What it means to be theist / deist / atheist / religious - General

Atheism requires "faith" because it says there are no gods, when in fact there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest it. "Faith" is belief without prior evidence.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32451480]The definition of faith is somewhat mixed. It can be used simply to describe any belief. [url]http://www.onelook.com/?w=faith&ls=a[/url] [/QUOTE] The definition is not mixed at all and after checking the majority of those links, one shared characteristic of them all is that faith does not have evidence. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32451480] Of course most people will say that the burden of proof lies with them and blah blah blah but that's for pragmatic scientific method not philosophical existentialism.[/QUOTE] According to who? You? As far as I am concerned when someone makes an absolute statement of truth ( i.e God exist) the burden is on them to prove it. If I told you my belief in Santa is philosophical existentialism therefore i don't have the burden of proving my claim what would you say?

[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;32451646]The definition is not mixed at all and after checking the majority of those links, one shared characteristic of them all is that faith does not have evidence.[/QUOTE] In the secondary definitions, aka less important less used ones. [QUOTE=Rhinovirus;32451646]If I told you my belief in Santa is philosophical existentialism therefore i don't have the burden of proving my claim what would you say?[/QUOTE] I'd say that's a-ok. Welcome to the world of philosophy.

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;32451600]Atheism requires "faith" because it says there are no gods, when in fact there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest it. "Faith" is belief without prior evidence.[/QUOTE] You are confusing strong atheism (assertion of no god) vs weak atheism ( lack of belief in god), and again the burden is not on the atheist to disprove god ( see:[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot[/url]), but rather the one making the positive claim. You can't prove a negative and if no evidence suggest a god(s) then the only logical point of view to take is an atheistic view. ( Not to suggest that all atheist are logical)

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32451359]Faith is belief, and atheists believe something, therefore it's faith.[/QUOTE] no, atheism is a lack of belief there's a difference between saying "I don't believe in X" and "I believe there is no X"

[QUOTE=Kalibos;32451698]no, atheism is a lack of belief there's a difference between saying "I don't believe in X" and "I believe there is no X"[/QUOTE] And atheism says "I believe there is no God", though somewhere down the line some people insisted on renaming their agnosticism to atheism for some reason despite being incredibly confusing, against all history of the term, and causing an overlap of terms.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32451729]And atheism says "I believe there is no God",[/QUOTE] no. like rhino said there are weak and strong atheists; I've never understood the rationale behind strong atheism because claiming belief in something unknowable... well, it's no different from believing in god for no reason other than "I have faith" [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32451729]though somewhere down the line some people insisted on renaming their agnosticism to atheism for some reason despite being incredibly confusing, against all history of the term, and causing an overlap of terms.[/QUOTE] again, agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism. theism and atheism and deism and everything like that have to do with belief whereas agnosticism has to do with knowledge. weak atheism is not agnosticism.

Agnosticism as a view does exist and always has. It says that you don't know if there is a god. If you're a weak atheist, you must to some extent believe there is no god. If you don't know, you're agnostic. Yes, agnostic can be used as an adjective, but the noun was here first.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32451943]Agnosticism as a view does exist and always has. It says that you don't know if there is a god.[/QUOTE] no, for the love of god, no agnosticism is simply the view that claims about the existence or non-existence of god (and other metaphysical and spiritual claims) are unknowable. it's not an "I'm on the fence" view of god. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32451943]If you're a weak atheist, you must to some extent believe there is no god. If you don't know, you're agnostic.[/QUOTE] again, no. "I don't believe in X" =/= "I believe there is no X"

Well gee, if you can have multiple definitions, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism"]so can we.[/URL]

what's your point? yes, this stuff is unknowable. at some point - possibly tomorrow (maybe Jesus Our Lord and Savior will show his face), possibly in millions of years when humans have explored the universe and parallel dimensions and we've uncovered the intricacies of existence, possibly never - it may become knowable. I don't know what you're getting at.

Atheist - someone who affirms the nonexistence of God Theist - someone who affirms the existence of God Agnostic - someone who does not affirm either These are the definitions that have always been used by philosophers. Any work-arounds or alternate definitions, muddle up the conversation. Anyone who for one reason or another wants to use them can not hold an intelligent debate that will not dissolve into semantics.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32452165]Atheist - someone who affirms the nonexistence of God Theist - someone who affirms the existence of God Agnostic - someone who does not affirm either[/QUOTE] I'm atheist and I don't affirm the nonexistence of god. I reject every claim of god ever put forth to me on the grounds of insufficient evidence. and again, agnosticism has nothing to do with affirming the existence or nonexistence of god. all it is is the idea that the truth value of claims like those are unknowable by us. you're the one muddling up the issue with semantics, sir [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32452165]These are the definitions that have always been used by philosophers.[/QUOTE] which philosphers? all of them? [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32452165]Any work-arounds or alternate definitions, muddle up the conversation. Anyone who for one reason or another wants to use them can not hold an intelligent debate that will not dissolve into semantics.[/QUOTE] I'm not using work-arounds in an attempt to make the discussion devolve into semantics. with all due respect, you're a bit misinformed as to what agnosticism and atheism actually are

If you claim it's unknowable, you also don't affirm anything. And yes, most reputable ones. I'm not saying you're trying to divert the debate though. Here, that's what the debate is.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32452319]If you claim it's unknowable, you also don't affirm anything. [/QUOTE] correct, I don't affirm anything. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32452319]And yes, most reputable ones.[/QUOTE] philosophers are just people and everyone has their own ideas. If that's true, though, then perhaps I have my own specialized version of agnosticism. I don't think so, though. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32452319]I'm not saying you're trying to divert the debate though. Here, that's what the debate is.[/QUOTE] good :D anywho, I'm starting to get a buzz from these beers and I don't really feel like posting anymore. it was fun, peace! [img]http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/spock-vulcan-salute-20090521-094535.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Kalibos;32452253]I'm atheist and I don't affirm the nonexistence of god. I reject every claim of god ever put forth to me on the grounds of insufficient evidence. [/QUOTE] Depends of the definition. You're pretty much an agnostic atheist.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32447082]"A higher power" is a vague idea that may not necessarily be a deity. For example, an Atheist might believe that "good and evil" are actual things that exist.[/QUOTE] I suppose you could be an Atheist but still believe humans were created by an alien race that aren't all powerful.

[QUOTE=Maucer;32453268]Depends of the definition. You're pretty much an agnostic atheist.[/QUOTE] no shit!

[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;32447366] You're more of an [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism]Ignostic[/url] then.[/QUOTE] Every time I join a thread about religions I learn about something else that is relevant to me. This is amazing.

Today in my philosophy class we got into a discussion on wether or not atheism is a religion. Normally I stay quiet in that class but today I just couldn't handle everyone jumping on the anti-atheism bandwagon and just said, rather loudly, "Atheism is a religion in the same way not-skiing is a sport". Afterwards there was a bit of an awkward silence :v:

I always thought being agnostic meant you believed in a higher power but don't affiliate yourself with any kind of religion.

I believe that God is a very powerful metaphor and symbol, but it just doesn't make logical sense to be true, which is why people believe god exists. I think people should believe what they want, but also get with the times. Want to follow god? Fine, but creationism? Your essentially ignoring the boatload of proof and logic against creationism [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies[/url] Furthermore, people should learn to accept other religions on an individual level because in todays society its unacceptable. Maybe if this was way back in the day, creationism and intolerance were acceptable, after all, harsh times, and creationism was only logical because religion was very abundant and evolution was either an unknown idea or the idea wasn't spread yet, but today, we don't live in those times. I think the only way a god could exist is if he was the one causing the big bang, and creating the earth on his own time, and started what was needed to make life, and let it evolve. But I don't think anyone could fuck it up with one species nearly this hard and not do anything about it, nor could a god exist because theres virtually nothing pointing towards it. Unless of course after starting life, he said "Well fuck it, this is boring"

[quote] Dawkins said that, while he would not accept it, a reasonably respectable case could be made for "a deistic god, a sort of god of the physicist, a god of somebody like Paul Davies, who devised the laws of physics, god the mathematician, god who put together the cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen".[/quote] I always found this interesting. I guess a good test to determine what you are is, do you follow Dawkins and disregard that possibility, or are you like me and find it interesting enough to decide you can't really make a claim.

[quote]Excuse me? You speak of the origin of life ( More specifically origin of man I presume in which case evolution is objectively the correct answer), but then you mention the big bang which leads me to believe you think evolution has something to do with the big bang. Cosmology and biology are 2 different sciences and I don't understand why you fail to understand this simple fact.[/quote] Short version: Big bang -> creates all the matter in the universe -> cools down from a plasma to hydrogen / little helium -> stars form, make more helium and slightly heavier elements -> they explode, making heavier elements -> more stars are made with heavier elements -> eventually a star is made with a bunch of rocks around it -> rocks collide together for quite a while to form planets -> thanks to some complex set of event on one particular planet, life is created -> several billion years later, we have humans. Skip all the middle stuff: big bang -> humans What theists believe: deity creates universe (either in its present stage or at the "beginning") -> humans are made either by them or as a result of their actions. Also cosmobiology, all sciences are interconnected. [quote]You seem to think any belief at all inherently requires faith in some capacity. A belief is simply something someone beliefs to be true. Atheism is not the assertion of truth(i.e There is no god) it is the rejection of claims by theist.[/quote] A belief does require faith. Also it's "believes to be true" please get it right. Atheism is the belief there is no god, not the assertion of it. If you assert there is no god then you're just as ignorant as any theist that asserts there is a god. [quote]And here the big reveal comes. I suspected you believed as such. Atheism does not require any faith. Atheism is simply the rejection of claims made by theist ( i.e there is a god or gods). I'm willing to bet you believe this because the existence of a god or gods is impossible to disprove, therefore lack of belief requires faith. This is logically inconsistent because your claim that atheism requires faith makes the assumption that all proposition or claims are equal. If I told you that there exist a pink elephant, you could not disprove this claim unless you searched every elephant in the universe which is impossible, however if I told you there exist a square circle you can say this is a logical contradiction which is basically the same as disproving it. I present 1 of many paradoxes involving the existence of a THEISTIC god:[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox[/URL] Thus we have at the very least, doubted the existence of a theistic god because it has inherit logical contradictions and fallacies. So I ask you, how does a disbelief in god(s) require faith when logically, the evidence for a theistic god is to the contrary?[/quote] This being or whatever it is doesn't have to be omnipotent, see deists. It could also be beyond your understanding. Just because what people have written has a logic error doesn't mean that if such a being does exist that it is what they say it is. Ever think that no religion has gotten it right yet? [quote]You don't understand theory in a scientific context and I think I'll stop responding right here, because after reading the rest of your post it is clear to me you don't understand the positions you're arguing against at all. [/quote] Give me definitive proof the big bang happened. [quote] The argument is not whether or not "I don't believe there is a god" is related to religious beliefs, the argument is, " Is atheism a religious view?". I don't understand why you fail to understand that in order for something to be a RELIGIOUS belief, it requires faith which atheism does not.[/quote] And we're all saying it DOES require faith. A just as similarly logical conclusion is that all religions are wrong but there is a god

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;32456748]Skip all the middle stuff: big bang -> humans[/quote] The big bang theory has nothing to do with origin of life. Again evolution is what you are referring to when you're talking about life. If you are talking about origins of life then abiogenesis is the science dedicated to that and I must point out why you would bother bringing up the big bang theory when the topic pertains to atheism ( lack of belief) which is not mutually exclusive with believing whether or not a big bang took place. [QUOTE]What theists believe: deity creates universe (either in its present stage or at the "beginning") -> humans are made either by them or as a result of their actions. [/quote] Yes and atheism is the rejection of that claim. [quote]Also cosmobiology, all sciences are interconnected. [/quote] Now you're just going full retard. Cosmobiology has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang; Cosmobiology has to with astrology which is not science. I suggest you try to at least pretend to understand the terms you are throwing around. [QUOTE=thrawn2787;32456748]A belief does require faith.[/quote] Not all beliefs require faith. Does my belief that I have 2 arms and 2 legs require faith? No because I have evidence that suggest it, therefore it doesn't require faith which is belief without evidence. God is a unfalsifiable claim without any evidence. If you can assert the existence of god without any evidence then I can dismiss it without any evidence and that DOES NOT require faith because I am not choosing to believe something without evidence I am doing the opposite which is being an atheist ( lack of belief). Again you are acting under the assumption that all claims are made equal which is not the case. If I told you there is a teapot orbiting the sun that cannot be spotted by our telescopes because of its size, does it require any active IGNORING OF EVIDENCE ( i.e Faith) to not believe in my claim? [QUOTE=thrawn2787;32456748] Atheism is the belief there is no god, not the assertion of it. If you assert there is no god then you're just as ignorant as any theist that asserts there is a god.[/quote] This has nothing to do with my post and you just completely failed to respond to my argument [QUOTE=thrawn2787;32456748]Just because what people have written has a logic error doesn't mean that if such a being does exist that it is what they say it is. [/quote] I don't understand what you're even trying to say here. [QUOTE=thrawn2787;32456748]Give me definitive proof the big bang happened. [/quote] Why am I having to research for you? ( see: [url]http://www.big-bang-theory.com/[/url]) [quote] First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery. Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. [/quote] I stress that the Big bang theory is only one plausible hypothesis and the most popular. [QUOTE=thrawn2787;32456748]And we're all saying it DOES require faith. [/QUOTE] And I have already proven it doesn't if you took the time to fully read all of my posts, but since you insist on ignoring everything and acting as if repeating yourself makes you right, I'll do it AGAIN. Atheism is the rejection of claims made by theist ( There is a god or gods) saying this constitutes a religious belief is like saying bald is a hair color.

Never heard of deism, but from a quick glance at the wikipedia article, I can see it being more widely acceptable than the idea that there is a God, and that he is constantly intervening in human affairs.

[quote]Does my belief that I have 2 arms and 2 legs require faith?[/quote] Yes, actually. For all you know you could be a brain in a jar in some sort of a virtual reality ala the matrix. [quote]I don't understand what you're even trying to say here. [/quote] Just because people have written that supreme beings are omnipotent doesn't mean that, if they / it exists, they actually are [quote]Why am I having to research for you?[/quote] [quote]I stress that the Big bang theory is only one plausible [B]hypothesis [/B]and the most popular.[/quote] Contradiction. See [quote] Hypothesis — n , pl -ses 1. Compare theory a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either [B]accepted [/B]as a basis for further verification ( working hypothesis ) or [B]accepted [/B]as likely to be true 2. an [B]assumption [/B]used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition 3. an [B]unproved [/B][I]theory[/I]; a conjecture [/quote] [QUOTE=Rhinovirus;32457865] And I have already proven it doesn't if you took the time to fully read all of my posts, but since you insist on ignoring everything and acting as if repeating yourself makes you right, I'll do it AGAIN. Atheism is the rejection of claims made by theist ( There is a god or gods) saying this constitutes a religious belief is like saying bald is a hair color.[/QUOTE] And we're saying we think your definition is wrong that's not a prooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooof. You state what atheism is but clearly I have a different definition for it, and you actually never back up your definition for it (where as I've consult the damn dictionary in the other thread). Flowers are the things that come out of ass. That's a flower anything else you say is wrong and I'll just keep saying that flowers are the things that come out of my ass without listening to you The point of this thread is to debate the meaning of these words, not come in here and say I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG. If you want to debate, that's fine. One of the rules here is that if you claim something as fact you should support it, you just walk in here and say "I'm right because I am." I suggest the rest of the thread just express their thoughts / meanings and actually debate and ignore rhinovirus

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;32459922]Yes, actually. For all you know you could be a brain in a jar in some sort of a virtual reality ala the matrix.[/QUOTE] This still does not require faith. He can see and test his arms and legs and so can anyone else. Whether or not we're in a matrix does not mean we do not have arms and legs in said matrix. The fact is there is only one 'Athiest' viewpoint that requires faith: "I believe no diety exists." While most do not require faith: "I have no belief in a diety" "Whether or not a diety exists is unknowable" And the bottom two are majority, 'weak atheists'. The top is just as dumb as theists though and requires faith. 'weak atheism' is all about the LACK of faith in anything really.

[QUOTE=Jawalt;32460106]This still does not require faith. He can see and test his arms and legs and so can anyone else. Whether or not we're in a matrix does not mean we do not have arms and legs in said matrix. The fact is there is only one 'Athiest' viewpoint that requires faith: "I believe no diety exists." While most do not require faith: "I have no belief in a diety" "Whether or not a diety exists is unknowable" And the bottom two are majority, 'weak atheists'. The top is just as dumb as theists though and requires faith. 'weak atheism' is all about the LACK of faith in anything really.[/QUOTE] Well put, die-hard atheism is just as bad as die-hard theism.

[QUOTE=Jawalt;32460106]This still does not require faith. He can see and test his arms and legs and so can anyone else. Whether or not we're in a matrix does not mean we do not have arms and legs in said matrix. The fact is there is only one 'Athiest' viewpoint that requires faith: "I believe no diety exists." While most do not require faith: "I have no belief in a diety" "Whether or not a diety exists is unknowable" And the bottom two are majority, 'weak atheists'. The top is just as dumb as theists though and requires faith. 'weak atheism' is all about the LACK of faith in anything really.[/QUOTE] I fail to see how "I have no belief in a deity" isn't the same as "I believe no deity exits." Maybe it's just me? I guess I can see how the second can be interpreted as possibly apatheism or agnostic (not atheism), but if you expand it to "I have no belief that a deity exits" then I fail to see how it's different. Why is the first just as dumb as theists? I think if you say "I know there is no god" that is as dumb theists who say "I know there is a god." I agree die-hard atheism is as bad as die-hard theism, but I don't see how saying "I believe" is being die-hard? You can have your belief, accept it, and accept that others have their own belief. But when you assert that you know, that's when you cannot accept that others have their own beliefs. That to me is die-hard. It also seems to be that by that definition of die-hard there are no not die-hard theists (moderate theists?). The very last is agnostic which again I do not feel is a legitimate answer to the question of whether or not you believe a deity exists. Also i before e except after c except for weird words. Atheist and deity. :p