Atheists and Theists

Atheism and theism are both simply believing, it is they are having faith in different statements. If you choose to have faith in one statement then you are atheist, if you choose to believe in the other statement you are a theist.

So, why discuss this ? There is no way to decide who is right, and both are religions.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Atheism and theism are both simply [B]believing, it is they are having faith in different statements. If you choose to have faith in one statement then you are atheist, if you choose to believe in the other statement you are a theist.

So, why discuss this ? There is no way to decide who is right, and both are religions. [/B]

Even though the two of us don't share the same religious views - I have to say, you generally give the most balanced - and well thought out opinions within this forum. Well done.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Atheism and theism are both simply [B]believing, it is they are having faith in different statements. If you choose to have faith in one statement then you are atheist, if you choose to believe in the other statement you are a theist.

So, why discuss this ? There is no way to decide who is right, and both are religions. [/B]

If there was evidence, it would not be faith. It would be knowledge.

Atheism is based on evidence, or lack thereof. There is no evidence that God exists, nor that any other gods or goddesses exist. Therefore I see no reason to believe in any one or them, or even the ability to choose which of all the extraordinarily improbable deities is the one to feign belief in.

That's ok, because the thread is based on misunderstandings of the purpose of lexicography by people who cannot understand what atheism is because it doesn't fit in their world view.

Lexicographers write definitions of words in an attempt to describe the words as they exist in a living language. The particular meaning for the word "asexual" above is intended for bacterial reproduction, not virgins. If you're using "asexual" to mean "virgin", you're misunderstanding the meaning of both words.

I do not believe in God, therefore I am atheist. My daughter was raised without religion, and she knows nothing about the concepts, having only heard of them in passing. She is also an atheist.

I have met students in schools who claim to be "Christian" ([I am Christian because my family is, though I have never been to church[/i]), yet know nothing about Christian beliefs or practices, nor what sets them apart from "non-Christians". What are they then?

Just because you can't imagine living without faith doesn't mean that atheists believe in God but reject him, just the same as you have denied the existence of Greek, Roman, Mayan, Hindu, Nordic, and other gods and goddesses.

Originally posted by LHG
Well, no. That's the difference between theism and atheism. Theism is based on [b]faith, which is unknowable and untestable. In theism it is considered the greatest virtue to believe in something for which no evidence exists.

If there was evidence, it would not be faith. It would be knowledge.

Atheism is based on evidence, or lack thereof. There is no evidence that God exists, nor that any other gods or goddesses exist. Therefore I see no reason to believe in any one or them, or even the ability to choose which of all the extraordinarily improbable deities is the one to feign belief in.

That's ok, because the thread is based on misunderstandings of the purpose of lexicography by people who cannot understand what atheism is because it doesn't fit in their world view.

Lexicographers write definitions of words in an attempt to describe the words as they exist in a living language. The particular meaning for the word "asexual" above is intended for bacterial reproduction, not virgins. If you're using "asexual" to mean "virgin", you're misunderstanding the meaning of both words.

I do not believe in God, therefore I am atheist. My daughter was raised without religion, and she knows nothing about the concepts, having only heard of them in passing. She is also an atheist.

I have met students in schools who claim to be "Christian" ([I am Christian because my family is, though I have never been to church[/i]), yet know nothing about Christian beliefs or practices, nor what sets them apart from "non-Christians". What are they then?

Just because you can't imagine living without faith doesn't mean that atheists believe in God but reject him, just the same as you have denied the existence of Greek, Roman, Mayan, Hindu, Nordic, and other gods and goddesses.

Actually - that's incorrect(however - very eloquently argued I must say). When one makes the assumption that religion is solely defined by faith in the spiritual, they are making the false one.

Faith is essentially having *trust* in something. It isn't limited to just the spiritual - but it is present(or necessary) in all facets of life. For example - when one turns on a water faucet - they *trust* that water is going to come out. It may take very little faith for one to believe this(at least for those living within a civilized western culture) -- but regardless, it is still faith none the less.

So in relation to your initial argument - despite whether or not one completely understands the concepts of *theism* or *atheism* - they still will have a basic *trust* in whatever it is they believe in. One can *trust* very much in the belief that there is no evidense for a God, just as much as one can *trust* in there being evidense for one. An individual can even have much *trust* in their own ignorance(willfull or unwillful) regarding either of these terms - which will then of course, by your definition - make that ignorance into a religion.

So consequently - with all of the above being stated - no position can be objectively expressed without an individual having some form of faith(or trust) in it - seeing as how no individual(s)(save God) has absolute proof(or absolute knowledge/understanding) of what it is they're expressing.

The only conclusion limited beings can come to - is that based on the evidense presented before them(as well as based on how as they interpret it) - their conclusion is 1 to 99.99 percent true(in most cases) - with the remaining percentage that can't be proven by the tangible(physical) evidense(or lack there of) - being based on faith.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Atheism and theism are both simply [B]believing, it is they are having faith in different statements. If you choose to have faith in one statement then you are atheist, if you choose to believe in the other statement you are a theist.

So, why discuss this ? There is no way to decide who is right, and both are religions. [/B]

Unfortunately thats incorrect. This exercise is getting annoying, but I'll go through it again since some people incapable of remembering the old ones.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Faith is essentially having *trust* in something. It isn't limited to just the spiritual - but it is present(or necessary) in all facets of life. For example - when one turns on a water faucet - they *trust* that water is going to come out. It may take very little faith for one to believe this(at least for those living within a civilized western culture) -- but regardless, it is still faith none the less.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
So in relation to your initial argument - despite whether or not one completely understands the concepts of *theism* or *atheism* - they still will have a basic *trust* in whatever it is they believe in.

Faith is more appropriately defined as a belief that is not based on proof (this is simply an extension of your trust definition). However, you, being the oh so inquiring religious skeptic you are, ask the atheist plumber..."but don't you have to have faith that the faucet will always behave the way in which you describe?"

Fortunately for us, our plumber realizes that this is actually a trick question, for he is simply being asked to predict the future. Since predicting the future is impossible, the BEST he can do, as human, is to give the most likely consequence. So the plumber kindly replies that he believes that water will come out of the faucet.

"Hah! See you are exhibiting FAITH. That means you're religious!" Our hero plumber shakes his head. "The future is NEVER certain because there is always the slightest of probabilities that what I predict, no matter how based on my knowledge of the plumbing. My prediction however, is better than yours. Are either of them provable? No. However, I will be right more often than you are. I can look at ALL the evidence and make an educated opinion. However, the best that you can do is simple repeat the same old allusions to the presence of a supernatural being for which you have NO proof. I can at least show an educated mechanism. I do more than simply "trust" the system, I know the system and can trust it based on proven evidence that anyone can see if they put their mind to it."

You would argue that "HEY! Trust is trust, no matter what." I think that is just ignorant. There is a clear difference between blatant acceptance of an accepted beliefs and using objective information to present a perspective.

If one could know everything, one could argue that one was God. However, I am just a man, so the BEST I can do is 99.9999...9%

Now, you have no problem accepting the Newtonian model of "gravity," for which we have very little of a proven mechanism. You use this logic all the time on "factual" concepts. You rely on the fact that when you hit the "l" key, an "l" will appear on the screen. You rely on the fact that when your brain tells your eye to look one way, it will. You have NO problem accepting 99.9999...9% as factual in these cases, yet magically this becomes unacceptable when someone questions your belief in one poorly defined god?

You're conclusion is correct, our...

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
conclusion is 1 to 99.99 percent true(in most cases) - with the remaining percentage that can't be proven by the tangible(physical) evidense(or lack there of) - being based on "faith".

However, our "faith" is based on an understanding of all other aspects of the natural world. Nothing can ever be disproven in the purest sense. You have no problem accepting this concept in every other aspect of your life, yet you simply demand that atheists show this, simply because you misunderstand atheism. A religious faith (often abbreviated "faith" by those who think that religion is a global concept) can be based on NO evidence whatsoever. THAT is the distinction you are looking for. This is not using absence of evidence as evidence of absence. This is taking evidence to show that absence is logical.

If you combine this with my previous argument that in that tiniest of chances that god actually exists, the possibility that you could have correctly defined and worshipped that "god" if its even conscious, is so absurdly low that to me, the probability is 1 that god does not exist.

Only the most extreme atheists will say that "no god concretely exists" in the context of a discussion like this. But If you ask me on the street if "I believe god exists" I'm going to say "no" because I'm not concerned with qualifying the philosophical nuances of this argument to every man who walks the earth. You should never base your perception of any concept on extremists, because by definition thats a biased sample.

So you see, there is no real "faith" involved. If you consider an educated guess "faith" then I suppose you can define it that way, but its CLEARLY and uniquivocably different from religious faith.

Originally posted by Alliance
Unfortunately thats incorrect. This exercise is getting annoying, but I'll go through it again since some people incapable of remembering the old ones.

I think this is a great start to this whole argument. Some things happen as a direct consequence of others. We can test the faucet, look at the mechanism, and as long as we stare at it, nothing happens. Water only comes out of the faucet when one turns it on (we're assuming of course that this faucet is well made). It takes very little faith, one would say, almost NO faith to understand the working of the faucet. Its called understanding.

Oh this is where it gets really good. If we accept your argument. An "atheist" understands the workings of the faucet. Knowledge replaces faith. He does not sit there and imagine god spitting water through the faucet behind the cabinet doors. He replaces supernatural conjecture with fact. An atheist has an understanding. What you term his "faith" that the faucet will always behave according to natural laws is not true faith at all.

Faith is more appropriately defined as a belief that is not based on proof (this is simply an extension of your trust definition). However, you, being the oh so inquiring religious skeptic you are, ask the atheist plumber..."but don't you have to have faith that the faucet will always behave the way in which you describe?"

Fortunately for us, our plumber realizes that this is actually a trick question, for he is simply being asked to predict the future. Since predicting the future is impossible, the BEST he can do, as human, is to give the most likely consequence. So the plumber kindly replies that he believes that water will come out of the faucet.

"Hah! See you are exhibiting FAITH. That means you're religious!" Our hero plumber shakes his head. "The future is NEVER certain because there is always the slightest of probabilities that what I predict, no matter how based on my knowledge of the plumbing. My prediction however, is better than yours. Are either of them provable? No. However, I will be right more often than you are. I can look at ALL the evidence and make an educated opinion. However, the best that you can do is simple repeat the same old allusions to the presence of a supernatural being for which you have NO proof. I can at least show an educated mechanism. I do more than simply "trust" the system, I know the system and can trust it based on proven evidence that anyone can see if they put their mind to it."

You would argue that "HEY! Trust is trust, no matter what." I think that is just ignorant. There is a clear difference between blatant acceptance of an accepted beliefs and using objective information to present a perspective.

If one could know everything, one could argue that one was God. However, I am just a man, so the BEST I can do is 99.9999...9%

Now, you have no problem accepting the Newtonian model of "gravity," for which we have very little of a proven mechanism. You use this logic all the time on "factual" concepts. You rely on the fact that when you hit the "l" key, an "l" will appear on the screen. You rely on the fact that when your brain tells your eye to look one way, it will. You have NO problem accepting 99.9999...9% as factual in these cases, yet magically this becomes unacceptable when someone questions your belief in one poorly defined god?

You're conclusion is correct, our...

However, our "faith" is based on an understanding of all other aspects of the natural world. Nothing can ever be disproven in the purest sense. You have no problem accepting this concept in every other aspect of your life, yet you simply demand that atheists show this, simply because you misunderstand atheism. A religious faith (often abbreviated "faith" by those who think that religion is a global concept) can be based on NO evidence whatsoever. THAT is the distinction you are looking for. This is not using absence of evidence as evidence of absence. This is taking evidence to show that absence is logical.

If you combine this with my previous argument that in that tiniest of chances that god actually exists, the possibility that you could have correctly defined and worshipped that "god" if its even conscious, is so absurdly low that to me, the probability is 1 that god does not exist.

Only the most extreme atheists will say that "no god concretely exists" in the context of a discussion like this. But If you ask me on the street if "I believe god exists" I'm going to say "no" because I'm not concerned with qualifying the philosophical nuances of this argument to every man who walks the earth. You should never base your perception of any concept on extremists, because by definition thats a biased sample.

So you see, there is no real "faith" involved. If you consider an educated guess "faith" then I suppose you can define it that way, but its CLEARLY and uniquivocably different from religious faith.

The evidense is present for the athiest just as much as it is present for the theist - the problem being, each interprets this evidense differently. Neither individual has complete proof of their position. Without absolute proof, both resolve all final conclusions of the matter(regarding God's existense) through faith.

You have your right to believe that your faith is more logical than mine, however, you stating that it is more logical - does not evidently prove that it is. When you dogmatically and unwaveringly assert your faith in such a position - you have demonstrated that your belief, is no less of a religious one - than any theist.

There is no evidence to prove that God do not exist.

There is no evidence to prove that God exists.

Both point of views are in the exact same conditions. They are perfectly symmetrical.

To say that atheism is "based" on the lack of evidence is just a problem of perspective. You can also say that theism is "based" on the lack of evidence that God doesn´t exist.

You can´t say something doesn´t exist just because you never observed it. Solar flares were not observed 5000 years ago, but they existed including at that time.

And there is a well know basic consequence of formal logic that is :
"You can not provide data/evidence for something that doesn´t exist.

It means that if God doesn´t exist then it is impossible to prove its non-existence.

A more acceptable and non-contradictory point of view towards the existence/non-existence of God would be agnosticism, but not atheism.

Originally posted by Alliance
There is nothing dogmatic about it. I express the abridged versions of my opinion to people I've already discussed issues with, otherwise I state it as a possibility and then try to rip your position apart.

Of course I think I'm right. I also think a RANGE of possibilities exist. I'VE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT. How more clear do I need to be? Do I need to write an effing page every time I post a comment?

Atheism is not a religion. Read the threads on that. Its been debated over and over again, I haven't seen any good points. If you still have questions on it, bring it up in an appropriate thread, and I'll show you that its not.

Wait. You lump all atheists together and just say they're stupid. Then you try to pass me off as a hypocrite saying that I lump people together? I don't think so.

Bardock is right. Every line of thought has its extremists. I'm not an extremist in this instance and I've REPEATEDLY demonstrated that. Once again, you simply spew baseless accusations. If you want to attack me, then do so with words and concepts like an intelligent person instead of saying "you're stupid" and "you're an extremist."

People think in different ways. Get over it. If they can reliably back up their opinion, its fine.

Ha! You do lump people together!
The only differance is, the only time you can see lumping togetherness is when someone lumps you together with people you share an opinion on Theological matter, but who happen to be igonrant egocentrical assholes.

You are a hypocrite. You see the differance between lumping Atheists together, while not seeing a differance between lumping all Christians together.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
There is no evidence to prove that God do not exist.

There is no evidence to prove that God exists.

Both point of views are in the exact same conditions. They are perfectly symmetrical.

To say that atheism is "based" on the lack of evidence is just a problem of perspective. You can also say that theism is "based" on the lack of evidence that God doesn´t exist.

You can´t say something doesn´t exist just because you never observed it. Solar flares were not observed 5000 years ago, but they existed including at that time.

And there is a well know basic consequence of formal logic that is :
"You can not provide data/evidence for something that doesn´t exist.

It means that if God doesn´t exist then it is impossible to prove its non-existence.

A more acceptable and non-contradictory point of view towards the existence/non-existence of God would be agnosticism, but not atheism.

Thank you!! This was exactly my stance, too.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
You can also say that theism is "based" on the lack of evidence that God doesn´t exist.

You could, but that would be rationally and scientifically inept. The two veiws are absolutely and definitevely NOT symmetrical by the rules of rationality and science, and to equate them is the demonstration of either ignorance or deceit.

It is, in fact, the good and proper way to do it the way around the atheists do.

Let's not make religion an excuse for the crappy application of science. Science works as it works, you cannot twist it to suit you. Theism is an article of faith, NOT science. It is not a viable scientific position. When people argue as you just did there, they argue for irrationality. To do so is not intelligent, and to encourage it is to simply propogate the appallingly bad state of knowledge people have about what science is, and how it works, especially in the definition of theory.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I didn't say they were polar opposites. I was explaining how something can be the same and opposite at the same time.

Big and Small are not polar opposites either. They are relative terms, but still opposite. Yet they are the same idea: size.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Polar is just an expression of the word opposite, sorry if that confused you. Atheists and Theists aren't opposites, other wise everyone who isn't Bardock is the opposite of Bardock.

Athiests and Theists are not opposite in a factual sense, no.

In a grammatic, and literal sense, however they are.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You could, but that would be rationally and scientifically inept. The two veiws are absolutely and definitevely NOT symmetrical by the rules of rationality and science, and to equate them is the demonstration of either ignorance or deceit.

It is, in fact, the good and proper way to do it the way around the atheists do.

Let's not make religion an excuse for the crappy application of science. Science works as it works, you cannot twist it to suit you. Theism is an article of faith, NOT science. It is not a viable scientific position. When people argue as you just did there, they argue for irrationality. To do so is not intelligent, and to encourage it is to simply propogate the appallingly bad state of knowledge people have about what science is, and how it works, especially in the definition of theory.

Science has nothing to do with atheism.

Atheism is assumes a position towards a problem that is purely metaphysical, science does not attemp to answer metaphysical questions.

Science doesn´t say that God do not exist, a scientific perspective will be one that says that if God exist we can´t know about it. In other words, a scientific perspective will be weak agnosticsm.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Athiests and Theists are not opposite in a factual sense, no.

In a grammatic, and literal sense, however they are.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
science does not attemp to answer metaphysical questions.

*cough* Cosmology *cough*....

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Science doesn´t say that God do not exist, a scientific perspective will be one that says that if God exist we can´t know about it. In other words, a scientific perspective will be weak agnosticsm.

I agree here. Science is indeed weak agnoticism. The roots of all the sciences being grounded of course by religious philosophy - be it of natural or of spiritual origin(s).

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
*cough* Cosmology *cough*....

I agree here. Science is indeed weak agnoticism. The roots of all the sciences being grounded of course by religious philosophy - be it of natural or of spiritual origin(s).

Cosmology is the scientific study of the large scale properties of the Universe as a whole. It endeavors to use the scientific method to understand the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the entire Universe. Like any field of science, cosmology involves the formation of theories or hypotheses about the universe which make specific predictions for phenomena that can be tested with observations. Depending on the outcome of the observations, the theories will need to be abandoned, revised or extended to accommodate the data.

God is not part of Cosmology.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
*cough* Cosmology *cough*....

Cosmology doesn´t attempt to answer metaphysical questions. It is all based on general relativity and quantum mechanics which are proved theories and is tested with observations made by satellites.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
God is not part of Cosmology.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

Umm..posting a link to *nasa's* website does very little to prove your argument.

Much of modern science that we appreciate today - was derived from the Protestant Reformation - and Christians who were inspired by God's command to *subdue the earth* within the scriptures.

Today - however, much of scientific thought - has degenerated into those who predominantly have relativistic and naturalistic ideals. Like most ungodly dogmas, such ideals rarely create much in the way of technical innovation or spiritual insight(for a culture).

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Umm..posting a link to *nasa's* website does very little to prove your argument.

Much of modern science that we appreciate today - was derived from the Protestant Reformation - and Christians who were inspired by God's command to *subdue the earth* within the scriptures.

Today - however, much of scientific thought - has degenerated into those who predominantly have relativistic and naturalistic ideals. Like most ungodly dogmas, such ideals rarely create much in the way of technical innovation or spiritual insight(for a culture).

You forget about History of Islamic Science.

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/islam12.html

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
The roots of all the sciences being grounded of course by religious philosophy - be it of natural or of spiritual origin(s).

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Cosmology doesn´t attempt to answer metaphysical questions. It is all based on general relativity and quantum mechanics which are proved theories and is tested with observations made by satellites.

I disagree - Cosmology is more of a philosopy than it is a science. It is essentially a naturalistic philosophy - applied to a universal setting. There are aspects of quantum mechanics and physical sciences which are applied to it, however, even with these - it still has very huge gaps in it(logical and scientific) - and leaves even more unanswered philosophical questions - than any mainstream religious philosophy. (What is life? Why was it created? What is purpose? What is love..etc..etc). All of these questions of course - can't be proven by the physical or natural world.