Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Muslim
Jewish
Hinduism
Christian
I wouldn't know about Buddism, but yes I suppose it is quite a physical religion too. I recall a christian preist tried that path once, out of curiousity. He was a smoker, and a former sales person. He even tried living like a sort of pilgrim in some part of England, just asking people for food, what ever they could give or buy for him. I don't remember his name, that was in 2007.
That rings a bell with the guy who was once aligned with the church of satan, Nicholas Shrek, other than that example, I haven't seen into it.
The main faiths are the popular ones.
You would think that a person who makes a religion out of empiricism would take the logical step of spelling the name of his own religion properly, but alas. Jeez, you're a native of Britain and you're misspelling simple words like "suprising". (lol)
I was a materialist for about 8 years, I was duped into this false mindset through years of rigorous public schooling when I was around 15, and even my 6th grade science teacher made a far more convincing argument than "everything has faces, so billions and billions like Mr. Reefer addict Karl Sagan said". Something having a face isn't proof of anything other than that a face is something common to most living things. Likewise, if church is all about "emotion" and atheism is all logic, would you care to explain THIS. Better yet, explain the logical aspects of the skepticism displayed by the guy featured in the video below.
P.S. - Since I don't understand science, explain the following: Hydrogen contains one proton (positively charged) and one electron (negatively charged). What didn't I understand about this?
Last edited by hells_unicorn; 03-09-2016 at 11:09 AM.
It's pretty simple actually, all you need to do is look at any honest argument for an older earth, and somewhere in the methodology the word "assumed" will be found, ergo the same word that materialist fundamentalists like the OP will bash every young earth proponent over the head for repeatedly. Every method involved relies upon a premise based wholly on conjecture, be it assuming that certain elements decay at a constant rate, or more fundamentally that the weather patterns have been constant for countless millennium (ergo no worldwide cataclysmic events, yet somehow we went from one landmass to several separate continents ), this 2nd point was argued from a 100% arbitrary angle by Karl Linnaeus and was the genesis of what we now know to be the view of an Old Earth.
You can create a hypothetical scenario on paper, and grind out mathematical equations until your brain is broken, it won't necessarily make it reality. And none of the ridiculous claims that certain "scientists" have made over the years about the origin of the Earth can be recreated in a laboratory, so until I see something compelling that I can actually see with my own eyes, I call bull$#@! on the whole thing and if condescending little pricks like the ones who worship Dawkins and Sagan don't like it they can sit and spin.
Last edited by hells_unicorn; 03-10-2016 at 11:12 AM.
No. Some atheists claim the unproven proposition that there is no god. Please stop confusing the lack of belief of a proposition, versus belief of the opposite proposition. And, also please don't confuse the belief that a God with attributes as described by the Bible does not exist, versus the belief that there is no god. Many atheists believe the former but not the latter, or both, or neither.1. There is no god.
2. The unproven propositions believed by most of our ancestors are false.
And yes to #2, but this is not limited to atheists. Our ancestors widely believed all kinds of unproven propositions, some of which are still believed today and others not at all, so this is irrelevant.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
The longstanding definition of atheism is the belief that there is no god. What you're calling atheism is really agnosticism.
You got that neologism from modern-day atheist apologists who like to say that as a way of avoiding any burden of proof.
You also missed the point of my post, which was to show that, by that posters own reasoning, atheism really does belong to the same category as the other religions listed. And both parts of what I said in my post came from the post I was replying to. So I was defining atheism the same way he did.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=tatheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
For a more authoritative source, here's the entire entry from the Oxford English Dictionary:
Standard reference works in philosophy say essentially the same thing.Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
1587 Sir P. Sidney & A. Golding tr. P. de Mornay Trewnesse Christian Relig. xx. 355 Athisme, that is to say, vtter Godlesnes.
1605 Bacon Of Aduancem. Learning i. sig. B3v, A little or superficiall knowledge of Philosophie may encline the minde of Man to Atheisme.
1711 J. Addison Spectator No. 119. ¶5 Hypocrisy in one Age is generally succeeded by Atheism in another.
1859 C. Kingsley Lett. (1878) II. 75 Whatever doubt or doctrinal Atheism you and your friends may have, don't fall into moral Atheism.
Last edited by erowe1; 03-10-2016 at 11:39 AM.
Some assumptions are more reasonable than others.
When the assumptions are repeatedly confirmed by observation, I wouldn't call it conjecture.Every method involved relies upon a premise based wholly on conjecture
The same is true of the claims of the theists, except they rarely use math.You can create a hypothetical scenario on paper, and grind out mathematical equations until your brain is broken, it won't necessarily make it reality.
So you don't believe in the existence of atoms, quarks, muons, pions, and other particles?so until I see something compelling that I can actually see with my own eyes, I call bull$#@!
What if someone made the same claim about the existence of God -- "I can't see God, so I call bull$#@! on theism."
No, they're not, especially wherein this question is concerned.
See my point about manufacturing premises and then molding reality to fit it. There is nothing in any observation that confirms Abiogenesis, the Big Bang Myth, or speciation resulting in different kinds. Repeating an empty platitude is not the same thing as identifying a fact, I'm sorry to say.When the assumptions are repeatedly confirmed by observation, I wouldn't call it conjecture.
So what? What does using math, particularly based in natural numbers, have to do with explaining how nothing becomes something? You people don't even properly understand what the concept of "nothingness" actually is in metaphysical terms.The same is true of the claims of the theists, except they rarely use math.
Again, you're arguing a non sequitur. The existence of these things, and even their not being mentioned in any theological account of a beginning, is not relevant to the point you are trying to manufacture.So you don't believe in the existence of atoms, quarks, muons, pions, and other particles?
People do that everyday, folks like myself refer to such persons as "atheistkult" and while occasionally their self-important sentiments are comical, they get boring fairly quickly. I tend to limit my conversations with said individuals in favor of more fulfilling endeavors.What if someone made the same claim about the existence of God -- "I can't see God, so I call bull$#@! on theism."
P.S. - Nothing you have said has, in any way, shape or form contradicted what I've stated. You've simply repackaged the same ham-fisted trite that the author of this thread has put forth into something less combative. If sensory data alone determines reality as the empiricists suggest, there is no basis for logic to exist. If man's reason is the final arbiter of what is true as the rationalists suggest, then the psychopathology of some is morally and factually equal to those of more level-headed thinkers. I prefer not to be bound by such self-defeating dogmas.
Gnostic/agnostic is a statement about knowledge, theism/atheism is a statement about belief. All combinations of the two concepts are compatible.
A gnostic theist is one where the statement "I believe there is a god" is true, and who believes that god's existence and attributes are things that are knowable.
A gnostic atheist is one where the statement "I believe there is a god" is false, and who believes that god's non-existence is something that is knowable.
An agnostic theist is one where the statement "I believe there is a god" is true, and who believes that god's existence and attributes are things that are not knowable.
An agnostic atheist is one where the statement "I believe there is a god" is false, and who believes that god's non-existence is something that is not knowable.
No, it is a way of accurately describing what atheists actually believe, and deconstructing the straw men of Christian apologists, who often lump all atheists together into the same category (strong atheism) and then attack that category, dismissing the fact that many (if not most) atheists are agnostic with respect to a generic "deistic" god, but gnostic with respect to a god as described by Christianity or other religions.You got that neologism from modern-day atheist apologists who like to say that as a way of avoiding any burden of proof.
Even in your own referenced dictionary sources, atheism is always defined as either the belief that there is no god OR a disbelief/lack of belief that there is a god.
I have found that often, theists would rather stay focused on debating about the terminology about atheist and agnostic, than actually addressing the underlying problem which is that they keep arguing against positions that their opponents don't necessarily hold. If someone is a strong atheist and asserts affirmatively that there is no god, then absolutely the burden of proof is on them, but not all atheists have that position, in fact very few of them do with respect to gods defined in the most general sense.
Last edited by Crashland; 03-10-2016 at 09:03 PM.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
You are just making things up (or, perhaps more likely, repeating things you heard or read from someone else who made them up). The words agnosticism and atheism have longstanding definitions. You can look them up in dictionaries, as I showed you in the case of atheism already. No, none of the definitions I presented made any mention of lack of belief. "Disbelief" does not mean "lack of belief."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/disbelief?s=tdisbelief
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2. amazement; astonishment:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic?s=tagnostic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
And in the specific case of this discussion, I was certainly not diverting to a discussion of terminology to avoid discussion the position my opponent actually held, because, as I pointed out already, I was using his own definition of "atheism" that he had already given.
Last edited by erowe1; 03-10-2016 at 09:35 PM.
Yes, disbelief = not accepting something as true as per your reference. This is not the same thing as accepting the opposite proposition as true. And I agree with the definition of agnosticism as well. Having a position on the "knowability" of something is an entirely different issue from having a position on accepting something as true. We are not communicating...
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
One who refuses to believe in God doesn't necessarily believe that there is no God. If you were to ask me if I believed you had a dime in your pocket and I said, "No", it wouldn't mean that I believed you didn't, for the simple reason that if you had asked me if I believed you didn't have a dime in your pocket, I would have answered, "No".
If I lack information on what you have in your pocket I have no basis for a belief either way.
That's different than lack of belief. If you think that newborn infants lack belief in God (which I would dispute, but I have heard atheists claim it), that wouldn't justify calling them atheists. Refusal to believe entails deliberate consideration of the issue and taking of a position.
Your dime in my pocket is also not a good analogy. What you describe is not a refusal to believe either. That analogy is analogous to agnosticism, not atheism.
Last edited by erowe1; 03-11-2016 at 07:44 AM.
Actually it is a good analogy. Yes, it entails deliberate consideration and taking the position that No, I don't believe that you have a dime in your pocket. Why do I have this position? Because there is no compelling reason for me to accept this proposition as true. This does NOT mean that I believe you don't have a dime in your pocket. It also does NOT mean that I think whether you have a dime in your pocket or not is unknowable. That is an entirely different question. Thinking that it is unknowable would be analogous to agnosticism. Not believing the statement that you have a dime in your pocket is analogous to atheism, regardless of whether or not I believe that you do not have a dime. The two concepts are completely independent.
Last edited by Crashland; 03-11-2016 at 10:16 AM.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
It's a good analogy if you want to use your neologisms, but it's not a good analogy for the long-standing definitions of the words in question.
An atheist isn't just someone who has no opinion about whether or not God exists. And atheist is someone who believes that the claim, "No god exists," is a true claim. In other words, they disbelieve the claim that God does exist.
I disagree. A refusal to believe in God and a refusal to take a position either way are logically consistent. And how in the world can a newborn have developed sufficient mental capacity to entertain any belief, much less a belief in God?
No, because whether you have a dime in your pocket is knowable. All I have to do is empty your pocket and look. Agnosticism, on the other hand, says that the existence or nonexistence of God is inherently unknowable.Your dime in my pocket is also not a good analogy. What you describe is not a refusal to believe either. That analogy is analogous to agnosticism, not atheism.
Whether or not they have an opinion at all is irrelevant, as long as they do not have the opinion that God exists.
No. That is only true for some atheists.And atheist is someone who believes that the claim, "No god exists," is a true claim.
YES, this is true for all atheists. How are you not seeing why those two things are not equivalent?In other words, they disbelieve the claim that God does exist.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
That is incorrect. Someone who has no opinion about God's existence can't possibly be an atheist. An atheist, by definition, has an opinion about God's existence and believes that no god exists, in other words, an atheist disbelieves that any god exists.
I'm the one saying they ARE equivalent. You tried to say that they weren't, by trying to say that anyone who does not believe something disbelieves it. As you can see from the definition of "disbelieve," this is not the case.
Last edited by erowe1; 03-13-2016 at 12:21 PM.
My religious practices are kind of complicated. I would say that Norse pagan/deist is probably the closest thing to describing it. I don't think that there are necessarily a ton of different literal Norse gods, but I do believe that some of these characteristics embody the supreme architect(s). Therefore, I believe in a god or gods, but I don't necessarily believe that any one religion has the market on god and I'm not convinced that god or the gods are particularly active in human affairs, if at all.
I embrace Norse paganism because I love the value system. Norse Paganism (Asatru) holds self-sufficiency as one of its highest virtues, as well as, courage, truth, and honor. I absolutely love the myth of how Odin sacrificed an eye in order to gain knowledge! Asatru also promotes strong family ties and the honoring of your word. Lastly, I appreciate that Asatru, while encouraging hospitality, doesn't hold up bums or moochers as something noble. Charity is encouraged for those who really need it, while recognizing that charity must end and one must become self-sufficient.
Last edited by LibertyExtremist; 03-12-2016 at 03:52 PM.
None. I recently became an atheist. I have read the Bible thoroughly after being indoctrinated in my youth and determined there is no good reason to believe in any of it.
I had a similar experience in my mid 20s, just change out the words "atheist" with Christian and "Bible" with "Darwin's and other selected Evolutionary works". If you take a truly critical look at Darwinism, you'll come to the conclusion that it's a towering pile of nonsensical mental masturbation.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
Connect With Us