[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Argue with Webster, not me. But it sounds like what you are talking about is weak atheism, not just plain atheism. =0)[/quote]
Yes, but your definition of “atheism”, and webster’s, is actually “strong atheism.” Strong atheims makes a claim, weak atheism does not. That’s my point. Its important to understand that not all atheists make a negative-existential claim (i.e., god(s) do not exist) - that’s all I was trying to point out.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
As of this moment,I have never been disturbed in my own home by some atheist looking to convert me to the “don’t believe” religion…[/quote]
I don’t believe that salvation can come from any belief…I am just saying many people do believe that.
Besides, even if I believed I could save mankind by providing him the proper outlook he should have how can I force him to believe it? In fact, one of my core beliefs is in the nonaggression axiom.
All beliefs (and ideas) are personal and cannot be bestowed by anyone else though we may be influenced by others with the same beliefs.
[quote]oneils wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Argue with Webster, not me. But it sounds like what you are talking about is weak atheism, not just plain atheism. =0)
Yes, but your definition of “atheism”, and webster’s, is actually “strong atheism.” Strong atheims makes a claim, weak atheism does not. That’s my point. Its important to understand that not all atheists make a negative-existential claim (i.e., god(s) do not exist) - that’s all I was trying to point out.
[/quote]
I agree, it’s just terminology, I would consider such a person Agnostic.
Actually because I believe that god isn’t directly testable, arguable, or provable (other than by means and arguments that first require belief), I guess I’m an Agnostic Christian. Sweet, who’s with me?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
As of this moment,I have never been disturbed in my own home by some atheist looking to convert me to the “don’t believe” religion…
I don’t believe that salvation can come from any belief…I am just saying many people do believe that.
Besides, even if I believed I could save mankind by providing him the proper outlook he should have how can I force him to believe it? In fact, one of my core beliefs is in the nonaggression axiom.
All beliefs (and ideas) are personal and cannot be bestowed by anyone else though we may be influenced by others with the same beliefs.[/quote]
You need to lighten up a bit…
No,really.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
oneils wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Argue with Webster, not me. But it sounds like what you are talking about is weak atheism, not just plain atheism. =0)
Yes, but your definition of “atheism”, and webster’s, is actually “strong atheism.” Strong atheims makes a claim, weak atheism does not. That’s my point. Its important to understand that not all atheists make a negative-existential claim (i.e., god(s) do not exist) - that’s all I was trying to point out.
I agree, it’s just terminology, I would consider such a person Agnostic.
Actually because I believe that god isn’t directly testable, arguable, or provable (other than by means and arguments that first require belief), I guess I’m an Agnostic Christian. Sweet, who’s with me?[/quote]
What do you mean by Agnostic Christian?
I’m guessing you mean you don’t believe in god because it’s unprovable, but you still follow Christianity, right? What parts of Christianity?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
I am curious as to why atheists feel they need to evangelize? Why do they feel the need to spread their belief?
People have said here that the atheist ideology never hurt anybody and because atheists carried out the greatest mass slaughters the world has ever seen, atheism itself wasn’t a factor because atheists are not required to spread their belief because they don’t have a belief…Atheism in essence is to be a lack of belief. You cannot spread a lack? Well apparently, either atheism is indeed a belief, not a lack of belief. You cannot spread a nothing.
Well many have died for the doctrine of nothingness.
I’m just curious. What mass slaughters?
Lenin, Stalin, Mao Se Tung, etc. These people killed millions, many of which did not adhere to their belief in atheism as a reason for their deaths.
I would consider communism a religion of government. Same way religion was paramount to Hitler’s national mobilization.[/quote]
Communism is a philosophy of government. Atheism was the muse…
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
oneils wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Argue with Webster, not me. But it sounds like what you are talking about is weak atheism, not just plain atheism. =0)
Yes, but your definition of “atheism”, and webster’s, is actually “strong atheism.” Strong atheims makes a claim, weak atheism does not. That’s my point. Its important to understand that not all atheists make a negative-existential claim (i.e., god(s) do not exist) - that’s all I was trying to point out.
I agree, it’s just terminology, I would consider such a person Agnostic.
Actually because I believe that god isn’t directly testable, arguable, or provable (other than by means and arguments that first require belief), I guess I’m an Agnostic Christian. Sweet, who’s with me?
What do you mean by Agnostic Christian?
I’m guessing you mean you don’t believe in god because it’s unprovable, but you still follow Christianity, right? What parts of Christianity?
[/quote]
I guess I mean I don’t think it’s provable, but I still believe?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I guess I mean I don’t think it’s provable, but I still believe? [/quote]
Lol, I think we’re on the right track. An agnostic theist would believe that a god exists, but he doesn’t necessarily “know” it. It is an article of faith. The gnostic theist “knows” that god exists. Either through personal revelation or some sort of evidence.
Same could be said for atheists. A gnostic atheist “knows” that god does not exist. An agnostic atheist believes god(s) do not exist, or simply lack belief.
Agnosticism deals with the sphere of knowledge. Theism/Atheism deals with the sphere of belief. These are always important things to consider when debating thelogical claims. Theists don’t necessarily argue from the same position, and neither do atheists.
[quote]oneils wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I guess I mean I don’t think it’s provable, but I still believe?
Lol, I think we’re on the right track. An agnostic theist would believe that a god exists, but he doesn’t necessarily “know” it. It is an article of faith. The gnostic theist “knows” that god exists. Either through personal revelation or some sort of evidence.
Same could be said for atheists. A gnostic atheist “knows” that god does not exist. An agnostic atheist believes god(s) do not exist, or simply lack belief.
Agnosticism deals with the sphere of knowledge. Theism/Atheism deals with the sphere of belief. These are always important things to consider when debating thelogical claims. Theists don’t necessarily argue from the same position, and neither do atheists.
[/quote]
HAH! I think I learned something on the PWI forum that has altered my perspective, and they said it couldn’t be done.
[quote]oneils wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I guess I mean I don’t think it’s provable, but I still believe?
Lol, I think we’re on the right track. An agnostic theist would believe that a god exists, but he doesn’t necessarily “know” it. It is an article of faith. The gnostic theist “knows” that god exists. Either through personal revelation or some sort of evidence.
Same could be said for atheists. A gnostic atheist “knows” that god does not exist. An agnostic atheist believes god(s) do not exist, or simply lack belief.
Agnosticism deals with the sphere of knowledge. Theism/Atheism deals with the sphere of belief. These are always important things to consider when debating thelogical claims. Theists don’t necessarily argue from the same position, and neither do atheists.
[/quote]
Good post. Never heard of that before.
I guess that makes me an agnostic atheist.
My central perspective on the issue is that it is wholly irrational to believe in something without any proof. In my opinion it is the most important question left unanswered. That is why I refuse to simply “have faith.”
Just my take.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
As of this moment,I have never been disturbed in my own home by some atheist looking to convert me to the “don’t believe” religion…
I don’t believe that salvation can come from any belief…I am just saying many people do believe that.
Besides, even if I believed I could save mankind by providing him the proper outlook he should have how can I force him to believe it? In fact, one of my core beliefs is in the nonaggression axiom.
All beliefs (and ideas) are personal and cannot be bestowed by anyone else though we may be influenced by others with the same beliefs.[/quote]
I know people are saved/lost every day based on belief. Physically that is. Belief in something greater and hope in that is a very powerful thing. It can heal or kill you. This of course doesn’t take into account truth of said beliefs. But believing can be healthy on many levels (of that there is proof).
Christian doctrine also maintains that people’s hearts can’t be changed by other people. =0)