Why is there atheism? Watch

CJKay
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#101
Report 6 years ago
#101
(Original post by fairisle13)
You just described agnosticism (atheist or theist), where the person may personally find one more compelling than the other, but not making an outright personal decision. There are people who vehemently deny existence of a deity as well as those who believe in existence of a deity, if you are not either then you are not a strong theist or atheist and you may identify more as an agnostic.
No, he described atheism. Agnosticism is the "I don't know if it's that way" conclusion, atheism is the "it's probably not that way" conclusion.
0
reply
forfrosne
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#102
Report 6 years ago
#102
(Original post by fairisle13)
Surely the entire point of a deity is that you can't prove it's existence
The entire point of a deity is that one can't prove its existence? :rolleyes:

Oh and in regards to the argument going on above, here's how it is:

An antitheist is someone who believes that there is no God (deity) and stands in direct opposition to religion and belief in God.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.
Agnosticism is a lack of belief in a deity but an open mind to the possibility that he could be wrong.

Therefore, agnostics are always atheists, but atheists are not always agnostics.
0
reply
fairisle13
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#103
Report 6 years ago
#103
Your examples were not relevant to this because like I have said numerous times, the decision you make as to whether you are atheist, theist or agnostic is taken in the absence of evidence.
To say I am not open-minded simply because I disagree with your arguments is what I find ironic. I read your comments and gave a considered response, I'm sorry you don't agree with my responses, but it doesn't make me close-minded either.
Most of the decisions we make in life will be made with evidence before us to help us make the decisions even though sometimes we do not think about the evidence, but where theology is concerned I have thought about the lack of evidence and that is why I am taking the agnostic approach.
You can be whatever you want and make up your own definition of atheism then, but it seems to me to call yourself an atheist yet to say that you are open to the possbility of a deity is a redundancy in terms.
0
reply
fairisle13
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#104
Report 6 years ago
#104
(Original post by forfrosne)
The entire point of a deity is that one can't prove its existence? :rolleyes:
What I meant is how will we ever be able to prove the existence of a 'higher power' and things that are beyond our grasp? Maybe one day we will be able to, but faith is the belief in a deity despite lack of evidence, whereas atheism is the disbelief in a deity despite the lack of evidence. That's why I can't understand why anyone would think one viewpoint is more sound than another.
0
reply
Pigling
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#105
Report 6 years ago
#105
(Original post by fairisle13)
Why does it have no bearing on atheism? Yes, that does make atheism no less reasonable than anything else, but that doesn't mean it is more reasonable than anything else.
We live based on evidence, this much is true yes, but why does that mean we should deny the things we cannot prove? If we have evidence for something we might reason that it is true, but we while we have no evidence for the existence of a deity, nor do we have evidence for the non-existence of a deity.
If atheists are basing their thinking on evidence, why do they deny existence of something where there is no evidence to prove either way in it's existence?
My point is that Cartesian logic can be used to make any two stances equally valid, therefore it is meaningless.

I could say, using this logic, that as we cannot know that agnosticism is the most reasonable viewpoint, because the logic behind it may not truly exist, agnosticism and certainty should be viewed as equally valid positions. How do you like that?

In order to truly adhere to Cartesian logic, one would have to exist in a state of thoughtlessness wherein they drew no conclusions about anything. You could even argue it is a contradiction to adhere to Cartesian logic, because it can potentially undermine logic itself.. if that makes sense.

Essentially, it's an interesting concept, but cannot be brought into debate on other topics - it neither supports nor refutes any position, not even the position of uncertainty.
0
reply
Pigling
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#106
Report 6 years ago
#106
(Original post by fairisle13)
Your examples were not relevant to this because like I have said numerous times, the decision you make as to whether you are atheist, theist or agnostic is taken in the absence of evidence.
The absence of evidence is a powerful means of drawing valid conclusions. You deny this without reason. Were you burgled last night? Answer me, how do you know that you were not burgled?
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#107
Report 6 years ago
#107
We can observe things with our senses and thus have to recognise they exist within whatever realm of reality we are currently existing. Whether or not the universe actually exists outside of our consciousness is quite irrelevant.
0
reply
fairisle13
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#108
Report 6 years ago
#108
(Original post by forfrosne)
The entire point of a deity is that one can't prove its existence? :rolleyes:

Oh and in regards to the argument going on above, here's how it is:

An antitheist is someone who believes that there is no God (deity) and stands in direct opposition to religion and belief in God.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.
Agnosticism is a lack of belief in a deity but an open mind to the possibility that he could be wrong.

Therefore, agnostics are always atheists, but atheists are not always agnostics.
You are wrong, sorry. Agnostics do not take a strong standpoint on belief in a deity, they keep an open mind in the sense that they do not believe or disbelieve in a deity. It is true that you can lean more one way than another, in which case you may be an atheist-agnostic or theist-agnostic.
0
reply
Eglynn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 6 years ago
#109
...








Is this a joke?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
forfrosne
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#110
Report 6 years ago
#110
(Original post by fairisle13)
What I meant is how will we ever be able to prove the existence of a 'higher power' and things that are beyond our grasp? Maybe one day we will be able to, but faith is the belief in a deity despite lack of evidence, whereas atheism is the disbelief in a deity despite the lack of evidence. That's why I can't understand why anyone would think one viewpoint is more sound than another.
Because it is illogical and unsound reasoning to base ones reasoning off a lack of evidence. I'm not going to hate anybody for believing in a God, but that's the truth. Atheism does not claim anything, it is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Nothing is required for it, we were all born atheists. Religion claims something, asks for your belief in something, despite not providing evidence as you said. That's why I believe one is more sound than the other. But as I said, it doesn't mean I'm going to round up Christians and string them up from lamp posts haha

(Original post by fairisle13)
You are wrong, sorry. Agnostics do not take a strong standpoint on belief in a deity, they keep an open mind in the sense that they do not believe or disbelieve in a deity. It is true that you can lean more one way than another, in which case you may be an atheist-agnostic or theist-agnostic.
Seriously? Did you even read what I said?

Let me try and explain it again:

Agnostics do not hold a belief that a higher deity exists, do they? Because that would make them a theist. (or a deist)
Atheists are those without a belief in a higher deity.

If you do not hold a belief in a higher deity, then you must be, by definition, an atheist. You may just be an agnostic-atheist though.

You either hold a belief in a higher deity or you do not. It is literally impossible to be neither of those two. This is why all agnostics are atheists, though not all atheists are agnostic.
0
reply
fairisle13
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#111
Report 6 years ago
#111
(Original post by Pigling)
The absence of evidence is a powerful means of drawing valid conclusions. You deny this without reason. Were you burgled last night? Answer me, how do you know that you were not burgled?
I know I was not burgled because I locked the door and the lock is not broken or tampered nor are any windows broken, I wouldn't consider that lack of evidence, because an unbroken window and an intact lock are evidence. Equally everything I own is still in its place. That is evidence.
You still fail to provide an example for which I cannot apply evidence despite several attempts.
Think what you like because clearly you won't be changing your viewpoint, but please stop trying to discredit agnosticism and theism when you are holding a viewpoint that is no more valid.
You do have a valid standpoint and you may well turn out to be correct. Good luck.
0
reply
forfrosne
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#112
Report 6 years ago
#112
(Original post by fairisle13)
I know I was not burgled because I locked the door and the lock is not broken or tampered nor are any windows broken, I wouldn't consider that lack of evidence, because an unbroken window and an intact lock are evidence. Equally everything I own is stil in it's place. That is evidence.
You still fail to provide an example for which I cannot apply evidence despite several attempts.
Think what you like because clearly you won't be changing your viewpoint, but please stop trying to discredit agnosticism and a valid standpoint.
You do have a valid standpoint and you may well turn out to be correct. Good luck.
Please explain how your metaphor applies to reality? In your metaphor, what are the locks, windows, etc.?
0
reply
fairisle13
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#113
Report 6 years ago
#113
(Original post by forfrosne)
Because it is illogical and unsound reasoning to base ones reasoning off a lack of evidence. I'm not going to hate anybody for believing in a God, but that's the truth. Atheism does not claim anything, it is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Nothing is required for it, we were all born atheists. Religion claims something, asks for your belief in something, despite not providing evidence as you said. That's why I believe one is more sound than the other. But as I said, it doesn't mean I'm going to round up Christians and string them up from lamp posts haha



Seriously? Did you even read what I said?

Let me try and explain it again:

Agnostics do not hold a belief that a higher deity exists, do they? Because that would make them a theist. (or a deist)
Atheists are those without a belief in a higher deity.

If you do not hold a belief in a higher deity, then you must be, by definition, an atheist. You may just be an agnostic-atheist though.

You either hold a belief in a higher deity or you do not. It is literally impossible to be neither of those two. This is why all agnostics are atheists, though not all atheists are agnostic.
I did read what you said. Agnostics do not disbelieve in a deity, nor do they believe, so you are wrong. From the earliest dawn of man we have been trying to make sense of what we do not understand, what is possibly beyond our comprehension. Your claim we are all born atheist is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Every atheist on here claims to have made their own decision based on evidence or lack thereof, yet you are saying we are all born atheists?
It is possible to neither believe nor disbelieve, and that is what agnosticism is.
I do not BELIEVE there is a deity or deities, nor do I BELIEVE there is not, I am open to the possibilites whilst understanding that both cannot be true, I do not know which is true and which isn't and that's why I don't take a standpoint on either.
0
reply
fairisle13
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#114
Report 6 years ago
#114
(Original post by forfrosne)
Please explain how your metaphor applies to reality? In your metaphor, what are the locks, windows, etc.?
That was in response to someone else's question to me in which I applied reason to a hypothetical situation. It is not a metaphor that I made up, nor is it actually a metaphor at all.
0
reply
SakuraBlossom
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 6 years ago
#115
(Original post by DanLorenzo)
I completely agree with you. I too believe that the universe exists and that my mind and the thoughts it produces are real. What I'm saying is since athiests tend to lean towards this whole 'if I can see it then it's real' notion, its kind of ironic that they favour science over religion when neither can really provide convincing grounds for their existence, and by extension the existence of anything at all. As I said it makes no difference because even if all of this (life in general) was a illusion it doesn't matter because we are confined to our own thoughts and there's nothing we can do about it anyway; therefore we may as well live it as we see fit. Don't get me wrong I'm not even majorly religious but I do believe there is a higher power than humanity. I just can't understand people who are so opposed to such ideas because they rely so heavily on existential evidence when nothing in what we perceive to be reality can be proven, not even the concept of reality itself.
Considering that a person is born and dies in this world they perceive and will never be exposed to anything else, real or not is a relative matter. What is real for me is the world I live in, the phenomena that affects me and at no point in my life will I need to doubt it, since I won't be under any circumstance of needing to adapt to a different kind of existence(or non-existence for that matter). It's like in the case of a person in a coma, who dreams. If they never wake up, the dream is real to them and they feel like they are living their life. If you think about it, telling someone the world they have lived in and that they will always live in is not how they perceive it is the same as trying to convince people who suffer from mental illness like delusions, or any person who sees the world differently, that what they see is not real. What they see is what's real to them, and whether that is the same as what everyone else sees is of no consequence to them. The fact of the matter is, in the world that is real to me, science has been explaining for centuries now things that people in the past attributed to a divinity because of their lack of knowledge. Ancient Greeks thought Zeus sent lightning and now we know better, because of science. Why should the rest of the world's phenomena be any different. And atheism exists, at least in my case, because I can't grasp why believing in God is any different than believing in Santa Claus. There are thousands of religions on this earth, why should one be right and the others wrong. So that is why for me, atheism is the most logical approach, based on my perception of the world I live in.
0
reply
forfrosne
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#116
Report 6 years ago
#116
(Original post by fairisle13)
I did read what you said. Agnostics do not disbelieve in a deity, nor do they believe, so you are wrong.
Jesus Christ, how do I explain this to you more simply than I already have? Do I need to break out the crayons?

It is impossible to not be one of these two positions:
  1. I believe in a deity
  2. I do not believe in a deity
The first term is called either "deism" or "theism"
The second term is called "atheism"

You are either one or the other. If you believe this is not the case, please demonstrate how it is possible to neither believe in a God nor not believe in him. Until such a time, your argument holds no water.

(Original post by fairisle13)
Your claim we are all born atheist is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Every atheist on here claims to have made their own decision based on evidence or lack thereof, yet you are saying we are all born atheists?
Yes, we are. The Catholic church in particular understands this which is why they place such a strong emphasis on childhood indoctrination through things like god-fathers although this is not used so much these days.

(Original post by fairisle13)
It is possible to neither believe nor disbelieve, and that is what agnosticism is.
Well if you say so I guess it must be so, right? :rolleyes:

(Original post by fairisle13)
I do not BELIEVE there is a deity or deities, nor do I BELIEVE there is not, I am open to the possibilites whilst understanding that both cannot be true, I do not know which is true and which isn't and that's why I don't take a standpoint on either.
Ah, well here's the fundamental misunderstanding. You have the definition of atheist wrong. Atheism is not about denying the existence of God, it is simply about not believing in him. I respect your position, but the fact of the matter is that you are an agnostic-atheist. If you believe there is a God, then you are either a theist or a deist. You say you have not made your mind up; thus you cannot claim that you do believe in a God or deity. Thus you must belong to the second category, with those who also lack a belief in God: the atheists.
0
reply
Pigling
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#117
Report 6 years ago
#117
(Original post by fairisle13)
I know I was not burgled because I locked the door and the lock is not broken or tampered nor are any windows broken, I wouldn't consider that lack of evidence, because an unbroken window and an intact lock are evidence. Equally everything I own is still in its place. That is evidence.
So the lock is NOT broken or tampered
The windows are NOT broken
And your stuff has NOT been stolen


How is this different to:

Creation has NOT occured spontaneously
Supernatural intervention has NOT occurred
Justice and goodness (or any sort of willful purpose) have NOT been enforced
Meaning has NOT been inserted into our universe

etc etc countless examples of God's inaction.

How is me expecting God to act like a God and leave evidence, in order to believe in it, different to you expecting a burglar to act like a burglar and leave evidence, in order to believe in them?

Do you insist on neutrality in the subject of whether you have been burgled, just because as it happens, not having been burgled understandably wouldn't leave additional evidence, merely the absence of evidence of burglary?

You can claim that the lack of a tampered lock, stolen items, or smashed windows is positive evidence, but in that case the lack of Godly tinkering and design in our universe is also positive evidence.
0
reply
fairisle13
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#118
Report 6 years ago
#118
(Original post by forfrosne)
Jesus Christ, how do I explain this to you more simply than I already have? Do I need to break out the crayons?

It is impossible to not be one of these two positions:
  1. I believe in a deity
  2. I do not believe in a deity
The first term is called either "deism" or "theism"
The second term is called "atheism"

You are either one or the other. If you believe this is not the case, please demonstrate how it is possible to neither believe in a God nor not believe in him. Until such a time, your argument holds no water.

Yes, we are. The Catholic church in particular understands this which is why they place such a strong emphasis on childhood indoctrination through things like god-fathers although this is not used so much these days.



Well if you say so I guess it must be so, right? :rolleyes:



Ah, well here's the fundamental misunderstanding. You have the definition of atheist wrong. Atheism is not about denying the existence of God, it is simply about not believing in him. I respect your position, but the fact of the matter is that you are an agnostic-atheist. If you believe there is a God, then you are either a theist or a deist. You say you have not made your mind up; thus you cannot claim that you do believe in a God or deity. Thus you must belong to the second category, with those who also lack a belief in God: the atheists.
Thank you for being incredibly patronising. You are again missing the point, I neither believe in deities nor disbelieve, this is called agnosticism.
It is possible to have a middle ground where you are not sure if a deity exists or not, that is what agnosticism is, it is saying I do not know enough to say I believe, yet I do not know enough to deny or disbelieve. The word believe is clearly confusing you, but it is indeed possible to say 'I'm not sure, I keep my mind open to both possbilities whilst accepting neither.'
I think it is you who misunderstands the definitions, as according to you agnosticism should not exist at all given 'you cannot believe and disbelieve at the same time', so how could I be an atheist-agnostic or theist-agnostic? What do you think the word agnostic means then?

You also clearly do not know what you are talking about with regards to Catholicism either. People are brought up Catholics because their parents choose it, not because the church makes them have a Godmother or Godfather.

Your misunderstanding clearly stems from over-simplifying what is a complex notion.
0
reply
fairisle13
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#119
Report 6 years ago
#119
(Original post by Pigling)
So the lock is NOT broken or tampered
The windows are NOT broken
And your stuff has NOT been stolen


How is this different to:

Creation has NOT occured spontaneously
Supernatural intervention has NOT occurred
Justice and goodness (or any sort of willful purpose) have NOT been enforced
Meaning has NOT been inserted into our universe

etc etc countless examples of God's inaction.

How is me expecting God to act like a God and leave evidence, in order to believe in it, different to you expecting a burglar to act like a burglar and leave evidence, in order to believe in them?

Do you insist on neutrality in the subject of whether you have been burgled, just because as it happens, not having been burgled understandably wouldn't leave additional evidence, merely the absence of evidence of burglary?

You can claim that the lack of a tampered lock, stolen items, or smashed windows is positive evidence, but in that case the lack of Godly tinkering and design in our universe is also positive evidence.
No, I claim that an untampered lock and items in their place are positive evidence, and they are. I clarified this point in my post. I know my purse hasn't been stolen because it is still here, that is positive evidence. I also have prior knowledge with which to base my reasoning on, as I know what an untampered lock looks like and where the items all were originally.
Again, you are trying to apply an example with which evidence based reasoning can be applied to one where it cannot.
You are basing your ideas of a deity on already established religious thinking, where in reality it could be something completely different. With regards to your examples, there are still things that we do not know.
Something that I found particularly compelling that made me question atheism was something that a nun once said to my mother:
'science can tell us how something happened and religion can tell us why.'
Indeed the big bang can be somewhat, although not entirely in the sense of its beginnings, explained by science, but it does not answer the questions of why we are here as opposed to how we got here. That is why I can see that there may well be a deity, whilst not accepting the idea because I have no evidence to prove it.
0
reply
Kaiser MacCleg
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#120
Report 6 years ago
#120
(Original post by fairisle13)
Thank you for being incredibly patronising. You are again missing the point, I neither believe in deities nor disbelieve, this is called agnosticism.
You are confusing belief and knowledge. Agnosticism is the assertion that we do not know (sometimes can not know) that a deity (or the plural) exist - it is an assertion of the current state of our knowledge on the matter. I agree that we don't know, and therefore I am an agnostic.

Atheism, however, is not concerned with knowledge, but with belief. Anyone, including some agnostics, who lack belief in a deity, is an atheist. I lack belief. I'm an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is not what it is commonly misunderstood to be - a hedging of bets; fence-sitting non-committal. It is merely a statement that we don't know, which doesn't preclude belief or the lack of it.



Over in the religion forum, we've got a stickied thread to address disagreements such as this, as they come up so often. I think it'd be worth your time to have a look through the first post:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1498831
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (57)
23.95%
No (181)
76.05%

Watched Threads

View All