 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninot
Atheism is the religion of believing in the absence of God.
|
Atheism is not a religion- although it can be a view about aspects of religions.
It has no prophets, no holy books, no sacred texts of any kind, no priesthood, no temples or churches or sacred sites, no rituals, entails making no sacrifices or pledging tithes, no belief in a supernatural being or beings, no belief in in a supernatural cause for humanity or existence.
You will not need to enforce special dietary requirements to be an atheist, or have part of your body surgically (or otherwise) removed or altered. There are no initiation rites, or special ceremonies requiring bodily privation or mass hypnosis.
You will not need to mark your body with ash, or paint, or blood, nor scar it.
Atheism is what it says.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
 |
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
my dictionary was www.dictionary.com (i'm at work, no dictionaries around really)
www.dictionary.com has The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as its source.
Looking at all the definitions posted, i dont see that much difference in meaning, just how we are interpretting it, *Edit* or the dictionaries we chose.
*edit* and yeah, i don't wanna tell anyone to interpret anything (further than I might have already). So i'm gonna stop my part of threadjacking right here.
Last edited by Ninot on 10-06-2005 at 22:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
taken directly from a paper I wrote:
Agnosticism:
Agnosticism literally means “now know” but theoretically it provides the notion that the existence of a god cannot be proved or disproved. The term claims there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the confirmation or the denial of a god. In recent centuries the belief has become popular with the scientific community and this can be seen through the words of Michael Molloy – “The English biologist T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), who coined the term, was of the opinion that the existence of God could be neither proven nor disproven from a scientific point of view… It is a view that is commonly held today by scientifically minded people, because it accommodates the study and teaching of science without reference to God or gods.” (Experiencing the World’s Religions, p508) Agnosticism enables the scientific community to concentrate specifically on science at-hand without intervening in the topic of religion. Science may appear to follow the less garnered position of atheism but a clear stance of agnosticism clearly negates that.
Atheism:
Atheism holds the exact opposite premise of theism (the belief in a god). Although differing from agnosticism, atheism believes strictly that there is not the existence of a god. Garth Kemerling elucidates this point of atheism – “Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true.” (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#athe) However, while, an atheist does not believe in a particular god it does not imply an atheist also denounces religion. For instance, Buddhism at its heart is non-theistic (or in a sense atheistic) but it still remains that Buddhism is a religion. The most recognized use of atheism came from the 19th Century philosopher Karl Marx, whom utilized his atheistic beliefs as a significant element of his political theories. Apart from atheism, in its disbelief of a deity, is the polar opposite -- pantheism.
On a side note: atheists or atheism may be denote that it does not believe in a higher power, deity, god, or gods but not necessarily that it can be proven. I believe this is a loose connotation of atheism and for language purposes should not exist.
Although I did not read all of the past few posts in detail, I think my writings go right along with Locutus's explanation of agnosticism and atheism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Markus1985
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
Saying agnosticism is a weaker form of atheism or that atheism is a believe system is bull. Atheism just asserts that there is no divine power, nothing more and nothing less. This can in some cases be based on a belief, but it can just as easily be based on facts and knowledge. There simply is no clue of any kind to the existance of any kind of divine power, just as there is no clue to the existance of pink invisible unicorns or a RL Harry Potter or Captain Kirk. Is anyone who says Harry Potter doesn't really exist just 'holding a belief'? Of course not, such a person is basing that assertion on the factual knowledge that there are no real clues for the existance of a wizard prodigy with a big scar on his forehead, it's just a story someone once made up. The same applies to religion: the only 'clues' to the existance of any divine power are stories made up by people (just much older stories). You can choose to believe in those stories as millions of people have throughout history (and there's nothing wrong with that), but just because you view those stories as mere stories doesn't mean you're holding the believe that the opposite of those stories is true.
I am an atheist. I also don't 'believe' in anything. Those statements don't necessarily mean the same thing, but they don't exclude each other either. I rely on knowledge and facts. That means a lot of questions simply can't be answered, just because we don't know and can't explain a lot of things (yet). But there's not the remotest glimmer of a clue that there might exist such a thing as a divine power. I 'believe' in the absence of a divine power no more than I 'believe' in the absence of Ducktown or Hogwarts or the USS Enterprise. |
Sorry but u really need to try and be a bit more tolerant. Implying other peoples beliefs are fairy stories just isn't nice. As agnostics rightly say there is no way to prove if there is a god or not. In which case the only way to have a position on the topic is to believe something. I believe there is a God, you don't. It doesn't mean either of us is more right than the other. You are certain there isn't a God because you haven't seen any evidence that one exists. I am certain there is because I haven't seen any evidence that one doesn't exist and the existence of one explains a lot of issues. I believe in God, so you believe there isn't one.
And I'm sorry but anyone who believes there isn't a Ducktown is just narrow minded and wildly misled.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
I am an atheist. |
nope, you're an empiricist agnostic,..
who believes he's an atheist. 
quote:
Atheism just asserts that there is no divine power. This can be based on a belief, but it can just as easily be based on facts and knowledge. |
simply priceless
quote:
the only 'clues' to the existance of any divine power are stories made up by people |
*at this point, a sense of compassion prevents lebensraum from reaching for the cheese whiz
sorry mate, even disguised as logic, this is just wilful empiricism.
quote:
You can choose to believe in those stories as millions of people have throughout history (and there's nothing wrong with that), but just because you view those stories as mere stories doesn't mean you're holding the believe that the opposite of those stories is true. |
a fair point. well put
quote:
I rely on knowledge and facts. That means a lot of questions simply can't be answered, just because we don't know and can't explain a lot of things (yet).But there's not the remotest glimmer of a clue that there might exist such a thing as a divine power. |
same goes. you might be surprised how many theists hold exactly the same view.
there is an important distinction to be made between "empirical" and "empiricist." empirical beliefs are based upon knowledge and proof whereas empiricism states that only that which can be proven is true.
according to the empiricist, if something cannot be proven it is untrue.
that is an extremely limited philosophy. if you actually practised what you preach, you would spend an awful lot of time bumping into brick walls.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by curtsibling
For such an in-between, the term is called 'agnostic' I believe...
Originally posted by Ninot
correct!
I myself am an agnostic. I don't believe in anything in perticular. |
nope. i believe that's what the current pope would call a relativist.
see you in hell.
oh and if it's not too much trouble, would you put some merguez on for me when you get there?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Atheism is not a religion- although it can be a view about aspects of religions.
It has ... no belief in a supernatural being or beings, no belief in in a supernatural cause for humanity |
agreed, it's a stretch to classify atheism as a religion. but don't try to squirm out of it by calling it a "view."
it is, however, a belief system. it consists of beliefs about the existence of god(s), supernatural being(s), supernatural cause(s)
yes. atheistic systems in fact offer several different explanations for the problem of existence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
That dictionary you mention defines both atheism and agnosticism as beliefs. I think you will have a hard time finding many agnosticists or atheists that would agree with that, so those are just very poor definitions.
My own dictionary defines atheism as "a view of life which asserts the non-existance of a god" and agnosticism as "a view of life which asserts that the first origin of things (God, the absolute) cannot be known |
it seems we are getting very hung up on the exact definition of"belief." the english usage of the word is very general. i can understand people taking negative connotations from their understanding of what the word really means.
"belief" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith." i would consider that to be a mistake. although the two are certainly related, "faith" has a very different meaning in practice.
"belief" also carries connotations about religion. so it's understandable that some people would automatically reject the very idea of something which might be referred to as a belief.
i would prefer to consider it in a stricly epistemological sense. the problem here is that different systems have quite different interpretations of what constitutes knowledge, so it's difficult to make general statements in this regard.
you seem to put a great deal of faith in the concept of "knowledge." to me that is simply laughable as you seem to be neglecting the possibility that all "knowledge" is founded on "belief." when we claim to "know" something what happens? we experience a phenomenon, we form a belief about that phenomenon. if that belief is found to be consistently useful, our mind classifies that belief as something "known" about the phenomenon.
(thus violating a prime directive of taoism - that every time you experience a thing, it is always the first time)
i like some parts of the subtle distinction you are trying to draw with "a view of life which asserts" as opposed to "belief," and i admit, the broad english usage can be confusing. i still have to say, that until i see a compelling reason to the contrary, the two defintions are really synonymous as far as i can see.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
Apart from atheism, in its disbelief of a deity, is the polar opposite -- pantheism. |
i'm sure you are aware of the difference. but i should point out that pantheism is certainly not the opposite of atheism. pantheism is simply the belief that no absolute distinction exists between god and creation. hence hinduism and animism are classified as pantheist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
|
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
i'm sure you are aware of the difference. but i should point out that pantheism is certainly not the opposite of atheism. pantheism is simply the belief that no absolute distinction exists between god and creation. hence hinduism and animism are classified as pantheist. |
It is the polar opposite, in the sense that pantheism asserts that everything is divine, or rather god (God), and atheism holds the notion that there is not a divine power, or god. At any rate, though, the choice of words is semantical and the sentence was only used as a transition towards my next paragraph regarding pantheism.
Also, animism could possibly be labeled under pantheism but that would not be completely true to their definitions. Animism may hold that all of reality or nature is sacred but that does not imply it is sacred from God; it is merely sacred in and of itself from a life force. I think it would be misleading to categorize the two together, since there are very fine seperations of the two.
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
That's an interesting definition of atheism.
|
I do not necessarily think the atheist has to provide evidence supporting his claim, just as a Christian is not required to provide evidence supporting his belief in God. However, in the purest philosophical world, the term atheism may truly imply that one, to be considered an atheist, must present an argument (I think the word evidence could be misleading) against the idea that there is a god or higher power of some sort.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
I do not necessarily think the atheist has to provide evidence supporting his claim, just as a Christian is not required to provide evidence supporting his belief in God. However, in the purest philosophical world, the term atheism may truly imply that one, to be considered an atheist, must present an argument (I think the word evidence could be misleading) against the idea that there is a god or higher power of some sort. |
I almost agree, except that it seems to be taken for a given (even unfortunately in the construction of the term a- theism) that the onus of proof is on the non-believer.
From my point of view, if someone asserts that there is something, and that this something does not obey the natural laws of the universe, then it is difficult to see how any a-theist can convince someone who believes in such a construct, that it does not exist, relying only on empirical evidence.
I am unconvinced by arguments for the existence of such a concept, and to be told by believers that I must simply have faith is only shifting the goalposts. At best, religious belief in god/s is like the verdict in Scottish law- 'not proven'.
Oh and lebensraum- I'm not squirming out of anything.
I have a belief system but it is not reliant on disproving the existence of a deity or deities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markus1985
Sorry but u really need to try and be a bit more tolerant. Implying other peoples beliefs are fairy stories just isn't nice. |
I never called them fairy tales, I called them stories.
And it's not intended to be intolerant, it's an objective observation. Can you point out a single case where belief in a divine power isn't based on stories but rather on hard evidence? You can belief that these stories were 'divinely inspired' or whatever (as all believers do), but that doesn't change the fact that they are stories. Believing in those stories takes a leap of faith. But not taking a leap of faith doesn't equal taking a leap in the opposite direction.
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
nope, you're an empiricist agnostic,.. |
Every definition of agnosticism says we cannot know if a divine power exists. I do not assert we cannot know, I assert we know that there isn't any. Therefore I cannot by any stretch of the definition be an agnosticist.
I don't need you to tell me what I am, thank you very much.
It's so easy to ridicule people you don't agree with, but that's really, really weak...
quote:
sorry mate, even disguised as logic, this is just wilful empiricism. |
Yes, it is empiricism, is there anything wrong with that?
quote:
you might be surprised how many theists hold exactly the same view. |
I'm not surprised at all, I know they do. In fact, any intelligent believer almost necessarily has made that observation, or they haven't really put any thought in their beliefs.
I'm not saying belief is a bad thing (in fact, I specificially said the opposite), it's just not based on anything in the real world. It's purely a spiritual thing to fill a void some people experience and feel they need to fill. That's great if it works for them, but that doesn't mean that people who don't have that need hold 'beliefs' that are opposite to the belief in a divine power. Belief and empericism if that what you want to call it aren't opposites; they don't exclude each other, they exist on entirely seperate planes. One is based on knowledge and facts, the other on belief.
quote:
there is an important distinction to be made between "empirical" and "empiricist." empirical beliefs are based upon knowledge and proof whereas empiricism states that only that which can be proven is true. |
So now you're back to telling me what I am again. I never mentioned either the term 'empircal' or 'empiricist'. And as far as that goes, according to my dictionary both terms are the same thing. But either way, sticking a label on me hardly changes my ideas. I'm not sure what your point here is...
quote:
according to the empiricist, if something cannot be proven it is untrue. |
Now you're not just telling me what I am, but also what I think. Nice...
As far as I see it, if something cannot be proven, we do will never know about it. Doesn't mean it's untrue. There are many things we will probably never know about, such as the origin of the universe. But that doesn't mean that just because it's humanly possible to conceive of a certain concept, it should therefore be regarded as true. We can humanly conceive of the concept of a duck that can talk, is dressed in a sailor outfit, has a rich uncle and a triplet as nephews -- but does that mean we should consider Donald Duck as someone who could actually exist?
Just because some things cannot be known doesn't mean we can just make up an explanation (such as a divine power) and then claim it is or could be true unless it's specifically proven false. Knowledge is assertions based on some kind of evidence. There is no evidence for the existance of divine power, therefore we know there is no divine power. You can still believe in one, but that doesn't change the fact that you have no knowledge to back up that belief.
quote:
that is an extremely limited philosophy. if you actually practised what you preach, you would spend an awful lot of time bumping into brick walls. |
It's no more limited than blindly believing in something for which there is absolutely no basis to believe in. And you'd be surprised how clarifying it is to just accept that there are things we will never know, rather than to make up stories to explain them. But different strokes for different folks...
quote:
it seems we are getting very hung up on the exact definition of"belief." the english usage of the word is very general. |
I have to disagree there. 'Belief' clearly has associations with faith and trust, rather than assertions based on knowledge. One believes in God, little kids believe in Santa Claus. In fact, we often judge the maturity of kids by finding out which things they still believe in and which they have 'grown out of' ("Aren't you a little old to still believe in the Tooth Fairy?") You must believe in the Santa Claus, because you've never seen the real one yourself, there's nothing he has done that couldn't be simply explained by ordinary phenomena (parental trickery), and there's no objective, physical, replicable (in other words, scientific) evidence that he's real. If you had those last things, then you wouldn't have to believe in Santa Claus, you would know he was real.
That's a clear distinction between knowing and believing, it exists in every language that I speak. You can go around and claim English is different from every other language, but that's weak. You can claim that all knowledge is relative but that's even weaker. Yes, there's always the possibility that certain knowledge is proven to be incorrect, but that's exactly the crux: it's proven to be incorrect. That's different from blindly trusting in it, without any evidence.
You can go and redefine or challenge well-defined concepts, but that's only useful and interesting for a philosophical exercise. It would make any kind of discussion on real life situations utterly meaningless as it disrupts the very basis of communication.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
It is the polar opposite, in the sense that pantheism asserts that everything is divine |
no. pantheism does not mean everything is divine. in order to be classified as pantheist, a system need only be inconsistent with an absolute, logical division between the divine and the natural.
of course, if there is no logical distinction between the two, that's very close to saying "everything is divine." but they are not identical statements. the strict defintion of pantheism is as stated above.
re: opposition
i agree, it's not worth getting frantic about opinions on "opposites." hell, if we start discussing what really constitutes opposition, we'll be here long after the lights come up.
re: animism as pantheist
agreed. some animisms may consider themselves to be pantheist, or may be classified as pantheist by outside observers. animist systems are not, however, necessarily pantheist.
quote:
in the purest philosophical world, the term atheism may truly imply that one, to be considered an atheist, must present an argument |
now there's an idea!!! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
I have a belief system but it is not reliant on disproving the existence of a deity or deities. |
sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
i remember having a discussion with a friend of mine. when i suggested it was logically deducible that humans possess a non-mortal soul, he went absolutely blue in the face. it took another hour for him to calm down enough for me to explain that a "soul" is a philosophical concept.
endless rants, accusations, insults, reminiscences of tortured a childhood, unbelievable!!
now, in classical philosophy, a soul is a simple, well defined concept. it's not that hard to explain. it's not that hard to understand. but rather than take the time to hear what was being said, he went off like a rocket.
i don't even suggest that the "soul" is necessarily a true concept. i am quite well aware of alternative systems. some philosophical systems are not consistent with the existence of "souls."
of course, the idea of a "soul" (in philosophy) has nothing to do with religion, it has nothing to do with any assertion about the existence or otherwise of gods, angels, saints or any such thing. it is simply one possible explanation of how we are able to understand (have knowledge of) the world around us.
i'll be honest, i don't understand how a friend of mine could explode like that, when i'm simply trying to explain a logical concept.
in the same way, it amazes me to see people put themselves through all sorts of contortions over the use of a word like "belief."
clearly, i still have a much to learn about humans
live long and prosper
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-06-2005 22:35
|