliefs that base/reason to be here is a less reliable base position than using commonsense to see if some beliefs match observation or not.
Addressing phetaroi, you said: "You posted you are here to fight religion before and will again." I just did a search of the entire A&A forum, looking for posts by phetaroi including the words "fight" and "religion." The result is that he has not said what you claim he has said. If you have any honesty at all, you will quit saying so simply because doing so is lying about him.
Anybody can do the same search. Anyone who does will get the same result. Maye you should leave him alone.
no, you have nothing to add. That is evidence by your choices.
Disconnects between seemly rational people can be shown at the base axiom level. Those axioms that drove the choices people make.
You posted you are here to fight religion before and will again. I will then post that when evaluating beliefs and discussing beliefs that base/reason to be here is a less reliable base position than using commonsense to see if some beliefs match observation or not.
Addressing phetaroi, you said: "You posted you are here to fight religion before and will again." I just did a search of the entire A&A forum, looking for posts by phetaroi including the words "fight" and "religion." The result is that he has not said what you claim he has said. If you have any honesty at all, you will quit saying so simply because doing so is lying about him.
Anybody can do the same search. Anyone who does will get the same result. Maye you should leave him alone.
Thank you.
I don't mind honest debate. And I understand why it's fair for Arach to bring up my seeming inconsistency in believing in past lives, reincarnation (actually rebirth), and karma. But there are two problems with these discussions. The first problem is that he's brought it up repeatedly (and almost always as part of a thread that has nothing to do with these things), I've said what I have to say about the topic, my position hasn't changed, and I'm not asking anyone else to believe in past lives, rebirth, or karma. I don't see the purpose in repeatedly getting on the same merry-go-round.
He has repeatedly said disparaging things about my career in administration. Talk about lack of evidence. He doesn't know my name. He doesn't know where I was an administrator. So he has no basis on which to judge my performance in my career. He ignores the fact that I was the principal of one of the top five middle schools in the state. He ignores the fact that I must have been pretty good to actually be invited to a meeting with the governor. He ignores the fact that my school has the best or second best rated gifted program in the state and that we were always number one or number two in getting students into the governor's school for science and technology. 20 years in admin in one school, and not a single negative newspaper article or anything of the sort. Now, to be fair, I have not provided evidence to support those claims. And I'm not going to be the one person in the forum who divulges his or her identity just to satisfy Arach. But what I think is important (and fair) is that a poster should make disparaging remarks about another poster's job perfomrance BASED ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. And he has done that repeatedly.
I think it's possible that at some point or points I have said words to the effect that I intend to "fight" the overreach of religion in the lives of non-believers. That is not -- as I think you are pointing out -- the same same as "fighting" religion. If Jerry is happy being catholic, then Jerry should be catholic. If Jane is happy being methodist, then Jane should be methodist. If Frank is happy being Jehovah Witness, then Frank should be Jehovah Witness. But I don't want Jerry, Jane, or Frank trying to force public policy on the nation based on their religion. I don't want them on my doorstep, or sending me mailings, or calling me on the telephone. I don't want to go to an HOA meeting and be forced to be involved in their religious ceremony. They may worship as they please in their churches, synagoges, temples, or other privately owned buildings. They may worship as they please in their homes. They may worship as they please in their minds. And there are some public setting where they should be able to worship as they please. If that's not enough for them...tough luck. Freedom of religion is not being able to do everything you wanna do, every place you wanna do it, and every time you wanna do it. Freedom of religion is not always having your way in the "public square". Freedom of religion is not forcing your religion on others.
I do need to add one caveat. This forum is a different type of place. The owner of the forum set the rules, and while I may not always like the rules, I try to abide by them (with an occasional slip). And if I can't abide by them, I'll go someplace else. I almost never go up into the christianity part of the forum. But, the basic religion and spirituality part of the forum is, from what I have been able to tell, open to everyone to discuss the pros and cons of religion (and spirituality). I've learned a lot over my time in that part of the forum...some pro religion, some con religion. I can be harsh, but as HT often said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". There's nothing wrong with heat...as long as it's honest heat.
There are certain themes in this forum that will stick around for as long as the forum does. But sometimes with an individual poster, it's time to stop buying a ticket for the merry-go-round.
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.
