- Frank Segro
- Poultney, VT
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Abolishing the use of the term Atheism.
We all know that the term "atheist" means without god. However, as an atheist I often find it annoying when people talk about it as a belief system. Lack of belief does not constitute belief in anything else. No one would call me an a-paleontologist simply because I'm not one. Simultaneous to being an atheist I may be a rational empiricist or follow some other set of beliefs. I believe that we should stop using convenient designators such as atheism when we "classify" ourselves to others or are classified by them, because there is simply nothing behind it.
Thoughts?
Thomas Jones 100+
Daughter: "Um, yeah."
Dad: "Oh, that's okay ... as long as he's not an atheist or a rapist."
-----
A study by researchers at the University of British Columbia found believers distrusted atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists. … The only group study participants distrusted as much as atheists was rapists, lead author Will Gervais told the Vancouver Sun. – Steve Mertl
Salim Solaiman 50+
Otherwise I am not sure how we can abolish a word?
Do we mean banning it ? How this ban can be enforced?
By taking it out from dictionary? Even if we do that we can stop use of it as some people will still use it.
However I agree what you told in your proposition to great extent , the question is implementation of the same for the purpose of better communication.
E G 10+
(I hope you'll see my comment )
I just don't understand your so strong attitude against evolution .
Christophe Cop 500+
You can then continue to say that you are a skeptic, a bright, a humanist, or a spiritualist, animist,... indicating the things you believe/assume.
Most often I call myself an atheist when people are bothering me with their gods, and a skeptic when people bother me with their pseudoscience.
So I wouldn't abolish such a term... I would not solely identify myself with it either... (I'd choose to be a bright if asked) http://www.the-brights.net/
Claire Travers
Paul Lillebo
No, no, they didn't mean those kinds of gods. Those are false, as we all know. (Yes, I knew that.) They mean the true god, the one decent people believe in. The one that was angry, vengeful, and jealous in the Old Testament but became a god of love in the New Testament. (Loving, though he still keeps an eternal fire going for such as myself.) If I don't believe in the reality of That One, the current one, then I'm an a-theist, they tell me.
Call me what you like, I say. I'm not a boxing fan. Call me an "a-boxingfan." I'm not in the habit of defining myself with reference to gods, or to boxing, or any other amusement. And somehow I'm able to live with that millstone.
"A-theist"!! The idea!
Cheers,
An "a-liver-eater." No, an "a-rap-listener." No, no, make that "a-bearded." (At the moment.)
Phillip Beaver 10+
Things and life exist instead of nothingness. Regardless of origins, evolution seems to follow laws. Energy may have always existed, and evolution may conserve energy. Yet origin of evolution’s laws seems unknown.
Many prehistoric cultures assumed supernatural being (SB) controls everything, for example, assumed the earth’s sun is a SB in the heavens. Humankind now understands the sun is among countless natural nuclear reactors in the universe. Yet the SB assumption has not yet been disproven.
In understanding a phenomenon or perception, all plausible explanations may compete for viable study. For example, the assumption that the universe is one and controlled may be false. When understanding is incomplete, plausible assumptions remain.
Many people take the SB assumption to the next stage: specification. Some say the SB is God. Further, God has known characteristics and practices, for example, love and judgment. The result is theism. Others aver belief in God is the favored side of the bet; such philosophers ignore the possibility of error in choosing the God and SB.
Based on the above understanding, I prefer neutrality on the question of God’s existence: I prefer to attest, “I do not know.”
I aver neutrality constitutes neither atheism nor agnosticism, but if another person disagrees, it does not bother me in the least.
I hope this helps and moreover look forward to TEDsters increasing my understanding.
Phil
Gerald O'brian 50+
But who cares... It's just normal to say you don't know when unable to explain.
I would get rid of the term "atheism" in favour of "sanity".
Phillip Beaver 10+
An infant is uninformed and has about 80 years to achieve and move beyond humankind’s understanding.
If the community indoctrinates the infant in knowledge, evidence, discovery, understanding, and open mindedness, he/she may achieve the maturity his natural abilities facilitate.
However, if his environment indoctrinates him in an ideology, such as religion, he has diminished opportunity to mature. Yet, he is on a path, and something may happen to re-inform him. People who listen can be either supportive or discouraging.
Every time a Christian tried a Freethinker’s Group I attended for a couple years, their comments indicated they were on a path I had tread. I did everything I could to support their thoughts. Meanwhile, the avowed atheists, agnostics, and secular humans in the room unintentionally belittled the visitor’s struggle for psychological maturity. I never saw a Christian return a third time. I pleaded with the group to be accommodating, but was not heard.
I want to encourage each person’s quest for psychological maturity where they are when they are on their path.
John Locke
We do not know there is a god because we can not prove it. We can not prove there is or isn't a god. But, neither can anyone else. So, instead of believing in something which has no proof what so ever, we choose to not believe in that until there is proof
E G 10+
don't do the wrong I did : to think that athiesm means to claim that God don't exist , athiesm means to believe/think that God don't exist due to many many things : the lack of rational proofs about God existence , the behaviour of many 'theists' , the irationality of dogmas sometimes and so on.......... but I still don't think there is rational to be athiest .
Peter Law 30+
"atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist."
MAC Dictionary
You weren't so far wrong.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
atheism |ˈāTHēˌizəm|
noun
disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
But there is a reason: lack of any evidence. Show me evidence, I might change my stance. So far all quackery, fallacies, and straw-man of scientific findings. That won't work.
Peter Law 30+
When you dub all the witnesses as "Quacks", it is difficult to get a fair trial. But I'll keep trying, we could have a ball in eternity !
:-)
Colleen Steen 500+
How are you and Gabo going to "have a ball in eternity"?
According to you, you will be in heaven with god, because you embraced the "right" belief, and poor Gabo, according to your teachings, will be in hell, because he chooses not to believe in a god!!! Hardly seems fair to seperate you two...do you think? Maybe your plan is to convert Gabo before you both leave the earth school?
Peter Law 30+
Hope springs eternal. I think Gabo is a long term contract; but you never know.
I'd love to have you all there; people are my passion!
:-)
Mary M. 50+
Many people claim that science disproves the Bible's account of creation. However, the real contradiciton is not between science and the Bible, but between science and the opinions of Christian Fundamentalists. Some of these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24-hour days approximately 10,000 years ago.
The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past one hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, my befiefs disagree with Christian Fundamentalists and many creationists. While the Bible is not a book on science; when it touches on the subject, it is scientifically correct.
I wholeheartedly feel that "That which does not satisfy the mind, cannot satisfy the heart". We must use our power of reason to come to truth about God. I don't think he would want it any other way.
In order to learn about God you have to go to the book that says of itself that it is inspired by him. Reading the Bible is the first step, but to really learn, you need to study it. I do not think you have any kind of authority to speak for or against the Creator or anything related to his inspired word, otherwise. It is absurd to argue about something you know nothing about, or to even call yourself an atheist, what an ugly word...
.Why not get a copy of the Bible....for free...at the library, or on-line. Then, start asking questions about what you read to people of different christian faiths. Don't you think sooner or later you would be smart enough to figure out which religion is teaching the truth about the God of the Bible, and which ones are not.
I'll end with a quote:
"We're all theologians. The question is whether what we know about God is true."
(J. Harris)
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Well I can say that Peter's definition is nearly inaccurate.
I must have missed the memo but I do not remember atheism ever being a theory.
E G 10+
we have to recognize that all I said about theism (the irrationalities of dogmas sometimes ....) happen and this create more disbelief in god than another belief and this simply because the people loose their interest about religion perhaps.
the irrationality of atheism stays in something else , I'll write a comment about it and if you want to read it... .
Peter Law 30+
I agree that the church can be full of dogma & irrationality which puts people off. Added to this we have thousands of different 'religions' and hundreds of "christian" denominations. My contention is that all this is a spiritual smokescreen designed to keep people from bothering to investigate. It is only smoke however. Jesus promised that those who truly seek the truth will find him.
I certainly worried about the myriad of beliefs out there, but when I got down to really searching there was really only one path with any credibility. The Christian denominations are only representative of committees disagreeing on detail; my experience is that there are Christians everywhere, & they are not difficult to spot.
What do you think ?
:-)
E G 10+
I don't think this is a reason.
God is like the thing in itself and therefore He is out of the reason's power of action ( I use Kant's language) , the reason is useful just for understanding the phenomenal world . We can't undestand God reasonable , all we can understand are only His manifestations ( and even this maifestations can't be understood by us fully. )
So I guess that by 'lack of evidence' the atheists mean 'lack of God's manifestation' , I'd be very curious to know what the atheist except at . But the problem is that even if you have a manifestation of God you need to believe that it is a manifestation of God , if you don't wanna believe that a certain thing is GodM there is no hope , if you ask yourself : 'why to do that?' , you shouldn't (it's irational : remember the difference between the world of thing in itself and the phenomenal world ) if you don't really mean by evidence to see God Himself .
That's what I mean by atheism going usually with materialism : to ask always yourself : ' why to do that? '.
God= what is understood by the concept of God , it's not about a specific God.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Of course lack of evidence is reason. But that's very simplistic. It's more than that. It is evident that we humans have invented gods at least as many times as cultures exist. Thus, the concept of a god cannot easily be trusted to come from an understanding of some real thing, whether material or not. It looks a lot as if invented. Thus, couple those two: lack of evidence, and the undeniable talent of humans to give anthropomorphic agency to nature, and you get a recipe for disbelief. I don't know about every atheist, but with me you fail to see that to you it starts with a god as a reality out there. To me, there has to be some logical pathway towards a god (this might not be too clear, but I don't know how else to put it). Otherwise, as far and as beautifully as you might put this god, it will be just another storm god (to steal Fred's words), only the storm is a tad bigger.
It is very reasonable not to believe. Believing requires a leap of something that you might not notice from where you stand, but it is quite clear from here. You start by asking the possibility for a god with capital "G." You don't seem to ask where did you get the god idea from in the first place. I do.
Best.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Not all the "witnesses" are quacks. But most copy the misinformation produced by the quacks. Fairness is not about giving everything equal weight. It is about giving each thing its proper weight. So, for example, I will not give equal weight to deformed science over well thought and carefully interpreted science. The media, for another example, is confused about what fairness means, and they put quacks next to scientists as if their opinions in matters of science were equally valid. That's far from fair, and it's close to fraud, because It deceives the public into the false impression that both are equal. It is giving the quacks an unfair position. It is as if I gave the students who never came to class, who did not work, who did not learn anything, an A+, despite their difference to students who worked hard to learn the stuff. The good students would not perceive that as fair, and they would be right.
Anyway ...
:-)
Peter Law 30+
I love these debates on this subject. I don't see your point about unfairness though. If we have two guys with (say) a PhD in biology each; one believes evolution, the other believes creation. They are given equal time etc in a neutral venue. They debate & cross examine. What's unfair about that ?
Sometimes one will be a better orator, but that can be on either side. I think it is great; both sides are aired, & now & again someone might learn something. I would advise watching a few.
:-)
E G 10+
You are right : that's what I think ; why do you think that atheism is more a belief than a disbelief? because I don't think so .
Peter Law 30+
I guess you are right in that atheism could be considered a disbelief Where the belief may come in is with evolution etc. Folks don't usually just disbelieve; they have an alternative belief system to take the place of God. Materialism in general, & often Darwinism in one of it's forms.
So it probably is a bit different from atheist to atheist whether they have a belief, or a disbelief.
:-)
E G 10+
I don't think you can prove that the concept of God has been invented , you said that it is evident that we invented gods at least as many times as cultures exist, that isn't possible because what a culture can leave us heritage are some ideas about gods (it's like a descriptions but never a description is the real thing) , they can't invent God, all you can say I guess is that everything ends here (at a description) , but that's not true (in fact that antrophomorphic agency it's not mroe than a description) ; you also said that you know where my conceptions of God comes from , you can't, and I tell you frankly why:
-that's true: I was educated to believe in god but I don't believe in him because of that : because of the doctrine I grew up with , if everything had been resumed to that now I would be the most 'atheist' but there is something else what I didn't get from education (it is impossible to be got from education) , it's an intuition (not some abstract knowledge=a belief , not anything else ) , and tell me how can I have (and not only I , I know some other people , they aren't too many , that's true) an intuition , and how this intuition grow in intensity if the real thing/the intuited one don't exist? My beliefs evolve , they maybe don't have that logical riguros concistency now (some of them) , they perhaps won't be so in the future .... , it doesn't prove God don't exist.
And something else very important : this intuition I have (it's exprimation in words is not complete and depends on my/ours ability to reason ) is the same at the real theists , it can be proved historically and in a scientific way .
''To me , there has to be some logical pathway towards a god...'' what I described is a logical pathway even though it starts with 'to believe' ;( and suppose for a second that God=(like the thing in itself) is real : isn't that irrational to think that you can go towards God through reason ?)
Gabo Moreno 100+
I did not say that I can prove that the concept of god was invented, but that we can easily show that gods have been invented in every culture. This is for sure. Do you need a list of gods for starters? It thus seems reasonable to think that the concept comes from the anthropomorphizing of whatever mysteries or frightening things found in nature or imagined beyond. I can't rule out that some real god(s) presented themselves to some ancient culture, or that some real god(s) communicate for real to you and Pete. But that's another issue. What I am saying is that there is real evidence that cultures invent gods, and that it is thus very reasonable to infer that all concepts of god(s) come and evolve from that.
I did not say that I know where you got the concept from either. I said that you don't seem to think where that concept could have come from while I do. Since you say that it is impossible for cultures to invent "God," seems like my guess is correct. You really have not thought about how cultures invent gods, and how you can go from gods of thunder to "God." I see paths very clearly. Since what I see is reasonable (all cultures invent gods out of anthropomorphizing natural phenomena, then some of today's "thinkers" go beyond the mysteries of mysteries and deify them too, which is no different to deifying thunder), it is thus reasonable to conclude that gods are imaginary. Couple that with lack of evidence for the actual existence of gods. Couple that to the irrationality of holding to Noah's flood and instant creation by denying and shielding yourself against understanding the proper science. I can't but conclude that gods are imaginary.
How come you have this intuition? Wishful thinking? Subconscious holding to a cherished belief? I have had intuition about many false things. Why would your intuitions be better than mine?
Note that my point is about atheism being reasonable. It is. Intuition is not reason, is it?
Best,
--G
E G 10+
I hope you'll read my comments....
......Best (too) and frankly : be careful .
Eduard.
Gabo Moreno 100+
We can't start with atheism to later "adopt" the idea that gods, or "God," were invented. That is illogical. Maybe investigating the many reasons why gods would be invented can come after becoming an atheist. But atheism itself implies that, to the person, gods are invented. You have to "adopt" the idea to become an atheist. It is part of the definition. You can't be an atheist and adopt the idea later. I think you should take your own advice and be careful.
Best,
--Gabo
Gabo Moreno 100+
If two PhDs in biology, one believes in evolution and the other believes creation, then they are both on equal footing. But if one understands and thus accepts evolution, while the other paints cartoons, or builds straw-man, of evolution, then they are not equal. One holds to knowledge the other to quackery. It is unfair to put them together in a forum and give the impression that they both are at the same level.
I have listened to many of your quacks Pete. They build straw-men of evolution and of every other science. They misinform, misrepresent, and twist scientific disciplines and methods to play rhetorical games. They can be quite good at it. Long ago I listened to them with hope Pete. But, since I was starting to understand the science, I could see the quackery for what it was, just as clearly as I could see the sun. Today I also have a more formal understanding of fallacies and about how rhetoric works. Thus, I see what they will be about from the opening sentences. So far they are scum.
Best.
E G 10+
I don't need that list and I see that paths too .
Yes: gods have been invented in every culture , about that gods I'm an atheist as you are and I think that to believe in them is irrational as you do; and also yes : the concept of god(s) could have been evolving from there , but as I said I'm not the believer in that gods .
I talk about God with a different meaning , is what the cultures couldn't invent (I think that to believe in God is to believe in God : it's part of the 'definiton' of God to not be invented); I argue about that thing who the cultures never invented , and I say that is irrational to be an atheist in relation to Him .
How does seem now my first argument ?
And also yes (as I said): the single way to know Him is by intuition , by direct relation , you don't have it , you talk about nothing . This relation/intuiton starts with 'to believe' , why this ? it's easy explainable.
You see that paths , very well, I see that paths too , therefore I know where my concept of God comes from : it's very clear for me : not by walking on that paths (and I didn' say i have my concept of God from education).
You perhaps remember of that 'cumbersome excuses' , I tried an explanaiton , that was very imperfect , it was a wrong from me to try to give one to an atheist.
Summarizing : the single way to know God is by intuition: this is what implies the 'definiton' of God and this, couple with my first argument makes theism very rational and atheism very irrational .Your excuse then to reject my argument that the lack of evidence it's not an argument for not believeing don't have a real basis , not for what I'm talking about (in the best case you don't know anything about God ).
- About that gods we shouldn't have a different opinion .
You are right in your last pharagraph .
Best .
E G 10+
edward long 100+
Gabo Moreno 100+
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
That looks like a "gotcha".
Is this thread about ..."Abolishing the use of the term Atheism"?
Or....is it an exercise in realizing how we "muse" to be "amusing"?
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Peter Law 30+
So if a person is atheist AND materialist; and the two usually go together; then that is a belief system, or religion if you like. A positive confidence that a condition is true, although ultimately it is un-verifiable.
I think the term Atheist is as good as any, unless you are an Atheist who accepts nevertheless that there may be a spiritual realm.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Nice to see you. Sad to note that you engage in this "put their faith on" rhetoric.
I don't put my faith on materialism, I don't put my faith in naturalism. I just don't easily accept whatever people propose as existing with no evidence. Let alone if you then claim that there's "evidence," but you have to twist and contort at every evidence of contradictions within your "evidence," and without (as in nature and science showing that things happened in a completely different way than your "evidence" suggests). If I had to do that much to trust any "evidence," and it supposedly backed proposition, I would just start from scratch. Rather say I have no idea than accept such a hyper-twisted thing.
I don't see how that makes me "religious." It is as if because you don't accept science as it works, but pick and choose, I would then call you a scientist. Your having a position about science, whichever position it might be, does not make you a scientist, does it?
Best,
--Gabo
Peter Law 30+
I Agree that I am not a scientist; not in your league anyway. However I can process the logic that scientists come up with and make a decision on whether it seems logical. Many scientists down through the ages have made tremendous gaffs, so they are not infallible. When I run the evolution stuff through my sieve I foresee a gaff which is being revealed daily.
When you do the same you come up with a truth that you are willing to accept. That is fair enough, but to me both our positions are faith positions, as empirical science is insufficient for historical events.
I have asked you this before without success..... I was watching an old John Wayne movie at the weekend. You know, out in the Badlands. One of the many craggy features of the landscape was a column of sedimentary layers about 200ft tall, & 50ft or so square, although tapering towards the top. This is a typical formation. How was it formed; in your opinion ? You should have an opinion; after all I have an opinion about everything remotely looking like a jigsaw piece from the overall plan.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
You are missing the point. The point being that atheism is not a faith position just as your positions for or against some aspects of science don't make you a scientist. That was it.
I don't see how my acceptance of evolution is faith. You start with your bible, and deny whatever might seem to conflict with it on the basis if the quackery you have managed to read/listen/whatever. I just see the data, all corroborating the evolution scenario, I accept it. I have nothing in my life conflicting with anything. Should the evidence show a very young earth, then I might be inclined for a young earth. The difference is that I am committed to the evidence, you to the bible. Siding with the evidence is not faith. Siding with an old book of stories is. The only reason you don't find conflicts with the bible is because you don't want to find it. But there's plenty.
Those formations? I told you. I am no expert on that, but geologists say wInd erosion. Since I am no expert, I accept their verdict. Is this faith? Nope. I accept it because when I read it so long ago, it was reasonable. I don't remember a lot of it, but it did. I can change my mind about that, of course. Only it will take evidence. But books of mythology? Nope.
Now, let us take it further. I am no expert, thus you could say: it was Noah's flood! I would say that the fields I study show no evidence of any global flood. Thus, your hypothesis fails from what I do know. Why should I accept it in such other field it is already makes no sense in my field?
I hope that was clear.
Best,
--Gabo
Peter Law 30+
I didn't initially begin with the bible, I began with evolution.
Think about the pillar Gabo. Never mind the experts for a minute, just think for yourself.
We have a column of water deposited (the experts would agree) layers a couple of hundred feet thick. This would be laid down over a period of time, during which time the land was either under water, or periodically under water. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Then comes the tricky bit; we have to remove all the surrounding material & leave the pillar standing. There are really only two hypothesis.
1. The land, which was underwater, rose up, & the water rushed away, taking large amounts of the sedimentary layers with it. But conceivably leaving our column.
2. For some reason the water stopped laying down layers, the whole thing dried out, and strong winds removed most of the layers but left our pillar. Presumably this is the line the experts will take?
I can't for the life of me see why the pillar would be left by scenario 2. This would surely take many years to accomplish, but there is no serious erosion of the pillar, or the vertical faces of surrounding up-stands. There is debris at the bottom of the pillar indicating that it has been crumbling for a short time. Note the debris has not yet been blown away.
My contention is that if wind were responsible then the pillar would have been removed with the rest of the earth. It would not have been left as a fragile edifice which will undoubtedly be eroded to nothing over the next thousand years or so.
The pillar is good in that neither of us are experts; but neither do we need to be. My quacks haven't really cottoned on to it yet; I just wondered myself. Do you really believe wind did it. If you can link any of your experts on this I would be interested, but it's a hard one to nail down.
:-)
Colleen Steen 500+
In another comment on this thread, you write...
"It works just great; but we have to play by His rules; folk don't like that".
Are we really thinking for our "self" when we play by someone else's rules?
My perception is that playing by someone else's rules, causes us to give up our own "thinking".
Although I don't like any labels, my perception, is that those who call themselves Atheists, simply are choosing to play by their own rules:>)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Nope, you did not start with evolution. You might have known about something that sounded like evolution, but it was not evolution. You give me some very wrong cartoons. Thus that is not where you started. Also, the evidence is conclusive. You start with the bible. You will twist and contort farther than the normal breaking points for anybody else before accepting that your bible is wrong. I have been witness. No field of science indicating an old earth can be right. No fossil exists if it points to the evolution of any life-forms. Information means whatever creationist quacks prefer before accepting that energy plus natural laws can do the trick ... et cetera.
Anyway. The pillar. I don't see "for the life of me" why the pillars would be "left alone" by something so much more powerful than wind such as water, while wind would not "leave them alone."
Anyway, I might try and find a link. But, again. I see no point. If, again, and again, the flood looks ridiculous when "explaining" things I perfectly understand, why would I even entertain the idea of a global flood for those pillars? The most you could expect it to convince me that there was a flood right there. That if some caveats could be solved. How quickly the deposition of the layers? These layers have mixes and mismatches of different materials. Some have gross particles, some fine particles, mixed. Not ordered in a way that would make sense in a single go ... et cetera ...
But will find you a link sometime ...
Best,
--Gabo
Gabo Moreno 100+
Since I am rather harsh to others. I welcome your harshness. But here I answer: I did not choose to play by my own rules. I did not choose for there not to be any evidence for gods. You might say that it is my choice not to believe without evidence. But far from my own rule. It just makes sense. That's how my brain works. Give me evidence, I will consider it. Give me cartoons of science. I will not. Give me a mystery. Nice, let us work it out. But because we can't work it out there is gods? Well, that won't fly.
Maybe that's "my own rule" that I won't buy into believing without evidence. Then, science kills most believed gods (such as Peter's), and leave's only gods that encompass wider mysteries, but still look completely made up (there is no logical path towards them), as poetic as they might sound. So, given the irrationality of the former, and the no-logical-path for the latter. I don't believe. So, knowledge was what made it for me. Is it my own rule? Here I am lost in the semantics. I don't think so. But maybe to a point.
Best,
--G
Colleen Steen 500+
Best
---C
Gabo Moreno 100+
Peter Law 30+
I guess everyone imagines that they are playing by their own rules. We all like to believe we are free thinkers, but life conspires to pressurise us. While on this site, I feel that I am very un-cool for believing in God. In church it seems natural. It is hard to ignore peer pressure.
I have chosen to fall into line with who I believe created the universe. And let's face it, if you are going to bow to peer-pressure, then God is the ultimate peer. That is my free choice & it frees me from all other peers (to an extent). I still have the choice to turn away; but why?
Sure Atheists are free to chose as well; as are you. It's a great system.
:-)
Colleen Steen 500+
I do not percieve you as being "un-cool" for believing in a god. I percieve the "un-cool" part as your insistance that YOUR belief and YOUR god are the one and only, and if one does not embrace YOUR beliefs, they just are not good enough, and will spend an eternity in hell.
You are welcome and encouraged to "fall in line" with whomever you please...it is always a choice. You have also stated over and over again on TED that you are trying to convert all of us to your beliefs. I'm percieving that you feel you are better than others because you know what is "right", and you know what is "wrong". You often mold your beliefs around facts to "prove" your "rightness". That is the "un-cool" part of your dialogue Peter.
Those beliefs have only served to seperate people throughout history, rather than unite, and I do not agree with anything that continues to seperate us as human beings in this life journey. If you feel you have to "bow to peer pressure" Peter, that is unfortunate, and it is a choice YOU make...as you say. It doesn't mean YOUR choice is "right", or better than anyone else's choice. To make our own choices IS great, and I think it's important to respect each other's choices. What religion or philosophical belief we embrace is not as important as how we live our lives. For me, accepting each other and individual beliefs is a choice I make, so I don't feel "un-cool" in dialogues with many different people:>)
With the greatest respect for you and your beliefs, and not much respect for your attempt to convert:>)
Peter Law 30+
"The pillar. I don't see "for the life of me" why the pillars would be "left alone" by something so much more powerful than wind such as water, while wind would not "leave them alone.""
Have you ever played with a hosepipe in a sandpit ? You can carve the sand into many weird shapes, If you just empty a bucket of water in there, you get similar results. A lot of water, over a short time frame will do the job.
A short time frame is not an option with wind. It is a long slow process. It leaves no jagged edges, everything gets rounded off, & smoothed out. We also have to wonder why, after millions of years of layer deposition, it should stop & reverse the procedure by blowing them all away again.
Some nice pictures.
http://www.utahgeology.com/roadguides.php?hw=arches
Don't worry about links; what is your best guess, just based on common sense ?
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
I have played with water and sand. Sure thing. But the "formations" you talk about are smallish. They tend to be much wider at the bottom, and collapse under their own weight, as you "scale up" until they don't form anymore. I would imagine that for those formations you have to have had some uneven solidification before removing the rest. I would bet that water would not leave such things. My best bet would be wind for those tall columns. ;)
(I was just thinking aloud. I remember geology being a lot of fun.)
EDIT: Browsing around I found lots of sandstone cliffs eroded by periodic floods. They look amazing. Anyway, the shapes are not like those thin tall columns at all ... interesting stuff.
Peter Law 30+
My guess is that wind would give you the Sahara (There's a joke in there somewhere); lots of dunes, but no spikey bits.
At least we are in agreement about the pictures being cool.
:-)
Colleen Steen 500+
I cannot get this response near your comment that I am replying to, so here it is...
"Thanks Colleen. No, I was not arguing with you. I know, I am an arguer, but with you it was more like trying to think together if my disbelief was about my own rules ... Seems like a "yes and no." :) "
I LIKE the idea "to think together", and I LOVE the idea of an answer being "yes and no"....that is PERFECTLY "right"!!! LOL:>)
Peter,
I just read your comment above..."I guess the layers would be somewhat hardened, depending on how long they had been compacting"
I realize you were talking about sand and rock formations, and also... how appropriate the comment is regarding some of the comments on this thread...interesting:>)
Peter Law 30+
{I percieve the "un-cool" part as your insistance that YOUR belief and YOUR god are the one and only, and if one does not embrace YOUR beliefs, they just are not good enough, and will spend an eternity in hell. }
My dear Colleen; whatever gave you the impression that I think I am better than you? If we were both driving down the highway, & I came to a place where the bridge was out & narrowly escaped death. If I retraced my steps & tried to wave you down, would that make me better than you? I don't think so.
God has said that he doesn't call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance. I know for a fact that I am a sinner; no mistake. There is nothing in me that is better than you. The bridge may not be out, I may be mistaken, but I warn you from sincerity, out of love for my fellow wo/man. (You, in this instance)
I would love for folks to accept Jesus. However generally in this forum all I am trying to do is to take a second look at what they believe. eg. my pillar of layers above. I really want to know what series of events folks think may have produced such an effect. Mainstream science seems strangely silent.
:>)
Gabo Moreno 100+
As I said, browsing around I found other formations made by flooding, which I thought you would go immediately and find and be all exited about. But those columns? Wind. I learned that a very long time ago. As I said, I am no geologist. I know of one geologist, but you did not like her style. Otherwise you would have an answer to those pillars, and other questions about sandstones that you rather prefer to keep believing as coming from Noah's flood.
Best,
--G
Colleen Steen 500+
You ask..."whatever gave you the impression that I think I am better than you?"
Two years of seeing your same message in pages of dialogue on TED. has given me this impression Peter. I realize that TED has removed a lot of your comments for being off topic, as we are again right now. It is very clear that you would like everyone to accept your beliefs Peter, and your beliefs are not always the topic. We KNOW you "would love for folks to accept Jesus", but that is not the topic of discussion here, nor has it been the topic many times when you hyjack sites to spread the word of your beliefs.
Regarding your comment..."Mainstream science seems strangely silent".
Peter, science is not at all "strangely silent" You are simply not listening, and you seem to be stuck in your righteousness.
Peter Law 30+
Wind erosion is only part of the answer.
It is accepted I think that the layers were laid down by water. South Dakota seems to be between 2 & 5 thousand feet in elevation above sea level.
1. So did the sea overwhelm the state once, or many times?
2. What is the mechanism for that ?
3. Once all the layers were there; why did the sea cease to overwhelm the state?
4. Given that our pillar is made of the same layers as the surrounding countryside; why would it be left standing & not leveled by wind erosion ?
5. Where is all the sand ?
Agreed there is wind erosion taking place now which has a certain sculpting effect, but if wind erosion is responsible for my pillar, then it is also responsible for the Grand Canyon. Not a widely held view.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
If you ask what is responsible for those specific pillars, wind erosion is a complete answer. That you might have other questions is ... another question.
Perhaps the only pertinent to how those pillars is number 4, for which I would say that maybe not all the sandstone is uniformly "stonified."
Your last part got me seriously perplexed: How exactly do you go from "wind is responsible for these pillars" to "wind is responsible for the grand canyon"? I can't see the connection. Please explain very clearly, because it looks awfully like a non-sequitur.
Peter Law 30+
The pillars of the badlands are very similar to the formations in & around the Grand Canyon. See links :-
http://www.ciracar.com/img/nature/grand_canyon/grand_canyon1.jpg
http://www.eltourismo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/grand-canyon.jpg
http://www.ace-clipart.com/photos/s-rim/south-rim-01.jpg
The canyon is believed to have been formed by water by both sides of the debate. Certainly the ratio of land removed to land retained is a bit different, but the formations are similar.
Do you not have an opinion on my 5-points ? All are required to form my pillar, so an explanation of the pillar would require answers. Go on; give it a try.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
It does seem like we are hijacking the thread into geology, and this will be the last from me on this topic over here. Maybe if there is another thread (once I got tons of nice comments deleted because of this off-topic thing, and it feels awful).
So, it is nonsense to think that because some formations were eroded by wind, thus every formation has to have been eroded by wind.
Some of your questions are answered by plate tectonics.
Some formations in South Dakota's badlands are wind eroded, other formations are water eroded, and I have no problems with either. The photos you posted that are similar to those at the grand canyon were described as water-eroded at some badlands tourism web-site. While the weird, thin, columns, as far as I remember, were wind-eroded. But there are others I had forgotten, by the ocean-shore, that look spectacular, and just as weird, except that the materials are different (the ones I saw mixture of metamorphic and volcanic rock, rather than sandstone). Also due to differences in hardness of the rock, different materials, and how the water splashes on it.
It is to be expected that some sandstone will be more solid than other sandstone.
Now that Frans mentions it, yes, rocks on top can produce such effects. We did some experiments in geology (I did not remember about that). But that is not the only explanation.
Also, big area maps show where the sand produced by the erosion has accumulated. Consistent with how the wind/water flows.
Quite often I will not know anything about something. I am only me. However, that I might not know something does not mean that "mainstream science" has been "strangely silent" about it.
I will always side with geologists on this, just as I will always side with scientists on anything I don't know. Creationist quacks ***openly*** and ***unashamedly*** deform and lie about the fields of science that I know, why should I think they don't deform any other science?
Best,
--Gabo
Peter Law 30+
You are the one who is always bringing up my beliefs. Gabo & I were discussing rock formations; which is also off-topic. However the whole concept of Atheism is dependent upon the non-existance of God, so maybe our theological differences are more on-topic than Gabo & I talking geology.
If you think I've hijacked the discussion, then start another thread.
Awe heck, who cares, it's good fun.
:-)
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Well thanks for pointing that out although I must say that I already understood the distinction but it is usually thought (at least from my personal experience) that scientist who materialist(in the scientific sense) are also those who value other physical, material things (in the economic sense) because that is all that exist (or they think exist). I do not think this makes sense and since I did not talk to you until your reply I thought I'd just address that point (which is also why I brought up quantum mechanics). I apologize for the assumption, I just thought I'd cover all bases.
In regards to everything else you said I do agree, many atheist do reject any sort of spirituality(or spiritual experiences) but I can tell you the reason as to why: the very word spiritual is usually correlated with religious metaphysics or dogma and an atheist fears that if they have spiritual experiences then they might be lumped w/in the same category of a religious person. In all honestly, it really undermines the experiences that individuals have on a daily bases.
Frans Kellner 100+
I don't know what you and Gabo exactly talked about but if there's a pebble on the sand and the wind blows the top layer will be blown away exept where the pebble was. If this goes on for a while the pebble lays on top of a little tower of sand. That explains the strange rock formations.
Even the Vatican and the pope accept evolution Peter. when will you?
Colleen Steen 500+
I am the one always bringing up your beliefs???
That is WAY TOO FUNNY!!!
Peter Law 30+
Sorry the pebble doesn't cut it. We are talking about pillars of geological layers the same consistency as the surrounding countryside. You'd need to read back.
The Pope & I agree on very little, so his influence on my thinking is marginal. Now evidence, that's a different matter.
:-)
Frans Kellner 100+
If the top plate was weak and at some points hardened or covered the wind would erode the weak parts and the towering parts under the hard top would erode on the vertical as well as horizontal levels in between. With time you get pillars like we see them today.
Nothing special about that. You can simulate this artificially at any time.
Peter Law 30+
This was as near as I could get.
""It does seem like we are hijacking the thread into geology.....etc""
Thanks for that. I can agree with most of what you say. However the water had to cover Dakota for a while to form the layers. Then something had to change & the erosion start by whichever method. It just seems that some interesting stuff happened, but we don't really know what.
By mainstream science I merely allude to the lack of links. Most things you can find some sort of 'official' hypothesis.
You're right though, we'd better close down this one. Shame; it's not stopping others.
:-)
E G 10+
I agree with Peter : atheism and materialism usually go together : it's interesting that many scientists are atheists when usually the science don't offer more than an materialistic view of the world ( not the all branches of science do that of course).
And I also agree with Gabo that the atheism is not a belief system , I rather call it now an attitude due to the lack of proofs about the subject(God) .
-As I many times said here on TED I'm not an atheist : the lack of proofs is normal in my opinion and is even more rational to not exist proofs than to do .
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
This proves neither you or Peter know what you are talking about.
E G 10+
(if you think to asnwer : check for a reply at the end of the week)
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
For those whom are theist would consider atheism - a mindset, a religion and/or theme of beliefs.
All wrong, atheism is just one belief of many that someone can have. The belief in no deities, as an omni-being of some sort. "It's a lack of belief" ... No, it's the rejection, you can't consciously lack something unless you never learned it, but you can reject it.
Every individual has multiply belief systems that create a major Belief system. Which reflects their personalities, thinking, receiving of information, sharing, etc.
Back on to this materialism statement. Materialism is the belief/process of thinking that all of existence can be summed up into matter, in the debates such as mind vs. body, mind is apart of body.
No, atheism only implies the deities, after that it is individualistic. Plenty of eastern atheistic philosophies in the world believe matter is comprised of Chi (xi) and that Chi involves continual change.
http://faculty.fullerton.edu/jeelooliu/liu_analytic-chinese.pdf Liu explains it better.
You guys are trying to make certainties from other certainties. Which is flawed, there are variations and degrees to every word that describes. I'm a little materialistic, meaning, we can definitely learn a lot about the physical world when thinking it is static (atomism). However I'm a lot more of a naturalist, that I accept their is a divine nature outside of human intelligence as of now. We do not know a lot about nature, but what we do should be reflected on as a plausible information.
I believe scientific data should influence religious beliefs. Such as it has before in Buddhism and Taoism.
Peter Law 30+
""I believe scientific data should influence religious beliefs.""
I agree entirely. I would never have become a Christian if I could have found any conflict with the real material world we know & love.
I had 2-steps :-
1. Is this whole idea (Christianity) plausible in the light of the scientific knowledge we have?
2. Humbly acknowledge my maker & ask for understanding.
It works just great; but we have to play by His rules; folk don't like that.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
You said: "I agree entirely. I would never have become a Christian if I could have found any conflict with the real material world we know & love."
Sorry, but from my experience chatting with you, this is false. You start with the bible, then read creationist quackery, and thus reaffirm your beliefs. I don't know why you became a Christian, but your common explanation seems a lot like a pseudo-ratinalization in retrospect.
E G 10+
I agree with you on materialism . And yes the atheism and materialism don't go in a compulsory way always together , what I said was that they usually go together( you can be an atheist and not be a materialist)and this according to what you understand by materialism, but there is a fact that many atheists(scientists) believe in materialism and try to explain the world in this way . As a theist you can't be materialist .
But for really understand what I meant to say (I wide there the concept of materialism ) read my commment which start like : ' Gabo said (and not only.......)' .
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
This is an off topic response on an ill-interpretation of my overall argument on belief systems and Belief systems.
Also, I am too much aware of your position on religion and "God" and I find them, distasteful and rejecting a lot of natural realities. Example: Evolution
Christianity is gnostic in its foundation. The Christ, the anointed one, was a messenger whom brought the sacred message of the sacred gift. There were many anointed ones, there are many anointed ones. Scientifically accepted or not, Christianity today is not the Christianity during the turn of the millennium. Since then between the Roman Catholic church and the Roman Empire influences on Christianity, Christianity today is not the same.
Jesus was talking about the kingdom of heaven as (two theories): A. a level of consciousness or B. true, pure and entire "globalization" all men equal, period. He would be talking what Buddha, Confucius and Lao-tzu (if he existed) were talking about, and that would be self reflection, self actualization, self existentialism and so on. In my opinion, because a lot of philosophers were talking about such things at the turn of the same point in time. And in the west, they were just entertainers and authors.
With that said, I accept Christianity as plausible, but I don't go around telling people they shouldn't hurt others and get famous in the 21st century. I'll only get a merit badge. Who cares what the messenger did, saw, heard, died.... Care about the message. Be Christ-like do not be a Christian!
Okay, God's rule.
That would be nature's rules, no? Since God is everything and in everything and controls everything. God is pure "omni." Now in my understanding, there are laws of nature in science. Does God's rule to you, conflict with any of those laws?
Because, if they do, I think you misinterpreted Jesus.
Nick
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Nicholas has a point and I would have to agree with him that I do no think you understand what your really saying (no offense or anything). If you ask me, I would say that capitalism and materialism go together more so than atheism and materialism.
I do not like the term atheism myself but for the sake of simplicity I'll use it. I'm an atheist myself and I do not value materialism. I"m actually pretty spiritual and value self transcendence . I meditate and contemplate a lot to the point where I'm really not attached to the material world how most people are and I'm really ok with not having much. I can acknowledge that there is a range of human experience that does not involved embracing the physical world. I'm one of many people who have these experiences. Me being atheist, although it has some value to me, is not what gets me through my day. Its does not have an influence on my everyday experiences of the world.
I will also say that yes, there are a lot of scientist that are atheist or agnostic (aprox 93%) but this by no means mean they embrace materialism. They just follow the evidence and I'll provide you an example:
A good friend of mines at my former school has the physics professor thats atheist. He knows a lot about quantum mechanics w/its relationship to consciousness. If you know anything about quantum theory and consciousness you would come to know that what is called the material/physical world is actually influenced by sub-atomic, non-physical properties. As much as this spooks him, as it did Einstein, he is just following the evidence, which in this case, shows that a physical reality MAY not exist independent of a conscious observer. I'm not validating this as truth but I'm coming to show you that not all scientist, who are atheist value only material evidence.
Peter Law 30+
I think you are getting confused by materialist. A materialist can be a greedy person who likes to accumulate material possessions. However in the scientific world a materialist is someone who does not believe in anything which has no atoms; ie everything in the universe is material, there is nothing else; no spiritual dimension.
This is the term often applied to Atheist, as they usually deny the spiritual realm.
:-)
E G 10+
''but I'm coming to show you that not all scientist, who are atheist value only material evidences'' that's true ........
just that happen sometimes to be atheist and to value materialism (for some people) , theism excludes from the start the materialism . But for understanding better what I meant to say read my comment which start : 'Gabo said (and not only him).... ''
Thomas Jones 100+
I see you are promoting a Christian interpretation of science again. I have not read everything in the thread so someone might have addressed this already.
First off, there is absolutely no way you can refer to yourself as a scientist (such as your comment, "... I am not a scientist; not in your league anyway.")
You quite simply are not a scientist.
There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is you are unwilling to accept your fundamental beliefs can be proven wrong. You have no intention of ever disproving your hypothesis. (You flirt with the idea that you are, but you are not really convincing anyone ... not even yourself.)
No matter were you "started" you now assert the Bible is inerrant and your present-day assertions "start and end" there.
There are also all kinds of reasons you choose this set of religious, cognitive "subroutines" not the least of which is they make you feel a "particular way." They provide you with a sense of purpose, the anticipation of a great reward, a means to express concern for others (you want them to share in the same reward), etc.
These outcomes - sensations and feelings - are real. They are as real as any other sensations and feelings and they are directly attributable to your faith in God, Christ, and the Bible.
You would be an "idiot" to give these up (seriously.)
However, what you seemingly fail to realize is these sensations and feelings are EXACTLY the same sensations and feelings any "true believer" feels regardless of what they believe in. The ONLY difference is, it is YOU who feel them (in conjunction with the Christian faith.)
I could tell you you can have these same sensations and feelings without subordinating your intellect to a book that is thousands of years old and has been thoroughly discredited but we all know how you will respond to that, don't we?
The same way a Muslim would respond to similar assertions made in regards to the Quran. And, yet, even you can see the Muslim is "deluded."
Gloria Felicia
I ask back to you then: what do you want to be called? :-)
You should suggest yourself a more acceptable term, right?
I know you would not stay quite when you are asked what's the belief, despite belief system.
Colleen Steen 500+
I am curious as to why you start a discussion thread entitled "Abolishing the use of the term Atheism", and then you refer to yourself in your introduction as "an atheist". If you don't like the use of the term, why keep using it? Do you honestly think that abolishing the use of the term is going to change people's perception of the belief...or disbelief?
Gabo Moreno 100+
I was with you just a few years ago. Not liking to be defined by what I don't believe. However, I have found it to be futile to try and abolish this word. Anyway, yes, semantically atheism just means a lack of theism, or a lack of belief in gods. But it is also a rejection of such beliefs. Nothing wrong with any, and not enough information to truly define somebody. However, it stands in hard contrast to all forms of theism, which overall is so prevalent, that we can't but expect to be called and first described by this word (maybe we should feel privileged).
I often talk about "atheists" in the third person because I know not every person rejects the belief in god the same way, and that such word alone does not describe me. But I know I will be called an atheist, and have learned not to worry about it too much. In my experience, it takes too long to just argue about this word than getting to the substance of, for instance, the ridiculous rejection of scientific findings via mischaracterizations and muddled logic, or the insistence that a "god-of-the-gaps" explanation is scientific.
Yes. People will try to describe atheism as a religion (we have several trying right here). But we know it is not ... perhaps we would be better off by learning when to insist on the distinctions and variety of disbelief, and when to move on to whatever an issue under discussion might be.
Best,
--G
Timothy Sumpter
Frank think of it this way.
I have a pie representing all the knowledge of the universe. That includes space, earth religion, and everything ever knowable.
In this pie there is 100% knowledge. Now about how much do you know of this pie?
Lets say your really, really smart and you know 5% of all the pie. That leaves 95% of all knowable knowledge that you don't know.
Logically thinking here, could it be that in that 95% you don't know there could be a God regardless of who he is or what his part is in this universe?
Well for me I don't even know 1% of all the knowledge in the universe let alone 5%, so I am forced to say that in all the knowledge I don't know there could be a God.
Fred Lanisake
Sure there are people that reason it's impossible to define God, and some without this consideration just sitting on the fence. I don't really see what the point of the comment was besides an attack on her for not being politically correct. Agnosticism in all contexts is about what we think we know... which is directly correlated with whether we reject or accept something. It's not about whether we're knowledgable or naive.
Claiming to know is thinking you know, which is the exact opposite of agnosticism. There are agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, agnostic doctors, agnostic biologists... it's just an adjective for an attitude. But it's also a person that takes a neutral position on things they don't think they could ever know, usually matters of the universe and whatnot.
If you were a Gnostic atheist you'd probably be exiled or killed. There haven't been Gnostics for over fifteen hundred years. The movement popularly identified as Gnosticism was a Christian cult that believed the God of Eden and of the flood was a kind of Satan demiurge and that the material world was evil. They claimed to hold a secret knowledge, which is where the word "agnostic" comes from.
Atheists don't just take a neutral position and "have no beliefs". They're usually about as firm in their beliefs as many Christians and Muslims. The difference between agnosticism and atheism is well defined, and it's the same thing that separates agnosticism from every religion. Atheism and religion are a lot alike.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Seems like you can't read then. Go back, try and understand, then post some relevant answer.
As for now:
I know there was a sect called Gnostic, but the word does not belong to them. If you tried to understand the conversation could go somewhere.
All you said about gnostic and agnostic I knew. Only you try and insist on agnostic being antagonistic with atheist. Your problem. You just don't want to understand.
Of course not every atheist takes a neutral position. I know I don't. But I am not gratuitously "firm in my belief." Since all I get from theists and creationists is fallacies, since I know where beliefs in gods come from, I can't but be firm in my rejection of the belief that there's any gods. In other words, there are reasons for me to be "firm in my belief" that have nothing to do with following anybody, nor any institutions, not any churches, not any of that stuff that makes religions, ahem, religions. Atheism is not a religion, just like your preferred version of neutral (yeah, right) "agnosticism" is not a religion, regardless some people also have instituted some following to agnosticism to the point that they get offended that people use the word to refer to knowledge claims (as if "agnostic" was a religion, rather than a position about beliefs). Got it now? I don't believe in gods. I am pretty convinced that there is no gods at all. But I don't know that there is no gods at all. Got it now? Man, how many repetitions do you need?
If you just won't get it, fine by me. You fail to read properly, and you fail to note that you don't own the word "agnostic," just like that cult you talk about does not own the word "gnostic."
Fred Lanisake
But you did address Gnosticism. Gnostikos was first used in the context of theology to describe a few cults that felt they held the secrets of the universe, which is exactly the context agnosticism pins itself against. Outside of that context you might be able to stretch it to the "learned" atheist but that's not really semantically equivalent to "being sure" you're an atheist, and isn't at all the origin of the idea of agnosticism. More accurately the term comes from gnosis, experiential knowledge as opposed to theoretical knowledge, also not an accurate way of describing your confidence in your atheism. But this is needless bickering...
Gabo Moreno 100+
Random Chance 30+
When we build a bridge, we use sound building theory. Theory that has been tested and proven. It becomes a fact.
Yet all who cross it, cross in faith that it will stay up. If we do not respect the law of, oh let's say the big G here, Gravity, then we will suffer the wrath of the Law when it comes down!
I don't believe in God but I am not an atheist. What am I?
I am a "faitheist". I believe in what I know. What's been proven. What is fact. That is what I have faith in.
However, I have experiences I cannot prove (don't need to), and as a result of them, I guess I believe certain things. One of those is that my experience was real. It was a fact. I went through it. I am the empirical evidence of it! The meaning thus, is mine alone.
Just as one may have experiences that lead them to believe there is a God, they cannot prove them and I think they should have to when they claim free land, tax-free money, or want to have power over others (many forms of this), based on the claim their particular deity exists.
We most likely will never be able to halve and continue halving, cells that heal cuts to the body, and eventually point at the nothingness left, and say, "There, there it is. That is intelligence. That is how it knows how to heal. There, that is power. That is how it does the healing. There, that is love. That "is" the healing."
But, both believers and Faitheists, can point to this nothingness, and say, "It works. It really does."
I certainly didn't do it nor have I ever had a conscious awareness or connection that I was healing this small cut or scratch myself. And, I am going to assume that everyone who has ever lived, is now living, and all who will live (until future discoveries), have had and will have, the experience of the scratch! Everyone has this empirical evidence that they have faith in when they first feel it, then look at it, and seeing it is so small, that somehow, "it" will heal it. And it did/does.
brian herring
Charles De Farias
B) I dislike anything that makes atheists seem united, really. I support talks and groups among atheists, but not so much "Atheist chaplains" or atheist representatives in government. It creates the same problem the word "Atheism" does, which is making "Atheists" seem like they share more than anything but a lack of belief, which isn't the case.
brian herring
Clint Pace
Phillip McKay
It is almost very very very certain God does not exist. THere is much more evidence that he does not exist than that he does.
And if by chance he does exist, well he can go jump! What use is he? Really. Its about time we moved on and grew up. Our imaginary friend. God. I'm well over it. The world should be over it but i concede it will take more time. Pity I'd love to see a Godless world.
siniša karađole
Atheist "believe". Therefore, you guys are a religion, albeit loosely organized one.
The biggest problem you guys have is that you claim that there is no gods or "A GOD" at all - and you cannot know that and you cannot prove that.
Now wait a minute... i know what you will retort to this statement but thats not what i mean.
I DO NOT MEAN to say that anyone should believe in anything based on the lack of evidence.
But i do mean that you should not believe in something based on the lack of evidence. Unfortunately for you guys, that particular trick works both ways.
And there is no evidence that "A God" does not exist.
Which is a totally different kind of game then observing that, for example, a bible has many, many silly things written in it that are mutually exclusive or simply insulting or gross etc. And that by observing our reality we can deduce that indeed a god that is described in the bible does not exist.
That does not mean some kind of "god" doesnt exist, only that the biblical version is very likely not true.
The problem you atheists have is that you go on and extrapolate that no god whatsoever exists.
And you have no proof for that. Simple as that.
Its even funnier seeing how you guys constantly use the word "belief" in your statements, without ever stopping for a second to see what youre doing.
You are people that simply cannot accept that you dont know something. Or that something is not yet proved true or false. You make absolute statements without any proof and you quite often state that you "believe there is no god".
And then you get angry when someone calls you out on this.
To me, this burning desire to be certain and to "know" with certainty, regardless of the evidence or lack of it is in some ways interesting because it is the same fountain from which religious fervor originates.
Charles De Farias
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
A grown person whom has reflected on the idea of "God" (More directly an Omni-being) and rejects that idea and has arguments for it, are gnostic-atheist. You're atheist to the idea of gnosticism. You can't just have a lack of something without something else to be a comparison. Atheist, wouldn't exist without theist, agnostic without gnostic. So to say "a lack of belief is no equivalent to a belief system" is a foul statement. In fact the lack of belief is supported by many other beliefs that support it, thus it is a composite belief. Now a belief is simply a conformity to "knowing" something. 2+2=4. Is the human consensual conformity or belief. Because truly 2+2 does equal 22, just not in mathematics but in semantics.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
Also, everyone, stop generalizing "atheist" like there is a super class of atheist... Atheism is a quality as well as a factor in belief systems. The majority of Eastern religions practice gnostic-atheism or agnostic-atheism.
Naturalism, humanism, (some of) animism, natural pantheism (Jedi faith), the list goes on... all have atheistic qualities. To be solid "atheist" is abstract...
I don't know if you agree with the premise of the conversation Charles, but truly Western Academic have tainted the word "atheism" and polluted it. And, the fact Neo-atheism is rising... shows total unawareness in respects of world religions (and the history of religions).
And I am sorry, but any evidence of a superior being, is going to come up alien to me. As alien-life is far more likely the reason of our existence than a non-physical being. God's existence is another foul statement... What, who and why is "God" - irreligious practices should be championed, not "atheist."
Gabo Moreno 100+
I am sorry, but your comment is pure nonsense.
Atheism is not "a belief system." Atheism can influence the person's "belief system" but it is not itself one. Atheism is just the rejection of beliefs in gods. Anything else is up to the person. Also, a "belief system" is not something "not based on testable facts," it is the background on which you base what you accept as part of reality.
I don't know of many atheists who claim that there are no gods (I might have known but one or two). Go listen to Dawkins, he does not say that there is no gods, he says that's untestable, but that the probability for there being one is very small. And that's a militant atheist. So, please, verify what you claim before claiming.
Few atheists make "absolute statements." That might be why you get angry answers.
Also, if someone claimed to "believe there is no god," that would not be an absolute claim. Anyway, the atheists I know claim that they don't believe in gods, not that they believe there is no god. Quite different, one is a rejection of a belief, the other a belief. None is absolute.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
First, I state no one person has ONE belief system, but a mixture of belief systems. Even a fundamentally religious person has other belief systems affecting/effecting their fundamental beliefs.
Now again a new definition of what atheism means to someone else... Okay it is the rejection of beliefs in Gods. So you are premeditating on the rejection... You have arguments, logic and claims to defend that rejection... If it looks like a duck...
And again, atheism is a quality or trait. It in postmodern philosophy practices, it became an individualized dictation of overall belief systems, some how. But like someone said here, an "atheist" probably does think naturally, humanistic, trans-humanistic, whatever. But the FACT they dictate purely "atheist" is belittling human spirituality and limiting existential thinking. It's fundamentalism on scientific terms, creating an unorganized religion.
And when I addressed, everyone, I am addressing the rise in Neo-atheism, which practices militant ideals when sharing of their beliefs.
I don't care if all of you do not appreciate me saying "belief" but it is, there is no question. Every list of belief systems... guess what, they have atheism on there... and yeah, I think scholars whom write about religions, philosophies, humanities and anthropology have a bigger say here.
Your belief systems are "atheistic" they cannot be just atheist. So, again to say "it's a lack of a belief" is dumb founded. Only unaware people can lack something, because they have no idea about it, their ignorant. You guys are not ignorant towards the term and usage of atheism. It is a rejection, you do have something do with the theism, you have the arguments against it.
It's just a pop-culture fade/trend to be JUST "atheist" to divide yourself from others. Then claim theist are trying to bring you "down" to their level... Because everyone doesn't conform blindly time to time..
Gabo Moreno 100+
Your comment? I did not answer your comment my friend. I answered the top one in this thread (siniša karađole). If that were an answer to your comment I would get a complete fail in reading comprehension (and would deserve a few good insults).
Still, do you want me to answer your comment to me? Seems like we agree on most stuff, and disagree only in a few points (maybe, but it might be a matter of semantics), but it would be an exchange founded in a mistake of identity . :)
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
By all means disagree!
siniša karađole
I see nothing but nonsense in your reply.
If a person is claiming something for which he does not have any evidence and that claim cannot be tested - then it is a belief. Regardless if that person is an atheist a theist or any kind of gnostic or whatever.
The fact is that there is many, many so called atheists that do claim over and over that "there is no god" which is an absolute statement based on nothing. Thats the kind i usually meet.
All props to Richard Dawkins. More atheists should look up and follow that example.
I would also suggest you dont start your replies by insults because it makes you look like a moron even before you prove you didnt understand the argument you were replying to.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Next time you meet those gnostic atheists which you judge us all by, ask them what it would take for them to believe in God. You'll notice most of them will answer that rather than brush it off by saying "nothing, because there's definitively no God!"
At any rate, it's not a religious belief.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Sorry, but calling nonsense nonsense is not an insult. But if I called you, or insinuated you to be, anything similar to moron, or fool, or idiot, show me and I will apologize.
You might have met lots of atheists who claim "there is no god." But it does not matter because your claims were generic, not specific. You did not say "those atheists who claim absolute knowledge ..."
Let me recap:
1. Atheism is not believing in gods. Nothing wrong about it. If we define it as rejection of beliefs in gods, there is still nothing wrong about it either, because it does not claim to **know** that there's no gods.
2. That something is "not testable" does not mean it is a "belief system." It might be a belief, but not a system in and of itself.
3. A belief system is not the same as a belief.
4. A belief system is a basis for what you will accept and what not as part of reality. Atheism might influence such base, but it is not a system by itself.
5. That people may have "belief systems" does not mean they follow a religion.
6. That people have "beliefs" does not mean they follow a religion either.
7. That we can't prove that there's not any kind of god(s) does not mean that their possible existence is on equal terms with their possible nonexistence. (So, no, it does not "work both ways," otherwise you would have to remain neutral about any ridiculous proposition for as long as you could not "prove it" false, because of a philosophical technicality.)
8. When atheists argue with believers, the god in question is quite specific, often one easy to dismiss with a "there's no God." Context is important before claiming that atheists claim absolute knowledge about any imaginable, or unimaginable, gods.
Since your argument contains categorical and logical errors, it was nonsense.
But if you still think that I did not understand your argument, show me, because, your answer seemed to confirm that I got it all right.
Have a good weekend.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
To know is gnosticism. To not know is agnosticism. Atheists, who do not believe in God, are by definition also agnostics. Only religious people claim to know for certain (some at least) that there is a God.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Lol, so false.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
As I said in previous posts, the only reason they're equated is so that when one side argues something, the other can argue the same in retort. There's a desire of symmetry where there is no symmetry. Just like the evolution vs. creation debate where evolution is branded a worldview, evolution is expected to explain the origin of life, evolution is assigned to a lack of belief of that. It has none of these characteristics, but it helps the Creationist side to think of evolution as symmetrical to creationism in what it addresses.
So yes atheism a belief, but no it is not a belief system.
siniša karađole
end of story.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
[EDIT] having read Gabo's answer, I'm confused to whom your post is directed to.
siniša karađole
Gabo continues to misunderstand and gets entagled in semantics. I dont care for that.
You are not much different.
If i said "system" it was in most general terms. Its not like im claiming that atheism is a organized religion with Richard Dawkins as a pope. Please.
btw these are your words from the reply above:
"Atheism is a claim of belief."
As far as your argument that people just go a bit absolutist in their speech even though their real precise opinion is not that absolutist - i dont care. Its their problem and im not telepathic.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Your initial claim, even though you have dropped the "system" in a few places, was that atheism was a belief system, which it is not. Even in general terms. A belief system requires an organised set of beliefs, whether they be religious or otherwise. Not one discrete belief such as that of there being no God or the Sun coming up every day. Sure the belief that there is no God could have some effect on other beliefs held by an individual, but atheism is certainly not a set of rigid beliefs. It has nothing that would make it a belief system.
Also, I was thinking of our exchange on atheism saying "there is no God" and I wanted to ask, given that atheists believe there is no God, shouldn't you expect them to say "there is no God"? or do you really expect them to preface this with "I honestly believe". Should we preface ALL we say with "I honestly believe"? If I say "Sarkozy is a terrible president", will you honestly perceive that as me trying to make an objective claim about my president or will you see in it an opinion and a belief.
I suspect that like everyone else, you don't take what people say at face value. There is nuance to be found in words. Some of us who think about how our position could be misinterpreted put a lot of thought into what we say. Gabo and I, go out of our way to say: 'you know, when we say there is no God, we can't claim that for certain, for that would suggest we have the kind of absolute knowledge nobody can have'. But in daily life, nobody puts these kind of disclaimers on what they say. Good thing too, conversations would be painfully long-winded and full of digression. We are smart enough to make abstraction. Think about it, if ever somebody said "this is true" and they meant it in an absolutist way, why debate them? How is it they sometimes change their mind if they know?
siniša karađole
Bilnd, deaf and totally impervious to logic and common sense.
No, i dont ignore your arguments.
Its just that they are wrong. WRONG!
You believer!
And yes you should take care of what youre saying because people will take what you said as what you said - not as something else that you were thinking but didnt say!
For christ sake...
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Gabo Moreno 100+
You said:
"And yes you should take care of what youre saying because people will take what you said as what you said - not as something else that you were thinking but didnt say!"
Isn't it a bit curious that I took what you said as what you said, yet you said that I kept misunderstanding without clarifying what you were thinking but didn't say; that now you got all worked out about meaning, that being worked out about meaning means being worked out about semantics, yet you accused me of being entangled in semantics, which you said you didn't care for?
Sorry siniša. I know this is now beating a dead horse. Maybe I shouldn't keep at it, but I wanted to say that I have made huge mistakes. Worse than yours here. Probably much more often than you. At some point I started to learn from those mistakes. Maybe, hopefully, you learned something. If you still think that I misunderstand, feel free to show me. If you rather not say anything, have a happy life.
Fred Lanisake
I'm pretty sure just about everyone who calls themselves an agnostic would disagree with this statement. Agnosticism can be most broadly defined as the position that matters dealing with the universe's origin or purpose, including all possible concepts of God, are absolutely unknowable. This is an entirely different position than the one atheists like Dawkins take. Most atheists are pretty damn sure there isn't a God.
Agnosticism, in both etymology and semantics, pins itself against cults that were described as gnostikos by Irenaeus. These cults claimed to have a secret knowledge about God and the universe, mainly the idea that the material world was evil and created by some kind of demiurge. The greek word "gnosis" means experiential knowledge as opposed to theoretical knowledge, or in some later cases "spiritual knowledge". Gnosticism isn't at all a term to denote someone who knows something, especially not in the context of theoretical belief (for example: there is no God). Agnosticism is not at all a term to describe someone who is ignorant, nor is it a quality of being atheist.
"Atheists, who do not believe in God, are by definition also agnostics."
Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Huxley, almost every great naturalist and biblical critic probably rolled in their graves as you typed this. To deny all possibilities of a higher consciousness is to dismiss not only recognition of the unknowable, but all philosophies and free-thinking pertaining to it. It might as well dismiss free-thinking all together. Naturalism and agnosticism were never about atheism. Without these philosophies, atheism is nothing but dogma.
A quote from a man much loved by atheists, Robert Ingersoll:
"Now, understand me! I do not say there is no God. I do not know. As I told you before, I have traveled but very little -- only in this world. I want it understood that I do not pretend to know. I say I think."
Gabo Moreno 100+
I don't care what "agnostics" would say, agnostic is a position about knowledge, and it is not incompatible with atheism.
We had already established that you have no idea what position Dawkins takes (you have not listened to the guy). Now you confirm that you don't read what we tell you. Is it worth repeating or will you ignore it again?
If you capitalize "God", you are being dogmatic yourself, and far from agnostic, since you don't know if there would be one of many gods, or if there might be layers and layers of gods one on top of another, if they might have names, rather the be called by their "job description," or whatever. After all, we can't know. Right?
---
You said: "Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Huxley, almost every great naturalist and biblical critic probably rolled in their graves as you typed this."
My answer: I doubt it. Unlike you, I think they would understand the difference between "not believing" and "knowing that no possible gods are out there."
You even failed to note that, in you quote, Ingersoll agreed with us. We don't pretend to know. We say we don't believe.
---
In your self-righteous "agnosticism" you fail to reason beyond the mere "we can't know about any imaginable gods," only to keep yourself trapped in both semantics and philosophical technicalities. We go beyond that. Example: it is a fact that humans have been inventing gods out of anthropomorphizing whatever goes beyond our understanding, from thunder to physics constants. Regardless of whether we can know, I don't see why we should not reject such beliefs. Similarly, I will reject any gratuitous gods, no matter how beautiful the rhetorics, no matter how shielded from testing. But give me evidence, and I will reconsider. Stop your self-righteous, and barely researched, claims. We understand your "neutral" agnosticism. But we have reasons to be less neutral. Listen for once.
Again: "not believing" does not mean "knowing." We understand that. Will you ever?
Matthieu Miossec 100+
This might help: http://atheistpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/eU3bj.jpg I found it the other day.
Fred Lanisake
The capitalization of God, and the ineffability of symbols given to a supreme creator (like YHWH) are what separate it semantically from the idea of a demigod. Where demigods anthropomorphized different forces within the universe, there was always a distant creator that stood behind the universe and anthropomorphized the infinity, the unknowable.
The idea of a creator that ascended the gods was present in every pantheon. As I stated in an earlier post, Mesopotamian pantheons (Canaanites, Akkadians, the ancient Jews) had El Elyon, the supreme being that remained beyond and detached from the other gods. Monotheism is just an elimination of the demigods with a focus on the supreme one. Elyon was a name for God in Genesis.
Atheists usually get upset about the capitalization of God because they don't approve of the ineffability, of giving a supreme deity importance. Nothing I said above would be of interest to someone frantically upset that religion still controls parts of the world. Instead they might be more interested in making tongue in cheek statements like "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do." But such statements are dogmatic, in that they're fueled by a consensus reality that doesn't value understanding the etymology. By capitalizing God, I'm just making it clear that I'm talking about the objective infinite and however it's been deified, and not about some storm god.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Give me any other point, and I shall answer. But so far ...
You just confirmed that you capitalize "God" because you think there is "a" god. If you were neutral about gods, you wouldn't do that. Meaning you are bounded by a belief in some supreme being. I don't care which culture(s) you cite, with "supremer" gods to other gods, that does not make any of them real. The thing is, you defend "agnosticism" while engaging in theism (or deism, I don't remember which is which). Fine by me if you will accept yourself as being dogmatic. As for me, I won't capitalize the unknowable. I am not "upset" Fred. I just point to the hypocrisy of calling atheists "dogmatic" for stating a rejection of beliefs, while you engage into a belief that seems just as dogmatic if you are to stand by your words. Unless, of course, you have a different standard for yourself than for the rest of us.
(An "objective infinite" is as much a god as any storm.)
Edit: It also seems quite dogmatic to pretend that you own the word "agnostic" and that it can only mean a completely neutral position regardless of how may explanations you are given. It seems quite the double standard for you to say that it is me who is "hardened in his beliefs."
Fred Lanisake
Much of your responses haven't had any points or substance, but instead just unbacked statements with a few insults. What's real to you is what you believe, what you think you know. The difference between believing and knowing is that we believe everything and we know nothing. ;) Do you believe you're on your computer? Do you believe there is a God? There's little difference. An atheist doesn't abstain from a belief about God, the reality they choose to live in is that there is no God. This is why they call themselves an atheist, and not an agnostic. Robert Ingersoll called himself an agnostic, not an atheist.
An apology to Matthieu, I replied to your comment to keep it organized.
Gabo Moreno 100+
I don't choose to live in a reality where there is no god(s). This reality has not shown me that there's any so far.
It does not matter what Ingersoll called himself. His comment supported my stand. If he thought there were no gods, he was an atheist for all practical purposes.
So, if you now make a point, or show me exactly what's what I did not answer ...
Fred Lanisake
Dawkins has made up his mind that human reasoning is sufficient for understanding the universe and that our senses are sufficient for discovering all that is true. This is an entirely different position than agnosticism takes, which maintains a neutral position on the grounds that such things are unknowable.
Dawkins is a militant atheist. While his lips say that he can't be sure there isn't a God, his career says something else.
Gabo Moreno 100+
There you go again with ignorant statements about somebody's stance on a matter you have no idea about ... (there is a little talk by Dawkins, I don't know, but maybe in TED, something about a queer universe, where he talks about things we may never understand just by reasoning, let alone by our senses. But who cares. Fred must know better than Dawkins what Dawkins has made up his mind about.)
Colleen Steen 500+
Look carefully at some of your statements:
"Therefore, you guys are a religion, albeit loosely organized one".
You are telling "them" what "they" are. How about listening, rather than pointing fingers?
"The biggest problem you guys have is that you claim that there is no gods or "A GOD" at all - and you cannot know that and you cannot prove that".
To the best of my knowledge, siniša, you cannot prove the opposite, so what is your point?
"But i do mean that you should not believe in something based on the lack of evidence. Unfortunately for you guys, that particular trick works both ways".
You're right siniša, the "trick works both ways", so what are you arguing about? Do you honestly think it is productive to tell "you guys" what they "should" believe? You know better than they do what is good for them?
"The problem you atheists have is that you go on and extrapolate that no god whatsoever exists.
And you have no proof for that. Simple as that".
The "problem" siniša does not appear to be theirs. It appears to be your "problem" for not accepting other people's beliefs?
"You are people that simply cannot accept that you dont know something"
Interesting label for all those "people huh? I wonder if you can say that while looking in a mirror?
"To me, this burning desire to be certain and to "know" with certainty, regardless of the evidence or lack of it is in some ways interesting because it is the same fountain from which religious fervor originates".
I totally agree siniša, wanna check the mirror again?
siniša karađole
But then i look at this conversation and its funny, right?
How both sides are completely convinced that their "theory" or arguments or whatever - is the really correct one.
It seems its some kind of human affliction. :)
And strictly speaking i dont like seeing it on myself.
Its much better to spend energy on something more positive.
Colleen Steen 500+
It's a "human affliction" only if one wants it to be part of the way s/he functions. It's a choice. I agree with you...I don't like seeing it on myself, so I don't do it:>) Yes...in my humble opinion...much better to spend energy on something more productive:>)
John Locke
You said that we do not know there is a god because we can not prove it. And that is true. We can not prove there is or isn't a god. But, neither can you. So, instead of believing in something which has no proof what so ever, we choose to not believe in that until there is proof.
Phillip McKay
Phillip McKay
Sablcious Faux
It's kind of a win for them when people blindly accept espousing atheism; when in actual fact, atheism is the rejection of the concept of an 'omni entity' whose existence is beyond explication or comprehension by humans.
I agree with the proposition to dissolve the term 'atheism'. For those who make / are lucky enough to make the conscious, intelligent decision to not follow a theological doctrine, do so not to adopt another belief system of their own, but because EXPLANATION is the foundation of what they judge the world around them by. A concept that's an anathema to all religion.
Comment deleted
Sablcious Faux
I mean, it would be quite silly to blindly follow a belief system that potentially dictates the course of one's life without having some scholarly knowledge of what the faith stands for, no? Imagine poor, uneducated, insular people following each other, lockstep into some fanciful belief for no other reason than those in front told them to do so... LOL!
(See what I did there? ^_^)
Michael Wolok
Michael Wolok