Atheists, What's the point?

[muichimotsu]

Almost every religion requires such a leap of faith. Why play Russian roulette?

A lot of it depends on what you call a religion and how seriously you take the tenets in the religions, especially if you incorporate multiple faiths' ideas into your worldview. I have strong Buddhist and Daoist influences, for instance, but I could be mischaracterized as someone believed in things I don't if I didn't say I'm secular in my use of the religion's beliefs. Then again, Buddhism and Daoism, along with Confucianism, are argued more often to be philosophies.

We don't need Pascal's wager to be thrown in here, of course, since that's patently absurd in suggesting God wants its creations to be gamblers

 

[Tnmusicman]

There isn't a burden of proof if you aren't making a claim about positive existence or a negative claim that is sweeping in nature. I think the strong atheist you're imagining doesn't exist in that they are making a claim of gnosis, spiritual knowledge, or equivalent scale, that there is no such thing as God in the entire known and unknown universe.

Most "strong" atheists say it's merely highly improbable and unlikely, not that it is impossible, though there are philosophical arguments that could supplant that claim, within reason. But this doesn't preclude something we might call "God" existing in the universe, but not meeting the standards of common theists.

I've always been told BY ATHEISTS that weak atheists are the ones that say probably not but not claiming there definatly is no God whereas the strong atheists claim there is no God. If you are saying there's no distinction between the two types then why are there so many claiming the differences to seperate the types of atheists there are?

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

 

[muichimotsu]

I've always been told BY ATHEISTS that weak atheists are the ones that say probably not but not claiming there definatly is no God whereas the strong atheists claim there is no God. If you are saying there's no distinction between the two types then why are there so many claiming the differences to seperate the types of atheists there are?

First off, your experience with atheists does not determine the behavior or statements of all atheists, strong, weak, hard, soft, explicit or implicit

This distinction you bring up is more recent, at least Antony Flew recent. The dichotomy of implicit and explicit atheism is relevant in its own way, though moreso a matter of affirmation, not degree of certainty, which is a fair distinction

But merely asserting it is more likely is not the same as saying it is absolutely true. I have not met an atheist myself who has ever argued they are absolutely certain no God or gods exist. They are usually fairly certain, but not absolutely so. Therefore, the burden of proof is not entirely on them, if it is at all, since they're arguing by probability, not strict evidence proof.

I'm not saying there aren't distinctions, but I'm saying the atheist you're describing is highly unlikely to exist, as opposed to a more reasonable qualification between highly probable and somewhat probable, for instance

 

[Eudaimonist]

To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny. - Joseph Addison

Saying it is so doesn't make it so. I'm not certain why I should have faith in Joseph Addison's judgment.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

A lot of it depends on what you call a religion and how seriously you take the tenets in the religions, especially if you incorporate multiple faiths' ideas into your worldview. I have strong Buddhist and Daoist influences, for instance, but I could be mischaracterized as someone believed in things I don't if I didn't say I'm secular in my use of the religion's beliefs. Then again, Buddhism and Daoism, along with Confucianism, are argued more often to be philosophies.

We don't need Pascal's wager to be thrown in here, of course, since that's patently absurd in suggesting God wants its creations to be gamblers

Hey, God created Las Vegas too

 

[seeking Christ]

What is your evidence of the supernatural? Very interested in hearing this.

Aw c'mon, if you're Hovind you know this already.

No but seriously, the vast majority of Christians on this site have had at least some experience with the Spiritual. Some of us a LOT. Miracles are part of the Kingdom, which is very much a here and now thing.

 

[seeking Christ]

Problem is this assumes that atheism has a problem with truth, which is hardly the case. And also presupposes that faith in the sense of belief without evidence or even belief in spite of evidence to the contrary is something ideal or a point of comparison between systems to show which is superior by who has more or less. Though if Christianity's own principle about faith is right, wouldn't that still make atheists right if this were true, since Jesus admired those who have faith and have not seen?

Faith without seeing does not mean faith without evidence. This is a common misconception.

 

[muichimotsu]

Faith tends toward that definition, however. Trust is rarely seen as a comparable, but much more nuanced and rational synonym to faith. Evidence is also contested here, since a subjective experience of something that people can't agree on beyond warm fuzzy feelings hardly counts the same as experimentation or logic. A weird dream, a vision, these aren't evidence and certainly aren't proof, they're correlations people make to things to make all the thinking in their head focus on one thing instead of many things.

 

[someguy14]

.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Faith without seeing does not mean faith without evidence. This is a common misconception.

What is your definition? I tend towards:

Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 (American Standard Version)

I take faith to mean both the hope and the steadfast conviction that something currently unseen will come to pass, such as having faith that one will end up in heaven.

Perhaps some evidence works its way into supporting this conviction, but ultimately it comes down to believing in something that is not available to sensory validation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[someguy14]

.

 

[muichimotsu]

You are amazed that existence exists. Be amazed at where it comes from.

I can be amazed at where existence comes from, but I seriously doubt it's so childish and simplistic as your imaginary father figure creating everything from nothing

 

[Tiberius]

On mine if you hit quote it displays the whole post. If I hit MQ and try to highlight a certain comment and go to reply it will come up blank.

You can type it manually.

 

[Tiberius]

John 3:16-21
For God So Loved the World
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

Do you realise that quoting the Bible to an atheist does absolutely nothing because atheists don't believe it?

It would be like me trying to prove that the stories in Aesop's Fables are true by quoting Aesop's Fables to you.

 

[Tiberius]

To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny. - Joseph Addison[FONT='Corbel','sans-serif'][/FONT]

Just because someone says it doesn't mean it is true.

Personally, I don't take anything on faith. I take things on observable and testable evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Faith without seeing does not mean faith without evidence. This is a common misconception.

Are you saying that there is testable and verifiable evidence for religion? If so, please tell us so we may test it and verify it.

 

[Tiberius]

Will one admit that they are grateful for all that they have been given that is good? Or will they rather attempt to give themselves credit for what they have received?

It depends.

If someone gives me something good, I am grateful to the person who gave it.

If I work hard to gain something, then I certainly do give myself credit.

But if I get something through random luck, then I don't pretend otherwise.

 

[someguy14]

.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Faith without seeing does not mean faith without evidence. This is a common misconception.

What do you mean by "faith" then?

 

[muichimotsu]

It is foolishness unto those that don't believe in God. That is obvious. Taking credit for what one has received, that is simplistic. All things are possible with God, the Giver of all that is.

So it's incomprehensible because I don't believe your nonsense? Convenient and circular logic.

I take credit for what I discern and generate, not for information that preceded me.