• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Your Religious Views

Are you...

  • Theist (Religious)

    Votes: 73 43.2%

  • Agnostic (Unsure)

    Votes: 29 17.2%

  • Atheist (Not religious)

    Votes: 67 39.6%
  • Total voters
    169
tom e said:
Ok, I see.
But can you explain how you feel Atheism is based on faith?
Click to expand...

Ok...you know how one of the biggest themes of existentialism is choices? Well, even not making a choice is a choice in itself. You're choosing not to make choices.

Atheism is the same way. Atheists don't put their faith in God/god(s). They do, however, have faith in something--be it the universe, themselves, science, money, the human race, etc. You have faith that the universe came into existence and still exists without the aid or interference of a supreme being. You can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. You just believe it.

[[[[[If you have participated in many debates over religious beliefs/nonbeliefs, I'm sure you know by now that only a very small portion of the debate is really over beliefs. The majority of the debated material simply consists of semantics and vocabulary.]]]]]
 
jazzgeek said:
Well, words have meanings. Similarly to a-gnostic, a-theist is one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a Deity.

I guess I'm old school. If I believe in something, disbelieve in something, assert something, or deny something, I'd better have an argument, proof, syllogistic conclusion, or reason, based on information and/or logic, to prove my claim.

I'm weird that way.

Nope, nobody can.....and RAMEN!, btw.

If and ONLY IF you believe that you don't have (must I repeat myself here?) enough information to prove OR disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

regards,
jazz
Click to expand...

But couldn't it be said that the claim is being made by theists and the burden of proof is on them?
I may be getting into my usual problem here where I truly don't respect the accepted definitions enough..
But don't look at not believing in god as something necessitating any evidence whatsoever. Now Evolution yes, the Big Bang theory yes. These seem like they are pushing an idea.

I'm an atheist because I haven't seen the evidence as being sufficient to support their claims..

Oh God, please don't tell me I'm an Agnostic... LOL There are a million possible theories and superstitions that don't have evidence. I don't feel like I'm on the fence with any of them..
 
texastailfeathers said:
Ok...you know how one of the biggest themes of existentialism is choices? Well, even not making a choice is a choice in itself. You're choosing not to make choices.

Atheism is the same way. Atheists don't put their faith in God/god(s). They do, however, have faith in something--be it the universe, themselves, science, money, the human race, etc. You have faith that the universe came into existence and still exists without the aid or interference of a supreme being. You can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. You just believe it.

[[[[[If you have participated in many debates over religious beliefs/nonbeliefs, I'm sure you know by now that only a very small portion of the debate is really over beliefs. The majority of the debated material simply consists of semantics and vocabulary.]]]]]
Click to expand...

I don't think that faith is the proper concept to use in regard to believing in science.

And if I can't get you to agree on that, then I certainly agree we could argue all day about the semantics there.
 
texastailfeathers said:
[[[[[If you have participated in many debates over religious beliefs/nonbeliefs, I'm sure you know by now that only a very small portion of the debate is really over beliefs. The majority of the debated material simply consists of semantics and vocabulary.]]]]]
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I agree with this, Jennifer. The semantics and vocabulary discussions are necessary to frame the debate - and once the semantics and vocabulary are all agreed upon (IF it's agreed upon ;) ), the debate is ALL about proving one's beliefs, whatever they may be.

That's why I believe that religion is a matter of faith. I've seen sound logic and arguments from "believers" and "non-believers" alike.

And as I've stated many times on the forums, I believe that the "science vs. religion" debate is a non-debate.

regards,
jazz
 
I don't want to sound mean but I don't think you should make any one agree on anything with what you think by force. If that's his view or whatever then just learn to live with it.
I sound like a hippie. :eek1: lol
Oh, and I know I hardly make any sence.
 
It is a non debate once people get to the bottom of it and say, "I don't need evidence for god, my faith is strong enough." I won't have anything to say to that whatsoever. Cheers.

The resistance against doing that by modern believers makes me think that there is change coming. Maybe I'm naive on that..
 
snakewispera snr said:
I thought atheists didn't believe in the existence of god.
So how can you need to disprove if you don't believe.
Click to expand...
No Theist can truly prove the existence of God.

No Atheist can truly prove the non-existence of God.

Both are making assertions, so to speak, in their own right. Bear in mind, as well, that the debate is not a legal proceeding. Thus, the "burden of proof" is on the one making the assertion, whether it's "for" or "against".

regards,
jazz
 
tom e said:
As for the count on the poll here, I'm tempted to count the Agnostics as Atheists, LOL. I mean what the heck is an agnostic anyway? I'm curious how someone comes to that determination though without going the rest of the way.
Click to expand...
Agnosticism is not, as most people believe, not knowing if god exists. The word gnostic is from the Greek gnosis, meaning "spiritual knowledge". The gnostic movement, preceding the Christian era, held that god could be understood solely by practicing the beliefs expounded by supreme spiritual leaders such as Abraham and (later) Jesus of Nazareth. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for man to understand god or to know if god exists. The term "agnostic" (literally "not gnostic") was coined by T. H. Huxley in the mid nineteenth century to describe the position taken by the literary elite of the time to describe those who rejected both that the way to understand god was through such spiritual leaders or that understanding god was even possible for man. They would be termed strong or "absolute" agnostics. Most people who refer to themselves as agnostics are weak or "open" agnostics, and could be classified as theistic skeptics: those who are not fideistic (believing in god solely on faith) but do not dismiss the possibility that god exists and that man can discover god.
 
texastailfeathers said:
You have faith that the universe came into existence and still exists without the aid or interference of a supreme being. You can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. You just believe it.
Click to expand...
The fact that I exist to ponder the question is proof that I exist. Ipso facto: cogito ergo sum.*



*"The fact speaks for itself: I think, therefore I am," René Descartes.
 
tom e said:
I don't think that faith is the proper concept to use in regard to believing in science.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The scientific process doesn't give a rodent's sphincter whether or not you have faith in it.

I remember a small thread about evolution that took place on the boards here when just after I first started posting. A number of people asking questions along the lines of "Well, if evolution IS true, what is its purpose?", as if there was a "goal".

Ah, here it is. Found it.

(Enjoy!)

regards,
jazz
 
jaxom1957 said:
The fact speaks for itself: I think, therefor I am.
Click to expand...
therefore....and one more character.
icon_bolt.gif


Putting Descartes before Deshorse,
jazz
 
"Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as the "absence of belief in deities," rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited"

From wikipedia..

At least I'm not alone in my definition...
 
Roy Munson said:
I read this some time ago, and I really like it:

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Click to expand...
:roflmao:

....which reminds me of my favorite Frank Zappa quote, regarding music critics:

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

regards,
jazz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top