Btw, would you admit that the "beliefs" you attribute to atheists is an "anti god" agenda? Is that the beliefs you are referring to?
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
-
-
ziddina
Settle it once and for all???
Can't be done.
Atheism is an absence of belief, since evidence of a "Johnny-come-lately", Middle-Eastern male volcano 'god' as the "supreme" being over the planet, is lackng...
If you will, atheism is a working theory that is constantly being refined as new information is obtained from scientific sources, and working theories within the scientific community.
Therefore it is constantly in flux, and cannot be pinned down as a static "belief" system...
Religious beliefs, on the other hand, emphasize a state of "stasis" within the belief systems of their followers... In fact, a state of stasis is the DESIRED condition in most religions; some, like certain branches of Islam, fundamentalist Christianity, and the Watchtower Society, DEMAND a state of stasis in their followers' minds and beliefs....
UNTIL the leaders make another change in the dogma or doctrines... Then the followers are expected to adapt their belief system to the new configuration, but to maintain the new state of beliefs in a similar state of stasis until the next doctrinal change...
Zid
-
zoiks
Essan, I get what you're saying, and I'm not going to argue. But respectfully, please don't tell me what I am and what I am not. As a concession, let me adjust my wording and say that I am a non-theist.
I simply don't believe in any gods. I have decided that my life will not be defined by whether or not I believe in the Judao Christhian god, any more than it will be defined by whether or not I believe in any other gods. It simply is not a part of my life. I personally consider myself atheist because I do not believe in any gods. I don't feel that there is any need for a person to take a stance against the existence of god to be called an atheist.
I understand that this conflicts with the dictionary definition of atheist, although more recent additions to the definition would seem to allow for this "implicit" or "weak" atheism.
It's just not there...nothing. Nada. This thread is the most consideration I've given to the idea of god in some time now.
I'm probably muddying the waters a bit.
-
Essan
Jeff, you are using a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance":
"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy; it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient data and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
General forms of the argument:
- P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true.
- P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.
Carl Sagan famously criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity", pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".'
-
Super Nova
whereami, the videos you puy has nothing to do with the topic here. The question is on whether or not atheism is a belief, non-belief or an anti-belief. I say it is a belief.
Most scientist agree that this universe came from some sub nuecli atomic thing that expoded (the Big Bang theory) and created time, space, energy, and matter evolving into the universe we have today. So I think that an atheist needs to explain where this sub nuecli atomic thing that expoded into the Big Bang came from (especially those atheist who are envangelizing). Correct? Whatever scenario they choose (it's eternal, it came from nothing, it came from a mulitiverse, etc.). No one really knows beyond the seconds before it exploded; so, it's a belief. If an atheist says, "I don't know where that thing came from." It's a cop out or they are ignorant to the current scientific discoveries. They definitely should not be trying to envangelize. This is what I think.
-
AllTimeJeff
You take Sagan's point out of context, first of all. Secondly, while it is true, Sagan also allowed that something can indeed, be proven false.
From wikipedia (the same one you selectively quoted from)
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy; it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient data and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. [ 1 ] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
General forms of the argument:
- P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true.
- P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.
Carl Sagan famously criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity", pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This should not, however, be taken to mean that one can never possess evidence that something does not exist (one can possess such evidence). Instead, Sagan's famous quote is a reminder that inferences must be made carefully, and that science makes no claims to absolute certainty, only high probability.
So, for the sake of this discussion, it seems appropo to say that there is a high probability that god doesn't exist.
There is a small probability that Jesus is looking at this conversation and laughing his ass off.
-
AGuest
My opinion is that atheism is not a belief. It is a belief in no belief.
I think that says it all. A "belief" is what one believes... even if that thing be a positive or a negative: "I believe there is a God/I believethere is no God/I believe one cannot know either way/I believethat if there is a God one cannot know."
Contrast that with what someone KNOWS, however. Very few are willing to say "I know there is a God/I knowthere is no God/I know one cannot know either way/I knowthat if there is a God one cannot know."
Just some food for thought, seeing as ya'll have SO much to discuss on the matter.
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA, who knows there is a God, the Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... based not on what others have told her but on what she herself has seen and heard... and so doesn't need anyone else to agree let alone corroborate this truth... but admits she often marvels that agreement and corroboration of "belief" by others... who don't know themselves... is one of the most basic "needs" of earthling man...
-
zoiks
Thanks, Shelby, for your honest and respectful interjections.
Peace to you as well!
-
ziddina
So, Essan, if you're going to claim that 'god' exists, WHICH GOD???
The one that's only 3,500 years old??
How about the ones that are around 4,000 years old??? 5,000 years old??? 20,000 years old??? 40,000 years old???? 80,000 years old???
TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND years old??? EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND years old???
TWO MILLION YEARS OLD???
Which one??? If you're going to attempt to prove the existence of a 'god', you've got a HUGE selection to choose from, EVERY ONE OF WHICH WAS BELIEVED, AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, TO BE THE "TRUE" god...
That simple fact, more than ANYTHING else, proves that there IS NO TRUE 'god'...
I have a book that is a comprehensive compilation of 'goddesses' worshipped around the world. Many of these 'goddesses' were deities worshipped LONG BEFORE THE BIBLE 'god' was imagined up by a superstitious group of Bronze-Age Middle Eastern sheepherders...
There are around 20 goddesses per page, and over 500 pages of goddesses. That's well over 10,000 goddesses...
Anyone who yowls that there's only one deity over Earth, and that it's one of the youngest ones invented by Man, has no idea of the rich and varied history of religions on the face of this earth...
And they'd better start studying... Because they look damn ignorant to people who HAVE done research on the origins of religion...
Zid
-
Essan
Jeff said: You take Sagan's point out of context, first of all.
How so? "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a truism and speaks for itself. It has universal application. Logically, nothing is ever categorically proved false by absence of evidence. And as I said, Theists have evidence, just not conclusive proof.
Jess said: Secondly, while it is true, Sagan also allowed that something can indeed, be proven false.
Sagan didn't say that everything could be proven either way, or that it could always be proven now. Of course some things can be proven true or false. But not everything. The point is God is not one of those things, not yet. If you think you can without using the argument from ignorance, then go ahead.
Jeff said: From wikipedia (the same one you selectively quoted from)
I didn't selectively quote, I just didn't continue into a section that wasn't relevant. As I said, not everything can be proven either way, God is one of them, so why quote the obvious truth that some things can be proven false, which is not relevant to something which can't be?
Jeff said: So, for the sake of this discussion, it seems appropo to say that there is a high probability that god doesn't exist. There is a small probability that Jesus is looking at this conversation and laughing his ass off.
LOL. Seeing as we have so little knowledge to base this judgement on there is no way to reliably gauge probability. So, again, it's just opinion, belief, dressed up in ill-fitting disguises like "conclusions" and "probability". And, in any case, even if probability could be gauged, that would not be a truly atheistic position - which is "God does not exist" - but rather the "God probably doesn't exist", and probability does not establish fact.