Atheists, what do you believe in?

a reply to: Ghost147

I fully get that.

But no Anne is saying hard atheists are not atheists. They are. But they are different enough philosophically to create a schism.

I am an agnostic (soft) atheist every so often, but i never stop thinking about the philosophical cosmology.

For instance i still have trouble with time and nothing.

How was there something from nothing, how is there not a necesary being without relying on infinite regress, the teleological arguement in the modern sense, all worth thinking about for me.

I dont believe in dieties but i leave open its possibility. I strongly disagree with religious dogma and superstitions.

I keep in the back of my mind i could be completely wrong.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: luthier

From one of your provided links:

The general definition of strong atheism is sometimes treated as the definition of atheism itself, without qualifications applied. This is incorrect.

The general definition of atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods and this definition applies to all atheists.

Only those atheists who take the extra step of denying some or all gods fit under the definition of strong atheism. There is some overlap between strong atheism and positive atheism, explicit atheism, and critical atheism. Also Known As: positive atheism, explicit atheism, hard atheism, critical atheism

Did you notice I qualified the whole debate Annee?
This whole post of yours is pointless.

Did I say hard atheism was the only form?

Nope.

What you said is that hard athesim is not a thing, and they are not atheists.

Which is a falacy.

Yeah i am an agnostic. I do consider many philosophically sound arguements every now and then. Also what "supernatural" could be in terms of non biological entities.

None being hard beliefs.

I also have some spinozist/panthiest inclinations Or pandiest.

originally posted by: vlawde

Same here.

I'm probably an agnostic because I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities, but don't believe in most/all religions.

Actually, agnostic means that you don't believe a god can ever be known or not known. It's not really a middle ground.

If you currently have no belief in any gods, but are open to the possibilities, then you're an atheist. A soft atheist to be exact. Someone whom doesn't claim "there is no God", but rather doesn't currently believe in one

originally posted by: luthier

But no Anne is saying hard atheists are not atheists.

I never said that.

i believe the sports teams i follow suck, kebab meat and chips with plain mayo is gorgeous after a skinful, coffee is better than tea, some girls are bigger than others, red leicester is the best cheese, skinny jeans look stupid and modern music is rubbish.
i believe people should do what they want when they want, believe what they want and pray to whatever deity they want, be it a bowl of pasta an elephant, some pornstars arse or some guy in a cloud.

a reply to: Ghost147

I am not one of Them , but I KNOW where they are " Coming From " . They Believe in the Odds of Chance in the Creation of Our Universe , and Chances are they Might be Wrong ...

originally posted by: luthier

What you said is that hard athesim is not a thing, and they are not atheists.

Never said that.

a reply to: Annee

A "true" atheist would not say there is no god. A "true" atheist is also agnostic - - Agnostic Atheist. The real meaning of Agnostic is: God can not be proven or disproven. 

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Annee

A "true" atheist would not say there is no god. A "true" atheist is also agnostic - - Agnostic Atheist. The real meaning of Agnostic is: God can not be proven or disproven. 

Notice the "quotes". IMO a "true" atheist would understand you can not make a definitive statement that can not be proven (or dis-proven) about the existence of a God.

I also said this: Personal belief(s) beyond "Lack of belief in a God" - - - would be that individuals Atheist Philosophy.

There is only one thing that connects atheists. That is Lack of belief in a God.

-------------------------------------------------------

Hard atheist would be that individual atheist's Philosophy.

-------------------------------------------------------

I do have an issue with those who insist on focusing on the Extreme of atheism.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
i believe the sports teams i follow suck, kebab meat and chips with plain mayo is gorgeous after a skinful, coffee is better than tea, some girls are bigger than others, red leicester is the best cheese, skinny jeans look stupid and modern music is rubbish.
i believe people should do what they want when they want, believe what they want and pray to whatever deity they want, be it a bowl of pasta an elephant, some pornstars arse or some guy in a cloud.

Bless you!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Annee

A "true" atheist would not say there is no god. A "true" atheist is also agnostic - - Agnostic Atheist. The real meaning of Agnostic is: God can not be proven or disproven. 

Notice the "quotes".

I also said this: Personal belief(s) beyond "Lack of belief in a God" - - - would be that individuals Atheist Philosophy.

There is only one thing that connects atheists. That is Lack of belief in a God.

-------------------------------------------------------

Hard atheist would be that particular atheist's Philosophy.

-------------------------------------------------------

I do have an issue with those who insist on focusing on the Extreme of atheism.

But thats not true.

As a group hard atheism is large enough to consider it not a personal belief nor is it specific enough.

Like say born agains and Catholics.

And by the way I respect you and your opinions this is simply a philosophical argument. Beliefs or lack there of just make it a little more intense.

I want to say i apologize if I am being rude. I think you have a huge heart and respect your wisdom.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Annee

A "true" atheist would not say there is no god. A "true" atheist is also agnostic - - Agnostic Atheist. The real meaning of Agnostic is: God can not be proven or disproven. 

Notice the "quotes".

I also said this: Personal belief(s) beyond "Lack of belief in a God" - - - would be that individuals Atheist Philosophy.

There is only one thing that connects atheists. That is Lack of belief in a God.

-------------------------------------------------------

Hard atheist would be that particular atheist's Philosophy.

-------------------------------------------------------

I do have an issue with those who insist on focusing on the Extreme of atheism.

But thats not true.

As a group hard atheism is large enough to consider it not a personal belief nor is it specific enough.

Like say born agains and Catholics.

And by the way I respect you and your opinions this is simply a philosophical argument. Beliefs or lack there of just make it a little more intense.

I want to say i apologize if I am being rude. I think you have a huge heart and respect your wisdom.

Thank you. Truce

I am a very direct poster.

One of your own links stated exactly what I'm stating. Kline is a respectable atheist source.

The general definition of strong atheism is sometimes treated as the definition of atheism itself, without qualifications applied. This is incorrect. The general definition of atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods and this definition applies to all atheists. Only those atheists who take the extra step of denying some or all gods fit under the definition of strong atheism. There is some overlap between strong atheism and positive atheism, explicit atheism, and critical atheism. Also Known As: positive atheism, explicit atheism, hard atheism, critical atheism

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Ghost147

I fully get that.

But no Anne is saying hard atheists are not atheists. They are. But they are different enough philosophically to create a schism.

I'm not sure that's totally accurate though. It's just a spectrum really.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Ghost147
How was there something from nothing, how is there not a necesary being without relying on infinite regress, the teleological arguement in the modern sense, all worth thinking about for me.

What's said to have something come from nothing? If it's the Big Bang you're referring to, the "something"(universe as we know it now) was just a rapid expansion from a singularity, not nothingness.

Time is a very confusing topic though, being relative and all, rather than fixed and linear.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: vlawde

Same here.

I'm probably an agnostic because I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities, but don't believe in most/all religions.

Actually, agnostic means that you don't believe a god can ever be known or not known. It's not really a middle ground.

If you currently have no belief in any gods, but are open to the possibilities, then you're an atheist. A soft atheist to be exact. Someone whom doesn't claim "there is no God", but rather doesn't currently believe in one

"soft" atheist? That kinda sounds like I'm a wuss!

When I say agnostic, the definition I mean is...I don't know. I'm just convinced religion is BS

a reply to: Ghost147

I mean before the big bang. How did that happen? What was before the squeeze?

Why do things appear so fine tuned?

Again nothing that would make me say god, but the infinite regress problem is real.

a reply to: Annee

No prob i am the same. Just wanted to point out I dont think your dumb or a fool or a jerk. I actually enjoy your posts.

I am just saying i did point out hard atheism is not the only form. I just think they are different enough with enough people behind each philosophy that there are two distict types of atheists. Not individualized but different "schools of thought"

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Annee

No prob i am the same. Just wanted to point out I dont think your dumb or a fool or a jerk. I actually enjoy your posts.

I am just saying i did point out hard atheism is not the only form. I just think they are different enough with enough people behind each philosophy that there are two distict types of atheists. Not individualized but different "schools of thought"

Is there a reason you want to focus on Hard Atheists?

In my experience most of the atheist's I've spoken with are Spiritual Atheists.

originally posted by: vlawde

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: vlawde

Same here.

I'm probably an agnostic because I try to keep an open mind to all possibilities, but don't believe in most/all religions.

Actually, agnostic means that you don't believe a god can ever be known or not known. It's not really a middle ground.

If you currently have no belief in any gods, but are open to the possibilities, then you're an atheist. A soft atheist to be exact. Someone whom doesn't claim "there is no God", but rather doesn't currently believe in one

"soft" atheist? That kinda sounds like I'm a wuss!

When I say agnostic, the definition I mean is...I don't know. I'm just convinced religion is BS

Haha, I think the term is dumb, but it would describe how you feel. Agnosticism is a statement that we can never gain knowledge of God does or doesn't exist. Having no position on the matter, and being open to the possibilities is atheism, but just not hard atheism where you make a direct claim there is no God

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Ghost147

I mean before the big bang. How did that happen? What was before the squeeze?

We simply don't know that. There was a singularity, and it expanded is what we have evidence for.

We have theorized that the universe expands and retracts over and over again. As well, but that still doesn't go from nothingness.

At the moment we simply don't know

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Ghost147
Why do things appear so fine tuned?

It doesn't. It only appears that way from our perspective.

Let's say there was another Big Bang. Mathematically it would be impossible to create the exact same outcome as we currently experience the universe now, but why is this one perfect? It isn't, it just seems perfect because we work well inside of it. If another Big Bang occurred, it would have its own phenomena and elements and so forth form in a different way, and the subsequent events that lead to the evolution of whatever is in its universe would create something different than ours, but from the inside of that universe it would appear fine tuned for whatever resulted.

Does that make much sense?

a reply to: Annee

My point is to separate the two and i dont focus on it. I was just saying it is a different "sect" (sorry for the adjective i know its not a sect).

I was replying more that there is a difference and one isn't more real than another. They do have fairly different philosophies and its a common enough difference to separate the two.

I am an agnostic ultimately but i do still question how science can explain how the first thing (atom, quark whatever) came to be out of nothing. Doesnt something have to either exist outside of time (dimensionally speaking) or have always existed?

As well as a myriad of other metaphysical questions that prob dont have answers for my limited mind's capability. But that doesnt stop me from trying to think about cosmology in a philosophical sense.

As far as theism in a dogmatic sense that is not something i believe. Or could because of the glaring contradictions (in my opinion).

I am aware though many atheists if not most are agnostic because it a practical and humble position.

a reply to: Ghost147

Again i am fairly versed in laymens physics (having grown up with one) and i have a philosophy degree.

I think you missed my post out about the difference of inductive empericism vs falsifiabity.

I dont think you need to have inductive emperical evidence to create a reason based explanation.

As far as fine tuning its an observation but you cant say "it's not". Actually most cosmologists agree there are physical constants necesary for life. This is a subject I had to debate against when I got my degree in philosophy. I ended up being intrigued. So was Hitchens even. Its not something to dismiss lightly when the majority of papers acknowledge it whether monkeys on a typewriter or somethin else.

Fine tuning isnt about anything being perfect it is saying if the weight of carbon was differnt the whole system doesnt work. Thats not just because what we know necsarily thats based on efficiency.

Also its not a good enough rebuttle to say well thats because thats what we have observed. Well there is no other observation we can make but what we know. It isnt a valid arguement in terms of formal debating. It's partly where Hitchins went wrong and Harris didnt fall for it with WLC.

Science is not only done by inductive empericism.

You can philosophically also explain things by eliminating falacy (Karl Popper)

So what created the big bang? How could it apear from nothing? How could whatever created it apear from nothing? Infinite regress is not an aceptable arguement.

Some people use philosophy and not just inductive reasoning. Especially in advanced theoretical physica problem solving where observation is not always possible.