atheism and theism are both sane

Originally posted by Red Night
"the lack thereof" wouldn't that position make someone an agnostic?

To be an atheist is to "believe" god doesn't exist. It is not the lack of a belief, but a strong belief.

That's one definition of atheism. Many people here would call this "strong atheism". There don't seem to be many strong atheists around. "Weak atheism", on the other hand, is not a belief that god doesn't exist, but it means that you don't believe in any god.

Originally posted by Nordlys
That's one definition of atheism. Many people here would call this "strong atheism". There don't seem to be many strong atheists around. "Weak atheism", on the other hand, is not a belief that god doesn't exist, but it means that you don't believe in any god.

For my own benefit I went to the dictionary.

Atheism:

"1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods."


Agnostic:

"One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."


Also this, which is very close to what I was saying to Starrman in another thread:

"a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."

This seems close to some Gnostic beliefs as I understand them.

Originally posted by Red Night
For my own benefit I went to the dictionary.

Atheism:

"1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods."


Agnostic:

"One who believes that it is impossible to know whether ther ...[text shortened]... limited to experience."

This seems close to some Gnostic beliefs as I understand them.

You may also want to read the recent discussion about the terms here: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=82494&page=3
Rwingett's definition or something close to it seems to be predominant in this forum. I got used to it, although I still wouldn't usually call myself an atheist, but rather an agnostic.

Originally posted by Nordlys
You may also want to read the recent discussion about the terms here: http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=82494&page=3
Rwingett's definition or something close to it seems to be predominant in this forum. I got used to it, although I still wouldn't usually call myself an atheist, but rather an agnostic.

I also prefer agnostic for the reasons that I've already stated.

I think that on both sides professing to have perfect knowledge on the subject is a delusion.

Originally posted by Red Night
"the lack thereof" wouldn't that position make someone an agnostic?

To be an atheist is to "believe" god doesn't exist. It is not the lack of a belief, but a strong belief.

For me it seems more logical to accept the notion that all of these believers (Christians, Mormons, Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Scientologists, Satanists, etc.) have incorrectly id ...[text shortened]... They can't all be right so we are left with a choice either one is right or all or wrong.

There is a great deal of debate on that first sentence alone. Those such as rwingett and formerly myself held the opinion that it was not a belief in the non-existence of god, but a denial of the existence (vis weak atheist), strong atheists being those that believe positively that there is no god. With the exception of a view point like bbarr's in which he positively asserts that he believes there is no god because one would be logically contradictory, were he to exist, most strong atheists are on dodgy ground. Weak atheism is much firmer a position, but as I said I formerly held the view as a weak atheist, that I denied god's existence, based on a lack of evidence. What I now believe is that a state of belied must be implicit in any such viewpoint and as such I have had cause to reform my view to something like 'I believe that a state of implicit atheism is the normative one and that until such evidence presents itself, I will remain in denial of the existence of god'. This differs from agnostic viewpoint in that I affirm my belief as one of natural being, I do not say that the possibility of god exists but I do not know how to choose, nor that we cannot know if god exists, but that it is a natural state of being to be atheist and in the same way as I am not agnostic about unicorns or dragons, I am not agnostic about gods. This is further compounded by my physicalist view of existence.

Your claim to a logical assumption on the misidentification of god relies on the prior assumption that such a creature exists, how do you defend the claim that he does?

Originally posted by Starrman
There is a great deal of debate on that first sentence alone. Those such as rwingett and formerly myself held the opinion that it was not a belief in the non-existence of god, but a denial of the existence (vis weak atheist), strong atheists being those that believe positively that there is no god. With the exception of a view point like bbarr's in which ...[text shortened]... the prior assumption that such a creature exists, how do you defend the claim that he does?

My ears are burning! To be clear, I don't think that the proposition "There is at least one entity that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent" is logically contradictory. For it to be logically contradictory, it would have to be possible to derive a contradiction merely from the content of that proposition. My objections to this proposition have aimed to show that the conjunction of this proposition with ancillary propositions yields extremely implausible conclusions, and sometimes contradictions. That is, my arguments take the forms of reductios where the better premise to reject is that there is an entity with the specified properties. Note that this strategy is compatible with theism that denies that there is an entity with the specified properties, with deism, and with the sort of non-dualistic mysticism that I favor. In response to other sorts of theism, the argumentative strategy is ad hoc, based on whatever constellation of properties my antagonist takes the entity to have.

Originally posted by knightmeister
To a certain extent we all have beliefs based on what we feel is true to the best of our current knowledge. Here and there we have ragged edges to our beliefs and areas where we struggle but overall there is a sanity to both positions.

I think that most atheists are sane and hold their beliefs reasonably. I may think that there are assumptions that ...[text shortened]... ally get to know him personally. My "knowledge " would still be incomplete.

Finally, some logic in this forum!

Originally posted by Starrman
Your claim to a logical assumption on the misidentification of god relies on the prior assumption that such a creature exists, how do you defend the claim that he does?

My strongest claim to the existence is to say that, in the least case, he/she exists in an abstract form as created by man.

"If God didn't exist, man would have to create him."

On a second level, one can see an abstract God in the collective consciousness of humanity.

On a third level, one can see an abstract God in the very laws that define and control the universe and life itself.

Once you see the Judeo/Christian God as a creation, you have a choice 1. kill God. 2. Recreate him/her along the lines above.

Strangely, Zoroaster was closer to this concept 700 years before Christ.

On a third level, one can see an abstract God in the collective consciousness of humanity.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is a bit simplistic isn't it? It's not just poetry , there's a lot more in there. You are just looking for a chance to dismiss it.

How is it any less poetry than Homer's Odyssey? Virgils Aeneid? And so on...

I'm not belittling it, on the contrary it's an unbelievable reflection of human conscioussness at a time when most people on earth couldn't read or write. It is the all time best seller for a reason! But none of it is true.

There are truths in it as there is in all poetry! Like the examples I gave above, they reveal what it is to be a human being in a society, but I don't believe Odysseus encountered Charybdis and Circes and all that.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The bishop in question was denying that Jesus was ressurected which is a different matter. Despite not believing in Adam and Eve I do believe that God created the universe. I don't think Genesis is there to provide a scientific account and is obviously drawn from ancient creation poetry.

And why is it a different matter? It is just as unscientific (ie impossible without a miracle or other supernatural event) and just as likely to be little more than mythological thinking. The Bishops argument was really no different from your argument about genesis except that you personally believe one and not the other. You do not have any logical reason for doing so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And why is it a different matter? It is just as unscientific (ie impossible without a miracle or other supernatural event) and just as likely to be little more than mythological thinking. The Bishops argument was really no different from your argument about genesis except that you personally believe one and not the other. You do not have any logical reason for doing so.

For a start the ressurection is much more embedded in time in the sense of being a historical account. We know for sure that a group of people did form an early church based on the ressurection and the life of Christ. The ressurection is written about differently in terms of real people who actually existed and claimed to have seen it and we know historically who wrote the accounts.

Genesis is a much much older piece of writing and is written about in terms of symbolism and poetry. The ressurection is written about in the style of journalism and is much more recent . No-one actually claimed to have met adam and eve or know where the garden of eden was , no-one knows who wrote genesis , whereas with the ressurection this is not the case.

The genesis story derived from songs and poetry said around camp fires under the stars and has hints of persian mythology in it. The ressurection is written about someone we know existed and by people who existed. This does not prove the ressurection happened only that it's context was different.

There are a myriad of differences between the two and any kind of thought would show this. The main difference is that without believing in the ressurection the entire essence of Christianity is gone because death then becomes the end and God has no victory over sin and death. Whereas I do not have to believe in Adam and Eve to believe that God created the universe.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For a start the ressurection is much more embedded in time in the sense of being a historical account. We know for sure that a group of people did form an early church based on the ressurection and the life of Christ. The ressurection is written about differently in terms of real people who actually existed and claimed to have seen it and we know historically who wrote the accounts.

Come on. Now you are just making stuff up.
1. The early Church was based on Pauls teachings and as far as I know he didn't believe in the resurrection nor had he ever met Jesus.
2. How do you know that Adam and Eve were not real people who actually existed? The Bible is written as if they were.
3. You do not know who wrote the accounts.

Genesis is a much much older piece of writing and is written about in terms of symbolism and poetry.
They are both pretty old. In 2000 years from now will the new testament become myth as well?

The ressurection is written about in the style of journalism and is much more recent . No-one actually claimed to have met adam and eve or know where the garden of eden was , no-one knows who wrote genesis , whereas with the ressurection this is not the case.
So if the writer of Genesis did make that claim would you change your stance and believe it?

The genesis story derived from songs and poetry said around camp fires under the stars and has hints of persian mythology in it. The ressurection is written about someone we know existed and by people who existed.
The writer of Genesis did not exist? Or are you admitting that the Gospels were made up? One or the other, you cant have it both ways.

There are a myriad of differences between the two and any kind of thought would show this.
Of course there are differences but you still haven't given a definitive reason why one should be believed and not the other.

The main difference is that without believing in the ressurection the entire essence of Christianity is gone because death then becomes the end and God has no victory over sin and death. Whereas I do not have to believe in Adam and Eve to believe that God created the universe.
Ahh. Now we get to the truth. It 'feels good' to believe in the new testament but believing in genesis wont get you to heaven so chuck it out the window. Facts have nothing to do with any of it.

Originally posted by Red Night
I don't know if that is true...religion changes as well, albeit more slowly.

Both are based on "beliefs" that are in vogue at the time and are often later proven incorrect.

Don't get me wrong, I do not mean to attack science, merely to point out that atheism is based on a fallible belief system. (Much like Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, Judaism, Islam, and Satanism.)

Science by definition is not based on beliefs, only on what can be tested and proven, it changes because as we gain knowledge we find the flaws of pre-scientific knowledge, and also the flaws of current scientific knowledge. Religion on the other hand requires no basis of knowing, as science does, but is instead based on beliefs. Although I commend you for your, by comparison to most other religious people, ready acceptance of flaws in your knowledge (albeit as long as they don't clash with your beliefs)

As far as scientific 'dogma' is concerned, dogma by definiton refers to religion and faith specifically, or a set doctrine or set beliefs, none of these apply to science. As far as the common use of the word, what Richard Dawkins (who's books I am a fan of) does resembles the dogmatic preachings of the church because of their similar passion. Some atheists' passion in arguing for the side of science in the face of religion stems from the same source, a feeling of knowing the truth and wanting to spread it, this is as far as the similarities get, because science is proven truth, if it isn't it isn't science; and religion is based off of tradition and culture that inspires the same general feelings of knowing and wanting to help others. However, to say that dogma, in any way, applys to science is grossly wrong. Atheism is not a fallable belief system, belief has no part to play in science.

Originally posted by Lord Of Pie
.... because science is proven truth, if it isn't it isn't science; ...

Although I generally agree with most of your post, science is not 'proven truth'. Science is mostly hypothesis and theories which are basically undisproved guesses or models of how things work. They are not 'truth' nor are they 'proven'. However they remain the parsimonious explanation for phenomena and parsimony is a technique that we all use and generally agree with even though not everyone realizes it. Religious people generally only depart from parsimony when they think it would be disadvantageous to them personally to do so for example statements along the lines of "If I am wrong, I don't want to be right".
Often theists do take the parsimonious approach but get it wrong (in my opinion) because their information is wrong. In other words they think that a supernatural explanation is the most parsimonious simply because they do not understand the alternative explanations.

Atheism is not a fallable belief system, belief has no part to play in science.
Atheism is not science. Not all atheists are scientists and not all scientits are atheist. I do however think that atheism should be the result of studying science.

Originally posted by Lord Of Pie
Science by definition is not based on beliefs, only on what can be tested and proven, it changes because as we gain knowledge we find the flaws of pre-scientific knowledge, and also the flaws of current scientific knowledge. Religion on the other hand requires no basis of knowing, as science does, but is instead based on beliefs. Although I commend you f ...[text shortened]... ly wrong. Atheism is not a fallable belief system, belief has no part to play in science.

It seems that I have led you to the water, yet you will not drink.