| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:15 am Post subject: Wikipedia's Featured Article of the day: Atheism |
 |
|
So, how's the article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
| Quote: |
Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism.[3] Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.[4][5]
Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Other arguments for atheism are philosophical, social or historical. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[6] and naturalism,[7] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[8]
The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and was sometimes used as a self-description by atheists. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow!
Very comprehensive and deeply informative. I never new before that agnostics were sometimes classified as 'weak atheists'. I don't think that really does justice to their position.
I also like this argument:
| Quote: |
| The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[38] Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions,[39] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Wow!
Very comprehensive and deeply informative. I never new before that agnostics were sometimes classified as 'weak atheists'. I don't think that really does justice to their position.
I also like this argument:
| Quote: |
| The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[38] Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions,[39] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility. |
|
My argument about that is that no theists run through a list of gods before settling on their one true god (or three). The existence of God is no more or less relevant than the existence of Thor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| The existence of God is no more or less relevant than the existence of Thor. |
Which leads me to ask all of the doubters: If Thor isn't real, how did Beta Ray Bill get his Uru hammer?
Answer that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Wow!
Very comprehensive and deeply informative. I never new before that agnostics were sometimes classified as 'weak atheists'. I don't think that really does justice to their position.
I also like this argument:
| Quote: |
| The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of God is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[38] Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions,[39] and that the unprovability of God's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility. |
|
My argument about that is that no theists run through a list of gods before settling on their one true god (or three). The existence of God is no more or less relevant than the existence of Thor. |
Sorry, I don't get your point. Can you explain?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swetepete
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Location: a limp little burg
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dunno what RT means, but maybe it's something like this: "Thor, Allah, the Great Wombat, Zeus, or J*h*v*h; why is one better than the other? Why does one have precedence? They're all pretty much equal in their primitive bronze-agedness."
Please feel to correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swetepete
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Location: a limp little burg
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| The existence of God is no more or less relevant than the existence of Thor. |
Which leads me to ask all of the doubters: If Thor isn't real, how did Beta Ray Bill get his Uru hammer?
Answer that. |
It was the Beyonder. That goddamn Hasselhoffy twot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually I get it now (duh!).
He was referring to the weak atheist part. I thought he was replying to the other part.
I suppose if you were to apply the agnostics are 'weak atheists' argument you could just as well say that christians jews, and moslems are 'almost atheists'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Actually I get it now (duh!).
He was referring to the weak atheist part. I thought he was replying to the other part.
I suppose if you were to apply the agnostics are 'weak atheists' argument you could just as well say that christians jews, and moslems are 'almost atheists'. |
Well some say just that
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
Atheism often claims that chances of the biblical God existing is not equal to him not existing. It's not a 50/50 chance. That the biblical God has as much a chance of existing as Thor, Zeus, Spaghetti Monster, tea pot on the other side of the sun. In this instance the Judeo-Christian God has no more chance of existing than any of these.
Many atheists will contend the possibility of a deity existing but not a Judeo-Christian one since a Judeo-Christian God is viewed as containing too many logical contradictions. In the absence of evidence for any deity an atheist has taken the default position of disbelief.
Strong Atheists believe there are no deities. This can be seen as a leap of faith since their is no evidence for there not being a god. I tend to switch between 'no chance' and 'infinitesimal'.
The burden of proof still remains on the ones making the claims, and claims without evidence and be dismissed without evidence.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Sorry, I don't get your point. Can you explain? |
Everybody else got it. Really I'm not atheistic of a supreme intelligence that was responsible for the Big Bang. It could exist. I'm atheistic toward Yahweh the Jewish god of war and Christian one-third god. I don't consider that God's existence any more worth contemplating than Odin' or Zeus' or the Flying Spaghetti Monster's. The point is that Christians are atheistic towards those gods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's my take on the article:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. There is no God. Blah, blah. blah blah, blah, blah.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
Here's my take on the article:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. There is no God. Blah, blah. blah blah, blah, blah.
|
Eh?
The article doesn't discuss whether or not God exists. It's explaining the various definitions of the word atheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
ED209
| Quote: |
Well some say just that
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts |
Nice argument, very succinct! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
Strong Atheists believe there are no deities. This can be seen as a leap of faith since their is no evidence for there not being a god. |
I dont think its a leap of faith. It is the person making the positive assertion ( there is a god ) that must provide the evidence. An atheist would never even be in the position to say "there is no god" unless a theist had already asserted that there is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
Strong Atheists believe there are no deities. This can be seen as a leap of faith since their is no evidence for there not being a god. |
I dont think its a leap of faith. It is the person making the positive assertion ( there is a god ) that must provide the evidence. An atheist would never even be in the position to say "there is no god" unless a theist had already asserted that there is. |
I was trying to use my words carefully. As I stated it is up to the person making the assertion to provide the evidence. There are no certainties in the universe. as in there is always room for doubt. An atheist claiming there is no possibility of a god can be seen as ignoring not doubt but also ignoring that you can't prove a negative.
'Prove there is no god' is of course an unfair request since the burden is on the person making the claim. 'Is there a possibility of a deity existing?' is a fair question and understanding the nature of doubt and the possibility that I could be wrong I have to admit that a god is possible, but not seeing any evidence to believe in one it leaves that possibility so close to zero I may as well say 'There is no God' especially when every other explanation in life is a natural one.
So, I often find myself switching between 'There is no god silly!' to 'Fat chance!'. So long as doubt exists I can't be 100% sure of anything, that requires faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
