|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The definition of atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's just the same as not holding a candle, and holding no candle. It's more like the difference between having an empty hand and having no hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bobbins Member (Idle past 3613 days) Posts: 122 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
The first part of your statement makes littles sense to me. I started from a point of no belief whatsoever. Surely evidence is required to create a/any belief. I was not born a theist and no evidence (including religious texts of dubious written origins, and pseudo-scientific placating of dogma) has convinced me to change. If I, as a child, had been bombarded with the koran,bible,torah (insert religious text here), I may have to then have proof of non-existance of (insert god here). I did not. I am a clean page, convince me.
Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data. Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable. Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist. Whoops!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For instance we can know the Christian god doesn't exist because it would be impossible for that God to exist and not leave certain evidence like what?
there's no predictive value to knowing that someone is a Catholic. sure there is, here's what we believe.
quote: But the existence of any gods described as "benevolent" and "omnipotent" can't logically be consistent with the world as we observe it Even though this is the Argument from Incredulity, I somewhat agree with this statement. Perhaps god does exist and he is very good and very powerful, but humans have made an error in descibing him to each other. Or maybe we can't understand what all-powerful is as it it seems to defy logic. Notice that benevolent is not in the creed, nor other beliefs that sometimes are but should not be assumed. These are extraneous beliefs that aren't neccessary, and they do very from person to person. But, these are the core beliefs, the base of the religion and can be assumed when a person says they're catholic. This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 07-18-2005 12:08 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I am a clean page, convince me. I don't think I'm capable of that and the reply would be off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Dictionaries do not define the meaning of words, they reflect them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
like what? His constant intersession for good among his believers, for one.
sure there is, here's what we believe. Those are just words, though. You, John Kerry, Andrew Sullivan, and the pontif's college of theologians all have different interpretations of that same statement of belief. And not everybody who says they're Catholic cleaves to those beliefs.
Even though this is the Argument from Incredulity I'm sorry, but it isn't. It's a recognition that, if words have meaning, the words used to describe the Christian God describe a god that can't possibly exist in the world as we observe it.
But, these are the core beliefs, the base of the religion and can be assumed when a person says they're catholic. Again, not always.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Bobbins writes:
Emphasis added The first part of your statement makes littles sense to me. I started from a point of no belief whatsoever. Surely evidence is required to create a/any belief. I think this is where your logic goes wrong. Evidence should never give rise to a belief. Evidence gives rise to tentative conclusions which often lead to theories which outline predictions of future occurences.Your example of the sun rising in the east is just such an evidence/conclusion/theory combination. You observe the sun rising in the east every day. You learn why it does so and you reach the tentative conclusion that it will most likely continue to do so every day. This is not a belief, at least not in my definition of the word "belief". Personally I don't beleive there is a god because I have seen absolutely zero evidence to push me toward that conclusion. Likewise I don't beleive that there is no god. The evidence either way is non existent so no conclusion can be reached. No theory can be formulated and no prediction can be made. If I were to say that I beleive there is no god then I would be guilty of reaching a conclusion without evidence to substantiate it. That is what beleif is to me and to many others. Beleif can only exist in the absence of proof or else it becomes a scientific conclusion based on established observations, complete with theories and predictions. So in short, not believing in god is almost diametrically opposite to believing that there is no god. One is an absence of belief while the other is a positive affirmation of something. PY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Personally I don't beleive there is a god because I have seen absolutely zero evidence to push me toward that conclusion. Likewise I don't beleive that there is no god. The evidence either way is non existent so no conclusion can be reached. No theory can be formulated and no prediction can be made. So do you call yourself an atheist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
His constant intersession for good among his believers I don't understand what that sentance means.
if words have meaning, the words used to describe the Christian God describe a god that can't possibly exist in the world as we observe it. The Argument From Personal Astonishment Either god doesn't exist or words don't have meaning, OR we aren't observing the world in its entirety, or perhaprs we aren't observing it accurately. Just because you can't see how its possible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, that is the argument from incredulity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
So do you call yourself an atheist? I don't really consider myself as anything other than a student of science.I always thought of an atheist as having the same views as I do though so if the cap fits I guess i will have to wear it. What is in a name anyway? I doubt that any 2 people anywhere ever share exactly the same viewpoint on anything so definitions like atheist have to be pretty broad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Mr. Purple Youko!!
purpleyouko writes: Evidence should never give rise to a belief. Evidence gives rise to tentative conclusions which often lead to theories which outline predictions of future occurences. Well how about this...take a anvil and hold if over your foot.Now what evidence do you have that it will : A: smash the shit out of it.B. go the opposite direction into space when you release. You can (BELIEVE) based on evidence or the lack thereof. Most of what we take as common facts are based on belief.The news reported by the media, the amount of calories printed on the candy bar wrapper. Scientific methodology is wonderful in that it has replaced assumptions and speculation with reproducible experiments that can be used to infer facts. BUT......How many peer reviewed /referenced papers do we really seek out. How many of these experiments do we personally conduct? How much of this data is actually processed by us personally? We believe it. We believe the sources are reputable and the data valid. But at the end of the day we take them at they're word. JMHO.By the way you sound like an agnostic to me. Also check out some of the writings of David Hume and the other empiricist. "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I always thought of an atheist as having the same views as I do though so if the cap fits I guess i will have to wear it. But the cap doesn't fit, according to the definition.
What is in a name anyway? I doubt that any 2 people anywhere ever share exactly the same viewpoint on anything so definitions like atheist have to be pretty broad. Putting a label on yourself gives other people an idea of you beliefs. It doesn't mean that you have the exact same viewpoint as everyone else who is wearing that label. But, the fundamental beliefs of that label should be had. You shouldn't call yourself an atheist if you don't hold the belief that there is no god. Unless you're interested in changing the definition, or broadening it. Which is why I asked the questions in the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Dictionaries do not define the meaning of words, they reflect them. Yeah, and the language changes faster than the book does. I'm not advocating that the definitions of words should be immutable. I am interested in why the people who are ‘without a belief in god’ but not ‘with a belief in no god’ choose, in particular, the word atheist to describe themselves. I was thinking it might be for shock value, they pick it because of the negetive connotation. I dunno, maybe they don't have a better word, although I think agnostic would work better. I just don't get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
CS,
I am interested in why the people who are ‘without a belief in god’ but not ‘with a belief in no god’ choose, in particular, the word atheist to describe themselves. I describe myself as an agnostic atheist, as opposed to a gnostic one. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't understand what that sentance means. Well, grab a dictionary.
Just because you can't see how its possible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, that is the argument from incredulity. No, you still don't understand. It's not that I don't see how it could be possible. It's that I do see that it's impossible, thus, this is not an argument from incredulity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024