- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Satanic Temple puts up display at Michigan Capital
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:21 pm to dawg2357
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:21 pm to dawg2357
quote:For most atheists, sure. But it is possible to be an atheist and not be a metaphysical naturalist. They aren't necessarily mutually inclusive.
Ah but that is the belief the atheist needs to defend for I would argue that it is key to atheism. It is the philosophical position of the atheist.
For instance, a person could believe in the existence of magic and spells, but not believe in a god. This person would not be a metaphysical naturalist, and would be an atheist (and a weirdo, imo
) At any rate, our discussion is just about what atheism is and isn't. We aren't discussing whether it's right or wrong.
This post was edited on 12/22/14 at 1:22 pm
0
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:21 pm to Asgard Device
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:24 pm to monsterballads
This graphic sums it up nicely.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
To claim that atheism is the default where even babies are atheists just seems odd to me. The baby lacks belief, but it is not an atheist.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:24 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:You're right. In the case of lack of consciousness, I wouldn't be able to verify anything about it. However, the lack of consciousness would prove my faith to be wrong. There is just no way for me or anyone else to know that it did.
I strongly disagree. If you don't exist, nothing can be verified to you. The existence of an observer is implicit and essential in the concept of 'verification'--you can't separate the two and still have verification.
But if there is consciousness after death and the soul goes to Heaven or Hell (or somewhere else), then theoretically it would be possible to verify whether or not the belief held by an individual while alive was true or false.
The outcome after death will determine whether or not a particular belief is true or false, and there's just no way to know for certain without experiencing it, yourself.
All of that speaks to "verification" of truth. Whether or not something is true does not necessarily depend on us to be able to verify it, even though verification is required for us to really know truth for certain. Lack of certainty requires trust, which is where faith comes in.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:26 pm to asurob1
quote:
so much butt hurt from team jesus in this thread
He is the reason for the season fella
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:26 pm to dawg2357
quote:It is, in the very strictest definition, an atheist. But to say that that's the default view of the human race is to ignore literally the entire history of the human race. Humans sort of naturally believe in some deity or deities.
To claim that atheism is the default where even babies are atheists just seems odd to me. The baby lacks belief, but it is not an atheist.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:31 pm to Porkchop Express
quote:
An atheist bases things on facts
This is one of the dumbest things posted in this thread and there is lots to choose from. You can no more prove that there is no God than I can produce evidence that he exist. You operate under the presumption that what you believe or don't believe is true. That is faith.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:36 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
Rev, if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
All I was alluding to by putting the scripture from Revelation is that from the beginning of the book, in between and at the end, Satan is referred to as a serpent/ dragon and it's a consistent. That's why I don't understand some that say that Satan/ serpent are not synonymous.
This post was edited on 12/22/14 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:36 pm to Revelator
quote:It really isn't.
This is one of the dumbest things posted in this thread and there is lots to choose from.
quote:Which means that he's operating from the more factual position. The only arguments that can prove the existence of God are philosophical in nature.
You can no more prove that there is no God than I can produce evidence that he exist.
quote:I'm not even sure what this means. I mean, I understand the words, but everyone operates under the assumption that what they believe is true. No one runs around knowingly believing falsehoods and simultaneously believing they're true. I'm genuinely baffled by this sentence.
You operate under the presumption that what you believe or don't believe is true.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:40 pm to FT
quote:
I'm not even sure what this means. I mean, I understand the words, but everyone operates under the assumption that what they believe is true. No one runs around knowingly believing falsehoods and simultaneously believing they're true. I'm genuinely baffled by this sentence.
And that is what faith is. The undeniable belief that what you base this life on, and an afterlife if this is what you believe, is true.
The atheists believe there is no God, no afterlife, and they live their lives with the belief that they will never have to answer to anyone for their actions here after death.
This post was edited on 12/22/14 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:41 pm to Blue Velvet
I'm an RCC, but that was pretty good.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:41 pm to dawg2357
quote:Yes it is, but pointing it out isn't very meaningful.
To claim that atheism is the default where even babies are atheists just seems odd to me. The baby lacks belief, but it is not an atheist.
Honestly, the term 'atheist' itself is not that meaningful. It succinctly communicates what a person believes with respect to the existence of gods, but that's a pretty narrow thing. It doesn't tell you anything else about what a person believes or how the person behaves--nothing you can know for certain that is necessarily true by virtue of the person being an atheist.
That's why I argued much earlier in this thread that people shouldn't lump in all atheists together, like they're a bloc. There's really only one thing that they all have in common, and that one thing is the absence of a particular belief.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:43 pm to Revelator
quote:So if I understand you correctly, faith can be defined as follows:
And that is what faith is.
Knowing that a belief is false, while claiming and believing it to be true.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:44 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:Right. I mean, probably most serial killers in US history would be nominally Christian, but that really doesn't mean anything.
Honestly, the term 'atheist' itself is not that meaningful. It succinctly communicates what a person believes with respect to the existence of gods, but that's a pretty narrow thing. It doesn't tell you anything else about what a person believes or how the person behaves--nothing you can know for certain that is necessarily true by virtue of the person being an atheist.
That's why I argued much earlier in this thread that people shouldn't lump in all atheists together, like they're a bloc. There's really only one thing that they all have in common, and that one thing is the absence of a particular belief.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:45 pm to FT
quote:
It is, in the very strictest definition, an atheist.
It is this strict definition that I have issue with. Now if one wanted to change it slightly to say that an atheist is someone who has the potential to believe yet still lacks that belief then I would be fine with that. However I would think that rules out babies. For example say someone is born stranded from society. As a baby they should not be considered an atheist. However when they grow up still away from society they reflect on nature. They come to the conclusion that this reality did not come to be by an intelligent mind, but simply is all there is for there is no evidence of a mind. I would say this person is an atheist, for even though they have the potential for belief in theism they still lack it.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:46 pm to FT
quote:
So if I understand you correctly, faith can be defined as follows: Knowing that a belief is false, while claiming and believing it to be true.
I never said that. When I said," believe or not believe, I meant that the atheist's unbelief is his belief.
This post was edited on 12/22/14 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:46 pm to dawg2357
quote:wat
It is this strict definition that I have issue with. Now if one wanted to change it slightly to say that an atheist is someone who has the potential to believe yet still lacks that belief then I would be fine with that. However I would think that rules out babies. For example say someone is born stranded from society. As a baby they should not be considered an atheist. However when they grow up still away from society they reflect on nature. They come to the conclusion that this reality did not come to be by an intelligent mind, but simply is all there is for there is no evidence of a mind. I would say this person is an atheist, for even though they have the potential for belief in theism they still lack it.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:47 pm to Revelator
quote:Then please, provide me with your definition of faith.
I never said that.
Posted on 12/22/14 at 1:50 pm to FooManChoo
quote:I agree, things can be true even if we can't verify it. We were discussing what it meant for a belief to be verifiable.
You're right. In the case of lack of consciousness, I wouldn't be able to verify anything about it. However, the lack of consciousness would prove my faith to be wrong. There is just no way for me or anyone else to know that it did.
But if there is consciousness after death and the soul goes to Heaven or Hell (or somewhere else), then theoretically it would be possible to verify whether or not the belief held by an individual while alive was true or false.
The outcome after death will determine whether or not a particular belief is true or false, and there's just no way to know for certain without experiencing it, yourself.
All of that speaks to "verification" of truth. Whether or not something is true does not necessarily depend on us to be able to verify it, even though verification is required for us to really know truth for certain. Lack of certainty requires trust, which is where faith comes in.
I disagree that your lack of consciousness would prove your faith to be wrong. If you don't exist, nothing can be proven to you. Your belief was wrong, but you never knew it.
Ultimately, your belief in god can only be confirmed if you die and experience an afterlife--although it's certainly possible that a god could exist and you still wouldn't get an afterlife. That would be mean of the god.
I just don't think it's meaningful to describe this provisional verifiability as being equal to what we call "verifiable".
I think this is where I let you have the last word if you want it, unless you say something that I just can't resist responding to.
Page 14 of 43
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News