Atheism is a fraud.

The thread is about philosophy, not about faith.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]

reply to post by evil incarnate


National Dictionary

Self-Pronouncing

Based upon the principles established by

Noah Webster

and including a practical guide to Business English

1936 Edition

atheism -- n. disbelief in the existence of a God

atheist -- n. one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God.

denial -- n. the act of denying; refusal; contradiction; non- compliance.

deny -- to refuse to believe or admit; contradict; refuse to grant: abjure.

So that it is clear from 1936 If I had an older one I would use that because those of today when debating believe that words change meanings over time.

This is not true words original meaning are what a court of law would use as would the God that and atheist disbelieves in.

Realize that it is a faith based belief;as an atheist one can not prove that God does not exist either. Hence it takes faith to believe that your disbelief that a God does not exist is true.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Listen it is not that hard to understand. Atheism , while a belief , is not a blind acceptance of faith. Big difference .

Do you believe you are reading this?

Do you believe you understand it?

Do you have faith that the above is true?

See what I mean, faith and belief are facets of perception itself. However "blind faith/belief " can be inferred by perception but perception has no reference of the idea's rationality or existence.

With Atheism (in relating to the existence of a deity/deities with more than the logical first attribute of existence) there is a mountain of proof that can be referenced and tested from experience. Much like the belief that what you are reading is called English.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

National Dictionary

Self-Pronouncing

Based upon the principles established by

Noah Webster

and including a practical guide to Business English

1936 Edition

atheism -- n. disbelief in the existence of a God

atheist -- n. one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God.

denial -- n. the act of denying; refusal; contradiction; non- compliance.

deny -- to refuse to believe or admit; contradict; refuse to grant: abjure.

So that it is clear from 1936 If I had an older one I would use that because those of today when debating believe that words change meanings over time.

This is not true words original meaning are what a court of law would use as would the God that and atheist disbelieves in.

Realize that it is a faith based belief;as an atheist one can not prove that God does not exist either. Hence it takes faith to believe that your disbelief that a God does not exist is true.

You're dealing in a logical fallacy. There is no faith needed for an atheist because they are not denying any evidence to support a god, due to none existing. Also, there is no need to prove that god doesn't exist . . . as there is no evidence that a god exists. So, an atheist isn't arguing against any evidence, thus requiring no faith and no burden of proof. That lies in those that believe, in spite of not having any evidence to support. While there still may be gaps in human knowledge, nothing we know about today takes a god for it to be understood. Courts deal in evidence and there is no evidence for a god, outside of mythology.


And to the OP:

The thread is about philosophy, not about faith.

Then why did you attack Atheism? It is not a philosophy. I think you keep getting stuck on this point and why you think you never get a straight answer. Atheism simply looks at the evidence available for a god/gods, which is not present, and determines there are no gods. Beyond that, anyone that holds this belief can subscribe to whatever personl philosophy they want. It's clear from the get go that you do not understand this, as you consistantly state your opinion of atheists and try to pass it of as their "personal beliefs" or some sort of code all atheists adhere to.

I'm sure you'll disagree.

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_


Forcing everybody to cease following their own belief systems, will shift & re-orient a human being, and re-define it around a fake ideology, consequently that will make people shed their individuality and close human beings to other levels of awareness and spiritual evolution.

So not believing in a supreme being is "fake ideology"...but believing in some random god isn't??? You Sir make no sense whatsoever.

I'm glad atheists/agnostics are finally increasing in numbers and challenging people to THINK instead of being blind sheep. Go atheists!!

reply to post by solomons path


There is no evidence saying a god /gods do not exist either. If just saying the god/gods exist just to exist that is and I would hardly call something that exists outside of perception a "god". Certain criteria have to be met for some entity to be labeled a god I would presume, and that is where the odds of this being existing go towards impossible to logically retarded.

Atheism is a belief, just not a blind , inconsistent , illogical, and perceptually incoherent belief like most theistic philosophy is.

reply to post by FermiFlux


That's agnostic. Atheism believes in no higher power or God consciences.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Most atheists I see are arrogant and pompous in their evidences and rational of debate. It is more like an attack than a discussion. If you want people to listen and think you have to keep them from thinking you are bashing them personally and that is hard because most religions are indeed very personal.

reply to post by IamBoon


I firmly believe anyone has the right to believe whatever they want...as long as it doesn't destroy the freedom of other people, or as long as it doesn't go against common sense.

It's really hard to argue with people who don't think/act logically or rationally. If they just stuck to themselves, everything would be fine. Sadly, those people can vote. And if someone votes based on irrational beliefs, or blind faith in general, they HURT the country as a whole. A lot of atheists realize this, and it's not easy to stay tolerant if those people hurt you and others by acting like a bunch of irrational blind sheep.

An example:

Some idiots (yes, I will call them idiots) claim microchips are the "mark of the devil", and they push really hard to outlaw them. In reality, those chips could potentially help thousands of people by allowing an easier diagnosis or supervision of vital functions. As much as I believe everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, people like that are retards who are holding the rest of us back, and generally hindering progress.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Almost everything in general use today comes from theists! They are not bad or illogical with thinking. It is just that they are conditioned to not applying that same thought process to their religious beliefs. They can vote with an equal or far better informed opinion than you and definitely write a less contrived , more civil , and a more thought demanding post also.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by IamBoon]

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

They can vote with an equal or far better informed opinion than you and definitely write a less contrived , more civil , and a more thought demanding post also.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by IamBoon]

Like this you mean?



Yeah, religious hardliners are definitely better informed than me

[edit on 23-7-2010 by MrXYZ]

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by solomons path

 

There is no evidence saying a god /gods do not exist either. If just saying the god/gods exist just to exist that is and I would hardly call something that exists outside of perception a "god". Certain criteria have to be met for some entity to be labeled a god I would presume, and that is where the odds of this being existing go towards impossible to logically retarded.

Atheism is a belief, just not a blind , inconsistent , illogical, and perceptually incoherent belief like most theistic philosophy is.

First off . . . I agree with you on all counts, but . . .

There is no evidence that leprechauns "don't" exist either; however, if one doesn't believe in leprechauns there is no argument that there is a belief against leprechauns. Leprechauns are simply relegated to their rightful place as mythological and part of fokelore. Same would hold true for Zeus or Odin, so I take it one step further. So, in the strictest sense it is a belief, but no more a philosophical belief than not believing in Leprechauns, Zeus, or Odin . . . they are mythological/literary characters. I believe there is no such person as Peter Pan, so should that be part of my makeup or belief structure? If not, is it only because I won't find anyone who would argue against that belief? I view atheism the same way. I don't see why I have to classify whether I believe in mythological figures and call that my beliefs. There is nothing to believe in. Show me something to believe in and then I will choose, whether or not to believe. Then you can add that to my personal ethos.

Enough rambling . . . you and I seem to be coming from the same corner, anyway . . .

reply to post by MrXYZ


Another bad argument because anyone can find a sore thumb in any group. Stalin was an Atheist yet condoned mass murder of Soviet people. Does that make them all bad?


You are making arguments from stereotyping the worst you see and applying it to all within the group. It is really absurd and calling people names because they believe something stupid? Well you just proved you believe something stupid so does that make you stupid? Not in my opinion but it does in yours.

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by solomons path

 

There is no evidence saying a god /gods do not exist either. If just saying the god/gods exist just to exist that is and I would hardly call something that exists outside of perception a "god". Certain criteria have to be met for some entity to be labeled a god I would presume, and that is where the odds of this being existing go towards impossible to logically retarded.

Atheism is a belief, just not a blind , inconsistent , illogical, and perceptually incoherent belief like most theistic philosophy is.

First off . . . I agree with you on all counts, but . . .

There is no evidence that leprechauns "don't" exist either; however, if one doesn't believe in leprechauns there is no argument that there is a belief against leprechauns. Leprechauns are simply relegated to their rightful place as mythological and part of fokelore. Same would hold true for Zeus or Odin, so I take it one step further. So, in the strictest sense it is a belief, but no more a philosophical belief than not believing in Leprechauns, Zeus, or Odin . . . they are mythological/literary characters. I believe there is no such person as Peter Pan, so should that be part of my makeup or belief structure? If not, is it only because I won't find anyone who would argue against that belief? I view atheism the same way. I don't see why I have to classify whether I believe in mythological figures and call that my beliefs. There is nothing to believe in. Show me something to believe in and then I will choose, whether or not to believe. Then you can add that to my personal ethos.

Enough rambling . . . you and I seem to be coming from the same corner, anyway . . .

True ,except we have to define a myth for it to exist and that is where we run into problem as stated in the post you replied to. Leprechauns must be defined as being something and if these attributes are illogical then it must not "be". That is what I stated about god also. We can say a "being" exists out of our perceptual realm , and the chances for that claim are 50/50. However once this "being " is elevated to "god" status then it is no longer a "being" and must encapsulate the defining criteria for whatever a "god" is. It is onnly then that the odds approach zero.

Originally posted by FermiFlux
I think alot of atheists are actually just people who don't believe in conventional religion, but do believe in some sort of universal consciousness/ some sort of order. It's just people who are un-religious are instantly labelled as atheists.

People often get athiests and agnostics confused.I consider my self an agnostic.

Main Entry: agnostic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

reply to post by dragonridr


Agnosticism is a total cop-out and I will post why.


Agnosticism is a cop-out. They can logically process the self-destructive philosophy of religious entities , but they just cannot let go of the thought that they might be in for trouble if they choose a no god approach.

In order for a god to exist in a thought , a certain description or definition of what a god is must exist also. So an agnostic must think about god conceptually . What does an agnostic believe he/she is achieving with such a trite stance? I have no clue because either god does exist and is gonna be mad at them or he doesn't and they thought about it too long or failed to try and steer others away from the ill-formed logic.

It is like saying "well I don't believe in a blue fairy because it might be blue." Doesn't make sense! If there was a god that created us he would've revealed himself in some way and there are those that claim god has! You either accept it or not and sitting on the fence is only gonna make their butts hurt, kinda like jail.

I am not an atheist, but, this seems more like a blanket attack against them, as opposed to showing them a path that will point them in direction of enlightenment, hence gaining Universal consciousness.

If you truly support individuality, then you will support the idea that everyone chooses a certain path in order to ultimately arrive at the same outcome of spiritual growth and oneness.

Without my mock atheism stage, I would not have learned to wholeheartedly accept the Grand Architect and the purpose for being here. Trust me when I say that one that defines themselves as an atheist is in this stage because of a learning process, otherwise, they wouldn't define themselves at all.

The best thing that you can do if you want to influence the opinion of an atheist, is to show an open mind and heart to the reasons why they have embarked on their choice. And that's what it ultimately boils down to...free will.

Namaste and Love

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

National Dictionary

Self-Pronouncing

Based upon the principles established by

Noah Webster

and including a practical guide to Business English

1936 Edition

atheism -- n. disbelief in the existence of a God

atheist -- n. one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God.

denial -- n. the act of denying; refusal; contradiction; non- compliance.

deny -- to refuse to believe or admit; contradict; refuse to grant: abjure.

So that it is clear from 1936 If I had an older one I would use that because those of today when debating believe that words change meanings over time.

So you can use a dictionary. Well you need to share that knowledge with your ilk here on ATS.

This is not true words original meaning are what a court of law would use as would the God that and atheist disbelieves in.

That is actually not true and why would an atheist care about any god court?

Realize that it is a faith based belief;as an atheist one can not prove that God does not exist either. Hence it takes faith to believe that your disbelief that a God does not exist is true.

Oh man, so close. You had the definition and everything and you still got it wrong. It is cute that you have to use such mental gymnastics to justify telling atheists they have faith in disbelief. Here you went and looked it up and everything. Oh well. You can give a horse a dictionary definition but...

Originally posted by IamBoon

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by solomons path

 

There is no evidence saying a god /gods do not exist either. If just saying the god/gods exist just to exist that is and I would hardly call something that exists outside of perception a "god". Certain criteria have to be met for some entity to be labeled a god I would presume, and that is where the odds of this being existing go towards impossible to logically retarded.

Atheism is a belief, just not a blind , inconsistent , illogical, and perceptually incoherent belief like most theistic philosophy is.

First off . . . I agree with you on all counts, but . . .

There is no evidence that leprechauns "don't" exist either; however, if one doesn't believe in leprechauns there is no argument that there is a belief against leprechauns. Leprechauns are simply relegated to their rightful place as mythological and part of fokelore. Same would hold true for Zeus or Odin, so I take it one step further. So, in the strictest sense it is a belief, but no more a philosophical belief than not believing in Leprechauns, Zeus, or Odin . . . they are mythological/literary characters. I believe there is no such person as Peter Pan, so should that be part of my makeup or belief structure? If not, is it only because I won't find anyone who would argue against that belief? I view atheism the same way. I don't see why I have to classify whether I believe in mythological figures and call that my beliefs. There is nothing to believe in. Show me something to believe in and then I will choose, whether or not to believe. Then you can add that to my personal ethos.

Enough rambling . . . you and I seem to be coming from the same corner, anyway . . .

True ,except we have to define a myth for it to exist and that is where we run into problem as stated in the post you replied to. Leprechauns must be defined as being something and if these attributes are illogical then it must not "be". That is what I stated about god also. We can say a "being" exists out of our perceptual realm , and the chances for that claim are 50/50. However once this "being " is elevated to "god" status then it is no longer a "being" and must encapsulate the defining criteria for whatever a "god" is. It is onnly then that the odds approach zero.

Ah . . . true indeed.

I'm also in the agnosticism as a cop out camp somewhat, although I always saw them more as that kid that would say anything, in hopes that someone would hang out with them. All things to all people, but never really showing you the real them. Whatever you say . . . they're okay with it.

reply to post by IamBoon


You are assuming agnostics chose that line because they are afraid of the possibility that a vengeful god will punish them if they're categorically claiming there is no god. That's NOT the reason most agnostics become agnostics. They are agnostics because it makes SENSE. Right now we have zero evidence of the existence of any god (Christian version, Allah, the mighty jungle frog god of the people in Papua New Guinea...any god really) but at the same time, we can't rule it out completely. So it makes total SENSE to claim we just don't know.

It's not something agnostics do out of fear, it's something they chose because the fact that we just don't know reflects reality.