|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Atheism = No beliefs? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Why the need to group people by what they don't believe? Seems dumb to me. Why not group people by what they do believe? Humanists. Spinozans. Republicans. You get the idea. If I'm understanding him correctly, that is precisely his point. While I think he is being far too categorical, it is a fact that many atheists wear on their sleeve their non-belief in such a way that it masquerades as a belief system -- a pseudo-religion, if you will. That being said, I understand what you are also trying to say. It seems to me that you are pointing out that not all atheists, if we can all agree that "atheism" at the base level simply means (a) "negative" (theos) "god [no god], then any additional philosophical beliefs that stem from that root are almost irrelevant. Obviously not all atheists take their irreligion a step further than mere disbelief and form humanist churches and ascribe to some deep and meaningful secular philosophy. Are you then distinguishing between the difference between a common atheist and an atheist who goes a step further with humanism?
It seems to me that the essential problem in any discussion with a believer is that they are absolutely unable to understand this one simple concept: Just because your world revolves around your belief in an imaginary friend doesn't mean my world revolves around my lack of belief in same. Well, that may or may not be true for you, but hang around the forum a while and you will see just how detached some of the resident atheists are with their unbelief. It's kind of the same things if you think about it. The loudest and most boisterous one's are the kind that make an indelible impression on their counterparts, which usually negatively impacts them. It's often the shitty Christians you know the most because their always saying something idiotic and controversial. That same principle applies to those in the atheist community, and that is because they turned disbelief in to a proactive thing. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
There are exceptions to every rule of course, but most any atheist in today's society will make a beeline to evolution when asked about their view of the world. No, Marc, that's what the apologists allege and you are following suit. Then it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy by inciting atheists to talk about their beliefs and non-beliefs. That may seem like it confirms your suspicions that atheists sit around all day and dream up ways to argue with Christians on evolution, but I think it's a fantasy fed by apologists.
You're saying that a Christian could engage in a 5 or 10 minute conversation with you about human origins and you'd never say a word about evolution? That's an entirely different thing as it is a very specific topic. That's like saying, "So if you were talking about the first chapter in the book of genesis, are you telling me that Adam and Eve wouldn't be brought up?" You initially stated that when talking about their view of the world, atheists would "make a beeline to evolution." "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
This is a Creation vs Evolution discussion board if you hadn't noticed. So... 1) Selection effect??? 2) Do you criticise those at a gym for their world apparently revolving around exercise? This place, IMO, is a place to come in as a hobby. If anyone takes this place that seriously by ever referring to it as "their world," they therefore subject themselves to open scorn and public mockery. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
As G_d suggests, when you come to a site which people choose to frequent because their hobby is discussing evolution/creation, religion/materialism, theism/atheism then you are likely to find people from the more extreme fringes of adherence to each position, because the moderates who don't really feel they have a horse in the race wouldn't be bothered to find such a site in the first place. Agreed, which is why anecdote leads to these kind of conclusions. That of course brings about stereotypes because it is only the loudest one's who the public sees. My point is one cannot be glib about the assertion that atheism is merely about a simple disbelief, at least not for the majority on this site. But I would agree that in all liklihood, most people that would refer to themselves as atheists aren't concerned enough to even find a forum such as this, much less participate regularly. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
1. The source of intelligent design is beyond the scope of human sensory perception, i.e. sonar, radar, magnetism, gravity, ID like these other invisible forces is something beyond the grasp of our senses, and like our discovery of these other invisible forces above ID is also not beyond the scope of our concious understanding and perception. If that is the case then how could you possibly attribute this force with anything if it is beyond all perception?
For example if you say Snarklepom is a creature that flies around and eats nectar and pollen from flowers, I might say your snarklepom is what others call a butterfly, if you tell me Snarklepom is the creator and master of life and matter then I will tell you that your Snarklepom is what others call God or the intelligent designer. This was a completely nonsensical rant. Instead of trying to philosophically convince people of the possibility of a Designer, why don't you just show the evidence of design and we can argue the points and counterpoints. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
He considers science's focus on the natural detrimental, and so because every opinion in biology is based upon only that which can in some way be observed it therefore cannot have the full picture Perhaps so, but as you stated, science is only sensical in direct relation to observed physical phenomona, not obtuse and ambiguous philosophies. Moreoever, the scientific backing of I.D. is alleged to use science. It would therefore better facilitate Den if (s)he actually presented some evidence instead of alluding to the point that science is limited. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
you must make to undertake yourself, it begins when you let go of your ego and accept that you know nothing, this is where I began. It appears that you're still there!
All you Athiests same as Dawkins paint a false image of God, and then choose to disbelieve in your own delusion, for the God I believe in is not the same God you choose to disbelieve in. Lets use some common sense. Atheists, by definition, are people who don't believe a God exists. If they don't believe in God then they have no image, let alone a false one.
You use atrocities committed in the name of Religion to revolt against God, yet you do not ask which of these attrocites are inspired by Jesus or the 10 commandments, obviously none as these men and commandments inspire nothing more than peace and love. Those who commit attrocities in the name of Religion represent God no more than the KKK represents all of white man, or the corrupt policeman represents the entire police force. Except that God himself committed and/or ordered said atrocities. For your edification:
quote: quote: There are countless other verses just like this. Does this seem consistent with an all-knowing and all-loving God? Could you at least understand why some people are cynical? "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
That's pretty much my position. It's obviously impossible to prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist, rather we can say whether something is more or less improbable. The contention rather is in disproving specific aspects of a theology that either cannot be true when juxtaposed by known facts or is internally inconsistent. But to say whether or not "God" exists leaves so much to be desired since it's really a vague and unspecified thing. Ask 100 people what God is and get 100 different answers. So it's just easier to take an agnostic position -- neither in the business of proving or disproving the existence of something that cannot be determined in either direction just by the nature of itself.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Define God. If you can admit that attempting to do so is a lesson in futility, then the agnostic position makes a lot of sense. What do you care either way? Just because I don't necessarily believe in God doesn't necessarily mean that I disbelieve it by the same token.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024