by Factfulness 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
MrRoboto: A-theism is w/o god(s) which really means that a person believes there is no god.
Wrong. This common misconception has been addressed over and over again. Atheism is only a lack of belief, nothing more. It does not claim that there are no gods.
MrRoboto: atheism is a religion as much as Christianity
Bullshit. Back that up if you can.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/123456/there-no-such-thing-agnosticism-agnostics-do-exist
Nic. Generally I would agree with your definition if it was culturally relevant but it's not for those here. For those growing up where belief or ideas about deities is rare, sure then the person may never have even thought of a creator or deity in which case their being "without god" would simply be a natural state of being rather than a system of belief or even agnostic.
A lack of belief is not the same as belief of lack. atheist != agnostic.
Your getting upset about what you Believe is a false claim is a good piece of evidence.
Reading your first post on the old thread, I will disagree with your definition for reasons stated above as well as empirical evidence that by and large those identifying as atheists hold the positive belief that god does not exist rather than not holding a positive belief that god exists. And many of those atheists are quite vocal about their positive belief and how stupid religious people are.
Disagree? Tell it to the self proclaimed atheists who give your non positive belief holding self a bad rap then.
I have no stake in it and am emotionally detached from the issue so I'm just calling it as I see it.
Incidentally, there are quite a few good comments in that thread that indicate that your hardline definitions are too restrictive and force people to choose a side that really is not relevant for them nor reflective of their views. I recommend going back and reading them again.
Atheism is only a lack of belief, nothing more. It does not claim that there are no gods.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy argues against this definition of atheism at length, beginning with these comments:
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
Slimboyfat,
You say “everything we are and know and experience derives its existence from something else, whereas God does not derive his existence from anything else;” and also you also make an interesting reference to the etymology of the word atheist.
When we are stuck with the details, we don’t have the whole
picture. It is like answering to the question “Which came first the chicken or the egg?” Some say
chicken, and others would say egg. But both are wrong because it’s all about an
eternal mechanism—it can’t have any beginning which is the essence of the
matter. So is the case with God and we. Neither God nor anything else could have
any beginning. Eternal recycling is what we experience.
In the East, atheism is called Charvaka system which is combination of charu (delightful) + vak (words). It arose to counter the exploitation of the clergy whose authority was based on the scriptures. Hence Charvakas rejected the authority of scriptures which was delightful to the ears of the listeners/the exploited; hence atheists were called Charvakas. Here, atheism has nothing to do with the question of whether God exists or not.
I'm NOT agnostic about unicorns, ferries, world ending prophecies or gods. I'm an anti-unicornist, anti-ferriest, and anti-theist.
I believe they're all made up nonsense. That is to say, I think they belong in ferry tales and children's books and don't exist - nor are a part of - our reality.
What's my rational? What's my evidence you ask? Well, it's very simple: Things for which there is no evidence and things which don't exist - are categorically identical. There is no way to tell the difference between the two. And indeed there's no good reason to think there is a difference between the two.
Or, if I may boil all this down into a single pithy phrase, having no good reason to believe something is at least one good reason NOT to believe it.
The word agnostic is redundant.
The problem comes from the lack of definition of the word god.
Personally I am a strong atheist regarding the claims for the god of christianity. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that Yahweh - the god and father of Jesus - does not exist. The same goes for Allah.
When people talk about the meaning of the term atheism they retreat into an impossibly vague notion of some undefined spirit. Nobody can give a sensible answer to such an ambiguous question so they take refuge in the agnostic word.
I think that is a mistake. Put the onus on the person asking the question to carefully explain the god they are taking about, then we can talk about it sensibly.
The idea that everything that exists stands in an infinite chain without anything outside as the ultimate cause is an interesting idea but I think it calls for some evidence if we are to accept it. It’s the sort of “extraordinary claim” that some sceptics are fond of demanding “extraordinary evidence” in order to believe.
The atheist position is actually quite a demanding propositIon when you really think about it. Describing it as the fallback position or null hypothesis is a rhetorical strategy disguised as science. Why shouldn’t God as a hypothesis be the starting position? “Because I say so” seems to be the best atheists can come up with.
SBF—you describe the position of(l will call it) non-agent cause without nailing it to a one word description lbut continue using a hack word “God”that triggers most people for whom it has various and prejudiced meaning. Perhaps your loose and poetic as “God” doesn’t fit into science. It certainly is not a universal concept.
Cant you find a better point of entry for discussion than the ill reputed “God” of the Bible? Or at least give it a different name.
The idea that everything that exists stands in an infinite chain without anything outside as the ultimate cause is an interesting idea but I think it calls for some evidence - SBF
It requires no evidence to say that we can currently trace history back to the Big Bang but no further. Beyond that the only sensible answer is, 'I don't know but I'm open to new evidence'.
The material is currently all we have evidence for. It is the person who wants to introduce an ultimate cause who has all of the burden.
'There is an ultimate cause that stands outside of all things', and, 'I have no idea why there is something rather than nothing, but I am unconvinced by your theological hand-waving', are not epistemologically equal positions. The first is a faith position, the second is rational.
