Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

My basic point is that faith is an inherrent quality within your acceptance of anything you hold to be true/probable/factual/reasonable. So even if you reason inductively - you still have faith in your reasoning - if you see the invisible gnome - you have faith in your perception - and vision is eventually a cognitive process because different people will see different things when they actually see the same thing.

This answer would more suit the other thread. Though I do not think that Occam's Razor can be applied practically to most situations. It may come in to play here. I am yet to see this theory explain anyything which previous ones have not. Then it still has the same basic problem - why are these objects expanding and why is space accelerating?

Of course not. It's just what it is - a theory - a human, possibly errant explanation of observed phenomena [what we think we see].

I'd say they are the same thing viewed from a different angle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually, I've seen many facts disappear - then again it might be how you view it? maybe from another angle?. For example, I'm positive it was a fact that the rest of the 'universe' rotated around the earth before Kopernik's theory was accepted.

Sure, they just stopped 'falling', and were more attracted. But wait! The Expansionary Theory!... They might just be growing too - even when they're not on the tree!?! I wouldn't say Einstein replaced Newton - he just improved on him. Newtonian mechanics are still used today. I have no problem with theories - don't know why you seemed to have discerned that. I just stated they are just that - theories which can be replaced at any one time. And 'facts' - even they can be replaced - as you have seen. The only fact I know about is the fact that I cannot know if I know or not - philosophically speaking - but I'm no philosopher.

Yeah, belief has obvious existence. You believe gravity exists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i knew there were theories about the way it worked, it was just the fact that we don't exactly know how to explain it. it was more of an example to show we can't have ultimate knowledge of our surroundings.

in this case i meant take humans out of the equation (as in not in existance) and which would obviously exist. gravity exists without out us. belief in religion does not. we have no impact on the universe, the universe impacts on us. we live in it, it doesn't live in us. i don't believe in gravity as gravity believes in me, if it didn't i would float off this earth. therefore to some degree i know it. if you had no humans around there would be no such thing as religion, that is why i wouldn't compare it to gravity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are confusing simple belief with faith. Faith is a subset of belief. Once again, it is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. We have plenty of evidence to conclude that observation is a good way to determine what is going on around us. If I see a piano in front of me, I believe it is there, but I do not need to have faith that it is there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The explanation in the link I provided seems to be quite clear.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Faith in God comes within us. It is a part of us and not based on external evidence but internal evidence. Faith is also different than just belief. We can see this in the bible because demons know that Jesus is the Son of God yet do not have faith.

Also atheism is a religion. It is a very strong belief in not having a belief. Atheism is also more well defined than christianity. If it was not a religion then it would not be protected under the freedom of religion acts.

 

That was funny.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course atheism is not "a very strong belief in not having a belief" but, rather, the very strong conviction that there is insufficient verifiable evidence to warrant a belief in God(s). The distinction is simple and obvious to all except those who need not to see it.

So, tell me. Why is it that some try so very hard to legitimatize themselves and their fantasies by framing atheism as a religion?

 

Faith in god isn't "a part of me", and there was nothing to come from within me.

An absence of something isn't a rival version of it.

All religions that I'm aware of maintain the pretense of having an answer for the question of he meaning of life.

Atheists do not pretend to know, and are willing to admit that they do not have the answer.

We simply aren't aware of any credible evidence that anyone else has an answer either.

Maybe you could define "internal evidence" for us as well.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

no it doesn't. if it did, some people were born without god within them. i find no internal evidence of god in myself, i have never experienced feelings synomous with some greater being. demons could count as an exception because they have to believe in christ. for them it isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of dependance, without christ demons wouldn't exist. humans on the other hand would probably exist without god, so for us it's not just a matter of belief, you have to have faith to believe.

for the last time atheism is not a religion, freedom of religion acts should be named freedom of belief's act if atheism is protected by it.

 

I agree fully that faith is a subset of belief. That's why I say it is an inherrent quality within your acceptance of anything you hold to 'be'. Many display faith in scientists and their methods because many atheists are not scientists themselves... have never done the many experiments... have never gone through the data... and yet they believe... why? Everything you hold true is directly related to what you believe to be true [two ways of saying the same thing]. The question is if noone in the world believed gravity exists, would it exist? Atheroy seems to think so... I simply don't know.

With respect to the definition... eventually... if you realise it... there is no real 'proof' of anything upon dissection. The notion that you exist and you are who you are is proof of itself. And everything is relative to your existence [if you don't exist then your notions won't exist] - this is how an atheist has to see it based on their rationale. I take that definition as; The condition of a human existence is built upon faith.

Faith is a subset of belief. As okinirus said, faith comes from God to help us believe in Him. It is an inherrent human quality. When you put your faith in God, within yourself you will know that you have placed your faith in the right place. You all use faith but you just fail to see it. If you read the bible carefully, it stresses on faith... the central verse in the bible... states; "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." PSALM 118:8 - N.I.V. In other words put your faith in God, not in man. Atheists choose to put their faith in man. I put my faith in God.

 

Syntax. That's the obvious distinction - except for those who need not see it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Two ways of saying the same thing?

No true Christian needs to legitamize themselves by doing anything except worshipping God. And that's a personal, explicitly subjectiive experience. We are just on a mission for truth.

 

I cannot see how you can say gravity would exist without us. You seem to have taken a position on all of the above, but I cannot at the moment except to say that we definitely impact on the rest of the universe [our environment?]. Hey... it's all a matter of how you look at it. Aren't we apart of the universe as humans. We are all a part of God's creation.

 

MarcAC,

No you aren't. Christianity says it already has the truth and that it is God.

Your only mission as a Christian is to mindlessly do what you are told.

 

That is simply inaccurate. One commits to a metaphysics, while the other commits to a methodology. If it serves you to conflate the two, please feel free to do so.

No doubt, rendering the efforts of okinrus et. al. all the more pathetic.

So was David Koresh. So is Osama Bin Laden. So?

 

I'm not sure how treating atheism as a religion legitimatizes it or doesn't. All I'm doing is stating that Atheism is a religion. Surely if it was not a religion, we would not be speaking about it in a religion forum. Now it is impossible to have just non-belief. Either you belief that God does not exists, maybe does exists or exists. You cannot just not have a belief. If you did, you could not detect the existance of not having a belief.

 

Discussing atheism in a religious forum, oooh, you've got us there!
That makes it a religion?

It isn't impossible to have a non-belief. Responsible thinkers suspend judgement in the absence of evidence.

I'm unaware of any evidence of god(s), so I don't believe. If some irrefutable evidence comes along, I may have to change that.

The religious right's campaign to call atheism a religion is part of their agenda to have "equal time" for religious nonsense like creationism in the classroom.

 

Okinrus,

To be blunt you are seriously screwed up. I sincerely hope you have some suspicion that you know you are wrong.

You missed the point. It is theists like you trying to assert that atheism is a religion that somehow allows you to feel more comfortable with your own religion. You don’t seem to comprehend that not everyone has to be dependent on religion.

And it most definitely is not as it fails all essential criteria in the definition of a religion. It is firstly a disbelief in the existence of gods or a god, and optionally it is a belief that gods (the essential ingredient of many religions) do not exist. Theistic religions assert the opposite.

It is difficult to believe that you can make such a statement. The religion forum is for debating religious issues which includes opposing views of which atheism is a dominant adherent. The forum is not just for those who hold religious beliefs.

Don’t be silly of course it isn’t. If a scientist makes a claim that he believes Jupiter is made of cheese then I am perfectly free to disbelieve him. This would be pure non-belief, despite the fact that I cannot prove him wrong.

No as I have just described but again I can have a disbelief in the claims made for the existence of God.

There is no “maybe” in my position, I simply find the Christian claims for the existence of their God too ridiculous to be worthy of belief.

Like I said you are really screwed up. I have no idea what that statement means.

Please please read the opening post of this thread.

 

The maybe exist, maybe doesn't category of belief is supposed to cover these thinkers.

Wait a minute. If atheism had no links to religion, than why discuss it here. Why don't we just say it is a science? There are "atheist" religions such as buddhism where some schools don't believe in the existance of a creator. Why not just make atheism a broad religion covering many different sects such as buddhism? Christianity itself is fairly broad and covers many different beliefs from mormons who believe in many gods to Jehova Witness who believe that Christ is not God. So already we bend our beliefs to society, let's at least bend them consistantly. Atheism is not taught at school. The teacher will usually make it clear that evolution and creation are scientific theories based on observation and not universal truths. Not to say that christians could not believe that these two theories are true.

 

Creationism isn't science.

 

Yes creationism is science. Whether is true or not does not effect it's acceptance into the realm of science. However when I said creation, I was specifically talking about the big bang, which is usually taught somewhat in highschool.

 

Please retract this statement or correct such that it has some sort of actual meaning.

Religion is founded on blind faith in god. Atheism refutest that foundation. That is the only issue which atheism and religion have in common.

Atheism isn't anything but a position on a single question. That is not comparable to "a science". You should try to understand this basic context before attempting to forumulate a credible rebuttal - unless credibility is of no concern to you. I suppose you're only required to be credible to "the lord". You can't see CA's point from where you're sitting because your position requires you not to look at it or you will go to hell. That's circular logic.

That in no way makes atheism a religion.

Because it's not a religion.

Christianity might be considered "the common belief of many religions" whereas each religion in particular has it's own spin on those beliefs. You seem to have a clear inability to comprehend the simplest of conceptual relationships. Are you trying to understand something you don't understand or are you just spewing dogma? Perhaps you may find it odd, but I suspect you're merely spewing dogma.

What "beliefs" do you think "we" bend? In what manner to you think they are inconsistent?

That's akin to saying "'pro-life' isn't taught at schools".

Creation is NOT a scientific theory. It is simply wrong if it is being taught as such. Dissapointing to know that such a thing could be allowed but then again... I doubt it's the first time lies have be told to children to get something from them eh?

How ambiguous, thank you. It amazes me when people insist that they must have answers to questions which no one knows the answer. Tell me, why do you insist on "believing" a theory? A theory either seems plausible to you or doesn't, but your "belief" has no bearing on the objective validity of the theory. It is imperative to the nature of your belief system that your assumption be correct.