Don’t get so defensive, especially over this. Check it out: Evolution is both fact and theory.
So they have no faith in God then? Alright, they are atheistic.
Not specific at all. All you’ve told us is what God isn’t limited by, you haven’t told us anything about what God is. If I told you I wasn’t a martian, that doesn’t actually tell you anything about me, does it?
So God’s a thing now? Well, in order to be a thing God must be material-right? If not material then how does God act on the material? What is something if it’s not material/physical?
Actually it is accurate and I’ve consistently explained it to you. As Dio pointed out, this isn’t a new conversation-even on this board no less.
Again, all atheist means is without belief in God, if you don’t actively believe in God you are in fact an atheist.
I appreciate the effort, even though I think it’s misplaced.
Actually it’s both, here’s the words right out of Newton’s mouth…er…‘pen’…Link
In other words, he discovered the law of gravity, but not the theory (which would explain why it works).
Microevolution isn’t a ‘law’, nor is it’s processes any different from macroevolution. In effect if you accept microevolution you have to accept macro because all macroevolution is, is an accumulation of microevolutionary steps.
Theories and laws are different things in science: From SCIAM
Actually you are incorrect and it won’t become scientific law because your understanding of the terminology of science is incorrect.
Do you get an ad logicam fallacy? If 2 + 2 = 4, then God exists. Therefore, God exists.
I had never heard the allegedly well-known phrase. It may be well-known, but it is mal-formed.
If you thought highly of me, you wouldn’t launch such a ridiculous salvo as that.
Very true, it’s also a negatively defined word, in that omnipotence expresses that the omnipotent being is *without limits * of power.
Instead of the rock example, I always liked the “Can God both not exist and exist at the same time”?
True, and again it’s a negatively defined word, the entity is without the limits of knowledge.
Also, if a being is eternal then that being can’t act in a temporal universe; when did God create the universe?
Are you trying to discount the existence of agnosticism?
Atheism: belief that there is NOT a God, aka “un-faith”
Agnosticism: belief that the existence of God is unknowable, meaning there’s no faith but there’s no “un-faith” either
I think that if you even have the slightest shred of doubt about your position (I’m thinking of gobear’s earlier post), you can’t be an atheist. Atheism, like theism, requires 100% belief. Otherwise, you’re agnostic or nontheist.
Babies can’t be theistic, atheistic, or agnostic anyway. To adopt a philosophy means that you’ve considered it. Consideration requires a self-conscious mind. Babies/toddlers are not self-conscious. Saying people under two are atheist is like saying animals are atheist. Nontheism doesn’t equal atheism.
Not at all, I was an agnostic atheist for quite some time. Agnosticism is not a position on belief in God, it’s a position on whether you think it’s possible to know whether God exists.
A=without, gnostic= knowledge, ism=belief. You can still have faith in God without knowledge (aka fideism) or you can lack that belief (atheism).
This bad definition has been covered.
Actually it means that the person who says they are agnostic hasn’t answered the question as to whether they believe in God or not.
Well, you would be wrong on several counts. Theism doesn’t require 100% belief, you could be like Kurt Wise (?) who said even if all the evidence for creationism were false, he would believe anyway (and be a fideist).
I disagree.
Atheism is a philosophy now?? When did that happen? Outside of a lack of belief in God/Gods, what other tenant do atheists hold (cause it ain’t naturalism).
You are misusing the term atheist based on the popular definition.
Nontheism is atheism based on the route meaning of the word.
BTW-in order to be clear, I’m not implying that atheists can’t be naturalistic, just that atheists don’t have to be; as I’ve encountered atheists who believe in a whole manner of supernatural things (including vampires).
Wouldn’t a lack of faith be considered non-theism, not atheism? I mean, to me there’s a pretty big difference between asserting there is NO God (which has always been my definition of atheist), and not believing in God (which I’ve always called non-theism). Maybe it would be better to refer to the former as antitheism.
I honestly don’t understand how someone can be an agnostic antitheist (or theist). Maybe it’s just because I’m using admittedly narrow definitions for all these groups, but how can you oppose (not merely lack) faith in something if you’re not 100% sure of its non-existence? Likewise, how can you have faith, without knowing for 100% sure if you’re right? (Maybe I should start a Great Debate about this.)
Well, that’s one type of agnosticism. There’s another type that says that we can’t truly determine whether or not there is a deity, since any supernatural force would be easily able to cover its tracks and make it seem like there wasn’t a deity, and might have good reason to do so. That’s where I am.
Never heard of Kurt Wise, so I googled him. I think that’s more a sad case of indoctrination than anything else. Even the majority of theists I know admit that creation is just a parable. Though I guess my beliefs aren’t that much different–even if it could be “proven” that there is/is not a God, I don’t think I could accept that, because I think a supernatural force could cover (or not cover) its tracks however it wanted, thereby making any “proof” subject to debate. But I still don’t think that man should be teaching science. Even if he’s going for the Omphalos hypothesis, it’s pretty clear that there has to be some things about the observable world that put a pretty big damper on his Scriptural belief. It’s amazing to think that someone would reach that high a level of education and still believe in the literal seven-day creation.
Slight tangent: what sort of evidence would you have to observe to admit the possibility of a supernatural force/God?
On which part? The part about babies being non-self-conscious? Or the part about how belief in any philosophy requires self-consciousness?
What would atheism be if it wasn’t a philosophy?
It’s a statement on the essential structure of reality. Sounds like a philosophy to me; just as much a philosophy as theism and agnosticism.
What would atheism be if it wasn’t a philosophy? How about a term needlessly foisted on people who grew up and just quit believing in myths and invisible magical all-powerful genies? Remember, we are all atheists to a degree-you could spend all day dismissing the hundreds(if not thousands) of dieties you don’t believe in, and I’m pretty sure none of you have gone through the trouble of doing the extensive research that would be needed to find the evidence to do so for each and every one of them, and I just disbelieve in one more than you do. If you want to label this a “philosophy”, then fine. Is your disbelief in Santa Claus a philosophy in and of itself? How about your disbelief in the existence of Zeus, Odin, Kali, or any of the countless other entities that others have worshipped?
It would be considered both non-theism and atheism, as those words both express a lack of belief in God. Atheists don’t have to assert that there is no God, that position is known as ‘hard atheism’.
A hard atheist isn’t an agnostic atheist (AFAIK), as they don’t express doubts on ‘knowledge’ of God.
I think your definitions are the problem, to be frank. Atheism doesn’t oppose or assert 100% confidence in God’s non-existence, it just asserts a lack of belief.
That seems to be the same type from where I’m sitting. Agnosticism isn’t a ‘third’ position on whether one believes in God or not-it doesn’t address the question as to whether one believes in God despite lack of definitive knowledge. That question would be answered by the agnostic when they express either fideism or atheism.
True, but I’m using it as an example of fideism despite gnostic knowledge.
I don’t know if, personally, the majority of theists I know accept creationism as a parable. I’d like to think so, but I’m not certain (in that I haven’t really asked all of them).
Right, so you would be an eternal agnostic as to whether knowledge of God is truly knowable.
My question is, what God do you accept as possible or not possible? What God do you believe in despite your agnosticism (or what God don’t you believe in)?
I agree.
Personally? Well, first I’d need to know a lot more about what God would be, if a God existed. Since I perceive that there are nothing but unsatisfactory (and contradicting) definitions of the term ‘God’, I can’t actually say what evidence I would accept. So before I even get to that stage, I need a coherent definition. Does this mean you need one or that anyone else needs one to believe? Not necessarily, after all, billions of people believe despite what I perceive as an incoherent definition.
Again, the problem is definitions; by my definition of atheist, babies are atheists-as is anything that doesn’t have God belief (animals would fall under this definition as well).
It’s a stance on a particular question and that’s it. Now, don’t get me wrong, it can be incorporated into many philosophies, but in and of itself it’s not a philosophy.
The structure of reality? Perhaps it’s a tangental question, but it’s not all inclusive, as atheists can believe in an afterlife and can believe in the supernatural. I’ve met self describe atheists of both sorts.
I don’t consider theism or agnosticism philosophies either; certianly they can be included in philosophies, but in and of themselves they are just answers to specific questions about God.
That’s actually another very important point.
Throughout history people have been considered atheists because they don’t believe in the accepted God of society. The earliest example that immediately springs to mind is that of Socrates who was brought up on charges (and ultimately put to death) which included (but weren’t limited to) atheism. Throughout his apology Socrates said that he wasn’t an atheist and in fact could not be one because he believed that a daemon was instructing him (not to mention the whole fact that his ‘quest’ relied on a prophecy from the Oracle of Apollo).
Christians in ancient Rome were considered atheists because they rejected the Roman pantheon.
You could use this statement against the assertion that atheism is a religion as well.
You’d be partially wrong I’m afraid. If string theory is a theory of gravity, then how does it compare with Einstein’s theory of gravity?
Much like evolution, gravity is a fact, or law (we know it’s happeneing) and a theory, there are even various models with data to support them which claim to be the math-behind-gravity.
totally wrong. And this is something that bugs the hell out of me. ‘anti evolutionists’ always bring this shit up. Well, news for you, micro and macro evolution are both evolution.
Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.
Bolding and italics mine.
Hopefully this points out your mistake.
Um, no.
Hypothesis= educated guess
Theory= falsifiable, testable, repeatable framework to explain phenomona.
The difference is nonexistant.
Evolution is evolution.
Micro and macro just apply to the specific lense you use to look at it.
Czarcasm: Still can’t get a straight answer as to why Zeus isn’t cool but God is.
Lib [What color hair to bald people have on their heads? If that sounds like a nonsensical question, congratulations! You’re right, it is nonsense. If you’re bald, there is no hair on your head and, therefore, no head-hair to have any color. It’s a contradiction in terms. Unfortunately, not everyone realizes this - there are still those out there who imagine that an absence of some particular item or belief leads us to all sorts of grand conclusions.
Case in point is The Raving Atheist, who continues to assert that when we learn that a person is an atheist we are somehow able to make conclusions about their ideology:
Metaphysics, according to my dictionary, is “a division of philosophy that is concerned with ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.” Plainly, then, atheism contains metaphysical convictions, having quite a bit to say about each of those subjects.
Ummmm… no. Atheists often have something to say about those subjects and atheists have metaphysical convictions, but atheism - by itself - has nothing to say about those subjects. Atheism is not a philosophy, like materialism or idealism. Atheism is not connected with any particular view about the cosmos, it isn’t connected with any particular view about reality, and so forth. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no metaphysical, epistemological, moral, political, or other convictions that a part of atheism.](Atheism and Agnosticism)
In other words, it’s an old atheist joke.
And it makes perfect sense.
In order to highlight the absurdidty that atheism is a belief, the comparsion that ‘bald is a hair color’ is made. The obvious point being that bald is, in fact, not a hair color, but a lack of hair. Atheism is not a ‘belief color’, it is a lack of belief.
So yeah, one wonders why you are debating this issue.
Not true.
First, it is an observed fact that evolution occurs. Stop. Strike the rest. Time plays a role in certian evolutionary processes, but evolution occurs regardless of the time frame. And, I will note, if you can already admit that ‘micro’ evolution occurs, is it really so hard to picture it, well, continuing?
Also, theories of abiogenesis are different from theories of evolution.
Just like anti-evolutionsts often bring up the big bang, which is also not part of the theories of evolution.
Fundamental error in method.
In Religious argumentation, a ‘truth’ is taken as given, and then facts are looked for to support it.
In the case of evolution, the data points exist, and then a cohesive explenation is crafted around them.
The direction of inquiry is very important.
There are several theories of evolution.
There is only one fact, and that is that evolution occurs.
We’re just not sure as to the exact math. (wow, deja vous!)
No, they teach a theory, or theories of evolution.
But evolution occurs even while we’re working out the correct theory.
Just like gravity was real even when we switched from Newton, to Einstein, to String Theory, etc…
Right.
Science tells us what is true. (to a reasonable standard of proof)
Religion tells us what we’d like to be true. (and is totally ‘immune’ to proof or refutation)
Oh, and, by the way, science does explain why things happen, it just relies on causation rather than hokey metaphysics.
You see, unless you believe there is a Reason and Why to our lives, you won’t ever look for one.
Yes, it is.
From a framework or logic, science, reason: religion is both invalid and imaginary when it proclaims to have gotten at Truths.
Cross off the word scientific and your sentence is correct.
Or as a basis for anything else that deals with reality.
Science does not aim to.
Science talks about what is real.
Religion, eschewing science, does not.
In order to take the place of religion, scientists would have to just start making shit up.
Um… why is the nature of faith mystical now?
You choose to believe something despite lacking factual confirmation or refutation.
Simple, cut and dry.
No, christianity does not ‘explain why’. It states it. “Because we tell you to.”
For proof of this, simply look to all the other religions which tell ‘explain why’ in a totally different manner and to different ends.
Some fight ignorance, some let it crash on their couch for a few years.
Different strokes.
Because we can’t ask God but we can look at your behavior versus your ideal?
Theists.
Y’all. You folk. You, who are tipified by a chosen belief in theism.
And, the difference is that bible thumpers are basing their conclusions off something totally non-scientific, namely religion.
Those who point out that your beliefs are irrational do so from the point of view of reality.
And, I’ve never gotten this wackyness.
Why on earth does anybody have to respect a ridiculous belief?
Respect the person, realize that they hold some bad beliefs.
Seems simple.
I can and will tollerate your right to have whatever religion you want and to express it as long as you do not harm another soul.
I can and will choose to not tollerate the actual belifef as, to me, it is literally intollerable.
But you are not your memes.
Or, to put it in another way “hate the sin, love the sinner.”
Immaterial.
You have a ‘belief system’ not based on reality.
It doesn’t matter if you worship Zeus or God.
If you came to your religion via drugs or prayer or tantra.
Why does one have a ‘bug up their ass’ for pointing out that something is irrational, illogical, etc…
If people said the moon is really made of green cheese, do we have to just let that slide as a charming bit of ignorance?
No, no, no.
He has a lack of belief, and requires proof for what he does end up believing.
You have an overabundance of belief not based on proof.
Both “beliefs” are not equal.
You are entitled to your own opinions.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
You don’t have to be an asshole to be wrong.
Because religion is based on nothing real.
And science is based on everything that is real.
They’re not equal.
I, for one, do not.
I do however feel a need to fight ignorance.
And you use ‘sinister’ to mean ‘left,’ I guess. Cool down and take a douche.
Actually you would be the one using ‘sinister’ to mean ‘left’, since you are the one accepting the useage of a word that doesn’t reflect what the term originally meant.
Actually, the word in latin for left hand is sinestra.
Hey, you’re the one who was telling me what I believe. And you’re the one who was wrong, not me. So I think I’ll pass.
Ah, if that’s the case, then I misunderstood what he was trying to go for.