Descartes and Aristotles statements are "usless" and archaic? Come on Cap, you're better than that. That statement doesn't hold at all. That very well may be your own personal opinion and you should state it as such. Most students of philosophy, myself included, would consider those two to be some of the biggest hitters in the field, period. Maybe you just have no appreciation for philosophy - I guess that would be stating the obvious. I guess you think that Newton and Einstein's ideas are archaic and usless as well?

I agree that they are some of the 'biggest hitters in the field' and understanding their philosophies is satisfying but in a way they are best viewed in a historical context, like in the progression of philosophical thought. That is the way they are usually taught by experts. There is an emotional resonance/intellectual appeal in a lot of what they have written though I agree.

Personally I think a lot of what they have said has been successfully refuted over the centuries.

Ya, most historical figures, who were brilliant men, have less actual knoweledge than those who live today due to the collective works of brilliant men throughout history in their various fields. Also, Belle, I am much faster than my friends.

so basically aithiest= the believe to not believe

Just not believe.

ehmm...yes... but that is hardly the point of debate.

Which is but natural, instead of hair splitting philosophy we should get back to the "logically sound" part ....

Im not atheist..but I fully understand WHY they dont believe..and BM is right, the burden of proof doesnt lay with the athiest..it lays with believers like ME

If I can understand it..I dont see what no one else can

BTW I understand why you are agnostic...and im fine with it too..

so lets all just -->

Atheism is bad it means you have no beliefs

That doesn't make sense..for they do hold beliefs..they belief there is no proof for a God for one lol they believe in life and themselves...

just because they arent like me and believe in a God, doesn't mean they are BAD

I think to say they are bad is disrespectful of you

Well I have done threads in the past establishing that atheism is a belief and got much criticism for that.

My belief is that atheism is a logical belief. However many unintelligent atheists or people who want to stick up for them say that it isnt even a belief of any kind.

I myself acknowledge that it is a belief as possible as any other.

but when you stated it be a belief system..you made it look like a religious belief..(key words made it look like)

The burden isnt on the theist. The burden is on the person who tries to make the claim that their belief or philosophy is true. If a theist has his beliefs and believes them to be true without involving or trying to convince others then that person doesnt have to prove anything to anyone. However if the atheist tries to make the claim that the theist is wrong and his godless belief is right then it is up to the atheist to prove to the theist that exists no deity. The burden is on those who try and make the claims of truth and not simply because one has a different philosophy.

This is just my opinion however.

Hence why it requires faith either way because neither one can be one hundred percent proven.

My dad is atheist and has been more or less his whole life. He too like others has been violent in the past just as some Christians, Muslims, theists etc have.

Theism doesnt cause any of the violence just as atheism as a belief (or belief system) stops it. Stalin didnt do what he did in the name of atheism he did it in the name of communism. Yet the atheist views he held didnt prevent him from being just as bad if not worse than the spanish inquisition.





And all assumptions require faith. . . .

This is overly simplified. Religion can give a more noble disguise to the bad things one does but it isnt needed for good people to do bad things. It often takes religion to get bad people into good. Also look at the positives that can be had i.e Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Dalai Lama, and Quakerism which was the first christian religion to oppose slavery and conscientiously object to war. They advocated that all people are equal.

Not all religion is orthodox brainwashing stuff but often quite generally spiritual.

A man who believes in God and heaven can use this to justify his acts of terror but at the other end of the spectrum a man who believes in God and heaven may use it to justify his unconditional love and be willing to die non-violently in the face of violence.

All beliefs that cannot be one hundred percent proven require faith. Atheism is a philosophical belief that cannot be one hundred percent proven and therefore like all beliefs requires faith.

Unless you throw mystic experience into the fray in which thousands of people across the globe at different epochs have experienced and hence add 'God' or Tao to the equation.

Also I might add that making the claim that atheism makes no claim is a claim. Also atheism is the claim that the world operates without any form of divine external/internal influence.

Logic and reason cannot answer why there ought to be laws of physics here in the first place and hence atheism and all other beliefs are not adequate for answering the 'big questions'.

All beliefs whether religious or not are wrong for the very reason that they are beliefs no matter how theoretically correct. Truth is absolute and doesnt require belief because it simply is the way it is and you either know it or not.

Then again this is simply my belief. : )

Actually atheism stems from the greek word 'atheos' which means godless and ism rougly means belief. The word atheism therefore means Godless belief and not lack of belief in gods.

I disagree but I feel you have every right to disagree and I dont feel offended in the SLIGHTEST because of it.

Dear BlindMessiah,

I understand that you feel the need to understand what makes someone not believe in a general God and claims that he or she is a non believer, an atheist. I am an athesit but that does not mean that I do not believe. In my opinion, to believe is not limited to the believe in a general through society acknowledged God. All believes have the same principal and in my opinion that is that to believe in a God is to have guideness in your life. You turn to this God to confess or to ask for forgiveness, to help whenever you are in need or to stand by you when you need faith. I do all this as well, but the only difference is that I turn to my family and friends or myself instead to someone that is not "mortal". I believe in my own strength. Right and wrong, my norms and values are my guideness in life. If this was supposed to be so wrong in the eyes of those who are strong believers, then why am I not suffering as much as some people are in this world. I am happy and in full control of my life and when I make mistakes it is me who is trying to make it right or to reach an objective in life.

I chose to be an atheist, to not worship any kind of God, because I do not believe in using a religion to make a statement or to proove that one religion is better than another. Religion divides people even more than the boundries of our countries or origin and race. Nowadays, relgion and believe are not doing any good to us. We should trust more on our capability to act from our heart and the main principle to respect every human being and form of life. We are all born in to this world the same way and we all leave this world the same way. It is us humans that label a person: in our profession, in our believe, in our community and that is often based on things that we people made up.

I often ask myself the following question: why are we making things so hard on ourself. What good has come out of it.
Next to that, is we go back in history. I mean way back when life was still simple. People were happier and healthier. They did not have so much to worry about, so much to fight for or to proove to each other.

This is what we are doing here as well. We have become some sort of opponents and try to defend our point of view and at the same time we create a distance between the so called believers and non believers. I we think rationally, with respect for the believers, we know that it is a endless journey to explain why people believe in something or not. We as human beings are privileged to choose which path to follow in life. Freedom of choice and to have preferences. How do I explain that I love yellow and that I am attracted to a particular type of man.

WHat I am trying to say is that, are we putting our effort and energy in the right thing. Instead of fighting all these years and in the years coming, we must learn at one point that we have control over everything we do. In the end it is us who makes a decision.

And if there is a God, I really can not see the higher purpose in all the suffering that is going on in the world. This is all done by people. SO instead of me trying to explain why one is an atheist and what an atheist means or what his principal is. I would like to ask you for some good arguments that clarify the existence of an actual GOD.

Do you mean like no beliefs at all? What a bizarre statement.

its a huge assumption to say everysingle person does or doesnt beleive in a higher power, im completly and utterly sure that i have no frikking idea whats is beyond my limited knowledge.
at the core of my being i truly feel i dont know either way, occaisionally i feel more inclined one way or the other but in general i really really really dont know.
its kind if condescending to just say its lame to not know something.
personally i think anyone who is sure either way is equally ignorant. i think the only phillisophically sound stance is agnosticism, but if god appears to me one day or if gods existence is systematically dissproved i will admit im wrong. i dont really understand people with a scientifc leaning being utterly sure of something if somthing cant b proved either way surely the only logical conclusion is that u dont know. somtimes i also think it can b to do with your perception of what a god wud/cud be i definitly dont beleive in any sort of god described by earthly religions but i dont know if some sort of conciousness beyond myself does or doesnt exist, if ther wer such a being it must b so unimaginably beyond our limited comprehesion.
but yea im babbling now, i dont really like the label agnostic either but its the best one i have.
ps i dont read all of this thread i got a bit bored half way throo.
also i find certainty in anything to b lame.

Mireng, read the original post again... you clearly missed something...

I didn't say that. I said everyone is technically an agnostic except for extremists who actually believe they know.


Reread my post, I agree with you. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god, not someone who knows there is no god. A theist is someone who believes there is a god, not someone who knows there is a god. Anyone who supposedly knows, we call a fool.

I thought you were an Athiest? You very clearly stated that we are all agnostic.

I assume you believe that the default human perspective is agnostic, why do you find it so necessary that we deviate from that?

I would have to agree with you that we are all agnostic. I simply do not believe that anyone can know with every fiber of their being that there is a god or not. I've made a decision to able myself to cope with other people's beliefs systems. I have to believe that on some level every single individual simply just does not know. Extremists on either side make me nervous. In my eyes neither side can ever be verified. If I were forced to choose I personally would lean more toward one conclusion, however it is totally subjective and completely irrelevant to anyone else. If I had to choose a label, at this point in my life I would have to choose agnostic. I do not see anything "lame" in keeping an open mind toward things which may not be knowable to me at present.

I notice in your posts you seem to use the terms thiests and christians as if they are interchangeable. You obviously have a greater issue with christians, why not zero in and be specific. If you are referring to all people who may believe in a god then use "thiest" otherwise please be more specific. Perhaps I miss read some of your posts, if this is the case I apologize.

-GBA

An agnostic does not believe they can know whether or not god exists. An atheist is someone who does not believe god exists. I meet both criteria. I don't claim to know whether god exists but I don't believe he does.

Every theist I have ever accountered is a Christian. I live in Southern US. It consists of mostly Christians. This is addressed to all theists but you understand.

I find in my area most people I run into are either agnostic or atheist or simply believe in a non denominational god. I've come across plenty of christains aswell(and was one for a time) but in my area we do not seem to be as densely populated with them. So when you say theist, christianity does not instantly pop into my mind.




So you are basically in between atheists and agnostic. You're an agnostic that doesn't think god exists, and I'm an agnostic who thinks he could exist. I'm not sure why you label the agnostic view "lame" when it's a view you partially hold yourself. If you feel it's lame because the individual is too afraid to choose I can understand that, but you haven't really chosen yourself either.

I mostly agree with your philosophy, I just didn't understand the labeling of agnosticism lame, unless you were calling yourself lame aswell, I suspect you wouldn't do such a thing.

-GBA

An agnostic does not believe or disbelieve but awaits for further proof before deciding. Perhaps BM is just a weak Atheist?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Strong_vs._weak

I wasn't calling agnostics lame. I said it's lame to say you are agnostic. All agnostic means is you don't know whether there is a god. And no one knows. I believe with every bone in my body that there is a god, but I don't know. So to call oneself an agnostic is lame in my oppinion, because it is simply stating the obvious and not answering the question.

For example:

Question guy: BlindMessiah, do you believe in god?
BlindMessiah: No I don't believe in god.
Question guy: Joe, do you believe in god?
Joe: It isn't possible for anyone to know if god exists.
Question guy: But do you believe he does?
Joe: We can't know.
Question guy: BlindMessiah, do you think we can know whether god exists?
BlindMessiah: No. It is impossible to factually know, but all evidence points away from the existence of god.
Question guy: Joe, I understand you can't know if god exists, but do you believe he does?
Joe: We can't know.

I find this to be lame. It accomplishes nothing and sidesteps the issue of belief.

I'm not a weak anything. I do not for a second believe that a god exists. However, an agnostic is one who claims he does not know. I do not know. This doesn't mean I doubt my atheism. You are a Christian. You don't know that Christ is lord. You believe it though. You are by definition both a Christian and an agnostic.

Agnostic: a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

It means you have no beliefs in relation to a god but thats all.

It relates in no way to any other form of beliefs. I know Atheists that believe in a whole range of things, just not god or gods.

As to it being bad I disagree. Its Neither good or bad really.

A belief isn't really that big a deal, its how you act on it thats important. Much as BNW has been arguing I guess, what you do is more important then why you do it in the end.

Or perhaps actions are stronger then words is a better way to put it.


AR

I understand what you meant now. I agree Joe is pretty lame not being able to show any form of opinion. I was having a problem reconciling that you can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time, but using the definition of both of those terms in the way you do I can understand now how you combine the two.

-GBA

Did you get that idea from me?? lol I too said this..technically everyone in the world is in fact agnostic..those that say they only believe so..and they..can't prove or disprove God....

and of course you get the - Oh I know God personally and see God all the time!!

How is being honest considered "lame"?
Because "Joe" won't give an answer one way or the other?
Perhaps "Joe" needs some evidence one way or the other to complete his opinion.

A store window shatters, and an alarm begins sounding one night.
A man runs down the street.
Did he create the conditions for the alarm to go off? Did he break the glass?

But isnt the belief - we cant know?? <--thats the real truth..in actual fact we cant know...thats why we hold faith/belief

Aha... and therefore belief is never logically sound. Conclusion: atheism is as logically sound as theism ... not at all.

ED:typo

I believe the earth is a sphere... is that as logically sound as believing the earth is flat? Same situation. It's a belief, we can't know. Using your argument it's irrational for me to believe the earth is a sphere. I hate it when people stress that we can't know. It doesn't get us anywhere when all one constantly does is say that they can't know. People who take a stand for something make a difference.

That is one belief. That is a belief of whether we can know, not whether god exists. You for example believe god exists, but you don't believe we can know.

Bad example, it can be empirically demonstrated that the earth is not flat. The existence or not of god not.

Fine. Do you believe that there is another dimension where all matter is a giant ice cream store? Would you say it is illogical to believe this doesn't exist? To believe something exists without proof is illogical. To require evidence to believe is logical.

Aha, here we are getting in the realm of speculation. Where the believers separate from the non-believers.

There is no reason to assume that there could not be a dimension being a giant ice cream store. But there is no reason to assume it either. It is just a possibility.

And to believe in something not existing without proof is just as illogical as believing in an existence without proof. It is the good old Schroedinger's cat situation. The only logical assumption is both states. And the exact state does not make a difference either, whatever you want to make of it is your personal decision.

I guess we simply disagree on this Q, I see that it is most logical to assume something does not exist as there is a greater chance of it not existing than of it existing. I also don't see God as not being able to be disproven. He is attributed to certain events... if we can show he is not responsible for these events, then we have disproven God, at the very least, his described state.

Well, the problem simply is that you have been relying on christian apologetics and not looking at the arguments of other religions. Proof for God cannot be provided, so in order to determine whether or not there is a God we would have to look at which religion has the highest probability of being true, which is Judaism.




You can read the rest at Simple to Remember

Logic does not constrain our assumptions, except insofar as it reminds us that self-contradictory assumptions are pointless. Nothing in logic turns on the "chance" of our assumptions being correct.

You like your assumptions better than other possibilities. But only after the assumptions are made does logic do anything at all.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that there is a greater mathematical chance of something, that has no evidence of it's existence, not existing, than existing. If you take random unproven statements, most will turn out to be false.

Standandshout, all you have done is offered evidence that your religion is more probable than others. Yet as you admit, you have no evidence for the existence of God. So we are not in disagreement here.

Nothing is provable. All we can do is prove that certain things are more probable than others. For instance, the world being round. We can't prove it to someone else. We can know it (if we see it ourselves) or we can go based on those who have seen it (which would be the same as believing someone's experience in God). So how do we know that the world is round? Simply because there is evidence that a round world is probable.

Is Atheism a logical belief? Well this is what I believe and i think it sounds pretty logical what do others think?


An atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god.

An atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy.

An atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.

An atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will lead to a life of fulfillment. Therefore he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god.

An atheist accepts that a hospital should be built instead of a church.

An atheist accepts that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.

An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants mankind to understand and love mankind. He wants an ethical way of life.

An atheist accepts that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

An atheist accepts that we are - in a sense - our brothers' keeper - in that we are first keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now.