Athiesm in of itself is not a religion. I can't speak for every Athiest out there and I'm not going to try explaining every belief or abscence of belief.
What I'll say is Athiesm is the -absence of- a belief in -God-. Thiesm requires a Deity. You can't believe in a person or a subject and call it a religion because there is no theism to believe in or not believe in.
You can't belive in science; science is not what's plausible, science is what's factual. No matter who you are or what you belive, gravity keeps us from drifting into space and Earth revolves around the Sun.
As for whether you believe a scientist, well you should believe what facts a scientist makes and make your own opinions with such inforamtion.
If a scientist says Global warming -is- happening, with proof, you should believe it because it just -is-. If a scientist says they believe Global Warming may occur, you shouldn't go live in the coldest place in the world to avoid the possibility of wearing a bathing suit for the rest of your life.
There is no small or large or medium sized "leap of faith" in atheism. Faith is about believing things without proof, usually what the believer wants to believe and that has nothing whatsoever with Atheism
But we don't know for sure that there isn't a creator of some description. So to call yourself an atheist and declare that no Gods exist, even though you cannot explain how existence came into being, seems to me to require a leap of faith. No one has the answer to how the universe came into being, what's beyond it, what came before it etc. so how can you be so sure it didn't involve some kind of creator? That's where atheists take a leap of faith, coz they are saying 'whatever caused the universe to come into being it definitely didn't involve a creator." I don't see how an atheist can be so sure, and I do regard myself as an atheist, but I wobble a bit at that point.
"But we don't know for sure that there isn't a creator of some description. So to call yourself an atheist and declare that no Gods exist, even though you cannot explain how existence came into being, seems to me to require a leap of faith."
It requires a leap of faith in the same way that believing there is no tooth fairy requires a leap of faith. I can not prove there is no tooth fairy, but I have no doubt the tooth fairy does not exist. There is no way that you can prove definitively that there is no tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, or God.
I can say that there are invisible, undetectable aliens in your living room right now. There is no way that you could prove it is not true. If you want to call that faith, go ahead. I wouldn't use that word.
Really Miss Ellenna? Maybe you're a scientist who has been keeping her work all to herself, and have infallible proof, filling in all the gaps our scientist friends would love to know?
Please share it with us.
I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be: I don't need to be one to know the difference between faith and proof. A scientific approach keeps the brain open and questioning and willing to change if new evidence for any proposition is found: faith results in a closed mind unwilling to change or learn.
So, I challenge you to disprove the existence of God. If you cannot do it, you are agnostic. If you still BELIEVE God does not exist, you are atheist. Notice that Aetheism is about what you believe, and agnosticism is about what cant be proven.
It's impossible to prove a negative, if you're into proving things rather than faith, you prove s/he DOES exist. You're having a bet each way, aren't you: you ask me to prove the non-existence of god, while accepting god's existence on faith, not proof. Funny how that sort of woolly thinking abounds in certain religious circles.
Atheism is NOT about what I believe, but what I DON'T believe - ie, the existence of imaginary friends in the sky, or heaven, or hell, or eternal damnation, or the virgin birth, or the shroud of turin, or the tooth fairy or santa.
Agnosticism, which used to be my view, believes it's unlikely there are gods or other immaterial beings.
Maybe you should buy yourself a dictionary instead of trying to impose your personal definitions on other people - talk about arrogance, I define myself, as does any other rational person.
The standard of debate on this topic has moved so far beyond my rudimentary formal education AND my lifelong self-education that I don't feel I have anything much more to contribute without being patronised yet again.
However, just because I can't explain to an academic standard why it's impossible to prove a negative doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong. It's always seemed self-evident to me that this isn't possible and my university educated friends agree: for example, how could anyone prove a particular thing does not exist anywhere in creation without producing concrete proof it didn't exist in every single part of the known world? Seems impossible to me ........
Come and let us discuss atheism.
← View full post
Athiesm in of itself is not a religion. I can't speak for every Athiest out there and I'm not going to try explaining every belief or abscence of belief.
What I'll say is Athiesm is the -absence of- a belief in -God-. Thiesm requires a Deity. You can't believe in a person or a subject and call it a religion because there is no theism to believe in or not believe in.
You can't belive in science; science is not what's plausible, science is what's factual. No matter who you are or what you belive, gravity keeps us from drifting into space and Earth revolves around the Sun.
As for whether you believe a scientist, well you should believe what facts a scientist makes and make your own opinions with such inforamtion.
If a scientist says Global warming -is- happening, with proof, you should believe it because it just -is-. If a scientist says they believe Global Warming may occur, you shouldn't go live in the coldest place in the world to avoid the possibility of wearing a bathing suit for the rest of your life.
--
green_boogers
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Riddler
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It would seem that Agnosticism is not a religion. I think Atheism requires a (small) leap of faith.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There is no small or large or medium sized "leap of faith" in atheism. Faith is about believing things without proof, usually what the believer wants to believe and that has nothing whatsoever with Atheism
--
slings_and_arrows
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But we don't know for sure that there isn't a creator of some description. So to call yourself an atheist and declare that no Gods exist, even though you cannot explain how existence came into being, seems to me to require a leap of faith. No one has the answer to how the universe came into being, what's beyond it, what came before it etc. so how can you be so sure it didn't involve some kind of creator? That's where atheists take a leap of faith, coz they are saying 'whatever caused the universe to come into being it definitely didn't involve a creator." I don't see how an atheist can be so sure, and I do regard myself as an atheist, but I wobble a bit at that point.
--
VinnyB
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"But we don't know for sure that there isn't a creator of some description. So to call yourself an atheist and declare that no Gods exist, even though you cannot explain how existence came into being, seems to me to require a leap of faith."
It requires a leap of faith in the same way that believing there is no tooth fairy requires a leap of faith. I can not prove there is no tooth fairy, but I have no doubt the tooth fairy does not exist. There is no way that you can prove definitively that there is no tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, or God.
I can say that there are invisible, undetectable aliens in your living room right now. There is no way that you could prove it is not true. If you want to call that faith, go ahead. I wouldn't use that word.
Really Miss Ellenna? Maybe you're a scientist who has been keeping her work all to herself, and have infallible proof, filling in all the gaps our scientist friends would love to know?
Please share it with us.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be: I don't need to be one to know the difference between faith and proof. A scientific approach keeps the brain open and questioning and willing to change if new evidence for any proposition is found: faith results in a closed mind unwilling to change or learn.
And that's MS by the way, not miss
--
green_boogers
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
GigglesGirl
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So, I challenge you to disprove the existence of God. If you cannot do it, you are agnostic. If you still BELIEVE God does not exist, you are atheist. Notice that Aetheism is about what you believe, and agnosticism is about what cant be proven.
--
slings_and_arrows
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Interesting...
It's impossible to prove a negative, if you're into proving things rather than faith, you prove s/he DOES exist. You're having a bet each way, aren't you: you ask me to prove the non-existence of god, while accepting god's existence on faith, not proof. Funny how that sort of woolly thinking abounds in certain religious circles.
Atheism is NOT about what I believe, but what I DON'T believe - ie, the existence of imaginary friends in the sky, or heaven, or hell, or eternal damnation, or the virgin birth, or the shroud of turin, or the tooth fairy or santa.
Agnosticism, which used to be my view, believes it's unlikely there are gods or other immaterial beings.
Maybe you should buy yourself a dictionary instead of trying to impose your personal definitions on other people - talk about arrogance, I define myself, as does any other rational person.
*Giggles* open mind *Giggles*
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
See More Comments =>
The standard of debate on this topic has moved so far beyond my rudimentary formal education AND my lifelong self-education that I don't feel I have anything much more to contribute without being patronised yet again.
However, just because I can't explain to an academic standard why it's impossible to prove a negative doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong. It's always seemed self-evident to me that this isn't possible and my university educated friends agree: for example, how could anyone prove a particular thing does not exist anywhere in creation without producing concrete proof it didn't exist in every single part of the known world? Seems impossible to me ........
Okay so what about Buddhists? What should we classify this as?