Definition of Atheism
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Definition of AtheismIt has come to my attention that some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods. This “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be based on a lack of belief. These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists. I will correct some of these incorrect statements later in this essay. But first I will try to illustrate the problem by using three groups of people: Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists). Group B neither believes that god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided. Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists). It is generally agreed that the people in group A are atheists and the people in group C are not. The main point of disagreement is whether the people in group B are considered atheists or not. The people who want a “lack of belief” definition would define group B as atheists while most people, and all reputable dictionaries, do not. Many of the people who are pushing a “lack of belief” definition call group A “strong atheists” and call group B “weak atheists. One of the main problems of a “lack of belief” definition is that it is too broad. If someone told you they were an atheist, you would still not know if they were agnostic, undecided, believed that gods don’t exist, or never thought about it. This makes the word nearly useless. Another problem with a “lack of belief” definition is that it is not accepted by the vast majority of people. I personally don’t know anyone who considers babies atheists because they lack belief in gods. I also don’t know of any people who are agnostic or undecided about the existence of God who call themselves atheists. The lack of public acceptance for a “lack of belief” definition of atheism is reflected in the fact that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”. However, this has not kept a few morons from incorrectly claiming that various dictionary definitions have a “lack of belief” definition. |
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
From The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
atheism: denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.
Source:
You are obviously creating a strawman by using a religious-biased definition that assumes that God exists because you believe that it does as a way to define what atheism is. Atheists aren't denying anything because there is no objective evidence of a supernatural religious creator at this time.
Here are two descriptions of what atheism means,
.
If you sincerely believe that a god exists, where is you objective evidence to support that stance? You cannot use the Bible or anything that stems from it because the Bible was written by man and is not proof of god because it relies on subjective belief and religious faith, which are the opposite of objective evidence.
—You, WHO?
You are either being intellectually dishonest or you are trying to shift the burden of proof. It is the theistic believers who claim that God exists so the logical burden of proof is on them to prove that their theological claim is correct. In the instance that you fail to prove your claim to be objectively true, we revert to the idea that god/s do not exist.
I have explained Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot anology many times but you seem to be trying to ignore the obvious.
You did not answer a reasonable question, and you are off-topic.
Is this how you plan to deal with critical replies that you cannot easily answer?
You did not answer a reasonable question, and you are off-topic. Please, return to the topic.
How can I possibly return to the topic when your entire thread is revisionist claim that seeks to take the accepted definition of atheism(lack of belief or evidence in god) and turn it on its head to instead claim that atheists deny an existing god? How can I logically deny what has no evidence of existing? Why do you deny her holy noodleness FSM?
Maybe you should stop using revisionist definitions instead and then you wouldn't have to threaten people who refuse to play along with your sham argument because they see through your attempt to turn reality on its head. There is a reason why logic is both taught and valued because it is the ultimate BS detector.
Do you want to ban the use of sources that you do not agree with in your thread?
Why have you begun editing my replies?
Redefine?
What is the point of making up absurd claims that are easily shown to be wrong?:
It is you who is trying to redefine a well-defined term.
—You, WHO?
From the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989
Atheist:
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.
Atheism:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
SOURCE:
A perfect example of desperately trying to fit the evidence to your desired outcome. Confirmation bias as clear as a bell.
You ignore the definitions (with links to the source) that I provided and run right back to a far less credible source - your evilbible website - and parrot what they say (again).
A perfect example of you desperately trying to diminish seeded content. Deal with the message (again).
I pretty much thoroughly rebutted the content. How could you miss it?
The definition of atheism changes over time, the same as anything that hasn't any actual physical proof to establish an actual reality in the interpretational world of human existence.
Just as our views on god change over time.......
Epistte, in her argument against your position uses the Encyclopedia Britannica's article and arguments about Atheism....
Atheism
It's a good read, in depth but only two pages long and if was someone seriously contemplating this I would read it, I just have.....
What it does claim is that Atheists are changing the way they debate the subject into a more thoughtful look at godlessness. They are outright rejecting any claims to prove there isn't a god and arguing that it is incumbent on the believer to prove there is.
Logically, in debate it is the sound tactic although I'm sure disconcerting to the believer.
The real thing they are doing is instead of debating the actual existence, they are taking the core ideal of debating the lack of proof as proof of their ideals. (no one said they weren't intelligent)
And no one can claim they don't have an open mind.....
But then, being open to the ideal that there might be but you have to prove it for me to accept it really being an atheist? Isn't that the agnostic position?
CB is making the argument that in adopting this change in focus, aren't Atheist's usurping the role of the Agnostic in the debate thereby artificially expanding the number of adherents of Athiestic beliefs?
I can't confirm or reject this position..... Simply cause I view Athiest and agnostics as "Kissing Cousin's" so to speak.....
Read the article I would say, last updated December 2018 it's a good basis to at least get the current lay of the land.....
Are they re-defining Atheism? No but they are revising/expanding said definition to include those who before were on the borders.
Personally I'm a non-dogmatic Christian, so other than critical analysis I can offer nothing to the debate other than a rational look at the issue.
Sounds like it to me!
Actually what "CB" is doing is allowing the atheist or atheists plural who write on Evilbible.com to define the word, " atheism." This article and its adjoining s eeded content i s written and maintained by atheists who are not kind to the Bible, God, Jesus, or Spirituality.
I desire to share what an atheist/atheists says about the word, 'atheism."
I can see that, the baldfaced ridicule comes thru loud and clear..... (colors the entire posting in a hate mantra)
I liked the Brtianica articles round-robin open discussion approach much better......
The larger point I am putting forward is atheists do not always speak with one voice; theirs, like others, is a confusing, cacophony of voices which do not 'shout' in unison.
Instead of attempting to make a case to others on the internet that reasoning is uniquely the only voice of clarity, it would be most helpful if our atheists "friends" first acknowledge they are not all sound and clear on the points between and in the midst of atheists.
Agreed, the confusing cacophony of voices is all to readily apparent on the religious believers side also.....
Get a dozen people sharing any common factor in a room and they will not speak in one voice. A dozen D's, a dozen R's, a dozen scientists, a dozen Southern Baptists, ... will be replete with disagreement.
Your 'larger point' is obvious.
Clearly you are trying to change the meaning of the word atheism.
If you wanted to make the point that atheists (like all other human beings) have individual views on life you would find little objection.
Clearly you desire to cherrypick. You ignore what atheists right here on NT offer, ignore the common definitions of the term and focus on the perspective of whatever nutcase is behind your evilbible.com website and then fallaciously argue that this is what 'atheists' say. Yet again, an argument of faulty generalization based on confirmation bias.
Pretty ugly stuff IMO.
Yes indeed. And that website is at odds with far more credible sources. This is exactly the problem that occurs when one runs to an extreme political website, for example, and hoists their views as fact. Misinformation is not productive. Beyond that, ignoring credible sources and trying instead to make a point with extreme sources is intellectually dishonest.
NWM, I agree. I have even mentioned the liberty every so-called, "side" uses in formulating their worldviews. Yet to be clear, when writing it gets down into the weeds to try to have a too broad conversation with some people on NT, it goes without saying often. So, I opted to just deal with just this topic the seeded content is dealing with: Atheism.
When taking aim at the subject material presented, try NOT to shoot the messenger! Respond to the seeded content, please.
The author of the article is an atheist, writing a largely damning site against the Bible. In this instance it 'stabs,'
It has come to my attention that some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.
Deal with the message.
Not only have I thoroughly dealt with the message in the seeded article, I have dealt with the message of the seed and your comment rebuttals. This is misinformation and counter-productive.
Are you the preeminent determiner of which atheistic message is valid and "misinformation"? What makes you the determiner ? I have been "instructed ad nauseam that atheists run with the free-thinker sect. Thus, you think what you want, as often as you wish.
Incidentally, can you verify :
@ 2 Oxford (English): A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Cf.
@ 2.2 From the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989
Atheist:
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
When did @ 2 definition become official in the Oxford English Dictionary?
I am not now and never have been an atheist. It is not my evilbible website. Anymore apparently than it is yours! A reasonable person knows this.
You are the determiner of what atheists think on NT? And, if so, why should I care specifically? Don't shoot the messenger.
Deal with the message.
I delivered sources. I am not just making claims. My first comment countered the utter nonsense of the website you are parroting with definitive links. Subsequent comments got into more detail.
Ever try just typing the word 'atheist' in Google? That should be your first clue that your evilbible website is most likely some bozo trying to push his/her viewpoint. Misinformation. Use credible sources, apply objective reasoning, do not cherrypick. Do that and you pursue truth.
It is the sole source for your seed. You chose it. You parrot its content in your 'rebuttals'; it is doing all the thinking for you in this topic. That is what I meant by 'your website'. Obviously I do not think you created the site. You get that, right?
Got anything to offer other than these deflections?
IMPASSE.
When one considers both belief / lack of belief in a god with the notion of knowledge (which is what is done when people use the term 'agnostic' in the context of religious belief) four common areas emerge. Agnostic / gnostic combined with theist / atheist yields:
The gnostics are extreme and untenable positions. The agnostics are both reasonable positions. I suspect most people fall in the agnostic theist / atheist range. There seem to be a significant number of gnostic theists but the gnostic atheist is rare. [[DELETED.]]
Please do not derail this discussion by demanding NWM go to one of your original articles for a more "detailed answer." It may be a violation of NT policy.
As regards the comment itself, @ 3 NWM wrote:
[Is] being open to the ideal that there might be [God or gods] but you have to prove it for me to accept it really being an atheist? Isn't that the agnostic position?
and from the author of the seeded content:
One of the main problems of a “lack of belief” definition is that it is too broad. If someone told you they were an atheist, you would still not know if they were agnostic, undecided, believed that gods don’t exist, or never thought about it. This makes the word nearly useless.
Being 99.9 percent so-called, "atheist" qualifies a person to be an Agnostic; that person is not an atheist.
It is clear, a 100 percent atheist individual is an atheist.
And, there is nothing which hinders a 100 percent atheist individual from a change of mind and worldview about God when given sufficient reason. It reasonably goes without saying.
It is perfectly acceptable for one to reference one's own articles as a supporting link. It is the same as referencing an outside article as a supporting link. What is not acceptable is to try to get members to move the discussion to said link. Your use of the word 'demand' is an entirely dishonest representation of what I did. The proof, of course, is to just actually read what I wrote:
This is off-topic. As was the occasion you are referencing from another article (now locked). That was a dishonest representation of what I did. However, this is the last mention i will make to this.
Consider this:
If someone tells you that they are not persuaded that any god exists, do you consider that person an atheist or a theist?
By claiming that they are not "Persuaded" necessarily means that they have a mind open to the possibility and haven't made a personal judgement on validity yet.
Doesn't mean they are an Atheist. This is a state of mind that was normally claimed to be an Agnostic position philosophically. But it does seem some want to change that ideal.
Personally makes no delineation of true belief to me. As I believe that all spiritual belief is individual, from my position the question is moot.
That is not my meaning. I am speaking of a state. If one cannot comprehend an argument then clearly one cannot be / has not been persuaded. Regardless of how one gets there, if one does not have knowledge of a god then how could one possibly be a theist?
Does a baby believe in a god? If yes, the baby is a theist; if no, the baby is an atheist. In both cases it is clear that the baby is also agnostic. Thus a baby necessarily is either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. My position (easily defended) is that all babies are agnostic atheists.
Basically the above is simply the appeal from one person who wants to, in his mind, better define the word "atheist". I think this desire to redefine it is purely from a position of trying to avoid any stigma associated with the word. The word "atheist" has been used as a cudgel for much of human history with the religious discriminating, abusing, even killing those they've labeled "atheists", so I understand why someone might want to move the goal posts a bit with this definition. But the fact is the word is what it is. It comes from the word "atheos" "a" meaning "without" and "theos" meaning "a god".
I suggest that the true position of babies and anyone who has never been exposed to the concept of a God, and who hasn't developed their own imagined deity, would be considered an atheist.
Once exposed to the concept of God one then moves into one of the four logical categories of "gnostic atheist", "agnostic atheist", "gnostic theist" or "agnostic theist".
Gnostic atheist: A person who believes gods and/or God definitely does not exist.
Agnostic atheist: A person who doesn't believe gods and/or God exists due to lack of evidence, but is open to the possibility that they could exist.
Gnostic theist: A person who believes gods and/or God definitely exists. They usually claim to know who that God is, its name, its likes, dislikes and general personality.
Agnostic theist: A person who believes gods and/or God likely exists even though there is a lack of evidence, but is open to the possibility that they might not exist.
That makes far more sense to me than the authors attempt at redefining atheism. Here's his example with some minor changes that should illuminate the problems with his logic.
If we swap out the belief in God for something else, like, say, the belief that if you insert a popsicle in your bum it will cure acne.
Group A believes that sticking a popsicle in your bum will not cure acne (atheists).
Group B has never heard of the popsicle cure so certainly does not believe it will cure acne, but also doesn't know it won't. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.
Group C believes that sitting on popsicles definitely cures acne (theists).
To claim that the babies would be on the fence about popsicle sitting I think is dishonest. The default should be considered "atheism" unless an opinion has been formed on the subject. And once an opinion is formed they are easily categorized by the four variations of agnostic/gnostic atheism/theism.
Not looking to argue, but just want to point out something, to my reasoning the order of your Gnostical level list is wrong.....
Below would be a more accurate listing covering the spectrum asserted. Not that I agree with this ideal but placing it in a more logical sequence.
The argument made is that Athiests are expanding the basis for people to be called athiests. In the past the three levels of religious belief Theism, Agnostism and Atheism all sat on the equal plane......
Believers, I don't care persons & Disbelievers
Your list above reveals the same pattern but splits the I don't care believers into two groups, which of course is claimed to gravitate towards the extremes of the opposites......
I don't see the gravitation, what I see is a redefinition. I don't see the "I don't care believers" gravitating to anywhere, particularly closer to the Believers. And I also don't see the "I don't care Disbelievers" moving anywhere either.
What I do see is that eliminating the middle ground "Agnostics" and claiming those closest to your line of thinking is a redefining not of Atheism but of Agnosticism. Actually eliminating the agnostic as the middle ground in the belief-disbelief war over individual hearts & minds.
So if you take CB's argument and replace Athiest with Agnostic it makes perfect sense Athiests are redefining Agnostic to expand the reach of their belief....
But you have to understand my position on Atheism, it is a religion unto itself..... So yes it actively tries to redefine itself to reach/convert as many followers as they can. So in essence your doing the same thing organized religion does periodically....
I get the rest of your point, a metaphorical "up yours" to the Theists, humorous really, I thought the juvenile popsical and acne references really made the joke... but it does color your presentation with just a bit of bias don't you think?
I do not see how you can come to such a conclusion. Agnostic (unqualified) means the same thing it has always meant. It focuses on knowledge. If one speaks of agnostic in the context of religious belief one is imposing a context on the meaning. If someone does not know if there is a god or not (or that a god's existence is unknowable), that person will fall either as a theist or an atheist. Truly not knowing if there is a god means the person is not convinced a god exists. That is an agnostic atheist. One who does not know if a god exists but thinks a god is more likely than not is an agnostic theist.
If this were a redefinition then one could illustrate foul play. Where is the foul play? Where is there anything here other than thinking through what it means to be religiously agnostic?
Also, this breakdown (and equivalent formulations) is well established and easily found via a Google search.
I believe most people fall in the middle, the "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" category. The gnostic theists are the only ones demanding the redefinition of atheism to mean something other than the lack of belief in god/gods. Gnostic theists claim they know God and are absolutely sure he/it exists and can't comprehend an agnostic atheist who see's no evidence of God and thus doesn't believe in one. They want to claim that person is a Gnostic atheist, it's the common straw man that Gnostic theists like to manufacture so they can attack it claiming you must be stupid if you think God can't exist. I've often been accused of being a gnostic atheist which is why I understand the difference between the two. I have never claimed there definitely is no God/gods, I have only ever pointed out the lack of evidence for God/gods which would lead any logical mind to conclude they likely don't exist, but without looking in every corner of the universe one can't be certain. The opposite of this view I also find reasonable, which is agnostic theism, the desire to believe in a higher power regardless of the evidence, the acceptance that a God or gods might exist, but no definitive proof they do without looking in every corner of the universe so one can't be certain they do.
There are FAR more Gnostic theists than there are Gnostic atheists. In fact so far, I've not run into a true Gnostic atheist who claimed to know for a fact no God/gods exist. So really it's the Gnostic theists who demand the right to define others beliefs, but often reject the best definition for their own.
No one is claiming any antagonism towards anything. (foul play reference)
I have already stated my clear position on this subject as to where I personally stand and that all I can bring to the discussion is analysis. Hopefully thoughtful analysis.
No one is going to change my mind here so advocating a position is useless.
All religious belief is personal, one chooses what he is going to believe and only the person themselves can change it. I've had my "come to god" moment and believe all others that argue over such beliefs haven't yet.
Understand this then grants the understanding that in this type of discussion I am the quintessential outsider. My belief is set so I can dispassionately discuss positional relationships in the subject under discussion. I have no belief position to defend.
In fact I am beginning to wonder how I got into this discussion in the first place cause I usually avoid them as I see no real point to arguing the efficacy of what is a personal preference opinion.... (it has no bearing on my preferred belief/opinion)
So I think at this time I will bow out of the discussion. Before religious prejudice turns this into something ugly. (which all to often happens in these type of discussions)
Interesting discussion as far as it went....
NWM
So you do not know, thus you are not an atheist (100 percent knowing). You are a good old fashion agnostic (up to 99.9 Not sure).
Lack of evidence would not reasonably lead to any such conclusion! Take electricity, powerful stuff, mankind knew nothing about until it was revealed.
God is being revealed to you every day through others, by faith. You made the decision that unless God speaks to your five senses, more or less, God shall not speak to your spirit! Apparently, you have been persuaded that if God won't appeal to reason—there is no God likely existing. You did this. So there you stand: waiting for God to oblige you.
That smacks of hubris!
Not sure where antagonism came from. 'Foul play' was a reference to intellectual dishonesty, not antagonism. My point is that from me there is zero intellectual dishonesty, zero intent to redefine anything for any reason. My purpose is clarity of meaning.
I never assume anyone to which I am replying will change their mind. My comments are for the readers.
Yes. That is not in question here best I can tell.
You are welcome here in our discussions anytime. I find the exchanges refreshing. It is always good to hear from other voices and possibly perspectives on 'old' issues!
You do not know there's a god (with 100% certainty). So does that mean you're not a theist or that you're really agnostic? An agnostic takes the position that one cannot know if there is a God or not. A theist claims and believes there's a god. An atheist is not convinced there is a god. It's not difficult to understand.
Faith does not reveal there's a god. It only reveals that some people believe there's a god. There is no evidence for any god. Hence, atheists are unconvinced. It''s not hubris. It's logical thinking.
This should be interesting. Note: I expect Cal to state that he does indeed know that his God exists and with 100% certainty. That is, I would be surprised if Cal were not a gnostic theist. Interesting ... wonder if you will get a direct response.
Perhaps he'll say he knows because the bible says so (or faith tells him). But I don't expect a direct (or concise) answer to my question and/or response. We will see.
The same could be said of your refusal to accept Zeus.
Gordy, are you a narrow atheist or wide atheist ? Inquiring minds wonder at the designation.
A theist believes in the existence of God because of many proofs (in the weak sense-living as a nominal Christian among brethren and in the strong sense being Spirit-filled .)
Believers' claim of God's existence obviously carry zero to limited weight with any atheist who insists God does NOT exist. A 99.99 percent atheist, still leaves room for God to exist. How is this considered insistence ?
As The Humanist.com states:
A narrow atheist might reject an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, such as the deities envisioned in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. However, a narrow atheist might still believe in some sort of higher power , whether that is natural laws of science or the sense of awe that she or he feels when contemplating the vastness of the universe. A narrow atheist may even have some sense of a spiritual being or realm , though he or she might not define this higher power in a way that the larger society typically thinks of “God.”
A wide atheist , however, rejects any concept of the supernatural, whether it’s a deity or a higher power. From the perspective of a wide atheist, there is no paranormal being or beings that exist beyond the material universe. Individuals who identify as wide atheists certainly can still feel a sense of wonder when encountering the complexity and beauty of the natural world, but they would not consider this sense of reverence a connection with a higher power beyond the physical realm.
These people are humanists defining terms - not me. Are these secularists ' cherry-picking ' definitions as some atheists suggest of theists? Which of these two atheists (in red) appear to be explicitly atheist (100 percent)?
Faith (trust) and/or possessing the indwelling Spirit is the container for theist belief.
In the instance-the moment- faith in God switches into direct evidence of God (seen by all) faith as a medium for believers will no longer be effective. Bet!
Be reasonable. NT chat rooms are "Open" 24/7 for private sidebars. Please use the feature. Let it be everybody's goal to keep the discussion on track: Definition of Atheism.
Narrow vs. wide atheists now, eh?
Wide seems to correlate with gnostic atheist: 'rejects any ...'.
Narrow seems to correlate with agnostic atheist.
Still boils down to lack of belief.
No, I'm an atheist because I do not believe in any God or gods. Why is this so hard to understand? and if you want to further define it then agnostic atheist would be the more proper definition. I do not believe in any God or gods, ("a" without "theos" God) but I also accept that not only do I now know everything there is to know, no one does, so knowing beyond a doubt there is no God is not something anyone should be to claim if they're being honest. And the same is true of theists. If you believe in a God but have no empirical evidence to prove your God exists and you yourself have to rely on the strong desire to believe, aka "faith", and you accept the fact that your faith could be misplaced and that other religions might have it right or maybe no religion, then you're still a theist. Simply put, a theist with even the slightest thread of doubt in their minds is an agnostic theist. And an atheist with even the slightest doubt in their minds is an agnostic atheist. The bookends of gnostic atheist and gnostic theist are rare, though you'll find far more agnostic theists who claim to be gnostic theists due to being encouraged to strive for ever deeper faith by telling themselves they believe even when they're experiencing doubts.
We've been discussing the definition of atheism. Your definition and description is demonstrably wrong!
If you limit (incorrectly) the meaning of 'atheist' to individuals who know (100% certainty) that there is no god, then there are very few atheists on the planet. Also, when you refer to NT atheists with that definition you are referring to nobody that I know here. I am unaware of any atheist who claims that s/he knows with 100% certainty that there is no creator entity (god in the abstract).
So from now on, if you are going to stick with that contrived definition for atheism - essentially you equate atheist with gnostic atheist - you better be careful who you label 'atheist'. A gnostic atheist position is untenable, irrational and arrogant.
Given your definition, you will need to refer to NT atheists as agnostics (or agnostic atheists). Both for accuracy and to avoid being insulting.
Narrow atheist or wide atheist?
Jesus Christ!
A theist with "the slightest thread of doubt" is somebody drifting toward agnosticism.
An atheist "with the slightest doubt" is an individual drifting toward agnosticism.
From the seeded content above,
Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).
Group B neither believes that god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.
Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).
The Humanist.com .
What is the problem now ; you mocking and eye-rolling other humanists and atheists?
I feel I have to question: Are you being reasonable right now?
I get feelings of the logical fallacy "No True Scotsman" when it's worded like this.
Someone can believe in something and still be wrong. As a child I believed I'd never have to go to school, but still was there for my first day of pre-school.
I accept the possibility there may in fact be a god and that I could be wrong, despite the fact that I 100% believe that there is(are) no god(s). I also accept that my car battery could be dead tomorrow when I try to start my car, even though I believe 100% that it will crank up and go when I need it to.
To label me an agnostic would be incorrect.
I suppose the 100% part is the problem. To me, if one is 100% certain of something then they leave 0% room for doubt. That, in my way of thinking, precludes any other possibility.
Let's consider science. No theory of empirical science is ever deemed to be 100% truth. That is, science is never 100% certain that any theory is without error. Even the most highly corroborated, time-tested theory can at the very best achieve high confidence - never certainty. This of course directly relates to the principle of falsifiability.
As an example. biochemical evolution is the foundation of modern biology and science is as confident about evolution being true as they are about the heliocentric model being true. So if we assigned a confidence (I am just guessing here) of say 99.9% to evolution, that would be quite close to 'virtually no doubt' but it would still leave open the possibility that new evidence will find the theory to be flawed.
Finally, I too absolutely expect my brand new, garage housed, 2019 Mini Cooper S to start when I press the start button. I would bet huge $$$ that it would do just that and if it did not start I would be absolutely shocked (and pissed).
But ... I must allow for that possibility in spite of my extremely high confidence because I am not omniscient - something could indeed happen.
Agreed, however there have been many times in our lives (or at least my life) where I believed something with 100% certainty and was incorrect. Sadly just because I believed it very strongly did not make it true.
To me you just described an agnostic atheist. Here is a summary of the model that I use for clarity:
I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
Agreed. I think I might have misunderstood your point.
Gordy, you might need to explain to Cal that just because someone claims to be an atheist does not, in your opinion, automatically make them correct about anything.
I get the impression that he thinks all atheists are of a single mind ... belong to some universal club ... get marching orders from an athiest 'pope' ...
That old canard is 'packin 'em in' still? My, my, guffaw!
Be reasonable -if you think I ought to serve "another God." Then, will you give up your choice of atheism; serve the God of the Bible in my stead? Fair is fair now.
No? I have it on good authority that freethinkers can not 'handle' faith as a daily activity.
So, you readily admit that you don't hold your god to the same standards of evidence that you do others?
Why in the world would I serve your god, when there is no evidence of his existence?
What does this even mean?
So? Get this terminology right. If the 'shoe' fits, sport it.
Hello NT Agnostics! Nice meeting ya!
NOTE: I think I read that HAL of NT is a 'true-blue' atheist, because if my memory is correct (can't peruse his comment history right now), Hal has stated he is confidently (100%) knows there is no God or gods..
If I am wrong, correct me somebody, please! Hal, are you out there?
The problem with your position is that it is not supported by the facts. It is propped up with cherry-picked data points.
When one conforms the evidence to one's desired outcome one will conclude whatever one wishes. That leads one into a false reality, but that is your choice. I prefer to follow the evidence to where it leads because I am interested in what is true - even if I do not like it.
But that is me.
Here is the question to ask Hal:
Hal, is it impossible for a sentient creator of the universe to exist?
Sarcasm? Nope, does not apply here. The fact is it is clear that atheists come in many types, have a variety of opinions, which makes the atheists and agnostics of NT not necessarily correct about anything.
I look forward to sharing more from various off-site and 'fresh' atheists and agnostics.
Your sarcasm detector is broken.
Except their own positions. Based on your performance in this article, it is quite clear that you are determined to be wrong about the concept of atheism. Confirmation bias - the truth killer.
The topic: Definition of Atheism.
It is fascinating to watch someone work so hard to totally misunderstand what others are writing.
That misunderstanding is intentional because he needs to create a strawman to support his original revisionist definition of what an atheist is.
I won't question your reality choices. It is not relevant to this topic: Definition of Atheism.
Are you being fair-minded to this article?
I'm not playing by your attempt to redefine atheism according to your religious beliefs.
Fully agree.
Very well:
Cal, just because someone claims to be an atheist does not, in my opinion, automatically make them correct about anything.
How is that? I made it as simple as I could.
Kind of sounds like atheistic Borg. "Theists will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!" Lol
Being 99.9 percent so-called, "atheist" qualifies a person to be an Agnostic; that person is not an atheist.
It is clear, a 100 percent atheist individual is an atheist.
And, there is nothing which hinders a 100 percent atheist individual from a change of mind and worldview about God when given sufficient reason. It reasonably goes without saying. And there are long, searchable lists of people who have been atheists who were persuaded to change their worldview to theist (and vice-versa).
From the article:
Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).
Group B neither believes that god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.
Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).
It is generally agreed that the people in group A are atheists and the people in group C are not. The main point of disagreement is whether the people in group B are considered atheists or not. The people who want a “lack of belief” definition would define group B as atheists while most people, and all reputable dictionaries, do not. Many of the people who are pushing a “lack of belief” definition call group A “strong atheists” and call group B “weak atheists.
Note:
If you want to have any productive dialogue with those who believe differently you're going to have to [be fair-minded and] listen before you speak." — Genetically Modified Skeptic
Agnostic: noun - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
As you can see the definition of the word doesn't truly fit someone like myself, an agnostic atheist. As it states an agnostic is "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief". I readily claim disbelief. I do not believe in a God or gods, that makes me an atheist regardless of the fact I'm open minded enough to know I don't know everything therefore I accept I could be wrong and I am waiting for anyone or anything to prove me wrong, but so far that hasn't happened, thus, still an atheist.
I notice you didn't claim a 99.9% theist should be considered an agnostic, but that's basically what you're saying. I'm saying they are still theists, even though they have their doubts.
"You are a good old fashion agnostic (up to 99.9 Not sure)"
If that were true for atheists, then it must be true for theists as well, so basically the entire world is populated with agnostics and there is no other option because I don't know anyone who can honestly say they have ZERO doubts as to their beliefs whether religious or not.
Nicely explained.
Talk about painting oneself into a corner.
Not surprised by this. I expected you were a gnostic theist. You might be quite surprised by the number of theists who are not gnostic theists. Being 100% certain that one's god exists - 0% chance that one is wrong - is a remarkably bold (euphemistically speaking) position for a non-omniscient, errant human being to take.
First go and figure out the meaning in the words above. Second, do not try to put words in my mouth. To be clear: As the article above points out:
I am a theist: a spirit-filled believer in God existence. No other adjective desired or required.
Whether or not you desire or require another adjective, you are either a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist. Your attempts to redefine words do not work.
I apologize. I thought you had made it clear that unless one is 100% they cannot be a theist.
One who holds that his theistic beliefs are truth - 100% correct - no possibility of being wrong is a gnostic theist.
Okay, and by your definition of 'theist' you hold that your god exists - 100% - no possibility of being wrong. Well you can call this whatever you want but the position is irrational. Unless you are omniscient, you cannot possibly assert with absolute certainty your god exists. You can believe in your god with all of your heart and be personally 100% convinced but when you go to the next level and assert that you cannot possibly be wrong, you have moved into an untenable and irrational position.
Is it possible that your god does not exist?
Yes = agnostic theist
No = gnostic theist (irrational)
Sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself of that than anyone else.
If you claim to be in your words "100% theist" and have zero doubts, then you're either a liar or delusional. You can wake each morning and tell yourself "I have no doubts!" but you can't hide from the truth, normal human brains don't work that way, especially when its something that has to be taken on faith.
"regardless of the fact I'm open minded enough to know I don't know everything [ When you are not sure there is a God/gods you are not an atheist. You should withhold stating a position. You are Agnostic.]"
Nonsense. If I said I do not believe there are tiny Martians living in the caves on Mars, then I would be an "a" (without) "Martian" or "amartianist" even if I accepted that I could be proved wrong someday. Right now, I see no evidence of them so I do not believe they exist, but I'm not so foolish as to believe I'm somehow infallible. I'm not on the fence waffling about Martians existence, I'm not hypothesizing how they might exist, I'm stating I do not believe they do.
And for theists it would be like if they claimed Martians do exist even though we have zero proof of them. They believe they can communicate telepathically with the Martians so they constantly bow their heads in silent prayer for their aid. But most would accept that they might be proved wrong someday, that maybe the aliens they're praying to are on Saturn and not Mars (i.e maybe God is really Allah or Vishnu and not Jesus...) and many claim that all the different beliefs in aliens are really just different paths to the same destination.
You are not being reasonable. READ THE ARTICLE.
One can read the article and still disagree with the article. It is entirely reasonable to do so. It is entirely unreasonable to expect others to only have the opinions you approve of them having.
I read the article, and it's clearly wrong. I am an agnostic atheist, as most atheists are. You are apparently a gnostic theist, since you do not allow any possibility for the non-existence of your god.
You are the one not being reasonable; as usual, you are attempting to redefine words in an attempt to prove something, although I have no idea what it is you're really out to prove.
Evilbible.com does a good job of pointing out the passages where the Christian god is depicted as evil in the bible, and there are a lot of them. Such as the part where God tells its followers to kill all members of an enemy tribe but the virgin girls, and to rape and enslave them. But this article is crap, and whoever wrote it is mistaken.
"the instance they are provided spiritual faith or natural evidences of God they become theists (believers.)"
First, I believe you meant "the 'instant' they are provided spiritual faith". And second, apparently we're not the ones who need to figure out the meaning of words, words are well defined. It's your use of them that creates confusion.
But let's review what you were trying to say:
"the instant they are provided spiritual faith or natural evidences of God they become theists (believers.)"
So I take it you believe that for each individual believer they get their own personal "evidence" and never have another doubt about their faith from then on, right? That would be what you are implying by that comment. That once a believer, always a believer. And I have known believers who proclaim loudly that they have no doubts about their faith, that they are 100% convinced of their Gods existence and heartily laugh at any who would doubt them. And I've seen those same people come to me in private when I was a pastor weeping about having doubts, angry with themselves for letting any doubt take root, metaphorically beating themselves up over what they see as their own imperfection of not living up to the 100% belief they think is necessary to be a true believer. I found that the ones who were the loudest in public about their Godly fidelity were almost always the ones who had the most doubts, the public exclamation of their faith just attempts to convince themselves more than others that they believe.
Many of these so-called 100% Christians are simply publicly proclaiming their daily affirmation:
"I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, I 100% believe in God and Doggone It, People Like Me...".
I have yet to meet a Christian who I actually believe when they proclaim how strong their faith is and that they never have any doubts.
Many priests also go through crises of faith. Mother Theresa had doubts.
People who never doubt their faith probably are not deep thinkers, that's for sure.
Think of it in your 'terms' as you wish. I simply believe God exist by faith! End of the narrative on it. It it makes your world better to think that I am a Gnostic believer—it is your world!
You are the one who writes about "percentages" and scales of belief: you are free to structure it (among supporters) as you see fit
I am a theist. You don't have to kid yourself on my account, DP! (Smile.)
Okay, let's settle this once and for all: Do you want to be an atheist (no god exists) or an agnostic (not sure god/gods exist)? I will call you what you wish.
It is unreasonable to read an article written by an atheist and state,
@5.2.6 Your attempts to redefine words do not work.
Sandy and other, this is seeded content. I am NOT the original author. I am just toiling to deliver a message that atheists outside of NT have differing opinions and NT is a good great place to air them!
DISCLAIMER: I reserve the right to hold an opinion different from the author of seeded content.
Now that is some CHOICE CHERRYPICKING!!! FYI, Evilbible.com wrote the article. (Hint: Check out Seeded Content.)
No. I mean they are provided spiritual believe in God and in the case of nature, in the future, should God interact with the natural world, we all will be believers.
The rest of your 100 percent 'mumbo jumbo' is a mystery to me as how a former pastor could not understand what the indwelling spirit is. Next, you might shock me by stating you do not know what a nominal Christian is! Please don't to that.
Then came the usual snark from you. I am sorry you detest your former life so much. None of your underlying and seething emotional state is similar to me. None of it.
It's not a matter of what someone "wants" to be. It's a matter of what they are. Anyone who does not believe any gods exist, but do not claim 100% certainty that there are no gods, is an agnostic atheist. Dude, the definitions already exist - why the heck are you having such a hard time with this?
evilbible.com is not a person. One individual person wrote the crappy essay which you posted above. "Evilbible" did not write it, any more than Newstalkers writes any of the articles posted in here.
Belief is all it is, and belief does not equal fact. Children believe In Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Does that mean they exist by their "faith?" As it is, there is no empirical evidence for any god/s, Santa, or the Easter bunny, ect..
The 'category' is too broad and superfluous. Any person, on either side of this discussion, who believes God exist does so by faith. Automatically that means we are "no man has seen God" believers. We believe by faith (trust) and the indwelling power of the Spirit. Technically, we believe God exist. We are theists, period. The only thing that could change for us is to become Agnostic (not sure God exist) or Atheists (we believe God does not exist.)
The "inbetweens" are wishy-washy":
"I believe God/gods do not exist. I will go about my days using tools such as logic, critical thinking, and science to appropriate outsiders to believe no God, gods exist; but, on deeper reflection, I do not know and I can not know enough about the subject of God!"
"I believe God exist. And if God exist, God can not not exist! I am going to hold this understanding in abeyance and wait to see if I can prove it with direct evidence amounting to science."
The straightforward term: Agnostic derived by Darwin's "bulldog" —Professor Huxley is sufficient to encompass all who are not theist or atheist. It is a clean split from being mealy-mouthed (hedging) and training others to be the same.
And you write that to say what? I should regard your comments as diminished in some way?
You fully understand the meaning behind "by faith" as you surely have heard the discussion about Spirit, et ceteras. No cheap soundbites can cancel out two thousand plus years of theology, Gordy! So don't try it. Actually, such 'argument' should not meet the standard for a long and serious 'talk.'
Theology has no evidence to support it. It's basically the study of what humans believe about the gods that humans most likely invented.
Faith is faith, regardless of the object for that faith. But that's all it is. Care to answer my question then: Children believe In Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Does that mean they exist by their "faith?"
That makes no sense. Faith is just faith. Regardless whether it's theologically based, mythical based, ect., it's still only faith or belief, and nothing more. That doesn't automatically mean the focus of that belief/faith exists simply because you want to believe it does.
Based on your posts so far as well as your apparent refusal to listen to rebuttals, I doubt you actually want a long and serious 'talk.' Especially when you do not answer simple questions. It seems you're only interested in mischaracterizing certain individuals or groups and want an echo chamber while you do it.
If I post direct quotes from the bible, do those count as "cheap soundbites?"
Priceless! /s
A remarkably convincing rebuttal.
Honestly, CB, if unjustified condescension is the best you can do, it would be best not to respond at all. You're not coming off well here.
Chances are, some might consider that "proof" or "evidence" for a god.
I agree.
Exactly. If someone does not know of a god (or even the concept) they cannot be a theist. If one is not a theist (or a deist) one is an atheist. A baby is not convinced there is a god.
"Group B" neither believes that god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. AKA. Of no opinion. Undecided.
It's quite simple: an atheist is not convinced any god/'s exist. Neither will they accept empty claims for god/s without evidence. There's really not much more to atheism than that.
This is pretty funny (and strange). So what do you think is the motivation for this seed? What is it supposed to accomplish?
I'm not really sure. Offhand, I'd say some people cannot seem to accept the fact that atheists are unconvinced of a god and they subsequently do not hold a belief for one. So the seed seems to try and move the goalposts as to what constitutes atheism. Kind of like saying atheists really do have a belief after all, whether it's a belief in God or the "belief" there us no god. Or its just an attempt to elicit an argument for argument's sake.
My suspicion is that this is an attempt to argue that atheism is a very tiny minority and that an atheist is necessarily gnostic. That is: all atheists are gnostic atheists. That basically is an attempt to argue that all atheists are irrational in that they hold 100% certainty that no god exists. That then is one step away from arguing that atheism is a religion.
See how this correlates with other similar attempts?
I have no patience for this kind of sophistry.
That makes sense and I think you are correct. How often have we heard the declaration that "atheism is a religion?"
Please desist this "sit-in"! Oh snap! It is reasonable to use the "Chat Now" or "Private Notes" sections and/or Facebook or something else for those kinds of discussions! Please respect decorum and stay on topic: "Definition of Atheism."
My comments are on topic and my previous reply was an acknowledgement of TiG's post. So what's the problem?
Given the lack of direct response, one can only guess at the intended point.
Have you ever heard of the source for this seed: evilbible.com? The definition of atheism it offers is strange and I cannot see why the author(s) would choose to limit atheism to effectively gnostic atheism. But the fringe groups always have their odd ways.
That said, this site actually does get a lot of things right. Many of their arguments are logical and based on hard evidence. I wonder if this site's restrictive definition of atheism is based on the author(s) considering themselves agnostic (or preferring that label to 'atheist' to avoid the stigma). The author(s) read like agnostic atheists so maybe they self-label agnostic. Fine with me, that label is accurate albeit imprecise.
Personally I prefer the label 'skeptic' but I would not make an argument that atheists cannot be skeptics (which effectively is what this site did with the label 'agnostic').
Agreed, we are discussing the seed. The main 'problem' is that we are not in agreement with the posit.
I've never heard of "evilbible." But skepticism can be a good thing. There's nothing wrong with questioning things, especially claims or ideas that lack a rational basis or evidence.
I've heard of evilbible. Nonbelievers have been accused of using it to criticize the OT, as if we couldn't figure out for ourselves that slavery, genocide, rape, etc., were wrong.
In general I am a skeptic. My skepticism is not limited to religion. Funny how religious skeptics are deemed to be 'faithless' - bad, bad thing - yet in other dimensions such as business, politics, parenting, etc. skepticism is recognized as a valuable quality.
Maybe the evilbible boys should go with 'skeptic' and forget trying to redefine 'atheist' to keep themselves insulated from that label (assuming that is their motive).
I was surprised to see that they actually have some good arguments there.
Motivations? My understanding is discussing NT member motives per se is not discussing the materials. If I am correct, be reasonable, do not discuss member motivations here, please. Thank you.
I am merely replying to certain posts. I am not discussing anyone's motivations. Although, at this point, I have to question yours.
You quoted me, not Gordy.
I can ask a fellow member to opine on the reason for a seed and the fellow member can respond. Given the seeder is not going to offer any information, speculation is the next best thing. And, besides, I am quite interested in Gordy's take on this topic - from several aspects.
We are reading a rather bizarre seed that has no offered point. It is up to the readers to try to deduce the intent.
So unless you want to offer answers to the questions, your comments are not productive.
What would you like to know exactly? Or have I already addressed it in other posts?
Yes, It is your quote not Gordy's. However, I responded to Gordy to avoid responding to you directly. That's reasonable and acceptable. You and I are at an impasse.
By the way, it is reasonable to expect you to respect the rules you so routinely remind others to align themselves by. It can't be that hard.
We were able to communicate as needed in spite of the interruptions.
An impasse called @ 3.2.14 can not be applied to all threads that follow. Dissenting opinions are to be expected in a hardy discussion.
Y'all can 'sop up' evil bible as a fellow atheist traveler all you want! I heard it said very recently, that the site "gets a lot of things right." Enjoy!
Of course, right from a subjective atheistic (non-theist) POV! Of course!
Hi Perrie! Oh, my 'issue' is not dissenting opinions, believe that! I gird up to take my 'slings and arrows,' right along with every one else!
What gets me (nearly every time) and I humbly admit it, is the rules. Honestly, no matter how many times I have heard about the Impasse rule - I can not for the life of me remember if the condition for its use is just for the SPECIFIC 'Thing' THAT IS GOING NOWHERE (fast), or once invoked if IMPASSE MEANS NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION ON THE ENTIRE THREAD BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES INVOLVED.
(Smile.) I try so hard to use the rule from memory and go look for it. I probably should go look for it!
It is a 'helpful' resource for atheists (even when it criticizes it's own). BTW, fair-minded treatment of a subject is considered virtuous by everybody, and that is the manner for how I received this author's POV. Of course, I was incredulous, but then persuaded to dig deeper. I found corroboration from others too.
Glad to bring it to the forefront of NewsTalkers in any small way I can! The views there are here too in varied statements and perspectives.
Of course, believers' have a plethora of websites populating the world too!
A bit of 'ancient' poetry relevant to this moment: (Clears throat; begin:)
Ecclesiastes 1:9
9 That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So there is nothing new under the sun.
Don't reply to me if you really mean to reply to someone else. Address the person directly. If you can't because of an impass you declare, that's your problem. Don't drag me into such juvenile tactics!
( His view of impasse is incorrect. )
Not to mention his views of atheism.
Looking at this seed, there are quite a few atheists who have weighed in — all with consistent views.
Looks as though my speculation on intent was largely correct. The purpose of this seed seems to be to position all NT atheists as gnostic atheists and then claim that NT atheists are all supporting a belief system - a religion - of 'no god exists' and proclaiming same with 100% certainty - no acknowledgement of the possibility that a god might exist.
In short, try to reduce atheism to a religion and the atheists to making irrational claims of certainty. Level the playing field?
When, after being repeatedly corrected, someone professes to know your beliefs better than you, that pretty much hits the Valerie level of hubris. One can only laugh at what is clearly over-the-top ridiculous.
*snert*
You should really listen to yourselves. You charmingly critique world religions up one article and down another for years now! Then, you come on-task to seeded content written by a fellow atheist 'traveler' and you CHERRY-PICK and gripe all through the experience. Aren't y'all SPECIAL!
Get out of here with this noise. A fellow atheist (Evilbible.com) such as you all are has a different view of what atheism is constituted to be from our resident clique on NT! Get used to it:
This “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. . . . . It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be based on a lack of belief." [Seeded content above.]
Why not get started on changing the designation "athe-ism" into something new and improved?
What? Are you all "practicing" a lack of belief?
I will grant you that one. However, you were engaging with TiG about me significantly, so you don't have to be so discourteous over a few acts of common decency. Any-who, all is well that ends well I say!
Thank you for your assistance in my time of need.
Pure projection.
Just because your source is an atheist does not make him right. Especially when your source contradicts the most common definition of atheism that is easily available via a simple Google search.
You are wrong. Pretending to be right accomplishes nothing ... well, at least nothing that is good for you.
Because we really don't give a crap. You're the one whose panties are in a wad about that word. I agree that "ism" isn't generally used in this manner, but the word "atheism" is what it is, and its definition is what it is - no matter how much you dislike that definition.
I think what is really pissing you off is that you've convinced yourself that atheism is a religion, and that all atheists think the same way. The only thing we are guaranteed to have in common is a lack of belief in gods. And for some reason, that causes you extreme distress; you really need those two things to be true. But they are not true.
The author of the essay in Evilbible is ignoring the most common definitions of these words. The essay is wrong, plain and simple.
As is apparent to anyone reading this thread, the atheists here disagree with the supposed "fellow atheist's" rather dubious claims. They also wonder why a professed "spirit-filled believer in God existence" would post an article from evilbible.com or even bother to bring up the debate on the lines between atheist and agnostic, neither support the theist's beliefs. And the so-called "griping" you claim are merely a collection of viewpoints on that debate. The author believes an old word that literally means "without God" should really only apply to those who are 100% sure there is no God while anything less than 100% certainty would be a different word. So while I do not believe in any God or gods and am, literally, "without God", since I'm not stupid enough to proclaim 100% certainty about anything (I can't actually prove you're not all just figments of my imagination and that I'm not God so how I can be 100% certain of anything?) I'd apparently be labeled "undecided" by some supposedly 100% faithful religious persons (which I also do not believe really exist).
If I claimed to not have any doubts, I'd be a liar, just like any believer who claims they have zero doubts about their faith.
It seems to me to be much like how some religious persons claim to be 100% heterosexual and seem to shout the loudest about being perfectly straight, but then get caught in an airport bathroom toe tapping signals looking for gay hook-ups or caught in a hotel room with a male prostitute and a bag of heroin. "The lady doth protest, too much, me thinks...".
And by the way CB, you wouldn't happen to be the prior commenter "calbab" are you? Many things you've said seem to be word for word things previously debated by calbab.
Yes, CB is Calbab.
It usually is.
Indeed. The claim that "atheism is a religion" is not only an oxymoron, it's also absurd. It's as if some theists simply cannot wrap their minds around the idea that some people (atheists) simply do not believe-period. They try to find some hidden meaning or purpose to infer atheists do believe in something or atheism is a religion.
Just for the sake of argument, even if atheism was a "religion," most atheists probably do not make claims of absolute certainty, unlike some theists. So there's no point to try and define atheism as a religion.
Yeah, that's a good one.
it would be funny if it were not so pathetic.
That happens to humans from time to time!
But, you guys are so fond of saying that you are not a 'monolith' in thought. Being freethinking "rugged" individualists allows the author of this seed to have a different statement of what atheism is—than you.
So which is it: Y'all are the only atheists with an acceptable view or are other atheists holding other countervailing views allowed expression here, too?
Some atheists and agnostics here are confusing me.
And you say this to say what? Aren't you consistent in your affirmation statement ,
@ 5.1.25 I get the impression that [CB] thinks all atheists are of a single mind ... belong to some universal club ... get marching orders from an athiest (sic) 'pope' ...
Now you exploit consistency of a few NT atheists as though it is the be all that ends all?
The above author is as welcome to his opinion as we are to our own. I think what most non-believers here have expressed is that the author above is trying to fix something that's not broken. It's a simple word, used for thousands of years, and it simply means "without God". And since it's both vague and specific at the same time, some want to further define it. Most logical persons add a modifier to it in order to properly define the range of belief they have encountered.
And to answer the question, "are other atheists views allowed?" the answer is "Of course they are, no one is claiming this atheist isn't entitled to his opinion, no one is suggesting we must block or remove this seed". Just like other non-believers and believers are allowed to have their own opinion of what defines an atheist. Many religious folk have believed all atheists must somehow be servants of Satan, and they're welcome to their opinion no matter how monumentally wrong they are.
Are you all "practicing" a lack of belief? Right now?
How can a person practice a complete lack of belief? What are the steps that must be followed?
Is there also a process of not collecting stamps?
1. I do NOT and have NEVER worn "panties." Bet.
2. I read everybody. I have explained that to NT already. All of "this" is a matter of information and discussion for me.
3. You can think whatever the heaven you wish; and be emotional over it too. It's okay.
4. The essay is what it is! I report. You decide. Incidentally, did you see this,
@ 5.1.11
As The Humanist.com states:
A narrow atheist might reject an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God, such as the deities envisioned in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. However, a narrow atheist might still believe in some sort of higher power , whether that is natural laws of science or the sense of awe that she or he feels when contemplating the vastness of the universe. A narrow atheist may even have some sense of a spiritual being or realm , though he or she might not define this higher power in a way that the larger society typically thinks of “God.”
A wide atheist , however, rejects any concept of the supernatural, whether it’s a deity or a higher power. From the perspective of a wide atheist, there is no paranormal being or beings that exist beyond the material universe. Individuals who identify as wide atheists certainly can still feel a sense of wonder when encountering the complexity and beauty of the natural world, but they would not consider this sense of reverence a connection with a higher power beyond the physical realm.
These people are humanists defining terms - not me. Are these secularists ' cherry-picking ' definitions as some atheists suggest of theists? Are these humanists wrong?
And do you "give a crap" about 'em?
Are you practicing a lack of belief in leprechauns? What do your meetings look like? Can you direct us to some scriptures? Can you describe your daily aleprechaun devotions?
That is not a reasonable reply. It detect simple emotion (and snark).
Of course it's snarky. But it's as reasonable as your misguided insistence that we practice atheism. Blatant double standards deserve snark.
You are on a roll. . . .
Well there is only one of me and I have answered "hundreds" of requests. So, my work here is done!
We think logically.
That doesn't make the author automatically correct.
Our "views" regarding atheism happen to be the correct one. I'm not sure how many other "views" there are which atheists have regarding atheism. Most probably agree that atheism is simply being unconvinced about there being a god.
Considering you confuse atheism and agnosticism, I'm not surprised.
I know lots of atheists in real life, and every single one of them agrees with the definitions we have provided to you in here.
Apparently, logic is not uniform.
If you are (un)convinced there is a God or gods >> you are 100 percent an atheist. None of this, agnostic-atheist, I don't know but I can be persuade nonsense. Any 'stout' atheist can be convinced of God is God is tangible or standing directly before him or her.
BTW, of all the atheist voices in here, I can not recall if you have stake a claim to being a full-bloodied atheist or an agostic-atheist. Care to clarify for me?
The rest of your comment is irrelevant.
The discussion in this seed has more concentrated explanation of the meaning of atheism than anything else I have seen on NewsTalkers. Yet still you pretend to not understand.
And you are a 100 percent atheist, TiG! You add an embellishment that you do not make the claim (God does not exist) in the same manner a so-called agnostic-atheist (no claim of knowledge that God does not exist) does. It is a poor construction meant to 'soften' a blunt truth of your atheistic confession (God does not exist and I am 99.99 percent sure of it!).
In the meantime, instead of taking a "God does not exist, but I can not be sure" attitude about the subject. You actually practice atheism through instructing people to walk away from world religion until and when God literally touches people scientifically. It is a deliberate activity to 'turn' people into non-believer (if possible).
One of the objectives of honest communication is to clear up subject matter and disputes. I question if your interest is putting this subject matter to rest, when you point to how many NT atheists and agnostics agree with your point of view: as if this is a "be all that ends all." It can not and it does not!
Define and quantify, "lots of atheists" please.
Why do you persist in making dishonest statements about the views of others?
Good grief, this is pathetic.
How does anyone actually practice atheism? What does their daily schedule look like?
How does God touch people scientifically when it is the scientific method that is the basis of people not believing in any god? Did you think before you wrote this ? The only thing that turns people into atheists is emotionless logic and rational thought.
Apparently we "practice atheism" when a believer says "My God is real and is the only pathway to salvation" and the atheist replies "Prove it".
Apparently, the idea of seeking objective fact over subjective belief is something that believers just can't grasp because they seem to be driven wholly by their emotions and a drive for happy and secure concepts that are akin to an emotional binkie.
Do I need to re-start building my atheist shrine? Should it be topped with a bust of Plato, Epicus, Bertrand Russell, or Dawkins?
If you do, may I make a pilgrimage to it?
I'm partial to Prof. Dawkins. But any of the others will do too.
Your understanding of logic seems rather limited.
I think it's already been explained to you that atheists are not convinced there is a god. Most will reconsider when there is evidence for one. Few will claim with absolute certainty that there is no god, which is logically indefensible.
There are degrees of atheism and theism. TiG is very good at explaining it.
????
Sure: present the evidence and an atheist will reconsider their position. That has been explained too. So do you have a point?
Even more than usual?
How does God touch people scientifically when it is the scientific method that is the basis of people not believing in any god? Did you think before you wrote this ? The only thing that turns people into atheists is emotioness logic and rational thought.
Atheists want God to appear in the natural world, possibly in a clinical setting or on a lab table? Of course, they forget God is Spirit.
Emotionless? You got rid of them all did you?! Did you think before you wrote this?
You say God is spirit, but God supposedly created us, and therefore can interact with the natural world. He supposedly even created us in his own image, implying that he has an appearance.
If he's also supposedly omnipotent, what could be so hard about showing himself?
A spirit is an emotion and is not proof of anything. Where is the evidence of said spirit of God? Either god exists or it doesn't and if it does exist then you can prove it.
Choose one or both,
But so many of them still claim it has a penis.
It's open to all for free. There will be a spaghetti dinner every Friday night at 6:00 pm. Diners needs to bring their own wine, but dessert will be provided.
RAMEN! oh wait, wrong shrine. Lol
I'll bring beer.
Something chocolate?
I'm there!
Is tiramisu Ok to start with?
We always welcome Eastern Rite Pastafarians.
I'll have something chocolate.
Absolutely.
Professor Thomas H. Huxley:
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a free-thinker—I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our society.
That is the history of the terms "agnostic" and "agnosticism."
—Metaphysical society. 1876
Professor Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the word, "agnostic":
Note at the time (1876),
Dr. Huxley did NOT and was NOT considered as an atheist. Of course, if he was prevented with appropriate spiritual evidences (aka: faith) he could be persuaded to change his designation; if not he would remain as he was most likely stated, Agnostic: Not knowing. Holding to no position on God's existence.
It is 2019 - 143 years since 1876. Language evolves. Terms evolve. Even so, Professor Huxley's definition for agnostic focuses on 'lack of knowledge / certainty' and that is entirely consistent with the distinction of agnostic / gnostic made in this breakdown:
The gnostics claim certain knowledge. The agnostics do not.
Theists believe in a god(s), atheists do not.
Professor Huxley was either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Given he focused so heavily on not knowing, he most likely was not convinced a god exists. (Otherwise he would have just gone with theist.) Thus my guess is that he was an agnostic atheist. If, however, he believed that it is more likely than not that a god exists, then that would be an agnostic theist position. Either way, Huxley categorizing his religious beliefs as agnostic works with the above breakdown. Agnostic = [agnostic-atheist or agnostic-theist].
So another single data point argument rebutted.
Is it reasonable to take for granted babies can intellectually choose if God exist or not? Of course not. Let's not be absurd!
Babies are not atheist/atheism anymore than they can be practicing theist/theism. Babies are developing human beings with no philosophical worldviews or points of view, whatsoever!
Now pass the formula and smooth out the pillows!
Then it's reasonable to say babies are born atheists and learn (or indoctrinated into) religion and God later on, thus becoming theists.
Present some evidence babies understand what,
1. belief is.
2. God is.
3. lack is.
Babies are not atheist/atheism anymore than they can be practicing theist/theism
The point is that they do not understand any of those concepts. Babies do not know what a god is so clearly they do not believe in god.
By the same token, a baby does not believe in Santa Claus until s/he is taught the concept.
A baby has a lack of belief (as in the belief is not there) in god and Santa Claus. A baby is an atheist and an aSanta-ist.
A baby is not an atheist, because an atheist can comprehend the concept of "no God/gods." A baby has a complete insufficiency for understanding belief, God, and lack.
Why is that hard to accept?
A baby does not have a belief in gods. Therefore, babies are atheists.
Why do you continually play these semantic games where you pretend that you can redefine the meaning of words to suit your agenda?
I can answer that.
It is much easier to manipulate facts and semantics than it is to actually win an argument.
I presume you mean a baby cannot comprehend the concept. True, babies have no concept of god. They thus lack belief in a god.
Lack of belief = Absence of belief = No belief
One must learn about a god to be a theist. If one has not learned about a god one has no belief in a god and thus one is an agnostic atheist.
You mean other than it being entirely wrong?
If babies do not understand god, belief, or religion, then they are atheist by default. At least until those concepts are taught to them.
Babies are not atheists. Being atheism/atheist is an informed state. Naturally it has to be fully explained and accepted. Babies are not atheist, and they do not have a "lack of belief" they simply exist to grow.
Babies do not desire, need, or qualify for such designations!
Does a baby believe in a god?
Being an atheist is not necessarily an informed state. It does not have to be fully explained and accepted. It is simply the lack of belief in gods - for any reason. Sure, I've reasoned and thought and that is why I'm an atheist. Others are atheists because they were never indoctrinated in the first place; babies fall into that category.
You can say this until you're blue in the face, and you'd still be wrong. Repeating falsehoods does not make them true.
Your comment about "babies do not desire such designations" is hilarious!
Not true, atheist does not require being "informed" of anything. The literal translation is "without God" and if a baby lacks a belief in God, whether intentional or not, then they are "without God".
Are babies virgins? I believe they are regardless of whether they know it or not. Some day they'll be informed of what that means and get to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to stay in that state, but that's the way we all begin life. [Deleted.]
Thank you for the small correction. I was in a rush at the time.
In that case, likewise, a baby would have to learn about atheism in order to practice it. As you and others do so often.
One is not an agnostic, atheist, or theist if one does not know the worldviews exist or what they mean. You are falling into the trap the author mentioned:
atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist”
to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists.
Well-spoken.
Atheism isn't something one practices. There are no rituals. No traditions. No teachings, even.
It's not a religion.
Anyone who lacks belief in gods is an atheist. That's the only requirement to fit the definition.
To p r a c t i c e atheism?
Who ' practices ' atheism? Try to grasp the idea that atheism is not a religion, an organization or a method. It is a state. ' not convinced a god exists ' defines the state.
One does not ' practice ' atheism.
How exactly does one "practice' atheism? What are the practices involved?
An atheist does not have a belief in any god/s while a theist does. That's it. Quite simple really.
And you are trying to redefine things to suit your purposes again.
Show us a baby, any baby, with a,
@ 1.1 epistte
It is right there in the definition of a NT atheist's definition for the word, atheism. Try not to block it out going forward, please. Atheism is a lot more than a simply 'lack'!
Why did you ignore the obvious first description of atheism?
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that atheists rely on logic and facts instead of belief? Where is your proof or evidence that god/s exist?
Given your constant intellectually dishonest arguments, why would someone convert to being a Christian if they take your actions as those of a conservative Christian?
Babies are inherently agnostic because they have no knowledge of any god or religion at this point. They will become non-believers unless they are indoctrinated by their parents.
Wait, . . .why are you in here again? Why do atheists hold seminars? 'Pack' out internet social media? Why do atheists discuss religion routin— okay, "a lot"?
MEMO: There are practicing atheists in here. One of the practitioners says s/he 'do it for the readers.'
Because I can be here, and I dislike disinformation.
If you want your articles to go unchallenged, you might consider closing your group. Your aversion to opposing views doesn't work well in an open forum.
Keep telling yourselves that and keep showing up to discuss disbelief with so many words regularly for hours on end; and,talk about 'lack'!I guess there are folks on NT in need of knowing how much of nothing atheism is.
Who does that?!
Oh, well, since you made a meme about it, it must be true
And, yet I can not get a vote out of you! A rough crowd.
Nonsense. You can miss the point of my asking as often as you please. You are not an issue for me. No. Not at all.. And please, I get tossed canards 'around the clock' by atheists on NT. Is it possible to get some new material? These are old, stale, and recycled ad nauseam. (Cheers!)
Then what is the point of you asking why I'm here?
First, let me thank you for arbitrarily finding my analogy of indoctrinating young minds with religion against their will as a metaphorical rape and moderating it as of no value. I see you must be doing it with zero bias and weren't just removing it simply because you find it offensive.
As for NT atheists debating "disbelief" as you claim, we're not. We are debating belief. I have yet to see a seed where the atheists all just sat around talking about the wide range of things you can disbelieve. "I don't believe in Genies" "Neither do I!" "I don't believe in the tooth fairy either" "Me neither!". What you do see are those of us who can't let what we see as flawed opinions go unchallenged. If we did that sensible folk might get the impression that the flawed opinion must have some merit. Where do we most often pop up? In discussions where believers are either mis-characterizing atheists or making wild unproven claims about their imagined deity.
And sadly, billions of people around the world believe in imagined deities that have never had a single shred of empirical evidence as to their existence. People are killed daily for either their different religious beliefs or their lack of them. Blasphemy laws are still alive and well in many countries. Here in the states we're still discriminated against and often are closeted to the larger community or our customers because of the vile lies religion has spread about non-believers for centuries. But if we don't stand up for ourselves and our beliefs and at least try and be the eye of the tornado, the center of sanity in the world, then we'll all be swept away whether it's up with the next holy war or the self-indulgent self-fulfillment of their hoped for Armageddon.
So we discuss far more than just "disbelief", we discuss belief in things we can see, study, test, examine, quantify and explore. But when we hear someone making a claim we know they can't back up, it's hard not to call them out on it and yes, express our disbelief. I'll bet you express disbelief every time someone mentions the flying spaghetti monster, you won't even give it a second think, it's ridiculous in your mind and you have no reason to believe it exists and yet you don't think of yourself as expressing "disbelief" in the spaghetti monster because you're too busy expressing belief in your own imaginary deity.
And BTW, we'd be more motivated to come up with new material if you'd stop trying to redefine words and telling atheists what they believe and why.
For emphasis.
Adding on ...
The idea is to complete the dialectic. To provide the challenges necessary if one has any chance of approaching truth.
Well, I get it, even an atheist desires purpose.
There is no believer in here mischaracterizing atheists. If you have anyone to charge with that it the atheists author on an atheists website (Evilbible.com). There are many issues you can lay at charge of the Church (and you do), but fairmindedness demands you "correct the record" even as you go on your quest!
Then protect truth, all truth as you see it and as it is. Thus, you do not get to tell people on the other side of the world or even on the other side of the street how they should live—once they get out of your way and the way of laws. Laws, by the way, all of us, in our own way fight for and to change appropriately to suit ourselves and other people. If some group wishes to "imagine" a spirit world, what is it to you? In the larger scheme, you can have aid from inside the circle for your positions, but what you can not be allowed is to kill other people's reality and plop your own reality down in its place! Work with believers who wish to assist the good. But know this, you will not be permitted to attack faith, its adherents, and eliminate it from the systems of this world. Which you will deny is the purpose of atheists, secularist-humanist, and a host of others who use logic and critical thinking as a tool to attack the Church.
"The center of sanity in the world" is not just atheists, secularists, and a host of other groups I know but can not recall as I must run now. More later on that point. You can have friends, and you will whether you like it or not in the churches of this nation and world who wish good for all people—and fight hard daily for just that. Know who your friends are. It is. . . logical to accept the friendship from others who care and not stupidly pound away at everybody who you imagine disagree with your plans for society. You may remember even Jesus stated that, when he told his disciples to 'let them be, no one who speaks good of me can harm me.'
You tell me yo were a pastor so you know the meaning of Armageddon to the world in scripture. It is not something to be used as a reason to divide, either it will occur on God's timetable or it will not! Nothing you or I can do about that prophecy one way or the other. For if true, it is bigger than any of us! So, I suggest you talk about it—but not as a talking point to divide people.
I must run now. Take care of the room today with Tig for me. It's in your hands now!
One last thing, you know believer operate by faith and belief in the Spirit of God. This is not a matter for critical thinking or logic. It surpasses that. Appeal to what matters to believers if you wish to have any hope of making an impression on their spirits! (That is a bit of a rush statement, may need to clean it up later. Bye!)
How have we done so?
How could we do so?
You don't seem to think very highly of the faith of the faithful. You seem to believe that exposure to other points of view is dangerous to that faith. Just as I am not forced to attend church, nobody of faith is forced to read the views of atheists on a discussion forum. If they do not wish it, they need never encounter my opinion.
There is, therefore, no reason for me not to state that opinion, or discuss those beliefs.
This seed seems to have been intended as an instance of talking at athiests, not with atheists. You seem to want to tell us what we are, and anything other than unquestioning agreement with that erroneous assessment is viewed as an attack.
Sad.
As has been said, belief does not equal fact.
Faith/belief by definition is the lack of critical thinking or logic. But it certainly doesn't surpass critical thinking. Not by a long shot. it's more akin to intellectual laziness.
That just means believers go by emotion rather than logic or facts.
That means "truth" is subjective. Some of us prefer actual fact.
How is anyone here doing that?
Not a thing. Although, that might be a sign of a psychological condition. When one imagines a "spirit world" as equivalent or more real than reality, then it's a detachment from reality itself.
There, fixed it for you.
What makes faith/belief free from scrutiny or ridicule?
You make it sound as if logic and critical thinking are bad things. Atheists do not "attack" church or religion. Atheists simply use logic and critical thinking to analyze religion or the church and especially the claims they make. Theists and the church often interpret this as an "attack." It's like their beliefs/religion cannot stand p to logical scrutiny so they feel threatened.
Prophesies are nothing more than guesses about the future. They often tend to be vague enough to allow plenty of 'wiggle room' for the circumstances surrounding said prophesy.
All I need is one example to show that claim to be false:
Labeling me a positive atheist, reading my clear rebuttal and then blindly labeling me again a positive atheist is you mischaracterizing an atheist.
Given I routinely argue that the positive atheist (aka gnostic atheist) position is irrational and unfounded (as is the gnostic theist position) your mischaracterization is not only wrong, it is malicious.
Repeating the same label after the first correction becomes little more than lying.
See previous statement.
"So you do not know, thus you are not an atheist (100 percent knowing). You are a good old fashion agnostic (up to 99.9 Not sure)." CB
"Hello NT Agnostics! Nice meeting ya!" CB
"Being 99.9 percent so-called, "atheist" qualifies a person to be an Agnostic; that person is not an atheist." CB
"This is an expression of so-called, "Cheap atheist." CB
Okay, so now that we've established that you did in fact mis-characterized atheists, those are your opinions, not the seeds author, either you're not being honest or you're not a believer.
"In the larger scheme, you can have aid from inside the circle for your positions, but what you can not be allowed is to kill other people's reality and plop your own reality down in its place!"
Isn't that exactly what many believers do? Why do I have to just accept Christmas or any other religious Holiday being "plopped" on my reality every year? It's virtually impossible to avoid, from commercials, store musak, work places, children's plays being put on by public schools, children of atheists and Muslims being sent home with the Santa or Easter Bunny art projects their teachers had them do. Nearly every facet of our secular society is effected by a religious holiday each year, from store sales and the stock market to virtually every channel on television. Talk about "plopping" ones own reality on every one else.
"It is. . . logical to accept the friendship from others who care and not stupidly pound away at everybody who you imagine disagree with your plans for society."
What, are you a Vulcan now? I welcome anyone of any faith who wants to work on solving their community and the worlds problems with real, logical, sensible solutions. But of the many possible solutions to fix societal problems, the "solution" should never be indoctrinating people into any specific faith. That is exactly what the establishment clause was there to prevent, one religion being adopted by the nation and pushed on the citizenry as a fix for their lives.
"You tell me yo were a pastor so you know the meaning of Armageddon to the world in scripture. It is not something to be used as a reason to divide, either it will occur on God's timetable or it will not! Nothing you or I can do about that prophecy one way or the other. For if true, it is bigger than any of us! So, I suggest you talk about it—but not as a talking point to divide people."
I was, and I know a lot about the supposed Armageddon John wrote of in Revelation. And the fact is, there are many prophecies within that shallow religious idiots think they can help fulfill to inch us closer to their hoped for annihilation of mankind, the death of all those they see as their enemies, the non-believers. This is why many Christians support Israel's occupation of Palestine, so that the "12 tribes of Israel" will be there on the "plains of Megiddo" in order to fulfill the prophecy and see their enemies destroyed. So instead of trying to actually work with Muslims and other faiths, I believe many Christians are just biding their time to when they believe their God will come and murder everyone not of their religious denomination. They believe they're right and billions of other humans are wrong and because they were born in another country and weren't raised as a Christian, they're going to be thrown in the lake of fire. And all the sick, beady eyed religious sycophants clap their hateful little hands at that thought.
"you know believer operate by faith and belief in the Spirit of God. This is not a matter for critical thinking or logic. It surpasses that. Appeal to what matters to believers if you wish to have any hope of making an impression on their spirits!"
This is the problem with debating most religious persons, not only do they not employ critical thinking, it is anathema to them. It's their Kryptonite. And their only recourse when exposed to it is to exclaim "Arrrrgggghhhh! You can't beat us with that logic and critical thinking, you must come battle us in the realm of make believe if you want to have a chance at beating us! Prove God doesn't exist! Prove prayer doesn't work! Prove Santa doesn't exist! Oh... wait.... strike that last one as it completely undermines our point...".
CB, believe what you want, I'm not trying to convince you to abandon your faith. Just don't expect others to not challenge your claims when you seed an article that is trying to define other peoples beliefs for them. And when you use your own faith to try and prove some point, don't expect that to go unchallenged either.
That is projection of your issues, conflicts, and possible dilemmas on to me. Nothing I need to consider here.
"Intellectual laziness? Faith, you say? Except it is not! There are intellectuals in the community of believers equal to and surpassing the nonbeliever community.
You and your emoticons have been all over the place recently! Bit of hyperbole, but you get the point I'm making. I know you do.
You can be coy all you wish. You may really should read what some other atheists are writing in books and all over the internet about eliminating world religions and faith in God. Get out of that "sufficient" world of your own.
Excuse me. Logic and critical thinking is great! Both benefit the world. Good heavens! Both help clean up bad doctrines, dogmas, customs, traditions, and bad logic and bad thoughts. Need I go on? There are people who passionately attempt to do more than this, nevertheless.
Such critical thinkers and logicians flying under the atheist "banner" are bad people.
The "prophecy" denotation is not for you, really. Dismiss it from your mind.
Yes, you accusing us of trying to abolish others' faith is totally us projecting. If you have no idea what projection is, I guess.
We're just have to see labels differently then. You got yours way of looking at the categories and I have mine.
No, Cal, when it comes to deeming me a positive atheist you are either profoundly confused or you are deliberately misrepresenting my position - one which I have made quite clear for years.
Yeah, it is! Whenever someone uses god as an explanation or assertion for anything, that's a convenient answer which requires no further elaboration or thinking, i.e. "god did it, 'nuff said."
I never said belief/faith means one is unintelligent (although an argument can be made for such a correlation-but I digress). Of course someone can be both intelligent and religious. That's obvious. The laziness comes in when they attempt to use their god/religion as an explanation for something or anything, as there is no evidence. They might believe "god did it," but I doubt many would often seriously present that as factual or true.
I use them from time to time. But I doubt it constitutes "all over the place." Besides, what difference does that make?
No, not really. What is your point? Care to elucidate for me?
Most atheists I am aware of are doing no such thing, as eliminating faith and religion is a fools errand and unrealistic. More like atheists try to get people to think logically and critically and encourage people to think for themselves and not blindly accept religious dogma as fact, no questions asked.
I'm glad we agree on that much.
Do what exactly? Examples?
What are you talking about? I have made my view of prophesies clear.
That is called, "dominant culture." And you should understand that aspect of the real world readily. Do not ask me to explain a place in the dominant culture (assuming in your case it is so). You should have experiences which match its reality.
What, are you a Vulcan now? I welcome anyone of any faith who wants to work on solving their community and the worlds problems with real, logical, sensible solutions. But of the many possible solutions to fix societal problems, the "solution" should never be indoctrinating people into any specific faith. That is exactly what the establishment clause was there to prevent, one religion being adopted by the nation and pushed on the citizenry as a fix for their lives.
When have you ever heard me argue the case for one religion in this country? Indeed, my personal view is good people in all world religions and nonbelievers of all good will form the tapestry of this country. To be clear, in my car yesterday, I did hear fundamentalist Christian talk radio (I sneak in, sat down, and have a listen sometimes just to see what fundamentalists are telling each other) complaining about the few minority Muslim women being sworn into Congress using their religious book: The Koran. That does not bother me in any way. Indeed, I am glad to see Muslims who love this country in a general sense celebrate it by being themselves. I welcome all peoples of good will.
They believe they're right and billions of other humans are wrong and because they were born in another country and weren't raised as a Christian, they're going to be thrown in the lake of fire. And all the sick, beady eyed religious sycophants clap their hateful little hands at that thought.
Whew! I am so glad I am not a "sick, beady eyed religious sycophant with little hands"! Praise God!
And when you use your own faith to try and prove some point, don't expect that to go unchallenged either.
Absolutely nothing wrong with challenging a point, but not accepting an answer (such as yours is not the only individual definition for the word, atheist, out in the world. Thus you and NT atheists do not get to 'kill-off' the rest of atheists voices and their (dictionary) definitions for this word) and not accepting that the 'voice' is one of your own, leading to long, unwarranted debate is simply wrong-headed!
I was the messenger for an atheist concept, one which I happen to agree with, because I was an agnostic thinker for eighteen years of my life. During those years, I was never an "agnostic-theist."
That is, I never who had doubt while believing in God. When I doubted God I departed the church, church family, and all religiosity.
And for the record, such doubt when it does exist must establish a pattern of doubt (continuous) and not be simpy a momentary passing 'situational' doubt.
From the moment I walked away from my early life church traditions which I was brought up in (Baptist) - I never looked back on church or its tradition for any of my personal needs or reflections. It simply did not interest me further.
Until eighteen years later -that is.
Umm.
Why would any of us care what some other atheists are writing in books and all over the internet? And if you're making claims that atheists are trying to eliminate world religions and faith in God, you should know by now that you have to provide proof.
Such critical thinkers and logicians flying under the atheist "banner" are bad people.
At this point, you're going down the road of personal attacks. Cut it out.
Intelligent and religious men, women, boys, and girls do NOT accept religious faith blindly, Gordy!
That is patently false because most people were indoctrinated into their parent's religion at very early age and had no say in it until they turned 18 or 21 and by then the religious programming is part of them, if they did believe. Many people have a difficult time leaving the church because of the family and social ostracism that occurs when they admit that they question their traditional religious belief or the idea that any god exists.
So where is your evidence? If you have no evidence, you are, by definition, accepting faith blindly. That's what blind faith is - belief without evidence.
Umm. Why make any of that about you? It is not. It is not. It is not.
It doesn't have to be about katrix to be a personal attack. It was an attack on Gordy.
You're not showing your best side here.
Uh yeah, they do. Faith is blind by definition. That's why it's just faith. They certainly don't accept faith by definition, as there is none.
No intelligent people of faith do not accept faith blindly. No more than you accept science without peer review (assuming you do so). As to the tail-end of your comment it comes across like you may be distracted.
So where's the evidence that justifies faith? At least peer review analyzes a study and its evidence.
If that's what you think, then you may be confused.
We accumulate corroborating evidences and we have the indwelling spirit within witnessing with our spirit, as our faith is very, very, old. You do not accept our evidences. And, that is okay; I am not asking you surrender your skepticism. The body of theological work is there, nevertheless.
What corroborating evidences of religious faith have you accumulated?
What "evidence" would that be exactly?
Rhetorical religious nonsense.
You haven't presented any.
Logic would be a better word.
That alone in no way validates any theological claim or assertion.
It appears you would like to turn this into a protracted discussion about faith in God, but since you lack belief in God/gods, you can not travel too far down into the depths of such a discussion.
I ask that you see my comment at the end @13. It is considerably better suited to your 'taste.'
That's very condescending.
A "lack of belief" is a neutral position, no? How can it go any farther? Please explain.
That is already what this discussion is about. You made an erroneous claim about the religious beliefs of atheists and we have tried to correct you.
You seem to think that nonbelievers are incapable of understanding your position. That's condescending. We can understand your position without agreeing with it.
1. Is your definition for atheism, lack of belief, a neutral position you take regarding God or something else you care to elaborate on, Sandy?
2. Is that what you mean by "We can understand your position without agreeing with it."?
Help me understand your point of view.
Yes, it is a neutral position. If there were compelling evidence for god (yours or any other), I would change that position. As there is no evidence, I have no reason to change that position. This, BTW, is not the same position as that which the author of this essay assigns to atheists, as the atheists participating in this discussion have told you repeatedly.
And no, that's not what I mean by being able to understand your position without agreeing with it. I can understand the position of those who defend slavery under Mosaic law as good, but I most heartily disagree with it.
1. Since your position is a neutral one , then according to the Oxford English dictionary , should you have anything to say or write about the subject of God/gods?
2. The author of this article views the meaning for the word atheism: "lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of god or gods," as being to broad and encompassing of people.
3. Since you say you can understand my position as a believer, then you are aware that there is a body of theology which spans centuries forming the foundation of my position. I conclude knowing of this theology, at the end of the day, you decided #1. Thus, you rejected theology and in its place put an atheistic "lack of belief." Again, should you have anything to say or write about God/gods?
Why do you wish to squelch discussion? I don't believe in magic, either, but I loved the Harry Potter books.
And I disagree with him.
Yes, I am aware. I am also aware that there are legends with at least as much history and as little evidence to support many other religious traditions. There is no concrete reason to believe any of them.
Should you be discussing atheism?
Should I be discussing atheism? I do not have a neutral point of view about the existence of God/gods. My point of view encompasses belief and disbelief. And, you deflected.
All legends and myths are not equal. You can understand this as someone who comments on these at various times in discussions.
You reject theological arguments, because from your perspective, if God assigned someones to run world religions, for example as rabbis/priests were a category of men quartered into the service of Ancient Israel in the midst of the people, God has placed world religions as the fulcrum for those wishing to know of spiritual matters.
Have is your rejection of world religions to be processed? You can not reject a position outright and still label it a lack of believe (neutral position). You have accepted a position: A rejection of religion!
You disagree with [the author]? On what grounds?
Does Harry Potter hold a neutral position of interest to this discussion of the definition of atheism?
Why in the world should holding a neutral position preclude me from discussion? Why would you set such a criterion, and why would you expect anyone to agree to it?
I reject theological arguments because there is no evidence to support them. Stop telling me what my position is, please.
You have rejected the Greek (and every other) pantheon. Why? My position is neutral because I hold all religions to the same standard. If Yahweh were to produce evidence of himself, I'd agree he exists. But I'd do the same by Thor. You believe in Yawheh on no evidence, but don't consider doing the same for Thor.
The grounds on which I disagree with the author have been explained to you repeatedly. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, period. Or do you consider yourself agnostic (rather than atheist) in regards to Thor?
Just read this last series of comments. Same nonsense. As usual, direct questions are never answered:
From there, no answer , no attempt to answer. Instead of answering a question, the response tactic is to ask entirely different questions whose answers have been repeatedly provided in this article from 1/2 dozen people such as:
And ridiculous questions such as:
Ironically, the author of the seeded content is part of a website that provides rather good arguments for why the Bible is not divine. Yet the seeder ignores this entirely and holds the author up as some kind of authority on atheism because the author imposes a narrow meaning on the word 'atheism'. The author is totally wrong (per Cal) on the content of the website but a stellar authority on the definition of atheism.
Exactly. Instead of an answer, we get an attempt to dissuade atheists from feeling they have any right to be here.
1. I believe in God based on the unique in-dwelling Spirit. And, the testimonies of long-dead first-century people of faith who wrote down in books similar experiences as my own.
2. I am not neutral regarding Thor. Thor has provided me no "indwelling." I do no reason to know Thor. Again, you deflected.
3. Yes, you reject theology and world religion not based on a lack of evidence—there is a body of evidence to consider you reject the evidence.
4. Naturalism. You accept the worldview and what it entails. Because you possess a worldview you do not hold a neutral position.
Interesting ain't it? Proverbially, I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Mastered the 'steps' too! How about you? I liken it to an acceptance that people can be spiritual, faithful, reasonable, agreeable with science, and know the differences too!
There are plenty articles on religious dogma pervasive across NewsTalkers! You know this because 99.99 percent them you interact on!
FYI. For your information: @10.1.23 I gave you just a small semblance of an answer to your question. Guess what?
A member on this thread flagged it: Proselytizing.
I will not name the flagger. S/he knows who.
An "indwelling spirit" has no objective evidence of itself. You can no more demonstrate it to someone else than you can a belief in Thor, or leprechauns, or unicorns. There are no existent first-hand accounts of Jesus.
You claim to be neutral with regards to Thor. But you can produce no more evidence for your god than for Thor.
There is no body of evidence for me to reject.
My position is based on evidence, or the lack thereof. I do not try to invent evidence for my position. I hold your religion to the same standards as any other, and also don't accept science that has no evidence. That's neutrality. You have no evidence for your "indwelling spirit", which is supposed to be your evidence for your god. You make your chain of evidence from extremely weak links, but insist that yours is the valid view.
?
Are you neutral about your accepted label: atheism? That is the question in front of you. We have evidence you are not! You have chosen a worldview: naturalism.
You provide as ' evidence ' your feeling of indwelling. Further, the majority of your comment is scripture.
Feelings are not evidence. Not even a ' small semblance ' of evidence.
Given this is the best you can offer, you tacitly admit that you have not answered the challenge to your claim of:
Religions just produce words. Lots of stories, rituals and claims. There is a staggering lack of evidence given the extraordinary level of the claims.
No, you haven't.
We have evidence that you accept as "evidence" the sort of thing that got witches hanged in Salem. Spectral "evidence". Feelings as "evidence".
There's a reason I'm putting "evidence" in quotes here. It's because that's not evidence.
And yet, those words, and stories, rituals, and claims, are 'troubling' to men and women who can not simply sweep them away! Perhaps, those words, stories, rituals, and claims have power (to change men and women lives) about them? And, that would be the whole point of using them, no?
They're only troubling when some insist on legislating by them, or taking morality from them. Then we end up with religious oppression and religious justifications for slavery, misogyny, genocide, and other atrocities.
However, in an academic discussion, when you insist that a story is evidence of, well, itself, you'll be called on it.
What got men and women hanged in Salem were the private ignorance of men and women of the settlement. This is a deflection, nevertheless.
You stated atheism defined is neutral. Your position is not neutral. You are expressing a worldview in here.
See @9.1.81 Sentence 1. Men and women can go too far! It is those men and women who needs calling out! I agree. Call out every group which needs to be called out individually and collectively. Emphatically.
That ignorance consisted of believing witnesses who claimed that that another's spirit was having some sort of physical or physical effect on them. Spirit as "evidence". Sound familiar?
What about when a religion's scriptures explicitly endorse atrocities such as slavery, rape (including of female slaves), and genocide? It's not always a radical fringe of those religions' followers which endorse the same. Sometimes, they're following their religions to the letter, and those religions condone slavery, genocide, and institutionalized rape.
And that changes ignorant men and women from being such how? You do not diss good science because of ignorant practitioners, do you? Still, the topic is: Definition of atheism.
Write the article and we can address it there. This article remains: The definition of atheism.
What does? The point is that we no longer accept spectral evidence at all. Why? Because it's not evidence of anything. Not their witches' "spirits", not your "indwelling spirit". None of it is evidence of anything at all.
We've given you our definition of atheism, repeatedly. You choose to accept one that advances your agenda, instead.
You introduced the topic.
You are not neutral. You do not have " a lack belief." End of this area of discussion.
That is what the discussion is about. And you're the one talking about "evidence" for faith, which I noticed you still haven't provided.
That's an odd statement, considering the discussion is about atheism. It seems I'm more than able to engage in such a discussion. Besides, what does belief have to do with engaging in a discussion?
Spare me the juvenile games!
No. It's the default position.
They are if there's no evidence to support or collaborate them.
That is just your "belief," and belief does not equal fact!
You do realize personal testimony is one of the most fallible and least reliable forms of information or evidence, right?
There is as much evidence for Thor as there is for your god. "Indwelling" seems to be just another way of saying something in your mind. At best, it's just a personal feeling or state of mind.
Oh, the irony of that statement.
Provide the evidence then! You've been asked to do that repeatedly now.
I think that definition has long been established. It seems you still don't get it or don't want to.
Speak for yourself. Do not presume to speak for another!
A waste of time.
I read through this again, and realized I'd misread your comment. No, you do not claim to be neutral regarding Thor. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a positive, though. It seems rather a double standard to me.
Thanks for affirming what has been already said: you really are not interested in a serious discussion, especially since you deflect, dodge questions or challenges, and fail to offer any meaningful rebuttal to points made. All you want is an echo chamber. If that's the case, then the only one wasting time here is you.
Thank you for a reread and clarification. I am not blindly following Christianity as a spiritual worldview, any more than Thor (who I will not follow). My spirit witnesses with the Gospel of Jesus. We resonate together!
When I think of Thor, all which comes to mind is a good story, a hammer, a comic book, and a catalog of movies. Hope that helps!
I disagree.
You are not interested in faith. For you faith is some sightless, reason-less void, to fall prey to. This article is not about faith. It is about a definition.
On that issue: I have a question for you if you care to continue:
1. What does "lack of belief" and "disbelief" mean to you?
So what?
So, you either need to use the accepted meaning of "blind faith", or accept that people will call you out when you mangle the English language to suit your agenda.
What?
Was that the point to this article? I thought it was about the definition of atheism, which distinctly has nothing to do with faith. I'm interested in evidence, which you said there is for faith. Yet, you continuously avoid providing it. Why is that?
For me, faith is just an emotional comfo0rt mechanism.
Then why do you bring it up or concentrate on it?
A definition which has been long established now.
How about you answer my questions first! You seem to be repeatedly dodging them, and other peoples questions too.
Sounds like an emotional reaction.
Write article or post seed. Invite guest.
Why? I'm commenting about your article and discussion. I have no inclination to write one. But it seems you prefer to keep playing games and continue to deflect and avoid the points made. Or you're just being disingenuous. Which is it?
Then don't complain. "Put up," or deal with it no pun intended.
I'm "dealing" with it, and your BS, in your article. Why should I have to write one? That makes no sense. And you still haven't answered my questions. Why do you continue to deflect? Unless it's just intellectual laziness or cowardice!
Agnosticism involves epistemology – What one knows. Atheism has to do with belief — What one believes (“There is no God” or "There is a God.").
These are mental propositions.
That's incorrect. A lack of a belief is not a belief. As has been said already, atheists are not convinced there is a god. So there is no belief to begin with. How do you not understand that? Agnostics simply posit one cannot know there's a god or not. As it stands, there is no empirical evidence or proof of any god/s.
There is following the evidence to where it leads and then there is conforming the evidence to yield a desired end.
Indeed. Some people want to start with the conclusion and work backwards, adjusting evidence or information to fit their conclusion. It's intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
You can play with semantics to your hearts desire. That is, some atheists, not all atheists, desperately need to change up the definition of atheism to STOP it from referencing any kind of belief:
Atheism has to do with belief — What one believes (“There is no God” or "There is a God.")
Some atheists, not all atheists, modify definitions, or cherry pick the 'fields' looking for something which fits their worldview—plenty people do it all around the spectrum!
At the end of the day:
Irony!
Incomplete and illogical. Read the red insertions needed to correct and complete this analysis:
Item number 3 is trying to express a pure position of not knowing if one believes in a god or not. If one does not know if they believe in a god then they do not believe in a god. Sorry, that is an atheist. But the good news is that this is quite rare.
Ultimately this boils down to the same basic breakdown: using the above numbers for clarity we have:
Speak for yourself!
The definition of atheism is simple. So who exactly is trying to change it? last I checked, the definition is the same.
You left out some things, as TiG pointed out.
Be fair-minded now. That means you must consider opposing points of view honestly and be reasonable in forming a conclusion.
It is highly unlikely that everything I write has no bearing in truth. So I ask you. You wrote:
A lack of a belief is not a belief.
Gordy, lack means ~ the state of being without or not having enough of something: On your integrity, state what percentage (0 - 100 scale) of a lack of belief in God you presently have.
Group B neither believes that god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.
and;
A lack of a belief = not a belief.
Tig, lack means ~ the state of being without or not having enough of something: On your integrity, can you state what percentage (0 - 100 scale) of a lack of belief in God you presently have.
Group B? You reference a comment that uses numbers, not letters. Apparently you mean group 3.
A person who does not believe a god exists is called an atheist. More specifically, an agnostic atheist. But an atheist nonetheless. Why?
Because an atheist is a person who does not believe in a god.
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
See how easy this is?
From the seeded content:
Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).
Group B neither believes that god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.
Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).
I have no (as in zero) belief in a god. My confidence that there actually is no god is probably in the 90% range (hard to say - but it is pretty high). My confidence that the biblical God does not exist is 99.9999999999% (probably). The latter confidence is based on the Bible which IMO presents an excellent case that it is not divine and thus its God is merely a character invented by ancient men.
Belief is binary. You believe in Santa Claus or you do not believe in Santa Claus. What one might call the strength of a belief is actually the confidence that the belief is correct.
Same answer
1. What is Atheism?
Atheism is the view that there is no God . Unless otherwise noted, this article will use the term “God” to describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religious traditions--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. At a minimum, this being is usually understood as having all power, all knowledge, and being infinitely good or morally perfect.
I t has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism ,
whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist . Parallels for this use of the term would be terms such as “amoral,” “atypical,” or “asymmetrical.”
So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle. Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.
Source:
@10.1.12 Atheism is the view that there is no God.
Unless otherwise noted, this article will use the term “God” to describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religious traditions--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. At a minimum, this being is usually understood as having all power, all knowledge, and being infinitely good or morally perfect.
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism,
TiG, you are a positive atheist.
Wrong. You again just declare what you want to be true instead of following the evidence to where it leads. Keep doing that and you will likely continue to be wrong.
You should carefully read what I and others write about our views instead of simply declaring based on picking out words and reassembling them into what you wish to be true.
Lack of belief means lack of belief pending evidence that supports a belief. That is wholly different than holding that there is no God and fitting the evidence to conform to that presupposition.
It is the difference between agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists.
So I would say you need to buy a vowel here.
CB: Tig, lack means ~ the state of being without or not having enough of something: On your integrity , can you state what percentage (0 - 100 scale) of a lack of belief in God you presently have.
TiG: I have no (as in zero) belief in a god.
@ 10.1.12
1. What is Atheism?
Atheism is the view that there is no God .
@ 10.1.13
Unless otherwise noted, this article will use the term “God” to describe the divine entity that is a central tenet of the major monotheistic religious traditions--Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. At a minimum, this being is usually understood as having all power, all knowledge, and being infinitely good or morally perfect.
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism ,
Source:
TiG, you are a positive atheist .
There is nothing to argue with here. The context speaks for itself. I have not tricked you into stating anything.
Instead you read what you want and then make entirely wrong proclamations. Repeatedly. When corrected you double down. Nobody can save you from yourself, but I can still (yet again) show where you go wrong. Read carefully:
I know you want to declare people 'positive atheist' aka 'gnostic atheist' because a positive/gnostic atheist is an untenable and irrational position to hold. Yet here you are trying to argue that I - who routinely explains why the gnostic position is irrational - am actually a gnostic. Now that is hubris (and pointless).
A gnostic atheist (' there is no god ') asserts 100% certainty that the position 'there is no god' cannot be wrong .
An agnostic atheist (' I am not convinced there is a god' ) is not convinced a god exists (lack of belief) but is open to evidence to the contrary.
I realize this is not what you want to hear so chances are excellent this will be ignored as if not written, but try to learn the difference.
My other answer.
The gnostic position is irrational. Both the gnostic atheist and the gnostic theist assert that their position cannot be wrong.
Gnostic athiest: 'there is no god' - no possibility that I am wrong
Gnostic theist: 'my god exists' - no possibility that I am wrong
Since gnostics are indeed human beings and no human being is omniscient (at least none have been found with such power) a gnostic claim of no possibility of being mistaken is irrational. It asserts that no evidence could possibly arrive that would show their views to be wrong.
Are you a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist? That is, do you recognize the possibility that your god may not exist?
I have 0% belief in any god/s. That may be subject to change depending on the available evidence to show there's a god. As it stands, no such evidence is forthcoming .
Tig, ultimately, I do not care what your "construction' and "off-ramps" and "loop-holes" are when applied to yourself or your fellow travelers on NT.
My point is yours is not the only "construction site" for atheists, agnostics, and theists around. There are atheists and the like, with differing opinions and claims than those mentioned routinely on NT!
Go to rush off now. I will trust (have faith) in your care of this establishment in my absence. Thanks a bunch!
Three hours later, Cal has not answered my question:
All sorts of questions and (in direct contradiction of the answers) presumptuous declarations from the seeder upon the participants, yet the seeder refuses to answer a basic question in turn.
The reality is that the participants here are mostly agnostic atheists - people who are not convinced a god exists but recognize that a god might indeed exist. We await evidence. The seeder, in contrast, who ignores everything consistently explained by the varied participants, is a gnostic theist who believes in the biblical God and does not recognize the possibility that his God might not exist.
If the seeder does recognize the possibility that his God might not exist, he can correct my conclusion. I will of course accept his position on his own beliefs even though he thinks he knows more about the positions of others than they do.
It keeps neighing.
Tig:
First, I once was a nominal believer in the Christian tradition. I left that tradition.
Second, now I live as a, this is important, "spirit-filled" believer in God. Otherwise known as: the doctrine of the "Indwelling Spirit." I am now going to add some scripture here not to be 'smart' or seeking to get a rise out of you or anyone else—it is relevant to the point! Moreover context is required to get a full-orb of meaning and intent.
John 14:
15 “If you love me, keep my commands.
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—
17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.
20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.
21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
The indwelling Spirit. True believers have a measure (at various degrees) of God spirituality. Do Christians interpreted their literature that tightly? Yes, we do!
|
We have a partially indwelling Spirit of God and faith (trust). We have faith (trust) in God.
How does all this 'stack up' to Gnosticism? Faith (trust in God) does not permit us to speak of Gnosticism as anything but a heresy. For to know God exist 100% would end faith.
And, while true believers know God exist we do not use, acquaint, equip, or defend ourselves using the same language as Gnostics in their worldview.
In conclusion, true believers in the general Christian tradition regard ourselves as, theist.
Sorry about the length. Not everything can be shared in sound-bites.
That is uncalled for and unappreciated here.
There is nothing which states I have to respond to anything you ask and vice-versa. You can stop the nonsense.
FYI. I walk by faith in God. Now, go and figure out what that means.
For someone who asks a lot of questions of others it is a bit odd that you will not even answer a simple question:
Instead you tell me (or maybe us) to 'go fetch'.
The result of the 'fetch' is to find your implicit answer to be 'no' — you do not recognize even the possibility that your god might not exist. You do not accept the possibility that you might be wrong about this.
Yes | no questions do not require a lot of words to answer. Unless one is offering a smoke screen / diversion ... then, sure, the more words the better.
Then why bother with an article and a discussion? It seems you're not interested in one. At least, not one that is not an echo chamber for you.
It means nonsense.
Voting up your comment again:
I'm not surprised.
Seems rather intellectually cowardly to me.
I guess some people prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand.
That's a big "if." and one which I doubt will happen.
Right back at ya, lol
Are you fair minded (and honest) enough to consider that your beliefs might be wrong and that your god doesn't exist?
I'm more interested in facts. not what you consider to be "truth."
You just supported and reinforced what I already said. Thanks.
Snark is not an argument.
Okay. Then, there, was, that!
It wasn't snark.
I know more than a little about epistemology.
The lack of belief exerted by atheists is the rejection of belief. Atheism instead is based on the logical stance that there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that there is a supernatural conscious religious creator.
How sad that atheist would need to explain their basis of belief in detail to appease a religionist. It’s so simple and positively basic. Does an abigfoot need to substantiate their beliefs too? How about an alochness? How about an aleprechaun?
Given the atheists on NT who have commented here all seem to independently agree that the definition of atheism invented by this seed is nonsense and have offered in-depth explanations as to why, have we covered the bases?
An atheist is simply a person who is not convinced a god exists. Some atheists get more demanding and go to the point of being gnostics - insisting that no god could possibly exist. But those are the fringe gnostic atheists and their positions are irrational and unsupported. All gnostic positions ('I cannot possibly be wrong') are irrational because no human being is omniscient.
It is easy to see why a gnostic theist such as the seeder would seek to redefine atheists to all be gnostic as well. Level playing field kind of stuff. But reality is what it is. To wit, the agnostic atheist position is rational and supported by the evidence whereas the gnostic theist position is irrational and unsupported by the evidence (and contradicted by logic).
That's preposterous. But, again believe anything you wish about me. It does not concern me. I rise above it.
Preposterous?
Given the seed attempts to redefine atheists as gnostic (aka positive) and you even insist that I am a positive atheist (about as wrong as one can get) you clearly seek to redefine atheists as gnostic.
So maybe what you think is preposterous is the idea that you are a gnostic theist.
If you are not a gnostic theist then you accept the possibility that your god does not exist. I suspect everyone here would confirm that your comments suggest you hold your beliefs to be truth and that you claim no possibility that your god does not exist - no possibility that you are wrong.
Pretend away. I doubt you are fooling anyone.
I think believers attempts to redefine atheists is similar to anti-abortionists who try to redefine their pro-choice opponents as "pro-abortion". With believers they desperately want to believe atheists are "pro-No God" because that fits in their indoctrinated view that anyone not of their faith is an enemy attacking their faith, a servant of Satan, someone who is out to get them for being so "righteous".
But, just like the reality that there are virtually no "pro-abortionists", there are virtually no "pro-No Godists". I happen to believe there is no God, but I rather wish there were something that could have foreseen and prevented so much torture and abuse of the innocent, to protect children from predators and possibly prevented such a dipshit failure like Trump from ever becoming President. I would love to be proven wrong about God, just like I would love if no woman ever had to make the heart wrenching difficult choice to terminate a pregnancy. But just like I accept that it's not my choice to make for any woman in regards to her own pregnancy, it's also not my choice for an all powerful deity existing, it's not up to me. So I am not actively trying to make sure no Gods exist, I actively sought them out for years, I just happened to always get to the end of each religions metaphorical rainbow that I've studied and never found any leprechaun or pot of gold. All I ever found were just more talking heads telling me they know all about the God I seek and what he wants for me and that I just need to do what they say and eventually the questions they're unable to answer with anything but "God is a mystery".
It occurred to me that the percentages used by Calbab above make more sense when put into the correct categories and based on this it made sense to add a 5th category to remove any confusion.
Gnostic atheist: A person who believes gods and/or God definitely does not exist. 100%
Agnostic atheist: A person who doesn't believe gods and/or God exists due to lack of evidence, but is open to the possibility that they could exist. 50.1% to 99.9% belief there is no God/gods
Agnostic: A person who isn't sure one way or another about the existence of God. 50/50 belief/non-belief.
Gnostic theist: A person who believes gods and/or God definitely exists. They usually claim to know who that God is, its name, its likes, dislikes and general personality. 100% there is a God/gods
Agnostic theist: A person who believes gods and/or God likely exists even though there is a lack of evidence, but is open to the possibility that they might not exist. 50.1% to 99.9% there is a God/gods
I think you're on to something here.
IMO if someone is exactly 50/50 (which I doubt is even possible) then they are an agnostic atheist. If someone truly does not know if they believe in a god or not then -point of fact- they do not believe in a god.
I fully agree. What I have found is that the conflict between theists and atheists translates mostly into the theists pulling shenanigans to try to 'be right'. I suppose I understand. I would not want to try to defend theism - especially gnostic theism (and most theists who engage in these debates in my experience are gnostic theists).
Valid point. I guess I was just trying to create a middle ground for CB to agree on that he could call a pure "agnostic" even though it's a virtual impossibility. I think it's as close as I can get to the dictionary definition of agnostic as well, a true fence sitter, not willing to say there is or isn't and even goes so far as to claim that nothing "can be known" in regards to the existence of God/gods.
Agnostic: noun - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
If someone needs the label 'agnostic' when applied in a theistic sense they can certainly use it. The meaning I routinely offer is that an agnostic is one who holds that it is not possible to know one's theistic position is correct. Basically agnostic = agnostic-theist + agnostic-atheist.
It certainly matches the spirit of the definition you quoted.
In this sense, most everyone is agnostic. Most everyone holds a position that is rational.
I agree. If I update my chart to represent that viewpoint I think it might look something like this:
1.0 Gnostic atheist: A person who believes gods and/or God definitely does not exist. 100% there is no God/gods (Very Rare)
2.0 Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena (see sub-categories for variants)
2.1 Agnostic atheist: A person who doesn't believe gods and/or God exists due to lack of evidence, but is open to the possibility that they could exist. 50.1% to 99.9% belief there is no God/gods (Common)
2.2 Confused Agnostic: A person who isn't sure one way or another about the existence of God. 50/50 belief/non-belief. (Very Rare)
2.3 Agnostic theist: A person who believes gods and/or God likely exists even though there is a lack of evidence, but is open to the possibility that they might not exist. 50.1% to 99.9% there is a God/gods (Common)
3.0 Gnostic theist: A person who believes gods and/or God definitely exists. They usually claim to know who that God is, its name, its likes, dislikes and general personality. 100% there is a God/gods (Very Rare)
Moreover, a gnostic theist does not even accept the possibility that s/he might be wrong. Not a shred of evidence yet no possible way this human being might be wrong about their belief. What level of hubris is required for that?
Or level of delusion?
You left out Confused Theist as 2.4. Great job!
Seems to me, that to be a gnostic theist one must be confused.
(Gnostic atheist also = confusion.)
Second part first: Has it even crossed your mind that believers can not use your definitions (which you insist on defining for them)? I mean afterall, true believers (meaning spirit-filled t a measure, but not 100 percent 'full') are experiencing a life of faith daily. Something you see no true value in. Indeed, I have read comments from you where you empathically state you see faith as a problem to ending religion. Or, words to this effect.
IMO if someone is exactly 50/50 (which I doubt is even possible) then they are an agnostic atheist. If someone truly does not know if they believe in a god or not then -point of fact- they do not believe in a god.
None of this quote makes sense to me. You assert you are an agnostic-atheist, but you also stipulate that your standard for not being an atheist is so high that I take for granted it surpasses 99 percent. This is confusing to me.
Okay, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Yes
If I assert that I am an agnostic-atheist how do you get to me stipulating that I am not an atheist? An agnostic-atheist is an atheist. Your question makes no sense.
You need to rephrase. I cannot parse this sentence.
These are the actual definitions of these words. "We" didn't make them up, and we're only defining them for you because you apparently don't own a dictionary. You just admitted that you are trying to redefine words to fit your version of faith. Are you implying that believers are too stupid to understand the English language? That hasn't been my experience .. so I wish you'd stop trying to convince me.
Look, growing up in a very religious home, and embracing it for the first 30 years of my life, I am no stranger to the benefits of religion. If there weren't benefits there certainly wouldn't be so many self-proclaimed adherents. Of course the primary supposed benefit is the promised salvation most religions offer, but there are more immediate benefits.
One nearly invisible benefit that's not mentioned often is the feeling of being "on a team" and rooting for that home team, much like anyone might a football or basketball team from their neighborhood, city or State. This feeling of team or brand loyalty is half of the glue that binds believers to their perspective denominations and faiths.
The other invisible half is the threat of being talked about by your fellow neighbors and peers. While it doesn't seem to be a benefit, being talked about positively is very addictive. And because you've all heard the gossip about others, and you do not want to be the topic of conversation, so you show up on Sunday smiling and acting like a virtual Facebook page where you only show your best profile pictures. Many get addicted to the theater of trying to out-righteous their fellow parishioners.
The threat of being ostracized from the community you've become used to is ever present in virtually every Church if you frequent them long enough. If it's your first time going to a Church, you'll get the royal welcome, everyone seems so nice, everyone tells you how wonderful things are, they want you to return, and they're not really thinking of getting more people donating to their Church, that couldn't be further from their minds. What they want are new allies, or if it turns out, enemies, in their little local community gossip battle for the spot of "top family" in the community. It's not like they do it intentionally, it's something that just happens, over and over in virtually every community I have ever lived.
It's human nature, and is what ultimately proved none of them are actually followers of any "true God". Their God is their image and they'll do anything to keep it from being besmirched.
So when you say I personally find "no true value" in organized religion, it's only because I've had all they offer and recognized it for what it is, just a continuation of High School drama, the gossip mill, with an arbitrary religious score all the members are subconsciously keeping, grading one another, judging one another, exactly contrary to the spirit of the religions they claim to follow.
This tone is always caustic. Even more so than "the clique" tells me I am. Some churches are that, some churches are not. My question. Why not be a 'church' to oneself? Huh? Why do some pillars become 'shipwrecked'? And why must every believer some pillars NEVER have met be partly responsible for it?
If you're are not a theist, you are an atheist!
How many NT atheists agree with this claim? Or not?
Agree or disagree?
This is yet another game.
Asking a general question of such basic semantics ignores the complexity of language and abstract concepts. For example, if someone answered this question you could then ask about deism. To adequately discuss that requires a specific context.
Instead of probing and trying to play lame gotcha games try serious engagement.
If you actually want a serious answer, establish the context and ask a pointed question. Otherwise, I (for one) will not waste my time with your question.
Oh please.*Yawn. Put 13 with 13.1 and stop wasting digital space already! Sheesh!
That claim ignores the obvious existence of agnostics, so it is a false statement.
Please elaborate. Because it is being explained in here that agnostics are hyphenated atheists in this case.
There are five different classes of religious believers, as Dismayed Patriot explained above.
1.) Gnostic theists claim to know that God/s does exist.
2.) Agnostic theists believe that God exists but they are open to evidence that it might not.
3.) True agnostics don't know if God exists because of an epistemological stance that the truth might not be knowable.
4.) Agnostics like myself believe that God does not not exist but we are open to evidence to the contrary if it ever becomes available.
5.) Gnostic atheists are convinced that God does not exist.
Even if you group 1 and 2 together as theists, as well as grouping 4 and 5 together as atheists, that still leaves the true agnostics (3.) as neither theists or atheists.
epistte, what is Gnosticism? And please compare it to to the term: gnostic-theist, if you do not mind.
The basis of the word is gnosis,
Gnostics claim to know the truth, that god either does (gnostic-theists) or does not (gnostic-atheists) exist.
Interesting how this has 'landed' into this discussion—it is a new concept. "True agnostics." These people are also the undecideds. Do you agree?
4.) Agnostics like myself believe that God does not not exist but we are open to evidence to the contrary if it ever becomes available.
What is troubling about this definition (and superfluous in my opinion) is a so-called, "gnostic-atheist 100% can be convinced of the existence of God should say, God appears in natural setting. The problem I see if (4) tries to set itself apart from atheist 100% but with no real basis. Agnostic-atheist seem to be atheists 100% wearing masks!
It seems you still have trouble with definitions. The gnostic atheist states there is no god with 100% certainty. It's the gnostic theists whom states there is a god with 100% certainty.
Except that is too vague and intellectually lazy.
Agnostic atheists are not convinced of claims for a god. Neither do they believe in one. But they will reconsider if evidence for a god was presented. As it is, there is no evidence for a god.
Read my comment again (closely). @ 13.2.5 .
How does God exist in a natural setting, if that is what you are trying to say? There is very likely one or more logical fallacies in your argument, but I will wait until after you reply to explain them to you.
Gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists both believe that God does not exist. The difference is that agnostic atheists are willing to consider any future evidence that might come to light, where a gnostic atheist's mind is made up. After more than 2000 years of bogus and illogical theological claims that are not true, my threshold of evidence is extremely high and I would go as far as to say that God does not exist with a 99% certainty, but I'll leave a very small opening. The knowledge of both thermodynamics and quantum physics does not allow for a god to exist. Any possible god has to be a deistic deity but even that possibility is incredibly small and getting smaller by the day. God didn't do it!
Where is the evidence a gnostic-atheist 100% can display to prove God does not exist, and likewise for its counterpart? One would think before logicians assent to these as reasonable categories of atheist and theist types proofs would need to be borne out.
And, if no evidence for or against from the gnostics-. . . .
How are "gnostics-" presenting any distinction from any other atheist or theist?
Patiently read it again, slowly.
I did, and my comment stands!
A logical fallacy. One cannot prove the non-existence of something. If you make the claim god exists, then you bear the burden of proving it. Atheists are not convinced by mere empty claims like there's a god.
Theists like to claim there's a god. Yet, they have never been able to produce one iota of empirical evidence or the slightest shred of proof.
How about you explain better and more clearly then! Only theists claim god exists (regardless of the setting). An agnostic atheist would not say god exists "in a natural setting," whatever that is. It's absurd!
That isn't how it works. You are claiming that god/s exist, so the logical burden of proof is on you to prove that your statement(god exists) is true. In the situation that you fail to prove that statement is true by objective evidence, we revert to the stance that it doesn't exist. I do not have to prove that your god doesn't exist because God doesn't exist merely because you believe that it does. You are making a positive claim, so you need to prove that claim to be true. Your religious belief does not create reality for others.
Notice how he keeps moving the goalposts.
More like he dodges it altogether.
Religious belief sometimes blurs the line between reality and fantasy in one's head.
Consider:
Gnostics claim to know the truth, that god either does (gnostic-theists) or does not (gnostic-atheists) exist.
How does a 100 percent gnostic-atheist know no god/gods exist and vice-versa"? How is this an acceptable category for either group? Please explain.
I am NOT talking about me. I am a theist, plain and simple. I live by faith in God. It means I do not claim to have empirical evidence everybody can experience through their senses.
I am addressing these two categories put forward:
Gnostic-theist -100 percent
Gnostic-atheist - 100 percent
How does a 100 percent gnostic-atheist know no god/gods exist and vice-versa"? How is this an acceptable category for either group? Please explain.
Gnostics either way only claim with 100% certainty, by definition. They don't really know for sure, nor can they support their position. But a 100% certainty is a logically indefensible position. Seriously, the concept of gnostic theist/atheist has been covered. How is that still confusing to you?
Didn't you say there's "evidence" for faith? Which you still haven't provided, btw. But the real question is, do you claim there's a god with 100% certainty or not?
Don't forget about the agnostic categories.
See first statement.
I provided it (see a bible) and get spiritually indwelled. You did not like the answer. So why be confused? Just leave it alone, already.
Circular logic coupled with anecdotal and subjective emotional feeling.
Because, see precious answer. it seems you do not understand what constitutes valid empirical evidence.
What makes you think I'm confused? Based on your replies, it's more likely the confusion lies with you.
I'm simply addressing and/or challenging your posts and claims. Is that a problem?
'Circular -' yeah, I know. Funny thing. Our books work for us. All of us here use science, logic, critical thinking, et ceteras. Our spiritual books of faith is something believers' possess and you lack, because you will not permit yourself to have it. That is not a believer's fault!
Nope, not a problem at all for me!
We are not gnostic atheists. We do not believe that it can be proven that no gods exist. You are aware of our position. Why are you asking us to produce evidence we have stated does not and cannot exist?
Ask a gnostic atheist to defend that position.
I am not truly asking you to validate the gnostic-atheist 100 percent position. What I am seeking to have explained is why the atheists on NewsTalkers treat those two gnostic- positions as valid.
We don't. We recognize that they exist.
So gnostic-athiests and gnostic-theists exist in rarity or empty categories? Is this reasonable?
You are a gnostic theist because you do not recognize even the possibility that your god does not exist.
We recognize that you and others with similar views exist.
I think that is reasonable.
The Oxford English Dictionary says I am a,
theist noun
A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
adjective
Denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
Do you accept the possibility that your God does not exist?
I appreciate this direct question. Let me answer it once and for all:
I am a believer by faith in God's existence, that faith expresses itself as a confident in God. It is a positive confession. For nobody should belief in a non-existent anything. With this in mind, I live accordingly. Do I have 100% certainty God exist or God does not exist? No I do not. Faith and the indwelling spirit instructs me to live with confident God does exist. Faith and the indwelling spirit makes this possible. My answer is taking this form, because you need to know my foundation for acknowledging God.
Tig, even your non-belief position in God is tied to your making the call that there is no God. A lack of confident and a negative confession of God's existence. Turnaround is fair-play:
Do you accept the possibility that God does exist and as an atheist to what percentage are you certain God does not exist?
Then you recognize the possibility that your God might not exist. That is a rational position given you are not omniscient. That is also the key difference between an agnostic theist and a gnostic theist. The latter does not allow the possibility of being wrong.
Because I am not convinced there is a god. That does not mean that I am correct. There might be a god. Again, I am an agnostic atheist rather than a gnostic atheist.
This has been explained to you repeatedly in this article by me and others. How can you possibly still be confused? To me it is virtually impossible for you to still be confused. So why do you ask questions that have already been answered over-and-over in detail?
And, I repeat with a definition:
The Oxford English Dictionary says I am a theist,
theist noun
A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
adjective
Denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
A compromise: I will regard you and the others as agnostic-athiests if you prefer. And you must regard me as a theist. Deal?
For the record, not being "all-knowing" -omniscient has little to do with knowing if God exist or not in the human realm. For God has been revealed spiritually to a myriad of folks who seek to know of God through faith and indwelling spirit.
As an agnostic-atheist to what percentage are you certain God does not exist?
Yes Cal you are a theist. Nobody has ever suggested that you are not a theist. Hello?
You are a theist who recognizes the possibility that his god might not exist. That is settled and clear. Nothing really to debate.
How many times are you going to ask me? I directly answered you the first time you asked. If you cannot remember the answers to your questions I suggest you use the Finder tool to find them. You should find my answer @10.1.10
I would say I am 89.0012572% confident there is no god. Give or take.
I do regard you as a theist. I also regard you as an agnostic-theist (until you change your mind to gnostic-theist). What you are is not up for negotiation. Apparently you just do not want people to be specific about your particular theism. Why? Own it. It is much better to be an agnostic-theist than a gnostic-theist so you are on solid ground. Might as well go with it.
I think its time now...
How many times do I need to tell you this? @10.1.23, I explained we do not use such terminology as you prefer; it is better reserved for yourselves, I guess.
Thank you for quantifying your confidence there is no God at 90 percent thereabouts. Do you say that the remaining 10 percent all goes to a possibility that God does exist?
Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
We do not speak the same language about faith. You have none (well, maybe 10 percent?). It is you who needs to listen.
He's describing your beliefs using words you've used to describe your beliefs, and this is a problem somehow?
How delightful! I love it! The British! Pure, clean, and dare I say, mildly stimulating. Cheers, SP!
Over and over, I have tried to make clear that Christians have a positive confidence borne of faith in God which guides our worldview. By way of demonstration I will offer verses from the New Testament as a focus. I do not expect anyone here to accuse me falsely of proselytizing. I am seeking to clarify an idea:
[Let it stand in for thousands of words. Note, that the chapter continues on with a total of 39 verses emphasizing those who lived and died by faith in God without any gnosticism/gnostic knowing.]
Hebrews 11
Faith in Action
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.
6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.
9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise.
10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise.
12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
Why I displayed this here:
Christians 'walking' by faith and not by sight, do not speak in seemingly gnostic terms. Gnostic "knowing" is not what faith in God is! Do you understand and accept this?
These are your words that you used to describe yourself and your beliefs. Why do you now object to
from somebody else when you yourself insist on being called a theist, and say you do not have 100% certainly that God exists (admitting the possibility that God does not exist)?
You are objecting to your own description of yourself and your beliefs.
It is the English language. It's not what "we" prefer - it is how these words are actually defined, and what they really mean.
One of the better explanations of faith I've heard was "The assured expectation of things hoped for".
Believers claim they have been "assured" that God is real, knows them and has a plan for them.
Assured: adjective - confident. protected against discontinuance or change.
Hope: noun - a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.
So people of faith are "confident" that their "desire", or that of their God, will occur. And while some claim 100% confidence, I know they are likely stating such because they desperately want that to be true even though they know in their hearts they've had doubts.
Who are "we"?
You are trying to define a definition for others while denying any definitions that "they" apply to you?
As I said before, great .gif.
You are still proselytizing.
and arguing in figure eights.....
John 1: 18 No one has ever seen God , but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
God has been revealed to us as believers by faith and the indwelling Spirit. Believers do not "know" God face to face.
Nor do Christians consider the Gnostic state of "knowing" God as anything more than a heresy .
Believers speak of knowing God through the Word, the indwelling spirit, and faith. Not some approximation of Gnostic knowing.
Ours is a living faith of God existing. It is not a faith where we consider that God is "possibly" does not exist.
In conclusion, we do not use words like, "certainty" where faith should be. I'd reckon that to be how people who do not believe in God/gods construct their perceptions (of God).
Do you understand better?
"We" are Christian believers, SP.
They are likewise trying to do the same. Did you ask them the same question? Furthermore, not all definitions are equal. I know you understand this.
This article is from a site dedicated to atheistic points of view. Even this "definition of atheist" is presented there by the "host." It is not reasonable to say that the "messenger" is the message. They argue not with me but with one of their own. Of course, arguing with me is better (for the atheist here I guess - not me).
Great gif. I still stare at it. (Don't laugh!)
I am not proselytizing. Actually I resent that too. The mere mention of the Bible as a conveyance to get across a though in discussion, should not be called an attempt to get into a person's head! At least, not anymore than those who use their own form of conveyance with persistence to try and get into my and others heads!
It is okay for me to argue if I choose, no?
Do you believe that statement to be absolutely true without question? God didn't write the bible.
You say you are a theist. I agree. You complain.
You say that you allow for the possibility that your god does not exist. I acknowledge and offer that such a position is rational. You complain.
Not sure your behavior could get any more ridiculous. Question is why you wish to portray yourself in such a fashion.
Is that what this is? This admittedly is a new pattern for me. It might just be the most ridiculous display of pointless, contradictory, random pseudo-logic that I have witnessed in a forum. And I have seen some strange stuff.
@ 14.1.4 .
In the totality of the word. As a former church leader you highly probably understand the additional teaching of the indwelling spirit, no? Faith is not just all hope and confidence, DP!
See 14.1.17 for context. Disclaimer: Read it as impotent text if you wish! Mind pictures of what faith is.
The rest: Non-sequitar.
I am not overly concerned about your opinion of me, TiG! I won't bother to elaborate on your conduct. Moving forward:
Here is a question I asked Sandy, I hope you do not mind me asking you:
Gnostic-theist -100 percent
Gnostic-atheist - 100 percent
How does a 100 percent gnostic-atheist know no god/gods exist and vice-versa"? Please explain.
Oh and Happy New Year!
"Buckle up!" Grabbed you by the "attention," no?
Let's make this very simple so we can move forward in the discussion. Do you or don't you believe that the Christian god unquestionably exists?
Of course, I believe by faith and the indwelling spirit that God exist. It is impossible and impractical to believe, have faith in, or be indwelled by a non-existent God.
The above, by no means, is to be interpreted as a gnostic/gnosticism "knowing" that God 100% exist. God lives within a place in a believer.
God is not in this 3 dimensional world of humanity as flesh and bone. God is Spirit. Think of it as a different medium of contact.
Cal 'cleared this up once and for all' @14.1.6:
Cal believes in his God but realizes that his God might not exist. That is, he recognizes that he might be mistaken.
I'd also like to answer this question if you don't mind. I'm not sure if TiG will or won't agree with my statement. The gnostic atheist states that there is not currently any evidence for god so they have made a statement that the very slim possibility that evidence of a god that might be discovered to exist in the future is not worth holding out for because of our current knowledge. It is a matter of logic and statistics that borders on an atheist's form of Pascal's wager. I state that there is no evidence to support god existing and I put that figure at 99.9% and I do not hold out any expectation that it might ever happen because of my knowledge of thermodynamics and quantum physics.
God was created by ancient men who were terrified by the world around them so the idea of god existed as a way to explain what they didn't understand. "God did it" was the default answer by many people until 1500 years ago when science was able to give people answers.
On gnostics in general, I have no idea how anyone can take a gnostic position. To do so is to implicitly claim omniscience. That is, every human being should have some level of doubt in anything involving general reality. Everyone should be agnostic to some degree.
So my opinion is that someone who holds 99.9999999999% likelihood that no god exists is still an agnostic atheist. Crossing the line to 100% is a profound change of attitude - one that moves from extremely skeptical to arrogant / irrational. IMO.
Does Cal' have a problem with the fact that he would be classified with the term agnostic-theist because of his stance?
How does a 100 percent gnostic-atheist know no god/gods exist and vice-versa"? Please explain.
1. So,. . .science told you God does not exist to a percentage of 99.9%?
2. The gnostic-atheist is convinced (100%) no God exist. The question is how? Why do atheists agree to this level of gnostic-worldview without tangible evidence?
They do not. That is why the gnostic position is irrational (and arrogant).
Where did you get the idea that anyone could possibly know truth of general reality (100% correct)?
&
You are wrong there about me. But, I digress.
Yes, Cal, that is correct. The gnostics hold that they cannot be wrong. "The gnostics claim certain knowledge."
That is why the gnostic position is both irrational and arrogant.
Better to just stick with:
You are quoting my conclusion before you answered the question.
When you finally answered the question I took you at your word and noted that you are an agnostic theist.
Going back in time rather than taking my most recent comments is intellectually dishonest.
ok, leaving the argument over words aside, as it's been repeated over and over - so if there is no understanding then there's nothing anyone can do to further aide you in understanding... but this quote struck me as odd... you are basically saying, no one has seen God... yet you've seen his son.. who is actually God himself... which means you have seen God... and this son - who is actually God - is in closest relationship with the father.. who is actually God... and who is actually the son as well... so no one has seen God even tho he is the son who was on earth (i guess everyone was blind ?) and he has the closest relationship with himself ? (who doesn't have the closest relationship with themselves as compared to someone else having a relationship with them ?) .... and you think this quote makes logical sense ?
Simplify to the point where you are comfy. Reexplaining the basics of agnostic-theism and agnostic-atheism has been done to the point of absurdity. No chance that any additional discussion will make a difference.
Whatever Tig. I am not an agnostic theist. But, continue on.
I field so much. . . stuff that I am going to give myself some leeway. You can label my efforts and answers as you wish. My integrity remains intact, nevertheless.
I do not carry around any superiority-complex to keep spit-polished.
A yes or no answer will do.
Why not? Belief is just belief, regardless of the focus of that belief.
That is the logical position. While you may have a high degree of certainty about the existence of god, that position allows for the possibility that your belief may be wrong.
Yes. But there is no evidence for a god, so I am unconvinced there is one. When evidence is presented, I might reconsider.
Your rejection of the proper terminology does not negate its meaning or application.
The modern translation: wishful thinking.
Yes, you have made that abundantly clear. And since you cannot say there's a god with 100% confidence, then that makes you an agnostic theist. That is the proper description for your position. Why is that such an issue?
Spare us the proselytizing.
Then that is a gnostic theist position. So you are either agnostic or gnostic theist. Which is it?
It's always time for Monty Python. But I wonder if a clip from The Life of Brian might have been better, considering the discussion?
That is quite...specific TiG. I would have guessed a little higher.
You specifically said: "Do I have 100% certainty God exist or God does not exist? No I do not." That is an agnostic theist. Why is that such an issue for you?
We'll "label" them, and call them out, as they are.
Who's attacking your integrity?
The answer was pertinent to solving the question. It bore on what was asked. Your not liking it reasonably is a non-issue. I don't write this lightly, because I have experience with how petty some of us can be.
I think so.
Me too! (Still do, privately.)
The "answer" was just theistic rhetoric.
I did not say whether I liked it or not, as that is irrelevant.
And we don't respond lightly either. Except maybe for the Monty Python clip. But that's understandable, lol
So a word should disappear from the English language simply because you don't like it? The word "gnostic" is a major point of this entire discussion. Your faith doesn't need to make you willfully ignorant.
You consider yourself a theist who accepts the possibility that your God does not exist - which means you are an agnostic-theist .
But you do not want anyone to label your view as 'agnostic-theist'.
Does not matter, the meaning is what is important.
You are a theist who recognizes that your belief might be wrong.
You are not a theist who insists that there is no way your belief might be wrong.
I will go over my data and recalculate to make sure.
I could have made a mistake.
Is "gnostic-theist" in a dictionary you have? I could not find it. And, Insults are not arguments. Welcome back, by the way.
Enjoy your time off? I've been right here, 'working.' /s
I really have to question the number of significant figures in your answer. Are you sure you shouldn't have rounded somewhere?
Cal, this feigned obtuseness game is not working so give it up.
You certainly know that an English dictionary is used to define English words. You also know that there are concepts in life that are labeled with descriptive terms. Concepts that do not have a single word label. For example, you will not find constitutional republic in a dictionary but ... shock ... that describes an aspect of our system of government (federal constitutional republic employing representative democracy is more accurate).
So do you understand now how silly it is to claim: 'if it is not in the dictionary the concept does not exist' ?
No Sandy, I rechecked my calculations and based on what I knew yesterday I was indeed 89.0012572% confident that there is no god. Today it looks like I am now 89.0012647% confident based on 'living and learning'.
What is this game you're playing at, with being deliberately obtuse?
The word "gnostic" is in the dictionary, as is the word "theist." Gnostic is an adjective, as you well know, since you referred to it as such earlier in this thread. Theist is a noun, as you presumably also know. Very few adjective-noun combos make it into the common vernacular enough to get into the dictionary, yet I doubt you would question someone using the term "charitable Christian" or "devout follower."
Too funny, as soon as my comment posted, I saw what you had replied.
And I think you missed a rounding factor, too - sandy is correct.
It makes perfect sense gnostic-theism should be there. I'm just saying!
Yeah pretty close, eh? Suggests maybe we are offering good advice?
Well, when I posted my comment I see Cal basically ignored our comments and is again simply repeating himself: ' if it is not in the dictionary it does not exist '.
I can find no dictionary entry for "blue automobile". I suppose that means they don't exist.
No living faith in Oxford either.
Oops. No such thing as 'living faith' per Cal.
Rut roh.