Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

by Quillsky 243 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Essan

  Wow Zid, you really go for the jugular with insults and aspersions if someone doesn't agree with you. Don't you think debate can be civil? That's as savage an attack as a JW who had his cherished beliefs questioned might make. And some wonder why 'Atheism' is sometimes likened to a religious belief?

  And what is my supposed "agenda"?

  The thread is about debating whether or not Atheism is a belief, a 'non-belief' or an 'anti-belief'. Obviously I was contending it is a belief. That's right on topic. So what's your problem?
• 

  Twitch

  If you don't choose, you've still made a choice. And has been said rather succintly, atheism is the opposite of the belief in god, which is to say that god doesn't exist, which is still a belief IMO.
• 

  Quillsky

  There is an atheist group that meets at a restaurant here every week. They are the strangest bunch of freaks you will ever see.

  An "atheist group"?

  I can imagine a bunch of people who meet simply because they don't believe in god (or believe there is no god, or just don't believe in the relevance of belief) are pretty odd. Probably can't find anyone else to have a meal with. They should get a new hobby.

  I hear the "adragonist group" isn't open to new members at the moment, and the "asandwichers group" doesn't do mixed worship.
• 

  Essan

  Q, many "Atheists" tend to be quite zealous about spreading their "Atheism". It's similar to how professed "Skeptics" can be quite zealous about espousing their "Skepticism". There are many "Atheist" groups and they seem to find enough to talk about. Perhaps, like Nic, they meet to plan how to overthrow and subsume "agnosticism", wiping it from the pages of history? :)
• 

  Terry

  I BELIEVE Santa Claus doesn't exist. As the person described mythically (flying reindeer, etc.)

  I believe Saint Nicholas existed. But, what Saint Nicholas has been transformed into is a distortion.

  So, I can not believe in the distortion and yet I can believe in the person.

  But, what is commonly described as God strikes me as a distortion of the highest conceptualization of a being Supreme and inexorably eternal.

  I cannot believe in the distortion (i.e. descriptions, feats, exploits, ill-temper, proscriptions, etc.)

  I can accept that there can exist a highest supernal being outside of comprehension--but--it has no referents meaningful to my mind. Conseqently, it is preposterous to think "unthinkable" things and name them or describe them (much less insist on them in great details!)

  I am left without any meaningful "god". I am without belief since referents are necessary. Insisting on vagueness is futile.

  But, why would I go through all the contortion of DENYING THE EXISTENCE of an unprovable being which my mind couldn't conceive of in a meaninfgul way in the first place?

  So, the classic definition of Atheist (shouted out by true believers as a most defined God) cannot fit into my thoughts or actions or inactions.

  Now that is about as patient an explanation you can get from me.

  I've tried to make it plain.

  I went the extra nine yards!
• 

  Essan

  Terry, do you deny the possibility of existence of what you see as "distortions" of "God" (or whatever you want to call it)?

  I understand that you "cannot believe" in what you call "distortions" but do you deny the possibility of their existence?

  If you merely can't believe in the "distortions" and don't have positive believe in an unproven "God" (or whatever) but you don't or can't categorically deny the possibility of the existence of either, then what separates you from an agnostic, except for perhaps a distaste for and rage at Theistic thinking?

  Is it possible that you are actually agnostic but the whole "atheist" gig just suits your penchant for attacking and exposing Theistic mindlessness and irrationality, which, for whatever reason you consider to be a particularly destructive belief system?
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Essan, why is it so important for you to argue this?

  Your god isn't around. YOU are, in spades. But your god, as YOU describe him, can only be best described as YOUR perception. It is clear YOU want to believe. And more power to YOU. But G O D? Nowhere to be found. And in that, G O D has been very consistent for at least 6,000 years, or more.

  YOUR perception on things, whether they be about god, or the consistency and flavor of good jello, can only be YOUR perceptions.

  What you are missing here is that your argument is flimsy. You are arguing for god on the idea that no one can prove you wrong. Thats it.

  You offer nothing positive as evidence. Lets face facts, if your god did exist with REAL evidence, we simply wouldn't hear the end of it. You wouldn't rely on "Well, you can't prove me wrong, so there!". No. You would absolutely let us have it between the eyes, much as atheists let you have it between the eyes that no ones eyes, ears, or any other photographic or audio recordings exist to back up the monumental claims you as a theist make.

  But you don't' have real evidence. So you are reduced to arguing in trivialities amounting to nothing.

  When you have evidence, I will listen to you. But you only have your emotionally based faith. I don't' begrudge you that. But please don't insult the intelligence of others here who patiently have given you the floor, only to watch you chase your tail in arguments that are nothing more then an exercise in digging into a position that you have no desire in seeing another point of view on.

  Would you argue with the simple reasoning an atheist would give you that god doesn't exist because he doesn't talk, hasn't talked to his children, and evidence exhibiting his existence, love, and care are lacking?

  EVIDENCE!!!!! LOOK UP THAT PLEASE AND GET BACK TO ME!!!!

  Faith and spirituality in my mind are so important, but what angers me at this moment is that your efforts at proving yourself so right make my efforts at being spiritual so stupid, because I have to deal with your invested, dug in position that won't listen to a damn thing.

  You are right. Congratulations. May god bless you for not giving into what he knows all to well. He really hasn't been around. And for whatever reason that is, I know for sure he/she won't censure me for pointing that out, nor for giving atheists a pass for being honest, something many theists seem unable to be.
• 

  Terry

  Terry, do you deny the possibility of existence of what you see as "distortions" of "God" (or whatever you want to call it)?

  I understand that you "cannot believe" in what you call "distortions" but do you deny the possibility of their existence?

  If you merely can't believe in the "distortions" and don't have positive believe in an unproven "God" (or whatever) but you don't or can't categorically deny the possibility of the existence of either, then what separates you from an agnostic, except for perhaps a distaste for and rage at Theistic thinking?

  Is it possible that you are actually agnostic but the whole "atheist" gig just suits your penchant for attacking and exposing Theistic mindlessness and irrationality, which, for whatever reason you consider to be a particularly destructive belief system?

  I don't know how many angels can dance on the head of this pin before I just stick it in my heart and end the discussion! :)

  We're now down to parsing the parsings!

  It isn't that I DON'T know---it is that I CAN'T know. Nobody can know God.

  I can't think about what cannot be thought. I can recite Pi to 50 decimal places but that doesn't mean I grasp the diameter of the Universe in any way.

  Theology is the study of what cannot be studied or known or discussed without distortions. The worst of these destortions is KNOWLEDGE of God.

  What hubris that is!!

  Agnosticism is NOT knowing what might well be known. Sort of a neutral stance assumed by non-combatants. Not feasible to intellectual honesty, in my opinion.

  To exercise the option of being FOR or AGAINST what cannot be known is nonsense, in my view.

  I allow that anybody can believe whatever they want as long as they don't publicly pretend to defend UNreason with arguments predicated on FACTs which are undemonstrable.

  The worst danger is in elevating ignorance and imagination about ignorance to the same level of acceptance as KNOWLEDGE which can be proved.

  As I like to say, If you are drowning in a lake do you want somebody to throw you a Bible or a life preserver?

  All the touchy-feely bible talk goes out the window in a practical demonstration of life or death.

  Phony malarky passed off as Divine Wisdom is a really lazy habit which is a poor substitute for learning something practical.

  Quiet ignorance is acceptable and honest. Pretending to know the highest and most transcendant personally is to declare war on the mind.
• 

  Essan

  Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.....stick to the debate!

  Stop trying to analyze me. Firstly, you're not very good at it, probably because you have no real data on which to base sound judgments and secondly, it's totally irrelevant to the topic. I am not the thread topic. Your post is full of assumptions and they are all wrong. I have my own reasons for not wanting to say this here, partly because I shouldn't have to, but your last post was so chock full of your own assumptions and your own projections and revealing of your own belief system that I feel I have to. So are you ready?

  I have no belief in God.

  Not a jot.

  Im not a theist.

  Clear? Can we get back to the issue now without you resorting to ad hominem in pontificating about my supposed beliefs and motives?

  That would be fantastic.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Oh. Wow. Would you think it a fair question to answer as to where you stand then?