Originally posted by ThePittmanI disagree. I think that belief in the existence of God is the impetus for religion, religion is not necessary for the belief in God.
Religion and the belief in God go hand and hand, trying to separate them is not possible. It is the religion that says what God is and the rules to follow, it’s like the chicken and the egg and which came first.The denial of the possibility of God can also go both ways, who to say that someone that believes can’t have the possibility that God doesn’t exist and what they have believed all their life is false. Most Atheists that I know would believe if shown some type of real proof that he exists and I’ve never seen anything of such. It would be hard pressed to show this evidence because of the twisted nature of some believers and twisting logic and facts to suit their purpose so it would have to be more irrefutable proof.
As to the nature of proof, I realize such is impossible. All the same, the evidence believed to contradict the existence of a God is also the evidence many hold as to the evidence supporting the existence of a God.
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats right. Remeber, burden of proof is on those people of religion. There is no natural reason why god should exist or even thought to exist. God is an unnatural concept. The default positon should be atheism, but because of the pervasiveness of religion in socities...people view the situation the other way.
And why does the theist disbelieve in all other gods except for the one or few in their belief system?
Originally posted by AllianceI think the default position should be neutral, not theist or atheist. Disbelief and belief are polar opposites that should not be a default.
Thats right. Remeber, burden of proof is on those people of religion. There is no natural reason why god should exist or even thought to exist. God is an unnatural concept. The default positon should be atheism, but because of the pervasiveness of religion in socities...people view the situation the other way.
Originally posted by Regret
The majority of them deny the possibility, but yes I see what you mean, none of them would make an absolute statement to God's nonexistence. They cite typical responses that diminish the probability of such an entity. They are well educated people, and their rationaleI would agree that there is a possibility that God does not exist. Perhaps all stances are agnostic with varying degrees. And pure atheism and pure theism are merely points along this agnostic continuum. Perhaps without evidence to either stance, true theism and atheism are impossible.
True athiesm and theism are rationally impossible positions to maintain... But there are people that will follow them irrationally.
I disagree, however, that they are points on an agnostic continuum. A part of agnosticism is a belief that the entire discussion is one that is irrelevant to life, since God doesn't seem to actually do much. I suppose athiests could hold this position, but theists would be hard-pressed to do so.
Originally posted by Regret
I think the default position should be neutral, not theist or atheist. Disbelief and belief are polar opposites that should not be a default.
No. This is what I'm referring to. YOu don't wake up in the morning expecting the natural laws to be redefined, or for the sky to be made of candy canes.
Why do you afford that priveledge to a god?
Originally posted by TricksterMy definition, and what I consider to be the accurate definition, is: one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. I am not speaking of groups that hold beliefs outside this. I also believe you are referring to ignosticism, not to agnosticism.
True athiesm and theism are rationally impossible positions to maintain... But there are people that will follow them irrationally.I disagree, however, that they are points on an agnostic continuum. A part of agnosticism is a belief that the entire discussion is one that is irrelevant to life, since God doesn't seem to actually do much. I suppose athiests could hold this position, but theists would be hard-pressed to do so.
Originally posted by AllianceYou are not born with any understanding as to the natural laws, they are learned. Belief or disbelief in God at this point does not contradict prior knowledge. It is only indoctrination that makes belief more or less possible.
No. This is what I'm referring to. YOu don't wake up in the morning expecting the natural laws to be redefined, or for the sky to be made of candy canes.Why do you afford that priveledge to a god?
Originally posted by Regret
I am not misinterpreting. I am speaking to the absolute denial, and I know many absolute atheists. In my experience, atheists I have met tend towards the absolute, or true, atheist position. I would classify you as borderline atheist, as your view is agnostic with a more rational stance on the subject causing your position to be much closer to atheism than to theism, imo.
It might have been easier if you specified you were talking to Strong rather than Weak atheists.
And Strong atheists- assuming they are intelligent- base their ideas on their interpretation of facts and evidence, not assumption.
And no, his position is not agnostic. It is atheist. You must be clear on the strong/weak atheist distinction, and how a weak atheist is very much NOT an agnostic.
Originally posted by UshgarakProbably I should have, although, in comments by non-Christians in reference to Christians, such distinctions are not often afforded. If one expects similar care in reference the same consideration should be given. I will attempt to reference and specify more accurately in the future, but it may be difficult as this distinction is a new concept for me.
It might have been easier if you specified you were talking to Strong rather than Weak atheists.And Strong atheists- assuming they are intelligent- base their ideas on their interpretation of facts and evidence, not assumption.
And no, his position is not agnositc. it is atheist. You must be clear on the strong/weak atheist distinction, and how a weak atheist is very much NOT an agnostic.
Originally posted by Alliance[/B][/QUOTE]
No. Its is impossible for everyone to know. Please answer my question before I have any further discussion on this matter.
[QUOTE=7505333]Originally posted by Alliance
[B]Can you personally deny the probability that a god does not exist?
Originally posted by Regret
I would agree that there is a possibility that God does not exist. Perhaps all stances are agnostic with varying degrees. And pure atheism and pure theism are merely points along this agnostic continuum. Perhaps without evidence to either stance, true theism and atheism are impossible.
Sorry, does this not answer your question?
Ok, well, I shall clarify, as I did recently in a thread around the same area.
An agnostic looks at the evidence and says that he/she is not sure, on balance, if there is a God or not.
An atheist looks at the evidence and says- there is no God.
But the storng and weak atheist has a different reasoning.
A weak atheist (it sounds perjorative, but it is not meant to be; it is just as avalid a position as strong) reasons that there is no evidence for God, and that if he did exist it would be reasonable for there to be some, and that regardless, in the rational world we live in that we base our lives upon, it is not reasonable to think something exists when there is no evidence for it. Therefore, he does not think there is a God any more than he thinks there is a tooth fairy.
A strong atheist looks at the evidence and says that the evidence actively proves that there either a. is no God or b. CANNOT be a God. The reasoning for this is many and varied.
Strong atheism can also be a philosophical position- i.e. "I can't actually prove there isn't, but I am absolutely certain there is no God based on my own understanding of the Universe", which is probably where Shaky is coming from.
So, to sum up-
A weak atheist does not think there is a God
A strong atheist thinks there is no God.
Important distinction. Push most atheists and I think you will find they are weak rather than strong; no shame to them either.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, well, I shall clarify, as I did recently in a thread around the same area.An agnostic looks at the evidence and says that he/she is not sure, on balance, if there is a God or not.
An atheist looks at the evidence and says- there is no God.
But the storng and weak atheist has a different reasoning.
A weak atheist (it sounds perjorative, but it is not meant to be; it is just as avalid a position as strong) reasons that there is no evidence for God, and that if he did exist it would be reasonable for there to be some, and that regardless, in the rational world we live in that we base our lives upon, it is not reasonable to think something exists when there is no evidence for it. Therefore, he does not think there is a God any more than he thinks there is a tooth fairy.
A strong atheist looks at the evidence and says that the evidence actively proves that there either a. is no God or b. CANNOT be a God. The reasoning for this is many and varied.
Strong atheism can also be a philosophical position- i.e. "I can't actually prove there isn't, but I am absolutely certain there is no God based on my own understanding of the Universe", which is probably where Shaky is coming from.
So, to sum up-
A weak atheist does not think there is a God
A strong atheist thinks there is no God.
Important distinction. Push most atheists and I think you will find they are weak rather than strong; no shame to them either.
And I'm going to reject that Ush. Sorry, but there can't be such a thing as a weak atheist. Either you are or you aren't. Unless the word Atheist has taken a complete direction in the 21th century then I don't accep it. The very word Atheist comes from the greek word atheos which translated means "'without gods". So if a person is down to earth who lives rejecting gods by all means he/she is an Atheist. These weak atheist you speaking of are either clueless people who aren't sure what to accept or just plain confused. Because you either believe or don't believe.
Well, I am going to have to reject your rejection, WD, on the grounds it is inept.
I really don't see what you are saying there. Weak and Strong are just two different justifications for atheism, and to say a weak atheist is clueless just because he holds the position that it is not reasonable to think something exists if there is no evidence for it... is pretty silly, to be honest. It is a very credible view. Most people don't believe something until it is proven.
Weak and strong alike are both atheists, and both fit the definition of the word. They both 'are'. VERY confused by your post, to be honest. And both views DO exist, so to reject them is rather arrogant.
Originally posted by UshgarakThanks for the definitions, I can understand these stances, although I think the use of the terms "theist" and "atheist" are too extreme for proper usage without such qualifiers.
Ok, well, I shall clarify, as I did recently in a thread around the same area.An agnostic looks at the evidence and says that he/she is not sure, on balance, if there is a God or not.
An atheist looks at the evidence and says- there is no God.
But the storng and weak atheist has a different reasoning.
A weak atheist (it sounds perjorative, but it is not meant to be; it is just as avalid a position as strong) reasons that there is no evidence for God, and that if he did exist it would be reasonable for there to be some, and that regardless, in the rational world we live in that we base our lives upon, it is not reasonable to think something exists when there is no evidence for it. Therefore, he does not think there is a God any more than he thinks there is a tooth fairy.
A strong atheist looks at the evidence and says that the evidence actively proves that there either a. is no God or b. CANNOT be a God. The reasoning for this is many and varied.
Strong atheism can also be a philosophical position- i.e. "I can't actually prove there isn't, but I am absolutely certain there is no God based on my own understanding of the Universe", which is probably where Shaky is coming from.
So, to sum up-
A weak atheist does not think there is a God
A strong atheist thinks there is no God.
Important distinction. Push most atheists and I think you will find they are weak rather than strong; no shame to them either.
As to Christianity, Mormons are Christians in our own beliefs, and if one is using the actual definition of the term. Given this, the use of the term Christian as frequently used is often in error when referring to some Christian concepts. I have taken to using the term "mainstream" to preface comments regarding the majority of Christianity's beliefs. Mormon beliefs are often so alien to mainstream Christianity that we are not viewed as Christian by mainstream Christians. Regardless of this, we believe in the Bible and live our interpretation of its teachings, and so are often lumped in with mainstream Christianity when comments are made concerning beliefs.
Originally posted by Regret
Sorry, does this not answer your question? [/B][/QUOTE] Sorry but you are wrong.
Theism = belief in god
Atheism = disbelief in god
Just because something can't be proven scientifically, doesn't mean it can't be believable.
The problem I have about atheism is that not many theists understand why people are atheist. Most of them are people who haven't been taught religion, or raised to support one.
Having that said, atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the abscence of belief of god. Atheists aren't people who decide they're not going to believe in god. Although some have made that decision, most of those "atheists" still think about if there is a god. True atheists never do that, by definition.
you fundamentalists have to remember that Atheism is not a religion, atheist parents don't go to their children, "Do not believe in god." No. They don't mention god. Most atheists haven't even heard the theory of Creationism. I know because most of my school is atheist. (Well, all the children are.) All children start off atheist because they have no knowledge of the theory of god. Religion is something that's forced upon minors to keep people inline and follow a bunch of rules that were made to stop problems in the middle east (and the continent of india) over 2,000 years ago. Yeah. So if you think Atheism is blind, think about what religion most religions are. The words "out of date" come to mind.