Misused labels of Atheist and Atheism

[Pup7]

That wasn’t my question. You told me it can’t be tested, and I’m fine with your belief on that.

I told you, I’m not here to convince you of anything. I’m just pointing out that everything in life takes faith - including believing what you believe. Faith isn’t a dirty word. It’s what gets us out of bed in the morning (we have faith we’ll make it through the day, otherwise we’d never make advance plans), it’s what gets us into bed at night (we have faith we’ll wake up in the morning to carry out the plans we made the day before). It’s what gets you on the road (you have faith you’ll make it to Target - although sometimes here on I-5 I have my doubts on that, LOL) and what gets you home (you have faith you’ll make it back).

Whole books have been written on the subject; I pointed out a very good one. Faith isn’t just religious - it’s secular, otherwise you’re in despair hiding in your room and afraid to come out for fear the worst may happen.

If you’re not a reader, there’s a movie version of “The Case For Christ” on Netflix, chock full of the stats and details from the book. It’s pretty compelling stuff, and no need for me to rehash it here. That’s not said to convince you of anything - just that you might find it interesting, if only to dispute it.

 

[laylow]

That wasn’t my question. You told me it can’t be tested, and I’m fine with your belief on that.

I told you, I’m not here to convince you of anything. I’m just pointing out that everything in life takes faith - including believing what you believe. Faith isn’t a dirty word. It’s what gets us out of bed in the morning (we have faith we’ll make it through the day, otherwise we’d never make advance plans), it’s what gets us into bed at night (we have faith we’ll wake up in the morning to carry out the plans we made the day before). It’s what gets you on the road (you have faith you’ll make it to Target - although sometimes here on I-5 I have my doubts on that, LOL) and what gets you home (you have faith you’ll make it back).

Whole books have been written on this subject; I pointed out a very good one.

Feel free not to completely dodge the question. I merely pointed out that I feel you misused the word faith. It sounded essentially like you were proposing that a lack of faith takes faith, which doesn’t make logical sense. I’m not trying to convince you either.

Yes, most people have faith in waking up the next morning, because the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of that outcome.

Having faith in supernatural intervention paints a much drearier picture. But if it can be tested to be true, there will be many converts.

For instance, give me 200 stage 4 cancer patients. One hundred of them will pray and have others pray for them, the other hundred will not pray and have no one else pray for them. If the side of prayer has a much higher response rate then the other side, then we can organize a larger study to test the findings further. This is how science works. If there is no discrepancy, the rationalist is going to assume that prayer had no impact on the cure rates. Just as you would not take medicine with no proven efficacy, there would be no reason to pray either.

This is how many atheists think. They do not have faith they are right, they just see no reason to think that are not. They have a lack of confidence (faith) that the theist claims are true. The burden of proof belongs to those making the claims without empirical backing.

 

[Pup7]

Feel free not to completely dodge the question. I merely pointed out that I feel you misused the word faith. It sounded essentially like you were proposing that a lack of faith takes faith, which doesn’t make logical sense. I’m not trying to convince you either.

LOL I’m not dodging the question. Why answer when you can go investigate it yourself, and when it’s been hashed out all over this board (and I need to go to work anyway)?

It does take faith.

If I’m wrong I lose nothing by believing in God. If you’re wrong, you lose everything. I’d rather be my wrong to be honest. I’ve done myself no harm by believing in something that when I die I find out isn’t real (or I just die, in which case I won’t know a thing anyway, and it won’t matter one way or the other).

Like I said, you can read the book or go watch the movie if you want.

 

[laylow]

If I’m wrong I lose nothing by believing in God. If you’re wrong, you lose everything.

I totally disagree with this.

God could exist and not fit into any of the religions’ portrayal of him. For instance, he may not place any weight into believing in him whatsoever. Also, your religion could be totally wrong and god may punish you for believing in the totally immoral idea of scapegoating via vicarious redemption and believing that a human was god. Not only god, but his son.

God may exist and be upset with existing religions mistreatment of homosexuals. He may object to human’s suggestion that he would punish people with everlasting torments.

You see this is just a tip of the iceberg. I prefer to judge morality from my experiences not something that was written in an ancient book. If God’s morality is not one that I can understand, then being punished for disagreeing with it due to lack of evidence would be illogical. For this reason, I believe my stance to be the “safer” option.

 

[Pup7]

I actually don’t care if you agree or not.

If I’m wrong, I lose nothing - even if what you contend about God is accurate, I’ve still lost nothing by believing otherwise my entire life (well, most of it - I went through a “no God” phase myself). But if you’re wrong, and we’re correct, you lose everything.

God could exist and not fit into any of the religions’ portrayal of him. For instance, he may not place any weight into believing in him whatsoever. Also, your religion could be totally wrong and god may punish you for believing in the totally immoral idea of scapegoating via vicarious redemption and believing that a human was god. Not only god, but his son.

As I said, you’re free to believe as you like.

You see this is just a tip of the iceberg. I prefer to judge morality from my experiences not something that was written in an ancient book. If God’s morality is not one that I can understand, then being punished for disagreeing with it due to lack of evidence would be illogical. For this reason, I believe my stance to be the “safer” option.

I actually don’t see this as the “tip of the iceberg” in the least, and can’t imagine how you can draw such a conclusion from four or five posts.

So by taking that stance, you’re going on faith that your stance is the “safer” option. You’re tossing in phrases now that pretty much solidify that…‘I believe’, ‘if God’s morality is one that I can understand’…faith, my friend, and that’s where I’ll leave it.

Have a blessed day.

 

[niceatheist]

Of course, point taken that atheists are persons and one does not represent all.
I am addressing the core system of belief.

There’s your first mistake. Atheism isn’t a religion, there are no creeds or system of beliefs. The closest you can get are humanist societies, but that’s like claiming that supporters of a baseball team are practicing a religion.

At its core, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods in general. There are certainly different formulations, ranging from an almost agnostic type of atheism (the existence of God is unknowable so on the balance it seems unlikely there is a god) all the way to the much more strident position (there are no gods at all).

 

[niceatheist]

This is basically Pascal’s Wager. If there is a God and you answerable in the afterlife for your belief, would you think telling God that you believed in him just to be safe, that that would play out better than an atheist saying “I lacked belief”?

 

[laylow]

If I’m wrong, I lose nothing - even if what you contend about God is accurate, I’ve still lost nothing by believing otherwise my entire life

No, I actually proposed an idea that God may punish you for believing that a human is his son.

So by taking that stance, you’re going on faith that your stance is the “safer” option. You’re tossing in phrases now that pretty much solidify that…‘I believe’, ‘if God’s morality is one that I can understand’…faith, my friend, and that’s where I’ll leave it.

Ah, but I prefaced all of that with an “if.” IF you wish to call it faith, have it your way. Believing something in spite of bad evidence can’t be called the same term and believing something based on the evidence presented, since they are opposite ideas of each other.

 

[Pup7]

This is basically Pascal’s Wager. If there is a God and you answerable in the afterlife for your belief, would you think telling God that you believed in him just to be safe, that that would play out better than an atheist saying “I lacked belief”?

I’m not believing in God to be safe. I’m believing in God because I believe he is real. There’s no safety net in it for me - I believe it’s real.

 

[Pup7]

Ah, but I prefaced all of that with an “if.” IF you wish to call it faith, have it your way. Believing something in spite of bad evidence can’t be called the same term and believing something based on the evidence presented, since they are opposite ideas of each other.

But I don’t feel it’s bad evidence in the least. That’s what you’re telling me it is, but I don’t buy that.

No, I actually proposed an idea that God may punish you for believing that a human is his son.

But I’ve still lost nothing, because if I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. It makes no difference what I believed or didn’t believe.

Ah, but I prefaced all of that with an “if.” IF you wish to call it faith, have it your way.

Think about that “if”, though.

 

[niceatheist]

I certainly didn’t mean to imply your faith was a gambit. But the fact remains that Pascal’s Wager is probably the weakest argument for God’s existence.

 

[Pup7]

It wasn’t an argument for God’s existence in the least. It was merely a statement.

It’s of no consequence to me whether folks believe or not. I just find it interesting how so many insist that not believing doesn’t take faith that you’re in the right - because it does. It’s not a religious word at all. I think a bit too much in that regard is tied to it.

 

[laylow]

But I don’t feel it’s bad evidence in the least. That’s what you’re telling me it is, but I don’t buy that.

You’re twisting my statement. I’m saying there must be a term for believing something without good proof, which is definition of faith in number 2. There must then be another term for believing something due to poof or good proof. I don’t care which side you fall on, there must be differentiating terms for those 2 ideas. Calling them both faith defines the word in a much too broad sense. It doesn’t capture the essence of reality. Answer this question, can one word (faith) define both of those ideas I just stated?

But I’ve still lost nothing, because if I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. It makes no difference what I believed or didn’t believe.

Then why would you propose that it matters if someone does not believe in god?

Think about that “if”, though.

I’m always thinking. I don’t propose to have the answer like the religions do.

 

[Pup7]

Then why would you propose that it matters if someone does not believe in god?

When did I say what you believe matters to me? It really doesn’t. My point is to have your beliefs takes faith just as mine do.

I’m always thinking. I don’t propose to have the answer like the religions do.

I think as well. All the time. Because many, many times what I believe gets tested.

You’re twisting my statement.

I’m not, though. You said this:

Believing something in spite of bad evidence can’t be called the same term and believing something based on the evidence presented, since they are opposite ideas of each other.

…which certainly seemed to be directed at me, and I don’t believe evidence for God is bad.

I’m saying there must be a term for believing something without good proof, which is definition of faith in number 2. There must then be another term for believing something due to poof or good proof. I don’t care which side you fall on, there must be differentiating terms for those 2 ideas. Calling them both faith defines the word in a much too broad sense. It doesn’t capture the essence of reality. Answer this question, can one word (faith) define both of those ideas I just stated?

Yes. Because faith defined is this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If you have complete trust in your atheism, it’s the same as me having complete trust in the opposite. And both are okay.

 

[laylow]

When did I say what you believe matters to me? It really doesn’t.

Not talking about you. You suggested that if someone doesn’t not believe, they’ve lost everything. Why would that be the case?

…which certainly seemed to be directed at me, and I don’t believe evidence for God is bad.

No actually it wasn’t. I am trying to understand how a term can mean two opposite ideas at the same time.

If you have complete trust in your atheism, it’s the same as me having complete trust in the opposite. And both are okay.

I do not have complete trust in atheism, because as the old adage goes, atheism is not a belief. And I only have trust in the empirical. The lack of existence of a god cannot be proven (at least not at this time). Therefore, my lack of “belief” of something not proven to exist is just that. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If I claim God exists and he hates all Americans. Or God exists and he will only grant eternal life to people who die of cancer. The burden of proof lies with me to convince people I am right. You are not going to go saying you are not a believer in “that” god, because you see no need to. I see no need to say I’m a nonbeliever in the Christian god, other then the present political ramifications that such belief has in our world.

 

[Pup7]

How atheism isn’t a belief I have no idea, but it’s a favored stance of a lot of proclaimed atheists, and it makes absolutely no sense.

If you have a trust that any of this is true:

And I only have trust in the empirical. The lack of existence of a god cannot be proven (at least not at this time). Therefore, my lack of “belief” of something not proven to exist is just that. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If I claim God exists and he hates all Americans. Or God exists and he will only grant eternal life to people who die of cancer. The burden of proof lies with me to convince people I am right. You are not going to go saying you are not a believer in “that” god, because you see no need to. I see no need to say I’m a nonbeliever in the Christian god, other then the present political ramifications that such belief has in our world.

…then you believe it. LOL.

I’m done here, because to me, claiming something you think is true isn’t a belief is, well, a bit ridiculous, and is where atheists who say that lose credibility with me. That’s no disrespect toward you, just that the concept that something one thinks isn’t a belief by definition is a bit much.

 

[laylow]

I’m done here, because to me, claiming something you think is true isn’t a belief is, well, a bit ridiculous, and is where atheists who say that lose credibility with me.

Can you explain this further, because I am truly interested why there would be a loss of credibility?

 

[Pup7]

Thinking you’re right is having a belief in something. I can’t see how you can say you don’t believe that (no pun intended.) To say otherwise is just blatant disregard for basic definitions of words.

 

[laylow]

Thinking you’re right is having a belief in something. I can’t see how you can say you don’t believe that (no pun intended.)

So when you don’t think that unicorns or leprechauns exist, you would feel the need to declare that as a belief?

 

[Pup7]

Yes, because by definition it is. I have a belief that that stuff is fantasy. I accept that that is true.

You’re tying way too much to these words. I believe the sky is blue because I can see it. I believe that my car is white because it is (well, at least it is by what we’ve all defined “white” to be). I believe my mom loves me because she says she does. I believe I will get paid because I still have a job (and because Congress passed a budget, LOL).

You’re just attempting to rewrite the dictionary because you have some sort of sensitivity when it comes to the word “belief”.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)