kiwitt
Road to War Modder
So you are saying that atheism is a belief, as in a "belief system", not simply a "conclusion" that they reached that "there is probably no god".
I'm not saying it's necessarily a belief system, but it certainly is a belief about the world. I see no reason to distinguish between, in terms of mental processes, "There is no God," "There is a God," and "There are apples." They are statements about the world that you may hold to be true, and may be true or false. Belief in God might become wrapped up in stuff that believing in his nonexistence may not be -- for instance, in a system of values -- but I don't see why this is necessarily the case, nor why even if that were necessary so, that would make believing in God's nonexistence any less of a belief.So you are saying that atheism is a belief, as in a "belief system", not simply a "conclusion" that they reached that "there is probably no god".
But how is that substantively different? I have reached a conclusions about the world ("God exists," "I am sitting in a chair," "Apples are tasty") by examining evidence and coming to a conclusion. What's the distinction? What is the criteria by which you're distinguishing between "beliefs" and "conclusions"?It is not a "belief about the world", but more a "conclusion reached about the world".
The article I linked goes on to say the atheists should refrain from describing their position as a "belief" as it is likely to be misconstrued by "believers" against them, and a better word to use is "conclusion". I had already been trying to do this before I had even read the article for the same reasons I found when discussing this area.
But how is that substantively different? I have reached a conclusions about the world ("God exists," "I am sitting in a chair," "Apples are tasty") by examining evidence and coming to a conclusion. What's the distinction? What is the criteria by which you're distinguishing between "beliefs" and "conclusions"?
I honestly don't see one, aside from "Well, I am an atheist, so I want there to be a distinction." But that's just wishful thinking.
But how is that substantively different? I have reached a conclusions about the world ("God exists," "I am sitting in a chair," "Apples are tasty") by examining evidence and coming to a conclusion. What's the distinction? What is the criteria by which you're distinguishing between "beliefs" and "conclusions"?
I honestly don't see one, aside from "Well, I am an atheist, so I want there to be a distinction." But that's just wishful thinking.
"A conclusion is a proposition which is reached after considering the evidence, arguments or premises."
As you can see a belief is only related to how valid a person thinks a premise is, whereas a conclusion goes more deeply, in that it includes, evidence and arguments in addition to premises."Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true"
No, it's not, because that's not the question. I think we can all agree that there is an objective answer to the question of whether or not God exists, just as we can all agree that there is an objective answer to whether there is an apple in my stomach, or on my head. The question is about the nature of that answer -- is it a yes or a no?In the same vein, saying that atheism is a "belief" is deliberate obfuscation of its meaning (another way one could be disingenuous would be to accuse you of "raping" the English language.). It is merely an attempt to obscure the fact that the question of whether there is a God has a totally objective answer.
According to your definition, a conclusion is a sort of proposition. According to your definition, belief is "the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." It seems reasonable, then, to assert that you hold, or believe, a conclusion. (Remember, the definition of belief that you provided did not include a qualifier of propositions that would exclude those based on evidence.) In other words, when you hold a conclusion to be true, you are holding a proposition to be true, and you are therefore believing something. So in actuality, your definitions work quite well for my point, thanks.From Wiki
as you can see a belief is only related to the validity of a premise, whereas a conclusion goes more deeply, in that it includes, evidence and arguments in addition to premises.
Has there been much thought on whether Human souls have a gender?
A friend of mine is a deacon's kid, and offered to sell me some pre-consecrated hosts she found in her home. Is there anything in canon law that explicitly prohibits this? Has anybody ever tried this? Would you be interested partaking of the body and blood of Christ without sitting through a church service for a very reasonable fee?
What, if any, is the meaningful difference between deism and atheism? How is the distinction not a completely arbitrary decision on the part of the believer?
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church regards belief in the teachings of the Church to be essential for someone to be considered Catholic. At least, this is the impression I got from my Catholic teachers when I was young. Is there any truth to this?
Have I tried to believe in God the wrong way ? - a bit of background.
When I was growing up, I spent many years at "Bible Study" and then joining friends at church meetings studying the Bible. At the same time my father would have a "circular" argument. Who created God ? Nature - Who created Nature ? God and so on.
In addition, my parents made us read encyclopedias at home to keep us up to date with information and science. Later in my early 20's, I saw the classic film "The Ten Commandments" in the picture theatre as a special feature. A friend who was with me thought we should join a church. Which we did and he went on to study theology and become a priest. I left to to another country. There, I re-commenced my study at another church. However, no matter what I did, I just could not "believe". I suspect it comes from my focus on facts and logic in my early years with encyclopedia and maths.
So what I discovered is that the way many Christian's try to teach you to believe in God is as follows;
Read Jesus' acts and life;then believe in Jesus as your Savour; then read the rest of the Bible and then believe in God. So in short: Jesus-> Bible-> God. (I think he says somewhere, no-one gets to God except through me, which may explain this teaching method).
Whereas I take a different approach God -> Bible -> Jesus. i.e. Prove "God exists" and then the rest follows.
I have never been able to get past "Believe in God". I ask myself, Which God ? There are so many, which religion is right. So which religion is right because they all say they are the right one and all the others are wrong. No objective analysis can be made as they are all subjective of the others.
So after about 20+ years of study and research in to the Bible and other religions, I have become an "Atheist". For me "science" is what I use to get an understanding of the world and beyond, and I accept that this is never-ending journey of discovery. And for me quite simply "God does not exist", as there will eventually be an answer to most questions. Maybe not in my lifetime, or not 1,000 years in the future, but the "not knowing" does not cause me any problems.
Didn't Jesus basically make our salvation dependent on our behavior, like in the Lord's Prayer - forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us?
And wasn't a bunch of this talk about "sin" etc really about the rules of cleanliness for the Jewish priesthood?
I read somewhere Jesus claim to the House of David was challenged and that his conception did not occur during the right time of year.
He did seem to focus a lot of his scorn on the upholders of such laws.
My minister contends that 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14 is actually a mistranslation that should read 'young woman'. Is this so?
I am inclined to accept this position. Is atheism a belief ? - No
Atheism cannot be a matter of "Not believing in X," because then anything could be said to be an atheist -- chairs, stars, pebbles, whatever -- because those things do not have positive beliefs that God exists (Or that anything exists, as far as we can tell -- the ultimate skeptics!). It's obviously absurd to say that my chair is an atheist, yet it is also obviously true that my chair does not believe in God. It seems far more reasonable to say that only things capable of having beliefs can be meaningfully said to be atheists. (If you don't think that's so, please find me an example of a thing that cannot hold a belief that may be an atheist, or can hold a belief and logically cannot be an atheist) From there, it seems to make imminent sense to simply relabel an atheist as a being, capable of holding a belief, who believes that God does not exist. (Which would be of the form "believing in Not X," instead of "Not believing in X.") The exact same argument could be made for unicorns or a round earth or aliens or whatever you like.
Argue how you will about whether atheism is a "religion," or an example of "faith," but it is certainly a belief that you hold about the world. I honestly don't see how you can argue otherwise.
To bring this back on topic: Plotinus, do you know what the traditional Christian standard of drunkenness was? There's no clear Scriptural condemnation of drinking alcoholic beverages (Several likely endorsements, actually), but drunkenness has pretty much always been seen as a sin. Is it just some sort of "results" standard -- If a monk throws up in church, he's on bread and water for forty days! -- or was there any sort of "this much is too much for anyone" idea? How much thought was this given in the early Church, and onward until the medieval?
To what degree can Manichean and Mazadaist/Zorastarian influence be found in Christianity?
When referring to atheism, belief is the wrong word. Atheism is a view held about the world, so it's in the right ballpark, but it's the wrong word because it heavily connotes faith. Atheism has a distinct lack of faith.
Can some one explain to me why the human race seems to have been set up for failure since Day 1 according to the Bible? I mean, why would you put the one thing that you DON'T want humans to even touch directly into their living space? Why not put the Tree of Knowledge on the opposite side of the planet on top of a mountain if it has to exist at all? It just seems as if God wanted Adam to fail by all but ensuring he would be tempted.
Also, giving human beings the ability to use rational thought and then telling them to have faith like a child....that was not cool.
To what degree can Manichean and Mazadaist/Zorastarian influence be found in Christianity?
I don't think there's much clear evidence of either. It's sometimes said that gnosticism was influenced by Zoroastrianism, but this is really on the basis of apparent similarities between them, rather than of clear evidence of influence. If there was any influence from Zoroastrianism to Christianity, I should think it would have been via Judaism, but I don't know what evidence, if any, there is of influence from Zoroastrianism upon Judaism.
When referring to atheism, belief is the wrong word. Atheism is a view held about the world, so it's in the right ballpark, but it's the wrong word because it heavily connotes faith. Atheism has a distinct lack of faith.
It's also a fact, not a belief.
When I was a child, I used to pray for Satan, so that he too would be saved and end up in Heaven. Was it heretical for me, as a catholic? What's the Church's opinion on salvation of devils?