Atheist beleive in disbeleif. Hypocrites.
That's a strawman argument.
Atheist beleive in disbeleif. Hypocrites.
Actually, atheism would be the disbelief in god(s), whereas agnosticism is the lack of belief concerning god(s).
Otherwise, yeah 'n stuff.
Agnosticism is uncertainty
atheism is not a disbelief in gods, it is the lack of a belief in god(s)
gnostic atheism would be considered a disbelief in gods, but I'm quite certain most atheists are agnostic
Agnosticism is uncertainty
atheism is not a disbelief in gods, it is the lack of a belief in god(s)
gnostic atheism would be considered a disbelief in gods, but I'm quite certain most atheists are agnostic
Really?
How do you define belief then? I believe in the hypothesis that seems least untrue out of all the mutually exclusive hypotheses I can think of. My version of belief requires no proof.
Belief would be synonymous with truth as it is known by an individual
Ask yourself what is true
The answer is what you believe
That is your belief
So you're saying you don't think it's true that there is no God? I don't even really consider that atheism.
I do
I do not have any faith in any god
Therefore, I am an atheist (without a god)
I am also certainly agnostic, but neither of these really describe much about what I believe, they are simply facts about me
I would consider myself a humanist more than an atheist or agnostic
I get ya.
I'm not sure if I agree that most people that call themselves atheists do not have a positive belief in the lack of a god, though.
I believe "there is no God". I don't think I have to prove it to believe it.
It's like the "flying-spaghetti-monster" argument (which annoys me since I made the same argument earlier and now I can't take credit...although that's what I'm doing now ). Would you really say you have no belief about an invisible flying-spaghetti-monster? Sure, you can't prove it doesn't exist, but like... it just... doesn't exist. That's how I feel about God. Reserving belief is too PC for me.
The idea of a conscious being deliberately creating life is not prima facie absurd. Humans have been trying to do so for years and would gladly create a working, living model of a universe were it technologically feasible. I imagine there would even be smiting involved. That being said, I highly doubt the existence of anthropomorphic gods on the basis of absurdity, but I stand by my assertion that your belief in no god is logically indefensible due to a lack of evidence.
I didn't say God told anything, and that's exactly the point. How could people know what was the right thing to do?
Anyways, I won't be able to convince you of anything, so I guess I should just let you have your opinion.
Communism is probably compatible with religion and with atheism, since its a political ideology, although in the totalitarian varieties the state has tried to impose communism as an exclusive way of thinking, atheism has been part of that historically.
I figured it was implied that I meant net benefit instead of absolute benefit. The benefit minus the harm is the total goodness (we also have to include marginal utility, for example, giving a sandwich to a starving person is better than giving a sandwich to a fat person).
I guess it's still up for question whether or not a little good to a lot of people is "better" than a lot of good to a single person... but I'll leave that up to individuals to decide.
I'm gonna have to disagree with your hidden premise here -- that faith makes people more (net) empathetic and compassionate. In fact, having a strict sense of external morals seems far less consistent with empathy than a dynamic system such as the one I described in my last post. If you believe in something because of faith, you are by definition less connected to visible evidence -- someone disagreeing isn't a suggestion to question your views, since your views are not predicated on environmental change (like hearing someone say something).
So you're saying without faith people are sociopaths? I strongly disagree. Atheism and hedonism are entirely different things.
I have a suspicion that people that think not having religion would lead to moral weakness are actually confusing the issue of LOSING your faith and the crisis that would ensue with the actual belief system people without faith have formed over time. I agree that the moment of world-shattering realization would probably be pretty traumatic and would have long term emotional consequences. But that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not good morals are harder or easier to reach without God. Like I said before, I think they're easier to reach, since you don't have the confounding factor (Hitchens referred to it as a moral dictatorship) of not being able to question your core beliefs without "sinning". Now, there are many pick-and-choose religious people that basically build their moral systems the same way I have, and I have no problem with them. But then, what's the point of God in their systems? They just choose when to follow the word and when not to -- when to take it literally and when not to, etc. I do that too, I just focus on all external influences instead of giving extra weight to the bible, which is clearly just a book.
If God, in your personal narrative, is literally "love and compassion", then you're setting up a tautology. "How can atheism be "good" if it is defined as the lack of God?" really means "how can atheism be "good" if it is defined as the lack of love and compassion?". The answer is, it can't. If you defined God that way, atheists are assholes. And I'm not an atheist.
Then what does God even do?
I don't just dread dying, I dread an eternal afterlife, even in heaven.
Now you're sounding like a gnostic.
Anyhow, you can't deny that many, probably most theists have a rather anthropomorphic idea of God. At least in the USA, I recall data showing that only a quarter of religion people believe in a God that was neither interventionist nor judgmental.
To me, if God is an omnipresent thing that never punishes nor rewards, never forces thing in a tangible way, and it cannot be proven or disproven exist, then it is irrelevant, and I could care less whether or not this so-called God exists and consider the discussion a waste of time.
Are you saying God has no causal relationship to reality?
You cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove to you that there is no afterlife anymore that you can prove to me that there are no unicorns and mermaids.
Reality is based on proof, not the absence of proof. What I believe to be real is what I can observe with my own eyes or can logically justify.
The concept of justice in the afterlife as described in major religions seems ludicrous to me. People die (leave their physical bodies) just so they can be punished or rewarded in sensuous ways? How does one feel the burning of hellfire or the sexual pleasures of 72 virgins without a body? And how does one retain memories after death, so they know for what they are being punished? People lose their memories after getting roofied or by falling down a flight of stairs. Dying seems a lot more dramatic. And what is the point punishing or rewarding someone when he doesn't even remember what he did to earn that?
Let's turn this around.
What proof do you have that there is actually something after death? Because if you call that a reality then you must have some solid proof.
You shouldn't use this argument because it applies equally to your stance. (And in fact, the burden of proof should go to positive claims, not negative ones.)
Let's all forget about proof for a second and remember Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation consistent with evidence is the best. Since both belief in the afterlife and un-belief in the afterlife are consistent with all the evidence we have, we should default to the simple explanation... which is, when our brains shut down, that's it -- with this belief we don't have to create an entirely new universe to explain how our consciousness is transferred to the non-physical realm, etc.
I mean, imagine I said "when you die, you turn into an invisible rock on some island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and maintain your consciousness but you lack the ability to communicate. You can, however, fly around, but if a human instrument could observe an effect you have on the environment, you lose this ability". You'd probably think this was completely crazy, but it's a theory just as consistent with evidence as any other theory regarding the afterlife.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in god(s)
You are making into your own construct while ignoring the meaning. You have invented your own notion of what atheism is, and it is completely separate from atheism.
Blindfully believing everything science gives you would be a unique belief structure, completely separate from atheism, and it would be worthy of skepticism by anyone, especially an atheist.
Ok, I admit. My vision of atheism is wrong.
So what do you actually belive into?
I just wanted to know how exactlly does Atheism help you in your life? I mean how does it make you feel better to belive there is no God?
This is not meant to insult anybody but I'm just facinated about how some people can live without any kind of faith.
Knowledge and optimism. My beliefs, of course, may cause delusion. I am, however, firmly rooted in nature and reject the supernatural.
I believe that a moral person would treat others with reverence, honesty, and love. I believe that a moral person would refrain from causing harm. I believe that a moral person would seek to learn more. I believe that a moral person would never overlook the immoral, but intervene appropriately.
You are optimist about what?
I'm not atheist, but I do believe if there is a god, we can't exactly prove it.
Firstly, it takes out the complications. What texts to believe? What events to believe in? What people to believe in?
Secondly, it takes off mindless following. At some point, you must give up rationale for faith. That is very, very hard for some people.
Does it make one feel better necessarily to not have faith? Maybe not. But it might be easier, or more understandable.
I like your post.
I always belived that the truth lies not in devoted religion because that leads to indoctrination nor of total rejection of the supernatural because that leads to a close mind.
This is true. One can be devout in their religion, and it be healthy. However, organized religion closes minds, overall. Or often, it leads to it. I think what it comes down to is the individual. [MENTION=4212]Peguy[/MENTION] is religious and lacks that closed mind.