Your Religious Views

[jazzgeek]

He does have therefore...

So are you claiming that I deliberately misquoted him?

regards,
jazz

 

[jaxom1957]

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.

Only by adding the connotation "deny" to atheism can one require proof of the lack of god's existence. The simple belief that a thing does not exist cannot be logically proven, as it is impossible to prove a negative. It is those who posit the existence on whom the burden of proof falls.

 

[SnakesRule1234]

So are you claiming that I deliberately misquoted him?

regards,
jazz

umm... I don't know. I guess...?
Well, maybe he edited it so... um..
I'm going to stay out of this.

 

[jaxom1957]

therefore....and one more character.

Putting Descartes before Deshorse,
jazz

Yep, yet another spelling error not caught by the spellchecker. I'd edited it myself a bit before you posted so... :nyah: :grin01:

Dang shiny-badge holders. Ya can't catch 'em on their typos.

:rofl:

 

[jazzgeek]

Only by adding the connotation "deny" to atheism can one require proof of the lack of god's existence. The simple belief that a thing does not exist cannot be logically proven, as it is impossible to prove a negative. It is those who posit the existence on whom the burden of proof falls.

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".

So where do we go from here?

(And btw, I disagree. I can definitely prove that I'm not going to get laid tonight.....and in my book, that's a negative.)

regards,
jazz

 

[jaxom1957]

(And btw, I disagree. I can definitely prove that I'm not going to get laid tonight.....and in my book, that's a negative.)

As evolution is a theory based upon the evidence to date, your unlayation is also a theory based upon past experience and future expectation. While you may consider this a negative, Darwinist might consider it a positive for the species. :duck: :sidestep:

 

[tom e]

I can't think of any reason why an atheist would try to prove the non-existence of god or the flying spaghetti monster or aliens living amongst us or werewolves.
If the definition of Atheist is the problem here, let's avoid the semantics and I'll just say "I don't believe in God because there is a complete lack of evidence." Do I have to come up with evidence to prove that I haven't been shown the evidence?

 

[jazzgeek]

As evolution is a theory based upon the evidence to date, your unlayation is also a theory based upon past experience and future expectation. While you may consider this a negative, Darwinist might consider it a positive for the species. :duck: :sidestep:

I'll avoid the "BUT WHERE ARE THE GAPS?" argument that many a Fundamentalist would counter with.

But there has been a gap. I'll just leave it at that.

regards,
jazz

 

[jazzgeek]

I can't think of any reason why an atheist would try to prove the non-existence of god or the flying spaghetti monster or aliens living amongst us or werewolves.

Again, I'm old school here.....to try to back up their claim/assertion?

If the definition of Atheist is the problem here, let's avoid the semantics and I'll just say "I don't believe in God because there is a complete lack of evidence."

Aye, there's the rub. You can't avoid the semantics, or else we'll get nowhere faster.

Do I have to come up with evidence to prove that I haven't been shown the evidence?

Does a believer - one with faith - have to do likewise? You, like the believer, have made a claim.....even though they substantively differ.

And ya both gotta back up that claim, imho.

regards,
jazz

 

[Paradox]

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I'm using that one. That's just brilliant. :grin01:

Thanks for the storm of posts everyone - well worth the time spent reading them.

I'll throw in my chip for why I'm an atheist - I'm an atheist because there is no evidence to the contrary. If someone came up with irrefutable proof that there was a God, I would convert to the corresponding religion. But as there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of their being a deity, and at least some evidence that backs up an atheist path (Such as, for example, the fossil record), I follow the logical path in this situation - atheism.



One point that makes me think religion can, at times, be SUPREMELY illogical - in the best-case scenario (Christianity being correct), 4 billion of Earth's current residents will go to hell, as they are not Christian. If another religion is correct, more will go, as the Christians will end up in that religions version of Hell. There are several thousand religions - if we take for this example that there was, guaranteed, a God, the chances of picking the correct religion are low. It just seems to me that atheism is a much more logical path. :shrugs:

 

[Nova_C]

I've seen this debate before on the symantics of athiest.

Athiesm is not a positive assertion. Athiesm is not the disbelief in god, it is the absence of belief in (a) god(s). There is nothing to prove.

Anti-thiesm, I guess, would be the disbelief in god.

 

[tom e]

Thought this was interesting on the topic... Wikipedia again..

"The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[37] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[38] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[39] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[40] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[41]"

 

[jazzgeek]

So what exactly is the semantic difference between these two???

"I don't believe (have disbelief) in the existence of a Deity."

- and -

"I am absent of belief in the existence of a Deity."

 

[tom e]

Again, I'm old school here.....to try to back up their claim/assertion?
[/QUOTE]

I don't see where one was made..

Are you waiting for all the evidence before you make up your mind about the werewolves? I think that's the whole point of the spaghetti monster excercise..

 

[Nova_C]

So what exactly is the semantic difference between these two???

"I don't believe (have disbelief) in the existence of a Deity."

- and -

"I am absent of belief in the existence of a Deity."

All right. I'm getting a few definitions of disbelief from different sources, however, I'll simply say, atheism is not an assertion of any kind, it is the default position. An atheist does not say "God does not exist" but rather, "There is no proof that god does exist".

 

[jazzgeek]

I don't see where one was made..

Are you waiting for all the evidence before you make up your mind about the werewolves? I think that's the whole point of the spaghetti monster excercise..

Which reverts to my assertion.....religion (which I define as belief in the existence of a deity) is a matter of faith.

Just like His Noodliness.

I could care less about the werewolves, thanks to Michael J. Fox.

regards,
jazz

 

[tom e]

So what exactly is the semantic difference between these two???

"I don't believe (have disbelief) in the existence of a Deity."

- and -

"I am absent of belief in the existence of a Deity."

I may be missing the point now. But I don't have a problem with saying either of those based on the evidence. EDIT- OOPS ! I meant lack of evidence..

 

[Nova_C]

Addendum (Man, I wish I could edit my posts ><):

According to Wikipedia, the 'a' prefix:

not, not affected by

Whereas the 'anti' prefix:

against

Wiki

So, atheism is 'not theism'. There is no positive assertion to not being something.

 

[jazzgeek]

An atheist does not say "God does not exist" but rather, "There is no proof that god does exist".

Which, in and of itself......is still an assertion. It's still a "claim".

regards,
jazz

 

[Nova_C]

Which, in and of itself......is still an assertion. It's still a "claim".

regards,
jazz

As a believer, I've never seen 'proof' that God exists.