There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.
By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.
I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/
Originally posted by apathistyes its a belief, pure and simple, they have Holy books (the God delusion), luminaries (Darwin), creation myths (abiogenesis), and yes it relies upon unobserved phenomena! I dunno if they have religious art or hymns, probably John Lennons imagine comes close.
There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.
By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.
I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by apathistare the laws of maths a belief system?
There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.
By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.
I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/
It always amazes me that religious people would want to equate their belief with that of the atheist. I mean, "believing" in god is something entirely different than "not believing" in god, isn't it? The way I understand it, theists don't just look at the world and say "oh well, based on emotionless, empiric evidence I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that there must be a god/creator." It's a feeling isn't it? You've felt the warmth of god, haven't you? He has spoken to you. He hears you prayers and you've sensed that, yes?
The "believe" of atheists is boring, predictable, devoid of emotion, hope, warmth. It's based on emotionless conclusions. It's akin to the believe that I have that it won't snow tomorrow where I live. Why? Because I've felt it in my heart? Because it makes me feel good inside? Hell no, for me it's based on what the weatherman says and it's based on the fact that it's July and in the Netherlands it doesn't snow in July. Because of all sorts of cold-blooded facts like where the earth stands compared to the sun.
Am I completely sure that it won't snow tomorrow? Nope. Roland Emmerich could surely come up with a bunch of reasons why we would suddenly have snow in July.
Atheism may be called a believe. That it won't snow here tomorrow may be a believe. That everyone who's currently reading this won't die simultaneously may be believe. That Santa Clause doesn't exist may be a believe. That we aren't all "living" in the Matrix may be a believe. But do you - the theist - really want to equate your believe in god to those kinds of believes? Is your faith so shallow, so thin, so fragile that you need to make everybody "a believer"?
How pitiful.
Originally posted by apathistHave you considered the possibility that babies and rocks are atheists?
There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.
By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.
I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/
Is your lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system? Do you have scientific evidence that Santa Claus does not exist?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSome people live in a demon-haunted world and can only see other people's belief systems from that perspective. These people have magical Holy books, luminaries, etc., so they see their opposition as having Holy books, luminaries, etc. that play the same magical role.
yes its a belief, pure and simple, they have Holy books (the God delusion), luminaries (Darwin), creation myths (abiogenesis), and yes it relies upon unobserved phenomena! I dunno if they have religious art or hymns, probably John Lennons imagine comes close.
Originally posted by JS357everyone must face their own daemons and its therefore imperative to look inside, there are no opponents for there is no I, all that matters is the juxtaposition of the chessmen.
Some people live in a demon-haunted world and can only see other people's belief systems from that perspective. These people have magical Holy books, luminaries, etc., so they see their opposition as having Holy books, luminaries, etc. that play the same magical role.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow can there be an everyone, or an anyone for that matter, if there is no "I"? What about "their own"? I am afraid that we are trapped by our linguistic assumptions, specifically the way language and human thought structure one another.
everyone must face their own daemons and its therefore imperative to look inside, there are no opponents for there is no I, all that matters is the juxtaposition of the chessmen.
This is better that beating the dead horse of what atheism is, again.
Originally posted by apathistBabies and rocks don't disbelieve in god's either. That is because a rock does not have the ability by conscientiousness to believe or disbelieve anything and the baby has not yet gained enough experience and knowledge to make a decision what to believe or not believe.
There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.
By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.
I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/
The Instructor
Originally posted by Great King RatIt is very clear to me that all normal adult humans have beliefs that shape their worldview. Atheism is definitely a belief that is opposite the belief of theism. No doubt about it.
It always amazes me that religious people would want to equate their belief with that of the atheist. I mean, "believing" in god is something entirely different than "not believing" in god, isn't it? The way I understand it, theists don't just look at the world and say "oh well, based on emotionless, empiric evidence I have no choice but to come to th ...[text shortened]... e that you need to make everybody "a believer"?
How pitiful.
The Instructor
Originally posted by apathistWill you be clutching "dictionaries and encyclopedias" on your death bed?
There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.
By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.
I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/
Originally posted by twhiteheadHave you considered the possibility that babies and rocks are atheists?
Have you considered the possibility that babies and rocks are atheists?
Is your lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system? Do you have scientific evidence that Santa Claus does not exist?
Yes. Then I checked dictionaries and encyclopedias to see if I understood the words and the concepts. Turns out they aren't.
Is your lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system? Do you have scientific evidence that Santa Claus does not exist?
Of course, and no.
Originally posted by JS357the statement, 'there is no I', is made with reference to egotism or more specifically, lack of it, not to existence. The premise, 'there is no I', is an affirmation that the individual is prone to aberration and therefore the best way to avoid this is to take self from the equation. I use another chess illustration, we may want to attack the King, it may be our desire to attack the King but if the dictates of the chess board are not conducive to a King attack, what shall transpire? our opponent shall easily rebuff our advances and we shall be a victim of our own desires or delusions. We must therefore vigorously cultivate sublime humility, stamp down on our egos and realise that although we give animation to the chess pierces, it is the chessboard which dictates! and we shall see clearly. Ideas are conveyed by language and it may be a cumbersome vehicle but its the best we have.
How can there be an everyone, or an anyone for that matter, if there is no "I"? What about "their own"? I am afraid that we are trapped by our linguistic assumptions, specifically the way language and human thought structure one another.
This is better that beating the dead horse of what atheism is, again.