Originally posted by amannionHow is it a cop out? Because it is not an assertation of faith?
No, perhaps what I mean to say is that weak atheism as you suggest it seems to me to be a bit of cop out.
And I disagree that believing there is no god requires evidence - it's a belief. Beliefs do not require evidenciary support, making them logically tenuous perhaps, but no less powerful for that.
Beliefs should carry support. In my opinion, holding a belief that is supported on nothing more than faith is a fool's pass-time. It is making a statement for which there is no support and as such is tantamount to nonsense. It would be equivalent to me saying 'I ride Pegasus the winged horse to work each morning'; people would start looking at me funny.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage...so the world turns.
Hotels spring from minefields; so the world turns.
http://www.unitedworld-usa.com/reports/angola/tourism.asp
To what? The emptiness of materialism? Do you think giving that little kid a million dollars would change the fact that being in the final stages of AIDS, he only had a few months to live? At least make a splash on your way out.
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm interested, why do you consider materialism empty?
[b]...so the world turns.
To what? The emptiness of materialism? Do you think giving that little kid a million dollars would change the fact that being in the final stages of AIDS, he only had a few months to live? At least make a splash on your way out.[/b]
Originally posted by Starrman...there is no reason to believe in the concept of a thing's existence without evidence.
Not at all, as my Pegasus example shows, there is no reason to believe in the concept of a thing's existence without evidence. Therefore a position of denial is taken in preference to accepting every imaginable concept in the universe, ever (which would be the alternative and clearly impossibly pointless).
Absolutely.
Therefore a position of denial is taken in preference to accepting every imaginable concept in the universe
This is the point of contention. I submit that a non-belief -- not disbelief -- is the rational position when there is no evidence. I don’t think it’s a case of wrong until proven right. That is why I gave you the democrat-republican illustration.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanTo put it tactfully: material wealth IMO does not necessarily bring happiness and meaning, but could rather lead to a vicious circle of money-hounding.
I'm interested, why do you consider materialism empty?
Edit: In other words, money/material wealth is not the solve-all solution which imparts happiness and meaning.
Originally posted by HalitoseWhich I refuted, since the holding of one over the other is still a claim to a political belief.
[b]...there is no reason to believe in the concept of a thing's existence without evidence.
Absolutely.
Therefore a position of denial is taken in preference to accepting every imaginable concept in the universe
This is the point of contention. I submit that a non-belief -- not disbelief -- is the rational position when there is no evi ...[text shortened]... case of wrong until proven right. That is why I gave you the democrat-republican illustration.[/b]
Originally posted by HalitoseOh, sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were using materialism in the sense of matter, not personal gains.
To put it tactfully: material wealth IMO does not necessarily bring happiness and meaning, but could rather lead to a vicious circle of money-hounding.
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseOkay, I'm lost. This is how your analogy works for me:
Yes, that was exactly my point:
Belief in God - Democrat
Democrat = theist (positive claim)
Republican = strong atheist (negative claim)
non-politicist = weak atheist (no claim)
EDIT: Voter who cannot decided which of the two to put his x down for = agnostic?
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanDang. See updated version:
Okay, I'm lost. This is how your analogy works for me:
Democrat = theist (positive claim)
Republican = strong atheist (negative claim)
non-politicist = weak atheist (no claim)
EDIT: Voter who cannot decided which of the two to put his x down for = agnostic?
Belief in God - Democrat ---- theism
Belief there is no God - Republican ---- atheism
Hold no belief on the concept "God" - apolitical ---- agnosticism.
Wow. I'm soon gonna have no hair left I've split it so much. 😀
Edit2: For some reason a "smaller-than-sign" removes whatever comes after it. Wierd.
Originally posted by HalitoseRight, well, I disagree, purely because of the fact that you have not taken into account the specifics of the atheist divisions.
Dang. See updated version:
Belief in God - Democrat ---- theism
Belief there is no God - Republican ---- atheism
Hold no belief on the concept "God" - apolitical ---- agnosticism.
Wow. I'm soon gonna have no hair left I've split it so much. 😀
Edit2: For some reason a "smaller-than-sign" removes whatever comes after it. Wierd.
Originally posted by amannionI would have to whole heartedly disagree. Belief is based on evidence. This evidence, however, does not mean "proof". For example, I don't believe in Santa Clause. This is because evidence has shown, based on what others tell me and personal experience, that he does in fact not exist. My belief in God, on the other hand, has to do with a wide range of evidence. This evidence is based on perosnal experiences as well as factual evidence. The Bible is a wealth of factual historical evidence and has a belief system that has many truths that relate to me as truth to match. On the other side of the coin you have atheists who base their beliefs on evidence as well. You don't see God running around hitting people over the head telling them that he exists, for example. Where is he and who is he? Perhaps you see the Bible as a bunch of meaningless myths made for children. Perhaps you feel that if God were real you should be able to fully comprehend him and/or prove his existence. Perhaps you feel that if there were a God he should have created things more to your liking. Perhaps it is because others tell you that God is a myth that influence your thinking. What your peers beleive is a powerful motivating factor. After all, what others believe is evidence as well. This is because if you deem them to be reasonable and intelligent people, you assume they are rational enough to make a rational judgement on such matters. There are probably other bits and peices of evidence that cause you to say that you do not believe in God.
No, perhaps what I mean to say is that weak atheism as you suggest it seems to me to be a bit of cop out.
And I disagree that believing there is no god requires evidence - it's a belief. Beliefs do not require evidenciary support, making them logically tenuous perhaps, but no less powerful for that.
Originally posted by whodeyIronic.
I don't believe in Santa Clause. This is because evidence has shown, based on what others tell me and personal experience, that he does in fact not exist.
Belief in Santa is much like belief in God. We are taught to believe in him. The authority figures around us - immediate family, friends, community - reinforce that faith in Santa. We even get evidence of his existence, once a year, every year.
Eventually we find out there is no real evidence for Santa. Our parents manufacture his visits. Instead of faith based on "evidence", we find there is no honest proof for his existence at all. All fraud. Very sad.
-JC