Atheists and theists are the same.

[Atomic Shrimp]

You don't think the keen atheists have zeal?

Of course they do, but is that all we're ever talking about in all these threads about how atheists are really religious or have faith? I don't think it is.

 

[Mike375]

But here we have the conundrum that natural laws have been explored and in many cases elucidated through experiment. In the sense of proof by repetition of experiment (one of the foundations of science), natural laws are proveable.

And a long time ago mass could never be lost and along came nuclear. Now of course I am aware that nuclear obeys natural laws, but you know my point.

But it goes further, natural laws might not be involved in the creation of the universe or earth/life. In fact Hawking and Co have already said pre Big Bang can't be investigated because all physics is finished.

Religious assertions are not. Particularly since we learned from no less authoritative a source than the Bible itself that God's kingdom is not of this world. Where, then, would we EVER find proof?

There is no proof. This where atheism and theism are similar. Actually both a default positions and individual's make up determines the default value.

I return to a significant point: The definition of the word FAITH includes belief without proof. The definition of BELIEF is broader and includes all sorts of origins for one's belief.

Check all the definitions for the link I provided earlier.

Turning to our authoritative source again, we know that only through FAITH will we come to the side of Jesus. So if you believe what you read, you'll never have any kind of proof until after you die and see for yourself. Or not.

This depends on whether you are discussing Christianity or "faith/belief" in a supernatural in general.

As I pointed out in my post a couple of pages back, you have to agree on terms or you go nowhere fast. And the two sides refuse to speak the same language for fear of conceding some ground that will undermine their positions. Typical.

That occurs at the atheist end and always over "belief". That is why they always like to say....a lack of belief in God....

Personally, I am quite happy to say I have a belief or a faith in a supernatural and that belief or faith is blind. Let me explain where my situation is different to the atheist and as such it is fair to say it is a blind faith or belief.

Firstly, I have to rely on what I read plus my own gut feelings and general obersvations of what happens. But perhaps, if I could do all the calculations myself, be able to look through the Hubble space telescope etc and etc then it might be different. I would assume a position of firm atheism is not arrived at by just reading about this stuff. For starters which reading would you believe. How do you know which theories have a funding basis for a result.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

That occurs at the atheist end and always over "belief". That is why they always like to say....a lack of belief in God....

Is it not possible that they keep saying it because they really mean it?

 

[Mike375]

Of course they do, but is that all we're ever talking about in all these threads about how atheists are really religious or have faith? I don't think it is.

The keen atheist is not religious but it is a religion. We seem to have some internation language problems so I will explain what I mean by "it is a religion". The term is used a lot to imply a level of keeness and also the removal of any other possible ideas. So we might say about John Smith.....when it comes to Chev V8 engines it is a religion with him...

But an atheist ( a firm atheist, not an agnostic/atheist) needs belief and faith togther. No different in that respect to the "born again"

Like the "born again" there is no other alternative.

Just consider for a moment what an atheist has to go with. Hawking and Co say pre Big Bang can't be investigated because there is no physics. Yet Big Bang is the start of it all. So as an atheist, you believe physics started it even though Hawking says this no physics. And it is not Big Bang we also have Big Bounce.

In short, some people in the absence of hard evidence default to "no supernatural" and others default to "supernatural.

 

[Mike375]

Is it not possible that they keep saying it because they really mean it?

No. It is avoiding "belief" and is for debating purposes.

Lack of belief in God conveys two meanings at the same time. Firstly, they don't believe there is a god or God and secondly they don't have a belief system.

Remember that believe, I believe, believing etc are all about not having solid evidence. If I look out at the sky then I might say "I believe it will rain" I don't know it will rain.

The difficulty with atheism is it is a position that is anti belief but it requires belief.

 

[Alisa]

Interesting that you didn't bother to answer my question, but instead reverted to copying and pasting the same tired arguments you always post.

So the absence of news reporting the discovery of a purple planet is meaningful to you, but the absence of news reporting the discovery of a supernatural being is not. Why?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

The keen atheist is not religious but it is a religion.

I agree. It can resemble religion quite closely.

But I don't think that's necessarily what people (such as the OP) are talking about when they start debates like this.

 

[Mike375]

Interesting that you didn't bother to answer my question, but instead reverted to copying and pasting the same tired arguments you always post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa
So the absence of news reporting the discovery of a purple planet is meaningful to you, but the absence of news reporting the discovery of a supernatural being is not. Why?


Did not see the question.

I think I have already covered this. I am not a literal Bible believer but I believe its basics and that is a supernatural was around the place to pull off a few miracles.

But there is also another aspect. If we equate your purple planet to the supernatural then that would mean a couple of billion people ranging from illiterate to the extremely high education have said there is a purple planet.

I will also put it another way. I am on board the good ship supernatural. That is a concept I have bought. Like anything else I buy I expect there will be reasons someone can bring up why it is not the correct purchase. However, the alternative purchase has far more holes in it, at least from my perspective.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

No. It is avoiding "belief" and is for debating purposes.

Lack of belief in God conveys two meanings at the same time. Firstly, they don't believe there is a god or God and secondly they don't have a belief system.

Remember that believe, I believe, believing etc are all about not having solid evidence. If I look out at the sky then I might say "I believe it will rain" I don't know it will rain.

The difficulty with atheism is it is a position that is anti belief but it requires belief.

Only, I think, if you water down the meaning of 'belief' as far as to make the point trivial.

Try your last sentence as a logical statement in another context, for example:

The difficulty with baldness is it is a position that is anti hair but it requires hair.

The difficulty with poverty is it is a position that is anti money but it requires money.

The difficulty with abstinence is it is a position that is anti indulgence but it requires indulgence.

None of those make any sense at all. Why does yours? Can you think of any other context in which a statement like yours could be articulated to make sense?

 

[Mike375]

I agree. It can resemble religion quite closely.

But I don't think that's necessarily what people (such as the OP) are talking about when they start debates like this.

But for the keen atheist it is like religion in the sense that debates, point making, energy expended etc are all on the basis of a belief.

I believe ( there is that word again) that the reason these debates always light up, as they do on other sites, is because atheism or theism are really a position determined by the person's personality. In many ways it is similar to discussing political parties.

 

[Mike375]

Only, I think, if you water down the meaning of 'belief' as far as to make the point trivial.

Try your last sentence as a logical statement in another context, for example:

The difficulty with baldness is it is a position that is anti hair but it requires hair.

The difficulty with poverty is it is a position that is anti money but it requires money.

The difficulty with abstinence is it is a position that is anti indulgence but it requires indulgence.

None of those make any sense at all. Why does yours? Can you think of any other context in which a statement like yours could be articulated to make sense?

The difference with your examples are they are "facts" they are not based on belief systems.

Atheism and theism are about one of two beliefs, not about whether you are bald or whether you have hair. But atheism is an anti belief system that depends on belief.

 

[speakers_86]

The difficulty with atheism is it is a position that is anti belief but it requires belief.

I am confused why you say atheism requires belief?

Theism requires belief, because the person is assuming something to be true without any evidence of it being fact.

An atheist is not making that assumption. There is no belief involved. Of course I could say that I 'believe' there is no God, but that is a different sense of the word that does not require faith. It does not because I am making no blind assertions.

It does not require 'faith' or 'belief' to not believe something!

 

[shadow9449]

Is NOT selling insurance a business?
Is NOT posting on the AWF a hobby?
Is NOT shoveling the snow on your sidewalk excercise?

I would answer no, no, and no.

In light of the previous, Is NOT thinking there is a god a belief?

I would say, again, NO.

You didn't ask if being bald is a hairstyle

SHADOW

 

[Mike375]

I am confused why you say atheism requires belief?

Proof does not exist for a lack of God or god or gods

Theism requires belief, because the person is assuming something to be true without any evidence of it being fact.

Atheism requires a belief that the universe was created by the natural laws we live under and with an incredible number of chances. But Hawking and Co say all physics is finished pre Big Bang.

Of course I could say that I 'believe' there is no God, but that is a different sense of the word that does not require faith. It does not because I am making no blind assertions.

But you are as you have no proof there is no God and no proof of the alternative.

It does not require 'faith' or 'belief' to not believe something!

We won't waste time going into faith/belief again. But they are basically the same, in either case you take on a position where hard evidence for that position is missing.

The bottom line is atheism is a belief, that is, a position is taken without hard evidence but at the same time it is anti belief system.

 

[speakers_86]

Proof does not exist for a lack of God or god or gods

Atheists do not have burden of proof. Since the universe has been operating according to natural laws since the beginning of written history, it is conceivable that these natural laws where in place all the way back to the Big Bang. What an atheist proposes is nothing out of the ordinary.

What a religious person preaches p) is out of the ordinary. Burden of proof is on you.

 

[Mike375]

it is conceivable that these natural laws where in place all the way back to the Big Bang. What an atheist proposes is nothing out of the ordinary.

Pre Big Bang is the problem area. Then as you say it is "conceivable" that natural laws took care of post Big Bang and with conceivable being the key word.

What a religious person preaches p) is out of the ordinary. Burden of proof is on you.

Not so as it has been the default position since the start. Also, atheism claims to be a "non belief system" whereas theism is a faith/belief system and as such one would expect the "non belief system" to show all the hard evidence they have.

The theist end of town openly state their's is a belief system.

Atheists on the other hand know God does not exist and know how it all started. No belief required. Now all they need to do is show the hard evidence to Hawking and Co.

 

[speakers_86]

Atheists on the other hand know God does not exist and know how it all started. No belief required. Now all they need to do is show the hard evidence to Hawking and Co.

But that is just it, we do NOT know how it started. We have theories, but they are just that. And as you pointed out, our theories don't even work during the first second or two of the universe's existence. This does not mean we are wrong, we just don't have all the pieces to the puzzle. But new each new theory brings us closer to a better understanding, like M theory and Hologram theory.

On the contrary, people with religious belief certainly claim to know how it all started. God said "Let there be light."

We use the scientific method. It's logical, it's precise, it's methodical, above all, it's testable. Tell, me, what method does a religious person use? NONE. They preach what they are taught.

So who has the burden of proof? Not the atheists.

 

[speakers_86]

Then as you say it is "conceivable" that natural laws took care of post Big Bang and with conceivable being the key word.

Thank you for countering my point without actually saying anything.

Not so as it has been the default position since the start.

That means nothing. Believing that there is someone watching you all the time, knows what you do, what you think, and will judge you when you die is certainly out of the ordinary. In fact, if a person believed this without name dropping Jesus Christ, they may very well be called crazy.

(edit)Other default positions:
Earth is flat
Sea monsters are a ligitimate sea traveling threat
Earth is the center of the universe
Eclipses are the sign of an angry god

Because everyone else believes religion (it's the default position) it MUST be correct.


We 'know' that the universe is expanding(we don't). It is only logical to think that at some point in the distant past the universe was a single point. This is the Big Bang. A nice and logical theory. True or not, there is rhyme and reason to it. Thats why I say this is NOT out of the ordinary.

If this theory is proved wrong, then we will come up with another. I highly doubt it will have anything to do with a man that lived 2000 years ago.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Proof does not exist for a lack of God or god or gods

Proof is not required for the lack of something.

 

[JamesLast99]

And yet, when you look at the entirety of the definition of each word, it is clear that they mean two different things. In the context of a debate where there is an assertion that the "faith" of nonbelievers is equivalent to the "faith" of believers, I think it is very important to make a distinction between faith, as in, belief, (i.e. conviction of truth especially when based on examination of evidence), and faith as in, faith, (i.e. firm belief in something for which there is no proof).

You can't use the same word for two different concepts and then say look, they are the same.

This is were you have it wrong with the idea that its necessary to not have examined the evidence to beleive in God.They have just come to a differnat conclusion to you, since there is no concrete evidence.Or are you sticking with - non thinking people beleive in God, therefore beleif in God is stupid , Alisa is not stupid, therefore Alisa beleives God doesn't exist. and Alisa must be right.Cos thats all I'm getting from you, no matter how you dress it up.