@Blinking Spirit: I had a counter argument setted up, but then I saw that you're a mod, and if I argue with you and the staff, that an easily bannable offence for what I was about to say. Unless I get permission to say such things without getting banned or warnings, I'll not say such things. It would be arguing with an on duty-police officer who just happens to be a flat earther; Not worth it.
Are you seriously refusing to debate someone participating in a thread in the debate forum just because they have "Moderator" under their name?
Kind of but not quite. I just re-joined a few days back; I'll rather not JUST get a warning right away for something that could be taken up as an offence. If I was here for a few months or years, knew the person, sure, I'll debate a mod. But I already went to forums (not this one, others) where arguing with the Mods is at best frowned upon, and could easily get you perma-banned. I barely know Spirit here, much less what he or the mods takes as offence. I could think myself making a clear and calm argument and get told off as "A jerk" due to not knowing something about the mod.
Well, I can personally testify to Blinking Spirit's impartiality. He is a fair person in both his moderation duties and his debates. He is level-headed, considerate, and level-headed when he debates, and he only steps in and acts as a moderator when someone is being a jackass. Don't be afraid of him. He is your friend.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
@Blinking Spirit: I had a counter argument setted up, but then I saw that you're a mod, and if I argue with you and the staff, that an easily bannable offence for what I was about to say. Unless I get permission to say such things without getting banned or warnings, I'll not say such things. It would be arguing with an on duty-police officer who just happens to be a flat earther; Not worth it.
Are you seriously refusing to debate someone participating in a thread in the debate forum just because they have "Moderator" under their name?
Kind of but not quite. I just re-joined a few days back; I'll rather not JUST get a warning right away for something that could be taken up as an offence. If I was here for a few months or years, knew the person, sure, I'll debate a mod. But I already went to forums (not this one, others) where arguing with the Mods is at best frowned upon, and could easily get you perma-banned. I barely know Spirit here, much less what he or the mods takes as offence. I could think myself making a clear and calm argument and get told off as "A jerk" due to not knowing something about the mod.
Well, I can personally testify to Blinking Spirit's impartiality. He is a fair person in both his moderation duties and his debates. He is level-headed, considerate, and level-headed when he debates, and he only steps in and acts as a moderator when someone is being a jackass. Don't be afraid of him. He is your friend.
Yes, Blinking Spirit is our most generous master. The master will cares, the master will not hurt you.
In all seriousness, Izzet_Commando, I'd love to hear your arguments about some of this stuff.
Personally, to say I find Christianity "unappealing or unacceptable" is a misnomer. I think that Christianity is fine and has both done and inspired great things, my only issue with it is the way it is twisted by politicians and the nutcases in order to spew their bile. The song "God Thinks" by Voltaire neatly sums up this aspect. I also dislike it when the Intelligent Designers and Creationists pop up to try and get their ideas into school even though they have no business there.
It's not Christianity or any other specific religion that's unappealing to me. What's unappealing to me is the entire idea of accepting ideas as truth despite a lack of justification in doing so. I care about whether or not what I believe is true, and I only want to believe true things. Thus, until I'm presented with sufficient evidence, I will reject extraordinary claims. And the god claim is as extraordinary as it gets.
It's not Christianity or any other specific religion that's unappealing to me. What's unappealing to me is the entire idea of accepting ideas as truth despite a lack of justification in doing so. I care about whether or not what I believe is true, and I only want to believe true things. Thus, until I'm presented with sufficient evidence, I will reject extraordinary claims. And the god claim is as extraordinary as it gets.
Basically this. I don't hate Christianity specifically, I hate *most* religions because they encourage people to stop thinking critically about things that are quite important. For example, it's what makes people believe in Creationism over the theory of evolution. I don't really care if you want to believe in Jesus Christ, but I do care when you start using it as an explanation for things in lieu of science, and even more so when you want your crap to be taught in public schools using my tax dollars. I want kids to get smarter by going to school, not dumber.
Beliefs like Buddhism, Atheism, or Deism don't bother me because it's not negatively affecting our society. Religions like Christianity do, because of the aforementioned efforts to get it put into schools, and as you might imagine, I take particular issue with Islam, which produces more violent, sociopathic bigots than pretty much any other religion on Earth. Not even the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK could hold a candle to Islam in terms of actual damage caused to society.
I understand that people get something out of their spirituality and I don't even want to abolish all religion or anything like that, but understand that once you put your religious opinion out into the public realm for anyone/everyone to critique, you better believe I'm going to jump all over that *****. Live and let live is fine by me. However, once you choose to put your opinions out there for open debate, anything's fair game.
Similarly, I hate the idea that personal beliefs exist in some sort of vacuum - that it's perfectly fine for anyone to believe anything they want because they're not hurting anyone. The truth is, unreasonable adherence to supernatural beliefs DO, in fact, have an impact on others. A person's beliefs influence - if not dictate - their day to day actions. Voting is a good example (but not the only example). A push towards the notion that "faith" is a virtuous and helpful thing is at best misguided and at worst extremely dangerous.
I feel that there's some really ****ed up stuff in the Bible. Yet I find Christians like to pick and choose parts of the Bible to fit their own needs/arguments/lifestyles. I tend to find that a lot of Christians can be really close minded and just annoy me
Plus I just can't be bothered to understand why anyone can believe it
I feel that there's some really ****ed up stuff in the Bible. Yet I find Christians like to pick and choose parts of the Bible to fit their own needs/arguments/lifestyles. I tend to find that a lot of Christians can be really close minded and just annoy me
Plus I just can't be bothered to understand why anyone can believe it
The reason people believe it is very simple: It expunges their fear of dying. I was a devout Christian for about 25 years, and I totally understand the appeal. It's that deep, warm fuzzy feeling you get when you truly believe you'll go to Heaven when you die. There's no secular consolation for mortality that comes ANYWHERE close to what the bible promises.
I feel that there's some really ****ed up stuff in the Bible. Yet I find Christians like to pick and choose parts of the Bible to fit their own needs/arguments/lifestyles. I tend to find that a lot of Christians can be really close minded and just annoy me
Plus I just can't be bothered to understand why anyone can believe it
The reason people believe it is very simple: It expunges their fear of dying. I was a devout Christian for about 25 years, and I totally understand the appeal. It's that deep, warm fuzzy feeling you get when you truly believe you'll go to Heaven when you die. There's no secular consolation for mortality that comes ANYWHERE close to what the bible promises.
yeah I guess that's very true, after going to Catholic schools in elementary/ secondary school, I found that it did offer a lot of promises for the afterlife
Not that I especially mind, but why is it atheist/agnostic as opposed to non-Christian more broadly? Kind of seems more typically like this section of debate is focused on those two groups in general, kind of curious why. I get the popularity aspect, but it seems like a lot of debates tend to narrow down on those when a broader approach would be possible.
Not that I especially mind, but why is it atheist/agnostic as opposed to non-Christian more broadly? Kind of seems more typically like this section of debate is focused on those two groups in general, kind of curious why. I get the popularity aspect, but it seems like a lot of debates tend to narrow down on those when a broader approach would be possible.
Possibly because of the popularity of New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and because "non-Christians" might be a bit too broad since comparing and contrasting Christianity with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, and all the other miscellaneous religions could have threads of their own. And that's not even getting into the differences between the various denominations Christianity has since the Great Schism and the Reformation.
Similarly, I hate the idea that personal beliefs exist in some sort of vacuum - that it's perfectly fine for anyone to believe anything they want because they're not hurting anyone. The truth is, unreasonable adherence to supernatural beliefs DO, in fact, have an impact on others. A person's beliefs influence - if not dictate - their day to day actions. Voting is a good example (but not the only example). A push towards the notion that "faith" is a virtuous and helpful thing is at best misguided and at worst extremely dangerous.
I don’t think that topic is pedantic at all. Is Atheism a belief? Yes, I think it definitely is. It’s the belief that there is no God. It’s a negative belief rather than an affirmative belief, but it’s a belief. A different example, I believe that there is no gas in my tank when the needle reads empty. But, I still have a belief about the contents of my gas tank.
I saw a video on my Facebook feed recently of an “Atheist” who was asked what he would do if he died, and sure enough, found God at the Pearly Gates. His answer was that he’d refuse to acknowledge God as his ruler, and not want to have any part of this “Heaven” of his, because how could he allow things like bone cancer in children?
That right there is an Atheist. His position is that things like bone cancer are evidence for the affirmative conclusion that no being fitting the definition of “God” exists. It’s much more than just saying that he’s weighed the evidence offered in support of God and found it insufficient to form a belief in God. He’s saying that there is enough evidence that he is compelled to believe the opposite, that there is no God.
What I still find irredeemably derivative about Atheism is that it still relies on some definition of “God” to say that someone doesn’t believe in that God. And Atheists not believing in God and all, they are not in the business of putting out their definition of the God that they don’t believe in. So, they have to borrow some other group’s definition of God and point to it, saying this is the God that we don’t believe in.
Back to the OP’s question of what is unappealing to Atheists about Christianity, answering the question of whose God the Atheists in question don’t believe in will reveal their position on that group. If the answer is that they just don’t like the way the members of that group behave, or what the effects of that belief set have been, then you probably don’t have an Athiest.
Similarly, I hate the idea that personal beliefs exist in some sort of vacuum - that it's perfectly fine for anyone to believe anything they want because they're not hurting anyone. The truth is, unreasonable adherence to supernatural beliefs DO, in fact, have an impact on others. A person's beliefs influence - if not dictate - their day to day actions. Voting is a good example (but not the only example). A push towards the notion that "faith" is a virtuous and helpful thing is at best misguided and at worst extremely dangerous.
I don’t think that topic is pedantic at all. Is Atheism a belief? Yes, I think it definitely is. It’s the belief that there is no God. It’s a negative belief rather than an affirmative belief, but it’s a belief. A different example, I believe that there is no gas in my tank when the needle reads empty. But, I still have a belief about the contents of my gas tank.
I saw a video on my Facebook feed recently of an “Atheist” who was asked what he would do if he died, and sure enough, found God at the Pearly Gates. His answer was that he’d refuse to acknowledge God as his ruler, and not want to have any part of this “Heaven” of his, because how could he allow things like bone cancer in children?
That right there is an Atheist. His position is that things like bone cancer are evidence for the affirmative conclusion that no being fitting the definition of “God” exists. It’s much more than just saying that he’s weighed the evidence offered in support of God and found it insufficient to form a belief in God. He’s saying that there is enough evidence that he is compelled to believe the opposite, that there is no God.
What I still find irredeemably derivative about Atheism is that it still relies on some definition of “God” to say that someone doesn’t believe in that God. And Atheists not believing in God and all, they are not in the business of putting out their definition of the God that they don’t believe in. So, they have to borrow some other group’s definition of God and point to it, saying this is the God that we don’t believe in.
Back to the OP’s question of what is unappealing to Atheists about Christianity, answering the question of whose God the Atheists in question don’t believe in will reveal their position on that group. If the answer is that they just don’t like the way the members of that group behave, or what the effects of that belief set have been, then you probably don’t have an Athiest.
Nope. Atheism is not the claim that there is no god; it's the rejection of the claim that there is. If you say "there's a god," and I reply with "I reject that claim," I'm an atheist, but I am NOT asserting that there ISN'T a god. Am I splitting hairs? No, because it's a vital distinction. Atheism is the default position on an extraordinary claim absent any compelling evidence to accept the claim. There are, of course, plenty of people who would claim "there is no god." I would call them anti-theists, different from atheists. To your other point, atheists aren't the ones defining god. When I say I don't believe in god, I'm saying I don't believe in whatever god you're currently talking about and yourself defining. That's why any reasonable discussion on this topic should start with a clear definition of god. It just so happens that there are many similarities in people's definition, especially among Christians, so by generalizing with "I don't believe in god," there's a pretty good chance what I'm talking about is pretty close to what you're talking about. But feel free to define god any way you want and I'll let you know if I believe in what you're describing.
Nope. Atheism is not the claim that there is no god; it's the rejection of the claim that there is. If you say "there's a god," and I reply with "I reject that claim," I'm an atheist, but I am NOT asserting that there ISN'T a god. Am I splitting hairs? No, because it's a vital distinction. Atheism is the default position on an extraordinary claim absent any compelling evidence to accept the claim. There are, of course, plenty of people who would claim "there is no god." I would call them anti-theists, different from atheists. To your other point, atheists aren't the ones defining god. When I say I don't believe in god, I'm saying I don't believe in whatever god you're currently talking about and yourself defining. That's why any reasonable discussion on this topic should start with a clear definition of god. It just so happens that there are many similarities in people's definition, especially among Christians, so by generalizing with "I don't believe in god," there's a pretty good chance what I'm talking about is pretty close to what you're talking about. But feel free to define god any way you want and I'll let you know if I believe in what you're describing.
Actually wouldn't saying that you don't believe in God but leave open the possibility for one to exist make you more agnostic? Atheism, by definition, means that one does not believe that a God(s) exists and Anti-theism, while overlapping with atheism, distinguishes itself from atheism by actively condemning and working against religion. There is a difference between simply saying "I don't believe in God" and following it up with "Religion is poison".
Nope. Atheism is not the claim that there is no god; it's the rejection of the claim that there is.
Honestly, this isn't exactly correct. There is a commonly defined spectrum of theistic probability, and most atheists do not fall at the very end. From Wikipedia
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Nope. Atheism is not the claim that there is no god; it's the rejection of the claim that there is. If you say "there's a god," and I reply with "I reject that claim," I'm an atheist, but I am NOT asserting that there ISN'T a god. Am I splitting hairs? No, because it's a vital distinction. Atheism is the default position on an extraordinary claim absent any compelling evidence to accept the claim. There are, of course, plenty of people who would claim "there is no god." I would call them anti-theists, different from atheists. To your other point, atheists aren't the ones defining god. When I say I don't believe in god, I'm saying I don't believe in whatever god you're currently talking about and yourself defining. That's why any reasonable discussion on this topic should start with a clear definition of god. It just so happens that there are many similarities in people's definition, especially among Christians, so by generalizing with "I don't believe in god," there's a pretty good chance what I'm talking about is pretty close to what you're talking about. But feel free to define god any way you want and I'll let you know if I believe in what you're describing.
Actually wouldn't saying that you don't believe in God but leave open the possibility for one to exist make you more agnostic?
No, because nowhere in my rejection of the belief am I claiming to have knowledge of the existence/non-existence of god. Nosticism/agnosticism deal with knowledge, while theism/atheism deal with belief. Further, I'm also not "leaving open the possibility." Just because I don't make a positive claim that there is no god, doesn't mean I'm saying "it's possible." The claim that god is even possible would itself need to have some evidence behind it before I would accept it.
Nope. Atheism is not the claim that there is no god; it's the rejection of the claim that there is.
Honestly, this isn't exactly correct. There is a commonly defined spectrum of theistic probability, and most atheists do not fall at the very end. From Wikipedia
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
This is an interesting take, but I tend to disagree with placing atheism on a spectrum like this. My biggest beef is that it conflates knowledge with belief. I view knowledge as more than just a really really really strong belief. I see it as a whole different thing.
I also take a very binary approach to belief. You either accept a claim and thus "believe" it - i.e. place a "true" label on it - or you don't. Anything other than a full acceptance of a claim is a rejection of the claim, even if you're uncertain or fall somewhere else on that spectrum. Because, again, the rejection of a claim is NOT the same as an assertion of an opposing claim. The lack of absolute certainty in either direction doesn't preclude you from being entirely on one side or the other.
What this all really boils down to is burden of proof. Only those who make a positive claim have the burden to provide evidence in support of their claim. Both "a god exists" and "no god exists" are positive claims that require evidence in order to justify their acceptance. As an atheist, I'm not making any claims, I'm just shaking my head in disbelief until someone convinces me.
Nope. Atheism is not the claim that there is no god; it's the rejection of the claim that there is.
Honestly, this isn't exactly correct. There is a commonly defined spectrum of theistic probability, and most atheists do not fall at the very end. From Wikipedia
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
This is an interesting take, but I tend to disagree with placing atheism on a spectrum like this. My biggest beef is that it conflates knowledge with belief. I view knowledge as more than just a really really really strong belief. I see it as a whole different thing.
I also take a very binary approach to belief. You either accept a claim and thus "believe" it - i.e. place a "true" label on it - or you don't. Anything other than a full acceptance of a claim is a rejection of the claim, even if you're uncertain or fall somewhere else on that spectrum. Because, again, the rejection of a claim is NOT the same as an assertion of an opposing claim. The lack of absolute certainty in either direction doesn't preclude you from being entirely on one side or the other.
What this all really boils down to is burden of proof. Only those who make a positive claim have the burden to provide evidence in support of their claim. Both "a god exists" and "no god exists" are positive claims that require evidence in order to justify their acceptance. As an atheist, I'm not making any claims, I'm just shaking my head in disbelief until someone convinces me.
To me, what you are describing sounds more like agnosticism than atheism.
Agnosticism is "I don't KNOW if there's a god" and atheism is "I don't BELIEVE that there's a god." I'm describing the latter, although they tend to go hand in hand. I'm an agnostic atheist since I don't claim knowledge about the existence of a god, and I also don't hold the belief that god exists. You could be an agnostic theist ("I don't claim knowledge, but I believe nonetheless"), a gnostic theist ("I know god exists and I believe he does"), or a gnostic atheist ("I know god doesn't exist and I believe he doesn't").
One of my favorite explanations of the atheist viewpoint is that they do not believe in god because it is not practically useful to believe in a god. Believing in a god provides zero predictive capabilities to the world around us, thus, there is no point believing in it.
While that's true, it's definitely not the reason I'm an atheist. It's not the lack of usefulness, it's the lack of evidence. My standard for belief isn't "does this benefit me," but rather "is this supported by compelling evidence."
Nope. Atheism is not the claim that there is no god; it's the rejection of the claim that there is. If you say "there's a god," and I reply with "I reject that claim," I'm an atheist, but I am NOT asserting that there ISN'T a god. Am I splitting hairs? No, because it's a vital distinction. Atheism is the default position on an extraordinary claim absent any compelling evidence to accept the claim. There are, of course, plenty of people who would claim "there is no god." I would call them anti-theists, different from atheists. To your other point, atheists aren't the ones defining god. When I say I don't believe in god, I'm saying I don't believe in whatever god you're currently talking about and yourself defining. That's why any reasonable discussion on this topic should start with a clear definition of god. It just so happens that there are many similarities in people's definition, especially among Christians, so by generalizing with "I don't believe in god," there's a pretty good chance what I'm talking about is pretty close to what you're talking about. But feel free to define god any way you want and I'll let you know if I believe in what you're describing.
These terms aren’t the most set in stone anywhere, so I’m not going to say you’re wrong. But I will say that just about every discussion I’ve ever had, and every public source of information I could find on these terms expressed the following understanding of them:
From Dictionary.com:
Atheism (n.) - the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Mirriam-Webester online:
Atheism (n.) - the doctrine that there is no deity
It comes from the root word “theos” or “God” and the prefix “a-” used to frame something in the negative. You’re only an atheist if you’re declaring an affirmative belief that there is no God. If like in your example, someone claims that there is a God, then you reject that claim, that’s not an affirmative belief. That’s simply saying you’re not a follower of that belief. Whereas in my example above, if you make the argument that bone cancer exists, therefore no God, you are stating the atheist doctrine that enough evidence exists to prove that there is no God.
From the same sources on the term “Agnostic”, speaking generally and not specifically related to the belief in deities:
Dictionary.com
Agnostic (n.) - a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Mirriam-Webster online:
Agnostic (n.) - a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
Basically, there are two definitions here. The first one is a capital-letter “Agonstic”, which is the affirmative believe that knowledge on a given topic is impossible. The second one is small letter “agnostic”, which can be a simple statement that you don’t believe in an idea. If you simply say you don’t believe, you might be capital “A” Agnostic as well, in the event that you also affirmatively believe that knowledge on that topic is impossible. You might also be an Anti-theist. But you can’t be an Atheist, because an Atheist believes that he has knowledge bearing on the existence of God, that knowledge is possible, and that it indicates affirmatively that there is no such God.
On the term ““antitheist”, there is no entry in either of those dictionary sources for the term. But Wikipedia lays it out as “opposition” to theism, or most commonly opposition to organized religions that profess belief in God. So in your example, if you’re in a conversation with someone who says they believe in God, then you say you don’t, and you think that belief is dangerous, harmful, so on, that makes you an anti-theist. You may also be either an Agnostic or an Atheist (not both), or you might be only a small-letter agnostic to the premise of the existence of a deity.
This is an interesting take, but I tend to disagree with placing atheism on a spectrum like this. My biggest beef is that it conflates knowledge with belief. I view knowledge as more than just a really really really strong belief. I see it as a whole different thing.
I also take a very binary approach to belief. You either accept a claim and thus "believe" it - i.e. place a "true" label on it - or you don't. Anything other than a full acceptance of a claim is a rejection of the claim, even if you're uncertain or fall somewhere else on that spectrum. Because, again, the rejection of a claim is NOT the same as an assertion of an opposing claim. The lack of absolute certainty in either direction doesn't preclude you from being entirely on one side or the other.
What this all really boils down to is burden of proof. Only those who make a positive claim have the burden to provide evidence in support of their claim. Both "a god exists" and "no god exists" are positive claims that require evidence in order to justify their acceptance. As an atheist, I'm not making any claims, I'm just shaking my head in disbelief until someone convinces me.
Actually, there is no philosophical difference between knowledge and belief. There might be a dictionary difference and a difference in science, but that only turns on what kind of evidence is accepted in proof of a premise. People will usually take “knowledge” as having a basis in some form of falsifiable, physical evidence that either turns on human powers of observation or the use of measuring tools. But first to really make that distinction, you’d have to be holding out some philosophy like Objectivism or Naturalism, where you hold those physical means of observation on a higher order than other inputs. Someone who doesn’t ascribe to that philosophy could always enter in and hold those means of observation subordinate to others, like whatever inputs such as emotion, etc, forms the basis of their proof. But in terms of that philosophical proof, stating you believe something based on such and such is the exact same as saying you know something, based on such and such. There’s also no inbuilt degree of certainty like you’re saying, with knowledge on the absolute certainty side. There are no absolutes really, only increasingly fundamental premises that a proof is based on, such as the Cartesian idea of whether what you’re observing corresponds to some objective reality.
Granted, those beliefs about the cardinality of measurable, objective evidence tend to go hand in hand with Agnosticism. But if you are talking about this “knowledge”, what you’re really discussing is the capital “A” Agnosticism, which is the belief that no knowledge of God is possible. It’s still a belief. In fact, if you delve deep enough philosophically, you won’t find any physical evidence at all on the kinds of questions that are asked, and so you’ll ultimately have to come out on one end other the other on these things you call “beliefs”. In actuality, capital-letter “Science” and other post-modern schools of thought actually are premised on these belief sets, like Naturalism.
So, I’m behind you 100% that both saying there is a God and saying there isn’t one are positive claims. I just think the definitions you laid out are the reverse of what most people have them. If you’re saying that Theists haven’t met their burden of proof to you and you’re shaking your head until someone comes with more evidence either way, that seems to me that you’re Agnostic. An Atheist would say something like, “Oh, so you’re God is all-powerful and infinitely benevolent? Well, my cat got hit by a car. No benevolent God would’ve let that happen, ergo no such God exists.”
(1) The usage of "theist", "atheist", and "agnostic" ("gnostic" is something totally different) vary greatly depending on the person using them and the context. So while it's certainly useful to define your terms and clarify how you are using them, it is neither useful nor accurate to object to other usages as though you were "right" and they were "wrong". Figure out what people mean, then argue the content of what they're saying. Don't waste time bickering over labels.
(2) You believe that there is insufficient evidence to assert a positive claim about the existence of God. The statement that launched this whole silly digression did not say atheism made a positive claim about the (non)existence of God; it only said atheism was a belief, and that is a completely true statement. A negative belief is still a belief. You complain about the conflation of knowledge and belief, but you're conflating positive claims with belief at least as badly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'll concede that there's variance in the agreed upon definitions of these terms. Just like a discussion of this sort should start with a definition of god, maybe it should also start with a definition of atheism and agnosticism. Bottom line is I don't believe that a god or gods exist, and I won't until I'm presented with compelling evidence. Whatever a person wants to call me is up to them.
(2) You believe that there is insufficient evidence to assert a positive claim about the existence of God. The statement that launched this whole silly digression did not say atheism made a positive claim about the (non)existence of God; it only said atheism was a belief, and that is a completely true statement. A negative belief is still a belief. You complain about the conflation of knowledge and belief, but you're conflating positive claims with belief at least as badly.
That's taking a step back, though. chris's atheism is not a belief. That lack of belief is based on a belief (about the lack of evidence), sure, but that doesn't make the definition of atheism he's using (and the one I use, TBH) a negative belief.
Back to the main topic, I think the matter of whether a god exists or not is boring. The more interesting question is whether you believe in divine intervention. It's perfectly plausible for a god to exist if he/she/it isn't interacting with the universe, but then also by definition 100% irrelevant to us. I'm more interested in why people think divine beings would see fit to screw with humanity during their primitive years and then never make themselves known later on. Jesus walking on water "was" a miraculous act that could be studied and proven to be divine in nature. If you believe in divine intervention, how do you reconcile the fact that in your texts, obviously divine acts were being performed publicly on a literal daily basis, yet once people learned the scientific method, those divine acts suddenly stopped?
Agreed. Whether or not a god interacts with the universe is a much more interesting discussion. (A god that doesn't manifest itself in any way is indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist). The way some people view the events of reality and map them to their beliefs in the divine is perplexing.
I come from an incredibly religious family. My father is a United Methodist minister. We've had a number of deaths in our family over the past few years, and every single time I feel an overwhelming sense of disconnection and isolation from the rest of my family. When the sole source of consolation comes from "he's in a better place now", those of us who don't hold such a belief are forced to face reality while everyone else gets to lie to themselves. It's almost unfair, in a way. THAT has to be one of the most unappealing aspects of Christianity to me.
If you believe in divine intervention, how do you reconcile the fact that in your texts, obviously divine acts were being performed publicly on a literal daily basis, yet once people learned the scientific method, those divine acts suddenly stopped?
I reconcile it by saying that the divine acts didn't stop.
That's taking a step back, though. chris's atheism is not a belief. That lack of belief is based on a belief (about the lack of evidence), sure, but that doesn't make the definition of atheism he's using (and the one I use, TBH) a negative belief.
"I don't believe there is a God" is most certainly a belief.
"I don't believe there is a God" is most certainly a belief.
So if someone rewords that, say, to "I don't have the belief that there is a God," or "I don't agree with the belief that there is a God," are you saying that's still going to be a belief? Because I suspect that most atheists would be willing to do that.
I come from an incredibly religious family. My father is a United Methodist minister. We've had a number of deaths in our family over the past few years, and every single time I feel an overwhelming sense of disconnection and isolation from the rest of my family. When the sole source of consolation comes from "he's in a better place now", those of us who don't hold such a belief are forced to face reality while everyone else gets to lie to themselves. It's almost unfair, in a way. THAT has to be one of the most unappealing aspects of Christianity to me.
That is very interesting; that is an experience I have not heard of before. (To be fair, I also believe that celebrating someone's life is more important than mourning their death. But an aunt of mine died earlier this year and it was still jarring.) I'd argue that the onus is on anyone who is remotely atheist, theist, or other to be accepting of the views of others no matter what they be; religious and anti-religious proselytizing really rub me the wrong way. Yes, I don't agree with ___ belief. No, I'm not going to shove that in someone's face.
Well, I can personally testify to Blinking Spirit's impartiality. He is a fair person in both his moderation duties and his debates. He is level-headed, considerate, and level-headed when he debates, and he only steps in and acts as a moderator when someone is being a jackass. Don't be afraid of him. He is your friend.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Yes, Blinking Spirit is our most generous master. The master will cares, the master will not hurt you.
In all seriousness, Izzet_Commando, I'd love to hear your arguments about some of this stuff.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Similarly, I hate the idea that personal beliefs exist in some sort of vacuum - that it's perfectly fine for anyone to believe anything they want because they're not hurting anyone. The truth is, unreasonable adherence to supernatural beliefs DO, in fact, have an impact on others. A person's beliefs influence - if not dictate - their day to day actions. Voting is a good example (but not the only example). A push towards the notion that "faith" is a virtuous and helpful thing is at best misguided and at worst extremely dangerous.
And just to be extremely pedantic:
Atheism is not a belief.
Plus I just can't be bothered to understand why anyone can believe it
The reason people believe it is very simple: It expunges their fear of dying. I was a devout Christian for about 25 years, and I totally understand the appeal. It's that deep, warm fuzzy feeling you get when you truly believe you'll go to Heaven when you die. There's no secular consolation for mortality that comes ANYWHERE close to what the bible promises.
yeah I guess that's very true, after going to Catholic schools in elementary/ secondary school, I found that it did offer a lot of promises for the afterlife
Possibly because of the popularity of New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and because "non-Christians" might be a bit too broad since comparing and contrasting Christianity with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, and all the other miscellaneous religions could have threads of their own. And that's not even getting into the differences between the various denominations Christianity has since the Great Schism and the Reformation.
I don’t think that topic is pedantic at all. Is Atheism a belief? Yes, I think it definitely is. It’s the belief that there is no God. It’s a negative belief rather than an affirmative belief, but it’s a belief. A different example, I believe that there is no gas in my tank when the needle reads empty. But, I still have a belief about the contents of my gas tank.
I saw a video on my Facebook feed recently of an “Atheist” who was asked what he would do if he died, and sure enough, found God at the Pearly Gates. His answer was that he’d refuse to acknowledge God as his ruler, and not want to have any part of this “Heaven” of his, because how could he allow things like bone cancer in children?
That right there is an Atheist. His position is that things like bone cancer are evidence for the affirmative conclusion that no being fitting the definition of “God” exists. It’s much more than just saying that he’s weighed the evidence offered in support of God and found it insufficient to form a belief in God. He’s saying that there is enough evidence that he is compelled to believe the opposite, that there is no God.
What I still find irredeemably derivative about Atheism is that it still relies on some definition of “God” to say that someone doesn’t believe in that God. And Atheists not believing in God and all, they are not in the business of putting out their definition of the God that they don’t believe in. So, they have to borrow some other group’s definition of God and point to it, saying this is the God that we don’t believe in.
Back to the OP’s question of what is unappealing to Atheists about Christianity, answering the question of whose God the Atheists in question don’t believe in will reveal their position on that group. If the answer is that they just don’t like the way the members of that group behave, or what the effects of that belief set have been, then you probably don’t have an Athiest.
Nope. Atheism is not the claim that there is no god; it's the rejection of the claim that there is. If you say "there's a god," and I reply with "I reject that claim," I'm an atheist, but I am NOT asserting that there ISN'T a god. Am I splitting hairs? No, because it's a vital distinction. Atheism is the default position on an extraordinary claim absent any compelling evidence to accept the claim. There are, of course, plenty of people who would claim "there is no god." I would call them anti-theists, different from atheists. To your other point, atheists aren't the ones defining god. When I say I don't believe in god, I'm saying I don't believe in whatever god you're currently talking about and yourself defining. That's why any reasonable discussion on this topic should start with a clear definition of god. It just so happens that there are many similarities in people's definition, especially among Christians, so by generalizing with "I don't believe in god," there's a pretty good chance what I'm talking about is pretty close to what you're talking about. But feel free to define god any way you want and I'll let you know if I believe in what you're describing.
Actually wouldn't saying that you don't believe in God but leave open the possibility for one to exist make you more agnostic? Atheism, by definition, means that one does not believe that a God(s) exists and Anti-theism, while overlapping with atheism, distinguishes itself from atheism by actively condemning and working against religion. There is a difference between simply saying "I don't believe in God" and following it up with "Religion is poison".
Honestly, this isn't exactly correct. There is a commonly defined spectrum of theistic probability, and most atheists do not fall at the very end. From Wikipedia
No, because nowhere in my rejection of the belief am I claiming to have knowledge of the existence/non-existence of god. Nosticism/agnosticism deal with knowledge, while theism/atheism deal with belief. Further, I'm also not "leaving open the possibility." Just because I don't make a positive claim that there is no god, doesn't mean I'm saying "it's possible." The claim that god is even possible would itself need to have some evidence behind it before I would accept it.
This is an interesting take, but I tend to disagree with placing atheism on a spectrum like this. My biggest beef is that it conflates knowledge with belief. I view knowledge as more than just a really really really strong belief. I see it as a whole different thing.
I also take a very binary approach to belief. You either accept a claim and thus "believe" it - i.e. place a "true" label on it - or you don't. Anything other than a full acceptance of a claim is a rejection of the claim, even if you're uncertain or fall somewhere else on that spectrum. Because, again, the rejection of a claim is NOT the same as an assertion of an opposing claim. The lack of absolute certainty in either direction doesn't preclude you from being entirely on one side or the other.
What this all really boils down to is burden of proof. Only those who make a positive claim have the burden to provide evidence in support of their claim. Both "a god exists" and "no god exists" are positive claims that require evidence in order to justify their acceptance. As an atheist, I'm not making any claims, I'm just shaking my head in disbelief until someone convinces me.
Agnosticism is "I don't KNOW if there's a god" and atheism is "I don't BELIEVE that there's a god." I'm describing the latter, although they tend to go hand in hand. I'm an agnostic atheist since I don't claim knowledge about the existence of a god, and I also don't hold the belief that god exists. You could be an agnostic theist ("I don't claim knowledge, but I believe nonetheless"), a gnostic theist ("I know god exists and I believe he does"), or a gnostic atheist ("I know god doesn't exist and I believe he doesn't").
While that's true, it's definitely not the reason I'm an atheist. It's not the lack of usefulness, it's the lack of evidence. My standard for belief isn't "does this benefit me," but rather "is this supported by compelling evidence."
These terms aren’t the most set in stone anywhere, so I’m not going to say you’re wrong. But I will say that just about every discussion I’ve ever had, and every public source of information I could find on these terms expressed the following understanding of them:
From Dictionary.com:
Atheism (n.) - the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Mirriam-Webester online:
Atheism (n.) - the doctrine that there is no deity
It comes from the root word “theos” or “God” and the prefix “a-” used to frame something in the negative. You’re only an atheist if you’re declaring an affirmative belief that there is no God. If like in your example, someone claims that there is a God, then you reject that claim, that’s not an affirmative belief. That’s simply saying you’re not a follower of that belief. Whereas in my example above, if you make the argument that bone cancer exists, therefore no God, you are stating the atheist doctrine that enough evidence exists to prove that there is no God.
From the same sources on the term “Agnostic”, speaking generally and not specifically related to the belief in deities:
Dictionary.com
Agnostic (n.) - a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Mirriam-Webster online:
Agnostic (n.) - a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
Basically, there are two definitions here. The first one is a capital-letter “Agonstic”, which is the affirmative believe that knowledge on a given topic is impossible. The second one is small letter “agnostic”, which can be a simple statement that you don’t believe in an idea. If you simply say you don’t believe, you might be capital “A” Agnostic as well, in the event that you also affirmatively believe that knowledge on that topic is impossible. You might also be an Anti-theist. But you can’t be an Atheist, because an Atheist believes that he has knowledge bearing on the existence of God, that knowledge is possible, and that it indicates affirmatively that there is no such God.
On the term ““antitheist”, there is no entry in either of those dictionary sources for the term. But Wikipedia lays it out as “opposition” to theism, or most commonly opposition to organized religions that profess belief in God. So in your example, if you’re in a conversation with someone who says they believe in God, then you say you don’t, and you think that belief is dangerous, harmful, so on, that makes you an anti-theist. You may also be either an Agnostic or an Atheist (not both), or you might be only a small-letter agnostic to the premise of the existence of a deity.
Actually, there is no philosophical difference between knowledge and belief. There might be a dictionary difference and a difference in science, but that only turns on what kind of evidence is accepted in proof of a premise. People will usually take “knowledge” as having a basis in some form of falsifiable, physical evidence that either turns on human powers of observation or the use of measuring tools. But first to really make that distinction, you’d have to be holding out some philosophy like Objectivism or Naturalism, where you hold those physical means of observation on a higher order than other inputs. Someone who doesn’t ascribe to that philosophy could always enter in and hold those means of observation subordinate to others, like whatever inputs such as emotion, etc, forms the basis of their proof. But in terms of that philosophical proof, stating you believe something based on such and such is the exact same as saying you know something, based on such and such. There’s also no inbuilt degree of certainty like you’re saying, with knowledge on the absolute certainty side. There are no absolutes really, only increasingly fundamental premises that a proof is based on, such as the Cartesian idea of whether what you’re observing corresponds to some objective reality.
Granted, those beliefs about the cardinality of measurable, objective evidence tend to go hand in hand with Agnosticism. But if you are talking about this “knowledge”, what you’re really discussing is the capital “A” Agnosticism, which is the belief that no knowledge of God is possible. It’s still a belief. In fact, if you delve deep enough philosophically, you won’t find any physical evidence at all on the kinds of questions that are asked, and so you’ll ultimately have to come out on one end other the other on these things you call “beliefs”. In actuality, capital-letter “Science” and other post-modern schools of thought actually are premised on these belief sets, like Naturalism.
So, I’m behind you 100% that both saying there is a God and saying there isn’t one are positive claims. I just think the definitions you laid out are the reverse of what most people have them. If you’re saying that Theists haven’t met their burden of proof to you and you’re shaking your head until someone comes with more evidence either way, that seems to me that you’re Agnostic. An Atheist would say something like, “Oh, so you’re God is all-powerful and infinitely benevolent? Well, my cat got hit by a car. No benevolent God would’ve let that happen, ergo no such God exists.”
(1) The usage of "theist", "atheist", and "agnostic" ("gnostic" is something totally different) vary greatly depending on the person using them and the context. So while it's certainly useful to define your terms and clarify how you are using them, it is neither useful nor accurate to object to other usages as though you were "right" and they were "wrong". Figure out what people mean, then argue the content of what they're saying. Don't waste time bickering over labels.
(2) You believe that there is insufficient evidence to assert a positive claim about the existence of God. The statement that launched this whole silly digression did not say atheism made a positive claim about the (non)existence of God; it only said atheism was a belief, and that is a completely true statement. A negative belief is still a belief. You complain about the conflation of knowledge and belief, but you're conflating positive claims with belief at least as badly.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Agreed. Whether or not a god interacts with the universe is a much more interesting discussion. (A god that doesn't manifest itself in any way is indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist). The way some people view the events of reality and map them to their beliefs in the divine is perplexing.
I come from an incredibly religious family. My father is a United Methodist minister. We've had a number of deaths in our family over the past few years, and every single time I feel an overwhelming sense of disconnection and isolation from the rest of my family. When the sole source of consolation comes from "he's in a better place now", those of us who don't hold such a belief are forced to face reality while everyone else gets to lie to themselves. It's almost unfair, in a way. THAT has to be one of the most unappealing aspects of Christianity to me.
"I don't believe there is a God" is most certainly a belief.
So if someone rewords that, say, to "I don't have the belief that there is a God," or "I don't agree with the belief that there is a God," are you saying that's still going to be a belief? Because I suspect that most atheists would be willing to do that.
That is very interesting; that is an experience I have not heard of before. (To be fair, I also believe that celebrating someone's life is more important than mourning their death. But an aunt of mine died earlier this year and it was still jarring.) I'd argue that the onus is on anyone who is remotely atheist, theist, or other to be accepting of the views of others no matter what they be; religious and anti-religious proselytizing really rub me the wrong way. Yes, I don't agree with ___ belief. No, I'm not going to shove that in someone's face.