A faith in fairys is ludicrous, i agree, since there is no reason to believe that such a being exists; but i dont “know” that such a being lacks existents. I am simply making a reasonable faith based assumption, that i am right, and rational, to say that they do not exist.There is also no empirical evidence that fairies and unicorns do not exist or that or any other of the countless ludicrous ideas that mankind has thought up, yet few would say that lack of belief in them is taken on faith. Strangely enough, faith is defined as the belief in something that has no evidence for it, not the disbelief in something that has no evidence for it.
Wrong. My name has a couple meanings, but neither of them are as you think. Strike One.You name is Merry Atheist; a statement that leads me to think your atheism makes you happy, no?.
Bad conclusion from a false assumption. Strike Two.I think you would hope God does not exist.
My actual statement was that “theism is a delusion.” I make no absolute claim about the existence of God. My atheism is defined as “a lack of belief” not as “a belief of lack”.This is backed up by the fact that you make unsupportable statments such as “God is a delusion”.
So you believe that a God exists?Strike Three. You are out.
Why don’t you try? Someone might be able to provide some info that you had not considered before.No matter what piece of evidence I bring to your attention, you’ll make some sort of excuse for it, as I did.
Well, there is equal evidence (or the lack thereof) for both, so yes, they are in the same category in my opinion.A faith in fairys is ludicrous, i agree, since there is no reason to believe that such a being exists; but i dont “know” that such a being lacks existents. I am simply making a reasonable faith based assumption, that i am right, and rational, to say that they do not exist.
However, what makes you think that a concept such as “God” is in the same category as faries and elves?
“I have no belief in God.”So you believe that a God exists?
I’ll leave it up to you if this is the right thread.Is this really the thread for this discussion? The original poster asked merely for responses to the question, not discussion.
Nevertheless I will oblige you…
Certainly “a conviction of things not seen” would apply. You have a conviction of something “not seen”, that is, you have a conviction of something (very fundamental) that you cannot demonstrate, cannot prove.Should we start with the definition of faith as “assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1)? If not, then we should define the term so we can better understand each other.
Logically, one cannot prove a negative, I completely agree. However, that is not the issue.Certainly “a conviction of things not seen” would apply. You have a conviction of something “not seen”, that is, you have a conviction of something (very fundamental) that you cannot demonstrate, cannot prove.
So you don’t believe in God, but you also don’t know if He exists or not?Logically, one cannot prove a negative, I completely agree. However, that is not the issue.
If you consider my response to FreeSoulHope above, you will see that what I have is not assurance, conviction, belief, or faith, but a lack of same.
“Having no belief in X” is simply not the same as “Believing X does not exist”. Atheism for me is not a belief, it is a negation of belief.
Some define agnosticism as an uncertainty, a sort of “fence-sitting” position in terms of believing in God. But really, agnosticism is actually an admission that true knowledge of God is impossible. In that sense, most believers are forced to resort to agnosticism at some point, because by their own admission, the true nature of God is beyond human understanding.So you don’t believe in God, but you also don’t know if He exists or not?
Sounds more agnostic than atheist to me.
It’s ‘weak atheism’, which is basically strong agnosticism with ‘no evidence yet, no reason to act like there is’ added. Strong atheism is faith in God’s non-existence. Don’t let the name fool you – weak atheism is by far the more rational position.So you don’t believe in God, but you also don’t know if He exists or not?
Sounds more agnostic than atheist to me.
I don’t particularly care for the term “weak atheism”. It makes me feel like I need to hang out at a gym.It’s ‘weak atheism’, which is basically strong agnosticism with ‘no evidence yet, no reason to act like there is’ added. Strong atheism is faith in God’s non-existence. Don’t let the name fool you – weak atheism is by far the more rational position.
I wouldn’t take that bet. For several reasons:Mirdath and MerryAtheist
Since you both seem to be not completely sure about the existence of God, how do you feel about Pascal’s Wager?
Utterly, irredeemably flawed. A piece of theological waste. A lapse of an otherwise great mind.Mirdath and MerryAtheist
Since you both seem to be not completely sure about the existence of God, how do you feel about Pascal’s Wager?
Now, tell us how you really feel.Utterly, irredeemably flawed. A piece of theological waste. A lapse of an otherwise great mind.
First, it assumes that the postulated deity has any interest in humanity.
Second, it assumes that the deity will damn anyone who does not believe in it to eternal punishment and denies the Catholic belief of baptism of desire, whereby those who do not know God may still be saved.
Third, it ignores the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of ways to believe, each different, many mutually exclusive, and leaves the gambler to play religious roulette.
Fourth, of that myriad of possible religions, it ignores the fact that many don’t even believe in a hell. If Zoroaster or the Unitarian Universalists are right, I don’t even have to bother to profess belief.
Fifth, it again contradicts Catholic teaching by stating that mere belief assures salvation.
Sixth, as MerryAtheist noted and I forgot, a true deity will see one who takes the gamble and merely lip-synchs the prayers for what he or she really is. It offers no proof of God, merely an encouragement to say one believes.
The Wager is illogical, un-Catholic, vague, and altogether a hopeless wreck of philosophy. For some reason I always see it brought up in a ‘well, why not take it? What do you have to lose?’ way, managing to ineffectively impugn my philosophical stance and make an utter fool out of the questioner at the same time. It’s worthless. Stop pretending it isn’t.
I honestly don’t know. Mere belief would probably be easier; I have little problem imagining myself believing in some concepts of the divine, there’s merely the gap between divine and human that remains to be crossed. I can’t jump it.Seriously though, what would it take for you to believe? What kind of proof would you require to believe the claims of the Church?
God would have to personally appear to me and prove that he was, in fact, God. Then, I’d ask him which religion was the true one (if any). If he said Catholicism, my *** would be in Church every single day.Seriously though, what would it take for you to believe? What kind of proof would you require to believe the claims of the Church?