Originally posted by Shakyamunison
🙄So, what you are saying is if there was no concept of a god there would still be an absence of belief in this concept of god that doesn't exist?
The absence of belief in the existence of gods regardless of whether one has a concept of gods is atheism. You are wrong, so save your eye rolling for someone else.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The absence of belief in the existence of gods regardless of whether one has a concept of gods is atheism. You are wrong, so save your eye rolling for someone else.
You must has theism before you can have atheism. If theism did not exist, then there would be no such thing as an atheist.
no no no. negetive atheism is a given. we are arguing on semantics. the default position is ATHEISM. only thing is, the prefix "A" gives it the impression that it is an extension of{or relating to} the "original" idea of "THEISM". however, that is an illusion. the term "theism" was invented before "atheism" simply because no1 cared to define the default position of "ATHEISM" before "theism". doesnt mean "A"theism has to have "THEISM" to exist in the first place. semantics are complicated that way.
putting it more simply. the default position is not beleiveing in anything{which INCLUDES not beleiving in god among many other things. so by definition you ARE a negetive ATHEIST by default, but are not confined to that definition alone}, AFTER which comes the TEACHING of a beleif in sumthing{which includes, but is not confined to teaching theism}. so THEISM is learned, but u dont have to have theism to have atheism. its just like dividing people into hindus and NONhindus alone. technically before the advent of hinduism, ALL people were non hindus. however, does that mean that you had to have hinduism before its advent simply so that you could contrast against it and seperate out every1 who wasnt a hindu???? basically saying, that it is infact the IMPOSING of the definition of theism, which gives rise to calling people atheists. and if we go by that definition, WE call all people who didnt beleive in theism by default{who never had or cared for such a specific special name for themselves} Atheists. so yes a baby is an atheist.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Top of the mornin to ye all. For weeks you guys have been trying to make an ejit out of Transfinitum but when it comes to your turn you cannot take it, especially Chickenlover. . . . . .
[/B]
Blah-blah-blah.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Does anyone know the difference between a heliocentricist and a Copernican? Well an atheist, or a Buddhist for that matter, believes the earth goes around the sun and spins on an axis. A Copernican however believes the same AND that the BIBLE can be interpreted heliocentrically.
[/B]
You have a queer idea of what Copernican is. Copernicans are simply those who subscribe to the idea that the earth and us humans are not accorded a special place in the universe. Where the crap did you get the idea of attaching the Bible to its meaning. Modern day muslim astronomers are Copernicans. Jewish astronomers are Copernicans. Shintoist japanese astronomers are Copernicans.
Modern astronomy has shown that Earth is but just an ordinary planet, orbiting an ordinary star, orbiting an ordinary galaxy ad nauseum., which is why ALL modern astronomers are Copernicans. Let me put this through you, modern astronomers have advanced their way of thinking since Copernicus' time and are heliocentrists only within the context of a simplified concept of the solar system. There a whole lotta of new celestial motions going on. Also, modern astronomers dont let their personal beliefs get in the way of their work. Youre describing Christian apologetic astronomers with your quack definition of copernican.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Templares, the guy who called me Gramps, are you a Catholic or an atheist or what? You quote a Catholic group who think that Catholic faith and science are compatible. If by science you mean 'modern science' as is accepted by the world order today, then I disagree, the Catholic faith is not compatible with it. Now I know you will come back and say but popes since Benedict XIV in 1741 have said it is, but that is only their OPINION. There is a higher order of TRUTH than the utterances of Churchmen, but this has been abandoned. Perhaps now those of you who are non-Catholics might see that the debate really exists outside of your one-dimensional brains. Catholicism (note How I distinguish between Catholicism, Catholics and Churchmen) has two sources that lead to truth, divine revelation (yes the Bible) and empirical investigation. The Atheist only has one and this compromises him.
[/B]
Gramps, youre so called "divine revelations" and "higher truths" does nothing for us none-believers because it relies on blind faith and blind faith is a dangerous and misleading concept to base your truths on. The fact that atheists uses only objective rational thinking, unhindered by blind faith on some "divinely inspired" myth, is a PLUS.
I find it IRONIC that some bum Irish catholic have the authority to DISMISS the Pope's words, Mr Infallible himself and leader of the Catholic church, as simply OPINIONS and claims his own opinions as the truth. Ha, ha youre beginning to sound like a sock pretending to be a catholic.
I already posted this link for Transfinitum. Its from a Christian site.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp
Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded. The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology. Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the original autographs or even in translations. In short, the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of their case is based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and the rejection of that theory. While geocentrists are well intended, their presence among recent creationists produces an easy object of ridicule by our critics.
Basically the point that your fellow Christians are saying is that geocentrists such as yourself are damaging the Church’s reputation amongst the faithful and unbelievers because of your stupid insistence on this scientifically wrong and theologically unimportant concept. A lot of mistakes was done by the medieval Church (eg. Inquisition), among them is adopting Thomas of Aquinas work wherein he harmonized flawed Aristotelian physics, Ptolemy's retarded geocentric system, and Christian dogma, as standard Church teachings. The Church and its members should just admit its mistake for supporting erroneous "ancient Greek science", and move on.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Oh by the way Templares let me answer your belief that 'and before I forgot, all human are born atheists. Its up to the parents or the surrounding elders to indoctrinate the child as it grows up into a specific religion.'
. . . . . If all human beings were born atheists, necessitating indoctrination to attain faith, then how come EVERY nation, EVERY tribe, even those found in the last few centuries in jungles and on Islands where no religious missionaries ever set foot, ALL were theists? Name one atheistic people that even resided on earth. Have you read the history on atheism, a book recently published? Well the author of this book has tracked down the first public atheist on earth, and guess what, guess what century he popped up in, the SEVENTEENTH. . . . . . She also agreed that it is the theist that needs the indoctrinating. She then went on to tell me that when she came home from her Catholic school her FATHER used to ask her what she learned at catechism class. If she said something like 'I learned how to pray to God', he, her FATHER, would say 'now you don't believe that do you, there is no God.' She is now an atheist. So, was her atheism 'natural' or was she indoctrinated into atheism by her father whom she trusted explicitedly for the truth?
[/B]
Since time immemorial, humans have been using myths and superstitions to explain the UNKNOWN. Thats why religious myths and superstitions exist everywhere you go. Its only around the Age of Enlightenment when the laws of the land allowed people who lack faith in any higher beings to live without fear of punishment (in western civilization anyway) and at the around the time of Galileo that these stupid myths and superstitions were replaced by solid empirical explanations. Science baby.
Let me break atheism down to you:
Atheism is the lack of belief in a higher being or gods. There are two types: implicit and explicit.
Implicit atheists are those who havent thought about belief in gods like babies. A baby's ignorance is not an excuse to the fact that technically it LACKS the belief in the concept of higher beings hence it is correctly labeled as an atheist.
Explicit atheists are those like your female friend. They made a consious choice to become atheists. There are also two types: strong and weak and im too lazy to start differentaiating them now.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Right then. Note how all you guys want me to lower my Catholic standards of two infallible ways to know something and to get down to a match between theories of gravitation, theories of relativity etc. Well only a fool could waste their time arguing from WITHIN theories. My Catholicism is guided by divine revelation and then I can check it out with FACTS, not theories.
[/B]
Ill just cut and paste my previous answer:
Gramps, youre so called "divine revelations" and "higher truths" does nothing for us none-believers because it relies on blind (Catholic) faith and blind faith is a dangerous and misleading concept to base your truths on. The fact that atheists uses only objective rational thinking, unhindered by blind faith on some "divinely inspired" myth, is a PLUS.
Since time immemorial people have been pulling gods out of their asses and worshipping them. What makes your god special?
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Someone made reference to quantum mechanics and quantum maths as though they had a bearing on TRUTH. Oh by the way, TRUTH is reality, the REALITY OF EVERYTHING, be it your personality or be it the furthest star from earth. Quantum stuff is not reality. That is no big secret, for all physicists will admit to this. 'A man crossing the road could step onto Mars' said one Asian expert physicist. Now I do not know about you guys, but for me, a Catholic, that does not belong to the real world. Oh, and don't try to contradict me. I happen to have a brother who became a PhD Professor of quantum mathematics in a Canadian university. He gave it up after one year as "the most useless career ever INVENTED by man."
[/B]
Just read my previous answer above.
I'd rather believe in quantum mechanics instead of some old f@rt with delusions of "divine revelations" who have an OVERSIMPLIFIED view of reality.
And i couldnt care less about your brother's opinion.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
*snip* because ive already read it in Transfinitum's arguments.
[/B]
This is what i've been telling you all along. Your Catholic faith is hindering you from thinking rationally which is why you and your ilk are dredging up old and invalidated theories that could be reinterpreted and used to prop up your twisted religious beliefs. Regardless of what the Church may have taught in the past, we are not at the center of the universe. The only reason you wackos are clinging to an obsolete and useless lumineferous aether theory and other similar theories is because it provides support to your obsolete and useless geocentric theory.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You must has theism before you can have atheism. If theism did not exist, then there would be no such thing as an atheist.
Wrong. There are indigenous cultures in Africa and Australia that have no concept of gods. With no concept of gods, these cultures have no belief in gods. With no belief in gods, these cultures are implicitly atheist, i.e. negative atheists.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no no no. negetive atheism is a given. we are arguing on semantics. the default position is ATHEISM. only thing is, the prefix "A" gives it the impression that it is an extension of{or relating to} the "original" idea of "THEISM". however, that is an illusion. the term "theism" was invented before "atheism" simply because no1 cared to define the default position of "ATHEISM" before "theism". doesnt mean "A"theism has to have "THEISM" to exist in the first place. semantics are complicated that way.putting it more simply. the default position is not beleiveing in anything{which INCLUDES not beleiving in god among many other things. so by definition you ARE a negetive ATHEIST by default, but are not confined to that definition alone}, AFTER which comes the TEACHING of a beleif in sumthing{which includes, but is not confined to teaching theism}. so THEISM is learned, but u dont have to have theism to have atheism. its just like dividing people into hindus and NONhindus alone. technically before the advent of hinduism, ALL people were non hindus. however, does that mean that you had to have hinduism before its advent simply so that you could contrast against it and seperate out every1 who wasnt a hindu???? basically saying, that it is infact the IMPOSING of the definition of theism, which gives rise to calling people atheists. and if we go by that definition, WE call all people who didnt beleive in theism by default{who never had or cared for such a specific special name for themselves} Atheists. so yes a baby is an atheist.
Could a person be anti-semitic if Judaism didn't exist?
Could a person be anti-American if the US didn't exist?
Could a person be anti-Walmart if Walmart didn't exist?
The answer to all that is no. On the exact same token, Atheism is an antagonistic response to Theism. You can't be anti anything, if that something does not exist.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Could a person be anti-semitic if Judaism didn't exist?Could a person be anti-American if the US didn't exist?
Could a person be anti-Walmart if Walmart didn't exist?
The answer to all that is no. On the exact same token, Atheism is an antagonistic response to Theism. You can't be anti anything, if that something does not exist.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wrong. There are indigenous cultures in Africa and Australia that have no concept of gods. With no concept of gods, these cultures have no belief in gods. With no belief in gods, these cultures are implicitly atheist, i.e. negative atheists.
No, they are outside the theist/atheist argument. The world is not black or white.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If the whole concept does not exist anywhere then yes. But since it exists here, it exists everywhere. Even if your whole universe has no concept of God, even if there is no sort of God anywhere, since the idea exists here, everyone that doesn't believe in God (which would be everyone in a universe where the concept of God does not exist) is an atheist.
Universe = everything that exists. "Your universe" is an oxymoron. The keyword in it is "uni", meaning one in Latin.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Universe = everything that exists. "Your universe" is an oxymoron. The keyword in it is "uni", meaning one in Latin.
Nah. The scientific definition of Universe is not the same as the separate definitons of the words in Latin.
MY point still stands. As the definition of atheism is that you do not believe in God people that don't have a concept of God are atheists.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah. The scientific definition of Universe is not the same as the separate definitons of the words in Latin.MY point still stands. As the definition of atheism is that you do not believe in God people that don't have a concept of God are atheists.
You can't be anti something (thing, institution, or concept) if that something doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Could a person be anti-semitic if Judaism didn't exist?Could a person be anti-American if the US didn't exist?
Could a person be anti-Walmart if Walmart didn't exist?
The answer to all that is no. On the exact same token, Atheism is an antagonistic response to Theism. You can't be anti anything, if that something does not exist.
This is a False Analogy, because atheism is not anti-theism, but the absence of belief in gods. A valid analogy would be:
[list][*]Could one not believe in Judaism if Judaism did not exist?
[*]Could one not believe in America if America did not exist?
[*]Could one not believe in WalMart if WalMart did not exist?[/list]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is a False Analogy, because atheism is not anti-theism, but the absence of belief in gods. A valid analogy would be:[list][*]Could one not believe in Judaism if Judaism did not exist?
[*]Could one not believe in America if America did not exist?
[*]Could one not believe in WalMart if WalMart did not exist?[/list]
"Anti-theist" was coined because "Athiest" is really stigmatized and considered a bad word by a lot. They mean the same thing.
That's like saying Creation and Intelligent Design are two different things.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is no argument; the absence of belief in gods, regardless of whether one has a concept of gods, is atheism. These people are implicitly atheist.
Apatheist.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaAtheist means that you do not believe in God (actively or passively). That's what the word means.
"Anti-theist" was coined because its less stigmatized than "Athiest". They mean the same thing.That's like saying Creation and Intelligent Design are two different things.
Apatheist.
And Creationism and Intelligent Design are different theories. They both have a belief in Creation though.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Atheist means that you do not believe in God (actively or passively). That's what the word means.And Creationism and Intelligent Design are different theories. They both have a believe in Creation though.
And Anti-theism and Athiesm are both anti god(s). All other differences are superficial.