Originally posted by rwingettEveryone has views; people in power impose their views upon those
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.
not in power, are you against that? If so being against all forms of
government control should be the stance you have, do you agree with the
Tea Party movement about big government? Because we are being given a
heavy dose of imposing views upon our lives right now, as different sectors
of the American way of life are going under government control the auto
industry. student loans, banking, health care. If you like selected people
with a certain point of view being in control and against others, than it
shows again you being against one stance over another once again the 'a'
in atheist describe you well, because simply having a point of view thrust
upon the country is really okay in selective circumstances.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut that is all you can really say about atheists in general. Once you go beyond that, you are being more specific and referring to a subset.
If an atheist simply lacked a belief that would be one thing,
I could just as easily say that most of the time that theists are monotheists or that they follow one of the Abrahamic religions, but I would be wrong to make such general claims about all theists.
but most of the time here they are anti the beliefs of others who hold the view there are gods or a God.
How would you know that? I rather doubt you know what the views of the majority of atheists is. You almost certainly know only about the vocal ones, and of course they are vocal.
As far as what atheists are positive about, what are they for, it is made up they go along, they have nothing.
Now you are going to far. I doubt you can support that statement with even a single example atheist, let alone use it as a generality.
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
Just to clarify, I do not oppose your beliefs in order to justify my own. I oppose your beliefs because I believe they are both wrong and harmful.
Originally posted by rwingettThe one problem I see here is the claim 'there isn't sufficient grounds to believe there is a God' which is entirely subjective. I don't agree at all that there is insufficient grounds to believe that God exists. No proof, yes, but certainly plenty of evidence. You make it sound as if explicit atheism is the only rational approach to existence. It isn't. And I must say, the fact that babies are implicit atheists doesn't bolster the rationality of explicit atheism in the slightest, for the same reason atheist fruit flies don't.
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.
Just a few thoughts.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat is why you are a theist. For some odd reason, you accept the available evidence as being sufficiently compelling to warrant belief. Atheists do not.
The one problem I see here is the claim 'there isn't sufficient grounds to believe there is a God' which is entirely subjective. I don't agree at all that there is insufficient grounds to believe that God exists. No proof, yes, but certainly plenty of evidence. You make it sound as if explicit atheism is the only rational approach to existence. It is ...[text shortened]... in the slightest, for the same reason atheist fruit flies don't.
Just a few thoughts.
It makes no sense to call fruit flies 'implicit atheists' because fruit flies are not, and will never be, capable of believing anything. The same with rocks and Volvos. Babies, should they live long enough, will eventually come to have beliefs.
Originally posted by KellyJayI have many beliefs. Many which I hold strongly. But none of them is a result of my atheism. Atheism applies solely to the question of whether or not there is a god, nothing else.
Everyone has views; people in power impose their views upon those
not in power, are you against that? If so being against all forms of
government control should be the stance you have, do you agree with the
Tea Party movement about big government? Because we are being given a
heavy dose of imposing views upon our lives right now, as different sectors
o ...[text shortened]... ing a point of view thrust
upon the country is really okay in selective circumstances.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYour claim for the existence of god can only be accepted if it stands up to scrutiny. Hence, I scrutinize the claim and have thus far found it lacking.
If an atheist simply lacked a belief that would be one thing, but most of the
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 do ...[text shortened]... f faith to themselves and others all of the
time by being opposed to beliefs of others.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettBut you have debated and argued that notion that the message of Jesus was political in nature rather than spiritual. So what if it was political in nature, just for the sake of arguement. How is political ideology any more or less righteous that religious ideology? Both are based upon a morality, only, one says that this morality originated with God while the other says is it based upon man's whim.
Egalitarianism 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.
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.
As for Obama, Obam's spiritual leader, Rev Wallace, got mixed up with the Black Liberation Movement. For him, the government run redistribution of wealth is God's will. So the question begs, is Obama doing what he feels God's will is? If so, does it bother you? I know it doesn't simply because you agree with his thinking, however, God forbid if you think "W" is doing something that he thinks is God's will. For example, "W" was accused of going to Iraq because God told him to do so. I find this hilarious because the same people held signs saying no blood for oil.
Originally posted by whodeyYou mischaracterize my argument about Jesus. I do not say his agenda was a political one. I say that it transcends politics. Jesus would not have made use of the political state. His would have been a stateless approach. Jesus would have been an anarchist in this regard. A Christian anarchist. I also do not deny that there was a great spiritual component to it. I tend not to use the term 'anarchist' in my arguments here because it's simply too much trouble trying to get people to understand what anarchism means.
But you have debated and argued that notion that the message of Jesus was political in nature rather than spiritual. So what if it was political in nature, just for the sake of arguement. How is political ideology any more or less righteous that religious ideology? Both are based upon a morality, only, one says that this morality originated with God while ...[text shortened]... so. I find this hilarious because the same people held signs saying no blood for oil.
The fact that someone's political outlook is formed in some degree by his religious beliefs is of no great concern as long as he can also formulate a non-religious set of reasons for wanting to pursue a certain course of action. That someone's belief in egalitarianism is formed by his religious background is fine. As long as his pursuit of an egalitarian agenda also has a secular justification, then I see no problem with it. However, if he said merely that 'god told him to do it', then it would be grounds for grave concern.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI'm suspicious of that statement, "atheists simply lack belief in God." If you provisionally assume that no God exists, you have taken a position based on your exposure to the positive statement, "God exists." To "simply lack belief in God" is something only non-rational, non-reflective beings like babies and fruit flies are capable of, whereas you have made a choice to believe that there is no God based on some sort of rationale. Stating that atheists "simply lack belief in God" seems like a clever attempt to avoid the pitfalls of having to defend the position which you've chosen. In truth, there's really no way to be unaffected by the positive statement, "God exists"; you are forced to take a position, one which you are responsible to defend (i.e., you do not share the same non-rational immunity as babies). I don't see how you can have it both ways, i.e., (1) denying God's existence without having to defend your rationale for doing so, and (2) making the same claims as an agnostic.
That is why you are a theist. For some odd reason, you accept the available evidence as being sufficiently compelling to warrant belief. Atheists do not.
It makes no sense to call fruit flies 'implicit atheists' because fruit flies are not, and will never be, capable of believing anything. The same with rocks and Volvos. Babies, should they live long enough, will eventually come to have beliefs.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by rwingettWhat I'm saying is that disbelief in god/God is also a belief system. The existence of some unknown creator force cannot be proven or disproven. If one is going to assert that god/God (s) does not exist then it does not absolve one from proving how one's belief (or disbelief, as the case may be) is a fact.
And what, exactly, is atheism allegedly a belief IN? The claim is absolute rubbish. Atheism is not a belief in anything. It is the absence of belief in any gods. The Christian is the one claiming there IS a god. The burden of proof lies entirely upon his shoulders. If he cannot satisfactorily substantiate that claim, it must be doubted.
...
Note that I'm making a distinction between some sort of creator force, which for convenience sake I refer to as God, and God as described in the Bible. God in the Bible has some logical problems and problems with consistency. Based on what we know it can be asserted that there is a great deal in the Bible that is quite simply not based on fact. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the philosophy and logic of the given belief/disbelief systems at their core.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut the atheist is making a positive claim, otherwise atheists would not hold to and defend the position that God doesn't exist. The evidence that atheists defend a positive claim is the fact that they attack theistic arguments and promote atheistic principles. You can't both lack a belief in God and believe that God does not exist. The problem the atheist seeks to avoid here is having to defend his or her positive claim that God doesn't exist, an untenable position.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
Originally posted by epiphinehasClaiming that the arguments for the existence of God are insufficient is hardly the same thing as a complete denial of the possibility that God exists.
But the atheist is making a positive claim, otherwise atheists would not hold to and defend the position that God doesn't exist. The evidence that atheists defend a positive claim is the fact that they attack theistic arguments.
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou see the word "atheist" as meaning what I call "strong atheist". I agree, the position is absurd to say you know that God does not exist. That's not the only kind of atheism though.
But the atheist is making a positive claim, otherwise atheists would not hold to and defend the position that God doesn't exist. The evidence that atheists defend a positive claim is the fact that they attack theistic arguments.
Weak atheism, agnostic atheism, agnosticism generally mean the same thing, which is what I am, and pretty much all other atheists are; we're just not convinced. We know we might be wrong, there might be a God. But we doubt it tremendously, so much that we might as well ignore the possibility. We also doubt the existence of super torture leprechauns who burn people with acid forever if they wear too much green in life.
There MIGHT be super torture leprechauns, but most of us still wear green on occasion.