That's correct, and true of anything, but general concepts still exist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you define "Athesim"?
- Thread starter RedJamaX
- Start date
Photonic
Ad astra!
You can't just change the definition of "lacking" to suit your own argument. Lacking still means "absent."
Which, just in case is defined as;
outhouse
Atheistically
yes two opposites
but neither views a deity or has belief in such
we are not born theist, and without theism, we are atheist. which of coarse can be learned as well.
And neither can you. Being ignorant of something does not equate to it being "absent" (you couldn't even know, in fact, whether it exists), "unavailable" (it could just be unrecognized) or it being "a missing quality" (being ignorant of it, it actually has no qualities at all yet).
M.H.'s example is a good one: lacking <danger in a situation where power is absent — M. H.
The "power" that is absent is quite known.
Ignorance makes it very hard to believe in something. Eventually a person would come to a conclusion of origin without anyones help or just decide that it is an unanswerable question to begin with, with or without the knowledge to back it.
edit: Something seems to be lacking in this notion that we can't "not believe" until we are introduced with the concept.
edit: Something seems to be lacking in this notion that we can't "not believe" until we are introduced with the concept.
Photonic
Ad astra!
What an ironic twist, you accuse the atheists in the thread of twisting definitions to suit their own idea, and here you are doing the very same.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Or else there is no such thing as belief vs. non-belief. I have known people who claimed they had no beliefs at all, and they argued convincingly for that position.
So? We aren't talking about a specific god. We are talking about the general concept of god, which you just correctly used.
How do you know that my perception of unicorn is the same as your perception of unicorn? Maybe my unicorns are pink and yours are white. The problems about the "ambiguity" of gods is no different than the ambiguity of anything else we talk about. I find it suspect that this is only a big deal when we are talking about gods.
You're thinking too hard. If you are reading a novel, and the word "god" appears to describe a character, you know what it means, and you have been given knowledge about what sort of being this character is. You don't assume that it is referring specifically to Ra or Yahweh. You have various concepts associated with that word: Powerful, has control over some aspect, super/supra natural, etc. You know they aren't talking about a mouse or a rock or an alien. You understand what the word god means. I don't understand why people act as if they don't, even though they obviously do. It is not a nonsensical, jibberish word as your arguments would have us believe.
Also, it doesn't matter whether knowledge is possible about it or not. Knowledge isn't required for concepts. We have a concept of what a fairy is, and yet we can never obtain knowledge about fairies.
Draka
Wonder Woman
We are not born theist, nor atheist, nor agnostic. We are born ignorant of definitions and concepts. Until we reach an age where we can understand said definitions and concepts we are none of the above. Unless you can actually attest to what you felt and knew and thought when you were at an age before you understood such concepts, say around 4 months old, or 12 months old, or even 2 years old, then you cannot say what it was you did or did not think or "believe". I know I can't. So I'm not about to claim I was anything other than ignorant and incapable of defining my innermost thoughts, whatever they happened to be.
Oh, and without being a theist, one can still be agnostic you know. It's not just black and white. There are shades of grey. It is okay to say "I don't know". In fact, in some circles, it's considered more respectable and honest.
I think I was more saying that not all theists believe the same and they even have different ideas of the concept of God- pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, monotheism, etc. So, not all atheist are going to approach they non-belief the same way- most atheists I've known personally just don't believe in God and that's all while others are a little bit more militant about it- but they are still atheists.
I didn't criticize atheists at all, I criticized a term.
Just a couple of clarifications:
Regardless of our little debate here, atheism really isn't a "rejection" of God. That seems to imply that atheists believe that a God exists, but we just don't like him or we don't want to acknowledge him. Can you see how that is different than simply not believing that God exists?
Agnosticism has two popular connotations. The more technical version is about knowledge. There is a difference between claiming to know something and claiming to believe something. An agnostic is someone, either atheist or theist, who does not believe that we know for sure.
The other version, the one used more informally, is for someone who doesn't believe either way: they think that the evidence for and against the existence of God is exactly equal. They haven't made up their minds yet.
Lastly, atheism certainly isn't a system of beliefs. There is only one belief: that gods don't exist (or as others would have it, only the absence of one belief: the belief that gods exist). While it is common for atheists to have other similar belief patterns, like value of science, it is not a part of atheism. There's absolutely nothing about individualism (and actually, atheists tend to be a lean towards socialism, if anything).
In a general sense, everything that leads to a conclusion (for each of us) is subject to a system of beliefs. Where atheism is interpreted as "no god," then atheism is that system that lead to that conclusion.
It's not a point I could readily dispute.
F0uad
Well-Known Member
I never made such conclusions i said the Rejection of God..
Well this is the exact same thing i said..
This one is probably the one i forgot
Well believing that God doesn't exist is for me a belief and based on faith not fact, you can see it in a different way. Well if you break down the foundation of Atheism and look down other subjects such as evolution then i think Individualism does derives from it. For example Morals evolving like hair and nails..
:yes:
Two or three times a year we are treated to the Pet Rock definition of atheism: it's not a belief but the absence of a belief; I'm an atheist in much as my pet rock is an atheist. It's always amusing to see the zealous tenacity with which this absence is assiduously maintained.
What do you think "rejection of god" means? I was just saying what it means to me when I read it, and if that's not the connotation you want to give, then you may want to rethink your wording.
I agree, to a point. Just remember that faith and fact are not the only two options. While we may not know for sure whether God exists, or does not, that doesn't mean we only come to our conclusions based upon faith. We can come to it based upon reason and available evidence, and come to an educated conclusion. This goes for both atheists and theists.
That's what I am saying. There really isn't a breakdown of atheism. It involves only one question: does god exist or not? It is possible that there are atheists who don't believe in evolution, or if they do believe in evolution, believe that morals derive from something else. The only thing that atheists necessarily agree on is that they don't have the belief that gods exist.
Take theism. That too only involves one question: Does god exist or not? You are a theist; you believe that god exists. Would it be fair, then, for me to claim that you believe that Jesus was God?
(... no, because theism does not imply Christianity any more than atheism implies evolution).
I suppose I see what you are saying. Every conclusion has a system of beliefs supporting it. However, since everyone's system will be different, we really can't say that atheism is a specific system-- which is what people usually mean when they say that atheism is a system of beliefs. So it just creates confusion to say that it is a system of beliefs when you're really only talking about an individual's reasons for coming to that conclusion.