Atheism

Agnostic

You have to find an objective contradiction not a subjective one.

NewScientist

I never say that one cannot 'deduce' that God does not exists, i merely recount a definition i had heard.

Sikz

The definition is obviously wrong.

1) Atheism means, literally, "no god". It is the belief that there is no god. It has nothing to do with how you came to your beliefs, only with those beliefs themselves.
2) You're right, you couldn't study all of the evidence.

So, the definition is wrong. ...-__-

The point of my earlier post was to say that even though the definition may be wrong, the implications of its being so (or at least the way it was phrased) are not correct. Even if you can't study all the evidence, you can be an atheist- and that does not, as it seems to imply, necessitate a disregard for evidence. You can be an atheist after examining sufficient evidence, all evidence you could find, or conclusive evidence.

Jameson

Personally I think of that kind of atheism as explicit atheism, that is the positive affirmation that there is no God. What would you call a person who hasn't yet been exposed to the concept of God? I would call that person an implicit atheist because they are an atheist only by a strict definition of the word atheism, "a lack of belief in God or gods".

deckart

I believe in God.
I've read some of your posts. The fact that someone believes in God seems to really get you fired up.

Everyone has a belief concerning spiritual things. Including the belief that there are no spiritual things. I would even call that a spiritual belief. But, would that be an accurate statement?

nameless

Whatever works for you. No problem to me what you believe, unless you come rapping at my door on Saturday morn to 'share'..

I really dont care what you believe. This is a forum for discussion. Lively, spirited discussion seems more interesting than dull boring.. So I attempt to make what I say 'interesting' and 'fun' to read.. Thats all, just a game..
I find that 'beliefs' are error. It matters not a whit what that 'belief' is. One 'fantasy' is as good as another... Believing strongly in that 'fiction' doesn't have some magical transformative effect to turn your 'fiction' into some kind of 'objective reality'.
Squinching your eyes and repeating "I Believe! I Believe!" can cause a car wreck if done at an innappropriate time!

Perhaps what you might mean is that "I BELIEVE" that 'Everyone has a belief concerning spiritual things.' See? That is the problem with 'beliefs'. You have no space for other perspectives. Beliefs are emotionally validated, and one way is that there must be a 'right' and a 'wrong'. My 'belief' MUST be right, therefore those that see things a different way are 'wrong'. This kind of thinking leads to making sweeping pronouncements such as "Everyone has a belief concerning spiritual things." because 'beliefs' delude one into the perspective that one has some sort of understanding of ultimate reality, and differences MUST be 'wrong'.

No, it was not an accurate statement.

If I had a hamburger in one hand, and nothing in the other, there will be 'evidence' to hypothesize the hamburger in the hand. There is not a 'non-hamburger' in the other hand. There is simply no evidence to form a similar hypothesis. Nothing there. No belief is necessary as there is no evidence from which to form a 'hypothesis' or even a 'belief'. It remains 'empty'. There is no need to fill the 'darkness' with 'spooks' by 'belief'.
Fear of the 'dark' is certainly common, though, and manifests in many ways.

deckart

I agree, nameless.

nameless

Hahahahaahaah...
I like that!

"I agree, nameless."

Shut me right up!
Hahahahahaha...
Thanx for the laugh!
*__-

Psi 5

Without looking it up, I have to think these definitions are wrong. Common usage is atheism denotes belief in the non-existence of God and agnostic denotes lack of belief or uncertainty. Whatever the definitons, that's the common usage and it won't change.

TheStatutoryApe

There seems to be a problem here if we look further into definitions. To "believe" something is to hold it true. Belief does not mean holding something fictional to be true as Nameless has described. Now how about knowing or knowledge? Just as "belief" does not imply any sort of fiction "Knowing and Knowledge" does not imply any sort of truth, they are simply bits of information or ideas. Now it would seem to me that knowledge is a necessity of belief. You must have some sort of piece of information or idea to believe in in order to have a belief. So the idea that a person can believe in god yet have no knowledge of god (being both agnostic and theist) is logically inconsistant. It would seem that a person who has not been introduced to the idea of god or does not consider the possibility of god would best be described as agnostic, lacking knowledge.
There is also the matter of "faith" but faith is defined as a strong belief. If belief requires knowledge then faith, being a strong belief, must require knowledge too as opposed to the common definition that "faith" is belief without knowledge. Logically you can not believe in something without knowing about it.
So it would seem that the main differances between these ideologies is what constitutes "knowing" and what sort of knowledge is necessary or sufficient to consider something "true", or believe in it, specifically in regards to god.

There is a further problem that I have with this definition of atheism being used though. The idea that atheism means lack of belief in "god" (either intentional or unintentional) would seem to make a number of religions such as buddhism "atheist" religions. I doubt though that these religions would consider themselves "atheist".

nameless

I am being misrepresented here. I stated that, ultimately, any and everything that you can 'believe' in, is fiction.
'Belief' is no arbiter of 'Truth'. If you can conceive of something, that is the sum total of it's 'existence', in your 'conceptions', in your mind, which makes it 'fiction'.
Yes, 'belief' IS holding something 'fictional' to be true.
That is also the definition of 'delusion'.

One would, of course, expect 'true believers' to emotionally and vehemently disagree with this position, by definition. Makes for 'spirited' discussion! *__-

TheStatutoryApe

Considering what you have responded with I don't understand how I have misrepresented you. I simply don't agree with your convention that a belief is a fiction.

pmb_phy

We used a variation of that theme in one of my religious courses when I was an undergrad. The idea was that you can think of yourself as a serious aetheist, one worthy of that term, if you had taken some serious time to consider the matter, read up on some material on it, read some of the pro and con arguements and after having educated yourself in the matter came to a decision. That's an aetheist I can admire, even though I'm more of a Christian every day.

Speaking of which - Stephen Gould (An evolutionist at Harvard and a Nobel prize winner as I recal) came up with a so-called "Proof" that God does not exist. I was wondering if someone knew where I could find that article online? Thanks.

Peted

arildno

1 ."There has never existed, exist or will ever exist an elephant with blue ears and huge batwings attached to its back"
2. "Once it existed or exists or will exist an elephant with blue ears and huge batwings attached to its back".

Either one of these statements might be true, right?
And, furthermore, one of these statements MUST be true?

So, does it therefore follow that it is equally intellectually respectable to pick either one of them?

nameless

You are right. My error. I thought about that afterwards and realized that you didn't really misrepresent.
Perhaps what 'goaded' me to respond was the way you just dismissed my experience in passing. Perhaps if you said that "I have a different take on the matter than nameless.."
I guess that 'egoic' response of mine was not called for.
Apologies.

arildno

That is totally irrelevant.
One of the statements is true, the other is false.

It is, however, sheer nonsense to believe in 2.

It is equally nonsensical to believe in the existence of a god.

nameless

Might.

Not at all. We can never know, conclusively, whether it was,is, or will be. Would it 'count' if I dreamed up your elephant tonight when I sleep? Would that bring it into 'existence'?

Pick either one for what? Dinner? A 'belief'? A 'world view'?

Just goes to illustrate how someone can be absolutely brilliant in one area and turn into a 'drooling idiot' when emotionally held 'beliefs' are in question. Ego vs intellect.. and never the twain shall meet!