Atheism

[Rasta]

No I'm afraid you're not correct friend. It's the theists who are making a positive claim there is a God therefore, it's their burden to prove it.

Any assertion of knowledge is a positive assertion. . .

The law of logic doesn't require me to prove a negative. The nonexistence of something.

Which "law of logic" is that? Can I say that I know you don't exist? I don't need to prove a negative right?

I mean what do you need to come to the realization there is no God in control of anything.

Define every possible being that could possibly be labeled god, then I'll give you my answer.

I think if you use your brain a little you can see there is no such thing that exists.

Did you understand when I wrote the sentence: "I don't believe in god."?

Huh?

Meaning, ultimately labels are arbitrary.

I've always had a problem with this descriptionn for disbelief in God.

Why do you call it disbelief rather than belief?

It carries too much unnecessary baggage. It's like someone trying to hide what they really believe or disbelieve. Like trying to have things both ways. Well, I don't really believe there is a God but on the other hand I don't really want to conclude there is not God and sound like a hard *** atheist too much. I'll just play it safe for now and kind of blend into our society without making any waves with the god soaked society we live in.

Yeah, I'm really not trying to hide from anything. The thing is, I actually understand what the words mean.

Do you claim to have direct knowledge: (gnostic)

Or do you admit that you do not have direct knowledge: (agnostic)

 

[Rasta]

No I'm afraid you're not correct friend. It's the theists who are making a positive claim there is a God therefore, it's their burden to prove it.

Any assertion of knowledge is a positive claim . . .

The law of logic doesn't require me to prove a negative. The nonexistence of something.

Which "law of logic" is that? If I were to make the assertion that you do not exist, am I required to prove it for it to be accepted as true?

I mean what do you need to come to the realization there is no God in control of anything.

Please list all of the possible being/ entities that could possibly be labeled as god, then I will answer your question.

I think if you use your brain a little you can see there is no such thing that exists.

What part of: "I don't believe in god." do you not understand?

Huh?

Meaning, that ultimately labels are arbitrary.

I've always had a problem with this descriptionn for disbelief in God.

Why do you call it disbelief rather than belief?

It carries too much unnecessary baggage. It's like someone trying to hide what they really believe or disbelieve. Like trying to have things both ways. Well, I don't really believe there is a God but on the other hand I don't really want to conclude there is not God and sound like a hard *** atheist too much. I'll just play it safe for now and kind of blend into our society without making any waves with the god soaked society we live in.

No, I'm not trying to hide from anyone. It's just that I understand what the words actually mean.

Do you claim to possess direct knowledge: (gnostic)

Or do you acknowledge that you do not have direct knowledge: (agnostic)

 

[Rasta]

I would argue that there's also a possibility that the Founders of said religions inspire the change, not the other way around.

I would agree to the possibility, but given modern analogies, I'd say it's unlikely. Haiti for example is described as 90% Catholic, and 100% Voodoo, by natives there. Meaning, becoming Christian has not overtly changed their beliefs, just their point of refrence.

But I can think of a better place to talk about that, as it's something of a main theme of my own religion. But I wouldn't want to be mistaken for proselytizing here (well or anywhere else), so if you want to talk about it a more interfaith area might be better suited.

If I understand the rules, you can answer questions/ correct assertions about your faith here.

 

[dewaddict84]

Shame upon thee for double-posting!

Also, I agree that the "agnostic atheists" are hardly watering down their ideas just to fit into society. Well, you and me at least. I realized that our senses are imperfect, so seeing is not believing. Our logic (or, interpretation, if you will) is imperfect, so we can't believe every crazy idea we come up with.

Direct knowledge though? I thought it was more like absolute knowledge, you can prove it. Direct implies that you personally... uh, did whatever. I gnostically believe that Mars is red, although I've never seen it through a telescope myself. Plenty of people trust others to do this stuff for them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I would agree to the possibility, but given modern analogies, I'd say it's unlikely. Haiti for example is described as 90% Catholic, and 100% Voodoo, by natives there. Meaning, becoming Christian has not overtly changed their beliefs, just their point of refrence.

If I understand the rules, you can answer questions/ correct assertions about your faith here.

Interesting as I have never heard that so I did a search for it......Guess I should watch the NG channel more often

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0707_040707_tvtaboovoodoo.html


"One common saying is that Haitians are 70 percent Catholic, 30 percent Protestant, and 100 percent voodoo," said Lynne Warberg, a photographer who has documented Haitian voodoo for over a decade.
In April 2003 an executive decree by then president Jean-Bertrand Aristide sanctioned voodoo as an officially recognized religion.
"It is a religion in the same way Judaism or Christianity is," said Bob Corbett, professor emeritus of philosophy at Webster University in St. Louis, Missouri. "Voodoo doesn't have a sacred text, a church, or a hierarchical structure of leaders, but it is very similar culturally."

 

[Mythunderstood]

No I'm afraid you're not correct friend. It's the theists who are making a positive claim there is a God therefore, it's their burden to prove it. The law of logic doesn't require me to prove a negative. The nonexistence of something. I mean what do you need to come to the realization there is no God in control of anything. I think if you use your brain a little you can see there is no such thing that exists.

Of course you don't have to prove ANYTHING just for having a disbelief in god. You're not making any claims. Since the majority of atheists are NOT claiming knowledge, we have nothing to prove. We merely do not believe the theists’ claims that their deity exists. Now if most theists admitted that they had no knowledge of god and didn't know for sure whether or not he existed, but they still believed in him......then there would be nothing to prove or argue about. People can believe whatever they want, right or wrong. It doesn't matter. But when you come across as though your god does exist as a fact, then you have the burden of proof to back up your knowledge claims. Likewise, if you state that there is in fact no god, then this suggests claims of knowledge which would require proof.

For example, you could be arguing with someone about the possibility of life on other planets. You could say that "I believe that there is life on other planets." (This is just your belief and you are not making any claims requiring proof). The other person might then say "No, there is no life on other planets." How would they know that? A statement such as this implies knowledge which would therefore require proof. Now if the person just stated that they "didn't believe that life existed on other planets", then there would be nothing to prove.

Claims of knowledge whether you are a gnostic (strong) theist or gnostic (strong) atheist, would require proof either way.

 

[Mythunderstood]

I've always had a problem with this descriptionn for disbelief in God. Agnostic/atheist. It carries too much unnecessary baggage. It's like someone trying to hide what they really believe or disbelieve. Like trying to have things both ways. Well, I don't really believe there is a God but on the other hand I don't really want to conclude there is not God and sound like a hard *** atheist too much. I'll just play it safe for now and kind of blend into our society without making any waves with the god soaked society we live in.

It has nothing to do with trying to hide what they believe. As I'm sure you already know, agnosticism has nothing to do with fence-sitting regarding belief. On the continuum of belief, there are only 2 choices, you either believe in god, or you don't. Agnosticism has to do with KNOWLEDGE, while atheism/theism have to do with belief. You can be an agnostic atheist where you don't claim to "know" for sure whether or not gods exist, but you have no reason currently to believe in one. Likewise, an agnostic theist, would also admit to not having "knowledge", but they would still choose to believe in god anyway.

Similarly, there are gnostic or strong atheists who may claim that there is no god, or god does not exist. This has a claim of knowledge (gnosis) tied to it, and is a claim made by very few atheists. On the other hand, a large percentage of theists are gnostic because they make knowledge claims, claiming that they do indeed have "knowledge" (evidence/personal experience?) of god. Only those who make claims of knowledge (strong/gnostic atheists and strong/gnostic theists) have the burden of proof to prove their claims.

Since the majority of atheists are NOT claiming knowledge, we have nothing to prove. We merely do not believe the theists’ claims that their deity exists. Now if most theists admitted that they had no knowledge of god and didn't know for sure whether or not he existed, but they still believed in him......then there would be nothing to prove or argue about. People can believe whatever they want, right or wrong. It doesn't matter. But when you come across as though your god does exist as a fact, then you have the burden of proof to back up your knowledge claims.

 

[Booko]

I would agree to the possibility, but given modern analogies, I'd say it's unlikely. Haiti for example is described as 90% Catholic, and 100% Voodoo, by natives there. Meaning, becoming Christian has not overtly changed their beliefs, just their point of refrence.

Well, it's not like I deny that change comes after either. I don't think we need to choose between the chicken or the egg. To me anyway, it seems to be some of each.

If I understand the rules, you can answer questions/ correct assertions about your faith here.

At the level I'd have to go into to explain what I mean, I think it might easily be mistaken for pushing my religious ideas, so it's better I think if I were going to address it, to do it where there's no chance of going against the rules.

 

[Rasta]

Well, it's not like I deny that change comes after either. I don't think we need to choose between the chicken or the egg. To me anyway, it seems to be some of each.

I agree that some of each is most plausible. The Norse's conversion to Christianity seems to follow the opposite pattern. However, I know that in most places of Scandinavia, a failure to convert was punished by death.

At the level I'd have to go into to explain what I mean, I think it might easily be mistaken for pushing my religious ideas, so it's better I think if I were going to address it, to do it where there's no chance of going against the rules.

Ok.

 

[franklin]

Any assertion of knowledge is a positive claim . . .

I also can say beyond a shadow of doubt Santa Claus doesn't exist also. Do you have to be agnostic about Santa? What knowledge do you need about the possibility of such a person/being. He is God btw, all knowing etc.

Which "law of logic" is that? If I were to make the assertion that you do not exist, am I required to prove it for it to be accepted as true?

Oh wow, what an awesome analogy! you have to be kidding. You need to do better than this. It really amazes me when I engage in discussions with agnostics. I almost get the feeling I'm talking to a theist. It must be tough beiing an agnostic. I was one for a while. I kind of got a little tired of telling people I just don't know, I just don't know etc. Just do a little observation of what's going on with our universe and the world we are part of and before long you will have to honestly conclude there isn't a caring anything out there anywhere. It really isn't hard either. It might even give you a slight headache at first but it'll pass after awhile.

But let me ask you this. If there is such a thing out there that can be called "God", just how would it be defined? How would you define such a thing? That's why I have no problem whatsoever saying there is no God. It's not a claim. It's just a simple observation. It took me a few years. I found it quite refreshing to say the least. Therefore, I'll say it again just to make myself clear. There is no God or gods, no angels, no devils, no spirits, no ghosts, no heaven or hell and there is no such thing as the supernatural. Just the natural world we are part of and can perceive objectively with all the senses we possess as human beings.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Just do a little observation of what's going on with our universe and the world we are part of and before long you will have to honestly conclude there isn't a caring anything out there anywhere. It really isn't hard either. It might even give you a slight headache at first but it'll pass after awhile.

Truth (at least in philosophical context) is subjective. Not everybody will come to the same conclusion as you do.

But let me ask you this. If there is such a thing out there that can be called "God", just how would it be defined? How would you define such a thing?

Unless you're Merriam Webster in disguise, I fail to see the relevance of this question.

That's why I have no problem whatsoever saying there is no God. It's not a claim.

Yes it is.

It's just a simple observation.

It is your guess, which is no better than anybody else's.

It took me a few years. I found it quite refreshing to say the least. Therefore, I'll say it again just to make myself clear. There is no God or gods, no angels, no devils, no spirits, no ghosts, no heaven or hell and there is no such thing as the supernatural. Just the natural world we are part of and can perceive objectively with all the senses we possess as human beings.

Saying something doesn't make it correct. You stating that there is nothing supernatural has no bearing on what is actually true.

 

[Rasta]

I also can say beyond a shadow of doubt Santa Claus doesn't exist also. Do you have to be agnostic about Santa?

Good for you. I'm proud of you. No I don't need to be agnostic about Santa, because many people have been to the North Pole. We can see quite plainly that there is no workshop.

What knowledge do you need about the possibility of such a person/being. He is God btw, all knowing etc.

Santa is god? That's an interesting assertion.

Oh wow, what an awesome analogy! you have to be kidding. You need to do better than this. It really amazes me when I engage in discussions with agnostics. I almost get the feeling I'm talking to a theist.

No, I'm not kidding. Really? That's strange. I get the impression I'm talking to a child.

It must be tough beiing an agnostic. I was one for a while. I kind of got a little tired of telling people I just don't know, I just don't know etc.

Now you think you KNOW? Perhaps you don't comprehend what KNOWledge is?

Just do a little observation of what's going on with our universe and the world we are part of and before long you will have to honestly conclude there isn't a caring anything out there anywhere.

Who said god has to be caring? Besides, you think you can make an accurate statement of knowledge about our universe by looking at our insignificant speck of rock that we call earth? That sure is presumptious.

It really isn't hard either. It might even give you a slight headache at first but it'll pass after awhile.

I used to think like you do, the thing is, I learned more about what it means to KNOW something.

But let me ask you this. If there is such a thing out there that can be called "God", just how would it be defined? How would you define such a thing?

You're the one who is claiming to KNOW something, not me. Why don't you answer this?

That's why I have no problem whatsoever saying there is no God. It's not a claim.

It is a claim actually. Maybe you don't know what the word claim means? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim

It's just a simple observation. It took me a few years. I found it quite refreshing to say the least. Therefore, I'll say it again just to make myself clear. There is no God or gods, no angels, no devils, no spirits, no ghosts, no heaven or hell and there is no such thing as the supernatural.

I don't believe in the supernatural either. I'm just honest enough not to claim to possess any knowledge on the matter.

Just the natural world we are part of and can perceive objectively with all the senses we possess as human beings.

This is rather presumptious too.

 

[Rasta]

The law of logic doesn't require me to prove a negative.

Oh Franklin, you never answered my question, about which "law of logic" makes this assertion. Is that because you don't know what you are talking about?

 

[franklin]

Oh Franklin, you never answered my question, about which "law of logic" makes this assertion. Is that because you don't know what you are talking about?

What part of logic do you not understand? And what question did I not answer? Give it to me again please.

 

[franklin]

Truth (at least in philosophical context) is subjective. Not everybody will come to the same conclusion as you do.

Truth is objective. Would you say gravity is subjective? Gravity is reality. Truth, reality, fact conform with each other. Nothing subjective about that. Gravity is fact. Reality exists whether you're conscience of it or not. Doesn't matter what your conclusion is either.

 

[Jersey]

Do you believe atheism to be a religion? Why or why not?

As an atheist I try not to believe in things therefore, atheism is not a religion. Far from it.

Atheism is simply looking at life from a rational and objective perspective.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As an atheist I try not to believe in things therefore, atheism is not a religion. Far from it.

Atheism is simply looking at life from a rational and objective perspective.

That is the best atheist siggy I have seen yet

Don't get me wrong. I’m not saying religion doesn’t have its uses. Personally I turn to it whenever I want my intelligence insulted. And the holy scriptures come in very handy when I need to justify behaviour I’m ashamed of. -- Pat Condell

 

[Jersey]

That is the best atheist siggy I have seen yet

Don't get me wrong. I’m not saying religion doesn’t have its uses. Personally I turn to it whenever I want my intelligence insulted. And the holy scriptures come in very handy when I need to justify behaviour I’m ashamed of. -- Pat Condell

Perhaps you should go visit YouTube and watch some of his videos then.

Here is one that basically describes religion quite well in less then 2 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBmfmfm3eQg

It's not by Pat Condell though.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Perhaps you should go visit YouTube and watch some of his videos then.

Here is one that basically describes religion quite well in less then 2 minutes:

Actually I like the way this guy describes it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLDl0aDrJc&feature=related

 

[Rasta]

What part of logic do you not understand?

"Franklinlogic".

And what question did I not answer?

Which "law of logic" makes the assertion that you don't need to prove a negative assertion of belief.