And without a system of theological metaphysics, we have no morality. And ethics, but not morals, are possible for animals. Got it. You have a private vocabulary, with its own meanings for "natural", "moral", "ethical", etc. When you have drawn conclusions, if you wish to communicate with others you might want to back-translate into the langauge used by the rest of us.
Correct. lol Incorrect. Language is public. How it is misinterpreted or misused is entirely up to the individual user. Of course, there is always the Wittgensteinian 'Private Language Argument' that could be brought up here, but that would be another discussion entirely... If by that you mean to transliterate into the poorly understood, mistaken usage, I'll say no thanks. While it is correct that the connotation of a particular word is flexible, its denotation is not.
To those who have asked me questions, and made challanges; I just spent an hour and a half typing responses, (4 to 6 paragraphs) as I type very slowly I was bumped off, auto log out, and when I hit submit, BAM! gone all of it. And I haven't the strenth to re type tonight. Sorry, but I'm not ignoring y'all.
Okay. Prove to me, conclusively, that you exist. Now, you might walk up to me and punch me in the teeth in order to make the point, but all that proves is that I perceive that you punched me in the teeth. It doesn't actually prove that either of us exists. The point of consciousness is about the only real thing. But in accepting that the point of consciousness proves to me that I exist, I must also accept that the fact that someone imagined a warp drive on the U.S.S. Enterprise means that these things exist, too. All navel-gazing proves is that you perceive you're gazing at your navel. • • • It's a fairly simple question. Allow me, instead, to make it more complicated. You posited the dramatic thesis that: I agree. Atheism is an act of faith. Just like believing I exist is a point of faith. I believe that I am who I am, sitting in front of my computer, responding to your erroneous thesis, but I could never actually prove it. Part of the problem you're having comes in the application of a corrupt definition: Imagine: Imagine a human being who is born, who grows without being taught to believe in God. In fact, no mention of God or divinity is ever made. This person grows up as an atheist (e.g., "without belief"). One day, a determined theist comes along and tells the atheist that he must believe, because God is real and created the world and will judge us all. The atheist, brought up on rational and methodical considerations says, "Interesting theory. Can you prove it?" The determined theist says, "Look around you! The trees are proof of God! Life, the Universe, everything is proof of God! Such wonders could never come about without God!" The atheist asks, "Can you prove that?" The determined theist becomes angry. "Why this rabid attachment? Why do you refuse to believe God exists? Don't you see you're simply acting on faith?" The atheist shrugs. "Well, it's pretty far-fetched. Some invisible being with no beginning and end, with no boundaries, who creates things and sits around deciding who's naughty and nice, and either rewarding or punishing people according to how well or poorly they kiss its ass? You're going to need to show me some sort of proof. I mean, what you're asserting defies the observable laws of nature. Can you show me any proof of this 'God' thing?" The determined theist shouts, "How dare you! You oppressive hatemonger! You're going to burn in Hell!" The atheist shrugs again. "Whatever, dude. Leave me alone." He turns and walks away. The theist screams: "You hateful ignoramus! You're just living on faith!" The problem with the theist's argument is that prior to addressing the atheist, the atheist had no clue about, saw no sign of, had no reason whatsoever to consider the idea of God. The atheist need not believe specifically that God does not exist. That proposition only comes up when theists insist. And until the theist insisted, the atheist had no thought of God one way or another. There is a point, Tht1Gy!, at which everything in our experience becomes a point of faith, such as our very existence and condition. Beyond that, however, there are some operating realities that can be observed. To observe them without injecting fairy tales into the mix is not a rabid attachment to disbelief. Rather, it is to observe without injecting fairy tales. Think about the Book of Job. The common description is that Satan tests Job's faith and loses. But what is that faith? Job's faith is different from most of ours. After all, if one day I cursed God and the sky suddenly came down and chewed me a new one, I'd probably pay attention. I might believe that God spoke to me, but I would never be able to prove it. This, of course, raises the proposition that it was Satan that put job in his place. Of course, we are supposed to accept the veracity of the narrative, right? So we know it is God who lashed out at Job. Thus, Job's faith is very different from, say, mine. Or an atheist's. If God came down and talked to me like that, yeah, I'd pay attention. So would just about any atheist in that situation.
So it's down to perception, if I'm reading you correctly. Which, of course, means that different people of different convictions will describe the same behavior differently, ie. imputing different motivations for it.
As a light aside - I was once talking to a lady who kept stressing how well she was brought up and all, and how she "has ethics". The lady was absolutely terrible for me to talk to, but at her incessant "I have ethics", I would think, "Yeah, so do monkeys" ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Exactly, exactly. If only theists would take this into consideration. Would you care starting a thread on this? To perhaps make some theists more aware of the situation that non-theists are in?
Hence, atheists need not even consider themselves the possibility of gods existing as there is absolutely nothing to warrant such notions, and that any arguments or debates arising are ALL in regards to the claims theists would present.
But then again: If theists would take this into consideration, they would thereby betray their religion.
I'd like to make two points regarding this: One, especially in our society in the so-called West, we are heavily conditioned to take issues about God seriously. We are also conditioned to feel guilty if we don't do so. It is a tradition to delve into these matters. Before we know it, we're into it head over heels. Two, there are many ways to formulate the basic existential doubt or fear, but in our society, formulating it in theistic terms is one of the more, if not the most common way. Somehow it seems more plausible here to ask "Does God exist?" than to ask "Is it possible to make an end to suffering?", for example. But many theists insist that any interest that non-theists have for issues regarding God proves that non-theists "already know God" or that God indeed exists.
Well, some things are logical, while other things aren't. If it exists or not is not dependent on how logical it would be for it to exist, as clearly some logic are above us Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! so to say... There is no objective evidence for the supernatural (or it is, but hasn't been proven to 100% accuracy, but nevermind that), as I see it, there can be subjective evidence though, that clearly shows that you can believe in it allthough it is not logical from another persons point of view (the other persons subjective point of view). No one can be entirely objective, there are allways subjective influences, even cold hard facts has to be interpreted (just look at Quantum Physics if you don't believe me).
I do not believe that any god exist. That does not mean that no god exist. That simply means that based on information that I believe to be accurate that no god exist. Its easy to reach around what you know. Much harder to see your reflection when faced with what you can know.
This is getting preposterous. Tiassa, I know you're an adult but you talk like a college sophomore with too much time on his hands and too many drugs in his head. How could you be around to ask the question if you don't exist??? How could you be sitting there wondering about your existence if you didn't exist??? Can you say "recursive"? No dude. But the fact that you are there to imagine them means that you exist. What you observe with your senses does not prove that it exists, but the fact that your senses exist and are operational proves that you exist. This is not generally true. You need to spend less time wondering whether you exist and spend more time reading. Read up on Jung's concept of archetypes. Archetypes are a kind of instinct, something we believe because it's hard-wired in our synapses. We almost all have the same basic set for evolutionary reasons that aren't always clear, but they are the components of our collective unconscious. These are motifs that arise in almost all societies in almost all eras, such as the flood that covers the earth, the man who rises from the dead, and the civilization lost beneath the sea. Belief in the supernatural, in unobservable beings who control our lives, is an archetype. Religion is a collection of archetypes, and these beliefs are powerful because they feel true down in the animal part of our brain. Theism is almost as deep an instinct as the pack-social instinct that guided our Mesolithic ancestors. Like the pack-social instinct, theism is a primitive aspect of our nature that we have to overcome to transcend our inner caveman. People do have a reason to believe in gods, an instinctive reason. But people also have a reason to learn to override this belief, a reason based in rationality and learning. Fortunately our uniquely massive forebrains give us the unique ability to override our instincts. Civilization has been a ten-thousand year struggle to transcend our primitive instincts, and it has been a fabulously successful struggle. We have become a herd-social species. The next step is to dump the bloody gods.
The problem is that many theists tend to automatically assume that when someone has such an archetypical belief in the supernatural, this belief is about (their particular theistic version of) God. Ie. If I think the woods are alive in some special way, some theists will claim that this is proof of God, and that I thereby believe in God.
For a post in the phil forum, this is a really cheap shot. Philosophers have been wondering about the question "What exists? Do I exist?" for millenia - and you think you can just scoff the issue away ...
I like the title, "atheism is a belief", as this title covers much ground. However. The reason the title covers much ground, is simply because it says a lot on its own, and by itself. Atheism by it self as titled atheism is a belief is a good way of saying it, as you then would be saying a possible solution to some ills of thought. However. I feel that atheism is not quite simply a belief as the thread starter possibly realized this, in the fact that atheism isn't just a belief. Atheism is a belief. I get the picture that, atheism is more justified. Atheism is something that, is a rational and a logical explaination to the beliefs that we have as humans and as this is the philosophy section I would suspect there to be a great deal of effort behind the question of it being a part of our beliefs. Considering atheism as simply a belief, leaves no alternative to other ways of thought such as those that say that atheism is a determinism of our existance. So to speak. Comprehende?
First off, Sorry I've been gone so long from this (and any other) thread. I say this as it's 'my' thread, as it were. KMA definition: noun- the theory or belief that God does not exist. Version 1.0.2 (1.0.2) Copyright © 2005 Apple Computer, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Blah, Blah, Blah. These types piss me off too. and the pantheist No, the problem is you are under the impression that all theist are Christians, or rather "Jehovahans". I believe in neither heaven, hell, Jehovah, or his ne'er do well side kick, Satan. Bullshit. A lot of Atheists talk about god, a lot. About the same amount as many Christians talk about Satan. Humm. But that's what the word means! Check the dictionary. I looked in 5 or 6 of them. Only one had this 'soft' atheism you folks go on about. Further, you're defending yourself from claims I never made. The "rabid attachment" to which I refer is to the word atheism. If it is your (I mean 'you' in the 'second person') position: Whether or not there is some sort of god, it doesn't matter to you, that god plays no part in your world view, that it's unknowable, fine. But that's not atheism. Period. That is "agnostic"; A very solid and defendable position. But it is NOT atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is NO god. Again I implore you, look it up.
That's the closest anyone has gotten to acknowledging my point. Thank you. Even if you are being derisive. And, I have been accused of pedantry before.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the 'without gods' thing; yes, that's where the word started, but then 'sin' was a Greek archery term referring to an increment of distance from the center. So I've been told, anyway. Words change over time. Besides, it seems every generation of scientists finds a few things to be true that the previous generation thought absurd. Here's an idea that just popped into my head: Can you prove that "thoughts" exist*? I mean, you can't see, feel, taste, hear, or smell them. So how can you prove they exist? And, yes, I say this with tongue firmly in cheek. *Enmos probably could. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are wrong, a belief is something you only think to be true, scientifically speaking atheism is flawlessly correct Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ask someone whether they would like a doughnut, a pancake, French fries, a Coke, or a kick in the ass. The interval between your asking the question and their response can reasonably be construed as "thinking" time.
