[Neo] Atheists: How Much Lack of Belief is Required to be an Atheist?

Do agnostics believe the statement "gods exists" to be true

 

You asked for a percentage, please provide the measurement of a whole unit of belief. Seven times

 

Yep demanding I prescribe to your faulty premise fallacy.

lack is not enough or zero, zero is a number, and not enough can be precisely described as a percentage, (a number), you just debunked and proved the whole LoB theory is bullshit on its face.

 

I never said atheists and agnostics are identical. I said that agnostics are a subset of atheists. This is because not having a position on God's existence (agnostic) is a subset of not believing in God (atheist).

Atheists are people who don't believe in God. Only some of the people don't believe in God because they believe God doesn't exist. Other don't believe in God because they see a lack of evidence either way. These people are also agnostics or atheist agnostics.

Atheism isn't a religion, and the vast majority of atheists don't believe in any religion or God. Some atheists are religious because it is possible to be religious without believing in God. For example many Buddhists or spiritual people are religious without believing in God. Even though they don't like to call themselves atheist, they are technically atheist because they don't believe in any Gods.

 

Buddhism is technically not a religion, since there is no deity they worship. Buddhism is more a philosophy and practice. It's westerners who keep trying to insist that it is without understanding it.

 

and I said agnostics (using that wacky logic) are a subset of theists since they lack belief in the nonexistence of G/god.

You really should read and understand his response it was very well articulated.

Last time I checked those are required elements of ANY/ALL religions

 

Actually I know quite a few Buddhists. Many Buddhists especially the west hold no supernatural beliefs and it really is a philosophy to them. However many of them especially in Asia also believe in Reincarnation, Gods, or that many who reach enlightnment reach some supernatural status. Some Buddhists are non-religious, others believe in Gods, and other have spiritual/supernatural beliefs without a belief in God.

 

Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.

Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary

 

That is like saying that I am a subset of communist because we are both not libertarian. Theists believe in God, agnostics don't. Atheists also don't. Agnostics are a subset of atheists not theists.

 

Yes, like any other cultural philosophy, there are many sects of Buddhism. Even Hinduism is a subset of Buddhism too.

The difference is the practices of Buddhism have been proven to be psychologically beneficial to mental health, a claim other religions have been unable to achieve.

 

What definition of religion are you using? How is atheism religious when nearly all atheists don't go to church and don't believe in the supernatural? Theists not only lack belief in the non-existence of God, they also have a belief in God. So I am not a theist. Atheists lack belief in the existence of God. So do agnostics, who also lack believe in the nonexistence of God. So agnostics are a subset of atheist.

 

You do not see a difference between philosophy and theology?

 

[

Please provide a measurement for a unit of belief.

 

I can agree that Buddhism is psychologically beneficial. However, some people take it to unhealthy extremes by trying to eliminate all cravings, living with very little, obstaining from sex completely, and even engaging in self-imposed isolation or not speaking a word for years at a time. Some people use Buddhism as a way to try to not be vulnerable by trying to not crave anything at all. But the best approach is to confront your problems and admit your desires rather than running away from them.

 

The basic tenet of that is the belief that all human suffering is the result of desire. There is definitely a psychological basis for that which seems to be the source for many of our modern problems as desire has become a resource to be exploited by capitalists.

 

And I have to disagree with that statement. Much suffering is from physical pain not desire. And it is true that desire is the root of a lot of suffering, but eliminating is an extreme solution. A healthier alternative is to learn to appreciate the little things in life, curb excessive craving that never is satisified, and learn to just be happier in general. Also people can focus on more fulfilling things like exersize, relationships, family, helping others, and long-term goals.

But the short-term pleasures like food, parties, alcohol, sex, entertainment, computers, and the like are fun in moderate doses. A Buddhist will respond that they can engage in these behaviors without craving them. But Buddhist monks who are 'ideal Buddhists' strictly do not engage in these things becuase they naturally create craving. If you aren't craving them, then there is little reason to do them.

If you are living just to sit around and focus on your breathing all the time, you aren't really taking advantage of the live you have been given. You should think of some cool interesting things you want to do and learn and do them, but don't get too caught up with the craving. Another issue with Buddhism is that they approach their philosophy in a non-critical religious mindset. They really aren't very open to questioning. I prefer the clinical use of meditation because it is more evidence-based and used in moderation as a tool rather than a way of life.

 

Sorry, you already debunked yourself. Per your own requirements neoatheists have no unit of measure assignable to their lack, zero is not a unit of measure, without is not a unit of measure, not enough is not a unit of measure, and absence is not a unit of measure, great debunking!

LoB stands debunked by its own proponents, by their own standards!

 

I agree for the most part. Individually, I do not care if anyone wants to dedicate their life to pursuing an ascetic life to achieve Nirvana, at least they do not expect and cajole others to follow them too.

Most of my experience has been with Tibetan Buddhism and I personally believe the Dali Lama is extremely open to questioning.

 

hitler reduced the unemployment of germans in 1933 caused by the marxi-commie J-Ws in only 9 months by over 33%, described as a miraculous recovery, never before seen, never again to be seen by any country under the present day world imposed monetary system.

Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived" ~ John F Kennedy

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:27&version=AKJV

 

Irrational reasoning. You have yet to clear your paradox regarding the definition of 'agnostic'.

Nope, they are entirely different things.

Nope... Believing that god/s do not exist is atheism.

Irrational reasoning, due to the above-mentioned paradox.

Agnosticism is an entirely different thing than atheism.

 

No, and neither do they believe the statement "gods do not exist" to be true.

 

Atheists don't believe in God. Not believing in God doesn't mean you have to believe he doesn't exist. Many don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence but don't assert that God doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence.

There are a lot of atheists who will confidently say that the Christian God or an all-powerful, all-good, all-seeing, and all-knowing God doesn't exist. But many of them won't make the same claim about a general creator of the universe.

Agnostics also don't believe in God, and are therefore a subset of atheist.

 

You requested a percentage it was not any atheist who wanted it, and in order to get a percentage you need a unit of measurement for a belief c you provide. I accept you cannot provide such and therefore we atheists cannot answer your request. Please feel free to provide such at anytime and then I will attempt to answer your question.

 

I believe in religious freedom and allowing everyone to pursue whatever alternative lifestyle they desire. But I still have opinions about whether that lifestyle is the best for them. Many buddhists are very open-minded, tolerant of other beliefs, and willing to listen. But it isn't like they are using studies or the scientific method to improve their practice. They base their practice on teachings and don't change much. Buddhism is really just good psychological tools packaged up like a religion.

With that said, Buddhism is my favorite religion and is the most beneficial and helpful religion. It is a religion I did experiment with when I was younger and have a high opinion of the people and many of their ideas. The fact that there is almost no Buddhist religious oppression of other religions shows how it achieved a level of peacefulness that Christianity failed to do.