Jump to content

Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism...


Recommended Posts

Atheism is part of a philosophy about the universe, and what have you, isn't it ?

cosmic science has nothing to do with philosophy, there is no god and those of us who acknowledge that don't feel a need to prove the nonexistence of nothing...
Except that it rightly scorns people who say "I KNOW there's no God because... I just know it !!!".

Those people are religious nuts, IMO, and hypocrites too in that you'll often find them debating with religious fundamentalists, which they themselves are.

So, far from whether belief in no elves is faith, or where faith meets philosophy... this argument is for me about me personally not liking hard core argumentative "believe in no god" atheists. Let's call a spade a spade. We're pretty much on the same page except for that.

this the "is the glass half full or half empty"... you can comphrend no other view than the optimistic glass is half full...myself I just see a glass with water...

atheism is not a faith/religion, it's nothing, zero, zilch..just as there no elephant in the room with me is a fact, there is nothing to ponder

faith-the belief in anything without any evidence

just because you can't comprehend what is clear in our minds I resent being called a religious nut...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Atheism is part of a philosophy about the universe, and what have you, isn't it ?

It can be a part of a materialistic philosophy, but so what? Just because it's a precept of a certain of philosophies hardly means its a philosophy itself. Unless, like religion, you have your own unique operating definition.

Except that it rightly scorns people who say "I KNOW there's no God because... I just know it !!!".

Which would be fine, but that's not where my own world view sits. I lack belief in gods. I don't scorn those that do, because I'm fully aware that neither I or the theist have any better footing, and the only truly rational position is agnosticism. The problem with me saying I'm an atheist is that people like you seem to instantly condemn me for being a member of the Church of Dawkins, which is patently false. I don't attend "free thinker" meetings (and find that label infantile and inflammatory). I don't proscribe to militant atheist notions that religion is evil, should be banned, and so on and so forth. I've been called a "weak" atheist because I make no positive claim (I don't say "There is no God!"). Philosophically and rationally, my atheism is based simply upon the (admittedly slightly non-rational) application of the Null Hypothesis, which, when I apply it, simply states that asserting the existence of God is extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence, and in the absence such evidence, I simply take the null position (note, not the negative position, but the null position).

Those people are religious nuts, IMO, and hypocrites too in that you'll often find them debating with religious fundamentalists, which they themselves are.

So, far from whether belief in no elves is faith, or where faith meets philosophy... this argument is for me about me personally not liking hard core argumentative "believe in no god" atheists. Let's call a spade a spade. We're pretty much on the same page except for that.

I'm not so sure. It may seem splitting hairs to you, but I feel there's a world of difference between saying "I lack belief in God" and saying "I believe there is no God".

The biggest problem with the whole debate is that demands of proof by one side and the kinds of proof given by the other side are utterly incompatible. There is no way to produce an empirical proof of an omnipotent being, pure and simple. And the answers usually given by the other side are either essentially arguments from aesthetics (ie. the world is too beautiful not to have been created) or invoke circular reasoning (ie. a Prime Mover is necessary). Neither side can really get past the fact that from a very strict rationalistic point of view, both can't make the grade.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cosmic science has nothing to do with philosophy, there is no god and those of us who acknowledge that don't feel a need to prove the nonexistence of nothing...

You are a typical religious atheist then, and the epitome of the fellow liberal that gets under my skin. Sorry to say it, but...

this the "is the glass half full or half empty"... you can comphrend no other view than the optimistic glass is half full...myself I just see a glass with water...

atheism is not a faith/religion, it's nothing, zero, zilch..just as there no elephant in the room with me is a fact, there is nothing to ponder

I don't ponder it, because there's no point in doing so. Whether or not you do, having a fixed and unwavering opinion on what's "on the other side" represents faith of some kind because it can't ever be proven or disproven.

faith-the belief in anything without any evidence

Such as belief that only a material world exists, that there is no other plane of existence.

just because you can't comprehend what is clear in our minds I resent being called a religious nut...

Sorry if I used the term "nut". I should have referred to you of a "man of strong faith".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be a part of a materialistic philosophy, but so what? Just because it's a precept of a certain of philosophies hardly means its a philosophy itself. Unless, like religion, you have your own unique operating definition.

Ok. I thought that one's belief in God could in itself constitute a "philosophy". If it's just a part, or precept then OK.

Which would be fine, but that's not where my own world view sits. I lack belief in gods. I don't scorn those that do, because I'm fully aware that neither I or the theist have any better footing, and the only truly rational position is agnosticism. The problem with me saying I'm an atheist is that people like you seem to instantly condemn me for being a member of the Church of Dawkins, which is patently false. I don't attend "free thinker" meetings (and find that label infantile and inflammatory). I don't proscribe to militant atheist notions that religion is evil, should be banned, and so on and so forth. I've been called a "weak" atheist because I make no positive claim (I don't say "There is no God!"). Philosophically and rationally, my atheism is based simply upon the (admittedly slightly non-rational) application of the Null Hypothesis, which, when I apply it, simply states that asserting the existence of God is extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence, and in the absence such evidence, I simply take the null position (note, not the negative position, but the null position).

No, I'm down with "no belief in gods" ... even if it doesn't go as far as agnosticism. I'm not down with "belief in no gods" as it is a belief at the core, formed without proof.

I'm not so sure. It may seem splitting hairs to you, but I feel there's a world of difference between saying "I lack belief in God" and saying "I believe there is no God".

No, not at all. I would have a beer with you (providing you paid) but I could only fight the other kind of atheist to a bloody and raucous ending, with me as the victor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not at all. I would have a beer with you (providing you paid) but I could only fight the other kind of atheist to a bloody and raucous ending, with me as the victor.

Believe me. The fanatical atheist almost views me as more of an enemy than the theist. I've basically been called an appeaser because I see no point in this made-up culture war. Most of my friends are theists, most of the people I deal with are theists, and just as importantly most of my relations are (including my wife), so taking outrageously dogmatic positions on this topic seems, apart from any philosophical considerations, quite detrimental.

I despise Hitchens and Dawkins (though I admire the latter as one of the great evolutionary biologists of the last the forty years) because, when you peel it all back, it's just a pi$$ing contest, infantile, inflammatory and mean-spirited.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a typical religious atheist then, and the epitome of the fellow liberal that gets under my skin. Sorry to say it, but...

atheism is not a religion

Religion

1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

sorry none of these fit the definition of atheism

Sorry if I used the term "nut". I should have referred to you of a "man of strong faith".

I don't have faith, I have knowledge and a POV

faith-belief that is not based on proof:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

atheism is not a religion

Religion

1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

sorry none of these fit the definition of atheism

#4 fits nicely, actually. You're nothing if not zealous, and - zealous Wiley - you catch less flies with vinegar than with honey. Which is why I'm covered with flies on this forum and you're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#4 fits nicely, actually. You're nothing if not zealous, and - zealous Wiley - you catch less flies with vinegar than with honey. Which is why I'm covered with flies on this forum and you're not.

again only from your POV

my dog's crap attracts flies too, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If atheism is the belief in no God.And Agnosticism is one who is sitting on the fence.And Theism is a bilief in God/God's.And Monotheism is the belief in A God....What's Nihilism?...I know it's the belief in nothing,but is'nt that a belief system unto itself?

Or do I listen to Walter Sobchek from the Big Lebowski?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If atheism is the belief in no God.And Agnosticism is one who is sitting on the fence.And Theism is a bilief in God/God's.And Monotheism is the belief in A God....What's Nihilism?...I know it's the belief in nothing,but is'nt that a belief system unto itself?

Or do I listen to Walter Sobchek from the Big Lebowski?

From a philosophical perspective, I don't think nihilism quite means "belief in nothing" so much as it's a denial that any knowledge can be reliably demonstrated to be true or false. At least that's what epistemological nihilism is.

As to Walter... best line in the movie... "Don't be afraid, Donnie. They're just nihilists!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a philosophical perspective, I don't think nihilism quite means "belief in nothing" so much as it's a denial that any knowledge can be reliably demonstrated to be true or false. At least that's what epistemological nihilism is.

As to Walter... best line in the movie... "Don't be afraid, Donnie. They're just nihilists!"

Or..."Vee are nihilists!!!...Vee belive in nossing!!!!"

Actually Walter contradicts your thesis...

"Nihilism?!?!...Say what you want about National Socialism,dude...But at least it's an ethos!".

;):lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

been through that...god never entered the picture...

Perhaps you did not give life and death much thought, seeing you were so uppity..much like a shameless man who is never insulted when you pee in his face and insists that it is heavenly rain? SO tell me..when you run out of human steam - you do not reach up into the endless and powerful universe to gain an extra drop of strength that your poor human body can not generate on it's own? I take all the help I can get if it is neccesary and do not hate that which might just sustain you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you did not give life and death much thought, seeing you were so uppity..much like a shameless man who is never insulted when you pee in his face and insists that it is heavenly rain? SO tell me..when you run out of human steam - you do not reach up into the endless and powerful universe to gain an extra drop of strength that your poor human body can not generate on it's own? I take all the help I can get if it is neccesary and do not hate that which might just sustain you.

you're born, you live, you die, the end...I have no delusions concerning death, I accept it...carpe diem...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is simply rejection of mysticism. To be an atheist is to deal only with that which is rational, perceivable, and knowable. There is no belief or faith involved.

In regards to the earlier discussion: the rejection of absurd beliefs that have no basis is not an act of faith, it is an act of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is simply rejection of mysticism. To be an atheist is to deal only with that which is rational, perceivable, and knowable. There is no belief or faith involved.

Except that positivist Atheism (or, if you long, strong atheism) does very much make what appears to be an epistemological claim; God does not exist. That is, I'm afraid, a leap of faith.

In regards to the earlier discussion: the rejection of absurd beliefs that have no basis is not an act of faith, it is an act of reason.

That's easy when the claims on the table are "12,000 invisible massless faeries occupy your underwear drawer". It gets considerably trickier when you try matching wits with a deist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that positivist Atheism (or, if you long, strong atheism) does very much make what appears to be an epistemological claim; God does not exist. That is, I'm afraid, a leap of faith.

Anything the existence of which is not supported by reasonable evidence can be considered not to exist, without this being an act of faith. God is no different. Assertion of the existence of something and the non-existence of something are not equivalent positions: there is no reason to conclude that something exists unless one has evidence to think that it does, and there is every reason to conclude that something does not exist if there is no evidence of its existence.

That's easy when the claims on the table are "12,000 invisible massless faeries occupy your underwear drawer". It gets considerably trickier when you try matching wits with a deist.

I don't think it does. The same principle applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,723
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    DACHSHUND
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • babetteteets went up a rank
      Rookie
    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      First Post
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...