The classic example of evidence for creation and therefor god is "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian".
I prefer Dawkins definitions of atheism but I suppose even he classifies himself as an agnostic. But if you want to use those definitions that's fine at least it's a frame of reference.
Didn't Dawkins say out of a 1 to 7 scale of atheism, 7 be certain, he said he was 6.9 on the scale.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
based on the scholarly definition of both Atheism and what a belief system is, it checks off all the important boxes (you believe something to be true, a collective community follows said belief, and that belief informs lifestyle and other beliefs).
So in part, a belief system is believing something to be true? Nonsense.
Where's this academic definition of a belief system. A belief system requires a lot more than a single lack of one belief, that's what system means. A belief system is a set of coherent beliefs, mutually supportive.
Belief that god exists or the lack of belief that god exists or belief that god does not exist are not belief systems, because it's either a single belief or a lack of a single belief.
No one "follows" atheism any more than they "follow" theism or "follow" not believing in fairies. Communities arise because people share common ideas (among other things) and enjoy socializing with those people.
People follow a religion because it is more than simple theism, it's a set of mutually supportive beliefs (a belief system). People follow secular humanism because it's a set of mutually supportive beliefs.
Pretty much all beliefs inform other beliefs, just because a belief informs other beliefs or actions doesn't make it a belief system, it's a single belief in a belief system.
And you've also assumed your conclusion in your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
An Agnostic believes the existence of god to be unknowable.
Not all agnostics believe this, that's strong agnosticism. There's also weak agnosticism which believes the existence of god to be knowable but not known.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
While an Atheist believes there is no god. "Weak Atheism" is essentially Agnosticism, wherein the Weak Atheist believes that there is not enough evidence to justify a definitive position on god.
A weak atheist lacks the belief in god because either they think there is insufficient evidence or the answer is unknowable.
A strong atheist believes there is no god because they think there is positive evidence against the proposition, or they just believe that despite a lack of positive evidence.
A strong atheist usually qualifies which definition of god they are talking about, as the strength of the claim can vary depending on the definition (even Dawkins does this in The God Delusion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Hm, you left out the next one:
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
The "would change their mind" argument is one that most apologists (yay I get to use the word!) bring out as justification, but it's not a unique qualifier as the same could be said by any agnostic or religious person as well.
You're contradicting yourself, earlier you said changing their mind was not possible by definition for agnostics was that the question was unknowable, so by your definition this is partially wrong.
And you are wrong about all religious people as well, see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
The type of evidence required would be extreme, or essentially the "evidence" is a straw man, because if you ask an atheist (or any religious person) what evidence would suffice, they themselves would suggest a type of evidence that they believe to be impossible.
I've had many discussions with religious people where I've asked that exact question (what evidence would change their mind) and I've never had an actual answer, the response is either to ignore the question entirely or to say that no evidence would suffice (which I admire at least they're being honest with themselves).
But it's not clear what you are saying people who use the "would change their mind" argument are justifying. That atheists use the "would change their mind" argument to justify that lack of belief isn't a belief? That doesn't make sense.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Didn't Dawkins say out of a 1 to 7 scale of atheism, 7 be certain, he said he was 6.9 on the scale.
Something like that, and also it depended on the definition of god.
Theism itself is just the belief that god exists, but most beliefs about god go beyond that and make positive claims about that god's interactions with reality which can be evaluated.
If your definition of god includes that the god will appear if you say their name 3 times, that's an easily testable claim.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
This is exactly what he did. Ravi Zacharius is a persuasive speaker and a passionate pseudo-intellectual who is able to translate these attributes into a visage of academic expertise.
And build a whole organization around that. It always amazes me what's out there.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
So in part, a belief system is believing something to be true? Nonsense.
Where's this academic definition of a belief system. A belief system requires a lot more than a single lack of one belief, that's what system means. A belief system is a set of coherent beliefs, mutually supportive.
Belief that god exists or the lack of belief that god exists or belief that god does not exist are not belief systems, because it's either a single belief or a lack of a single belief.
Absolutely it is. In part. Being an Atheist informs your view on politics, education, human rights, law, etc. As an Atheist, you adhere to other beliefs almost automatically. Fundamentalism is a belief system, but Fundamentalism is defined as the belief that the literal interpretation of the Bible is necessary to Christianity.
Is Fundamentalism not a belief system because it is also a belief (despite being one that other beliefs fall under)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
No one "follows" atheism any more than they "follow" theism or "follow" not believing in fairies. Communities arise because people share common ideas (among other things) and enjoy socializing with those people.
People follow a religion because it is more than simple theism, it's a set of mutually supportive beliefs (a belief system). People follow secular humanism because it's a set of mutually supportive beliefs.
Pretty much all beliefs inform other beliefs, just because a belief informs other beliefs or actions doesn't make it a belief system, it's a single belief in a belief system.
So does a lack of belief inform other beliefs? Or are we in agreement that a "lack of belief" in god is the same in this scenario (Atheism) as a "belief" in god? People certainly do follow Atheism. There are organisations that promote community and the teaching of Atheism.
Are there are organisations dedicated the the promotion and education, the "mission" as it were of plain old Theism? Usually such things are dedicated to actual organisations, organisations formed on a system of beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
You're contradicting yourself, earlier you said changing their mind was not possible by definition for agnostics was that the question was unknowable, so by your definition this is partially wrong.
And you are wrong about all religious people as well, see below.
I've had many discussions with religious people where I've asked that exact question (what evidence would change their mind) and I've never had an actual answer, the response is either to ignore the question entirely or to say that no evidence would suffice (which I admire at least they're being honest with themselves).
Please cite the contradiction, perhaps you mean I lack clarity. I believe that most Atheists claim they would change their mind, but that it is also impossible to do so, because the evidence that would actually be required is evidence they don't believe exists. Same goes with all.
Let me ask you this:
What evidence did you present to your religious friends? To Atheists, God is a story. A fantastical creation that doesn't exist. So what evidence, equally as magical to that of a religious person, did you present?
If anything, you're arguing the difference between a strong belief and a weak belief. A strong Christian can't imagine what the evidence would be that would take God away, a strong Atheist can't imagine God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
But it's not clear what you are saying people who use the "would change their mind" argument are justifying. That atheists use the "would change their mind" argument to justify that lack of belief isn't a belief? That doesn't make sense.
They use it to justify the idea that their belief is more reasonable than that of any theist.
Didn't Dawkins say out of a 1 to 7 scale of atheism, 7 be certain, he said he was 6.9 on the scale.
This is what I was getting at. Most atheists I know would fit into the 6.9 out of 7. Given a preponderance evidence of god they would believe in god. This it not a belief system but evidence based practice
If you want to define it down to there is no god as tan absolute statement as the definition of than that takes some amount of faith as you can't really prove a negative. Although pout side of cheese on this site I have never met an atheist like this.
Although out side of cheese on this site I have never met an atheist like this.
I seem to encounter a lot more Atheists like T@T and Duffman than I do weak Atheists, so a lot of my own interpretation on the movement is probably distorted due to personal experience.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chill Cosby For This Useful Post:
I seem to encounter a lot more Atheists like T@T and Duffman than I do weak Atheists, so a lot of my own interpretation on the movement is probably distorted due to personal experience.
There is no God(s). 2000 years is plenty of time to come up with a small speck of proof, but, no.
Absolutely it is. In part. Being an Atheist informs your view on politics, education, human rights, law, etc. As an Atheist, you adhere to other beliefs almost automatically.
Really? Which beliefs are those others that all atheists naturally (consequentially?) gravitate towards?
Photon's question is exactly my problem with how you have presented things, since I don't believe you can demonstrate a system of shared beliefs that defines atheism as a "worldview" (God, I hate that word). You need to do a lot more work here to argue your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
Fundamentalism is a belief system, but Fundamentalism is defined as the belief that the literal interpretation of the Bible is necessary to Christianity.
Is Fundamentalism not a belief system because it is also a belief (despite being one that other beliefs fall under)?
No, I would argue that "fundamentalism" is a fairly specific hermeneutical method that can be applied to a variety of ideologies, individual or sets of premises, or systems of thought. As I understand the term, fundamentalism requires a strong commitment to what is perceived to be perspicuous truth claims. This is achieved in a variety of ways; within Western religions, Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are grounded in an adherence to the supremacy of perspicuously revealed divine texts (the Bible and the Quran). There can also be forms of fundamentalism in materialism—which is quite different from atheism, but perhaps what you are confusing with atheism. I would say that Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist materialist; on this site Duffman and T@T probably best fit this classification.
I am not intimately familiar with other forms of fundamentalism, but I am a former Christian fundamentalist. It should be noted that not all Christian fundamentalists adhere to the same "belief system." There is a WIDE spectrum of individual doctrines on which Christian fundamentalists will differ: the extent to which a "literal" v. "figurative" interpretation of scripture applies; the existence and function of a divine realm; the nature of God and Christ; the function of "law," "faith," and "grace"; the purpose and function of divine "gifting"; the nature and origins of evil . . . This is but a sampling; I could go on—but what all Christian fundamentalists have in common is a strong commitment to the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture as the authoritative source of divine revelation, and an accompanying authoritative interpretive matrix that prioritises the plain meaning of the text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
So does a lack of belief inform other beliefs? Or are we in agreement that a "lack of belief" in god is the same in this scenario (Atheism) as a "belief" in god?
Probably, but as I noted above, there is no "set" of beliefs that all atheists adhere to; only an affirmation that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. Again, you need to do much more work to show that there is such a system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
People certainly do follow Atheism. There are organisations that promote community and the teaching of Atheism.
Either that or being deliberately obtuse. I think it is a legitimate question that you have yet to answer.
srs? alright, about 2,000 years ago a fella named Jesus, son of God, or son of a virgin was around. Kind of surprised you're not familiar with this story, but at any rate.
Jesus was born and changed the face of religon from worshipping the sun or a rock or a dead coyote to worshipping his father, THE God, the true God, the one and only, not a false God. Now, he did a bunch of magic tricks like changed water into wine and ultimately his super Houdini, dieing and coming back to life and then flying(so he has no earthly remains to prove his existence) just to prove to people he was the real deal. Now people had a legit God they could focus on worshipping.
At the same time a lot of people wrote about this guy Jesus, and it went into a collection of short stories called "The Bible". The Bible is still the main guideline for xtians today. Things like hating gays, and stoning adulterers, are all guidelines from the Bible, matter of fact it is full of guidelines and anecdotes on how to live your life. such as,,,
The Bible promised those that do commit their life to the Lord(which could be Jesus or God, take your pick) will go to some spiritual place in the sky and live blissfully for eternity. Not too sure how that works as, you know, how can you recognize someone like your beloved Mother, when no one has physical bodies, Likewise bad people go to Hell for an eternity of pain, see above, no body, no nerve endings, no pain, have faith it will happen.
Also, in this Bible are the many magical stories of things like Noahs Ark, raining frogs, splitting seas to walk through, oh walking on water etc.
This sounds like magical times 2,000 years ago, all sorts of incredible, unbelievable things happening, just to prove to people GOD WAS REAL. Unfortunately, when Jesus left, all the magic left with him.
Apparently God was only interested in proving his existence until the point Jesus left(2,000 years ago), and since then people have had only faith, to hold onto to keep their belief that God actually does exist. Since then(2,000 years ago) their has been no magic, no physical proof of any kind that any of it actually happened. People still believe unconditionally, with no proof that the short stories and the guidelines are all true. 2,000 years ago Jesus said he would be back, but unlike the Terminator, he lied, he cannot come back.
I hope this clears up why I used the timeframe of 2,000 years.
