Notices
Results 1 to 76 of 76
Like Tree25Likes
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: Antique Atheism?

  1. #1 Antique Atheism? 
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    Recently I read in the bible...and the Psalm 14:1-3 "The fool says in his heart "There is no God", which I had read many times without thinking about it, caught my attention.
    Whenever the term "godless" shows up in the bible I tended to think that it refers to people with anti-social behavior or people with other religions...but on the other hand...I'am starting to think that "godless" may (at least in some cases) actually describes people without faith in a deity. Can't atheism be described clearer than talking about people who claim "There is no god."?
    I think...if atheism was totally unknown or very rare...wouldn't there be so many and (sometimes) aggressive attempts to point out that it is a bad thing?

    So...I started to wonder wether or not there have been actual atheists in the biblical times (in the middle east)...and if there had been some kind of movement, or philosophical school or famous advocate and if there are scriptures or any other proves of their existence

    I do know about an Egyptian movement who promoted the idea that the real life is not the afterlife and that we should search for happiness until we alive and I do know about Epicure who was not an Atheist but promoted the idea that gods may not interfere with human business and that things happening on earth are caused by natural processes. But...I think none of this groups...have been atheists (as far as I know.)
    So my question...Is it possible that the term godless refer to one of this movements or maybe another movement you want to tell us about
    Thx...for answering.


    Last edited by Headdresser; April 23rd, 2013 at 03:38 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Would an atheist in an aggressively religious society admit it?


    Japith likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,800
    I think the Bible passage indicates that the idea of atheism is not a new one, otherwise there would be no need to mention it. For whatever reason it never caught on in a big way. If it had, then there would be historical evidence of civilizations with that belief system. There could be a lot of reasons for it, including persecution by religious groups. Of course, all religious groups would have been persecuted by other religious groups, but there is some reason why the atheists were not able to defend themselves or spread their philosophy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Headdresser View Post
    Whenever the term "godless" shows up in the bible I tended to think that it refers to people with anti-social behavior or people with other religions...but on the other hand...I'am starting to think that "godless" may (at least in some cases) actually describes people without faith in a deity. Can't atheism be described clearer than talking about people who claim "There is no god."?
    The bible is a compilation of written hand copied "clone" of hand copied translation of hand copied clones. All of these copies not only done by human being (error prone), but by human payed by master with an agenda. So "godless" has never been part of the 'original' writing, because English was yet to be invented.

    Anyway, my understanding of godless is that it mean (especially in the context of the Old Testament part of the Bible) people that do not believe in the "true" God. Not only the very rare atheist, but the very common pagans, because you know, nobody read the bible back then. Nobody could read... at all (still nobody does, but you)

    Your take that it is "anti-social" is probably also correct, because any group trying to forge an identity must first ostracize the "other" to be sure to have the lead and or peace of mind.

    That's why so many Atheist are as aggressive as theist. They want that everybody believe in their irrational thinking ...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think the Bible passage indicates that the idea of atheism is not a new one, otherwise there would be no need to mention it. For whatever reason it never caught on in a big way. If it had, then there would be historical evidence of civilizations with that belief system. There could be a lot of reasons for it, including persecution by religious groups. Of course, all religious groups would have been persecuted by other religious groups, but there is some reason why the atheists were not able to defend themselves or spread their philosophy.
    I find this post very odd.
    Especially coming from you.

    You call atheism a 'belief system' and a 'philosophy' in this post...
    Yet, you're often one of the first people to point out that atheism itself only means a lack of belief in God and has no philosophy of it's own. A person can be called an atheist, yet still believe in all kinds of mumbo jumbo.

    This post is very, very odd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think the Bible passage indicates that the idea of atheism is not a new one, otherwise there would be no need to mention it. For whatever reason it never caught on in a big way. If it had, then there would be historical evidence of civilizations with that belief system. There could be a lot of reasons for it, including persecution by religious groups. Of course, all religious groups would have been persecuted by other religious groups, but there is some reason why the atheists were not able to defend themselves or spread their philosophy.
    There are quite a few examples of civilizations with aspects of doubt about Gods (atheism isn't a belief system...there is no system to it). Much of our funding of logic and reasoning comes from atheist such as Protagoras and Epicurus. Skepticism, a form of atheistic thinking has been part of the fiber of many prior cultures--not only the Greeks, but even in some surprising places, such as during Islam's Golden Age with people such as Omar Khayyam.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think the Bible passage indicates that the idea of atheism is not a new one, otherwise there would be no need to mention it. For whatever reason it never caught on in a big way. If it had, then there would be historical evidence of civilizations with that belief system. There could be a lot of reasons for it, including persecution by religious groups. Of course, all religious groups would have been persecuted by other religious groups, but there is some reason why the atheists were not able to defend themselves or spread their philosophy.
    I find this post very odd.
    Especially coming from you.

    You call atheism a 'belief system' and a 'philosophy' in this post...
    Yet, you're often one of the first people to point out that atheism itself only means a lack of belief in God and has no philosophy of it's own. A person can be called an atheist, yet still believe in all kinds of mumbo jumbo.

    This post is very, very odd.
    Don't put too fine a point on it. All I mean is a society where most people are atheist. Those societies didn't seem to take hold or last very long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Those societies didn't seem to take hold or last very long.
    Asking why that may be and whether or not non-believing societies today would have better odds of longevity as opposed to a time when less education and higher superstition reigned would be worthy of its own thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    There are quite a few examples of civilizations with aspects of doubt about Gods (atheism isn't a belief system...there is no system to it)
    Yes, and with some aspect of being left handed, or to like a good glass of wine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Much of our funding of logic and reasoning comes from atheist such as Protagoras and Epicurus.
    I'd like to see the pie chart of knowledge versus atheism. My guess is that would put this sentence in a funny logical perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Skepticism, a form of atheistic thinking has been part of the fiber of many prior cultures--not only the Greeks, but even in some surprising places, such as during Islam's Golden Age with people such as Omar Khayyam.
    Skepticism completely elude Atheist and Theist. There is no rational proof of God (nor definition BTW), and still your skepticism reach the absolute zero in terms of God.

    You'd better re-read Harold post, because you still miss the point. Atheism is not likely to succeed, because it is not self-coherent, and totally void of anything.
    Evolution do teach you that collective intelligence (the Sapiens) need a organizing protocol to handle the communities.
    Atheism is not even a protocol. Theism is. Even if as irrational, at least it is a proven successful way to proceed to the next generation, and we are adapted to it. Some here are so adapted that they believe that god does not exist without proof whatsoever. But they may worship Ayn Rand, or invisible hand of market in the stead of the old God. What a joke.

    Funny thing is that skepticism, which is the true nature of science, is never gonna be any more successful , evolution wise, that raw fanaticism. In fact, it is the opposite, bullies and uneducated got more children, because skeptics tends to think twice, or trice.
    I doubt social science can be of any use to write the new Bible, unless you've come up with a theory of perfect governance.

    Meme wise, intelligence will always tend to comprehension, understanding and forgiveness, tolerance. Any group of people that weak will just go down history drain in an instant.

    Intelligence is not an ever growing quantity, nor anything else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,800
    I'm going to lock this thread for now, as it has devolved to nothing but insults. I think I'll come back later and sort out the nonsense and move it into a different thread, because I kind of liked the OP. Too bad it could not be discussed in a rational manner.
    sculptor and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,800
    As promised, I have moved the off topic and squabbling posts to a separate thread (in trash can). This thread will be about ancient atheism movements. Having determined if such movement exist, then we can discuss the reasons why they did or did not thrive. If you wish to discuss the merits of atheism vs theism, or modern atheism movements, go to the other thread.

    I had assumed that there were no significant atheistic societies, but it may be more complicated than that. This article discusses some ancient philosophies which may contain elements of atheism, but I'm not sure they are the same as what we think of as atheism. I'll have to study in greater detail. History of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    I've been busy, so I may have missed a few things. First of all...my question wasn't implying that atheism was a bad thing or something. It was just bad diction. Second...thx for all topic related answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Not sure why my comment was removed.

    People of the time would have been more aggressive in stamping it out due to their faith system. In an age when people could be put to death for heresy, it's no small wonder that not only were they hesitant to come out, but they may have been squelched by the church to avoid more atheistic propagation.

    My point being that atheism would have been more of an underground activity in certain places. Here in the states, we can take out billboards promoting it if we wanted to. We have laws to protect that right. The same would not have been true in "ancient" times. Speaking out against the establishment was far more dangerous.

    I suppose it's the same story with things like homosexuality. You probably wouldn't get proper reporting in a place like Uganda, where people are too afraid to admit their practices.
    Headdresser likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    when we try to look back to ancient
    do common words like "worship" have the same meaning
    I've seen many an archaeologist(what I considered to be) haphazardly using that term for ancient monumental archetecture with what I considered to be a lot of speculation on very little evidence.

    I never found dieties in TAOism
    does that imply atheism?

    how about "sacred"
    If all life is seen as "sacred" does that imply a deity?
    or can it just stand on it's own
    Respect all life.?

    If we cannot be sure what should be associated with theism
    how then, do we arrive at it's opposite?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    Post below is the "edited" version. Seems like I unintentionally posted both.
    Last edited by Headdresser; April 30th, 2013 at 11:08 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I never found dieties in TAOism
    does that imply atheism?
    Yes, it seems so.
    "Traditional conceptions of Tao are not to be confused with the Western concepts of theism." - Wiki

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If we cannot be sure what should be associated with theism
    how then, do we arrive at it's opposite?
    Theism is a belief in god/s.
    The opposite would be a disbelief in god/s.
    The neutral position would be a lack of belief in god/s - or 'atheism'.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not sure why my comment was removed.

    People of the time would have been more aggressive in stamping it out due to their faith system. In an age when people could be put to death for heresy, it's no small wonder that not only were they hesitant to come out, but they may have been squelched by the church to avoid more atheistic propagation.

    My point being that atheism would have been more of an underground activity in certain places.
    Would it have been more of an undergroud ativity than another religion? Heretical sects did survive persecution in some cases, even becoming dominant over the original sect. Is there a reason this would not happen with atheism?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Would it have been more of an undergroud ativity than another religion? Heretical sects did survive persecution in some cases, even becoming dominant over the original sect. Is there a reason this would not happen with atheism?
    Since atheism is a lack of belief then it doesn't have the binding ties that a counter-religion would.
    The only common ground would be the absence of belief, therefore no secret meetings, no shared rituals, no articles of faith.
    Effectively each atheist would be on his/ her own rather than part of an "underground movement": when you're vastly outnumbered AND on your own you keep your head well down.
    seagypsy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    I think the fact that a protocol may it be based on idoeology, religion or tradition, is beneficial for a society, was one of the most important reasons that this protocol giving stuff is defended or promoted. But I also think that an overdose of this stuff can be harmfull for a society. I think it depends which kind of society type we are speaking about. Religion is not that important for open societies and I assume the more open a society becomes the less important religion becomes, not in the private, but in the public sector. Which brings me back to the ancient middle east. I usually pictured it as a period of strict laws based on tradition and religion and great godliness. Maybe it is not sight historians have today...I dunno.I start to think...that it may have been a much more liberal period than I pictured it. Because, if we assume that most bible writers have been...more or less conservative people...the fact that they seem to be constantly unhappy with the society, peoples morals, behavior, even the actions of many kings, including Salomon in his last years...it appears to me that this was a quiet liberal period. Unlike other societies, whose high priests or god-kings, are the one who told us something about there sociéty, the bible record sometimes seem to be written by...lets call them the opposition...or people whose standarts moral and godliness where far beyond those of average people. But ass you said...these are the scriptures that survived. So, how I see it, there are 2 ways of interpreting the constant complains of the biblewriters about sin.A. The moral standards in that society are very high...and not sinning is very important.Or...and I tend to follow that idea...B. The moral standarts in that sociéty are kind of low...and some people despérately wished th em to be higher. An example...the fact that cross dressing was prohibited can A. Tell us that this society was very strict about those matters...stricter than others.B. Tellus that in this society there have been so many cross dressers that an anti-cross dressing movment arose.I know that B is not the obvious one but it is also plausible, i think. Plus the fact that a unordinary high number of religious groups, sects and cults arose in ancient judea, of which most of them pictured the mainstream society as way to worldly...maybe because it was more tolerant, for example about atheism thanwe may think. I could imagine the "liberal" period started as the babylonian jewish societies returned...i guess they have been the strict and conservative ones....and ended with the invasion of the romans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not sure why my comment was removed.

    People of the time would have been more aggressive in stamping it out due to their faith system. In an age when people could be put to death for heresy, it's no small wonder that not only were they hesitant to come out, but they may have been squelched by the church to avoid more atheistic propagation.

    My point being that atheism would have been more of an underground activity in certain places.
    Would it have been more of an undergroud ativity than another religion? Heretical sects did survive persecution in some cases, even becoming dominant over the original sect. Is there a reason this would not happen with atheism?

    I don't know. I do sort of wonder about the way different religions view one another as opposed to the way religions view atheism. In the eyes of X religion, is it worse to be Y religion or atheist?

    Is there really any realistic way of measuring something like that anyways?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post

    I don't know. I do sort of wonder about the way different religions view one another as opposed to the way religions view atheism. In the eyes of X religion, is it worse to be Y religion or atheist?

    Is there really any realistic way of measuring something like that anyways?
    A survey maybe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,399
    I don't know. I do sort of wonder about the way different religions view one another as opposed to the way religions view atheism. In the eyes of X religion, is it worse to be Y religion or atheist?


    That really depends a lot on the associations between the religion. For example, most Muslims consider Christians better than Atheist because at least they (and Jews) are worshiping the same God. If, however, you asked a Muslim to compare a Yazidi, who they belief worships the devil, to an Atheist, they'd put the Atheist well above the Yazidi.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't know. I do sort of wonder about the way different religions view one another as opposed to the way religions view atheism. In the eyes of X religion, is it worse to be Y religion or atheist?


    That really depends a lot on the associations between the religion. For example, most Muslims consider Christians better than Atheist because at least they (and Jews) are worshiping the same God. If, however, you asked a Muslim to compare a Yazidi, who they belief worships the devil, to an Atheist, they'd put the Atheist well above the Yazidi.
    That's very interesting. I know there are different "levels" of things like sin (hence, why the derogatory term for gay people is the same as the term for a bundle of kindling in the UK), but my knowledge of religion doesn't even scratch the surface. I know most of the world believes it in some way, but I would rather listen to my cousin talk about his Pokemon collection than listen to religious dogma. Overwhelming apathy consumes me.

    That having been said, I do find myself very interested in how the acceptance of a religion affects a population. I guess I have to be kind of interested in that being an American. It seems religions in which I do not believe dictate a great deal of my life.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Yeehaww. S1(mpl)-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Would an atheist in an aggressively religious society admit it?
    Only if they like to be the main course at the BBQ cookout...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    [QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;416126]
    There are quite a few examples of civilizations with aspects of doubt about Gods (atheism isn't a belief system...there is no system to it).


    I think Headdresser did a good job of describing the belief system of an atheist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headdresser View Post
    I do know about an Egyptian movement who promoted the idea that the real life is not the afterlife and that we should search for happiness until we alive and I do know about Epicure who was not an Atheist but promoted the idea that gods may not interfere with human business and that things happening on earth are caused by natural processes. But...I think none of this groups...have been atheists (as far as I know.)
    So my question...Is it possible that the term godless refer to one of this movements or maybe another movement you want to tell us about
    Thx...for answering.

    All the theists are busy trying to position themselves in the afterlife. Regardless of what theist faith they are, they all agree that that is the goal to be seeking after, and want to cooperate toward that goal.


    Atheists throw a monkey wrench in the machine by not caring about the afterlife, because many atheist belief systems don't allow that any such place exists anyway. It's natural that all the afterlife seekers would want those people to just be quiet.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    All the theists are busy trying to position themselves in the afterlife. Regardless of what theist faith they are, they all agree that that is the goal to be seeking after, and want to cooperate toward that goal.
    Atheists throw a monkey wrench in the machine by not caring about the afterlife, because many atheist belief systems don't allow that any such place exists anyway.
    Once again: that's a lack of belief, not a belief system.
    There are, maybe surprisingly, atheists who actually do believe in sort of "afterlife", maybe reincarnation 1.
    But atheism, qua atheism, is not a belief system.


    1 Which possibly helps reinforce the idea that atheism is not a single "system".
    All that all atheists have "in common" is a lack of belief in "god" - to varying degrees.
    It's no more a belief system than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 29th, 2013 at 06:45 PM.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    All the theists are busy trying to position themselves in the afterlife. ... .
    I am the living proof that your above quoted is wrong.

    Unless, by "afterlife" you mean that my atoms and molecules will be recycled within our shared co-evolutionary biom.

    Blanket "all" statments are usually wrong and detrimental to clarity of thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,800
    Okay. What is the topic of this thread? Geez.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Okay. What is the topic of this thread? Geez.
    At least it wasn't me this time...

    did you notice that your post went through twice? when it asks you to if you want to leave the page, and you click "leave page" it posts your message twice. So it's best to just close that dialogue box or click "stay on page". it has done this to me 3 times now.


    I don't necessarily assume this to be true but just a suggestion from another perspective, it may be that atheism was the actual norm and so discussion of it wasn't considered worth mentioning. The people of ancient times were trying to establish their faith and so rather than mention the non believers so much, they instead were trying to explain why they believed or were trying to create something to believe in. And they likely were not getting the amount of resistance that they get today, because life being as it was back then, faith actually was brought improvement (hope, unity and emotional fortitude) to the lifestyles of those who were oppressed, so accepting the notions of a god wasn't seen as anything that would cause them harm. But things are different now and the nature of belief has changed, it is no longer used as a tool of liberation but has been taken by those in control and turned into tool of oppression so now there is plenty of resistance to it.

    These days, the majority of people are people of faith, so IF there was a philosophy or system to being atheist and a book of rules to follow, there wouldn't need to be a lot of pages pointing out that there are people of faith. It's common knowledge. Sure they would get mention here and there, but if the ones writing the rules were prudent, they would be more diligent at promoting the lack of faith rather than attacking faith as a primary means of teaching.

    Mudslinging against the competition is never as effective as positive presentation of the idea you are promoting. You can't insult your audience into your favor. It just doesn't work that way.

    Like I said, I don't necessarily believe this to be the case, but since we have little to go on besides speculation and a book that has questionable credibility to start with, offering up an alternative possibility seemed within reason. Take it or leave it. Makes no difference to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,800
    Yeah, I noticed the duplicate post. I deleted it too, but somehow the deletion didn't take. There, that did it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    2147 Gees Mill Road, Conyers, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2
    From my point of view this passage indicates that the knowledge of atheism is not a new one, else there would be no need to discussion it. For whatever goal it never caught on in a large way. If it had, then there would be antique evidence of people with that belief system. You must try crusader flags. It is also similar to Atheism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by mrl002 View Post
    If it had, then there would be antique evidence of people with that belief system.
    If by "belief system" you mean "atheism" then:
    1) we DO have antique evidence of atheism.
    2) atheism is NOT a belief system.

    You must try crusader flags. It is also similar to Atheism.
    How so?
    On the face of it (and given the stated motivations of the crusaders) this is a very strange claim.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; January 9th, 2018 at 01:04 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    athesim as a belief system must have existed but athesim by its definition still doesn't exist as people believe there is no god, no proof has been produced either way
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    athesim as a belief system
    Atheism isn't a belief system.

    must have existed but athesim by its definition still doesn't exist as people believe there is no god, no proof has been produced either way
    And wrong again.
    Atheism is NOT "the belief that "god" does not exist" (although it encompasses that1). Atheism also includes the lack of belief in "god".
    And proof has nothing whatsoever to do with it: it's about belief (or lack of). If there were proof then belief wouldn't required, it would knowledge or ignorance.
    By your argument (lack of proof to support a belief) then theism doesn't exist either - which it clearly does.

    1 And even at the extreme - hard atheism/ the actual belief that "god" does not exist - it's not a belief system.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And wrong again.
    Atheism is NOT "the belief that "god" does not exist" (although it encompasses that1). Atheism also includes the lack of belief in "god".
    And proof has nothing whatsoever to do with it: it's about belief (or lack of). If there were proof then belief wouldn't required, it would knowledge or ignorance.
    By your argument (lack of proof to support a belief) then theism doesn't exist either - which it clearly does.

    1 And even at the extreme - hard atheism/ the actual belief that "god" does not exist - it's not a belief system.
    see any form of religion or anti religion works on the basis of what religion says are law

    in a religion if its law states god is in human and he was here 15000 years back, then the followers believe this law and follow it, religion always come to believing a system, the follower choosing his opinion to say this religion is correct, he or she is there by choosing to believe in that law.
    same goes for aethism,

    "god does not exist"

    so people believe this system after an analysis from their own perspective and form the opinion, what you describe as just accept and no need to believe can only occur if the follower if blindly accepting the law with questioning.

    coz law is only acceptable if universally accepted or proven, mostly proven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,743
    No, the lack of belief in something is NOT a belief.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    see any form of religion or anti religion works on the basis of what religion says are law
    False (at least with regard to "anti-religion").

    in a religion if its law states god is in human and he was here 15000 years back, then the followers believe this law and follow it, religion always come to believing a system, the follower choosing his opinion to say this religion is correct, he or she is there by choosing to believe in that law.
    same goes for aethism
    Wrong. There are no laws (other legal/ civil ones that apply to any society) for atheism.

    "god does not exist"
    Atheism (as previously noted) also includes "I don't believe the claims that "god" does exist" - which is NOT the same as "I believe that "god" does not exist".

    so people believe this system after an analysis from their own perspective and form the opinion, what you describe as just accept and no need to believe can only occur if the follower if blindly accepting the law with questioning.
    There is no law with regard to either "I don't believe" OR even "I believe that "god" does not exist" both of these are personal views.

    coz law is only acceptable if universally accepted or proven, mostly proven.
    Total crap.
    And please, tell me which "laws" from religion have been "proven". You yourself admitted that there is no proof either way with regard to the existence of "god", thus, since since most (all?) religious diktats/ laws are predicated on the existence of "god" it follows that those laws aren't proven either (since they based on a false, i.e. unproven at best, premise).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    you are right saying , serious lack vocabulary skills in-terms of anti religion, this actually extends to my "laws of religion" phrase

    atheism lack of belief in god means, you have a opinion of the existence of god, even though not proven,

    if you say that you don't believe even though you don't have proof that god doesn't exist, its just a belief of lack of belief in existence of god

    in your last point you actually agree with me except the part where i include atheism in to it.

    atheism's diktat as you say is lack of belief in god without proof that god does not exist.

    so atheism is a theism that contrast all other theism's

    theism is belief in superhuman being, lack of belief in super human being is a part of opinions about super human beings,

    but i like this discussion , i don't believe in god either, still i don't have proof that god doesn't exist.once you prove it, thats when atheism transforms to what you describe it as even tough its still a theism
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    you are right saying , serious lack vocabulary skills in-terms of anti religion, this actually extends to my "laws of religion" phrase
    1 Atheism is not necessarily anti-religion. Atheism is the lack of belief in "god/s" (or the belief that they don't exist). Religion itself - pro and anti - is a different proposition.
    2 There are NO "laws" to atheism.

    atheism lack of belief in god means, you have a opinion of the existence of god, even though not proven,
    That "opinion" being "I'm not convinced the claims are correct therefore I don't believe". Hardly an opinion.
    Why do you persist on bringing "proof" into it?

    if you say that you don't believe even though you don't have proof that god doesn't exist, its just a belief of lack of belief in existence of god
    Correct. And...?
    If you say that you DO believe that's also still just a belief: because there is no proof either way.

    in your last point you actually agree with me except the part where i include atheism in to it.
    So?

    atheism's diktat as you say is lack of belief in god without proof that god does not exist.
    Wrong. If one follows a religion then one must follow the laws of that religion. Atheism is the personal lack of belief - i.e. one becomes an atheist by simply not believing, there is no requirement by atheism itself (since it's not a movement, it's not organised, it's not formalised).

    so atheism is a theism that contrast all other theism's
    The clue is in the name: A-theism - i.e. it's NOT a theism.

    theism is belief in superhuman being, lack of belief in super human being is a part of opinions about super human beings,
    See above about "opinion".

    still i don't have proof that god doesn't exist.
    So what? Theists don't have proof "god" does exit.

    that once you prove it, thats when atheism transforms to what you describe it as even tough its still a theism
    Wrong again, on at least two counts.

    Still waiting for a response to this one: And please, tell me which "laws" from religion have been "proven".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    Super human? As in super saiyajin?? sorry sorry...

    Mr gdpvk, you can't prove the inexistence of something whose existence is not proven.... is not logical...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    any statement or theory is just a belief if you don't have proof,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    M_gabriela yes you can,

    showing any superhuman or higher being like kami sama is just a version of piccolo is the proof,

    i agree long process, and may be almost impossible but you never know
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    any statement or theory is just a belief if you don't have proof,
    Sure thing.. but an atheist doesn't need to prove why he doesn't believe in God. An atheist is an atheist because there is no proof of the existence of God... so what does an atheist should prove?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    An atheist is an atheist because there is no proof of the existence of God... so
    there is no proof of existence of god, but there is no proof that god doesn't exist either,

    the last scene in MIB one shows that paricular fictional universe was inside a ball held by a creature(x), the thing is the x may not have created atom, but may have created the ball using the material existing in its world, here in that fictional world x can be god, all you have to do in that world is to prove x doesn't exist for atheism to be a principle of logic and not a principle of belief in MIB universe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,743
    Atheism is the LACK of belief in god(s)

    Its the same as not liking football. You say there are rules to not liking something, what are the universal rule for not liking football?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    An atheist is an atheist because there is no proof of the existence of God... so
    there is no proof of existence of god, but there is no proof that god doesn't exist either,

    the last scene in MIB one shows that paricular fictional universe was inside a ball held by a creature(x), the thing is the x may not have created atom, but may have created the ball using the material existing in its world, here in that fictional world x can be god, all you have to do in that world is to prove x doesn't exist for atheism to be a principle of logic and not a principle of belief in MIB universe
    But how do you prove the inexistence of an idea? If you have a hypothesis regarding the existence of certain idea... then the next step is to prove the existence of that idea...
    What I mean is: you start from the point where the idea doesn't exist.. then you pose it exists... ergo you have to prove it exists....
    I'm really confused as to how anyone should prove the inexistence of something that, in the first place, doesn't exist because it is an idea that needs proofs to corroborate its existence
    know what I mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    all you have to do in that world is to prove x doesn't exist for atheism to be a principle of logic and not a principle of belief in MIB universe
    Wrong. Again (although you are pretty consistent on this score).
    Proving the non-existence of something (especially a "god") is nigh impossible (if not actually so): you'd have to know every cubic inch of the universe and all "other universes" and anything "outside the universe" to state categorically that "god" doesn't exist.
    And atheism is a principle of logic as it currently stands - "I'm not convinced by the argument that "god" exists, ergo I don't believe the claims". (Your statement - from a self-professed atheist - is, at best, a bit silly).

    showing any superhuman or higher being like kami sama is just a version of piccolo is the proof
    Please lay out the logic whereby that is a proof.
    (Because I'm pretty sure that it's deeply flawed).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    There's not even a consensual notion of god.... What are atheist suppose to disproof? every ad-hoc idea that comes to the rescue?

    please.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    you'd have to know every cubic inch of the universe and all "other universes" and anything "outside the universe" to state categorically that "god" doesn't exist.
    at-last you have arrived to the point i was making,
    as long as there are thing unknown you can never deny an existence of something, hence historically people who didn't believe god existed or was in doubt would have gone back to believing in superhuman being at-least until everything they experienced that was mysterious is explained scientifically, this is what i meant proof that god doesn't exist

    i thought since kamisama is a version of picolo he should be considered alien and not god, he didnt create earth in dragonball , did he?

    FYI i am not an atheist, i just don't care about existence of superhuman beings, as i have never faced one, or even known someone who has faced it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    There's not even a consensual notion of god.... What are atheist suppose to disproof? every ad-hoc idea that comes to the rescue?

    please.....
    you should, that's what a principle of nature(here i am considering god doesn't exist equal god doesn't influence nature) means at least if you believe in science and logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    It's very difficult to study such ideas... and tiring.... specially because they are conisdered as truth when they are not yet corroborated.... and change continously through time....they are very hard to approach... that's the truth...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    at-last you have arrived to the point i was making
    If that truly was your point then you consistently failed to support - let alone make - it.
    You have persistently noted it as a failing of atheism, yet it applies even more so to theism.
    Theists claim that "god" exists - with zero evidence. All theists say is they don't believe the theists' claims.
    Which is more rational:
    to make an unsupported claim and follow a set of rules based on that claim or
    to not believe the claim?

    as long as there are thing unknown you can never deny an existence of something, hence historically people who didn't believe god existed or was in doubt would have gone back to believing in superhuman being at-least until everything they experienced that was mysterious is explained scientifically, this is what i meant proof that god doesn't exist
    One more time: atheists (generally) DO NOT CLAIM THAT "GOD" DOESN'T EXIST. They simply state that they don't accept the claim made that he/ she/ it does.

    i thought since kamisama is a version of picolo he should be considered alien and not god, he didnt create earth in dragonball , did he?
    I had no idea who Piccolo was until I Googled but: there is a distinct similarity between Piccolo and Kamisama - given the evidence they both appear to be entirely fictional.

    FYI i am not an atheist
    Yet you stated exactly that in an earlier post - i don't believe in god either. If you don't believe in "god" then you are, by definition, an atheist.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; January 23rd, 2018 at 02:43 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    you should, that's what a principle of nature(here i am considering god doesn't exist equal god doesn't influence nature) means at least if you believe in science and logic.
    Wrong.
    (And, thus far) your grasp of logic seem to be very slight.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    all gods in all religion are from some where and does something, as a people of science it is important to prove that there is no act of god and explain everything by science.

    coz it is irresponsible to just say a statement and not prove it. especially something that affects more than 60% of worlds population
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Wrong.
    (And, thus far) your grasp of logic seem to be very slight.
    please explain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    as a people of science it is important to prove that there is no act of god and explain everything by science.
    Using your own logic (or lack thereof), you need to prove that unicorns do not exist and have never existed... Same with bigfoot, and dragons... Do you see the error in your thoughts?

    [QUOTEgdpvk;612242]coz it is irresponsible to just say a statement and not prove it. especially something that affects more than 60% of worlds population[/QUOTE]

    I agree, all the religious folks out there should be required to prove their god(s) is/are real! It's damn irresponsible of them to just claim that they are and not provide some sort of proof.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    coz it is irresponsible to just say a statement and not prove it. especially something that affects more than 60% of worlds population
    You right...

    And still...they demand science for answers when is religion the one making such statements..... what about that....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,743
    I though the unicorns and Sasquatch won the outhouse races this last weekend though!!!!
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    so as a corollary to your statement am i to assume if something is hard to prove , you can just claim that statement to be true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    Hello...!!!!!
    i would say that is very possible. Religion is proof of it

    Edit
    Actually not religion but the idea of a god
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post

    And still...they demand science for answers when is religion the one making such statements..... what about that....
    yes, it seems unreasonable, but still it is our job to prove where ever and as much as possible
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    Hello...!!!!!
    i would say that is very possible. Religion is proof of it

    Edit
    Actually not religion but the idea of a god
    the moment you say this god becomes true
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    Pssss.
    Let's try something different...
    New idea: i have a lot of money in my pocket.
    Checking...
    Still broke...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post

    And still...they demand science for answers when is religion the one making such statements..... what about that....
    yes, it seems unreasonable, but still it is our job to prove where ever and as much as possible
    And science has done it many times....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    all gods in all religion are from some where and does something
    Since they have not been shown to exist then claiming that they "come from somewhere and do something" irrational.

    is, as a people of science it is important to prove that there is no act of god
    No, it's up to whoever makes the claim. Thus the onus is on theists to show that their claims are true.

    coz it is irresponsible to just say a statement and not prove it. especially something that affects more than 60% of worlds population
    Correct. It's highly irresponsible to claim that "god" exists with zero evidence.

    The above is an example of your poor grasp of logic.
    Religion(s) make the claim yet you persist in stating that it's up to science to show the claim is false. That's not how it works.
    If I claim I have a live dragon in my bedroom are people justified in accepting that as true until someone "proves it false"?
    (Answer: not if they're rational).

    the moment you say this god becomes true
    False. (Another example of your poor logic).

    so as a corollary to your statement am i to assume if something is hard to prove , you can just claim that statement to be true.
    And another - if something is hard to prove then although it may be claimed to be true it's not logical (and certainly not a corollary) to accept it as true.

    I note that you haven't responded to my comment about you actually being an atheist...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    yes it has, and my point is it must continue

    coz people living in conservative society, especially children wont be able get out of that cycle unless science proves as much claims wrong as possible
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    atheism
    ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
    noun
    noun: atheism
    disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

    why should atheist be considered rational if they cant disprove god yet don't believe in them
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    yes it has, and my point is it must continue
    What must continue?
    If you mean "belief in "god"" then you're wrong:

    coz people living in conservative society, especially children wont be able get out of that cycle unless science proves as much claims wrong as possible
    And wrong again: people should be educated to not accept unfounded claims.
    I.e. as noted several times the claim that "god" exists has zero evidence thus there is no rational reason to accept that claim.
    For information (which may take the thread in a different direction): "god" is highly nebulous concept which makes it hard for science to disprove (as noted by M_Gabriela there is no universally accepted definition).
    As soon as someone defines specific attributes/ properties of this "god" THEN they can be investigated by science and shown to be false (and, it should be noted, this has been done time and time again until all that's left is a "god of the gaps).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    atheism
    ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
    noun
    noun: atheism
    disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

    why should atheist be considered rational if they cant disprove god yet don't believe in them
    And still wrong.
    If theists can't prove "god" then why should anyone believe the claim?
    Why do you think theists should be considered rational when they can't prove their claim but still believe it?
    See my earlier example of the dragon.
    Or, if I tell you that I can fly by flapping my hands and that just last night I flew to Jupiter and back are you claiming that people SHOULD believe me until I'm proven wrong?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    people should be educated to not accept unfounded claims.
    I.e. as noted several times the claim that "god" exists has zero evidence thus there is no rational reason to accept that claim.
    For information (which may take the thread in a different direction): "god" is highly nebulous concept which makes it hard for science to disprove (as noted by M_Gabriela there is no universally accepted definition).
    As soon as someone defines specific attributes/ properties of this "god" THEN they can be investigated by science and shown to be false (and, it should be noted, this has been done time and time again until all that's left is a "god of the gaps).
    i accept this, but children mostly start their life believing in unfounded claims, which if atheism follows , it will be no different from other religion, and will be a good reason to reject atheism
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    religious people are not rational when it comes to their god
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    i accept this, but children mostly start their life believing in unfounded claims
    And then they learn how to be rational.
    Or are you also suggesting that we should also continue to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, fairies...

    which if atheism follows , it will be no different from other religion
    Atheism is NOT a religion.

    and will be a good reason to reject atheism
    There is no good reason to reject atheism.
    (And, again, I find it strange that you continue to argue against atheism when you yourself are an atheist while also claiming to be logical).

    religious people are not rational when it comes to their god
    Okay... so you're claiming now that no one is rational? Neither theists nor atheists?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    44
    point one, people become seriously rational and stick to science when it comes to economics, so Santa Claus is out the windows by the time you learn how money works

    atheism is not a religion but it has a principle (lack of belief in god)

    reason for rejection of atheism will be if this principle cannot be proven

    which science has done as much as possible, but still people claiming god will probably show some random event with high odds, or point at something unknown,
    this is what must be disproved.

    you cannot runaway from a claim and say i am rational.

    but i am going to stop here i dont see an end to this since points made here is you dont need to prove something coz something is not proved yet

    which my from my opinion shouldnt stop people from proving

    atheists have better prospects of facing reality than others but since atheists have got it better i feel its their responsibility to make other people see that atheism is true
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,915
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    point one, people become seriously rational and stick to science when it comes to economics, so Santa Claus is out the windows by the time you learn how money works
    Then why isn't "god" also out of the window by the time you learn how logic works?
    (Oh and I doubt - given the multiple and numerous market failures, scams etc that happen - that "seriously rational" applies to economic as such - much of it is wishful thinking and cherry-picking, as evidenced by various "schools" of economic thought and theory).

    atheism is not a religion but it has a principle (lack of belief in god)
    Yet you referred to it as such. And you're wrong about "principle".
    One becomes an atheist by not believing. It's not a "principle" it's simply a state one finds oneself in.

    reason for rejection of atheism will be if this principle cannot be proven
    Then why - again - are you also not arguing against religion? The FUNDAMENTAL principle of all religions (and in this case it is a principle) cannot be proven, ergo the entire thing irrational.

    which science has done as much as possible, but still people claiming god will probably show some random event with high odds, or point at something unknown, this is what must be disproved.
    Nonsense.
    All you're showing here is basic lack of rationality: there is no reason to believe something for which there is no evidence (and a great deal of counter evidence).

    you cannot runaway from a claim and say i am rational.
    What claim are you referring to?

    points made here is you dont need to prove something coz something is not proved yet
    This makes no sense.

    atheists have better prospects of facing reality than others but since atheists have got it better i feel its their responsibility to make other people see that atheism is true
    And yet, throughout, you have argued against atheism (despite - persistently - failing to acknowledge that you yourself are an atheist and despite failing to make any points against it that don't happen to be more damning to theism).
    It's not an atheists' responsibility and I have no idea what you mean "atheism is true", (other than "atheism actually exists").
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; January 30th, 2018 at 02:02 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by gdpvk View Post
    but i am going to stop here i dont see an end to this since points made here is you dont need to prove something coz something is not proved yet.
    If this is what you wanted to really express then it is an absurd... i notest that like me, you are not english native, and sometimes we use words that don't fully describe what we want to say. May be this is the case
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    187
    Or may be he just wanted to say that we are not forced to prove everything that hasn't yet been proven... if that is the case... then of course not. We have free will to do what ever we want as long as we respect others...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. the BEGINNING OF ATHEISM
    By tomjones in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 20th, 2010, 12:53 AM
  2. the best of atheism
    By dejawolf in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 18th, 2009, 04:38 PM
  3. atheism: ?
    By slayer-72 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 8th, 2009, 06:37 PM
  4. Atheism
    By Obviously in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: June 19th, 2008, 04:23 AM
  5. Atheism
    By geezer in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: November 27th, 2005, 04:03 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •