The Futility of Religion Debates

[Holder of the Heel]

I googled ontologically prior reality and got... this thread.

My skepticism alarm went off.

I'm going to avoid you in the future, Dre.

I'm not really saying anything about the legitimacy of what he says, but he is explaining with a high dose of sophistry in the sense that he explains without explaining, and somehow putting forth his views but treating it under the rules that he isn't. I wouldn't stay away from him for him, just stay away from people who aren't saying anything with substance.

@GOTM
You just completely misrepresented the concept of faith as I know it. First off, my beliefs in Christianity are not based purely on wanting it to be true, if you're willing to go back through the archives of the PG, I made a whole thread on historical evidence behind the new testament, which is more or less the foundation of why I believe what I believe. I'm sure there's atheists in this hall who would complain my reasoning is terrible and give some nice long CAPS LOCK explanations of how I'm such a huge idiot, but that's irrelevant, as it's a concrete example of how one can believe in God due to evidence.

Secondly, as far as faith goes, it's basically trusting God about a situation because of what He's done in the past, and believing He has a reason for letting the situation happen as it did. Sure, it's possible to have blind faith in a person for no good reason, but that's hardly faith as a virtue, that's just being stupid. (And if someone brings up "immoral acts" of God, I'm going to be very annoyed, we've already got that particular discussion going in another thread at the moment.)

No. Faith IS believing without evidence. You are misinterpreting faith and what it is to be Christians. Christians CAN have their own little things to use as proof for them, but they MUST have faith as well, God TELLS you to have it, and that it is the MOST important thing. Not to mention, all of these proofs you supposedly have (which I'm just going to passively say that historians largely disregard the Bible, even the Bible has multiple accounts of a single incident and people even still debate whether there was even a JESUS, some even say that he came preaching the unified new belief of one God from the Egyptian religion after they went from believing 42 gods to one monotheistic view, but again this is in passing) cannot prove everything, like spirits and well... God's creation and existence and so much more. That means you simply stop looking for an answer and have FAITH in it. Atheists avoid faith unless they propose that God doesn't exist and refrain from giving some sort of answer to it. That is it. So yes, you better have faith or you are going to hell.

I always viewed religion/faith as a fall back or a primitive science.
Religion provides an explanation for various questions about life (i.e. where we came from, where we go when we die, etc.). However, most religions were created a long time ago, when people did not have the scientific means to answer these questions.
Will we every be able to answer all the questions about the universe through science? Of course not.
However science provides a greater understanding of the universe and how it works.
I myself, am not able to believe in a deity of any kind. I've tried, but I'm just naturally an Atheist.

I have no problem with the idea of faith, and I except that some people do believe in it (although, I disagree).However, I dislike the idea of organized religion. Yes, it allows people to associate with those who share similar beliefs, but it also creates tension between separate religions and/or religious factions. Because of organized religion, you also see many people who are exploiting people's faith for personal gain. If you look back in history, and even in current day, many wars are over difference in religion. As an outsider, I look at things like this and am disgusted.

Some may argue that religion creates unity, however I think that this is only true within small communities, as a whole, religion divides people. Many people take religion so seriously and so personally that they will not except that other people think differently. Overall, I think it would be better to end organized religion rather than attempt to make everyone believe one thing. And it will certainly be impossible to convince everyone to be excepting of other religions, because if they believe other religions can exist, then that means that they accept their faith is not necessarily correct, and some people are not ok with that.

I think this pretty much sums up my view on the subject, and now I'd like to ask all of you a question:
How do you feel about religious influence on politics?
Religion has a heavy impact on politics all over the world.

EDIT: sorry that I left my signature on, I forgot to turn it off.

This. Religion is a personal experience, not something organized, it is not something that must be forced upon anyone, it is not something that is to be given any amount of money. The Eastern religions realize this, being much more humble than the Western religions that take over things and divide themselves as such (over 30,000 different Christian denominations have existed, not to mention different Western beliefs outside of it), the Eastern religions behave more like spiritual philosophies (though I'm not spiritual, so I only appreciate the philosophy of it). But in the West we have a Christian country despite a supposed "Church and State segregation". We will not get an atheist president because of this, we may even be getting religion taught in SCHOOLS because certain idiots running for office are trying to get such things through! How pretentious... it isn't how religion is suppose to be... I remember Christopher Hitchens (may he rest in peace) saying something along the lines of, "You can play with your toys, your religion, in the privacy of your own home, but don't start forcing your toys on me." Of course, the metaphor makes fun of religion from the analogy, but he does raise such a good point. There is a magic word called "Christian" that has so much political power, and has little to no meaning anymore. People who want to make any difference in the world will most likely have to lie about their religion or else they cut their chances almost entirely.

Edit: Also, GOTM wins this thread.

 

[GOTM]

@Holder, wow, the things we said and what we had responded to are eerily similar.

 

[global-wolf]

Holy (pun) crap is this wrong.

It is irrational to believe something unless there is evidence to support it. I make no assertion that there cannot be a god, but I see no rational reason to believe that there is one. I have the humility to say 'I don't know' when faced with questions to which I do not know the answers, and the curiosity to search for what the answers may be. I am not content to let the mistranslated and misinterpreted beliefs of bronze age shepherds shape my view of how the universe works.

Faith is the complete opposite of this position. Faith is believing something despite a lack of supporting evidence, or even in the face of evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion. Faith is inserting god every time you don't know the answer. Ultimately, faith is believing something because you want it to be true.

There are arguments both supporting the existence of a god and the nonexistence of a god. Good for you if you don't believe in the Christian god, but my post was not about the Christian god in particular, it was about any sort of theism or atheism. Atheism requires that you believe that the lack of solid evidence supporting the existence of a god means that there is no god. Now I've been over this before in earlier posts in this thread, and Dre pointed out that any sort of belief might require some faith, and I left it at that.

 

[GOTM]

Atheism requires that you believe that the lack of solid evidence supporting the existence of a god means that there is no god..

Incorrect. It means that there is no reason to believe in one, not that there isn't.

 

[global-wolf]

Incorrect. It means that there is no reason to believe in one, not that there isn't.

Your post doesn't make any sense.

 

[GOTM]

Your post doesn't make any sense.

That fact that you don't think it makes any sense, makes no sense.

Atheists choose not to believe in God, but do not claim to hold evidence that disproves one. Most atheists think that a God can possibly exist, but choose not to firmly hold this belief that he in fact does.

If this doesn't make sense there's no point in arguing. It's an incredibly simple statement.

 

[global-wolf]

That fact that you don't think it makes any sense, makes no sense.

Atheists choose not to believe in God, but do not claim to hold evidence that disproves one. Most atheists think that a God can possibly exist, but choose not to firmly hold this belief that he in fact does.

If this doesn't make sense there's no point in arguing. It's an incredibly simple statement.

No, I couldn't even tell what your argument was from your sentence.

"It means that there is no reason to believe in one, not that there isn't."
=
"It means that there is no reason to believe in one, not that there isn't reason to believe in one."
=
"There is no reason to believe in one. Not that there is no reason to believe in one."



In response to your second post, the person you are describing is an agnostic.

 

[GOTM]

No, I couldn't even tell what your argument was from your sentence.

"It means that there is no reason to believe in one, not that there isn't."
=
"It means that there is no reason to believe in one, not that there isn't reason to believe in one."
=
"There is no reason to believe in one. Not that there is no reason to believe in one."



In response to your second post, the person you are describing is an agnostic.

An agnostic chooses to not believe nor disbelieve the existence of a deity. An atheist chooses to disbelieve this "fact", but doesn't claim to have evidence to disprove it. That's something atheists and agnostics have it common.

Are you seriously not getting this?

 

[global-wolf]

An agnostic chooses to not believe nor disbelieve the existence of a deity. An atheist chooses to disbelieve this "fact", but doesn't claim to have evidence to disprove it. That's something atheists and agnostics have it common.

Are you seriously not getting this?

And because the atheist does not have the evidence to disprove the existence of a god, the only place his belief comes is his faith.

Maybe instead of asking why I'm not getting things you say, you should try making your writing more understandable, because with sentences like "Most atheists think that a God can possibly exist, but choose not to firmly hold this belief that he in fact does," and what I pointed out earlier, I can't imagine anyone understanding what you say without making assumptions.

 

[GOTM]

And because the atheist does not have the evidence to disprove the existence of a god, the only place his belief comes is his faith.

You are acting incredibly ignorant.

By definition, if an atheist held faith that God did not exist, nothing would ever convince an atheist that God exists. Not even contrary evidence.

This is NOT TRUE BY ANY MEANS. If there was evidence and proof one day that God did exist, an atheist would very easily come around.

Someone please comment because this kid is making me think that I'm talking out of my *** when I know I am not.

Belief and faith are two entirely different things. When you say "the only place his belief comes is his faith", you might as well say that "the only place an apple comes from is an orange".

 

[global-wolf]

You are acting incredibly ignorant.

By definition, if an atheist held faith that God did not exist, nothing would ever convince an atheist that God exists. Not even contrary evidence.

This is NOT TRUE BY ANY MEANS. If there was evidence and proof one day that God did exist, an atheist would very easily come around.

Someone please comment because this kid is making me think that I'm talking out of my *** when I know I am not.

Tell me why the belief that something does not exist because of lack of evidence is not faith. Or if you want, replace faith with conjecture or presumption.

Your disdainful attitude is really, really annoying.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Atheists don't believe in God, that doesn't mean they have facts to denote his existence. That doesn't mean that when facts proving his existence, he will ignore them and continue believing what he does.

Faith is unshakable conviction. Belief is a tentative notion. Proven facts are confirmed notions.

Atheist has belief, a Christian has faith, agnostic doesn't have either, and none of the three have proven facts.

 

[global-wolf]

Definition of faith from dictionary.com:

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

 

[GOTM]

Atheists don't believe in God, that doesn't mean they have facts to denote his existence. That doesn't mean that when facts proving his existence, he will ignore them and continue believing what he does.

Faith is unshakable conviction. Belief is a tentative notion. Proven facts are confirmed notions.

Atheist has belief, a Christian has faith, agnostic doesn't have either, and none of the three have proven facts.

This.

Thanks.

 

[Orboknown]

@wolf-that definition proves gotm's point. Atheists do not have faith in god because there is no proof. Give them proof and they might believe.

 

[global-wolf]

@wolf-that definition proves gotm's point. Atheists do not have faith in god because there is no proof. Give them proof and they might believe.

Uh, I'm saying they have faith that there is no god. Why on earth would I say that they have faith in god?

 

[Orboknown]

Because they dont have faith in either.
they require proof to believe.
holder had it right with his post #92.

 

[global-wolf]

Because they dont have faith in either.
they require proof to believe.
holder had it right with his post #92.

If they require proof to believe in either, they are an agnostic.

If they do not have proof that there is no god, yet believe that there is no god, then they are an atheist.

The atheist has no proof that there is no god, yet he believes that that there is no god. That is faith.

 

[Orboknown]

the definition of atheist via thefreedictionary.com
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
nothing there about faith.

 

[GOTM]

Global, to understand this, don't even mind the vocabulary. Pay it no attention. Verbage doesn't matter here.

Ask yourself this. If there was proof that God didn't exist, would you still believe in God? The bible says if you do not, you will go to hell.

If you answer "No" to this question, according to the Bible, you are not faithful to your God. If you answer "Yes", you are.

 

[global-wolf]

the definition of atheist via thefreedictionary.com
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
nothing there about faith.

The definition of theism from dictionary.com
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods

Nothing in there about faith either.

Global, to understand this, don't even mind the vocabulary. Pay it no attention. Verbage doesn't matter here.

Ask yourself this. If there was proof that God didn't exist, would you still believe in God? The bible says if you do not, you will go to hell.

If you answer "No" to this question, according to the Bible, you are not faithful to your God. If you answer "Yes", you are.

I am agnostic.

If there was proof that god doesn't exist, I would become an atheist. But there is not.

 

[GOTM]

I am agnostic.

If there was proof that god doesn't exist, I would become an atheist. But there is not.

I didn't ask what you were, I just wanted to put forth the notion of faith in the same context that the Bible uses it.

That's the faith we argue.

 

[global-wolf]

I didn't ask what you were, I just wanted to put forth the notion of faith in the same context that the Bible uses it.

That's the faith we argue.

Why do you assume that it is the faith that I argue? None of my posts have suggested that. And I didn't read much of the middle part of this thread due to lack of interest, but I'm pretty sure that the faith that Dre was using was not in the context of the bible either.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

If syllogistic proof doesn't get you through the basics, I'll use a demonstration under the small assumption people who believe have a belief by virtue of him believing. Picture this, two kids are walking along the street. One is named Megan and the other is Kim.

"Hey Megan! Did you hear about John?"

"No Kim, what happened?"

"He cheated on me! Can you believe it?"

End of demonstration. You see, if Megan believes what she says, she has a notion of it via someone telling her, so it isn't baseless and one wouldn't have faith necessarily by believing it nor would they berate her for having nothing to go on, yet still doesn't have any proven facts about it. So people can believe things without proven facts but can have a notion of it.

Megan COULD have faith in what she says, but that means even when she watches a video of the supposed incident where they cheated was really a misunderstanding, she will still have faith in it. Otherwise she just has a notion of it.

Atheists, like Orbo has mentioned, has a disbelief of God, meaning it is tentative and is brought forth from the beliefs Christians put in, but Christians have faith in their beliefs, which is different than believing in their beliefs, but is an unshakable brand of belief. Faith and belief on the face are not different, you can only find out which a person has by burning their belief with contrary proven facts and see if it remains or not. If it is still there, it was faith. If not, it was a simple notion.

But the problem is that an agnostic would be someone who has not formed an opinion on the matter. So... let's see here, if Megan became an "agnostic" in terms of the Kim being cheated on, that means that she is basically unfazed by what she was told, in terms of whether or not John cheated on her.

Sorry for length, I was hoping brevity would work, but no.

Edit: I understand the danger of labels, they really aren't good to use. An atheist's cliche "there-is-no-God" notion is incorrect, anyone saying there is proof contrary to God and puts himself under a label of atheism aids in that misconception. In other words, there is no official label describing absolute scientific answers. Probably because there isn't a religion stating that there are no religions. Go figure. Religions give an immediate origin story, science hasn't learned enough yet, so there is no science origin story, and by extension, no true label that describes someone who has an answer as to why there is no God.

 

[Orboknown]

Bravo holder.nice summary of the argument.

 

[global-wolf]

If syllogistic proof doesn't get you through the basics, I'll use a demonstration under the small assumption people who believe have a belief by virtue of him believing. Picture this, two kids are walking along the street. One is named Megan and the other is Kim.

"Hey Megan! Did you hear about John?"

"No Kim, what happened?"

"He cheated on me! Can you believe it?"

End of demonstration. You see, if Megan believes what she says, she has a notion of it via someone telling her, so it isn't baseless and one wouldn't have faith necessarily by believing it nor would they berate her for having nothing to go on, yet still doesn't have any proven facts about it. So people can believe things without proven facts but can have a notion of it.

Megan COULD have faith in what she says, but that means even when she watches a video of the supposed incident where they cheated was really a misunderstanding, she will still have faith in it. Otherwise she just has a notion of it.

Atheists, like Orbo has mentioned, has a disbelief of God, meaning it is tentative and is brought forth from the beliefs Christians put in, but Christians have faith in their beliefs, which is different than believing in their beliefs, but is an unshakable brand of belief. Faith and belief on the face are not different, you can only find out which a person has by burning their belief with contrary proven facts and see if it remains or not. If it is still there, it was faith. If not, it was a simple notion.

But the problem is that an agnostic would be someone who has not formed an opinion on the matter. So... let's see here, if Megan became an "agnostic" in terms of the Kim being cheated on, that means that she is basically unfazed by what she was told, in terms of whether or not John cheated on her.

Sorry for length, I was hoping brevity would work, but no.

I think what you don't understand is that faith is not necessarily unshakable. In your example, Megan does have a base to support her belief that John cheated on Kim, but the word of Kim is not proof. She has faith that Kim is telling the truth, but that doesn't mean that if presented with opposing evidence, she will still believe that John cheated on Kim.

Faith is not necessarily a blind thing held by religious people and lunatics to justify disproved beliefs. Faith helps a person communicate without constantly fearing lies- when someone tells you that they went to the mall on Saturday, and you don't have any previous evidence that they did something else, and you don't know of an inclination in them to lie, do you deny their claim? If you're like most people, you trust them, and then you have faith in the things they say.

If you don't trust them, then you are suspicious of the things people say they do when you have no proof of them doing it. In your example, this would be Megan choosing not to believe or disbelieve what Kim is saying because she did not see them break up; instead, she would think "okay, maybe it happened, maybe it didn't." This would be the equivalent of agnosticism.



Edit to your edit:

Edit: I understand the danger of labels, they really aren't good to use. An atheist's cliche "there-is-no-God" notion is incorrect, anyone saying there is proof contrary to God and puts himself under a label of atheism aids in that misconception. In other words, there is no official label describing absolute scientific answers. Probably because there isn't a religion stating that there are no religions. Go figure. Religions give an immediate origin story, science hasn't learned enough yet, so there is no science origin story, and by extension, no true label that describes someone who has an answer as to why there is no God.

There are some people who argue that atheism is a religion, and while I'm not familiar with the argument, it might be worth considering. But anyway, this is Wikipedia's definition of atheism:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

The 3rd definition seems to match what you are saying the best, and maybe the first too. How do you account for the 2nd?

 

[Dre89]

I googled ontologically prior reality and got... this thread.

My skepticism alarm went off.

I'm going to avoid you in the future, Dre.

No one is educated in philosophy has ever had to ask me what OPR means. Say it to any philosopher educated in philsoophy of religion or metaphysics and they'll know what it means.

In philosophy you have to develop your own premises from the start. This is different from science where most of the premises are alreadsy there for you, as the premises are the natural world and the beings inside of it. Philosophers often have to develop their own concepts. You're doing what most non-philosophers are doing and just applying your education and it's methodology to philosophy.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I think what you don't understand is that faith is not necessarily unshakable. In your example, Megan does have a base to support her belief that John cheated on Kim, but the word of Kim is not proof. She has faith that Kim is telling the truth, but that doesn't mean that if presented with opposing evidence, she will still believe that John cheated on Kim.

Faith is not necessarily a blind thing held by religious people and lunatics to justify disproved beliefs. Faith helps a person communicate without constantly fearing lies- when someone tells you that they went to the mall on Saturday, and you don't have any previous evidence that they did something else, and you don't know of an inclination in them to lie, do you deny their claim? If you're like most people, you trust them, and then you have faith in the things they say.

If you don't trust them, then you are suspicious of the things people say they do when you have no proof of them doing it. In your example, this would be Megan choosing not to believe or disbelieve what Kim is saying because she did not see them break up; instead, she would think "okay, maybe it happened, maybe it didn't." This would be the equivalent of agnosticism.



Edit to your edit:

There are some people who argue that atheism is a religion, and while I'm not familiar with the argument, it might be worth considering. But anyway, this is Wikipedia's definition of atheism:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

The 3rd definition seems to match what you are saying the best, and maybe the first too. How do you account for the 2nd?

-Sighs-

Okay, I'll repeat everything again in a different manner so you understand. The disbelief of deities is the belief that everything puts forth as proven fact about their own special God is incorrect. By doing so, they disbelieve in deities. That doesn't mean that they know everything by having done so. I don't believe in God. Can I say that and be rightly ridiculed that I am a fool because I could answer how we are existent. No. That would be ridiculous.

What you say about atheism trying to be a religion is... stupid to say the least. Religion is spiritual stories about origins that teach you how to live. There is no atheist book you can read that tells you about your spirit and how to live. There are ethical codes like virtue ethics, consequential, and deontology, but none of them require you to be anything in terms of religion. Atheism is LITERALLY impossible to be seen in any shape or form to be of faith or affiliated as a religion. Nonsense.

As for my demonstration, you are just now applying your definitions to the words to the ones I just set up for you. Now there is your problem. Faith is something spiritual, any spiritual person will tell you, hell even I will, I understand religions enough to understand that. You don't have faith that when someone said they went to the mall that he or she told the truth, you simply believe in it. That is what people say when you take what someone says as true, you believe in it. You COULD have faith in it, but that would be an incredibly strange act (though faith is never not-strange) and someone proving that is a lie should indeed convince them. That means they believed in them. I know people say, "I have faith that she spoke the truth." That isn't religious faith, that is just a synonymous way to say you believe in them. Religious people believe there are trials and deceivers, that they have to battle in this world of sin and keep their faith strong. Faith is their connection to God. That is why it is the most important thing to religion above all else.

Learn a bit about religion before you speak about it. Typical trivial conversation use of the word faith doesn't correlate with it. At all. As for the rest of what you said, a lot of it was just repeating what I said.

 

[Dre89]

Atheism isn't a religion. You can't claim that your organisation is atheist to not have to pay tax like you can with religion, and atheism doesn't get taught in schools.

 

[global-wolf]

-Sighs-

Okay, I'll repeat everything again in a different manner so you understand. The disbelief of deities is the belief that everything puts forth as proven fact about their own special God is incorrect. By doing so, they disbelieve in deities. That doesn't mean that they know everything by having done so. I don't believe in God. Can I say that and be rightly ridiculed that I am a fool because I could answer how we are existent. No. That would be ridiculous.

What you say about atheism trying to be a religion is... stupid to say the least. Religion is spiritual stories about origins that teach you how to live. There is no atheist book you can read that tells you about your spirit and how to live. There are ethical codes like virtue ethics, consequential, and deontology, but none of them require you to be anything in terms of religion. Atheism is LITERALLY impossible to be seen in any shape or form to be of faith or affiliated as a religion. Nonsense.

As for my demonstration, you are just now applying your definitions to the words to the ones I just set up for you. Now there is your problem. Faith is something spiritual, any spiritual person will tell you, hell even I will, I understand religions enough to understand that. You don't have faith that when someone said they went to the mall that he or she told the truth, you simply believe in it. That is what people say when you take what someone says as true, you believe in it. You COULD have faith in it, but that would be an incredibly strange act (though faith is never not-strange) and someone proving that is a lie should indeed convince them. That means they believed in them. I know people say, "I have faith that she spoke the truth." That isn't religious faith, that is just a synonymous way to say you believe in them. Religious people believe there are trials and deceivers, that they have to battle in this world of sin and keep their faith strong. Faith is their connection to God. That is why it is the most important thing to religion above all else.

Learn a bit about religion before you speak about it. Typical trivial conversation use of the word faith doesn't correlate with it. At all. As for the rest of what you said, a lot of it was just repeating what I said.

I won't refute what you said about the argument of atheism being a religion because I don't have a good definition in my head of religion.

Exactly what is wrong with me using my example in context of yours? Wouldn't that be easier to compare? And no, faith is not something only spiritual; that is your idea of the implications of the word, but I am not limiting my usage of the word to blind religious faith, and neither is the dictionary.

I dunno what the "trivial conversational" usage of faith is. Faith is used in more than trivial conversations and religion. I stated in my title and my OP that religion debates are bad, because I was under the idea that religion debates are mostly about theology, and then Dre pointed out that there was also philosophy of religion. But nowhere in the line that you have a problem with, and the one that I'm still arguing for now, does it mention religion- there are only references to theism and atheism.

And I don't see any phrase I typed that is only repeating what you said.

This is basically a debate on semantics now, and if you refuse to recognize the broader definition of the word "faith" then this debate is more meaningless than a religious debate based purely on theology.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Refuse to recognize the broader definition? I just said it is synonymous with belief when not used in the context of religion. You don't read my posts. And since you have finally taken mention of their being two ways to go about using the word, the first having its own entity and the second being a substitute for words just as hope or belief, we have now discovered, with you admitting, that atheism has nothing to do with the way people have faith in things. I am using the word in its true and singular context, not as a synonym of another word that I already used. I am done here and achieved the goal we have been trying to get through to you.

We need a better Proving Grounds, seriously. Hopefully the Debate Hall is more lively and more interesting.

 

[global-wolf]

Refuse to recognize the broader definition? I just said it is synonymous with belief when not used in the context of religion. You don't read my posts. And since you have finally taken mention of their being two ways to go about using the word, the first having its own entity and the second being a substitute for words just as hope or belief, we have now discovered, with you admitting, that atheism has nothing to do with the way people have faith in things. I am using the word in its true and singular context, not as a synonym of another word that I already used. I am done here and achieved the goal we have been trying to get through to you.

We need a better Proving Grounds, seriously. Hopefully the Debate Hall is more lively and more interesting.

Whoops, it seems like I skimmed over much of your post because your previous posts have all been that faith does not apply to an atheist's belief. Sorry. And I'm not sure where I ever said that there was only one context to use the word "faith" in. Again, there is blind faith. There is also faith that only exists because of the lack of opposing evidence. All of the contexts I have used "faith" in are true to the definition of the word. Not sure why you mentioned synonyms either, because blind faith is also belief.

I certainly haven't gotten my point over to you but I am done here also. And btw, it was your choice to argue.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I am debating in order to educate myself and others. Unfortunately, there is little here worth putting my philosophic interest in. There needs to be more organization to this system instead of having two "Debate Halls" one for people who may not be up to debating seriously (not saying that is anyone here), and having potential repeat topics, likely to be done better, in the second Debate Hall. Like, there needs to be one single topic in the Debate Hall that is reserved for these purposes that has a weekly and/or monthly challenge or something, and either the first place winner of the top three can go on.

Blind faith is not belief, blind faith is faith in religious context which is what we are speaking about, you know, it is the topic. The other "faith" is a synonym of belief.

Also, as advice, do not skim posts in the Proving Grounds, or at least the Debate Hall. Not very fitting, I'd say. 'Nuff of this thread, I'll likely end up waiting to see if I can be picked based off the little that has been done by me around the Grounds.

 

[Dre89]

The way the admission process works here is that once you've posted enough, we review in the Jedi Council thread in the DH, and we vote to see whether you should be admitted.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The way the admission process works here is that once you've posted enough, we review in the Jedi Council thread in the DH, and we vote to see whether you should be admitted.

My apologies, I have forgotten about that. I suppose in that case I may need to help breathe life into these parts instead of complaining about lack of content, that is counter-productive. Though I fear of bumping old topics... Perhaps I need to come up with some better threads than my not-so-excellent Death Note one.

 

[global-wolf]

Blind faith is not belief, blind faith is faith in religious context which is what we are speaking about, you know, it is the topic. The other "faith" is a synonym of belief.

From dictionary.com:

Belief: 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.



I'll just leave that there.

 

[Theftz22]

Why doesn't everyone just stop equivocating between:

1. The lack of belief that there is a god.

and

2. The belief that there is no god.

Now introduce the proper terminology, the former is negative atheism, the latter is positive atheism.

Good, now Heel, Orboknown, and GotM are saying that negative atheism does not require argument on its behalf. Obviously so. It is not a belief in and of itself but a lack of another positive belief. Wolf is saying that positive atheism is in need of argument. Also true. Positive atheism is a claim to knowledge and equally a metaphysical claim as theism.

 

[global-wolf]

Ah, I understand what Heel is trying to say now. Thank you. My statement in the OP doesn't apply to negative atheism then.

 

[Dre89]

Why doesn't everyone just stop equivocating between:

1. The lack of belief that there is a god.

and

2. The belief that there is no god.

Now introduce the proper terminology, the former is negative atheism, the latter is positive atheism.

Good, now Heel, Orboknown, and GotM are saying that negative atheism does not require argument on its behalf. Obviously so. It is not a belief in and of itself but a lack of another positive belief. Wolf is saying that positive atheism is in need of argument. Also true. Positive atheism is a claim to knowledge and equally a metaphysical claim as theism.

And I'm saying that negative atheism still makes multiple positive mp assumptions, so argument is still necessitated on their behalf in order for their position to be justified.

 

[Theftz22]

Yes, well, we've discussed that before.