Originally posted by Alliance
The ironic part about Lil's argument is that the many Ancient Greeks actually thought the earth was round and proved it using obersvable stellar evidence.The Christian empires ignored this school of thought. They wanted to stick to their "four corners" as stated in the bible.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And again people fail to realise the difference between weak and strong atheism.
How does that at all influence my argument?! Weak atheism, or strong atheism are both based on the same assumption as theism.
Atheism ONLY exists in relation to Theism, and not any other way. Athism is not ''by default'' and be it weak or strong, it bases its argument on the exactly the same principle as Theists, in the matter that both of their arguments are not particulary scientific, and both are assumptions based on zero evidence.
Agnostics, I would argue, are ''by default''. Since they claim no knowledge, which technically is where we are all at - no knowledge. Of course no knowledge does not mean non existance, at the same time as it most certainly does not mean existance.
Athiest view is, putting it basically, based on EXACTLY THE SAME assumption as Theism is. It has no ground, nor validity for what it is saying. Same as Theism.
Having that in mind, what is even more irnoic is that certain Atheists, behaive in such a way, that they are claiming superiority over Theists, including ridicule, because they believe in a Deity (just look through this forum), while their claim, is just as baseless as Theists'.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a supernatural deity, either because one decides that available evidence positively indicates there are no deities nor can they exist, or that based on available evidence there is no foundation for a belief in a supernatural deity; strong and weak atheism respectively. The latter does not draw absolute conclusion, and does not fall under your description of atheistic views.
The problem with your argument is that you are essentially comparing unlike things. Atheism exists as the counterpart to theism in general. However while atheism and agnosticism on these forums are essentially generic, the form theism takes on these forums and in the wider world is in specifics. Generic theism which could be compared to generic atheism or agnosticism is a rarity.
I think you're misperceiving the agnostic/atheist dismissal of claims by the major organised religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc. as an antagonism of the concept of generic theism and an assertion of atheism as absolute truth.
While one cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god. One can, based on available evidence and knowledge, rationally conclude that the gods as described in religious texts by ancient cultures did not exist as described. Such a claim is not "baseless".
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Atheism is a lack of belief in a supernatural deity, either because one decides that available evidence positively indicates there are no deities nor can they exist, or that based on available evidence there is no foundation for a belief in a supernatural deity; strong and weak atheism respectively. The latter does not draw absolute conclusion, and does not fall under your description of atheistic views.The problem with your argument is that you are essentially comparing unlike things. Atheism exists as the counterpart to theism in general. However while atheism and agnosticism on these forums are essentially generic, the form theism takes on these forums and in the wider world is in specifics. Generic theism which could be compared to generic atheism or agnosticism is a rarity.
I think you're misperceiving the agnostic/atheist dismissal of claims by the major organised religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc. as an antagonism of the concept of generic theism and an assertion of atheism as absolute truth.
While one cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god. One can, based on available evidence and knowledge, rationally conclude that the gods as described in religious texts by ancient cultures did not exist as described. Such a claim is not "baseless".
Addressing your point about the ''unlike things'' - i disagree.
The way in which they both rationalise existence or non existence of a deity is exactly the same.
I know why Atheists believe what they believe, my argument is that their belief is based on exactly the same ''unscientific'' method as theists'.
It is false to claim that there are or that there are no 'evidence' against or for Deity, simply because there is no knowledge of such being.
Having no knowledge of something, does not make it non existent, nor does it make existent.
Initially, Atheists are arguing at the irrationality of Theist view, while their view is just as irrational.
They are arguing that there are no sufficient evidence to prove something, which they, or anyone else for that matter, has no knowledge of to begin with.
It is an egocentric view that if we have not gained a knowledge in some field by now, it must not exist.
Thus, Athiest view is just as irrational, and just as egocentric as Theists.
I consider myself somewhere between an weak atheist and agnostic. I personally don't recall arguing against a general theist view per se. I personally can't say I recall anyone else who would describe themself as an atheist or agnostic arguing against a theist view per se. I have however, for example, argued against specific Judeo-Christian theist views presented as fact, based upon scientific or rational deduction.
(Notwithstanding that atheism is predominantly an independent choice and doesn't generally promote itself as fact, or promote itself at all) It is true - it would be ironic to assert strong atheism as fact, while dismissing a generalised theistic view, as neither can be proven as such due to insufficient information. It would not however be ironic to dismiss a man being the son of god, transmuting water into wine, walking on water, dying and being resurrected, and ascending into heaven. While the latter may be relatively common on the religion forum, the former is not particularly from my recollection, and I'm not sure you're drawing this distinction.
If asked myself, I would possibly deny existance of a Mainstream God. If a deity indeed exists, I doubt it would be a sadistic ego centric deity who takes interest in our sex lives.
I do not however take out the idea that a deity may exit.
I am not technically point out to people who acknowledge the idea that we have no knowledge, but people who are Atheists, and who believe (no pun intended) that there is no deity based on the lack of evidence.
Of course, there are people on this board who do not for the profile of the Athiests I talk about.
It was a subject which I tought about a lot, and seeing one, or more topic triggered me to start a thread.
Being Athiest doesn't narrow down to a having a non-beleif in Christian-Judeo God.
True Athiests beleive in no supernatural diety, whether it be mainstream God or any concept of a God, intelligent creator, or primitive creator what-so-ever.
"Athiests by default" is not a complete or accurate description of someone who has never been fully exposed to the concept of a God and therefore cannot make an opinion on the matter.
LIL B is correct in her stance that Thiesm and Athiesm are both two sides of the same concept of God. One beleives completely, one disbeleives completely. Thiesm and Athiesm are BOTH relationships to the concept of dieties.
Agnosticism is the only perception that is truly indifferent to the matter. Agnostics do not claim they know God exists or that they know God doesn't exist. They simply say "I don't know, there could be, there could be not"....many others say "I don't know, i don't care"
Saying "Yes" or "No" are two absolutes of the matter, and therefore zealotry can be equally prevelant in both Athiesm and Thiesm. But saying "maybe" is not absolute, it is indifferent, and therefore no zealotry can form from it, because no extremism or solid belief is planted down.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenAs is the case with most blanket generalisations, not true. Neither atheism nor theism need be intuitively characterized by complete and intractable belief.
Being Athiest doesn't narrow down to a having a non-beleif in Christian-Judeo God.True Athiests beleive in no supernatural diety, whether it be mainstream God or any concept of a God, intelligent creator, or primitive creator what-so-ever.
"Athiests by default" is not a complete or accurate description of someone who has never been fully exposed to the concept of a God and therefore cannot make an opinion on the matter.
[b]LIL B is correct
in her stance that Thiesm and Athiesm are both two sides of the same concept of God. One beleives completely, one disbeleives completely. Thiesm and Athiesm are BOTH relationships to the concept of dieties.Agnosticism is the only perception that is truly indifferent to the matter. Agnostics do not claim they know God exists or that they know God doesn't exist. They simply say "I don't know, there could be, there could be not"....many others say "I don't know, i don't care"
Saying "Yes" or "No" are two absolutes of the matter, and therefore zealotry can be equally prevelant in both Athiesm and Thiesm. But saying "maybe" is not absolute, it is indifferent, and therefore no zealotry can form from it, because no extremism or solid belief is planted down. [/B]
To claim no knowledge is not mutually exclusive to claiming a belief or lack thereof. Nor are the latter incompatible with indifference. One can hold the view "I don't really know, I think that there could be a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way." or "I don't know, I think there isn't a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way."; and these would be theist and atheist views respectively.
Zealotry is more prevalent in organised theism i.e. the major religions, due to it's nature - esoteric, a collective practise, ability to be used as excuse for prejudice etc. Advent of more agressive atheist stances, are more reaction to attempt by religious institutions to interfere in politics and science than anything else.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
As is the case with most blanket generalisations, not true. Neither atheism nor theism need be intuitively characterized by complete and intractable belief.
True.
But you forget the difference between the definitions of Athiests and Agnostics.
Athiests do not beleive God exists.
Agnostics beleive he may or may not.
Any Thiest or Athiest who sees thier beliefs only as beleifs, and is open to the possibility that they may be wrong, is by "default" Agnostic in belief.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
To claim no knowledge is not mutually exclusive to claiming a belief or lack thereof. Nor are the latter incompatible with indifference. One can hold the view "I don't really know, I think that there could be a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way." or "I don't know, I think there isn't a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way."; and these would be theist and atheist views respectively.
I disagree.
Thiests do not say "I thnk God exists, but who cares"..they either claim strong beleif, or knowledge.
Likewise, Athiests do not go "I don't thnk God exists, but even if he does, I wouldn't care"
But definition, these people are Agnostic. Agnosticism is the open mindedness that allows for the possibility of either argument.
Athiesm and Theism may not always be extreme, but they each possess a one sided bias, and a contradicting opinion towards the other.
An Agnostic, to any degree, is still open to the possibility of either hypothesis, regardless of what they prefer to beleive.
Question: Would you call a person who has never even heard of the concept of God, an Athiest ?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Zealotry is more prevalent in organised theism i.e. the major religions, due to it's nature - esoteric, a collective practise, ability to be used as excuse for prejudice etc. Advent of more agressive atheist stances, are more reaction to attempt by religious institutions to interfere in politics and science than anything else.
But Zealotry exists on both sides nonetheless. It just happens to be much GREATER and more common in Theism.
Okay, like, I don't want to get involved, though x-spot is right. But, for the love of God/No One/Someone that may or may not exist, could you folks (mainly LU and lb...must be the "L" part me thinks) try to spell it "atheism"? I feel a severe pain every time I have to read "athiest" ... hmm, if you want to imagine the feeling think about lying in your bed...with someone you really love....and then being beaten to death with a club heated to 600 degrees Celsius...twice.
Originally posted by Bardock42I know how you feel, once I read it as "Aetheism" it was like talking to a baby. 😐
Okay, like, I don't want to get involved, though x-spot is right. But, for the love of God/No One/Someone that may or may not exist, could you folks (mainly LU and lb...must be the "L" part me thinks) try to spell it "atheism"? I feel a severe pain every time I have to read "athiest" ... hmm, if you want to imagine the feeling think about lying in your bed...with someone you really love....and then being beaten to death with a club heated to 600 degrees Celsius...twice.