The answers to the workings of the Universe, where it came from, where it exists, where humans actually came from, etc. have still not been answered. Even Einstein could not develop his 'unified field' theory. If one is really honest one has to at least acknowledge that Atheism is also based on a belief system.
I used to be a 'militant atheist', bashing religion and all that.. But nowadays I have more of a live and let live approach and I can even admit that I was a bit dogmatic myself back then, which I believe many 'atheists' still are. I won't call myself an atheist because as far as I know that means that you are one hundered per cent certain that a god or other diety does not exist. I believe that is an impossible position to have, logically. Therefore I am an agnostic, some one who does not know, in regards to god. I'm very much on the side that he doesn't exist and I don't base my life around it in any way by the way.
That would be agnostic atheism (also referred to as weak atheism), which is uncertain, while gnostic atheism (also referred to as strong atheism) is certain.
Yes, absolutely. A point I have raised with a few friends of mine, however they desire to be so logical they fall into being illogical. There is a huge difference between the two positions: Weak Atheism: I do not see evidence for the existence of a God, therefore I do not believe that there is a deity. Strong Atheism: I do not see evidence for the existence of a God, and I am certain there is not a God. The notion of God is unknowable. Gnostic theism and gnostic atheism are on the same page in my book.
So is being an avid Packers fan. A belief system is not a religion. Things I take on faith: 1. I exist, the universe exists, and the universe exists independently of me and my perceptions. 2. My senses give me a fairly accurate picture of the universe. 3. The physical laws that govern my local universe are constants. 4. The rules of logic are valid, and one of them is that belief requires evidence. I can't prove any of the above, so I sort of take it all on faith, if faith is "belief without evidence." But that's about it as far as my faith-based beliefs go. And they're the same core faith-based beliefs that every non-crazy human shares, so they're not particularly out of line (evolution explains them well, given that creatures who didn't take those things on faith tended to die quickly and not reproduce). My other beliefs descend from those by observation and logic, more or less. Based on that, gnostic/strong atheism would be logical, as it's not logical to create a special exception to the "belief requires evidence" rule. I can't 100% disprove Santa Claus, but it would be illogical to declare the Santa Question is unknowable. It is similarly incorrect to declare myself uncertain on the issue of gods.
Atheism is also based on a belief system - which is testable, based on logic and evidence. I grant you it is negative evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. I can believe that there is a purple wombat sitting on my couch. When I look, no wombat. Therefore, my belief is false. I believe there was a movie, I think starring Peter O'Toole, in which the character he played claimed that HE was god. His proof was whenever he prayed, he found that he was talking to himself. All the "proofs" of god's existence are faulty. Therefore, belief in a god is an opinion, nothing more. When you state that opinion as a fact, then you open yourself up to discussion. You have a right to your opinions, but not the right to impose them and not the right to state them as fact without legitimate opposition.
If you can PROVE it. Which you can't unless you have all the answers. Which you don't. I said God is a BELIEF just the same as Atheism is a BELIEF. The more radical religious believers swear that God is a bearded old buy that lives in the sky. Believers in Atheism think they know there is no God but have no alternate answers. Most folks lie somewhere in-between which IMO is more rational.
For me, the problem always comes in defining 'God.' What god are we talking about? So far, none of the monotheistic religious gods of Middle Eastern lore have a very strong case to support their existence. In fact, given the Bible's numerous problems, I think it all but positively disproves Yahweh all by itself! I don't believe in any man-made, man-defined gods any more than I do in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't believe there is such a thing as "spirit" that is separate from the body, and I don't believe that there is any form of intelligence that exists without a body, because it is the body - in particular the brain and nervous system - that produces a thinking mind here on Earth. These are the only observable minds, and the only available definition for a mind, unless we start talking about AI, though even that is based purely on a physical apparatus.
I would say that while it is possible that there is some being that has interfered in the affairs of humans, given itself airs as if it were a deity and had divine authority over humans, and perhaps even had a hand in the creation or development of humanity, there cannot possibly be a "God" that has all of the attributes that Christians, Muslims and Jews ascribe to him/her/it.
Mostly because their gay and/or kids who bought the "Against THE MAN (made by THE MAN)" that is propagated by THE MAN's media and entertainment and/or kids who want to be different/cool (so that they look like everyone else who wants to be different/cool) and/or pseudo-intellectual who found a perfect platform for their pseudo-intellectuality an/or leftists who are that way simply because being leftist requires you to be that way and/or Star Trek nerds who adopted the utopian-commie-technocratic outlook of the whole Star Trek and sci-fi culture...i could go on but that's about it.
I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that there is no God in the Christian sense, being that the Christian version of God violates logic in several ways. If someone wants to fall back on "But God doesn't have to obey logic!", then they've made belief impossible, since without logic, you can't know anything about what you're believing in. If this god says it exists, it might mean it doesn't exist, because logic doesn't apply to it. Without accepting the requirement for logic, agnosticism is the best you can get, and if you do accept the need for logic, the Christian God falls apart.
Troll. Just because I don't believe in Santa doesn't mean I hate him. You do understand what lack of belief means, right troll?
I'm not the one who committed a rookie grade logical fallacy. You're either a troll or just dumb. No grownup would make such a dumb mistake and I (charitably) assumed you weren't that dumb. The only other option is troll. Do you disagree?
Based on the section this thread was started in, I was hoping to see something at least mildly funny. This is just a rehash of threads from the religion section. If I think of something funny to say, I may post again.
Copernicus, who formulated the heliocentric solar system...believed that God's design was mathematical. Perhaps God can be defined...or at least revealed mathematically. Copernicus was a Catholic cleric...
I'm an atheist because theists haven't met the burden of proof. Hip has nothing to do with it. I can't choose what to believe in.
