Originally posted by BadwaterOthers have already given good answers to your post, so I won't go into what they have already said. But just to help you see the situation, ask yourself this:
I also agree with Kelly Jay that atheism arises as a counterpoint to theism; that is, it is not necessary for atheism to exist if theism also does not exist. Ideas of atheism do not propagate in a vacuum. They have not arisen on their own. Taken to extremes, it is impossible to prove that a god/God does or does not exist and if no proof can be offered then there must be a belief system at work. Or a disbelief system, as it were.
Is your belief that invisible pink unicorns do not dance around inside your fridge, correctly called a "belief system"?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have no belief, even more I do not stand against or for such beliefs, I do
Others have already given good answers to your post, so I won't go into what they have already said. But just to help you see the situation, ask yourself this:
Is your belief that invisible pink unicorns do not dance around inside your fridge, correctly called a "belief system"?
not enter into discussions with those that do profess such things. I am
not an "anti-invisible pink unicorn dancing" I am not moved by the whole
thought of it, I do not define my life by being against such things, quite
unlike an atheist who goes to great lenghts to stand against that which
they claim they have no belief in.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you do believe there are invisible pink unicorns dancing in your fridge? Or am I misunderstanding you?
I have no belief, even more I do not stand against or for such beliefs, I do
not enter into discussions with those that do profess such things. I am
not an "anti-invisible pink unicorn dancing" I am not moved by the whole
thought of it, I do not define my life by being against such things, quite
unlike an atheist who goes to great lenghts to stand against that which
they claim they have no belief in.
Kelly
As for what you think an atheist does or doesn't do, you are quite seriously mistaken. You can not honestly say anything in general about an atheist except that he is not a theist ie he does not maintain a belief in God/gods.
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is because we do not have 'invisible pink unicorn' folks trying to impose their version a theocracy upon the rest of society. If we did then we'd spend a lot more of our time examining the validity of their beliefs as well.
I have no belief, even more I do not stand against or for such beliefs, I do
not enter into discussions with those that do profess such things. I am
not an "anti-invisible pink unicorn dancing" I am not moved by the whole
thought of it, I do not define my life by being against such things, quite
unlike an atheist who goes to great lenghts to stand against that which
they claim they have no belief in.
Kelly
Originally posted by vistesdYes, I've made this same exact post numerous times in the past. It keeps coming up, though, so I keep repeating myself.
Thanks; I think those terms are helpful for the discussion (you’ve probably pointed them out before, but I forgot). But, if you were to ask an “implicit atheist” if that’s what they were, how could they answer until you had set the context by explaining what “theist” means? And that question, I think, goes to KJ’s claim.
Nevertheless, given that ...[text shortened]... s[/i] context—we’re stuck with the normative language for this context, those terms are helpful.
No implicit atheist identifies himself as an implicit atheist. I've come in to this thread late, though, so I'm not sure what question of KJ's it is that you're referring to here.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThere are two types of people in the world: theists and atheists. And everybody is one or the other. If you do not self-identify as a theist, then by definition you are an atheist (a-theism = to be without theism). Agnosticism is a modifier to either theism or atheism, as in agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. Despite the popularity of the notion, there is no one who is just an agnostic. It does not exist as a separate category apart from theism or atheism. Most people who identify themselves as 'agnostics' are actually agnostic atheists. The confusion comes about from the repeated attempt to pigeonhole atheism as being synonymous with 'hard' atheism, which it is not.
[b]Atheism is not a rival position to Christianity, it is the neutral ground from which Christian claims should be evaluated.
Whatever happened to agnosticism?[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettBut you have no problem with a Christian President trying to impose his morality in terms of wealth redistribution and Obamacare. Hmm? Something seems a tad bit hypocritical me thinks.
That is because we do not have 'invisible pink unicorn' folks trying to impose their version a theocracy upon the rest of society. If we did then we'd spend a lot more of our time examining the validity of their beliefs as well.
Originally posted by rwingett"There are two types of people in the world: theists and atheists."
There are two types of people in the world: theists and atheists. And everybody is one or the other. If you do not self-identify as a theist, then by definition you are an atheist (a-theism = to be without theism). Agnosticism is a modifier to either theism or atheism, as in agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. Despite the popularity of the notion, ...[text shortened]... ated attempt to pigeonhole atheism as being synonymous with 'hard' atheism, which it is not.
Now here's something we can both agree on.
But if I may tweak it just a bit; Atheists believe there is no God, but they could be wrong.
And some theists, if not most, believe in God, but don't really know Him.
Originally posted by whodeyEgalitarianism is not confined to Christianity. It is equally accessible to everyone. Belief in the death and resurrection of Christ, however, is confined solely to Christians. Therefore the former is a valid political position, while the latter is not.
But you have no problem with a Christian President trying to impose his morality in terms of wealth redistribution and Obamacare. Hmm? Something seems a tad bit hypocritical me thinks.
It would be like saying that since Christians are against committing murder, laws which are enacted against murder are Christian laws. They are not. Everyone is against murder.
Originally posted by josephwNo, it is not something we both can agree on.
[b]"There are two types of people in the world: theists and atheists."
Now here's something we can both agree on.
But if I may tweak it just a bit; Atheists believe there is no God, but they could be wrong.
And some theists, if not most, believe in God, but don't really know Him.[/b]
Atheists do not believe there is no god. Atheists simply lack a belief in a god. There may or may not be a god, but there are no sufficient grounds to believe that there is one. Therefore the claim must be doubted and it may be provisionally assumed that there is no god. An atheist will act as if there is no god, without claiming to know whether or not that is the actual case.
Originally posted by rwingettI don't claim to have proof that there is no God, but I would still say that I 'know' there is no God, just as I 'know' there are no invisible unicorns dancing in my fridge.
An atheist will act as if there is no god, without claiming to know whether or not that is the actual case.
The important thing to remember though is that every atheist is different and to make any claims about atheists in general other than what you can learn from the word itself is bound to be wrong for some of them.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou strongly suspect that there is no god. As the term 'god' is largely incoherent, you cannot claim to 'know' anything about it.
I don't claim to have proof that there is no God, but I would still say that I 'know' there is no God, just as I 'know' there are no invisible unicorns dancing in my fridge.
The important thing to remember though is that every atheist is different and to make any claims about atheists in general other than what you can learn from the word itself is bound to be wrong for some of them.
Originally posted by rwingettIf an atheist simply lacked a belief that would be one thing, but most of the
No, it is not something we both can agree on.
Atheists do not believe there is no god. Atheists simply lack a belief in a god. There may or may not be a god, but there are no sufficient grounds to believe that there is one. Therefore the claim must be doubted and it may be provisionally assumed that there is no god. An atheist will act as if there is no god, without claiming to know whether or not that is the actual case.
time here they are anti the beliefs of others who hold the view there are gods
or a God. As far as what atheists are positive about, what are they for,
it is made up they go along, they have nothing. Nothing seems to be the
only thing they credit for all things, beyond they don't know. This is ground
we have covered here before as well. They simply lack faith in God or gods
and go about justifying that lack of faith to themselves and others all of the
time by being opposed to beliefs of others.
Kelly