Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 136

Thread: Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists?

  1. #1 Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists? 
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    Atheisim is not like religeon; You can choose to switch from Judisim to Christianity because you relate to the religeon more. But with Atheisim, you can't choose to switch, because you don't really believe in anything Supernatural/Spirtual. P.S. I'm talking about the Atheisim that Skeptics prefer to Believe in.


    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    An atheist doesn't believe in any supernatural power, but that doesn't mean he/she is not a believer. Atheists believe that there is no God. Atheists and religious people of any faith have this is common: They think they know (and own) the truth. Agnostics, on the other hand, argue that the existence of a supernatural power is as unprovable as unfalsifiable, and therefore as unknown as inconsequential.

    Can an atheist become religious? Sometimes it's easier to look at evidence at hand, instead of trying a theoretical analysis. The simple answer is "yes", based on experience. I know people who have been just as stern in their belief in the non-existence of God as they are now in their belief of His existence (and vice versa). Figure that...

    I see your point, though. Changing from one religion to another (usually related religion) is a completely different matter than switching between belief and disbelief. All such transitions are known to happen, though, usually triggered by a life-changing event.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    An atheist doesn't believe in any supernatural power, but that doesn't mean he/she is not a believer. Atheists believe that there is no God.
    wrong! another one that does know the meaning of atheism an atheist has no belief I repeat that no believe in god/gods, he also has no belief in fairies and elves etc.., thats not to say that any of those things couldn't exist, it is just simply unreasonable to have a belief in such things. atheist, simply lack belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    Atheists and religious people of any faith have this is common:
    wrong! again your not doing to well are you. there is nothing to compare between the two, atheists do not invoke any concept of god to explain any phenomenon or solve any philosophical conundrum, and they see no compelling reason to.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    They think they know (and own) the truth.
    and yet again wrong, atheist do not profess to have the truth, it is simply that it is unreasonable, without further qualifing evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    Agnostics, on the other hand, argue that the existence of a supernatural power is as unprovable as unfalsifiable, and therefore as unknown as inconsequential.
    an atheist is simply someone who does not posit a god-concept to explain anything or solve any problem, it is not mutually exclusive with agnostic. You can be agnostic with respect to some god-concepts while maintaining atheism toward them all.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    Can an atheist become religious? Sometimes it's easier to look at evidence at hand, instead of trying a theoretical analysis. The simple answer is "yes",
    the simple answer is no not without a severe mental trauma such as a blow to the head nobody goes from the rational to the irrational.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    based on experience. I know people who have been just as stern in their belief in the non-existence of God as they are now in their belief of His existence (and vice versa). Figure that...
    there is a difference between an atheist and an unbeliever, although anybody who lacks belief in gods is technically an atheist, if they have never questioned or studied then they are'nt truely atheist, just nonbelievers.
    you can go from religious to atheist, but not the other way atheists, just dont convert, it's not rational.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    I see your point, though. Changing from one religion to another (usually related religion) is a completely different matter than switching between belief and disbelief. All such transitions are known to happen, though, usually triggered by a life-changing event.
    and what a life changing event a blow to the head would be, brain trauma, not nice, and religion, oh my god. pun intended
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    An atheist doesn't believe in any supernatural power, but that doesn't mean he/she is not a believer. Atheists believe that there is no God.
    wrong! another one that does know the meaning of atheism an atheist has no belief I repeat that no believe in god/gods, he also has no belief in fairies and elves etc.., thats not to say that any of those things couldn't exist, it is just simply unreasonable to have a belief in such things. atheist, simply lack belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    Atheists and religious people of any faith have this is common:
    wrong! again your not doing to well are you. there is nothing to compare between the two, atheists do not invoke any concept of god to explain any phenomenon or solve any philosophical conundrum, and they see no compelling reason to.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    They think they know (and own) the truth.
    and yet again wrong, atheist do not profess to have the truth, it is simply that it is unreasonable, without further qualifing evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    Agnostics, on the other hand, argue that the existence of a supernatural power is as unprovable as unfalsifiable, and therefore as unknown as inconsequential.
    an atheist is simply someone who does not posit a god-concept to explain anything or solve any problem, it is not mutually exclusive with agnostic. You can be agnostic with respect to some god-concepts while maintaining atheism toward them all.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    Can an atheist become religious? Sometimes it's easier to look at evidence at hand, instead of trying a theoretical analysis. The simple answer is "yes",
    the simple answer is no not without a severe mental trauma such as a blow to the head nobody goes from the rational to the irrational.
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    based on experience. I know people who have been just as stern in their belief in the non-existence of God as they are now in their belief of His existence (and vice versa). Figure that...
    there is a difference between an atheist and an unbeliever, although anybody who lacks belief in gods is technically an atheist, if they have never questioned or studied then they are'nt truely atheist, just nonbelievers.
    you can go from religious to atheist, but not the other way atheists, just dont convert, it's not rational.
    Not this crap again!
    Listen. Atheism is a belief. A belief that there is no God.
    Agnosticism is a belief that there may be a God, but evidence or lack thereof is inconclusive.
    Yes. You can be agnostic and have beliefs similar to that of atheists, but that doesn't mean you're atheist. They're two different concepts. One believes God does not exist. One believes God may not exist.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i think that as far as science is concerned the important distinction is between those who feel physical phenomena should be explained through natural explanations and those who allow supernatural explanations to spill over from the religious side of the divide

    imo the religion / atheism duality is a false one
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Not this crap again!
    Listen. Atheism is a belief. A belief that there is no God.
    Agnosticism is a belief that there may be a God, but evidence or lack thereof is inconclusive.
    Yes. You can be agnostic and have beliefs similar to that of atheists, but that doesn't mean you're atheist. They're two different concepts. One believes God does not exist. One believes God may not exist.
    Sorry you have it all wrong, an Atheist is not something that you so much are. Rather, it's something you are from a Theistic perspective. Ultimately the word only says what you're not, that the term "Theist" is not applicable to you.
    the one, true definition of 'Atheist' is 'without belief'.

    A-Theist.

    The "A" prefix means without/non/aint got no.
    As in....
    Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
    Amoral=without moral.(not a belief theres no morals)
    Apolitical=not political.(not a belief theres no politics)
    Atypical=not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
    Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
    Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)

    thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    Come on Guys/Gals, atleast answer my question after debating (Yet Again!) about whether Atheisim is a religeon or not. Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists or are they Born with that kind of thinking? Basically do you believe that the 'Faith Gene' has such an affect on what people think?
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists or are they Born with that kind of thinking?
    I think there is a third possibility. They are not born with that kind of thinking, but simply come to the conclusion based on their experiences. That would not be a choice would it? How would one decide to believe something?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Come on Guys/Gals, atleast answer my question after debating (Yet Again!) about whether Atheisim is a religeon or not. Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists or are they Born with that kind of thinking? Basically do you believe that the 'Faith Gene' has such an affect on what people think?
    i thought M had already answered your question : atheists have become believers and vice versa, but i think we're probably talking about the exception rather than the rule - people tend to stick with what they're comfortable with and it probably takes a shock event to shake them out of it

    i doubt whether genetics enters the picture at all
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Come on Guys/Gals, atleast answer my question after debating (Yet Again!) about whether Atheisim is a religeon or not. Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists or are they Born with that kind of thinking? Basically do you believe that the 'Faith Gene' has such an affect on what people think?
    none of us are born with a belief in a god, we have no knowledge of god until it's indoctrinated into us in childhood, we are all born A-Theist atheist see above post with explanation. you cannot choose that which is the normal mind set, it's yours regardless but you can adopt another, be it forced on you as a child or you make a choice, but most of the time it's the former, unfortunately this is a form of child abuse putting the fear of death, from an all powerful being, pretty scary stuff for a child, and thus abusive.
    there is no such thing as a faith gene, but people do have a tendency to be lead, we do like to group together be part of a team etc.. with that and being indoctrinated/brainwashed no wonder it is so hard to remove this mind virus. if we allow children with there sponge like minds to be children and at a discernable age choose whatever path they wish we will have gone some way, in eradicating this disease.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Not this crap again!
    Listen. Atheism is a belief. A belief that there is no God.
    Agnosticism is a belief that there may be a God, but evidence or lack thereof is inconclusive.
    Yes. You can be agnostic and have beliefs similar to that of atheists, but that doesn't mean you're atheist. They're two different concepts. One believes God does not exist. One believes God may not exist.
    Sorry you have it all wrong, an Atheist is not something that you so much are. Rather, it's something you are from a Theistic perspective. Ultimately the word only says what you're not, that the term "Theist" is not applicable to you.
    the one, true definition of 'Atheist' is 'without belief'.

    A-Theist.

    The "A" prefix means without/non/aint got no.
    As in....
    Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
    Amoral=without moral.(not a belief theres no morals)
    Apolitical=not political.(not a belief theres no politics)
    Atypical=not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
    Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
    Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)

    thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it.
    Yes, they DON'T believe God exist.
    In other words, they believe God doesn't exist.
    Would you not agree that atheists believe God doesn't exist? If you say 'no', then you're saying they either believe God exists, know God exists, or know God doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Come on Guys/Gals, atleast answer my question after debating (Yet Again!) about whether Atheisim is a religeon or not. Basically do you believe that the 'Faith Gene' has such an affect on what people think?
    Sorry. Just pointing out flawed thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists or are they Born with that kind of thinking?
    Why of course atheists can choose not to be atheist. Some are so firm in their belief that they refuse to see other sides and thus may not even come close to converting (lest they have some 'experience'). And no, not everyone is atheist as soon as they're born. Some have converted from religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Basically do you believe that the 'Faith Gene' has such an affect on what people think?
    The 'Faith Gene' has a powerful effect on what people think, but not to the point that it controls their choices...at least not in some people.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Not this crap again!
    Listen. Atheism is a belief. A belief that there is no God.
    Agnosticism is a belief that there may be a God, but evidence or lack thereof is inconclusive.
    Yes. You can be agnostic and have beliefs similar to that of atheists, but that doesn't mean you're atheist. They're two different concepts. One believes God does not exist. One believes God may not exist.
    Sorry you have it all wrong, an Atheist is not something that you so much are. Rather, it's something you are from a Theistic perspective. Ultimately the word only says what you're not, that the term "Theist" is not applicable to you.
    the one, true definition of 'Atheist' is 'without belief'.

    A-Theist.

    The "A" prefix means without/non/aint got no.
    As in....
    Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
    Amoral=without moral.(not a belief theres no morals)
    Apolitical=not political.(not a belief theres no politics)
    Atypical=not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
    Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
    Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)

    thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it
    .

    Yes, they DON'T believe God exist.
    In other words, they believe God doesn't exist.
    Would you not agree that atheists believe God doesn't exist? If you say 'no', then you're saying they either believe God exists, know God exists, or know God doesn't exist.
    for some reason you refuse to understand, something so simple, an amoeba could.
    atheists do not say theres no god they simple have no belief, and thats no belief in god or gods, fairies, elves, etc.. because it is unreasonable and infantile to do so, it would be extremely foolish to say they believe god doesn't exist, the same as it would to say they believe fairies dont exist, because it would be impossible to prove. I think somebody already posted up and provide links to verify this.
    do I really need to treat you like an infant, for you to understand.
    I say again, thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    Susan I agree completely with you about how wrong it is to force a belief of death and suffering in a heart so Innocent and pure such a child's heart.

    The fairies thing, Funny story:
    I wanted to check if tooth fairies really exist, I used to be afraid of the dark so I didn't switch off the light, one day I lost a tooth, so I hid a camera between some books, place my tooth under my pillow and then went to sleep, next morning I found the Equivelant of a 'Quid' under my Pillow, I ran to the Video and watched it, there I found my father sneaking in and placing the money.[/quote]
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    Wow, is there a lot of heat in this mildly relevant discussion... and you wonder why there is so much hatred and anger in the world. Fanatism is another trait that can appear on both sides of the river. I guess I have been naive for not expecting such response on (anti-)religious matters.

    To those of you who are not familiar with the difference between atheism and agnosticism I suggest to look it up in a dictionary of your choice (and rip it to shreds for anger management, if you feel like it).

    To those of you who like to analyze the meaning of a word by its etymological roots, be careful. I tend to do the same thing, but it doesn't always make sense. Living language is as much subject to evolution as any living being (no offense). What might have been the original meaning of a word when it was created is not necessarily how it is used now. Again, familiarize yourself with the current usage of the word by reading a recently published dictionary of your choice. I find that especially the English language has many surprises to offer (for example the noun "ignorance" has little connection to the corresponding verb "to ignore", a deviation from cognates in other languages). This also means that the definition of terms in an English dictionary is not necessarily identical to the description of the corresponding term in other languages, e.g. the English "atheism", the German "Atheismus", and the Italian "ateismo" may be assumed identical in meaning, but I wouldn't bet on it. Languages are full of pit-falls.

    I understand that everyone has his/her own preference for the meaning and usage of certain words, but language is not owned by a single person. It rather reflects the practices and opinions of a majority (that includes people you disagree with).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    What might have been the original meaning of a word when it was created is not necessarily how it is used now. Again, familiarize yourself with the current usage of the word by reading a recently published dictionary of your choice. This also means that the definition of terms in an English dictionary is not necessarily identical to the description of the corresponding term in other languages, e.g. the English "atheism", the German "Atheismus", and the Italian "ateismo" may be assumed identical in meaning, but I wouldn't bet on it. Languages are full of pit-falls.
    the german dictionary I have Miene Liebe, states that atheism/Atheismus means denial of the existence of god, without god. and notes a maxist influence.
    http://www.dwds.de/?kompakt=1&qu=Atheismus
    and my spanish one atheism/ateismo( it's the same spelling, mind you, I am assuming they have the same meaning, as they are both catholic nations)Negation [denial) of the existence of God, without god, with a catholic influence.
    http://www.wordreference.com/definicion/ateismo
    all languages are going to have different meaning for different words, hell some languages dont have words for somethings and use the english like hindu.
    or is it a game of semantics you wish to play, we are talking english therefore the english dictionaries should be the ones we refer to, for instance the hebrew bible is totally different to the english version, hence why we have so many different translations, it is said that the qu'ran should only be read in arabic as it does not translate properly, so what's your point.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    It depends on why they were an atheist in the first place. An atheist who carefully examines the evidence and comes to the conclusion that there is no convincing reason to believe in god would not be able to simply decide one day to choose to believe in something even though they knew that there was no evidence to support it.

    On the other hand, many people don't really think about evidence and simply believe in whatever appeals to them. Some people want god to exist, so they believe in god. Some people don't want god to exist, so they choose to be an atheist. If someone is an atheist simply because they don't want god to exist, there's a good chance that they will change their mind at some point. It's incredibly sad, but a huge percentage of the population determines their beliefs this way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Not this crap again!
    Listen. Atheism is a belief. A belief that there is no God.
    Agnosticism is a belief that there may be a God, but evidence or lack thereof is inconclusive.
    Yes. You can be agnostic and have beliefs similar to that of atheists, but that doesn't mean you're atheist. They're two different concepts. One believes God does not exist. One believes God may not exist.
    Sorry you have it all wrong, an Atheist is not something that you so much are. Rather, it's something you are from a Theistic perspective. Ultimately the word only says what you're not, that the term "Theist" is not applicable to you.
    the one, true definition of 'Atheist' is 'without belief'.

    A-Theist.

    The "A" prefix means without/non/aint got no.
    As in....
    Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
    Amoral=without moral.(not a belief theres no morals)
    Apolitical=not political.(not a belief theres no politics)
    Atypical=not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
    Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
    Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)

    thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it
    .

    Yes, they DON'T believe God exist.
    In other words, they believe God doesn't exist.
    Would you not agree that atheists believe God doesn't exist? If you say 'no', then you're saying they either believe God exists, know God exists, or know God doesn't exist.
    for some reason you refuse to understand, something so simple, an amoeba could.
    atheists do not say theres no god they simple have no belief, and thats no belief in god or gods, fairies, elves, etc.. because it is unreasonable and infantile to do so, it would be extremely foolish to say they believe god doesn't exist, the same as it would to say they believe fairies dont exist, because it would be impossible to prove. I think somebody already posted up and provide links to verify this.
    do I really need to treat you like an infant, for you to understand.
    I say again, thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it
    So you're telling me that, as an atheist, you believe there is a God?
    Because you just said atheist don't say there isn't a God.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Susan wrote

    for some reason you refuse to understand, something so simple, an amoeba could.
    atheists do not say theres no god they simple have no belief,
    we are talking english therefore the english dictionaries should be the ones we refer to,
    Webster's dictionary
    Atheist: A person who believes there is no God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Webster's dictionary...
    The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Webster's dictionary...
    The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."
    Well both are equal.
    You do not believe in God.
    You believe there is no God.
    The only difference is one is more wordy.

    Both are negating the existence of God, just like 'I can't do anything' and 'I can do nothing' are negating that I can do something.

    Wake up and smell the coffee, atheists, you follow a belief.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Susan wrote

    for some reason you refuse to understand, something so simple, an amoeba could.
    atheists do not say theres no god they simple have no belief,
    we are talking english therefore the english dictionaries should be the ones we refer to,
    Webster's dictionary
    Atheist: A person who believes there is no God.
    depends on what websters your refering too

    1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

    2. A godless person. [Obs.] Syn. -- Infidel; unbeliever. See Infidel.

    Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
    http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/...h?WORD=atheist

    or this version

    "one who believes that there is no deity"

    Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition
    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=atheist

    you can check all english dictionary interpertations
    here http://www.onelook.com/?w=Atheist&ls=a

    there all slightly different, but all mean basically the same thing, however if you want a proper definition of atheist, then you need to check the atheists sites, who better to know what an atheist is than an athiest, you would not expect a muslim to tell you how to be christian would you, or vice versa.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    there all slightly different, but all mean basically the same thing
    Exactly. Different ways of saying the same thing. That's the beauty of language.
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    however if you want a proper definition of atheist, then you need to check the atheists sites
    Yea, just like you would check the M.A.D.D. site for objective information on drunk driving. Atheist will try to skew the definition so as to not appear as if they follow a belief, when the truth is, they do. Stop being blinded by a lie: atheism is a belief, whether you like it or not.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    who better to know what an atheist is than an athiest, you would not expect a muslim to tell you how to be christian would you, or vice versa.
    Susan,

    do you really think all atheists of the world would agree on a definition of "atheism"? I doubt it. There is no such consensus. Likewise, try to get a fundamentalist shiite and a radical sunni to agree on a definition for the word "muslim". Impossible. :-D

    The bottomline is, you can speak for yourself, but no one else. Above that, you'll have to rely on a majority definition, and the vast majority of the definitions we have seen here so far clearly contradict your own personal notion af an atheist. What you are talking about, Susan, is much closer to the definition of an "agnostic". Look it up, or are you afraid to fall into an identity crisis? :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Do you seriously not see any difference between saying "I don't believe X because I have not seen convincing evidence of it," and saying "I do not believe X because I have proven that X is impossible"? Both are statements of disbelief, but they are very different statements.

    Rather like a jury saying "We didn't convict him because the prosecutor couldn't prove that he was guilty," vs. "We didn't convict him because the defense presented proof that he was innocent." I sincerely hope that you are able to appreciate the difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Do you seriously not see any difference between saying "I don't believe X because I have not seen convincing evidence of it," and saying "I do not believe X because I have proven that X is impossible"? Both are statements of disbelief, but they are very different statements.

    Rather like a jury saying "We didn't convict him because the prosecutor couldn't prove that he was guilty," vs. "We didn't convict him because the defense presented proof that he was innocent." I sincerely hope that you are able to appreciate the difference.
    Sure there's a difference but it's not a black and white difference. Nobody is going to have any proof one way or the other, so nobody will be in your second category. I think if it's about 50-50 in your mind, you're an agnostic. If you are definitely leaning toward the idea that God does not exist, you're an atheist. But there is not a clean line between the two.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Do you seriously not see any difference between saying "I don't believe X because I have not seen convincing evidence of it," and saying "I do not believe X because I have proven that X is impossible"? Both are statements of disbelief, but they are very different statements.
    But the emphasis in these two sentences is reason for disbelief, while the emphasis in the two sentences being debated is whether there is disbelief, which, of course, there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Rather like a jury saying "We didn't convict him because the prosecutor couldn't prove that he was guilty," vs. "We didn't convict him because the defense presented proof that he was innocent." I sincerely hope that you are able to appreciate the difference.
    Again, this is a reason debate (why he was guilty) versus a definition debate (whether he was guilty). So both agree on the 'definition' bit (he's guilty), while they disagree on the reason bit (because).

    The statements: 'An atheist is someone who believes there is no God' and 'An atheist is someone who does not believe in God' are pure definitions (they provide no reason) and hence the debate can only lie in the 'definition' (God doesn't exist).

    Edit: Why do you people deny your beliefs?

    Edit (again): On that note, I must highlight the following quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by I
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Not this crap again!
    Listen. Atheism is a belief. A belief that there is no God.
    Agnosticism is a belief that there may be a God, but evidence or lack thereof is inconclusive.
    Yes. You can be agnostic and have beliefs similar to that of atheists, but that doesn't mean you're atheist. They're two different concepts. One believes God does not exist. One believes God may not exist.
    Sorry you have it all wrong, an Atheist is not something that you so much are. Rather, it's something you are from a Theistic perspective. Ultimately the word only says what you're not, that the term "Theist" is not applicable to you.
    the one, true definition of 'Atheist' is 'without belief'.

    A-Theist.

    The "A" prefix means without/non/aint got no.
    As in....
    Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
    Amoral=without moral.(not a belief theres no morals)
    Apolitical=not political.(not a belief theres no politics)
    Atypical=not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
    Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
    Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)

    thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it
    .

    Yes, they DON'T believe God exist.
    In other words, they believe God doesn't exist.
    Would you not agree that atheists believe God doesn't exist? If you say 'no', then you're saying they either believe God exists, know God exists, or know God doesn't exist.
    for some reason you refuse to understand, something so simple, an amoeba could.
    atheists do not say theres no god they simple have no belief, and thats no belief in god or gods, fairies, elves, etc.. because it is unreasonable and infantile to do so, it would be extremely foolish to say they believe god doesn't exist, the same as it would to say they believe fairies dont exist, because it would be impossible to prove. I think somebody already posted up and provide links to verify this.
    do I really need to treat you like an infant, for you to understand.
    I say again, thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it
    So you're telling me that, as an atheist, you believe there is a God?
    Because you just said atheist don't say there isn't a God.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    do you really think all atheists of the world would agree on a definition of "atheism"? I doubt it. There is no such consensus. Likewise, try to get a fundamentalist shiite and a radical sunni to agree on a definition for the word "muslim". Impossible.
    Nice M.
    But technically speaking they disagree on small, Insignificant Things, not about the Idea of Islam or how to be a Muslim.

    Like us, disagreeing about the DEFINITION of Atheisim, disagreeing on small stupid things, I hope this doesnt lead us into Civil War
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    do you really think all atheists of the world would agree on a definition of "atheism"? I doubt it. There is no such consensus. Likewise, try to get a fundamentalist shiite and a radical sunni to agree on a definition for the word "muslim". Impossible.
    Nice M.
    But technically speaking they disagree on small, Insignificant Things, not about the Idea of Islam or how to be a Muslim.

    Like us, disagreeing about the DEFINITION of Atheisim, disagreeing on small stupid things, I hope this doesnt lead us into Civil War
    Looks like they disagree enough to blow each other up from time to time, at least in Iraq.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    who better to know what an atheist is than an athiest, you would not expect a muslim to tell you how to be christian would you, or vice versa.
    Susan,

    do you really think all atheists of the world would agree on a definition of "atheism"? I doubt it. There is no such consensus. Likewise, try to get a fundamentalist shiite and a radical sunni to agree on a definition for the word "muslim". Impossible. :-D

    The bottomline is, you can speak for yourself, but no one else. Above that, you'll have to rely on a majority definition, and the vast majority of the definitions we have seen here so far clearly contradict your own personal notion af an atheist. What you are talking about, Susan, is much closer to the definition of an "agnostic". Look it up, or are you afraid to fall into an identity crisis? :wink:
    the shite and the sunni are religious with religious doctrines, atheism is the natural way, so everybody should be the same as they are all human unless of course some aliens have landed
    this is a list of quotes by famous atheists you will not the consensus of opinion, and a few links of the generalise opinion of atheism.
    take the time to check things out you be suprised how common the train of thought is regarding atheism.

    Dan Barker:
    A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist that,

    It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought.
    It is merely the lack of theism [...] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.


    B.C. Johnson:
    The author of The Atheist Debater's Handbook, Johnson explains why the theist has the initial burden of proof in any argument by explaining that, "The atheist, for his part, does not necessarily offer an explanation; he simply does not accept the theist's explanation. Therefore, the atheist need only demonstrate that the theist has failed to justify his position."

    Antony G. N. Flew:
    An atheist philosopher from Britain, Flew has written quite a lot on the nature of atheism and theism. In his 1984 book God, Freedom and Immortality, he said that

    The word 'atheism,' however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.


    Valerii A. Kuvakin:
    Professor and chair of the Department of Russian Philosophy at Moscow State University, Kuvakin writes in his book In Search of our Humanity:

    Atheism ... goes back to the Ancient Greek (a — a negative prefix, theos — god), evidencing the antiquity of the outlook of those who saw no presence of God (or gods) in their everyday lives, or who even denied the very existence of God (or gods). There are different types of atheism, but atheism in one form or another has existed in every civilization.

    The concept "atheist" partially coincides with such notions as "skeptic," "agnostic," and "rationalist" and it borders with such notions as "anticlerical," "God fighter" (theomachist), and "God abuser" (blasphemer).

    It is wrong to identify an atheist as one who denies God, though this is what opponents of atheism usually claim. If such people exist, it would probably be more correct to call them the "verbal" murderers of God, for the prefix a- means denying as elimination. ... I would like to stress that the prefix a- does not necessarily mean rejection. It can mean "absence of." For example, "apathy" means "absence of passion." Thus, the concept "atheist" does not necessarily mean nihilism.


    Michael Martin:
    The author of one of the most extensive and detailed books on the philosophy of atheism. He states in Atheism: A Philosophical Introduction that,

    If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative veiew, characterized by the absence of belief in God.


    George Smith:
    The author of one of the most popular books about atheism, Atheism: The Case Against God, stated in a speech:

    Atheism, properly considered, is simply the absence or lack of theistic belief.
    In other words, to the question, "Do you believe in God?", if you answer, "No," for whatever reason, you are an atheist. You will often hear it said that an atheist actually denies the existence of a god or gods. This is true; many atheists do but not all. This kind of overt denial of the existence of a god or gods is a sub-category of a broader kind of approach which should in a general sense be known as atheism. This gets quite complex to go into all of the reasons why some atheists would not wish to deny that any gods exist.

    In his aforementioned book, Smith wrote:

    Atheism in its basic form is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.



    Gordon Stein:
    A prolific writer on atheism, humanism, freethought, and philosophy, who described atheism in his An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism:

    The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

    When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.



    belief or disbelief
    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismq...fdisbelief.htm

    dictionary definition of atheism
    http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...t_standard.htm

    atheism vs agnosticism
    http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagn.../a/atheism.htm

    what is atheism? strong vs weak
    http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...tisatheism.htm

    atheism
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...light=atheism+

    and this ones for the OP as it's on topic.
    Do People Choose to be Atheists?
    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismq...liefchoice.htm

    you could always google it http://www.google.co.uk/search?clien...=Google+Search
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    ... the shite and the sunni are religious with religious doctrines, ...
    i assume you mean the shiite :-D
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    Low Blow MarinxR
    Harold they blow each other up not for disagreament but mostly for land, like many people before them they're making excuses with a religeon to kill, evict and blow up people just to gain more land, money and control
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    ... the shite and the sunni are religious with religious doctrines, ...
    i assume you mean the shiite :-D
    no I think I was right, lol.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    HEY, thats outright racisim! I guess it's OK because they're muslims huh, How Fair and Equal the Westerners have become
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    HEY, thats outright racisim! I guess it's OK because they're muslims huh, How Fair and Equal the Westerners have become
    if your talking to me how is it racism, I know many white's and blacks that have become muslims some of them sunnis and some shiites. it was just humour.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Low Blow MarinxR
    Harold they blow each other up not for disagreament but mostly for land, like many people before them they're making excuses with a religeon to kill, evict and blow up people just to gain more land, money and control
    I'm afraid I don't follow your argument. If they are the same religion, why would Sunnis want Shiite territory or vice versa? Is it ethnic rather than religious? Any light you can shed on this will be appreciated because I think the American media do a poor job of covering these issues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    who better to know what an atheist is than an athiest, you would not expect a muslim to tell you how to be christian would you, or vice versa.
    Susan,

    do you really think all atheists of the world would agree on a definition of "atheism"? I doubt it. There is no such consensus. Likewise, try to get a fundamentalist shiite and a radical sunni to agree on a definition for the word "muslim". Impossible. :-D

    The bottomline is, you can speak for yourself, but no one else. Above that, you'll have to rely on a majority definition, and the vast majority of the definitions we have seen here so far clearly contradict your own personal notion af an atheist. What you are talking about, Susan, is much closer to the definition of an "agnostic". Look it up, or are you afraid to fall into an identity crisis? :wink:
    the shite and the sunni are religious with religious doctrines, atheism is the natural way, so everybody should be the same as they are all human unless of course some aliens have landed
    Aside from the grammatical awkwardness, something doesn't sound right about this sentence.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    You think people of the same religeon don't kill each other? Most Likely Your Eaither European or of European Descendency so you must have an IDEA of Europe's History during medevil Times they were all Christians but they fought each other like there was no Tommorrow. Same thing in the Islamic World during that area

    I think people make excuses with religeon to kill each other,It's been proven through history with most cultures and Most Religeons, thats why I hate all forms of religeon.

    When I said that the Sunni's and Shitte's disagree and then make war on each other for land I guess I did'nt express that well.

    The differences between Sunni's and Shitte's are very small and insignificant, in fact of all the sects in islam they are the closest ones to each other. They just make the disagreements an excuse to kill all the innocent children and Women to gain land so basically just for material gain, I'm sorry but humanity seems to be built this way, Sunni's and Shitte's are not the first in what they do. Anybody see's a pattern here?
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    You think people of the same religeon don't kill each other? Most Likely Your Eaither European or of European Descendency so you must have an IDEA of Europe's History during medevil Times they were all Christians but they fought each other like there was no Tommorrow. Same thing in the Islamic World during that area

    I think people make excuses with religeon to kill each other,It's been proven through history with most cultures and Most Religeons, thats why I hate all forms of religeon.

    When I said that the Sunni's and Shitte's disagree and then make war on each other for land I guess I did'nt express that well.

    The differences between Sunni's and Shiite's are very small and insignificant, in fact of all the sects in islam they are the closest ones to each other. They just make the disagreements an excuse to kill all the innocent children and Women to gain land so basically just for material gain, I'm sorry but humanity seems to be built this way, Sunni's and Shitte's are not the first in what they do. Anybody see's a pattern here?
    Hey, Biohazard, I wasn't trying to say Islam is worse. Yes, the Christians fought each other back in the days of Oliver Cromwell for example. They had some real differences. Cromwell really hated the Pope and the Catholics for example and slaughtered a lot of Irish Catholics. He had some very strong religious beliefs. That was back in the days when Christians took their religion very seriously. Now, if you are comparing the Shiites and Sunnis with the Catholics and Protestants of Cromwell's day, then I would hardly say their differences are insignificant.
    Nowadays the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland still fight with each other but I think it's more like an ethnic or political conflict than any difference in religious dogma.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    Harold I would like to shake your hand in agreement right now (don't worry, Not in a Gay way)
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Harold I would like to shake your hand in agreement right now (don't worry, Not in a Gay way)
    I'd be happy to shake your hand, Bio.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41 Re: Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Atheisim is not like religeon; You can choose to switch from Judisim to Christianity because you relate to the religeon more. But with Atheisim, you can't choose to switch, because you don't really believe in anything Supernatural/Spirtual. P.S. I'm talking about the Atheisim that Skeptics prefer to Believe in.
    Experts disagree

    http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...ves_in_god.htm
    " Dec. 9, 2004 - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42 Re: Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists? 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Atheisim is not like religeon; You can choose to switch from Judisim to Christianity because you relate to the religeon more. But with Atheisim, you can't choose to switch, because you don't really believe in anything Supernatural/Spirtual. P.S. I'm talking about the Atheisim that Skeptics prefer to Believe in.
    Experts disagree
    do they, bad flew does not believe in religions,
    It seems clear that the age-old tendency among apologists to claim souls for Christ, willing or not, has not faded away. How many of us have grown tired of hearing the old claims that Mark Twain, Abe Lincoln, David Hume, or Charles Darwin, etc., had deathbed or old-age conversions, in spite of the evidence against such last-minute, fire-insurance policy changes of heart, This is not the first time that it has been reported that Flew has changed his mind. Twice before, in 2001 and 2003 respectively, it was rumoured that Flew had turned to Christianity; each time Flew quashed the rumours himself. This time Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. he said
    "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.
    when asked "So...let me get this right - you now believe that there was a prime, intelligent mover behind the world as it exists" he said "I think so. But I'm, y'know, I'm not going over big about this. I just think 'OK well, allowing this and let's call it Deism.' Y'know, there's been far and away more excitement about this than there ought to be, simply because people insist on interpreting atheism in this peculiar way." and when asked "So you don't believe in life after death? are not alarmed by the prospect of your own death, because there's nothing to follow?" he said " Certainly not, no - I hope for it. I wouldn't, I don't want a second life at all. I've had an exceedingly good one, I've been extremely fortunate in every way." and when asked " Well let's get back then to the kind of God you believe. This prime mover"
    he said "Well I haven't really formulated what I do believe here. And this quotation from Einstein is very indefinite. Einstein's thinking he sees a mind, but what the function of this mind is, if there's any function at all, is not made clear by Einstein. Because presumably he didn't think, or he wasn't trying to expound his ideology." so he appears that what he actually believes hasn't changed much he has no believe in the god/gods of any religion, he believes religions and the gods therein are man made, but he believes, that looking at the universe it must have been caused by a prime mover, however it still leaves us with who was the cause of that.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    for some reason you refuse to understand, something so simple, an amoeba could.
    atheists do not say theres no god they simple have no belief, and thats no belief in god or gods, fairies, elves, etc.. because it is unreasonable and infantile to do so, it would be extremely foolish to say they believe god doesn't exist, the same as it would to say they believe fairies dont exist, because it would be impossible to prove. I think somebody already posted up and provide links to verify this.
    do I really need to treat you like an infant, for you to understand.
    I say again, thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it

    You just described an agnostic. Atheism is as much a belief as is fundamental Creationism.

    An Agnostic says ‘‘I do not believe there is a God.’’ Whereas an Atheist says ‘‘I believe there is no God.’’ Agnosticism is the reasonable non-believing approach; Atheism is just more silliness of thinking there's proof for something that there cannot be/is not proof for. In the case of the religious, it is a supernatural deity that by its very definition exists outside of the realm of the natural and therefore beyond one's ability to prove. In the case of the Atheist it is a non-positive for which there can be no non-positive proof, because such proof by its very definition is non-existent.

    If how you group your definitions differs from the way I do it, then that's fine. I just want to make clear that it is more logical to ‘non-believe’ than to ‘believe non.’ I find agnosticism to be a system of evaluation, which is in essence nothing more than logic applied in a logical manner.

    Name-calling also does not help your position along any .




    Rv. Jon
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44 Re: Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    do they, bad flew does not believe in religions, ..... blah, blah, blah etc., etc., etc.
    Who is Flew and why should anyone care what he believes or doesn't?
    Religious proseletyzers are trying to save souls, save their own souls or whatever. What is the motive of the atheist proseletyzers who seem to abound on this site?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    for some reason you refuse to understand, something so simple, an amoeba could.
    atheists do not say theres no god they simple have no belief, and thats no belief in god or gods, fairies, elves, etc.. because it is unreasonable and infantile to do so, it would be extremely foolish to say they believe god doesn't exist, the same as it would to say they believe fairies dont exist, because it would be impossible to prove. I think somebody already posted up and provide links to verify this.
    do I really need to treat you like an infant, for you to understand.
    I say again, thats IT. no other assumptions can be made from it
    You just described an agnostic. Atheism is as much a belief as is fundamental Creationism.
    here we go again wow!
    the following was posted in this tread by geeser read it and and educate yourself as to what an atheist is, particularly between a strong and weak atheist ok, the reason my post above was patronising was due to the recipient of my post stating the same inanely stupid thing repeatedly as you just have.
    so please do link to the links and do read the quotes, and do try to understand what an atheist is ok, when I told him a ameoba was smarter than him, I wasn't name calling I was stating a fact, if you continue to belief that I was discribing an agnostic, them you will be thought of in exactly the same way, after all it is not rocket science.

    heres those links and quotes

    "this is a list of quotes by famous atheists you will note the consensus of opinion, and a few links of the generalise opinion of atheism.
    take the time to check things out you be suprised how common the train of thought is regarding atheism.

    Dan Barker:
    A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist that,

    It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought.
    It is merely the lack of theism [...] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.

    B.C. Johnson:
    The author of The Atheist Debater's Handbook, Johnson explains why the theist has the initial burden of proof in any argument by explaining that, "The atheist, for his part, does not necessarily offer an explanation; he simply does not accept the theist's explanation. Therefore, the atheist need only demonstrate that the theist has failed to justify his position."

    Antony G. N. Flew:
    An atheist philosopher from Britain, Flew has written quite a lot on the nature of atheism and theism. In his 1984 book God, Freedom and Immortality, he said that

    The word 'atheism,' however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

    Valerii A. Kuvakin:
    Professor and chair of the Department of Russian Philosophy at Moscow State University, Kuvakin writes in his book In Search of our Humanity:

    Atheism ... goes back to the Ancient Greek (a — a negative prefix, theos — god), evidencing the antiquity of the outlook of those who saw no presence of God (or gods) in their everyday lives, or who even denied the very existence of God (or gods). There are different types of atheism, but atheism in one form or another has existed in every civilization.

    The concept "atheist" partially coincides with such notions as "skeptic," "agnostic," and "rationalist" and it borders with such notions as "anticlerical," "God fighter" (theomachist), and "God abuser" (blasphemer).

    It is wrong to identify an atheist as one who denies God, though this is what opponents of atheism usually claim. If such people exist, it would probably be more correct to call them the "verbal" murderers of God, for the prefix a- means denying as elimination. ... I would like to stress that the prefix a- does not necessarily mean rejection. It can mean "absence of." For example, "apathy" means "absence of passion." Thus, the concept "atheist" does not necessarily mean nihilism.

    Michael Martin:
    The author of one of the most extensive and detailed books on the philosophy of atheism. He states in Atheism: A Philosophical Introduction that,

    If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative veiew, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

    George Smith:
    The author of one of the most popular books about atheism, Atheism: The Case Against God, stated in a speech:

    Atheism, properly considered, is simply the absence or lack of theistic belief.
    In other words, to the question, "Do you believe in God?", if you answer, "No," for whatever reason, you are an atheist. You will often hear it said that an atheist actually denies the existence of a god or gods. This is true; many atheists do but not all. This kind of overt denial of the existence of a god or gods is a sub-category of a broader kind of approach which should in a general sense be known as atheism. This gets quite complex to go into all of the reasons why some atheists would not wish to deny that any gods exist.

    In his aforementioned book, Smith wrote:

    Atheism in its basic form is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.


    Gordon Stein:
    A prolific writer on atheism, humanism, freethought, and philosophy, who described atheism in his An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism:

    The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

    When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.


    belief or disbelief
    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismq...fdisbelief.htm

    dictionary definition of atheism
    http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...t_standard.htm

    atheism vs agnosticism
    http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagn.../a/atheism.htm

    what is atheism? strong vs weak
    http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...tisatheism.htm

    atheism
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...light=atheism+

    and this ones for the OP as it's on topic.
    Do People Choose to be Atheists?
    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismq...liefchoice.htm

    you could always google it http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=atheist+definition s&meta=&btnG=Google+Search"
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    ok, going back to the original question "Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists?", can we all agree that there is a continuum from "i firmly believe there is one particular type of god" to "i firmly belief that there is no god at all" ?

    in the middle you have the position "i think there probably is such a thing as a deity" juxtaposed to "i'm not sure if there's such a thing as a deity" and "there's no way to tell for sure whether there's such a thing as a diety"

    i find it quite easy to imagine that someone could drift from the wishy-washy side of deism to the wishy-washy side of atheism or vice versa since there is no strongly held opinion in the matter anyway

    however, i find it far harder to imagine a change from one extreme of the spectrum to the other, just because the extremes are grounded in such deeply held convictions

    i count myself firmly amongst the "there is no god" brand of athiests and in my case i recognise that it would take a rather uncommon shock to the system for me to change my stance to allow a belief in a god - but i also recognise that these types of conversions have happened, uncommon as they may be

    for me it would represent a major reversal since as a child i never was too sure about this "god" thing and as i grew up i drifted further and further away until i had reached a conviction that there is no god

    strangely enough i don't have a problem with people describing my brand of atheism as religion since mine is basically a "belief statement about the supernatural" - paradoxically it would appear that both extremes of the deism-atheism continuum are religious whilst the centre is less so up to the point of being non-religious
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Re: Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazard
    Atheisim is not like religeon; You can choose to switch from Judisim to Christianity because you relate to the religeon more. But with Atheisim, you can't choose to switch, because you don't really believe in anything Supernatural/Spirtual. P.S. I'm talking about the Atheisim that Skeptics prefer to Believe in.
    Experts disagree
    do they, bad flew does not believe in religions,
    It seems clear that the age-old tendency among apologists to claim souls for Christ, willing or not, has not faded away. How many of us have grown tired of hearing the old claims that Mark Twain, Abe Lincoln, David Hume, or Charles Darwin, etc., had deathbed or old-age conversions, in spite of the evidence against such last-minute, fire-insurance policy changes of heart, This is not the first time that it has been reported that Flew has changed his mind. Twice before, in 2001 and 2003 respectively, it was rumoured that Flew had turned to Christianity; each time Flew quashed the rumours himself. This time Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. he said
    "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.
    when asked "So...let me get this right - you now believe that there was a prime, intelligent mover behind the world as it exists" he said "I think so. But I'm, y'know, I'm not going over big about this. I just think 'OK well, allowing this and let's call it Deism.' Y'know, there's been far and away more excitement about this than there ought to be, simply because people insist on interpreting atheism in this peculiar way." and when asked "So you don't believe in life after death? are not alarmed by the prospect of your own death, because there's nothing to follow?" he said " Certainly not, no - I hope for it. I wouldn't, I don't want a second life at all. I've had an exceedingly good one, I've been extremely fortunate in every way." and when asked " Well let's get back then to the kind of God you believe. This prime mover"
    he said "Well I haven't really formulated what I do believe here. And this quotation from Einstein is very indefinite. Einstein's thinking he sees a mind, but what the function of this mind is, if there's any function at all, is not made clear by Einstein. Because presumably he didn't think, or he wasn't trying to expound his ideology." so he appears that what he actually believes hasn't changed much he has no believe in the god/gods of any religion, he believes religions and the gods therein are man made, but he believes, that looking at the universe it must have been caused by a prime mover, however it still leaves us with who was the cause of that.
    still you see that it s possible for an atheist to become a theist or for that matter a theist to become an atheist

    it illustrates the marginal nature of our potency (to accept god or to reject god, .... or more specifically to accept the medium of temporal material nature)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I always get tired of the splitting hairs over what athiests claim to believe. There's only a very subtle difference between saying "I believe there is no god" and saying "I do not believe there is a god"


    As far as choosing to be athiest or not, there's a half way point in the answer to that question. It has two parts:

    1) - You cannot choose what you will honestly believe. You can lie to yourself, but you'll know you're lying.


    2) - You can, however, look for evidence of both/either possibility. If you find it, the evidence will change your belief.


    An athiest could oh......... say........ read the bible, and it might persuade them, but............... it also might not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Can people, please, stop posting such long URLs?

    There is a dandy function, whereby you can type text to link to a page without displaying the entire URL.


    Thanks.
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50 Re: Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    do they, but flew does not believe in religions,
    It seems clear that the age-old tendency among apologists to claim souls for Christ, willing or not, has not faded away. How many of us have grown tired of hearing the old claims that Mark Twain, Abe Lincoln, David Hume, or Charles Darwin, etc., had deathbed or old-age conversions, in spite of the evidence against such last-minute, fire-insurance policy changes of heart, This is not the first time that it has been reported that Flew has changed his mind. Twice before, in 2001 and 2003 respectively, it was rumoured that Flew had turned to Christianity; each time Flew quashed the rumours himself. This time Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. he said
    "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.
    when asked "So...let me get this right - you now believe that there was a prime, intelligent mover behind the world as it exists" he said "I think so. But I'm, y'know, I'm not going over big about this. I just think 'OK well, allowing this and let's call it Deism.' Y'know, there's been far and away more excitement about this than there ought to be, simply because people insist on interpreting atheism in this peculiar way." and when asked "So you don't believe in life after death? are not alarmed by the prospect of your own death, because there's nothing to follow?" he said " Certainly not, no - I hope for it. I wouldn't, I don't want a second life at all. I've had an exceedingly good one, I've been extremely fortunate in every way." and when asked " Well let's get back then to the kind of God you believe. This prime mover"
    he said "Well I haven't really formulated what I do believe here. And this quotation from Einstein is very indefinite. Einstein's thinking he sees a mind, but what the function of this mind is, if there's any function at all, is not made clear by Einstein. Because presumably he didn't think, or he wasn't trying to expound his ideology." so he appears that what he actually believes hasn't changed much he has no believe in the god/gods of any religion, he believes religions and the gods therein are man made, but he believes, that looking at the universe it must have been caused by a prime mover, however it still leaves us with who was the cause of that.
    still you see that it s possible for an atheist to become a theist or for that matter a theist to become an atheist

    it illustrates the marginal nature of our potency (to accept god or to reject god, .... or more specifically to accept the medium of temporal material nature)
    it looks to me that it all comes down to personal survival, Flew either has alzheimer's disease. or he's changed his mind only in the event that pascals wager is correct. after all he may have but a short time left to live, it is in the human psyche to cling to life, hence the hope for an afterlife, that has been propagate throughout religion.
    I'm not dismissing what Flew now believes, as he states it quite clearly he's not sure himself, but he's abundantly clear that the beliefs he now holds have absolutely nothing to do with any of the religions of the world.
    he has a belief of a prime mover, (which lets face could be the universe itself) he said "Well I haven't really formulated what I do believe here. there is a quotation from Einstein which is very indefinite. Einstein's thinking was he sees a mind, but what the function of this mind is, if there's any function at all, is not made clear by Einstein. Because presumably he didn't think, or he wasn't trying to expound his ideology."
    if you take a good look at what Geeser posted, he's not stating Flew has gone from atheist to theist, that is not logically possible, his post is simular to mine above, he starts with the indecisive way Flew can now act, and the way the theist apologists jumped on the bandwagon, as they believe they have a major convert, without really looking into the background of the statement from Flew, and finishes it with Flews own words.
    so as you can see, Flew has not become theists, has he.

    Theist:
    the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
    Deist:
    belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51 Re: Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    it looks to me that it all comes down to personal survival, Flew either has alzheimer's disease. or he's changed his mind only in the event that pascals wager is correct. after all he may have but a short time left to live, it is in the human psyche to cling to life, hence the hope for an afterlife, that has been propagate throughout religion.
    your speculations aside, it still stands that an atheist, and one more credible and influential than yourself BTW, slipped quite considerably from the platform of atheism

    I'm not dismissing what Flew now believes, as he states it quite clearly he's not sure himself, but he's abundantly clear that the beliefs he now holds have absolutely nothing to do with any of the religions of the world.
    he has a belief of a prime mover, (which lets face could be the universe itself) he said "Well I haven't really formulated what I do believe here. there is a quotation from Einstein which is very indefinite. Einstein's thinking was he sees a mind, but what the function of this mind is, if there's any function at all, is not made clear by Einstein. Because presumably he didn't think, or he wasn't trying to expound his ideology."
    if you take a good look at what Geeser posted, he's not stating Flew has gone from atheist to theist, that is not logically possible, his post is simular to mine above, he starts with the indecisive way Flew can now act, and the way the theist apologists jumped on the bandwagon, as they believe they have a major convert, without really looking into the background of the statement from Flew, and finishes it with Flews own words.
    so as you can see, Flew has not become theists, has he.

    Theist:
    the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
    Deist:
    belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
    what now?
    will argue that a deist can not become a theist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52 Re: Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists? 
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    it looks to me that it all comes down to personal survival, Flew either has alzheimer's disease. or he's changed his mind only in the event that pascals wager is correct. after all he may have but a short time left to live, it is in the human psyche to cling to life, hence the hope for an afterlife, that has been propagate throughout religion.
    your speculations aside, it still stands that an atheist, and one more credible and influential than yourself BTW, slipped quite considerably from the platform of atheism
    agreed, but he had not turned to theism had he, which is impossible.[quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    I'm not dismissing what Flew now believes, as he states it quite clearly he's not sure himself, but he's abundantly clear that the beliefs he now holds have absolutely nothing to do with any of the religions of the world.
    he has a belief of a prime mover, (which lets face could be the universe itself) he said "Well I haven't really formulated what I do believe here. there is a quotation from Einstein which is very indefinite. Einstein's thinking was he sees a mind, but what the function of this mind is, if there's any function at all, is not made clear by Einstein. Because presumably he didn't think, or he wasn't trying to expound his ideology."
    if you take a good look at what Geeser posted, he's not stating Flew has gone from atheist to theist, that is not logically possible, his post is simular to mine above, he starts with the indecisive way Flew can now act, and the way the theist apologists jumped on the bandwagon, as they believe they have a major convert, without really looking into the background of the statement from Flew, and finishes it with Flews own words.
    so as you can see, Flew has not become theists, has he.

    Theist:
    the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
    Deist:
    belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
    what now?
    will argue that a deist can not become a theist?
    I posted up the deism definition, to show it had no connection with theism, however I did not say Flew was a deist, geeser made that connection though even he showed it as a thinly veiled one.
    geeser also posted this, which I will give you the source for.

    "Q Well let's get back then to the kind of God you believe. This is the God who has brought forth everything that followed, that began things, that was the intelligent design behind the world as we know it.
    A Well I haven't really formulated what I do believe. here, And this quotation from Einstein is very indefinite. Einstein's thinking he sees a mind, but what the function of this mind is, if there's any function at all, is not made clear by Einstein. Because presumably he didn't think, or he wasn't trying to expound his ideology.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/progra...tony_flew.html
    these are flews own words, he never once defines himself, however the interviewer does, try to lead the questions.

    I think Flew is more likely leaning towards this; non-theism, which is not to dissimilar to the atheist, there is no personal god, no creator, no supreme will, not even a force in the sense of intention either for good or evil. There is, however, a sense of the holy, of the transcendent, which gives meaning and purpose to life, and that also gets called god, though it has no being in the sense of the god of the theists.
    http://www.spkorb.org/tdndatheist.html

    so you could say that Flew, is between atheism and deism, a non-theist agnostic deist if you like.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Re: Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    it looks to me that it all comes down to personal survival, Flew either has alzheimer's disease. or he's changed his mind only in the event that pascals wager is correct. after all he may have but a short time left to live, it is in the human psyche to cling to life, hence the hope for an afterlife, that has been propagate throughout religion.
    your speculations aside, it still stands that an atheist, and one more credible and influential than yourself BTW, slipped quite considerably from the platform of atheism
    agreed, but he had not turned to theism had he, which is impossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    I'm not dismissing what Flew now believes, as he states it quite clearly he's not sure himself, but he's abundantly clear that the beliefs he now holds have absolutely nothing to do with any of the religions of the world.
    he has a belief of a prime mover, (which lets face could be the universe itself) he said "Well I haven't really formulated what I do believe here. there is a quotation from Einstein which is very indefinite. Einstein's thinking was he sees a mind, but what the function of this mind is, if there's any function at all, is not made clear by Einstein. Because presumably he didn't think, or he wasn't trying to expound his ideology."
    if you take a good look at what Geeser posted, he's not stating Flew has gone from atheist to theist, that is not logically possible, his post is simular to mine above, he starts with the indecisive way Flew can now act, and the way the theist apologists jumped on the bandwagon, as they believe they have a major convert, without really looking into the background of the statement from Flew, and finishes it with Flews own words.
    so as you can see, Flew has not become theists, has he.

    Theist:
    the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
    Deist:
    belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
    what now?
    will argue that a deist can not become a theist?
    I posted up the deism definition, to show it had no connection with theism, however I did not say Flew was a deist, geeser made that connection though even he showed it as a thinly veiled one.
    geeser also posted this, which I will give you the source for.

    "Q Well let's get back then to the kind of God you believe. This is the God who has brought forth everything that followed, that began things, that was the intelligent design behind the world as we know it.
    A Well I haven't really formulated what I do believe. here, And this quotation from Einstein is very indefinite. Einstein's thinking he sees a mind, but what the function of this mind is, if there's any function at all, is not made clear by Einstein. Because presumably he didn't think, or he wasn't trying to expound his ideology.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/progra...tony_flew.html
    these are flews own words, he never once defines himself, however the interviewer does, try to lead the questions.

    I think Flew is more likely leaning towards this; non-theism, which is not to dissimilar to the atheist, there is no personal god, no creator, no supreme will, not even a force in the sense of intention either for good or evil. There is, however, a sense of the holy, of the transcendent, which gives meaning and purpose to life, and that also gets called god, though it has no being in the sense of the god of the theists.
    http://www.spkorb.org/tdndatheist.html

    so you could say that Flew, is between atheism and deism, a non-theist agnostic deist if you like.
    whatever term you want to manufacture regarding Flew's status, do you want to argue that its impossible for a person to go from that state to the fully fledged definition of theism?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    whatever term you want to manufacture regarding Flew's status, do you want to argue that its impossible for a person to go from that state to the fully fledged definition of theism?
    most definitely, Flew makes it very clear , what he thinks of theism, and how his view of a prime mover, is not a theistic one, so anybody with the same views as Flew, would most definitely be of the same ilk.
    read the interview, it will clarify it for you.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    whatever term you want to manufacture regarding Flew's status, do you want to argue that its impossible for a person to go from that state to the fully fledged definition of theism?
    most definitely, Flew makes it very clear , what he thinks of theism, and how his view of a prime mover, is not a theistic one, so anybody with the same views as Flew, would most definitely be of the same ilk.
    read the interview, it will clarify it for you.
    you don't think he also made it clear when he was a fully fledged atheist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    whatever term you want to manufacture regarding Flew's status, do you want to argue that its impossible for a person to go from that state to the fully fledged definition of theism?
    most definitely, Flew makes it very clear , what he thinks of theism, and how his view of a prime mover, is not a theistic one, so anybody with the same views as Flew, would most definitely be of the same ilk.
    read the interview, it will clarify it for you.
    you don't think he also made it clear when he was a fully fledged atheist?
    if you read the interview, and follow what I said, you will come to understand, that I believe, and I think I'm right in believing, that Flew, has not strayed to far from his original position.
    I did try to define it for you in an earlier post.
    here it is again incase you missed it "you could say that Flew, is between atheism and deism, a non-theist agnostic deist if you like."
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    What if Flew's motive was simply that he'd seen more, and his new experiences presented him with new evidence? New evidence can lead to a new conclusion.

    Still, only a dishonest person would try and "choose" what they want to believe. An honest person asks themself the question honestly and recieves an honest answer. They have no control over what that answer will be, only whether they'll accept it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What if Flew's motive was simply that he'd seen more, and his new experiences presented him with new evidence? New evidence can lead to a new conclusion.
    thats exactly what happened, thats why we are having this debate.
    Flew however is not sure exactly what he believes now, read the interview (link provided)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Still, only a dishonest person would try and "choose" what they want to believe. An honest person asks themself the question honestly and recieves an honest answer..
    yes and your point is.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    They have no control over what that answer will be, only whether they'll accept it.
    what!
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    whatever term you want to manufacture regarding Flew's status, do you want to argue that its impossible for a person to go from that state to the fully fledged definition of theism?
    most definitely, Flew makes it very clear , what he thinks of theism, and how his view of a prime mover, is not a theistic one, so anybody with the same views as Flew, would most definitely be of the same ilk.
    read the interview, it will clarify it for you.
    you don't think he also made it clear when he was a fully fledged atheist?
    if you read the interview, and follow what I said, you will come to understand, that I believe, and I think I'm right in believing, that Flew, has not strayed to far from his original position.
    I did try to define it for you in an earlier post.
    here it is again incase you missed it "you could say that Flew, is between atheism and deism, a non-theist agnostic deist if you like."
    so do you think its impossible for a non-theistic agnostic ( ) to become a theist?

    (even if they had to do so via becoming a theistic agnostic)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    whatever term you want to manufacture regarding Flew's status, do you want to argue that its impossible for a person to go from that state to the fully fledged definition of theism?
    most definitely, Flew makes it very clear , what he thinks of theism, and how his view of a prime mover, is not a theistic one, so anybody with the same views as Flew, would most definitely be of the same ilk.
    read the interview, it will clarify it for you.
    you don't think he also made it clear when he was a fully fledged atheist?
    if you read the interview, and follow what I said, you will come to understand, that I believe, and I think I'm right in believing, that Flew, has not strayed to far from his original position.
    I did try to define it for you in an earlier post.
    here it is again incase you missed it "you could say that Flew, is between atheism and deism, a non-theist agnostic deist if you like."
    so do you think its impossible for a non-theistic agnostic ( ) to become a theist?

    (even if they had to do so via becoming a theistic agnostic)
    as I said before,
    non-theism, can have a sense of the holy, of the transcendent, which can gives meaning and purpose to there lifes, thus for these type of people, have a belief in the supernatural, could cause them to turn to gods like the theist have.

    agnosticism is a dont/cant know for sure belief, so they are open to the possibility of the supernatural too.

    those that turn usually become agnostic theist, believing that it is unknown, or unknowable whether a god exists, but will choose to believe however irrational it is.

    just like when religious people have a crisis of faith.
    so yes it is possible a non-theist agnostic, can turn to a god/gods.

    but it most certainly is not possible for an atheist or a deist, as these only think rationally.
    but slightly more so on the atheist side.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    whatever term you want to manufacture regarding Flew's status, do you want to argue that its impossible for a person to go from that state to the fully fledged definition of theism?
    most definitely, Flew makes it very clear , what he thinks of theism, and how his view of a prime mover, is not a theistic one, so anybody with the same views as Flew, would most definitely be of the same ilk.
    read the interview, it will clarify it for you.
    you don't think he also made it clear when he was a fully fledged atheist?
    if you read the interview, and follow what I said, you will come to understand, that I believe, and I think I'm right in believing, that Flew, has not strayed to far from his original position.
    I did try to define it for you in an earlier post.
    here it is again incase you missed it "you could say that Flew, is between atheism and deism, a non-theist agnostic deist if you like."
    so do you think its impossible for a non-theistic agnostic ( ) to become a theist?

    (even if they had to do so via becoming a theistic agnostic)
    as I said before,
    non-theism, can have a sense of the holy, of the transcendent, which can gives meaning and purpose to there lifes, thus for these type of people, have a belief in the supernatural, could cause them to turn to gods like the theist have.

    agnosticism is a dont/cant know for sure belief, so they are open to the possibility of the supernatural too.

    those that turn usually become agnostic theist, believing that it is unknown, or unknowable whether a god exists, but will choose to believe however irrational it is.

    just like when religious people have a crisis of faith.
    so yes it is possible a non-theist agnostic, can turn to a god/gods.

    but it most certainly is not possible for an atheist or a deist, as these only think rationally.
    but slightly more so on the atheist side.
    so it can progress something like this

    atheist - > agnostic -> theist

    much like a potato can progress like this in a digestive tract

    potato -> carbohydrate -> energy

    yes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko

    so it can progress something like this

    atheist - > agnostic -> theist

    much like a potato can progress like this in a digestive tract

    potato -> carbohydrate -> energy

    yes?
    No, you dont seem to get it do you, I'll put it in the most simplest terms as I can, and I apologise to all who, may take offence, but this person doesn't understand and it needs to be clarified.
    so here go's

    deficient/unskilled(theist), sufficient/semi-skilled(agnostic), efficient/skilled(atheist),

    the theist can rise to agnostic and then atheist or go straight to atheist, but once atheist, he has hit the pinnacle.
    the agnostic can rise to atheist, or drop to theist like a pendulum. he can go either way. he's an undecided fence sitter.
    the atheist, can rise no further, because he has reached the pinnacle.
    thus it would be wholly irrational to drop to a fence sitter, and extremely irrational to drop down to theist.
    it would be like einstein disregarding his intelligence to become, (sorry for the use of this word) a retard, it's just not possible.

    again I apologise for the example.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    maybe he could have a stroke and go from atheist to born-again theist ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    maybe he could have a stroke and go from atheist to born-again theist ?
    now, that is a possiblity, or even a head trauma.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    a close encounter with a blunt instrument in a dark alley and you're ready to believe anything
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    He doesn't have to become a retard. He could just become so philosophical that he doesn't care for technical understanding anymore, stops using it, and looks for some kind of spiritualism, shamanism, or other mummery to fill some void in his life.

    An example of a movie that comes near this theme might be: Instinct, with Anthony Hopkins. It's about a man who starts out observing gorillas, and decides to forsake human society and join them (then ends up in a mental institution).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    one thing's for certain : the moment i convert to any religion other than atheism i know i have brain rot or worse
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko

    so it can progress something like this

    atheist - > agnostic -> theist

    much like a potato can progress like this in a digestive tract

    potato -> carbohydrate -> energy

    yes?
    No, you dont seem to get it do you, I'll put it in the most simplest terms as I can, and I apologise to all who, may take offence, but this person doesn't understand and it needs to be clarified.
    so here go's

    deficient/unskilled(theist), sufficient/semi-skilled(agnostic), efficient/skilled(atheist),
    you do realize this is a complete value based opinion?
    - I mean people who vouch for their favorite football team have the exact same foundation

    the theist can rise to agnostic and then atheist or go straight to atheist, but once atheist, he has hit the pinnacle.
    go the tigers!!!!

    the agnostic can rise to atheist, or drop to theist like a pendulum. he can go either way. he's an undecided fence sitter.
    the atheist, can rise no further, because he has reached the pinnacle.
    thus it would be wholly irrational to drop to a fence sitter, and extremely irrational to drop down to theist.
    it would be like einstein disregarding his intelligence to become, (sorry for the use of this word) a retard, it's just not possible.
    so in other words any one who becomes a theist is less intelligent because you say so - hmmmm

    again I apologise for the example.
    so do have a coherant argument or are you simply more interested in stating your opinions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    marnixR wrote:
    maybe he could have a stroke and go from atheist to born-again theist ?
    now, that is a possiblity, or even a head trauma.
    _________________
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    marnixR
    Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: Reply with quote

    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Forum Bachelors Degree

    Joined: 10 Apr 2007
    Posts: 424
    Location: Cardiff, Wales


    a close encounter with a blunt instrument in a dark alley and you're ready to believe anything Twisted Evil
    _________________
    contributor to philosophorum and devshed
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
    kojax
    Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote

    Forum Sophomore
    Forum Sophomore

    Joined: 27 Mar 2007
    Posts: 154


    He doesn't have to become a retard. He could just become so philosophical that he doesn't care for technical understanding anymore, stops using it, and looks for some kind of spiritualism, shamanism, or other mummery to fill some void in his life.

    An example of a movie that comes near this theme might be: Instinct, with Anthony Hopkins. It's about a man who starts out observing gorillas, and decides to forsake human society and join them (then ends up in a mental institution).
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message
    marnixR
    Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:55 am Post subject: Reply with quote

    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Forum Bachelors Degree

    Joined: 10 Apr 2007
    Posts: 424
    Location: Cardiff, Wales


    one thing's for certain : the moment i convert to any religion other than atheism i know i have brain rot or worse
    _________________
    contributor to philosophorum and devshed
    given that well over 50% of all credible philosophical treatises have some sort of theistic foundation, this appears to be just a bunch of atheists stroking themselves on the back
    :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    ive just had/having this discussion on another thread. Why can some theists get to grips with the fact that i(and many other athiests), have never believed in god and have not "lost religion". Ive basically been accused of just being an athiest to rebel against theiests

    very odd
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    given that well over 50% of all credible philosophical treatises have some sort of theistic foundation, this appears to be just a bunch of atheists stroking themselves on the back
    Hey. Anthony Hopkins did a good job of portraying that role. You could totally understand how an otherwise smart person observing apes in the wild might decide to join them.

    I think a lot of the trouble in migrating from Atheism to Theism is that so many of one's other beliefs are influenced by that one. An athiest doesn't want to go from wondering where the Earth came from to an easy answer like "God did it".

    It's a very difficult shift to make socially, because most of your newfound peers will expect you to stop thinking so deeply about things, and just accept everything as their pastor or bible says it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    given that well over 50% of all credible philosophical treatises have some sort of theistic foundation, this appears to be just a bunch of atheists stroking themselves on the back
    Hey. Anthony Hopkins did a good job of portraying that role. You could totally understand how an otherwise smart person observing apes in the wild might decide to join them.
    as that claim stands in regards to theism it is purely tentative .... in other words I could use the anthony hopkins thing as an example why somebody joins the 'atheist' party
    I think a lot of the trouble in migrating from Atheism to Theism is that so many of one's other beliefs are influenced by that one. An athiest doesn't want to go from wondering where the Earth came from to an easy answer like "God did it".
    another tentative claim ... since atheists have chemical evolution and abiogenesis
    It's a very difficult shift to make socially, because most of your newfound peers will expect you to stop thinking so deeply about things, and just accept everything as their pastor or bible says it is.
    then once we are back again to the back stroking atheist club - I mean you can judge the importance or value of something by its worst stereotype but it does not make for a very coherent argument
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    it does not make for a very coherent argument
    well that is an impossiblity anyway, as you theist have a baseless groundless arguement, we do try and make it coherent, however it is extremely hard, when you pose a question like" what makes the sky blue " and you get the answer "god did".
    go figure.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    it does not make for a very coherent argument
    well that is an impossiblity anyway, as you theist have a baseless groundless arguement, we do try and make it coherent, however it is extremely hard, when you pose a question like" what makes the sky blue " and you get the answer "god did".
    go figure.
    you miss the point (apparently on purpose too given your paste/editing skills)

    if you insist on judging something by its worst stereotype, it doesn't make for a very coherent argument[/u][/i]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It depends on how common that stereotype is, really. If it's only a small portion of the whole, then I guess it's unwise.

    Christian theists value unity a great deal, and look at lot to the popularity a view has with the masses as a basis for believing it/disbelieving it. The trouble is, the masses are usually limited by their least common denominator in deciding what views to believe as a group, and so they have to keep everything simple.

    Athiests tend to turn mostly just to reason itself, acting more as independant lone wolfs about what they will believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    it does not make for a very coherent argument
    well that is an impossiblity anyway, as you theist have a baseless groundless arguement, we do try and make it coherent, however it is extremely hard, when you pose a question like" what makes the sky blue " and you get the answer "god did".
    go figure.
    you miss the point
    how so, your talking about a coherent debate how is that possible, when your side is coming from the subjective, and the other from the objective, how is that missing the point, you insist, you want a coherent debate, but your starting premise is fantasy.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if you insist on judging something by its worst stereotype, it doesn't make for a very coherent argument[/u][/i]
    who's judging just stating a fact, you have no evidence for any of your assertions, if you feel that is stereotyping, then it is a fault with you, not the rest of us.
    if you wish for a truely coherent debate, one that at your level then debate with other incoherent people on religious forum's, else, produce I instant of your god's existence, and come back then.

    and yes I debate with religious people, I do it to try to understand their mindset, but I am fighting a losing battle, as I'm still not able, to understand how they can be so irrational. many religious people appear 99% rational, but for that dangerous 1%, that gets people killed.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    and yes I debate with religious people, I do it to try to understand their mindset, but I am fighting a losing battle, as I'm still not able, to understand how they can be so irrational. many religious people appear 99% rational, but for that dangerous 1%, that gets people killed.
    reminds me of an interview with Richard Dawkins i saw during the Hay-on-Wye book festival - a lady in the audience asked him : "Do you think the archbishop [of Canterbury] is a deluded, foolish man ?"
    to which Dawkins, ever the diplomat, replied : "You put the question with merciless clarity. I think he's very bright. And I'm absolutely baffled why he believes in god."
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    geezer, I wish it was 1%
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    it does not make for a very coherent argument
    well that is an impossiblity anyway, as you theist have a baseless groundless arguement, we do try and make it coherent, however it is extremely hard, when you pose a question like" what makes the sky blue " and you get the answer "god did".
    go figure.
    you miss the point
    how so, your talking about a coherent debate how is that possible, when your side is coming from the subjective, and the other from the objective, how is that missing the point, you insist, you want a coherent debate, but your starting premise is
    the basis for having a cohereant argument is to have sturdy premises that lead to a conclusion - even with this post you are mere ly making a conclusion ("I am objective and you are subjective") without premises (errr ... why?)

    .... get back to us when you have a coherent argument

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if you insist on judging something by its worst stereotype, it doesn't make for a very coherent argument[/u][/i]
    who's judging just stating a fact, you have no evidence for any of your assertions, if you feel that is stereotyping, then it is a fault with you, not the rest of us.
    if you wish for a truely coherent debate, one that at your level then debate with other incoherent people on religious forum's, else, produce I instant of your god's existence, and come back then.

    and yes I debate with religious people, I do it to try to understand their mindset, but I am fighting a losing battle, as I'm still not able, to understand how they can be so irrational. many religious people appear 99% rational, but for that dangerous 1%, that gets people killed.
    once again, another premiseless argument
    "people who have disagreements with me are irrational"

    here is some extra reading I can suggest

    Ross, Lee, and Ward, Andrew. Naïve Realism: Implications for Social Conflict and Misunderstanding. http://www.stanford.edu/group/sccn/g...%20Realism.pdf (1995)

    it deals with what the authors define as "Naive Realism"

    1.

    That I see entities and events as they are in objective reality, and that my social attitudes, beliefs, preferences, priorities, and the like follow from a relatively dispassionate, unbiased and essentially ‘unmediated’ apprehension of the information or evidence at hand.
    2.

    That other rational social perceivers generally will share my reactions, behaviour and opinions—provided they have had access to the same information that gave rise to my views, and provided that they too have processed that information in a reasonably thoughtful, and open-minded fashion.
    3. That the failure of a given individual or group to share my views arises from one of three possible sources:

    * The individual or group in question may have been exposed to a different sample of information than I was (in which case, provided that the other party is reasonable and open-minded, the sharing or pooling of information should lead us to reach an agreement);
    * The individual or group in question may be lazy, irrational, or otherwise unable or unwilling to proceed in a normative fashion from objective evidence to reasonable conclusions; or
    * The individual or group in question may be biased (either in interpreting the evidence or in proceeding from evidence to conclusions) by ideology, self-interest, or some other distorting personal influence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    here is some extra reading I can suggest

    Ross, Lee, and Ward, Andrew. Naïve Realism: Implications for Social Conflict and Misunderstanding. http://www.stanford.edu/group/sccn/g...%20Realism.pdf (1995)

    it deals with what the authors define as "Naive Realism"

    1.

    That I see entities and events as they are in objective reality, and that my social attitudes, beliefs, preferences, priorities, and the like follow from a relatively dispassionate, unbiased and essentially ‘unmediated’ apprehension of the information or evidence at hand.
    2.

    That other rational social perceivers generally will share my reactions, behaviour and opinions—provided they have had access to the same information that gave rise to my views, and provided that they too have processed that information in a reasonably thoughtful, and open-minded fashion.
    3. That the failure of a given individual or group to share my views arises from one of three possible sources:

    * The individual or group in question may have been exposed to a different sample of information than I was (in which case, provided that the other party is reasonable and open-minded, the sharing or pooling of information should lead us to reach an agreement);
    * The individual or group in question may be lazy, irrational, or otherwise unable or unwilling to proceed in a normative fashion from objective evidence to reasonable conclusions; or
    * The individual or group in question may be biased (either in interpreting the evidence or in proceeding from evidence to conclusions) by ideology, self-interest, or some other distorting personal influence.
    so what is your position on naive realism ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    here is some extra reading I can suggest

    Ross, Lee, and Ward, Andrew. Naïve Realism: Implications for Social Conflict and Misunderstanding. http://www.stanford.edu/group/sccn/g...%20Realism.pdf (1995)

    it deals with what the authors define as "Naive Realism"

    1.

    That I see entities and events as they are in objective reality, and that my social attitudes, beliefs, preferences, priorities, and the like follow from a relatively dispassionate, unbiased and essentially ‘unmediated’ apprehension of the information or evidence at hand.
    2.

    That other rational social perceivers generally will share my reactions, behaviour and opinions—provided they have had access to the same information that gave rise to my views, and provided that they too have processed that information in a reasonably thoughtful, and open-minded fashion.
    3. That the failure of a given individual or group to share my views arises from one of three possible sources:

    * The individual or group in question may have been exposed to a different sample of information than I was (in which case, provided that the other party is reasonable and open-minded, the sharing or pooling of information should lead us to reach an agreement);
    * The individual or group in question may be lazy, irrational, or otherwise unable or unwilling to proceed in a normative fashion from objective evidence to reasonable conclusions; or
    * The individual or group in question may be biased (either in interpreting the evidence or in proceeding from evidence to conclusions) by ideology, self-interest, or some other distorting personal influence.
    so what is your position on naive realism ?
    the only bad thing about it is when we don't see it operating in and around us
    (the reason it is termed "naive" is because it takes for granted that one is operating out of a faultless paradigm - namely me, myself and I)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    it does not make for a very coherent argument
    well that is an impossiblity anyway, as you theist have a baseless groundless arguement, we do try and make it coherent, however it is extremely hard, when you pose a question like" what makes the sky blue " and you get the answer "god did".
    go figure.
    you miss the point
    how so, your talking about a coherent debate how is that possible, when your side is coming from the subjective, and the other from the objective, how is that missing the point, you insist, you want a coherent debate, but your starting premise is
    the basis for having a cohereant argument is to have sturdy premises that lead to a conclusion - even with this post you are mere ly making a conclusion ("I am objective and you are subjective") without premises (errr ... why?)

    .... get back to us when you have a coherent argument
    I merely make a conclusion because this sturdy premise has been done to death, showing that subjective arguements are futile, there is/was really no need to start it all over.
    no need to get back to you, a coherent debate would be infantile with you,
    your clearly far to blinded with your fantasy.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    it does not make for a very coherent argument
    well that is an impossiblity anyway, as you theist have a baseless groundless arguement, we do try and make it coherent, however it is extremely hard, when you pose a question like" what makes the sky blue " and you get the answer "god did".
    go figure.
    you miss the point
    how so, your talking about a coherent debate how is that possible, when your side is coming from the subjective, and the other from the objective, how is that missing the point, you insist, you want a coherent debate, but your starting premise is
    the basis for having a cohereant argument is to have sturdy premises that lead to a conclusion - even with this post you are mere ly making a conclusion ("I am objective and you are subjective") without premises (errr ... why?)

    .... get back to us when you have a coherent argument
    I merely make a conclusion because this sturdy premise has been done to death, showing that subjective arguements are futile, there is/was really no need to start it all over.
    no need to get back to you, a coherent debate would be infantile with you,
    your clearly far to blinded with your fantasy.
    no problems with the conclusion - just the lack of premise
    I mean any fool can also grant themselves the grand liberty that their opinion is not subjective and that others are - this is the foundation of naive realism

    to recap
    That I see entities and events as they are in objective reality, and that my social attitudes, beliefs, preferences, priorities, and the like follow from a relatively dispassionate, unbiased and essentially ‘unmediated’ apprehension of the information or evidence at hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    thus it would be wholly irrational to drop to a fence sitter, and extremely irrational to drop down to theist.
    As a fence sitter par excellence, decisive in my indecision and resolute in my uncertainty, I am compelled to say your statement is nonsense.

    The only rational position is to say we do not know. Power lies in recognising the extent of our ignorance. Absolutist stances on anything other than uncertainty are flawed and valueless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Sophomore susan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    leeds
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    no problems with the conclusion - just the lack of premise
    but didn't he say, or was it to hard for you to understand, the premise had been dealt with. on numerous occasions, thus there was no need to repeat it.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I mean any fool can also grant themselves the grand liberty that their opinion is not subjective
    if there opinion has a sound objective base then it cant be subjective now can it.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    this is the foundation of naive realism
    then it must be the foundation of all religions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    thus it would be wholly irrational to drop to a fence sitter, and extremely irrational to drop down to theist.
    As a fence sitter par excellence, decisive in my indecision and resolute in my uncertainty, I am compelled to say your statement is nonsense.

    The only rational position is to say we do not know. Power lies in recognising the extent of our ignorance. Absolutist stances on anything other than uncertainty are flawed and valueless.
    and who mentioned absolutist, no atheist would really say there is no god, it would be infantile as he could never know, so the atheist does have that rational position.
    the only difference between atheists and agnostics is the atheist is not open to the possibility of the supernatural, so for an atheist it would be irrational to become an agnostic. so I beg to differ in regard to my statement being nonsense.
    I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by susan
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    no problems with the conclusion - just the lack of premise
    but didn't he say, or was it to hard for you to understand, the premise had been dealt with. on numerous occasions, thus there was no need to repeat
    whatever the case may be (maybe he was too lazy to provide a link - I dunno), his premise remains ..... or rather lack of it
    it.
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I mean any fool can also grant themselves the grand liberty that their opinion is not subjective
    if there opinion has a sound objective base then it cant be subjective now can it.
    ok - any fool can grant themselves the grand liberty that their opinion is not subjective and has a sound objective base


    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    this is the foundation of naive realism
    then it must be the foundation of all religions.
    actually its the foundation of geezer's argument that you are agreeing with - unlike you, I have evidenced it



    :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the basis for having a cohereant argument is to have sturdy premises that lead to a conclusion - even with this post you are mere ly making a conclusion ("I am objective and you are subjective") without premises (errr ... why?)

    .... get back to us when you have a coherent argument
    Which is why thiests are so scary. "God said" is not a sturdy premise. Nobody can even prove that he/she/it exists, let alone that he/she/it actually said something to someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Susan
    and who mentioned absolutist, no atheist would really say there is no god, it would be infantile as he could never know, so the atheist does have that rational position.
    the only difference between atheists and agnostics is the atheist is not open to the possibility of the supernatural, so for an atheist it would be irrational to become an agnostic. so I beg to differ in regard to my statement being nonsense.
    What is the difference between being "not open to" the supernatural and affirming the supernatural doesn't exist? I think the athiest position is kind of splitting hairs.

    They should either admit they're claiming God doesn't exist, or declare themselves agnostics and be done with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What is the difference between being "not open to" the supernatural and affirming the supernatural doesn't exist? I think the athiest position is kind of splitting hairs.
    it would be infantile to state an absolute, as there are none, so you can only say, you dont know if the supernatural exist or not, but you can be 99.999999999% (recuring) sure it doesn't, because it is unreasonable to think it does, it's infantile/foolish/stupid whatever you want to call it.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    They should either admit they're claiming God doesn't exist, or declare themselves agnostics and be done with it.
    and agnostic is not sure either way, he's a fifty fifty person, whereas an atheist is 99.9999999999 (recuring) to 000000000000000000000.0 (recuring), a huge difference.
    it is purely because it would be infantile to affirm it, that an atheist doesn't do so.
    all atheist would love to say god/gods catagorically do not exist, infact some do, but there is always the chance they will get egg on there faces, so the reasonable position is we can not know for certain.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the basis for having a cohereant argument is to have sturdy premises that lead to a conclusion - even with this post you are mere ly making a conclusion ("I am objective and you are subjective") without premises (errr ... why?)

    .... get back to us when you have a coherent argument
    Which is why thiests are so scary. "God said" is not a sturdy premise. Nobody can even prove that he/she/it exists, let alone that he/she/it actually said something to someone.
    therefore religion bereft of a sense of philosophy can be immediately rejected
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    therefore religion bereft of a sense of philosophy can be immediately rejected
    thank you for giving me an excellent excuse to reject religion :wink:
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    therefore religion bereft of a sense of philosophy can be immediately rejected
    thank you for giving me an excellent excuse to reject religion :wink:
    or alternatively, you could have a lot of homework ahead of you, since well over 50% of all philosophical presentations include some sort of positive theistic commentary/foundation
    :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    marnixR wrote:
    punarmusiko wrote:
    therefore religion bereft of a sense of philosophy can be immediately rejected
    thank you for giving me an excellent excuse to reject religion Wink
    or alternatively, you could have a lot of homework ahead of you, since well over 50% of all philosophical presentations include some sort of positive theistic commentary/foundation
    I'm curious what you mean by a "sense of philosophy".

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Kojax wrote:
    What is the difference between being "not open to" the supernatural and affirming the supernatural doesn't exist? I think the athiest position is kind of splitting hairs.
    it would be infantile to state an absolute, as there are none, so you can only say, you dont know if the supernatural exist or not, but you can be 99.999999999% (recuring) sure it doesn't, because it is unreasonable to think it does, it's infantile/foolish/stupid whatever you want to call it.
    If you have to be absolutely certain to make a positivistic claim, then no one in the history of the world has ever been in a position to make one.

    Absolute certainty is....... absolutely impossible.

    How do you know you're even awake right now? Maybe you'll wake up and find out you're in the matrix. How do you know the sun will rise tommorrow, or ever did rise? How do you know you're alive?

    You can't know any of these things. You simply believe them to within a certain very small margin of error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    I am surpised that this whole group is trying to tell us what an atheist is!! I hope to remind you all that there are all kinds of atheists and that we have very little in common! In fact, non-belief in something is the only thing we have in common.

    I keep hearing, also, that "atheists don't believe in god." Someone even made it sound like we have a faith that He does not exist! Myself, I simply discount the existence of anything, spirits, auras, etc. that cannot be demonstated and that there is no satisfactory supporting evidence of its existence. It is not a religion or an ideology, for example, that I do not also believe in Santa Claus. It is not a belief, ideology or faith. It is a NON belief.

    And I don't emphasize "God" in a negative way. I am impartial. I reject ALL "spirits." I don't flatter some at the expense of others by picking on One diety. To me there are NONE and never has been.

    Early in our social evolution, we needed the spirit theory of causation because we had no other way to figure out how to deal with this mysterious world around us. But after all this almost a 100,000 years of this, we have finally outgrown it. We can explain the world efficiently and with such practicalness---without resorting to "spirit" causation---that we do just fine without "them."

    We narrowed down the number of gods over the tens of thousands of years until in the last few thousand we got along with only a few. Now, we can dispense with the whole lot of them and move on.

    We do, still, need a common world-view and way of thinking to bind us all into a strong, vibrant society---which we do not now have---but that new ideological system need not and I aver will not be based on "spirits."

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com




    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    marnixR wrote:
    punarmusiko wrote:
    therefore religion bereft of a sense of philosophy can be immediately rejected
    thank you for giving me an excellent excuse to reject religion Wink
    or alternatively, you could have a lot of homework ahead of you, since well over 50% of all philosophical presentations include some sort of positive theistic commentary/foundation
    I'm curious what you mean by a "sense of philosophy".
    nothing so esoteric
    logic and rationality applied to distinguish the contingent from the causal
    for instance religion without a sense of philosophy would not have clear indications of the relationship between god, the material world and the living entity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists

    no that would be a akin to an amputee asking his limb to regrow.

    this is how it goes you start atheist, then get indoctrinated/brainwashed, than if your strong enough, you clear you head of all irrationalities, and revert back to stage one, but now your strong enough to resist and fight off the indoctrination and the irrationalities, so they cant brainwash you again, if only we could stop them getting to the children they are weak and susceptible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists

    no that would be a akin to an amputee asking his limb to regrow.

    this is how it goes you start atheist, then get indoctrinated/brainwashed, than if your strong enough, you clear you head of all irrationalities, and revert back to stage one, but now your strong enough to resist and fight off the indoctrination and the irrationalities, so they cant brainwash you again, if only we could stop them getting to the children they are weak and susceptible.
    as posted earlier in the thread

    Experts disagree

    http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...ves_in_god.htm
    " Dec. 9, 2004 - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Can Atheists Choose not to be Atheists

    no that would be a akin to an amputee asking his limb to regrow.

    this is how it goes you start atheist, then get indoctrinated/brainwashed, than if your strong enough, you clear you head of all irrationalities, and revert back to stage one, but now your strong enough to resist and fight off the indoctrination and the irrationalities, so they cant brainwash you again, if only we could stop them getting to the children they are weak and susceptible.
    as posted earlier in the thread

    Experts disagree

    http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...ves_in_god.htm
    " Dec. 9, 2004 - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. "
    lol, your not on about, flew are you, you picked a wrong-un there mate.
    flew hasn't become a theist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    this is how it goes you start atheist, then get indoctrinated/brainwashed, than if your strong enough, you clear you head of all irrationalities, and revert back to stage one, but now your strong enough to resist and fight off the indoctrination and the irrationalities, so they cant brainwash you again, if only we could stop them getting to the children they are weak and susceptible.
    Have you seen my "why do you think theism is irrational" thread? You claim theism is irrational, yet have no grounds as to why you believe such. Further, as I've pointed out to you before, you aren't born atheist. To be atheist, you'd have to experience theism. Thus, atheism is a choice, just like theism is a choice.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    I am surpised that this whole group is trying to tell us what an atheist is!! I hope to remind you all that there are all kinds of atheists and that we have very little in common! In fact, non-belief in something is the only thing we have in common.

    I keep hearing, also, that "atheists don't believe in god." Someone even made it sound like we have a faith that He does not exist! Myself, I simply discount the existence of anything, spirits, auras, etc. that cannot be demonstated and that there is no satisfactory supporting evidence of its existence. It is not a religion or an ideology, for example, that I do not also believe in Santa Claus. It is not a belief, ideology or faith. It is a NON belief.

    And I don't emphasize "God" in a negative way. I am impartial. I reject ALL "spirits." I don't flatter some at the expense of others by picking on One diety. To me there are NONE and never has been.

    Early in our social evolution, we needed the spirit theory of causation because we had no other way to figure out how to deal with this mysterious world around us. But after all this almost a 100,000 years of this, we have finally outgrown it. We can explain the world efficiently and with such practicalness---without resorting to "spirit" causation---that we do just fine without "them."

    We narrowed down the number of gods over the tens of thousands of years until in the last few thousand we got along with only a few. Now, we can dispense with the whole lot of them and move on.

    We do, still, need a common world-view and way of thinking to bind us all into a strong, vibrant society---which we do not now have---but that new ideological system need not and I aver will not be based on "spirits."

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com




    .
    i totally agree , and like youve said theres many form of athiesm, i personally see myself as a different kind of athiest from yourself, not only do i naturally deny the existence of god, i also refute it, and i think thats a healthy thing to do
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Further, as I've pointed out to you before, you aren't born atheist. To be atheist, you'd have to experience theism. Thus, atheism is a choice, just like theism is a choice.
    i totally disagree, i was born an athiest form atleast two generations of athiesm, atheism isn't a choice, you cant believe in something you know not to be true
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
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
  •