Further note on the 'four most important questions about life':
The four questions posed and which appear fundamental to some people, are peculiar to the Abrahamic religions; they are not universally applicable to all peoples in all cultures in all times and all places.
I cite some examples.
In the Buddhist tradition, there is no immortal soul. Given that there is no immortal soul, the question what happens (to the soul) after death does not arise. In the Buddhist tradition, there is no fixation on origins, as there is in the Abrahamic tradition. In Buddhism, the universe did not have a beginning, but neither did it lack a beginning; the question about the beginning of the universe is undefined, like division by zero. Man does have a purpose, but this is not determined by either origins or what happens after death.
In the pagan Greek tradition, there is an origin -- namely, Mother Night or Chaos -- but it has no ethical implications for man and does not in any way indicate a purpose for man. The universe was not created for man to wonder at God's magnificence. In the pagan tradition, the universe is a stomping ground for the gods; man's entrance into it was an accident.
Now, whether any of those four putatively "most important" questions would have any significance for an atheist cannot be answered partout. It would depend on a particular atheist, and it would not depend on his atheism but rather on other factors. As has been pointed out here at SF innumerable times, atheism is not a system, like Christianity but with a God-shaped hole in it. Atheism per se has no ethical implications, and makes no assumptions about origins or purposes or death.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk1. Produce a realistic list of design criteria for something not man-made then show how those criteria have been met.
You assume that it is only possible for man made things to be designed. What about the complexity of the human eye, brain, etc.
2. Explain why every living thing demonstrates a lack of design in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
Originally posted by wolfgang593. Give the name of the guy that designed the HIV virus and the Malaria parasite. I want to have words with him. (putting it mildly).
1. Produce a realistic list of design criteria for something not man-made then show how those criteria have been met.
2. Explain why every living thing demonstrates a lack of design in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
Originally posted by moonbusI disagree my former master. Atheism by its rejection of intelligent design must answer the question of how life originated and diversified and the only answer which seems to fit with its tenets is that life originated from non living sterile matter in a pre-biotic organic 'soup'. Thus it does have implications regarding origins and does by its very nature raise questions about accountability, for if we are merely the amalgamation of electrochemical impulses then to what extent are we accountable? this has huge implications for morality and criminality and all kinds of things. Now I don't want to profile atheists or project stereotypes but one does tend to find that they share many similar values and have pointy ears.
Further note on the 'four most important questions about life':
The four questions posed and which appear fundamental to some people, are peculiar to the Abrahamic religions; they are not universally applicable to all peoples in all cultures in all times and all places.
I cite some examples.
In the Buddhist tradition, there is no immortal soul. Give ...[text shortened]... per se has no ethical implications, and makes no assumptions about origins or purposes or death.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAtheism is not bound to answer any question beyond "does a deity exist?"
I disagree my former master. Atheism by its rejection of intelligent design must answer the question of how life originated and diversified and the only answer which seems to fit with its tenets is that life originated from non living sterile matter in a pre-biotic organic 'soup'. Thus it does have implications regarding origins and does by its ver ...[text shortened]... stereotypes but one does tend to find that they share many similar values and have pointy ears.
Atheism is not bound to answer the question how life got started. It is not bound to even ask that question. If an atheist happens to ask that question, all manner of answers are open to him, including but not limited to space seed, chance, the repeated operation of natural laws on a 'soup' of favorable chemicals, or simply "I don't know"--none of which follows from atheism per se.
I readily grant that almost every atheist has some ethic or other. All manner of ethical systems are open to atheists, including but not limited to Utilitarianism, Rule-Based Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, Aristotelianism, Spinozism, Kantianism, Wittgenstein's ethics, Intuitionism, virtue-ethics, rule-ethics, role-ethics, or none at all--but which one it is in any given case does not follow from atheism per se.
An atheist might be a hard determinist: e.g., BF Skinner, there is no freewill, therefore no accountability--we are just pawns of our conditioning. A thief is bound to steal, and bound to plead that he had no choice; just as the judge is bound to sentence him and to say he too had no choice. Another atheist might be a soft determinist: there is limited freewill, we are partially accountable. Neither position follows from atheism per se.
Another atheist might even support religion as a useful social institution and preferable to both anarchy and Communism.
That atheists tend to share similar values follows not so much from their being atheists, as from their being members of, broadly speaking, the industrialized societies in which we live (Europe and its former colonies in No. America and Oz), and their having completed a broadly standardized education.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd my thesis just keeps gathering evidence.
I disagree my former master. Atheism by its rejection of intelligent design must answer the question of how life originated and diversified and the only answer which seems to fit with its tenets is that life originated from non living sterile matter in a pre-biotic organic 'soup'. Thus it does have implications regarding origins and does by its ver ...[text shortened]... stereotypes but one does tend to find that they share many similar values and have pointy ears.
Atheism doesn't have to explain anything because it's not a belief system, but instead the result of one.
Also, "I/We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to questions where the answer isn't known or
is unknowable.
Again, the lack of belief either way [with respect to the existence of gods] is an atheist position and
people who fall into that category do not have a belief as to whether a god or gods exist and are not
obligated to have one. Neither are they obligated to have a belief or explanation for how and why the
universe came into existence or life formed within it. Many if not most will simply tell you that they don't
know...
But then you know that already because you have been told this a thousand times before...
So yet more lies and pathetic strawman attacks from the theist camp.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbusGood post, well written.
Atheism is not bound to answer any question beyond "does a deity exist?"
Atheism is not bound to answer the question how life got started. It is not bound to even ask that question. If an atheist happens to ask that question, all manner of answers are open to him, including but not limited to space seed, chance, the repeated operation of natural la ...[text shortened]... er colonies in No. America and Oz), and their having completed a broadly standardized education.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistWhy is this so hard for you to understand.
Exactly. Babies don't even notice your question so of course they don't take sides.
It's not about taking sides.
A theist is a person who HAS A BELIEF THAT A GOD OR GODS EXIST
Unless you want to define a baby as not being a person or argue that they do believe that a
god or gods exist then they are a person who is 'not a theist'.
The correct term for a person who is 'not a theist' is atheist.
Are you really to backwards ass stupid not to be able to comprehend this?
EDIT: I also note your total avoidance of the fact that your last post on this topic was a promotion
of Christian propaganda on the topic and that you presented it as an authority on the topic.
Originally posted by googlefudgeDude. Babies are not atheist because they haven't offered their opinion yet. That is a fact. Do some research beyond standard dictionary, and get a grip.
Why is this so hard for you to understand.
It's not about taking sides.
A theist is a person who [b]HAS A BELIEF THAT A GOD OR GODS EXIST
Unless you want to define a baby as not being a person or argue that they do believe that a
god or gods exist then they are a person who is 'not a theist'.
The correct term for a person who is 'not a ...[text shortened]... n
of Christian propaganda on the topic and that you presented it as an authority on the topic.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by apathistI'm sorry you're telling ME to do some research?
Dude. Babies are not atheist because they haven't offered their opinion yet. That is a fact. Do some research beyond standard dictionary, and get a grip.
I'm not the idiot posting Christian evangelicals masquerading as philosophers opinions
on what an atheist is. And getting everything wrong as a result.
You don't have to offer an opinion on the subject [or any subject] to be an atheist.
That isn't any part of the definition.
The definition btw used by all major atheist groups, the only opinion on the subject that actually matters...
Christians don't get to define what it means to be an atheist.
As I said in my post [which you clearly didn't bother to read] debunking your Christian evangelical opinion.
As you clearly didn't read it here is is again.
Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]
Atheism is a belief
NO! it is not.
How many bloody times do we have to go through this nonsense?
Did you not read any of my posts? [or my bio]
EVERY SINGLE MAJOR ATHEIST ORGANISATION DEFINES ATHEISM SIMPLY AS LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS.
Period. End of story.
No poncey philosophers get to tell us what atheism is. [EDIT: turns out they were not philosophers, but Christians pretending]
A theist is a person that believes in the existence of a god or gods.
An atheist is a person who is not a theist and thus simply lacks a belief in the existence of any gods.
An agnostic is a person who claims not to know or that it cannot be known if a god or gods exist or not, and can be either a
theist or an atheist. They do not occupy a middle position between theist and atheist because there is NO middle position.
The labels atheist and theist are exhaustive and exclusive.
This is necessarily the case because atheist literally means ~theist. And anyone with pretensions to philosophy should
understand that.
Theism and atheism are about the question "do you believe a god exists?"
Gnosticism and agnosticism are about the separate question "do you claim to KNOW that a god exists? [or if it can be known]"
The range of options goes thus.
Gnostic theist: A person who claims to know that a god or gods exist.
Agnostic theist: A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods but doesn't claim to know that that god or gods
exist or that it's impossible to know if that god or gods exist.
Agnostic weak atheist: A person who lacks belief in the existence of gods and claims not to know if gods exist or that it
cannot be known if gods exist. [this includes people who haven't heard of the concept of gods or are otherwise incapable
of understanding the concept. e.g. babies]
Agnostic strong atheist: A person who believes in the lack of existence of a god or gods but claims not to know if gods exist
or that it cannot be known if gods exist.
Gnostic atheist: A person who claims to know that a god or gods do not exist.
Agnostic weak atheist... or simply atheist, IS the default position as it is the lack of belief one way or the other.
And requires no beliefs of any kind.
EDIT: From earlier in this thread... my post, page 10, 3rd one down.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/why-are-you-are-an-atheist.168681/page-10
http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/10/10/8419/
http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
Dictionaries, don't 'dictate' the meaning of words, they are records of what the words are being used to mean.
As usage changes, so the possible meanings are changed or added to.
Dictionaries have also for a long time been written by theists, Christians in the case of english language dictionaries
and when it comes to atheism and atheists those writers were biased.
Which is why dictionaries often to this day still refer to atheism as disbelief in the existence of "God" with a capital G
as if atheism was only about whether or not you believe in the Christian god.
It's easier to argue against that straw man definition of atheism because it declares that all atheists must believe that
gods don't exist and thus gives atheism a burden of proof that it does not in reality actually have. Which is why many
theists still try to insist on telling us atheists what we do or do not believe and playing word games with the definitions.
You're done.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by apathistNo, you moron, secularism is about religion not theism.
Actually, that would be "secular". Suspect I give pearls to swine.
You can have religious [non-secular] atheists and you can have non-religious [secular] theists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularity
Again, a person who is not a theist is an atheist.
Babies are people, who don't have a belief in god or gods and are thus not theists.
The correct term for that is ATHEIST.
your pathetic and idiotic attempts to claim otherwise are both pointless and futile.
Originally posted by apathistStrange how religions welcome children into their midst even though the child
Dude. Babies are not atheist because they haven't offered their opinion yet. .
has not offered an opinion! I think I was 6 months old when I was Christened.
Just grateful my parents were not Jewish.
Originally posted by googlefudge“Atheism turns out to be too simple.
And my thesis just keeps gathering evidence.
Atheism doesn't have to explain anything because it's not a belief system, but instead the result of one.
Also, "I/We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to questions where the answer isn't known or
is unknowable.
Again, the lack of belief either way [with respect to the existence of gods] is ...[text shortened]... s a thousand times before...
So yet more lies and pathetic strawman attacks from the theist camp.
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...”
―C.S. Lewis