It is possible to oppose a school of thought without attacking people on a personal level. Clearly I do not share your world view but I would never dream of using that as a rational for drawing conclusions about your over all nature. I will however add that IMHO tolerance is a requirement for being a good person.
But they are critically different in that one requires the belief in a god and the other does not. As far as I am concerned my heart is a muscle that pumps bloodI find that amazing. You have no internal dialogue at all?
Self affirmation and prayer are very much similar concepts.
Praying in many ways is communication with the “God” within us. According to all religious tradition and Scripture, God is to be found in the human heart, and it’s that internal dialogue that powers our actions and decisions and gives sustenance, courage and resilience.
.
This is spot on with an atheist I used to work with. Nicest, most caring and generous guy you’d ever meet. Bring up religion, in particular Christianity, and he would flip out. He mentioned to me that he was forced to attend some sort of Baptist private school as a child growing up. He told me that everyone was seething with hypocrisy and the wanton gossip made him sick to be around everyone. That environment combined with some Richard Dawkins book and boom! Instant atheist.
I do not believe that there is no god, that is not how the burden of proof works. I am an agnostic atheist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
I am no sure I follow you, but if you are talking about altruism then evolutionary phycology explains it perfectly. Also I do not agree that something completely mechanical is not capable of making free choices. Chaos theory shows that unpredictable outcomes can arise from fixed systems.
I allow for the slim possibility that there might be a creative force that crafted the universe.
that is not what an atheist is… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
I don’t see how one can split hairs. For example, one is either a “deist” or one is not. It is logically absurd to say, “I believe there is a God, but doubt whether he exists or not.”
yes that would be absurd because both of those are positions regarding belief, that is not the case with agnostic and atheist where one is in regard to knowledge and the other is in regard to belief.
So an “agnostic atheist” believes absolutely that there is no God (atheist) while at the same time admitting the possibility, however doubtful, that there may indeed be a God (agnostic). And you don’t find that ilogical?
I told you so because I am the one posting here on this thread. Would you like to hear from others?
Yes but the other requires a belief in a hope that when one talks to oneself, the body physiologically will respond. When one internally says “Come on John, show some courage…” there is a belief that your actions will actually follow, or that a situation which was at one stage exposing your lack of courage actually showed you to in fact, have courage.
You know what I meanAs far as I am concerned my heart is a muscle that pumps blood
No as I explained that is not what an atheist is. Read the link.
The fact you are telling me means it is anecdotal
.There is nothing faith based about the placebo effect or mental encouragement.Yes but the other requires a belief in a hope that when one talks to oneself, the body physiologically will respond. When one internally says “Come on John, show some courage…” there is a belief that your actions will actually follow, or that a situation which was at one stage exposing your lack of courage actually showed you to in fact, have courage.
Both rely on an unsubstantiated belief…nay dare I say it, faith…
You know what I mean
.
Why don’t you explain, for the benefit of all here, what an “atheist” is and what an “agnostic” is, and how one can be both at the same time.
A link is not an explanation. Can you put it in your own words?
In dividing belief from knowledge, atheists often allow themselves the ability to gauge one another’s specific outlooks. It is perhaps more absurd to the theist who, as you have already mentioned, would be hard-pressed to explain a belief in a given god that they paradoxically doubt to exist (although I have encountered one who claimed this very stance), but for the atheist it is often helpful as it delivers more insight into the degree or direction of the given atheist so described. Thus as an agnostic-weak-atheist I claim only to be aware that I currently (and may forever) lack sufficient knowledge to make a definitive statement with regards to the existence of a god or gods, but as a weak atheist I have made a conscious decision to assess the limited information that I have to this point acquired in a direction that leads me to lack a belief in such a thing. Essentially, in an effort to distinguish myself from a strong, positive (or militant) atheist, I am declaring:
Gnostic and Agnostic are positions regarding knowledge.