Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

by Quillsky 243 Replies latest jw friends

  • brotherdan
    brotherdan

    I understand that cyber. My only point was that everyone is always going to feel like their toes are being stepped on. I don't mean that we should ignore issues that trample on our rights. But having the term "In god we trust" on a dollar bill does not, at least to me, constitute taking away the rights of others.

    You believe that evolution is a fact, and I respect that. But there are alot of things that were viewed as "facts" in the past that are no longer "facts". I'm not saying here that evolution is not true. But creationists dont' believe that evolution is a fact. Evolutionists don't believe that creation is a fact. True knowledge comes from learning many different viewpoints and coming to your own conclusions. I have no problem with my son learning about evolution in school. I will teach him creationism at home. And then he can decide what is true and what is not. But learning about different points of view and different "facts" is not dangerous and does not take away ones rights to believe the way they want to believe.

    The blood policy. That is a different monster. By enforcing this view, they ARE taking away the rights of others. They are committing murder. They don't merely state their point of view and let others believe or not believe it. They enforce it and any JW that does not agree with it is condemned to death.

    It's all a matter of rights. If you were FORCED to believe in creation, that would be wrong and would be taking away your rights to believe the way you want to believe. But that is not done. You are not forced to do that. As far as I can see, even if laws have been passed in the past based on religious views, they are not religiously enforced now. Like JWoods said, laws against murder and stealing may have had a religious motivation, but they are not enforced because of religion today.

  • journey-on
    journey-on

    I deeply believe we are born with a knowing that God exists. We don't verbalize it, of course, and there is no way to confirm it. I think, however, religion and/or society, takes that knowing and turns it into a personhood and our minds morph "Him" into a literal Being. THAT's when atheism has fertile ground to grow in. Then our childhood knowing is forgotten and we flounder around the rest of our lives with confusion.

  • whereami
    whereami

    LeavingWT thanks for the Sam Harris vid. Very well said.

  • cyberjesus
    cyberjesus

    BD:

    You believe that evolution is a fact, and I respect that.

    >> I dont believe is a fact, my beliefs mean nothing. I believed it was all a scam just a year ago. And then someone told me here that I should do more research and so i did. It didnt matter what i believed. We evolve, we adapt we have done that its proven fact not a belief. it goes agains what I believed in the past and it was hard for me to accept but I value more facts than fantasies.

    But there are alot of things that were viewed as "facts" in the past that are no longer "facts".

    >> And thats the beauty of science, that you can change if new evidence is presented. but with beliefs you cant, they are set and you have to defend them no matter what.

    I'm not saying here that evolution is not true. But creationists dont' believe that evolution is a fact.

    >>ok this a generalization and not true. There is a difference between the origin of life and the developement of life. My friend can you see that you have misconceptions? Creationists claim there is a creator, not that there is no evolution.

    Evolutionists don't believe that creation is a fact.

    >>Wrong again. Evolutionist only claim that life has evolved. and that is a fact wheater you like it or not.

    True knowledge comes from learning many different viewpoints and coming to your own conclusions.

    >> true knowledge? thats a new one. where did you grab that one? from the WT magazine. There is no true knowledge or false knowledge. only knowledge or the abscense of it. you might know something that is false but it is still knowledge. you mean knowledge of truths? thats the remainder of the WT crap in our heads. the need to have "the truth" to be the masters of the real deal.

    I have no problem with my son learning about evolution in school. I will teach him creationism at home.

    >> then you have a problem with evolution. Otherwise you wouldnt have the need to teach them creationism. ITs your son and I dont have any say in his upbringing but do you really believe is fair for us to teach religion to the impressionable mind of children? I think that is abuse. because they will believe whatever you say, you are God for them. My parents taught me religious beliefs when I was little and oh how i regret that. because when I found out it was all a lie my world collapsed.

    And then he can decide what is true and what is not.

    >>I think my friend you need to research more if evolutions is a fact or not regardless if you still believe in a creator. then you can a better opinion of what is is being taught at school.

    But learning about different points of view and different "facts" is not dangerous and does not take away ones rights to believe the way they want to believe.

    >>is not dangerous until you make those points of view your points of view. It is dangerous for a father to teach his son JW points of view. Do you agree? then how about Islam? mormonism? Moonism? my son will embrace my points of view for the simple fact that they are mine. and he wont quesition them until its too late. its better not to have them and then as an adult decide.

    The blood policy. That is a different monster. By enforcing this view, they ARE taking away the rights of others. They are committing murder. They don't merely state their point of view and let others believe or not believe it. They enforce it and any JW that does not agree with it is condemned to death.

    >>why is the blood policy any different than lets say, believeing that we are going to go to heaven if we die? or how about live in aplanet with all your wifes? or wihth 72 virgins? or go to heaven when a comet passes earth? Do you see? religion is dangerous. it poisons your mind. unless you have "the truth" that is. problem is, most religion have their own truth. and they all believe as strong as you that they know exactly how things are and that everybody is mislead... do you rmemeber the kingdom hall talks?

    It's all a matter of rights. If you were FORCED to believe in creation, that would be wrong and would be taking away your rights to believe the way you want to believe. But that is not done. You are not forced to do that.

    >>my friend when we teach a myth or an opinion to a child we are forcing them, they wont question they will accept. so you better be careful what you teach them. it is not until we start using logic and reasoning that we start learnig by ourselves otherwise any opinion is forced in them.

    As far as I can see, even if laws have been passed in the past based on religious views, they are not religiously enforced now.

    >> really? how about gay marriage?its banned. by whom? do you know that in some cities oral sex is against the law? how about abortion? you dont think that is religiously based? our everyday life is modified one day or another by religion and its myths. when someone sneezes you say god bless you.... yeah right.

    Like JWoods said, laws against murder and stealing may have had a religious motivation, but they are not enforced because of religion today.

    >>they might not be enforced by religion but they are still enforced.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Terry, you're right. We should be intolerant of everything that we personally believe is irrational.

    Who decides what is rational thinking and what is not? You? I hope not, because so many of your posts seem irrational to me.

    Ha! See how dishonestly you paraphrase me to create a Strawman Fallacy?

    You had to stick in "personally believe" to disconnect me from the reasonable nature of my remark.

    This in itself indicts "belief" as nothing more than personal prejudice!

    I can't imagine you DON'T KNOW what "rational" actually means--but--it is beginning to look that way!

    In philosophy, rationality and reason are the key methods used to analyze the data gathered through systematically gathered observations. ...

    In Science, rationality seeks to measure, quantify, test, and factually delimit where reality begins and ends. The chief tool is FALSIFIABILITY.

    If we can't set up a standard by which we can DISPROVE what we believe to be hypothetically possible---we fall into superstition.

    You seek to destroy the distinction! That is dishonorable in any pursuit of reality.

    REALITY IS the standard of what is true. Not imagination.

  • cyberjesus
    cyberjesus
    I deeply believe we are born with a knowing that God exists

    what makes you believe this?

  • ziddina
    ziddina
    "I just meant to say that we all have faith in something. I don't know why the word is so hated. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. Can I say FOR SURE that it will? No. But I have faith that it will because it has risen in the past. ..."

    Not to pick on you, BrotherDan, but that comment illustrates what is generally wrong with "Theists' " arguments....

    You - and other Theists - may have "faith" in the sun "rising", but ATHEISTS KNOW that the sun doesn't rise, but that the earth's rotation will consistently bring them back into the range of the sun's rays, every day...

    And THAT is the essence of the difference between "atheists" and "theists"...

    Atheists' efforts to get theists to LOOK at the scientific evidence and scientific facts usually fail, because, unfortunately, most theists REFUSE TO CONSIDER THE PREPONDERANCE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...

    Theists appear [in many cases] to be TOTALLY BLIND to scientific facts and evidence; and thoroughly disinclined to acknowledge the establishment of scientific fact...

    In many cases, theists like Essan have COMPLETELY IGNORED statements of FACT - like my post commenting on the very short time that his/her 'god' has been worshipped in the Middle East, AND that there are many deities which are far, FAR older...

    That renders any intelligent conversation with them, impossible...

    Zid

  • Terry
    Terry

    Actually, there is no belief either way in newborns and no position taken in relation to a concept. So these children are perhaps proto-agnostics but certainly not 'atheists'.

    Absurdly reasoned; if reasoned at all!

    Being without belief or without god is the "a" in a-theism. A means "without". Theos=God.

    We are born without belief. Consequently we cannot be born WITH belief.

    What part of that doesn't penetrate your frontal lobes?

    I personally fully accepted the presentation of GOD into my belief system to the point I was willing to put myself at some personal risk in Federal Prison. That belief made God=Reality.

    I gradually and painfull came to the conclusion that what I thought GOD meant was misrepresented to me both by religion and especially by the Bible itself.

    I lost that belief. I am now like the man who loses his hair and becomes bald. I am without God.

    I however, do NOT call myself ATHEIST because of the misidentifications attributed to the term ATHEIST by believers as variously:

    1.One who denies the existence of God

    2.One who opposes God

    3.One who argues against the existence of God.

    I simply don't think it is possible to have a meaningful conversation in which God is accurately described! Humans cannot have accurate God-related thoughts or beliefs.

    So, you see--I am bald to God. The same as newborn children are bald to God.

  • Essan
    Essan

    Terry: "Being without belief or without god is the "a" in a-theism. A means "without". Theos=God."

    Clearly you haven't read the entire thread.

    No, there is no reference to "belief" in 'Athiest'. That is false.

    It means "No God", or "Without God". It's original meaning was "denial of the Gods". It does not refer to a lack of belief in God, but to a belief in the nonexistence of God or Gods. "Denial" of their existence. An atheist is not agnostic, he has taken a stance against the concept of God and against those who believe in God.

    Babies take no stance, they have no belief. Agnostics take no stance, they have no belief. Atheists take a stance - against theism. Therefore babies are not "atheists". You are a zealot Terry. Babies don't share your zeal in attacking Theism. Stop trying to co-opt newborns into your religion! LOL.

    Had you been born an atheist you probably would never have adopted Christianity. But it was your lack of any opinion on the matter that allowed a new belief to be 'installed'.

    What you call the "misidentification" of atheists is it's original and it's primary meaning. For evidence of this, read the thread.

  • ziddina
    ziddina
    "You believe that evolution is a fact, and I respect that. But there are alot of things that were viewed as "facts" in the past that are no longer "facts". ..."

    Oooooo, BrotherDan, how ironic that you made that comment...

    Generally speaking, within the last 500 years of humanity's existence, it has been the THEISTS who were stating "facts" that were later proven to be wrong - in some cases, DEAD wrong...

    Flat earth... The sun "rises"... Illnesses are caused by 'evil spirits'... Mental illnesses are signs of 'demon possession'... Natural disasters are 'signs' from 'god'... The sun, all the other planets, and the universe rotates around the earth... The man's sperm "plants" the baby in a woman's womb, which provides only a fertile "field" for the growth of the "seed"... Kissing can make a woman pregnant... Homosexuals CHOOSE to be that way... Men are innately superior to women...

    AND I could keep going on and on and on...

    Theists have generally fallen FAR behind scientific advancements, strenuously resisting such advancements in many cases.

    So it is highly ironic that the theists here are attempting to claim that ATHEISM is a "belief" system... But too typical of human mentality nowadays... That which is innately a theists' mentality ["faith", "belief"...] is being cast upon atheists in an attempt to discredit the atheists' general dedication to scientific investigation leading to established scientific facts...

    Zid

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit