The need to believe , or not :) (after-life, Muslims, sunday, education)
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.
A non-belief has no existence on its own. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Why is it so important for you to call it a non-belief?
Because what you claim is untrue. A belief that there is no god implies knowledge that is not attainable. Atheism doesn't make the claim to know there is no gods simply because they admit this is unknowable. Some individual atheists themselves might go further and say there is no god, but this is a personal opinion that extends beyond simple atheism, and wouldn't hold up if challenged since they could not prove this.
I wonder why the obsession for denying what atheists themselves say about atheism?
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
the only meaning it has --- as you yourself stated in post #181 --
is "atheism is merely non -belief in any god -claim and nothing more than that."
Partly right. An atheist can also be one that claims that a God does not exist, in which its a positive claim that can be challenged.
Where science does come in is when a believer challenges the atheist (nonbeliever) about stuff the believer is true because it's in their Holy Book and claims that is the way it had to happen.or I guess the opponents of MysticPhD claim that his is based on science.
For the most part science is not needed for one to not believe there is sufficient evidence to believe in a God. I think this is the main reason that a good portion of believers on these forums do not get challenged about the science of their belief, they claim they believe because of faith or personal experiences or they need and receive help in their life from their religion. I don't think I have challenged any of those. Probably asked them to explain what they need. But when a poster claims that we should accept that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that morality only comes from God or that we are bound for hell because we don't have their particular belief than debating is warrented.
If theists were not pushing into politics or into the educational systems or so willing to be in tolerate against those with no beliefs or of other beliefs than atheistss could remain silent.
Can an openly atheist be elected president in your country? Could a Muslim or a Jew? I do remember the concern many Americans had about JFK because he was a Catholic. Religion gets in the way of too many things and too many religious folks use it as a weapon to control or oppress others rather than a tool to help themselves.
Because that is a logically untenable claim; so atheism - even if it held that position - would have to give it up and say 'we don't know - so we will not believe until we do'.
'Don't be silly' is replaced by 'don't be crafty'. The context is to dismiss all the efforts to wish dogma, church -service equivalents atheist popes and the like on atheism. If I may use an analogy similar to some of yours - but sound, someone might claim an apple to be a panacea, a cure for scrofula, a way of warding off rogue elephants and a universal translator. To which we would say 'It's an apple; nothing more'. Only the crafty would say 'that means that you say it is not a fruit, it is not a container for seeds, nor it is a garden product or the possessor of a skin.'Yes all of those too, but why would anyone honestly suggest it was just the name 'apple' and nothing more? Craftiness and semantic trickery doesn't do any good for those who try to pull it.
"craftiness and semantic trickery" would be claiming that science has anything to do with atheism.
"craftiness and semantic trickery" would be claiming that atheism is a "subset of rationalist science."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-15-2021 at 03:04 PM..
Back at ya, I've blown yours - several times. Arach has no post here. In any case your thumbing him up does you no credit as he is generally understood here to be impossible to understand. But you don't care. You don't care even that he claims to be atheist, just so long as he bashes atheism - or more particular me. I'm honoured to be the target of the Theistic snarkshooters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
"craftiness and semantic trickery" would be claiming that science has anything to do with atheism.
or that atheism is a "subset of science."
Craftiness and semantic trickery is pulling a trick like that before asking for an explanation, and blatant dishonesty when one has already been given.
It is this: atheism is a rational position, because it is logically sound. A positive or 'gnostic' claim would not be. Thus atheism by default is a rational position and thus automatically a subset of rationality.
It is not a subset of science, despite our massive subsidies to get the labmen to pretend that evolution is true and screen out any ID papers submitted for peer -review (1).
All that atheism does there is when looking at the evidence put forward to validate the god -(or God) -claim, atheism uses scientifically validated science to assess it, also using the rules of logic where necessary. That doesn't make atheism a 'subset' of science, and atheism doesn't say it is. Or I trust not.
You can learn something here and save credibility, or you can continue digging yourself a hole. It doesn't hurt me debunking you.
(1) I am of course kidding, but normally nobody would need to be told that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-15-2021 at 03:23 PM..
"craftiness and semantic trickery" would be claiming that science has anything to do with atheism.
or that atheism is a "subset of rationalist science."
On the contrary. Science and atheism are inter-twined.
The information about our universe, from the broadness of space, to the tininess of the atom, have been explored and learned about by science. The factual knowledge of mankind has grown exponentially.
And guess what?
NONE of the information and knowledge discovered by science is in the least bit consistent with the trappings and teachings of religion. No corroboration whatsoever. A blank slate.
A hugely fanciful story of a god and heaven and hell and spirits and demons and angels and etc etc., has not left a single faint footprint to be discovered by the scientific process. NONE, You hear me, NONE.
You might as well tell me that a herd of 1,000,000 bull elephants stampeded for weeks in Central Park, but left no footprints, no dung, and nobody whatsoever, saw a single creature or heard a single trumpet.
You guys don't drink Grape Kool-Aid. You drink "Eternal-Life flavored Kool-Aid".
But guess what?
It's artificially flavored, while you think its real, as you slam down pitchers-full of it.
Because what you claim is untrue. A belief that there is no god implies knowledge that is not attainable. Atheism doesn't make the claim to know there is no gods simply because they admit this is unknowable. Some individual atheists themselves might go further and say there is no god, but this is a personal opinion that extends beyond simple atheism, and wouldn't hold up if challenged since they could not prove this.
I wonder why the obsession for denying what atheists themselves say about atheism?
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
disbelief is the same as non -belief. Stating a belief there are no gods would be a positive claim. Dear me, sometimes we are so convinced we say a positive belief. But that is not the logical position of atheism, in fact.
But theism has to force a belief -claim onto us as part of shifting the burden of proof. This is vital for them because Godfaith requires that it be taken as the default claim and it is up (or down) to atheism to disprove it.
That means we have to do all the disproof and all the theists have to do is say 'not good enough' (1)
If it is theism making the god -claim, then they have to do the proving to convince the doubters (us ) and they hate having to do the work.
(1) not to digress but there is a fascinating discussion on the a priori faith -claim and the belief that the logical position (or debating position at least) is that a god exists until 100% disproven. And even then we have seen conclusing prood dismissed on any pretext or just Because.
On the contrary. Science and atheism are inter-twined.
no, they are not.
maybe you should read the FAQ sticky on the Atheism forum:
"What is atheism? Atheism is a very narrow position about belief in deities. It is the lack of belief in ANY deity. 'Atheist' literally means 'without god' and the opposite term is 'Theist'. A theist believes in one or more gods, an atheist believes in no gods at all. We don’t know that there are no gods. Atheism is a belief position, not a knowledge position."
That's what you are getting. But can you deal with the lioical implications? That the non -belief position is not just the only honest but the only logical response to the God -claim, pending better evidential support?
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.
disbelief is the same as non -belief. Stating a belief there are no gods would be a positive claim. Dear me, sometimes we are so convinced we say a positive belief. But that is not the logical position of atheism, in fact.
) and they hate having to do the work.
