All aboard the atheist bus ....

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm afraid you're going on your own biases here, rather than with an actual definition of the term. The term 'atheism' simply means to be 'without theism', the prefix 'a' meaning 'without.' To be an atheist means to be without a belief in god. It doesn't matter how sure you are on the matter, but by definition if you are not a theist, then you are an atheis st.'😉 I hope this has been useful in clearing up that error on your part.

yeah about as useful as any other argument regarding terminology and semantics, i provide a definition for your benefit, the first one that i googled online

agnosticism

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

you will notice the latter definition which gives credence to the idea that there is a duality with regard to agnosticism in that it cannot be proved decisively whether god exists or otherwise, on the basis of proof, or lack of evidence, does it not state that? whether the term 'god, therefore becomes redundant in such a scenario i cannot say, perhaps it is a popular view, although i myself cannot see how this can be inferred from the definition itself.

and the definition that i gave of an atheist is perfectly valid, whether in degree of assertion of the belief or otherwise even by your own definition, although i do think that you yourself are rather unclear on the matter, and perhaps you should, in the best platonic tradition, define your terminology before preceding on an analysis, and especially when trying to correct others simply because they draw something of a dubious nature to your attention, i do hope that this has been beneficial for you!

Originally posted by Badwater
I disagree. If one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a creator they are in the same boat. Burden of proof, or lack thereof, is not something required for one side of a theory but not the other.

It's not good enough to say that existence did not come about because of gods (or whatever label you care for) - one must come up with how in fact existence did come about or you're just wading in your own version of 'faith'.

If I claim to have an invisible, magical elf in my closet, it is up to me to substantiate that claim. My failure to do so means you are quite justified in doubting the truth of my claim. You don't have to prove that my claim is false to be justified in not believing it. The burden of proof is upon the person making the active claim. And the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the degree of proof that is required. Your claim for god is no different. Give me some proof or I have no choice but to doubt it.

Originally posted by Badwater
Hardly. Athiests and thiests are in the same boat, neither able to prove nor disprove their belief; and in this case belief and lack thereof are the same thing.

To be sure, there are superstitions and blind faith that manifest themselves with thiests, but some of the same silliness can be expressed on the part of athiests, through intolerance and a stubb ...[text shortened]... oven and yet both sides will yell their position until the end of their days. Intelligent, no?

…but some of the same silliness can be expressed on the part of atheists, through intolerance and a stubborn grasp of the 'faith' (if you will) that a creator force CANNOT and does not exist. .....… (my emphasis)

To use the general criterion that it is highly improbable that X exists in the absence of any creditable evidence that X exists is not “faith” but rather is just being reasonable about how you think of the probabilities of existential things.
I disbelieve that there is a Santa -that is not “faith” but reason simply based on that simple criterion -that criterion can be justified by considering the various absurd conclusions if you reject it (which I went to great lengths to explain in some of by previous posts)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah about as useful as any other argument regarding terminology and semantics, i provide a definition for your benefit, the first one that i googled online

agnosticism

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief th ...[text shortened]... ething of a dubious nature to your attention, i do hope that this has been beneficial for you!

Alas, it has not been helpful in the slightest. In fact, it hints at a certain intransigence on your part that is a lamentable obstacle to any true understanding.

Let me say that the definition of 'agnostic' does not interest me in the slightest. I have absolutely no use for the term. I am solely interested in correcting your mischaracterization of atheists as necessarily being 'hard atheists', who make a definite knowledge claim about god's non-existence. There may be some of those about, I suppose. Although I suspect that they are largely strawmen created by theists in a failed attempt to relieve themselves of bearing the sole burden of proof. The fact remains that nearly all atheists confine themselves to doubting the existence of god and saying that he 'probably doesn't exist.' There can be no proof either way, but in such a circumstance the proper course of action is to doubt the theist's claim and to give it no credence.

Originally posted by rwingett
Alas, it has not been helpful in the slightest. In fact, it hints at a certain intransigence on your part that is a lamentable obstacle to any true understanding.

Let me say that the definition of 'agnostic' does not interest me in the slightest. I have absolutely no use for the term. I am solely interested in correcting your mischaracterization of athe the proper course of action is to doubt the theist's claim and to give it no credence.

alas, it has been in vain, oh lamentable one, never the less i will take it upon your word that not all atheists are 'hard atheists', but may vent towards a little agnosticism in case of any doubts as to the validity of their stance, given the overwhelming evidence for the existence of God this is natural.

But enough of this monkey business, has the philosophy itself, (i use the term lightly with regard to atheism) not produced as much ignorance and superstitions as the worst evils of dark age theology? How many of us can explain popular concepts with any degree of understanding? we all know that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, but how many of us can explain anything with regard to the special theory of relativity? so it goes with those professing atheism, it is nothing but a common fad, many express disbelief about a god, but when you press them on why they should express disbelief they do not know, its ludicrous, and this oh rwingett is the real scourge, you have stated that it produces nothing, i beg to differ, it produces a stupefied populace, brought up on vague ideas about a materialistic beginning to the universe and thus enslaved to materialistic ideas and pursuits, unhappy because of the insistence on self, devoid of any type of spirituality, 'we are gods they say', able to distinguish for ourselves good and bad and this despite the predicament the world is now facing on an unprecedented scale, if you can refute this, then make with the reddies my good man, if not then i thank you earnestly for reading and wish you well - regards robbie

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
alas, it has been in vain, oh lamentable one, never the less i will take it upon your word that not all atheists are 'hard atheists', but may vent towards a little agnosticism in case of any doubts as to the validity of their stance, given the overwhelming evidence for the existence of God this is natural.

But enough of this monkey business, has ...[text shortened]... y good man, if not then i thank you earnestly for reading and wish you well - regards robbie

First of all, there is no 'philosophy' to be found in atheism. Atheism is simply non-theism and nothing more. It has no content beyond that. If you want to stand on your soap box and rail on incessantly against humanism, or materialism, or whatever, you may do so to your heart's content. But those positions are independent matters from atheism.

You claim that the world is in a deplorable state. That may be so, but let me ask you this: is the world in a better or worse state than it was in the Dark Ages, when religion reigned supreme? Even with an unchallenged and near universal belief in a god, things were far from pleasant then. If I may be so bold, I would venture to say that we have made substantial progress since those dark days, socially, intellectually and technologically. What made that progress possible? It wasn't religion. No, it was the humanist ideals of the Enlightenment, which loosened religion's stranglehold on men's minds. Make no mistake, religion is not the safeguard of progress, but rather an obstacle toward it.

Originally posted by rwingett
First of all, there is no 'philosophy' to be found in atheism. Atheism is simply non-theism and nothing more. It has no content beyond that. If you want to stand on your soap box and rail on incessantly against humanism, or materialism, or whatever, you may do so to your heart's content. But those positions are independent matters from atheism.

You clai e no mistake, religion is not the safeguard of progress, but rather an obstacle toward it.

lol, great learning is driving you mad, yes there has been technological advancements, yes there have been scientific advancements, yes there have been medicinal advancements, yes life was short and brutal less than 200 years ago, but the advancements were not fueled by some atheistic humanist movement, many were down to theists, we think of the Arabs and the initial Muslim scientists and scholars, we can site giants like sir Issac Newton, a Christian and a scientist, as to whether we have made progress socially and intellectually, i beg to differ, for example we find the materialist view point not only applied in science but also in sociology and even law and criminality, Darwinism and the resulting social Darwinist movement has wrought untold misery on millions of people, was a major factor in eugenics programs and was a contributing factor in both world wars, even the fuhrer himself entitled his book, 'my struggle', Stalin a socialist and an atheist killed more people than we could possibly imagine, progress, please think about what you are saying! as soon as you start to establish your own morality, you are essentially making yourself a god, and the problem with this my friend is that we are human and imperfect and thus our wisdom is flawed, however i must agree with you, religion has a terrible legacy and kept people in darkness not only materially but spiritually as well, but i am sure there were as many religious reformers who broke the shackles of darkness and created the environment for progress which we now enjoy, but that it was, after the death of Christ and the apostles a hinderence for progress no one can deny, but not in all cases, nor need it be so in our age!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, great learning is driving you mad, yes there has been technological advancements, yes there have been scientific advancements, yes there have been medicinal advancements, yes life was short and brutal less than 200 years ago, but the advancements were not fueled by some atheistic humanist movement, many were down to theists, we think of the Arab ...[text shortened]... a hinderence for progress no one can deny, but not in all cases, nor need it be so in our age!

Your post contains two errors which are frequently propagated in religious circles. For the first, Darwin had nothing to do with 'Social Darwinism.' That movement was a gross misapplication of evolutionary theory to social settings. It has been repudiated by everyone except laissez-faire capitalists and Ayn Rand aficionados. For the second, Stalin may have killed millions, but it wasn't because he was an atheist. It would make as much sense to say since Stalin had a mustache, mustaches cause mass murder. There have been many Christian murderers throughout the years. Did their Christianity cause them to murder?

Religion can never be an agent for progress, because religion is concerned exclusively with maintaining the status quo. In every society, in every age, progress has not come about through religious institutions, but in spite of them. Although there have been many religious individuals pushing for change throughout the years, organized religion itself has always resisted it bitterly. We see it today with the gay rights movement, for example. Organized religions are almost universally united in opposition against it. But in another generation, or so, when it has become an accomplished fact, it will be the churches claiming they were at the forefront of the movement and that they supported it all along.

Loosening religion's tyranny on the minds of men has opened avenues for many destructive ideologies. But that is no reason to return to our previous benighted state of intellectual serfdom. We must continually move forward, charting our own paths, with only our own innate intelligence and compassion as our guides. We may frequently stumble along the way, but in the long run we are making progress.

Originally posted by rwingett
If I claim to have an invisible, magical elf in my closet, it is up to me to substantiate that claim. My failure to do so means you are quite justified in doubting the truth of my claim. You don't have to prove that my claim is false to be justified in not believing it. The burden of proof is upon the person making the active claim. And the more extraordina ...[text shortened]... ed. Your claim for god is no different. Give me some proof or I have no choice but to doubt it.

I don't think you're looking closely enough at what I'm saying. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm not saying you're right. I'm comfortable with a great big I Don't Know and I'm not afraid to say so, even if you're apparently not.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your post contains two errors which are frequently propagated in religious circles. For the first, Darwin had nothing to do with 'Social Darwinism.' That movement was a gross misapplication of evolutionary theory to social settings. It has been repudiated by everyone except laissez-faire capitalists and Ayn Rand aficionados. For the second, Stalin may have ...[text shortened]... guides. We may frequently stumble along the way, but in the long run we are making progress.

If we divest a human being of his or her soul, and consider ourselves animals, would you consider that progress?

Imagine for a moment that you are the subject of a certain government's top-secret, advanced brainwashing program. You are treated to a veritable smorgasbord of Pavlovian conditioning techniques designed to degrade you and force compliance. Would you consider your oppressors to be progressives? By mocking and shell-shocking your pretensions to human dignity, wouldn't they be using their modern insight into the nature of man and the world in a constructive manner worthy of your admiration?

Or, would you consider it progress if we elevate the human being above the mere animal; if we considered him an entity in possession of a soul and made in the image of God?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If we divest a human being of his or her soul, and consider ourselves animals, would you consider that progress?

Yes, acceptance of reality is certainly progress.

Imagine for a moment that you are the subject of a certain government's top-secret, advanced brainwashing program. You are treated to a veritable smorgasbord of Pavlovian conditioning techniques designed to degrade you and force compliance. Would you consider your oppressors to be progressives? By mocking and shell-shocking your pretensions to human dignity, wouldn't they be using their modern insight into the nature of man and the world in a constructive manner worthy of your admiration?
I don't really understand all that, but as far as I can tell you are saying "If some dictatorial government decides not to respect human life, would I support them in some foolish belief that it supports my claim that we do not have souls".
If that is the case then no, I disagree. I don't see any connection between human rights and the supposed existence of a soul.

Or, would you consider it progress if we elevate the human being above the mere animal; if we considered him an entity in possession of a soul and made in the image of God?
Not of that elevation is entirely imaginary, or delusional. It could even be equated to racism, where some people choose to elevate themselves above other races.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
for example , we can ask, how did life get here?, 'by evolution they will say',

It is interesting how strongly you hold onto your misconceptions regarding atheists and evolution.
Not all atheists accept evolution as a valid theory, or have even heard of it.
A significant number of scientists who accept evolution as a scientific theory are theists.
The majority of Christians accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. - or at least the official stance of their denomination does.

But you have been corrected on those errors before, yet you persist in attempting to equate atheism with an acceptance of evolution as a valid theory.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your post contains two errors which are frequently propagated in religious circles. For the first, Darwin had nothing to do with 'Social Darwinism.' That movement was a gross misapplication of evolutionary theory to social settings. It has been repudiated by everyone except laissez-faire capitalists and Ayn Rand aficionados. For the second, Stalin may have ...[text shortened]... guides. We may frequently stumble along the way, but in the long run we are making progress.

lol, this is the greatest work of fiction since lord of the rings, trilogy. I did not state that Darwin had anything to do with the social Darwinist movement, but that it was merely the application of his theories , in social and economic models by others, he himself, i am sure did not favor the ideas, and why should he considering the disastrous effects.

you have stated that atheism need not produce anything, i have shown, with reference that this stance is erroneous, it should come with a government health warning; Dangerous! poisonous substance, detrimental to ones well being, physically and spiritually, to be taken only in the context of well qualified practitioner, may induce intellectual sleepiness, do not take while sane, may lead to intellectual insanity (case study Friedrich Nietzsche), has known side effects, (mass murder and extreme oppression), consult a well versed theist in case of addiction, may lead to a slavish adherence to material values and cause nauseating uninspired posts with trifles regarding semantics and arguments over definition of terms!

the fact of the matter is that the Bible (please note i differentiate the two, religion and the bible are not synonymous in word or deed) has inspired, at least in the west, much of lifes greatest literature, art, and music, has it not?

actually the reference to Stalin was just a piece of sensationalist journalism, you know for effect, however had he been a disciple of the scriptures and of Christ, these atrocities would never have happened, infact, if the whole world adopted the teachings of Christ, there would be no wars, no greed, no exploitation of others or any of the other ills which plague mankind. his teaching is so far encompassing, able to transcend every type of creed and barrier placed before it, and its application so practical that you have a real nerve to talk of progress, when the ideals and aspiration of Christ are being ignored and pushed aside for an empty deception like atheism, which as you have stated yourself, has nothing to offer, by its very definition and nature! Alas however you are a god, you can determine your own morality, i wish you every success with your endeavors to chart your own waters, because quite frankly you is gonna need it

'compassion', a godly quality compassion, how did that get in there, mmm, i wonder

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is interesting how strongly you hold onto your misconceptions regarding atheists and evolution.
Not all atheists accept evolution as a valid theory, or have even heard of it.
A significant number of scientists who accept evolution as a scientific theory are theists.
The majority of Christians accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. - or at le ...[text shortened]... t you persist in attempting to equate atheism with an acceptance of evolution as a valid theory.

misconceptions, its no wonder, you yourselves don't actually know what it is you profess, so how are we supposed to keep up with the trends in your ideology?

Originally posted by Badwater
I don't think you're looking closely enough at what I'm saying. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm not saying you're right. I'm comfortable with a great big I Don't Know and I'm not afraid to say so, even if you're apparently not.

I don't know either. That is precisely why I am an atheist. I have seen no reason to believe any gods exist.