Religion

[Zolan]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

So, not having belief in something is a belief?

If you do not believe in the existence of something, and you are fully aware of that non-belief (inb4 elephants and newborn babies), you must believe that that thing does not exist.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Cut out the rhetoric. Man up and say I BELIEVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

That's not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief there isn't a god. If you want to be go into things technically you have to use the terms strong and weak atheism. Hopefully that's clear.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by elfailo

It's still a rhetorical cop-out. It's just swapping the question to avoid the pretense of absolute certainty. As long as you keep doing that, you have understood nothing about the issue.

So you're merely asking if we believe in unicorns, a pink elephant in the room, or a magical guy in the clouds? It's the kind of questions that if they have to be asked really tell more about the person asking them than the person answering. That might be a cop-out also, but it's really how I look at such questions.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by elfailo

I'm asking you to stand up for yourself, regardless of who's asking the question.

If it wasn't clear by my previous comments I was helping you to see my general perspective. My comment of weak and strong atheism was indicating that you should probably learn about the differences. Without a full understanding of them you might jump to conclusions about what I may say. If you did understand them and have read this thread in full you'd already know the answer.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Your general perspective is an intellectual pose that you didn't come up with yourself. It's a mask you hide behind that keeps you 'safe' from the consequences of being honest. I'm trying to free you of that burden. You shouldn't have to be ashamed of the side you've picked.

If they renamed it to "spineless atheism", would you still feel the same?

Wait are we trolling each other? I was just messing with you, but you seem to be taking this seriously. I wonder if we can switch around some words to make this fun for both of us.

Originally Posted by elfailo

Your general perspective is an anti-intellectual pose that you didn't come up with yourself. It's a mask you hide behind that keeps you 'safe' from the consequences of being honest. I'm trying to free you of that burden. You shouldn't have to be ashamed of the side you've picked.

If they renamed it to "spineless theism", would you still feel the same?

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Theism can't be spineless, it's by default a belief, meaning you've picked a side.

What do you call a Catholic who uses birth control or gets an abortion?

Originally Posted by Zolan

>Zolan is using atheism as incorrectly as these other Christian apologists do.
>as these other Christian apologists do
>as these other
>other

I guess I could have written that more clearly. I did not intend to imply you were a Christian apologist, merely that you share their propensity for willful ignorance in order to paint what you see as a competing philosophy in a negative light.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Theism can't be spineless, it's by default a belief, meaning you've picked a side.

You say it so matter of factly. This is a matter of perspective. If one has to use faith to justify their belief it's a false truth. An emotional mind game at best that is without purpose and with a weak foundation. It covers all the properties of being spineless. That's unless you count its purpose to bring comfort? Hardly the most logical choice, but to each his own. Weak atheism by its virtue can't be either. I think you said it rather succinctly. It sits between. It leaves the problem until sufficient evidence makes it a probabilistic outcome.

Originally Posted by elfailo

You think you can sit comfortably in the middle. It's not as comfortable as it looks. I'm telling you that you don't have to.

Actually it's extremely comfortable. It gives me the high ground on discussions like this as I'm not using blind faith or following others. For myself I discovered atheism while studying the Bible and religions throughout history. If anything I'd recommend continuing on your path and keep researching. Losing one's faith in a deity is an individual experience, much like finding one should be. It's rarely left up to the individual though. Also since it's often overlooked, it's alright to live without knowing all the answers. (Probably part of being human).

Also regarding your comfort in theism. It's more of a pipe dream. A faith-based hope. If you expand C.S. Lewis' famous quote and apply it for all religions you get pretty close.

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis

I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.

Interesting mind game.

Originally Posted by War Games

The only winning move is not to play.

(Ignoring the irony for a moment. )

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Cut out the rhetoric. Man up and say I BELIEVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

I hold no such belief. I believe people believe many things about a god or gods, my beliefs are simple: We don't know, we have no way to know, and it doesn't really matter anyway. I don't believe there is a god and I don't believe there is not a god, I believe in equilibrium of mind and body and the existence of a creator, supreme being, or universal spirit is largely irrelevant to the course my life is taking. If I was to practice any established religion, Buddhism seems to be most appropriate.

The "absence of belief" thing is a cop-out that people use because they're afraid of the "but you can't prove" counter-argument - as if it all ends there.

What is the point in being afraid at that point? I mean, the hardest/scariest part is conquered already.

I've read your posts, you're a pretty smart guy. No reason to be scared for you. If you had to take a guess when your life depended on the answer, you would know what to say.

I hold no doubts in where I stand and all of my thoughts and statements on the subject now are academic and/or philosophical, not progressive modification and self reflection. I suppose you could call it a belief, but I make no assertions, so it seems like a strange condition to be imposed.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Did you even consider the possibility that you're not dealing with a religious person? I am like you, except I have the balls to say that I believe there are no gods. I picked a side; I don't feel like I have to hide behind a mask of intellectuality, featuring hollow statements as "there is merely an absence of belief" and extrapolated C.S. Lewis quotes.

Have you considered that there is a room between the two extremes? Rarely in my life have a I drifted toward one extreme except if the problem had a completely binary solution. On the contrary I've found if a problem has two extremes usually they are both equally flawed and someplace in the middle (which can be fairly large) is the more logical state. ( politics).

Originally Posted by elfailo

The world isn't going to change through "weak atheism".

I don't think one needs to go to an extreme to accomplish change. If you posit that the world will only change if one accepts that there is no possibility of a deity rather than just accepting there is no proof for one and thus a reason for a lack of belief you're looking at the problem very simply. Both states are one in the same, unless you fear that those that lean toward theism will search for a god and waste their life. It's hardly that big of a deal as long as they are waiting for evidence and not acting on faith alone for their actions. It's hardly any different than say a scientist looking for sentient life at that point.

Originally Posted by elfailo

Probabilistic outcome. Nice choice of words, considering I proposed the question with your life depending on it. In such an event, you choose the most probable answer. You already have this answer, you're just afraid to voice it because someone might call it irrational since you can't prove it absolutely. The problem isn't you, it's them. They can't accept probability in absence of absolute certainty.

Actually I don't care what someone else calls me. In my mind it would be irrational. It's also not a problem. By accepting the probability is so low and there is a complete lack of evidence supporting the claim the only logical decision is to assume there is no deity at that present time. However, like all science measurements the data expands and things should be reevaluated over time. Keeping that window open to every possibility is the key. When you close it you do it because of a belief, not because it's right.

[Zolan]

Originally Posted by Warborn

I did not intend to imply you were a Christian apologist, merely that you share their propensity for willful ignorance in order to paint what you see as a competing philosophy in a negative light.

I don't see atheism as a competing philosophy. I'm not even a "religious" person by any standards.

[sumo]

im an atheist.
i believe that we should just get rid of religion alltogether and be done with it. it doesn't bring us anything other than greed or some skizofrenic preacher/shaman or whatever you people call them telling you how to live your life.
we are basically just waiting for the muslims to grow up now. where i come from (Denmark) people no longer care a whole lot about the church anymore which is great.

don't ever give religious people any power or influence!

[ItsTheSheppy]

Ah, the old "it takes faith not to believe in god" argument. Hello, old friend. Was wondering when you'd turn up.

Atheism is to belief as baldness is to hair color.

[Baneblade]

Aren't you supposed to work in pairs?

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Human.

So a Catholic who does abide by Catholic dogma is not human? Most religious people don't really believe their own story. They don't truly believe the teachings their holy book or holy men promulgate. There's a word that we have for the theists who have truly chosen a side and are not sitting in the middle somewhere: Fundamentalists.

[Baneblade]

I dunno, I think many people are convinced they know for a fact there is a god. I tend not to be able to trust their word after that though.