Your use of the word “faith” is intriguing.
Can you clarify if you agree with those who claim that belief in evolution constitutes a faith/religion?
To paraphrase:
Hehe. You people are so predictable, and so damn easy!. If I ever decided to become a troll, this would be a great subject to troll with, the outrage and illogic is palpable. First of all, many of you are confusing the belief in a God with religion*. Nuh-uh, the two aren’t the same thing at all. I believe in God, but I don’t think he is as described by any religion, and I don’t think he has any kind of direct involvement in the lives of humans on this planet at all. He may not exist (Theist with agnostic leanings?), but I personally believe that he does. This belief is mine alone, and for me alone, and has no bearing on what you or anyone else may or may not believe. I don’t have to prove it, because I’m quite content to say only that it is my personal belief. Not fact. Belief. Second, along the same lines, if you do not believe in the Christian (or any flavor of) God but are not prepared to say with certainty that no God does exist, then you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic. Finally, for those of you who DO say with certainty that no God exists, I say “prove it”. You can’t do it. It’s impossible to prove a negative. Your belief that there is no God is as much an article of faith as the most rabid Fundie’s belief in God. And that pisses you off, IME. You have something in common with theists. I don’t know why that pisses you off so much, but there it is. You believe what you believe. He believes what he believes. She believes what she believes. I believe what I believe, etc…and who the fuck cares anyway? It’s nobody’s business but one’s own. All of the things that people are railing against in this thread, things like prayer in schools, attempts to convert unbelievers, being told that one is going to hell, etc…, these are all the actions of RELIGIONS, and have nothing at all to do with the simple question of weather or not there is a God.
*A religion is how groups of people act based upon their belief in God. They have nothing to do with the academic question of weather or not there is a God in the first place. For a bunch of generally intelligent people, many of you sure have a hard time making the distinction between the two.
And you call other people illogical?
A “belief” that the sky is green can’t be supported by saying that it’s just a “personal belief.” You do, indeed, need to prove it. Or you can attempt to prevaricate like you’re doing, but you’ll get called out.
Wrong.
Atheism means, simply, not believing in a god. You don’t have to believe that one does not exist, you simply do not have to believe that it does. An agnostic who is not sure but does not believe in a God is definitely an atheist. It seems you’re confusing soft atheism with hard atheism.
Because your request is pure bullshit.
One does not have to prove it, the burden of proof is on you.
Smarmy shit like that might piss a few people off, for sure. I just find it both stupid and absurd. Not having a belief in something that can not only not be defined, but not even be tested for is hardly ‘rabid’.
Do you believe that there’s a magic invisible panda which is controlling your thoughts right now? Well, if you don’t then you’re just as bad as fundies! :dubious:
Welcome to the SDMB, where your posts are seen by other people.
Let’s try once more to overcome this (excuse the term) fundamental misunderstanding of yours.
A belief that a proposition is unjustified is not “an article of faith”.
For instance, I reject claims that coffee enemas cure cancer. I do not need to waste large sums of money in repeated large-scale clinical trials to prove it. It is enough that it is a) nonsensical, and b) lacks any valid positive evidence in its favor. It is up to its supporters to exhibit proof that it works.
While I cannot speak for atheists as a whole (I am not one), it is evident that on the basis of rational observation of natural phenomena, they have concluded that there is no evidence to support the existence of a deity or deities. That they have such a belief is not faith, but an absence of faith. All they really have in common with “fundies” is a propensity to be annoying, and a (much lower) propensity to proselytize.
If I were Board Czar, I would decree severe penalties for any poster engaging in debate who said “Ah-hah! You can’t prove it isn’t so!!”. This betrays a mindset that defies rational thought processes.
The only reason I can see for persisting in the claim that your opponents in this matter are proceeding on “faith” is your belief that it is annoying.
I’m still interested in whether you think that belief in evolution is a faith/religion.
Oops. That’s embarassing. My bad, as the kids say.
Well, if evangelism is an attitude, and a sports fan is an evangelist, then I suppose an atheist can be an evangelist also. I stand by my asssertion that if evangelism is defined as really really liking something then the term has little value, and is almost completely divorced from the religious context, which was clearly the context of the OP.
Evangelical Atheists Have A God Complex
Do Yankees fans think they have the “Truth” about everything?
Do Mac users think they know what is best for everyone?
Lets look at the entire cite at dictionary.com, which is very close to the definition I cited upthread.
All but the last definition are specifically and necessarily linked with Christianity. The last is clearly a function of it’s predecesors. If you want to cherry pick the sixth meaning as the primary one, then you make my point for me. It is diluted beyond meaningful use.
I have had posters here tell me that politics is a religion, along with stamp collecting and Nascar racing. This seems to be in the same vein.
What the fuck do I have to prove? I haven’t made any claims. You’re not making any sense.
So I suppose all those claims you just made were actually caused by that magic invisible panda who’s controlling your thoughts?
Jesus, this is crazy. If someone makes a claim “I don’t believe in God”, then it requires no proof. If someone says “There is no God”, then that is a factual statement that requires proof, the same as if someone makes the factual statement “There is a God”. Neither statement is provable. That’s all I’m saying. Nothing further.Coffee enemas and evolution are testable hypothesies. “God” is not.
Again, which claims?
Now that’s just mealy-mouthed. The bombers are not zealots? Just led by them? So if it were not for religion these corrupters of children would talk them into blowing themselves up for some *other *reason?
In a thread where a sports fan* is* a zealot, a suicide bomber is not? You would need to assert that not only is one particular person who is willing to murder and die for her religion not a zealot, but that every particular person is not a zealot, for your claim to be consistent.
Okay, if you’re going to bullshit me and play this faux ignorance and actually tell me that all the claims I just responded to, and quoted, just a few posts up didn’t actually happen…
But I’m glad that you found an issue that it would be easy for you to troll, if you chose to.
Let me repeat myself. There were no atheists before there were theists. No one went around saying “there is no god” until someone had actually postulated one. It would have been incoherent. Atheism is simply a rejection of the assertion “a particular god such as x exists.” No proof required.
On preview. Good one, Finn.
Did they really not happen, or do you believe they didn’t happen? Or did you believe that Sir WeirdDave doesn’t believe they happened?
Because, apparently, one of them makes you a Mets fan, and the other makes you a child-lusting Thuggee Cultist.
So, which is it?
-Joe, always entertained when someone without a leg to stand on goes for the “argument by attrition” method
Of course. All truth is provisional. NOTHING can be known with absolute certainty.
However, we can be more sure that some things are true than others. The fact that we can’t be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that unicorns don’t exist does not put them on the same ontological footing as giraffes.
I can’t be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN there’s not a cougar crouched behind my chair this very instant, ready to pounce. That said, if one of my coworkers were to come along and insist, contrary to all evidence and reason, that a cougar WAS there, I’d think he was either joking or nuts.
But according to magellan01’s standards this would be intellectually dishonest. Because all truths are provisional we can’t say “no, that’s patent nonsense” even when confronted with patent nonsense.
It makes me wonder how he gets through the day … .
It is not possibly to absolutely prove that coffee enemas don’t work - as you always could have someone giving testimonials about how they saved his life, and some sloppy, biased researcher could produce a study showing that they are effective (for instance, there’s been the odd paper purporting to show that homeopathy works). The great balance of rational scientific thought would force the conclusion that coffee enemas do NOT work. That would not be “faith”.
In the case of evolution, there will probably always be gaps in evidence leaving certain phenomena unexplained. Evolution is not “provable” in an absolute sense, but it does meet sufficient scientific standards to be accepted as true.
As I mentioned in another thread, someone could postulate that there are planets in faraway galaxies made of feta cheese and orbited by giant Kalamata olives. This is not a testable hypothesis and cannot be “proved false”. However it can be rejected based on common sense and knowledge of natural phenomena. Your belief in the “Enormous Greek Salad” theory of cosmology would constitute “faith”*. My lack of belief in it would not constitute faith.
In summary, when an idea is fantastic, lacks solid evidence in its support and is not “testable” (despite the old “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” dodge), it is reasonable to conclude on the basis of common sense and rational observation that it is invalid, and the burden falls entirely on proponents to prove their claims to be true. I don’t seek “proofs” from deity-believers, but I would ask that they not project their values and modes of rationalization onto others.
It’s not just really liking something, it’s being intolerant towards people who don’t like it, or don’t like it as much, or like it in a different way than yourself.
Within the narrow realm of their interest, yes. An evangelical Mac user “knows” that everyone would be better off with a Mac, regardless of their individual needs or preferences. An evangelical Yankees fan holds that the Yankees are the best baseball team ever, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. An evangelical atheist not only holds that there is no God, but that anyone who does believe in God is defective, and the world would be better off if no one believed in God at all.
So? It doesn’t make the sixth definition invalid.
Sorry, but that’s entirely unsupported by the cite. Look at the example they use: “an evangelical liberal.” How does that have anything to do with Christianity? It does have a metaphorical relation to religion. When someone is described as an “evangelical liberal,” the concept being communicated is that the person is partial to liberalism the way other people are partial to their religion, even though liberalism isn’t actually a religion. That’s exactly the sense the word is being used in this thread: some atheists are partial to the idea of atheism the way other people are partial to their religion, even though atheism isn’t actually a religion.
I’m not arguing that it’s the primary meaning. If it were, it wouldn’t be the sixth listed definition. I am arguing that it is a common, accepted meaning of the word. If you think that makes it “diluted beyond meaningful use,” that’s your perogative. I don’t agree, but don’t blame me for it. Blame the entire English speaking population of the world,* because they’re the ones using it in that sense so often that it’s made it into the dictionaries.
[sub]*Or, at least, North America.[/sub]
Miller, I’ll grant you your entire post above so we can get down to the meat of it.
“Evangelical Atheists Have A God Complex”
Clearly the OP meant the religious meaning, and not the least restrictive one, which was derived from the others. That is my point. To equate evangelism as practiced by individual atheists with evangelism as practiced by believers in God is, in my mind, an equivocation.
Well, yes. The real reason is “we want someone to blow up these people from across the big water, who don’t look like us, who talk funny, and who are here to order us around and steal our oil, and shoot anyone who objects plus anyone else unlucky to be within range”. Some variation on that has served mankind very well as an excuse for violence since long before some old guy ate one too many berries that were a little past their sell-by date and started hearing the little fuzzy hedgehogs speaking the truths of the universe into his ear, and realized that he could probably persuade the hunters to reserve him a big hunk of mammoth in exchange for his valuable insights.
There is probably no help for anyone who listens to the Word of God and ignores forty-seven verses about doing unto others as you would that they should do unto you, while latching onto the one about smiting the unbeliever and saying “Wait a minute, that bit sounded good”.
FinnAgain, I am going to say this straight out, and with complete honesty: What claims have I made that require proof. You said that the burden of proof is on me. To prove what? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If you don’t respond this time, I’m going to assume that you don’t have any claims I made that require proof.
Thank you for making my point. In this example, overwhelming evidence shows that coffee enemas do not work, thus disbelieving in their efficacy is not faith. Now set up an experiment to prove or disprove God.
Yup, agree with you there, too.
Sure it is. All you have to do is test the plants to see if they are made of cheese. Just because mankind does not possess the physical ability to travel to this planet and perform those tests does not mean that the statement “there are planets in faraway galaxies made of feta cheese and orbited by giant Kalamata olives.” is untestable. It just means we don’t have the ability (at the moment) to test the hypothesis
And once again you venture into the territory concerning the behavior of certain theists, which has fuck all to do with what I’ve been saying.