Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) I think even those are a bit off. Buddhists don't believe in any god of gods. Buddhists are not atheists.I was just thinking of this. I lack a belief in Zeus. Am I an athiest? Nope. Is a Muslim an athiest because they lack a belief that Jesus is a God, nope. Edited November 13, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Stone holm Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 1. Yes.2. About 13.82 billions of years old.3. Yes.4. Yes.5. No. It is not the questions themselves that are religious it is the answers we give to them.Why exclude "Do you believe in magic?" from the list?
Stone holm Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Sorry I should have said progressives. They are in both parties. Think minimum wage. Anyway I we should not derail this thread and just to move past it all I take full responsibilty for the slight derail and I will not comment on this further.Nope wrong again.
Analytics Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I think even those are a bit off. Buddhists don't believe in any god of gods. Buddhists are not atheists. A quick Google search resulted in the following: "If atheism is the absence of belief in gods, then many Buddhists are, indeed, atheists." http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm
thesometimesaint Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Why exclude "Do you believe in magic?" from the list? To me magic is doing the impossible through the supernatural. If we are talking about misdirection, or slight of hand, then it isn't magic but something else. So if someone is sufficiently advanced technologically to a more technologically primitive person it would just appear to be magic. IE; Try explaining television to a person living in the 17th Century and you'd be burned at the stake for witchcraft.
jkwilliams Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I should clarify my comments. When I am speaking of athiesm I am not talking about my friend or some guy that is like "I don't believe in god, whatever". I am talking about the hardcore militant athiest. And further more I might just have to agree to disagree on certain points. Then maybe you should stop lumping Analytics or anyone else in with the "hardcore militant atheists."
thesometimesaint Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 A quick Google search resulted in the following: "If atheism is the absence of belief in gods, then many Buddhists are, indeed, atheists." http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm I don't believe that is supportable from the article. "Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic.".
jkwilliams Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I don't believe that is supportable from the article. "Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic.". I'm not sure how you distinguish "nontheistic" from "atheistic." Both mean "not theistic" though technically atheistic means without theism. I am just not sure that this distinction works in any meaningful sense.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) Then maybe you should stop lumping Analytics or anyone else in with the "hardcore militant atheists."I never called him a hardcore miltant athiest. Sorry you thought I did. He wasn't who I was thinking when I wrote the things I did. I am thinking more of the BIll Maher and Richard Dawkins type. Edited November 13, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Analytics Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I should clarify my comments. When I am speaking of athiesm I am not talking about my friend or some guy that is like "I don't believe in god, whatever". I am talking about the hardcore militant athiest. And further more I might just have to agree to disagree on certain points. The proper term for somebody who has the positive belief that "there is no god(s)", is "hard atheist." Not "hardcore, militant atheist." I don't believe that is supportable from the article. "Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic.". It's a direct quote from the article. If a Budhist believes in God, then he is a theist. If he doesn't, he's an atheist. In any event, he's totally free to describe his belief systems any way he wants.
Analytics Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) I was just thinking of this. I lack a belief in Zeus. Am I an athiest? Nope. Is a Muslim an athiest because they lack a belief that Jesus is a God, nope. When atheists are asked, “how can you not believe in God?” They might reply, “Depending upon your specific religion, you lack belief in thousands of conceptions of God (Baal, Zeus, Ra, Tammuz, Quetzalcoatl, etc.). An atheist lacks belief in exactly one more God than the monotheist does. Otherwise, they are identical." Edited November 13, 2013 by Analytics
jkwilliams Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I never called him a hardcore miltant athiest. Sorry you thought I did. He wasn't who I was thinking when I wrote the things I did. I am thinking more of the BIll Maher and Richard Dawkins type. Perhaps I was thrown by your use of the word "you" when you were addressing Analytics.
thesometimesaint Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure how you distinguish "nontheistic" from "atheistic." Both mean "not theistic" though technically atheistic means without theism. I am just not sure that this distinction works in any meaningful sense. I'm just quoting the article. Further science isn't Atheistic or Theistic It simply can not posit any God or lack there of. Edited November 13, 2013 by thesometimesaint
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Perhaps I was thrown by your use of the word "you" when you were addressing Analytics.Could be it really was not my intent.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 The proper term for somebody who has the positive belief that "there is no god(s)", is "hard atheist." Not "hardcore, militant atheist." Well, I just wanted people to get my point. I know they would refer to themselves as "hard" and I even used the term to describe them. But there are those that are quite militant that are of the "hard" variety. Anyway carry on.
Analytics Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I'm just quoting the article. Further science isn't Atheistic or Theistic It simply can not posit any God or lack there of. It depends on the definition of "God," doesn't it? If "God" is intrinsically unknowable, then of course you are right. If "God" is an intrinsically self-contradictory statement like an Invisible Pink Unicorn, logic proves it doesn't exist (unicorns can't be invisible and pink). And if God was a humanoid space traveler from Kolob, in principle he could appear to a group of scientists and subject himself to a physical examination, the objective of which is to determine whether or not He exists.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 When atheists are asked, “how can you not believe in God?” They might reply, “Depending upon your specific religion, you lack belief in thousands of conceptions of God (Baal, Zeus, Ra, Tammuz, Quetzalcoatl, etc.). An atheist lacks belief in exactly one more God than the monotheist does. Otherwise, they are identical."Which I have heard a few times. To me it sounds more like agnostism to me. I guess we might have to agree to disagree on this point.
thesometimesaint Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 It depends on the definition of "God," doesn't it? If "God" is intrinsically unknowable, then of course you are right. If "God" is an intrinsically self-contradictory statement like an Invisible Pink Unicorn, logic proves it doesn't exist (unicorns can't be invisible and pink). And if God was a humanoid space traveler from Kolob, in principle he could appear to a group of scientists and subject himself to a physical examination, the objective of which is to determine whether or not He exists. I believe God is knowable. But no we don't know him as well as we should. Well I was taught to drive a car by my parents. They are both dead now. How could producing their bodies prove that they taught me how to drive a car?
Analytics Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Which I have heard a few times. To me it sounds more like agnostism to me. I guess we might have to agree to disagree on this point. Agnosticism has more to do with believing it's impossible to know. It's partly semantics, but I do hope that if you hear somebody say, "I'm an atheist," you remember that most self-described atheists use the term the way I do.
jkwilliams Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Which I have heard a few times. To me it sounds more like agnostism to me. I guess we might have to agree to disagree on this point. Agnostic literally means "without knowledge." In short, an agnostic says "I don't know." There's a big different between expressing a lack of knowledge and a lack of belief, hence the distinction between agnostics and atheists.
jkwilliams Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I believe God is knowable. But no we don't know him as well as we should. Well I was taught to drive a car by my parents. They are both dead now. How could producing their bodies prove that they taught me how to drive a car? It wouldn't. It would just prove to most people's satisfaction that they actually did live at one time. President Monson exists, and it wouldn't be hard to prove he exists to most people's satisfaction, but I doubt I could prove to anyone's satisfaction that he once cut me off in front of the Joseph Smith Building when I was driving to work.
Analytics Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I believe God is knowable. But no we don't know him as well as we should. Well I was taught to drive a car by my parents. They are both dead now. How could producing their bodies prove that they taught me how to drive a car? I don't follow your analogy.
thesometimesaint Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I don't follow your analogy. How could I prove what my parents taught me? Certainly not by producing their bodies for physical inspection. You are asking for physical proof of something that can't be proven that way.
Rob Osborn Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) Just to drive the point home, I just finished searching the web for authoritative, high-profile atheist groups that define atheism. Here are the five I found: American Atheists (www.atheists.org) “Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” The Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org/) “Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.” About Atheism (atheism.about.com) “A-theism is the disbelief that at least one god exists; it is the absence of the mental attitude that the proposition "at least one god exists" is true.” Rational Wiki (rationalwiki.org) “Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods.” To further drive the point home, consider this explanation from atheism.about.com:i want to clarify something here- You quoted- American Atheists (www.atheists.org) “Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” This is wholly incorrect. Atheism is a disbelief and/or denial of gods. As such it is indeed a belief system- a belief that gods do not exist. The only way the above quoted statement would be correct is if you were classifying a person or group of people who had never heard of the concept of "god"- it had never been uttered or entered their minds before. This just proves that semantics is the biggest hurdle in debate to overcome. Edited November 13, 2013 by Rob Osborn
jkwilliams Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 i want to clarify something here- You quoted- This is wholly incorrect. Atheism is a disbelief and/or denial of gods. As such it is indeed a belief system- a belief that gods do not exist. Says who? The only way the above quoted statement would be correct is if you were classifying a person or group of people who had never heard of the concept of "god"- it had never been uttered or entered their minds before. That makes no sense at all. This just proves that semantics is the biggest hurdle in debate to overcome. Sometimes it's just basic English and logic.
Recommended Posts