Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I didn't.
Ask an atheist
- Thread starter Askthepizzaguy
- Start date
- Status
Midgard Eagle
Warlord
That's ingenious. I'm stealing that.
I don't think these two are mutually exclusive terms. It's often treated as if there's a sliding scale of atheism - agnosticism - theism, with agnosticism being the "who cares" attitude (don't know if you're subscribing to that line of thought, but questions like that often carry this implication).
In fact, agnosticism describes the position that you believe it's impossible to verify whether God exists or not. If you then live your life assuming God exists or assuming he doesn't is an entirely different question. An agnostic Christian isn't impossible (think of someone following Pascal's wager, for example).
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
The "who cares" attitude is called atheism.
Oh, I care. I think morality is important, for example, and in the case that God doesn't exist, you have to accept that fact before you can start developing one.
"Maybe God exists, maybe he doesn't, now I don't know what to do" is what I meant with the "who cares" attitude.
"Maybe God exists, maybe he doesn't, now I don't know what to do" is what I meant with the "who cares" attitude.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Still counts as atheism.
Theism requires an active belief, if you "don't know what to do" you're an atheist. You can not maybe believe in God, or you can not not know whether you believe in God.
Theism requires an active belief, if you "don't know what to do" you're an atheist. You can not maybe believe in God, or you can not not know whether you believe in God.
I think that's what we call an agnostic. Any sort of 'on the fence' attitude comes under agnosticism.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Or an agnostic atheist, such as myself.
If you don't believe that God exists you are an atheist. You could not believe that God exists and still be somewhat on this fence..
I'm not sure if you're still disagreeing with me, because that's essentially what I said.
Either you believe in God or you don't, which is why you're either atheist or theist. There is no "on the fence" position, and it certainly isn't agnosticism. You can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Theist = someone who knows there is a God.
Christian = someones who knows there is a Jesus.
Agnostic = those who think either can be known, but has no knowledge.
Atheist = knows there is no God.
Why does belief keep entering the picture? I believe the chair I am sitting on will hold me up. Does that change the fact that it does or does not?
My belief does not change a fact. Your belief does not change a fact. No one's belief has the power to change a fact.
Now no one can say, "There is a God" is a fact. If that fact were true, then no one could change it with their belief. If that fact were not true, then no one can change it with their belief.
What the athiest has to prove is that no one in history ever had that fact revealed to them. (though it is sure written and talked about a lot) Since no one can prove that, it is just easier to convince people that no revelation was ever made. Thus if they put the emphasis on beliefs, no one is going to question that, because beliefs are subjective and personal and cannot be proven either wrong or right.
Now if you want, you can change an atheist to = they think they know there is no God.
But thinking is a way to form a belief. Atheist cannot deny the fact that they "know", or they would not be an atheist. They would be agnostic leaving wiggle room to change. A "who cares" attitude just means they are human and keeps the peace and lives a normal life. They leave others to their own "beliefs", since they are not concerned about how others "believe".
BTW a Theist can have a "who cares" attitude also and still be a theist. They live their life, keep the peace and never pass on the good news, but they still know, and could care less about their fellow man.
Why is an agnostic allowed to think? Because they do not know. Finding things out is their way of life. They think and reason, and keep searching.
An atheist just knows that it is futile to do so. I am becoming more convinced (now) that they may never know even if they "did" know.
Since I am not an atheist and not really asking anything but making a rhetorical post, feel free to change anything that needs to be changed.
I do have one question though: Is "knowing a fact" the same as "believing a theory"?
Christian = someones who knows there is a Jesus.
Agnostic = those who think either can be known, but has no knowledge.
Atheist = knows there is no God.
Why does belief keep entering the picture? I believe the chair I am sitting on will hold me up. Does that change the fact that it does or does not?
My belief does not change a fact. Your belief does not change a fact. No one's belief has the power to change a fact.
Now no one can say, "There is a God" is a fact. If that fact were true, then no one could change it with their belief. If that fact were not true, then no one can change it with their belief.
What the athiest has to prove is that no one in history ever had that fact revealed to them. (though it is sure written and talked about a lot) Since no one can prove that, it is just easier to convince people that no revelation was ever made. Thus if they put the emphasis on beliefs, no one is going to question that, because beliefs are subjective and personal and cannot be proven either wrong or right.
Now if you want, you can change an atheist to = they think they know there is no God.
But thinking is a way to form a belief. Atheist cannot deny the fact that they "know", or they would not be an atheist. They would be agnostic leaving wiggle room to change. A "who cares" attitude just means they are human and keeps the peace and lives a normal life. They leave others to their own "beliefs", since they are not concerned about how others "believe".
BTW a Theist can have a "who cares" attitude also and still be a theist. They live their life, keep the peace and never pass on the good news, but they still know, and could care less about their fellow man.
Why is an agnostic allowed to think? Because they do not know. Finding things out is their way of life. They think and reason, and keep searching.
An atheist just knows that it is futile to do so. I am becoming more convinced (now) that they may never know even if they "did" know.
Since I am not an atheist and not really asking anything but making a rhetorical post, feel free to change anything that needs to be changed.
I do have one question though: Is "knowing a fact" the same as "believing a theory"?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
People believe things that aren't true all the time. Just look at young earth creationists, for example
Your definition of atheist is a bit off, too. You're excluding people who do not believe that God doesn't exist, but also do not think that he doesn't. They are atheist too.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
I am not an atheist. And I just don't care.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Nope. You cannot be on the fence whether you believe in God or not. It's like not being sure whether you're riding a bike.
Theism, belief in God, Atheism, disbelief in God, Agnosticism, knowledge of the existence is not possible, gnosticism, knowledge is possible. Nutshell.
I agree, just chiming in, echoing.
Nope.
Then you're an apathetic theist.
katipunero
Prince
atheism is more of a non-state than a state of being. it requires no positive act at all. as an atheist, i don't live my life in a constant state of awareness or affirmation of my atheism. i don't spend all my waking hours thinking that i am an atheist. i am not preoccupied with deep questions about the existence of a god or anything that has to do about religion. i just don't. it's like someone comes up to me and asks which modern architectural designs i follow or which pop sensation am i a fan of. not being either an architect or a pop fan, i'll probably shrug my shoulders and say that i have no idea and that i don't care.
In fact, I'd forward that agnosticism is a positive belief system!
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Heh. Never thought of it that way.
I'd second that.
I'd second that.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
I am neither of those two things.
I did one time told somebody that I can be a self-affirming apatheist. I can say I have matured a little bit since my views was once always associated with religious acrimony.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
So you neither believe in a God nor do you not believe in a God or you don't know whether or not you believe in a God.
Odd.
Odd.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Odd is my middle name. :/
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Isn't denial a positive belief system? I am not even saying that you deny God. I am saying that you deny that you know there is no God.
I know there is an Eiffel Tower, but that does not change my belief system. I know there is an Atlantic Ocean, but that does not change my belief system. I know there is no spaghetti monster, but that does not change my belief system. I know that there are no people who think my belief system is stupid. That does not change my belief system.
Believing something that is not true, does not change the fact that it is not true, nor does it make it true, it just means they have decided to think a lie is true.
That is why belief is not in the equation. If an atheist is an atheist because he "believes" he is, then that is not based on knowledge, but on their personal cognisance. He may try to deny my personal cognisance, but it is futile. Knowledge is a funny thing when it cannot be revealed to every one. There are humans who have never seen an airplane. How would you convince them, without showing them one? Does their lack of knowledge make them non-human?
It is plain that they know there is no God. It is plain that some humans know there are no airplanes. It is not that there are no airplanes. It is the fact that the concept is foreign to them. Yes a bird can fly, but humans cannot.
So why is a belief system, which is subjective, be used to define knowledge that is objective?
Even if "that knowledge" is a foreign concept to many?
Evolution is a foreign concept to me and that fact may have been shaped by my belief system. But what if it was not shaped by my belief system? What if inteligent people on the other side of the world with a totally different belief system came to the same conclusion?
Remember that a theist does not truly know, unless that knowledge was given. There was no refutal of that "fact". As a human the concept of God is to me just as foreign as landing on the moon. While my belief system thinks that we did both, and an atheist will only agree on the moon landing. I saw the news flashes about the landing, but my concept of God was even stronger at that point in my life. Now that is a subjective anectdote, but the principle is the same. Why did God leave a more objective thought in my head than the moon landings did? I was 2 years old!
Knowing a lie is a lot harder to explain than knowing a truth?
I know there is an Eiffel Tower, but that does not change my belief system. I know there is an Atlantic Ocean, but that does not change my belief system. I know there is no spaghetti monster, but that does not change my belief system. I know that there are no people who think my belief system is stupid. That does not change my belief system.
Believing something that is not true, does not change the fact that it is not true, nor does it make it true, it just means they have decided to think a lie is true.
That is why belief is not in the equation. If an atheist is an atheist because he "believes" he is, then that is not based on knowledge, but on their personal cognisance. He may try to deny my personal cognisance, but it is futile. Knowledge is a funny thing when it cannot be revealed to every one. There are humans who have never seen an airplane. How would you convince them, without showing them one? Does their lack of knowledge make them non-human?
It is plain that they know there is no God. It is plain that some humans know there are no airplanes. It is not that there are no airplanes. It is the fact that the concept is foreign to them. Yes a bird can fly, but humans cannot.
So why is a belief system, which is subjective, be used to define knowledge that is objective?
Even if "that knowledge" is a foreign concept to many?
Evolution is a foreign concept to me and that fact may have been shaped by my belief system. But what if it was not shaped by my belief system? What if inteligent people on the other side of the world with a totally different belief system came to the same conclusion?
Remember that a theist does not truly know, unless that knowledge was given. There was no refutal of that "fact". As a human the concept of God is to me just as foreign as landing on the moon. While my belief system thinks that we did both, and an atheist will only agree on the moon landing. I saw the news flashes about the landing, but my concept of God was even stronger at that point in my life. Now that is a subjective anectdote, but the principle is the same. Why did God leave a more objective thought in my head than the moon landings did? I was 2 years old!
Knowing a lie is a lot harder to explain than knowing a truth?
- Status
