-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Evidence behind the new testament.
- Thread starter Nicholas1024
- Start date
- Status
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Oh yeah I see that now. But now I'm confused as to what you are saying when you ask "What is the practical difference between the terms?" It seems that that explanation should perfectly illustrate the difference.
So again I ask what do you mean by "practical difference"?
The distinction between the two only became clear when you said that one has to shoo why there's no reason to believe in God, whereas the other has to show that God couldn't exist. The distinction wasn't clear when you said one was a belief and the other wasn't.
This is turning into a "defending my intellectual pride" exchange, so I'm not really interested in continuing it after this post, but the "do not" in the phrase "do not believe" is as clear as it gets when making the distinction from "believe".
But again, the only difference between "I do not believe in God" and "I believe God does not exist" is that the latter must prove why it is impossible that God exists, and that distinction isn't obvious from the "believe" and "do not believe" wording, it has to be explained afterward.
The wording alone, without the explanation doesn't sufifce. For example if I'm asked a yes-no question, if I do not think the answer is yes, then obviously I believe the answer is no, that's the only alternative. Saying "I believe the answer is no" is exactly the same as saying "I don't believe the answer is yes".
There is a distinction between negative and positive atheists, but it's not clear in the "believe" and "disbelieve" word distinction.
The wording alone, without the explanation doesn't sufifce. For example if I'm asked a yes-no question, if I do not think the answer is yes, then obviously I believe the answer is no, that's the only alternative. Saying "I believe the answer is no" is exactly the same as saying "I don't believe the answer is yes".
There is a distinction between negative and positive atheists, but it's not clear in the "believe" and "disbelieve" word distinction.
But by your logic, there would be strong and weak agnosticism.
There would be the belief that knowledge of deities is unobtainable, and disbelieving that knowledge of deities is obtainable, because apparently for you that's two different things.
There would be the belief that knowledge of deities is unobtainable, and disbelieving that knowledge of deities is obtainable, because apparently for you that's two different things.
Yes! They ARE two different things!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism
I won't be returning until tomorrow, so I'd suggest you brush up on your terms for the duration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism
I won't be returning until tomorrow, so I'd suggest you brush up on your terms for the duration
asianaussie
Smash Hero
Don't be condescending.
You are, as Dre already mentioned to deaf ears, playing with words. 'Disbelieving in a god's existence' essentially holds the same meaning as 'believing in the improbable existence of a god'. If you truly want to debate definitions, I suggest you find applications for these definitions, because a definition is defined by the practical and implied applications, neither of which you have given. As Dre already mentioned, you are fighting a grammar battle that cannot be won or lost, as both parties are technically correct.
Strong and weak atheism are both atheism, the distinction is merely how intense their belief is. There is almost no practical distinction, given that the distinct definitions themselves are based almost purely on an emotional level, and that the bottom line is that they believe in the non-existence of god.Wikipedia said:
You are, as Dre already mentioned to deaf ears, playing with words. 'Disbelieving in a god's existence' essentially holds the same meaning as 'believing in the improbable existence of a god'. If you truly want to debate definitions, I suggest you find applications for these definitions, because a definition is defined by the practical and implied applications, neither of which you have given. As Dre already mentioned, you are fighting a grammar battle that cannot be won or lost, as both parties are technically correct.
You have the same misconception as Dre. The difference is that one is a LACK IN BELIEF of a claim and one is a BELIEF that the claim is false. One is making a hard claim and one is requesting for more evidence before making a decision. Weak atheism isn't "believing in the improbable existence of a god", it's the position of "i don't know and your evidence or lack thereof is not convincing". The practical application is this very important distinction between the two terms.
asianaussie
Smash Hero
You haven't provided a practical application at all, you merely said 'it's a very important distinction'. Dividing by definitions isn't practical in the slightest.
Tell me, how do you define a belief then? This seems to be a cornerstone of your argument.
Tell me, how do you define a belief then? This seems to be a cornerstone of your argument.
A Pimp Named Slickback
Smash Lord
now you're just arguing semantics and trivialities
I'll define belief as wikipedia does: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
Weak atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of god, and thus believe that one's existence is possible.
Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god, and thus believe that one's existence is impossible.
How do you not see a clear distinction?
Weak atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of god, and thus believe that one's existence is possible.
Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god, and thus believe that one's existence is impossible.
How do you not see a clear distinction?
asianaussie
Smash Hero
I never said I didn't see the distinction, I said that there is no practical distinction.
If you're going to go that far, why not just say weak atheists aren't atheists at all, because if atheism is to be taken as a pseudo-religion, it must include belief of some sort. Your definition of weak atheist coincides with a general lack of faith of any sort, and therefore may as well not even be part of atheism.
The fundamental definition of religion involves belief, and if you look back a page, it is from discussion of religion that atheism came up. You're intent on saying weak atheism doesn't involve belief, so you may as well disqualify it as a religion.
If you're going to go that far, why not just say weak atheists aren't atheists at all, because if atheism is to be taken as a pseudo-religion, it must include belief of some sort. Your definition of weak atheist coincides with a general lack of faith of any sort, and therefore may as well not even be part of atheism.
The fundamental definition of religion involves belief, and if you look back a page, it is from discussion of religion that atheism came up. You're intent on saying weak atheism doesn't involve belief, so you may as well disqualify it as a religion.
Oh, I see what you're saying now. I actually agree with you. Weak atheism is simply a disbelief and is not much different from a disbelief in anything else. But I'm not the one that came up with the term and its definition. It's currently the "official" term, so unless we pass some sort of vote, it's the term and definition I'm going to be using in the proving grounds. What "a disbelief in the existence of god" is named doesn't matter as much as being able to understand the name when it is used anyways.
asianaussie
Smash Hero
I'm ok with it if that's what you mean, but I think you're mistaken in what you take for the definition of weak atheism.
I can see you want to work belief vs lack of belief into your argument, but I still think that weak and strong atheism are merely defined by the intensity with which the respective parties believe in the lack of a god.
It wouldn't be termed weak atheism if there was a significant allowance for the existence of a god, simply due to atheism's base definition.
I can see you want to work belief vs lack of belief into your argument, but I still think that weak and strong atheism are merely defined by the intensity with which the respective parties believe in the lack of a god.
It wouldn't be termed weak atheism if there was a significant allowance for the existence of a god, simply due to atheism's base definition.
If I'm mistaken then so is the rest of the internet.
Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism
The absence of belief in gods.
www.gatorfreethought.org/2007/09/what-exactly-is-freethought-our.html
Weak atheism (sometimes referred to as "negative atheism") describes all belief systems which lack a belief in God
http://www.conservapedia.com/Weak_Atheism
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism
The absence of belief in gods.
www.gatorfreethought.org/2007/09/what-exactly-is-freethought-our.html
Weak atheism (sometimes referred to as "negative atheism") describes all belief systems which lack a belief in God
http://www.conservapedia.com/Weak_Atheism
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
D
Deleted member
Guest
The difference is extremely important because it determines who has the burden of proof.
A weak atheist does not have the burden of proof.
A strong atheist does.
A weak atheist does not have the burden of proof.
A strong atheist does.
From that exact website, it lists atheism as a religion.
Also, as a side note, the Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is a religion.
You are using the definition of strong atheism in this quoted section, not weak atheism as you should be.
Actually it lists several definitions for religion and categorizes STRONG atheism based on them (one of which atheism does not fulfill as a religion).
They didn't define "religion" in that article so it's not clear exactly what they mean when they rule atheism as a religion.
You are using strong and weak atheism interchangeably. While I don't think the lack of belief in god and the belief there is no god should be under the same general term, that's the way they are defined so that's how I will use the terms.
I can understand that I didn't address weak atheism. I will agree that it is not a religion.
I admit it doesn't fit one catagory, but what about the others?
If you scroll down, atheism is listed under the list of religions.
What do you mean by this, exactly?
I agree to this.
I don't believe they should be under the same term either. They're two completely different things.
The problem I have with this is:
You said neither is a religion. You never said I was wrong, you said I was using strong atheism instead of weak atheism.
Weak atheism isn't a religion, but you have said nothing about strong atheism not being a religion.
A Pimp Named Slickback
Smash Lord
Why are you guys arguing over such trivial things like definitions?
Definitions can vary greatly and can be used to serve almost any purpose.
from Princeton.edu: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
from Dictionary.com: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Notice how the first definition includes "supernatural power," by which Strong Atheism would not be included. However, the 2nd definition DOES include Strong Atheism.
See why this argument is futile? It just depends on which dictionary you're using.
Definitions can vary greatly and can be used to serve almost any purpose.
from Princeton.edu: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
from Dictionary.com: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Notice how the first definition includes "supernatural power," by which Strong Atheism would not be included. However, the 2nd definition DOES include Strong Atheism.
See why this argument is futile? It just depends on which dictionary you're using.
Dictionaries do not define words. They describe common uses of words. Words have commonly understood meanings that vary vastly with context, these intricacies can't be expressed in a dictionary. So please, if you want to be a good debater, don't quote something from a dictionary and use it as evidence of anything aside from spelling. (Or cases of gross incorrectness of meaning)
There is nothing wrong with defining your own terms. That's perfectly acceptable and actually quite desirable. Just say "I'm going to use the term 'XXXX' to mean this...". Done. No need to bicker back and forth about what dictionaries do and do not say.
There is nothing wrong with defining your own terms. That's perfectly acceptable and actually quite desirable. Just say "I'm going to use the term 'XXXX' to mean this...". Done. No need to bicker back and forth about what dictionaries do and do not say.
Listing definitions in dictionaries does not accomplish anything if the definition of a word is somewhat ambiguous. In the context of the argument over the definition of "weak atheism", there is already a widely accepted and very clear definition for the term, so there is not much reason to stray from it, regardless of the reasons behind its formulation.
A Pimp Named Slickback
Smash Lord
I don't agree with the ability to define your own words. What's the point of having a standardized meaning then?
Then you have people saying why their definitions are more accurate than someone else's when everybody's is just as arbitrary as the next.
Then you have people saying why their definitions are more accurate than someone else's when everybody's is just as arbitrary as the next.
Well, look, I don't want to derail the topic at hand. Clearly the opposite side of the spectrum is undesirable, also. Redefining words and terms which already have accepted meaning is counter-productive and confusing. That isn't what I mean to endorse.
Just that you really can't point to a dictionary to end an argument. When you call atheism a "religion", that word has connotations and implications along with it. By pointing to a dictionary and claiming that it, strictly speaking, fits some narrow definition is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.
Just that you really can't point to a dictionary to end an argument. When you call atheism a "religion", that word has connotations and implications along with it. By pointing to a dictionary and claiming that it, strictly speaking, fits some narrow definition is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
There's nothing wrong with defining your terms, especially if it allows you to be more specific and clear in your arguments. For example, in a debate about God, it may be useful to more precisely define what one means by "God".
Although you should pick definitions that are in line with commonly accepted meanings (don't define bad to mean good).
Although you should pick definitions that are in line with commonly accepted meanings (don't define bad to mean good).
Reaver197
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,287
Well, this doesn't seem to be quite the same discussion it started off as, but I saw this National Geographic article, and thought it would be well suited for this thread.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text
Ballistics
Smash Champion
Awesome read thanks for sharing
Nicholas1024
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,075
This post belongs more under this thread (despite being posted in an entirely different topic), so I'll answer it here.
First off, you're thing about religion in general does not apply to Christianity. It was founded under the roman empire, and in fact was persecuted for a long time. It wasn't until 300 AD or so that it even became legal to be a Christian, let alone any sort of political power being attached to the church.
Secondly, please tell me how a crazy convinces enormous multitudes of people to the point of dying for him against the intense opposition of the religious leaders and roman government, even AFTER he died an extremely painful and humiliating death. (For crying out loud, the disciples own testimony says that they deserted him at the scene on the cross!)
Thirdly, how on earth would you prove or disprove a resurrection with archaeology? The proof of the resurrection would be in the acts of the disciples and people that claim to have witnessed it.
Fourthly, I like how you claim evolution to be a fact despite it being hotly contested (and not just by Christians). Besides, why not humanity? Would it have made more sense to use dolphins or insects? As God is primarily a spiritual being, the "man being made in his image" would mean spiritually, not physically.
Finally, all historical texts period have been man-made. So what's your point?
GwJ
Smash Hero
1. Hitler
2. Evolution is widely accepted for the most part. Sure, some contest it, but with faulty logic.
2. Evolution is widely accepted for the most part. Sure, some contest it, but with faulty logic.
GwJ
Smash Hero
Your question confuses me. Can you elaborate at what you're trying to ask?
The western world has—since the first Council of Nicaea—tried to reformat the entire world to revolve around Jesus Christ and the Biblical God. Why continue doing so?
I do not question what has happened in the past, I question only what we have control over now. We are currently in a very interesting point of time. There is a lot of economic and social tension within America and many other corners of the world. There aren't many "golden ages" (if any) happening right now. Generally speaking, why rest one's concerns in the hands of a mythological figure? I see those who have faith in a dead man and his infinite father as those too weak to shape their own world. They give the reigns of the world to two beings, one of which may have existed and one of which we have no proof of existing. What happens when you shape a world around these aspects? Some clever monkeys realized that if they position themselves high enough on the pyramid, that they may take tribune from everyone below them to pay respects to Christ and God at the top... but because neither of them exist in metaphysical forms, where does the money go? To those clever monkeys. Those are the folk controlling the world and the many gods of the world. Christ, God, they are tools to collect tribune, be it monetarily or through labor. Either way, those clever monkeys at the top are doing minimal work while everyone below them is working to survive and subsequently, upholding the pillars on which they sit.
If my interpretation of the stories of Jesus serves 'accurate', he did not want to lead people, he wanted to teach people to lead themselves. Romans *******ized this with imagery of him as a sheperd and a king, the latter of which he was most definitely not. I think the truth of the matter is that people are innately weak. Most do not have much charisma unless it is taught to them. If Christ was real, he ought to have had bountiful charisma, for he led people. If he was buried somewhere (which he just might be... you know, in a mass burial pit as all crucified victims were cast away in) he's probably been rolling in his grave for two millenia now. He tried to teach the common folk to lead themselves, so naturally they let those in power *******ize the original intent of Christ, perpetually puppeteering the man's namesake and imagery as tributary material.
So I offer this choice: abandon Christ. His intent may have been good, but 2,000 years have passed and the world is still dominated by crass politics. If the character Christ could ask anything of the people of this modern world, he would ask them to abandon Christianity and finally put him to rest. Hell, if he does return with the last judgement, he'd do so out of anger over 2,000 years worth of hooligans not letting him die. Every last Christian would go to hell.
I do not question what has happened in the past, I question only what we have control over now. We are currently in a very interesting point of time. There is a lot of economic and social tension within America and many other corners of the world. There aren't many "golden ages" (if any) happening right now. Generally speaking, why rest one's concerns in the hands of a mythological figure? I see those who have faith in a dead man and his infinite father as those too weak to shape their own world. They give the reigns of the world to two beings, one of which may have existed and one of which we have no proof of existing. What happens when you shape a world around these aspects? Some clever monkeys realized that if they position themselves high enough on the pyramid, that they may take tribune from everyone below them to pay respects to Christ and God at the top... but because neither of them exist in metaphysical forms, where does the money go? To those clever monkeys. Those are the folk controlling the world and the many gods of the world. Christ, God, they are tools to collect tribune, be it monetarily or through labor. Either way, those clever monkeys at the top are doing minimal work while everyone below them is working to survive and subsequently, upholding the pillars on which they sit.
If my interpretation of the stories of Jesus serves 'accurate', he did not want to lead people, he wanted to teach people to lead themselves. Romans *******ized this with imagery of him as a sheperd and a king, the latter of which he was most definitely not. I think the truth of the matter is that people are innately weak. Most do not have much charisma unless it is taught to them. If Christ was real, he ought to have had bountiful charisma, for he led people. If he was buried somewhere (which he just might be... you know, in a mass burial pit as all crucified victims were cast away in) he's probably been rolling in his grave for two millenia now. He tried to teach the common folk to lead themselves, so naturally they let those in power *******ize the original intent of Christ, perpetually puppeteering the man's namesake and imagery as tributary material.
So I offer this choice: abandon Christ. His intent may have been good, but 2,000 years have passed and the world is still dominated by crass politics. If the character Christ could ask anything of the people of this modern world, he would ask them to abandon Christianity and finally put him to rest. Hell, if he does return with the last judgement, he'd do so out of anger over 2,000 years worth of hooligans not letting him die. Every last Christian would go to hell.
GwJ
Smash Hero
Beautifully written Spire. I totally agree with you.
However, if I were to speak from a Christian's perspective, the obvious answer of abandoning Christ is that they don't want to go to Hell.
Sure, Christ couldve been one helluva guy. I don't deny at all that he could really have been one swell guy. He was that one foreign kid that everyone loved when he came to their school in my opinion.
It'd be nice if everyone moved on, but that's not practical until they seperate him from a God figure.
However, if I were to speak from a Christian's perspective, the obvious answer of abandoning Christ is that they don't want to go to Hell.
Sure, Christ couldve been one helluva guy. I don't deny at all that he could really have been one swell guy. He was that one foreign kid that everyone loved when he came to their school in my opinion.
It'd be nice if everyone moved on, but that's not practical until they seperate him from a God figure.
I'd like to reword my question.
Why build a world around any one person? Doesn't that seem a bit... insane? That's what we've done with Christ. Whether he was real or not, we've built a world around him. We've created millions, billions even, of humans who have grown and died under his warped influence; influence unnaturally established, maintained, and executed by those who initially killed him. Is that not proof enough? The descendents of those who executed Jesus Christ are the ones who decided to legalize worship of the guy, and in doing so, marked the advent of warped religious depictions, showing him as the purple-garbed king of the Roman Empire, sometimes as God, sometimes as a simple shepherd. What are people supposed to believe when their god-king is immortal and unkillable? Constantine and his bishops were wise. They realized that by immortalizing a dead man as a conceptual king of a nation of people, he could not be usurped, and thus those right under his throne would maintain their dominion; their citizens would not turn on them... especially when you promise them damnation to hell.
The history of Christianity is a very clever history. I think that is the right word to describe it all. In countless cases have we seen kings, popes, emperors and the like command people to do whatever they desire under Christ's and God's "word".
Nations are very much like trees. They grow and change form depending on different elements introduced to them, especially in their early years as saplings. America was founded by many differing sects of Christianity, some far more liberal than others. Often times they fought, or just ignored one another for the simple sake of religious differences. Then when a common enemy was revealed, they realized that they could bound together to save themselves. With an unlikely victory came the unification of a bunch of different people. It's almost as if you planted 13 seeds in one patch, and they all grew together, spiraling into one tree. This tree's roots are tainted with war and bloodspill, hence our country's history. Every time it rains, those angry roots drink the water and process anger-filled water upwards, feeding and growing the tree. Naturally, once it was large enough, it saw another tree similar in vein called "Nueva España".
"No way could this fellow tree share my land, they have wholly different religious and cultural ethics than we do!" said America, the tree.
So to war they went. Eventually, America's war-scarred roots spread so far and wide that half of Nueva España died. America had successfully taken hold of the land from yard to shining yard and Nueva España renamed itself Mexico. Mexico's leaves would often fall in America's yard, and America didn't like that. Not a whole lot it could do about it and eventually, the leaves found legal home in America's yard, but time is cyclical and now America don't want no Mexican leaves in its yard anymo'.
Oh and meanwhile America's sister tree Canada is in the backyard just fine and dandy, but once America gets too big for its own yard, it's going to have to spread its roots into the backyard. That is, so long as America doesn't get struck by lightning or is invaded with termites first.
Termites are threats to the infrastructure. They bring no malice; they simply look for a place to transform and call home. However, the word of God stamps the name "Enemy" on so many peoples' heads—even our own—that we might as well just kill everyone and let Earth start over in its attempt to produce a positively thriving, sentient species.[/sarcasm]
Why build a world around any one person? Doesn't that seem a bit... insane? That's what we've done with Christ. Whether he was real or not, we've built a world around him. We've created millions, billions even, of humans who have grown and died under his warped influence; influence unnaturally established, maintained, and executed by those who initially killed him. Is that not proof enough? The descendents of those who executed Jesus Christ are the ones who decided to legalize worship of the guy, and in doing so, marked the advent of warped religious depictions, showing him as the purple-garbed king of the Roman Empire, sometimes as God, sometimes as a simple shepherd. What are people supposed to believe when their god-king is immortal and unkillable? Constantine and his bishops were wise. They realized that by immortalizing a dead man as a conceptual king of a nation of people, he could not be usurped, and thus those right under his throne would maintain their dominion; their citizens would not turn on them... especially when you promise them damnation to hell.
The history of Christianity is a very clever history. I think that is the right word to describe it all. In countless cases have we seen kings, popes, emperors and the like command people to do whatever they desire under Christ's and God's "word".
Nations are very much like trees. They grow and change form depending on different elements introduced to them, especially in their early years as saplings. America was founded by many differing sects of Christianity, some far more liberal than others. Often times they fought, or just ignored one another for the simple sake of religious differences. Then when a common enemy was revealed, they realized that they could bound together to save themselves. With an unlikely victory came the unification of a bunch of different people. It's almost as if you planted 13 seeds in one patch, and they all grew together, spiraling into one tree. This tree's roots are tainted with war and bloodspill, hence our country's history. Every time it rains, those angry roots drink the water and process anger-filled water upwards, feeding and growing the tree. Naturally, once it was large enough, it saw another tree similar in vein called "Nueva España".
"No way could this fellow tree share my land, they have wholly different religious and cultural ethics than we do!" said America, the tree.
So to war they went. Eventually, America's war-scarred roots spread so far and wide that half of Nueva España died. America had successfully taken hold of the land from yard to shining yard and Nueva España renamed itself Mexico. Mexico's leaves would often fall in America's yard, and America didn't like that. Not a whole lot it could do about it and eventually, the leaves found legal home in America's yard, but time is cyclical and now America don't want no Mexican leaves in its yard anymo'.
Oh and meanwhile America's sister tree Canada is in the backyard just fine and dandy, but once America gets too big for its own yard, it's going to have to spread its roots into the backyard. That is, so long as America doesn't get struck by lightning or is invaded with termites first.
Termites are threats to the infrastructure. They bring no malice; they simply look for a place to transform and call home. However, the word of God stamps the name "Enemy" on so many peoples' heads—even our own—that we might as well just kill everyone and let Earth start over in its attempt to produce a positively thriving, sentient species.[/sarcasm]
- Status