• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"The Trouble With Atheism"

Dave1001 said:
I think it's too late for that. The popular understanding of atheism is belief that no gods exist. The popular understanding of agnosticism (to the degree that the population even knows the word) is that it means uncertainty about whether or not gods exist.

Introducing very different meanings for the words at this point will simply increase confusion, particularly when people of the present encounter writings using the two words just a couple decades ago.

Stick with the popular definitions I provided, folks.:cool:
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, and pretty much the point of it all, that most people believe it doesn't make it the truth. Secondly, I know quite a few people personally who call themselves atheists that don't profess a belief in no gods so, while your definition may indeed be common, it is by no means the majority, at least in my area. Thirdly, the term agnostic when used in the "don't know" sense connotes a kind of "on the fence" position where just a little bit either way and he could be convinced. In my own case I can say nothing is farther from the truth. I cannot (and do not) say that it is impossible for any god to exist. It is incredibly unlikely, however, and the amount of evidence that it would require to shift me to that position is staggering. Calling myself an agnostic invites the believers to try to convince me.

I'll stick with "atheist" and correct people when they think I believe things that I don't. If you want to know what atheism means, ask someone who calls themself an atheist, not a dictionary or someone who doesn't.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Let's see atheism (as pointed out, simply not having a belief in God) shares many things in common with religions and religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

As one of my favorite quotes points out, they have a lot more in common than believers think they do:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts
Click to expand...
 
TheChadd said:
I don't like such sentiments, atheists that carry on too much about their persecution really need some tissues.
Click to expand...

I find this response hard to interpret. Ms Murray claimed to be laughing. Is what she said untrue? Why would she need tissues?
 
Hammegk said:
As long as that god had no effect or affect on the reality we perceive, I'd agree. That's some form of non-interactive dualism, which although not illogical, to me is sterile.
Click to expand...
Why can't a material god have an effect on a material universe? Is that impossible by definition?

~~ Paul
 
Sure, if you can explain how a definition of matter that allows god makes sense. Once you push & pull what matter means to that state I'd say you've become an idealist.

For example, matter implies 'not sentient', mind (idealism) has a primary attribute of sentience. Then we can argue about what 'sentient' means. :)


There are other examples we could examine. I also like not-life vs life.
 
Hammegk said:
Sure, if you can explain how a definition of matter that allows god makes sense. Once you push & pull what matter means to that state I'd say you've become an idealist.
Click to expand...
Big bang, random stuff, god forms from initial matter, designs universe, manipulates matter into desired form, spends rest of existence near Zeta Reticuli.

How is this crazier than any other definition of god?

~~ Paul
 
I cannot define god.

kenny, if you feel competent to define god, do so. I am 100% positive that will make me an atheist for your definition. And no, I don't believe a definition under materialism is possible.



How did Paul do?
Big bang, random stuff, god forms from initial matter, designs universe, manipulates matter into desired form, spends rest of existence near Zeta Reticuli.

How is this crazier than any other definition of god?
Click to expand...

I go atheist on that one. :)
 
Last edited:
hammegk said:
I cannot define god.

kenny, if you feel competent to define god, do so. I am 100% positive that will make me an atheist for your definition. And no, I don't believe a definition under materialism is possible.



How did Paul do?

I go atheist on that one. :)
Click to expand...

Hmm. Quite a few people want to define God as the first cause of the first known event--the big bang. Of course most of these people then make a leap from worshiping whatever that is to the God of the King James Bible. But nonetheless, that's a definition that would catch a lot of atheists.
 
Hammegk said:
As you well know, ain't nothin' but "natural". Pick your monism or remain a dualist.
Click to expand...
Well then, if god can't be supernatural, he's gotta be natural. So why say materialism or physicalism rules out god? Is this the long-awaited distinction between materialism and idealism that's finally gonna tip the table toward one or the other? Do tell!

~~ Paul
 
Thor is pretty damn material in the comic books. He would be a material god that works in a material world, admittedly a fictional material world, but a material world non-the-less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom