Concern about Atheism

Falvlun said:

Beliefs about whether god exists or not have no bearing upon the stance of agnosticism, because they are about two separate things: god's existence and knowledge. If a person believes that god exists, then he is a theist. If he also believes that you can't know the fact for sure, then he is also a (pure, to use your term) agnostic. This is the philosophical understanding of agnosticism; it is not simply my own interpretation.

Click to expand...

When pertaining to the deity debate, the knowledge pertains to the diety position. So please excuse me, for not seperating the two.

I do not hold much faith (strength) of belief in philosphy. My personal opinion of philosophy aligns with Dawkins beliefs pertaining to theology studies at Universtity, they shouldn't be there. Just a waste of space and over the top intellectual reasoning which generally leaves them nowhere and always aligns with the philosophical intelligence of the philosophers own personal belief patterns.

I am agnostic, Immortal is agnostic, many other agnostics in this forum, pure evidence alone, shows and strongly, strongly, suggests we do not carry the same belief patterns where a deity is concerned. The knowledge we have each gained through our own personal life experience and the environments directly around us, have clearly led us to different places.

Falvlun said:

Ah, but we aren't talking about evidence. We are talking about proof. Agnosticism, at least as far as I know, does not rule out the possibility of evidence. It simply rules out knowing that God exists (or does not exist) without a doubt.

Click to expand...

We get proof, to a greater or lesser degree from evidence. The human brain can do it no other way, in order to reach a position on anything, the brain must first relate and associate to that position. The brain then hardwires this knowledge in. Only greater evidence (which provides the proof needed to gain greater knowledge), can ever change an association pattern, once it is hard wired in.

And just so you are aware, by proof and evidence, I don't mean the proof and evidence the atheist or the theist offers themselves, this is good only for their own personal belief patterns. The individual, the human, not the atheist or the theist, must accept the proof and evidence themselves. What you, I or anybody else accepts as proof or evidence, means absolutely nothing, it is not our brains we are talking about here. We can only ever accept new evidence when we start questioning our own beliefs, this generally goes against the stream of normal human behaviour, as people find a comfortable spot, and make themselves as comfortable as possible in it. Only when they become uncomfortable, do they look for a better position.

footprints said:

I do not hold much faith (strength) of belief in philosphy.

Click to expand...

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The resonable, rational position.

footprints said:

When pertaining to the deity debate, the knowledge pertains to the diety position. So please excuse me, for not seperating the two.

Click to expand...

Right. But it is still fundamentally a stance about knowledge, and not a stance on your deity belief.

footprints said:

I do not hold much faith (strength) of belief in philosphy. My personal opinion of philosophy aligns with Dawkins beliefs pertaining to theology studies at Universtity, they shouldn't be there. Just a waste of space and over the top intellectual reasoning which generally leaves them nowhere and always aligns with the philosophical intelligence of the philosophers own personal belief patterns.

Click to expand...

Your beliefs pertaining to philosophy are not relevant. Agnosticism is a philosophical stance and is well-defined. Your definition does not match the official one.

footprints said:

We get proof, to a greater or lesser degree from evidence. The human brain can do it no other way, in order to reach a position on anything, the brain must first relate and associate to that position. The brain then hardwires this knowledge in. Only greater evidence (which provides the proof needed to gain greater knowledge), can ever change an association pattern, once it is hard wired in.

Click to expand...

Right. Evidence is the building blocks of proof. Agnostics say you will always be one block short. This is not the same as saying that there are no blocks whatsoever.

Peacewise said:

atheist
// (say 'aytheeuhst)
noun someone who denies or disbelieves the existence of God (or gods).

A child is not an atheist unless they deny or disbelieves the existence of God.

I have not met an infant capable of denying anything, except perhaps to deny opening their mouth for a feed.

I too would generally hold that a child is more like an agnostic, in that often for a child God is unknowable, thinking on this may be that children are ultimately agnostic, because they struggle with such advanced thinking that is required for reasoning in this matter, for them in my opinion mostly God is unknowable.

Click to expand...

Two factors prove you wrong.

1. Place a baby in an environment where no deity is mentioned, that baby will grow up not believing in any deity.

Religion, like racism, is a learned trait.

2. Some of the world's greatest minds have been atheist. While some of the greatest minds have also been therastic, it merely goes to show that any percieved intelligence level simply matters not.

Commoner said:

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The resonable, rational position.

Click to expand...

When philosophy starts going against hard core, scientific evidence, I am afraid I can have no faith in it. When it aligns to be credible again, my personal belief will strengthen.

Falvlun said:

Right. But it is still fundamentally a stance about knowledge, and not a stance on your deity belief.

Click to expand...

Belief requires knowledge, we cannot gain a belief any other way. The human brain must first relate before it can associate.

Falvlun said:

Your beliefs pertaining to philosophy are not relevant. Agnosticism is a philosophical stance and is well-defined. Your definition does not match the official one.

Click to expand...

The official ones are those designated in world dictionaries, for the whole world to share and be on equal grounding and understanding. The word atheist as one example, has changed in meaning many times since its original philosophical view point, which was used as an insult with derogative intent.

Falvlun said:

Right. Evidence is the building blocks of proof. Agnostics say you will always be one block short. This is not the same as saying that there are no blocks whatsoever.

Click to expand...

That is as far as the logical and rational evidence takes you, without power of suggestions, speculation, imagination, prejudice, bias and emotional influence being added into the equation.

As for always being one block short, this is the belief of some. I personally do not align with that stance, and say it is a matter of time and knowledge gained. Knowledge is just unknowable at this particular point in time.

AxisMundi said:

Two factors prove you wrong.

1. Place a baby in an environment where no deity is mentioned, that baby will grow up not believing in any deity.

Religion, like racism, is a learned trait.

2. Some of the world's greatest minds have been atheist. While some of the greatest minds have also been therastic, it merely goes to show that any percieved intelligence level simply matters not.

Click to expand...

Place a baby in an environment where no deity is mentioned and that baby will not grow up believing it is an atheist either? Place a baby in an environment where there is no mention of apples, and it won't have a knowledge of apples. The atheist only exist because of the theist, the theist only exist because of the atheist. Without either or one or the other, all you have is people, not theists and not atheists.

Atheism, like racism, it is a learned trait.

All great minds have been human.

footprints said:

Place a baby in an environment where no deity is mentioned and that baby will not grow up believing it is an atheist either? Place a baby in an environment where there is no mention of apples, and it won't have a knowledge of apples. The atheist only exist because of the theist, the theist only exist because of the atheist. Without either or one or the other, all you have is people, not theists and not atheists.

Atheism, like racism, it is a learned trait.

All great minds have been human.

Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. Atheism is not a learned trait, not to mention fallacious to compare it to racism. Atheism is predicated on there being theists, without theists running around claiming that invisible gods are really out there, there would be no one (atheists), doubting such claims.

dogsgod said:

You just contradicted yourself. Atheism is not a learned trait, not to mention fallacious to compare it to racism. Atheism is predicated on there being theists, without theists running around claiming that invisible gods are really out there, there would be no one (atheists), doubting such claims.

Click to expand...

Pertaining to atheism and racism, if you care to read and put two and two together, you may find it is sarcasm pertaining to another poster.

This aside, atheism is most definately a learned human traite, just as theism is and just as agnosticism is.

As I previously said, and you have repeated, without the theist there would be no one (atheists) doubting such claims. Where do you think the atheist get the knowledge from to doubt the theists claim, divine intervention maybe, just dropped on them from the heavens, perhaps it just materialised out of thin air, perhaps they were just born in the position of knowing the theist was wrong.

Sorry I do not have your rose coloured glasses. Humans relate to knowledge, then they associate to this knowledge. It is your relationship of association to the knowledge which you have gained that has led you to your current belief position. You are no more, no less than a product of the environment and everything you know, you have learned from it.

AxisMundi said:

Two factors prove you wrong.

1. Place a baby in an environment where no deity is mentioned, that baby will grow up not believing in any deity.

Religion, like racism, is a learned trait.

2. Some of the world's greatest minds have been atheist. While some of the greatest minds have also been therastic, it merely goes to show that any percieved intelligence level simply matters not.

Click to expand...

Thank you for responding, but your factors do not prove me wrong.
^1. This is unproven supposition, and further it does not disprove my position.

^2. Red herring with no relevance to my position, quite true though, but irrelevant.

footprints said:

Children are born without any knowledge, they don't even know who their parents are, so I am not exactly sure what you are saying about atheism here, and aligning the two together?

Click to expand...

Atheists do not assert a belief in God. Neither do newborns. SNAP!

footprints said:

And nobody can formulate a lack of belief in God, until God is explained to them.

Click to expand...

A lack of belief means there is no belief there. As such a "lack of belief" does not need to be "formulated". For example, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you do not have a belief in flaming armadillos that live on the surface of alpha centauri and eat fruitcake. I will also bet that you spent zero time formulating that absense of a belief.

Beaudreaux said:

Atheists do not assert a belief in God. Neither do newborns. SNAP!

Click to expand...

Are you saying that both atheists and babies are as dumb and ignorant of knowledge as each other. SNAP!

Beaudreaux said:

A lack of belief means there is no belief there. As such a "lack of belief" does not need to be "formulated". For example, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you do not have a belief in flaming armadillos that live on the surface of alpha centauri and eat fruitcake. I will also bet that you spent zero time formulating that absense of a belief.

Click to expand...

That Beaudreaux is not a belief, that is a made up story, which may or may not be correct, I have no idea of what is on alpha centauri, albeit I would suggest, a high probability there are no flaming armadillos. By the way, do you see the armadillos, spreading across the two stars, in sort of a spit roast position, and does it include the possibility of the dwarf star as a possible grill affect?

Atheism on the other hand is a real and tangible position of knowledge held by humans with a particular belief pattern, which can be evaluated. Atheism is a belief position, and a product of the environment directly around the atheist in question.

Footprints, please go here.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-dir/96699-define.html

Madhuri said:

Footprints, please go here.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-dir/96699-define.html

Click to expand...

Madhuri, I do understand the complete connotations of the definitions pertaining to the word atheist. And I further understand it is human nature to paint a personally held perception, in the best light possible. Though thank you for your trouble.

On a personal level, I just find it fascinating, how people who can use science so much to support their belief, will then turn around and deny science in support of their belief. The human mind will never cease to amaze me, not in a confusing way, but how people only really see, the reflection of their own projection. However, to be honest, I didn't really believe this when I was told this by Hindu's and Buddhists, it became more hocus pocus to me when Australian aboriginal people told me the same thing, it took science to show me what the Hindu, Buddhist and the Australian aboriginal were telling me all along. Then I had to go back and learn the Hindu, Buddhist and Australian aboriginal teachings all again, this time with my eyes and mind open.

Walk in beauty, love and light.

footprints said:

Madhuri, I do understand the complete connotations of the definitions pertaining to the word atheist. And I further understand it is human nature to paint a personally held perception, in the best light possible. Though thank you for your trouble.

On a personal level, I just find it fascinating, how people who can use science so much to support their belief, will then turn around and deny science in support of their belief. The human mind will never cease to amaze me, not in a confusing way, but how people only really see, the reflection of their own projection. However, to be honest, I didn't really believe this when I was told this by Hindu's and Buddhists, it became more hocus pocus to me when Australian aboriginal people told me the same thing, it took science to show me what the Hindu, Buddhist and the Australian aboriginal were telling me all along. Then I had to go back and learn the Hindu, Buddhist and Australian aboriginal teachings all again, this time with my eyes and mind open.

Walk in beauty, love and light.

Click to expand...

Footprints, are you Australian? What is your religious/spiritual path?

footprints said:

That Beaudreaux is not a belief, that is a made up story,

Click to expand...

Yosef1986 said:

Okay, so I've seen atheists say before that they wouldn't mind having a completely atheistic world, because they don't need religion for morals. Wouldn't that technically only work if the people in that world were good people by nature? Like what if the people were really bad, and the society started to get more and more corrupt? Then what would atheists do to get the society back to functioning?

Click to expand...

Are atheists the only ones who commit crimes? I think I'm correct in saying that crimes are committed daily by Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Satanists, Buddhists, Hindus and every other religion. Clearly, religion doesn't stop people from doing bad things. I'm not sure why the lack of religion would cause more people to do bad things. We'd still have laws against those bad things.

footprints said:

That Beaudreaux is not a belief, that is a made up story

Click to expand...

What makes this made up story any different from your belief?