Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Great Religious Debate of 2017
Topic Started: Jul 28 2017, 01:49 PM (13,391 Views)
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

But if we convert Atheism to other topics, it's always the natural position. Let me put it this way;

Completely disregard Religion. Consider Science, or technology. Somebody makes a lofty claim. Do you just accept it? Or do you not believe them, but leave yourself open to them proving it with evidence?

Rather than a philosophical concept, the core of Atheism is logical and natural.
Edited by Yu Narukami, Aug 22 2017, 11:22 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


You presume too much. Atheism does not mean the scientific method. An atheist could very well believe in things like a flat earth or lizard people in the government. Atheism means incredibly little about a person's personality other than disbelieving in a higher power as a faith. Within the context of faith and atheism, this comparison is entirely useless because faith is about, well, faith. Faith by nature is supported by itself, theology and science are not the same thing.

Atheism is simply having no faith in a higher power and it supports itself by said faith in such a belief. It stands on its own and is hardly just the "default" position when one considers that a belief in a higher power is an argument of philosophy and whether or not it would or could be possible. Don't fall for the whig history. When it comes to faith, it's all going to inherently be like this.
Edited by lazerbem, Aug 23 2017, 12:40 AM.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


Are you trying to say that atheism is rooted in faith? That's false. Drew is right in saying that atheism is the default position. It requires faith in nothing to be an atheist. If religion didn't exist, everyone would be an atheist. Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god. It is a state of not believing the claims put forward by religious groups. It requires no faith to take such a default position.

I've also noticed some confusion in this thread as to what exactly "agnostic" or "agnostic atheist" mean.

"I am agnostic" tells us absolutely nothing about your stance or opinion. It simply means "without knowledge." A true agnostic would be someone who doesn't care either way whether a god exists and has absolutely no opinion on the matter. He/she wouldn't disbelieve the claims put forward by theists, nor would he/she put forward any claims of his/her own. I have yet to meet a true agnostic, but I've met lots of people who use the term incorrectly.

Agnostic atheist is your standard atheist: a person who does not accept the claims put forward by religion and believes that a god does not exist until proven otherwise.

Taking this a step further, a gnostic atheist would be someone who asserts that god does not exist, while also asserting that his/her claims are the one truth. It is a much bolder position, and it is one I have not yet seen argued for in this thread.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
Are you trying to say that atheism is rooted in faith?

Correct. It is a faith that there is no higher power in the cosmology, that there is just what you can observe and that is the end of it. It's not just insta-brew for logic.
Quote:
 
It requires faith in nothing to be an atheist

And that is still a faith nonetheless.
Quote:
 
If religion didn't exist, everyone would be an atheist.

That's a very silly thing to assert. You could say that about anything really, if nothing existed except that one thing then that one thing would be the only option available.
Quote:
 
Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god. It is a state of not believing the claims put forward by religious groups

Reaction can still be a faith.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


Quote:
 
Correct. It is a faith that there is no higher power in the cosmology, that there is just what you can observe and that is the end of it. It's not just insta-brew for logic.

How is it faith to believe that there probably isn't a higher power when religion was made by man? Before religion was created, was it still "faith" to believe that there wasn't a higher power? It sounds like you're trying to twist this to fit your own agenda.

It doesn't require faith to disbelieve something. Do you have faith that unicorns don't exist? What about aliens? Is a person who doesn't believe in aliens "having faith" in that position? I suppose I could turn this into an argument over semantics and ask what you even mean by "faith" since there are several different definitions that could be applied here depending on how stupid we want this conversation to become.

Believing that Santa exists. Is that... faith?

Quote:
 
That's a very silly thing to assert. You could say that about anything really, if nothing existed except that one thing then that one thing would be the only option available.

How is it silly to assert that, without religion, we would all be atheists? Without religion, why would anyone believe in a deity? Even the oldest gods, the pagan gods, were rooted in religion. Do you know of a deity that has absolutely nothing to do with a religion? You're brewing up some pretty flawed logic here.

Why do you set about convincing yourself and others that atheism is a faith when it isn't? What does that accomplish exactly? There has to be some personal agenda here or you wouldn't be twisting terms like this. I've seen you do it in other threads too. As long as something fits together in your mind, even if you mixed it up and twisted it to appear that way, it is 100% the accurate truth and no one can ever dispute that--not once its embedded in your brain, no matter how flawed or contrary to reality it may be.
Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Aug 23 2017, 09:47 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daemon Keido
Member Avatar
Warmaster of Chaos

You are mistaking spiritualism for religion. Religion is merely an organized spiritual faith. Without religion, faith can still be had. Without religion, atheism is not neccessarily the only outcome.
Edited by Daemon Keido, Aug 23 2017, 10:02 PM.
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light


Posted Image

Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig!

The Emperor Protects
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


Regarding faith, theism, spirituality, and atheism, I would actually like to go one step further.

Science also begins from a place of faith, it is faith that the shoulders on which you stand on are correct, that the works of which your understanding of the world is based are correct. As an example, it's like believing that the planet is round, or that it's gravity pulling you to the ground and not say, that the Earth is moving upwards at a set speed, etc. Science doesn't use it in the same way religion or atheism does but it does use it all the same, else we'd just be retesting theories all the time (and admittedly I imagine plenty of that is also done).
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


I never said it was the only other outcome. I said it was the default position. Not believing in anything has always been the default position, and not all default positions are correct.

For example, it would be a default position to think that Santa Claus isn't real. The only reason we believe it as children is because our parents spoonfeed it to us.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


Overly Facetious Goblin
Aug 23 2017, 10:26 PM
I never said it was the only other outcome. I said it was the default position. Not believing in anything has always been the default position, and not all default positions are correct.

For example, it would be a default position to think that Santa Claus isn't real. The only reason we believe it as children is because our parents spoonfeed it to us.
I'm not sure about that to be honest, a specific mythological figure is a bit of a leap but something like say...

Something being lucky or unlucky?
The feeling that these beings have their own awareness i.e. "the winds are angry"?

Simple things like that are arguably spiritual, and while one can argue that there is complete nonbelief at birth like a baby has, applying human characteristics to non-human forces, or saying something is lucky or unlucky (with no actual proof that it's lucky or not a la a lucky shirt or a lucky number). I would say is quite natural and I imagine how is how many religions started in the far far off past. They're applying human characteristics to the forces of nature, whether the sea be angry or the volcano be vengeful. In that sense I would argue that a broad spirituality that will personify and humanize the forces of nature and probability is actually the default position to take, and that stepping back and saying "these forces have no human mind or characteristics and are ultimately just wind/volcano/water/etc." is something of an 'unnatural' stance for someone to take (though not an unreasonable or unenlightened one by any means).
Edited by Tinny, Aug 23 2017, 10:48 PM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


Since you all seem fond of drawing false equivalencies between atheism, science, and faith, what does "faith" actually mean?
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

What exactly is 'faith' in the context of what you're talking about?

Do I have to have 'faith' that breathing is a involuntary natural process where my body intakes oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide? The way you're using faith, it sounds like it's required for every aspect of our life, no matter how trivial or minuscule, so it'd be a moot point entirely.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Yeah I can see the spiritual stuff there, people have a habit of attributing human characteristics to...just about everything. Not a day goes by where I don't see a picture or a video about an animal "smiling" when really...it's face is just that shape...


But atheism is definitely nothing to do with faith by default, if you spawned many children on an island they would have no reason to believe in any sort of God until one coined the concept and made it believable.
I guess you could argue it's somewhat faith after you're introduced to the concept of God/religion? At that point you could say one holds their faith in science and/or what they deem logical.

I do think it's kind of a pointless word to use though, it makes it sound like Atheists go to bed at night and pray that God doesn't exist or something.

Quote:
 
Science also begins from a place of faith, it is faith that the shoulders on which you stand on are correct, that the works of which your understanding of the world is based are correct. As an example, it's like believing that the planet is round, or that it's gravity pulling you to the ground and not say, that the Earth is moving upwards at a set speed, etc. Science doesn't use it in the same way religion or atheism does but it does use it all the same, else we'd just be retesting theories all the time


These things are demonstrably true though so I wouldn't really label that faith, I don't think many people hear much in the way of science and instantly believe it unless they're conspiracy theorists or similarly gullible.

If one person who's vaguely a scientist says anything about chemtrails thousands of people will preach it like it's gospel but most people will question it, look for other studies and opinions on the matter.

Not so much faith as it is compounded knowledge filtered out to find the truth.
Interestingly people will splinter off in to different groups like a religion though...with science they're usually clearly wrong though so I guess that's why it's on a lesser scale. Chem trails are water vapour dammit.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


Overly Facetious Goblin
Aug 23 2017, 10:49 PM
Since you all seem fond of drawing false equivalencies between atheism, science, and faith, what does "faith" actually mean?


Yu Narukami
Aug 23 2017, 10:49 PM
What exactly is 'faith' in the context of what you're talking about?

Do I have to have 'faith' that breathing is a involuntary natural process where my body intakes oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide? The way you're using faith, it sounds like it's required for every aspect of our life, no matter how trivial or minuscule, so it'd be a moot point entirely.



In regards to the oxygen and carbon dioxide I would say so if you haven't actually proven for yourself that your body needs oxygen and carbon dioxide specifically.As for what religion means I'm going with "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." the definition dealing specifically with religion can more or less be summed up as faith in the bible and your religious figures without bringing in the belief in god without proof.

As for how this applies to how science, theism, and atheism, it's basically people believing without proof (testing in front of their own eyes) that gravity exists, or that the Earth is round, much in the same way a theist believes in the religion of their choice. The largest difference between science and religion (both in regards to belief and nonbelief) I'd draw is that science uses faith as a starting point and goes from there "gravity exists, so let's perform experiments with the assumption that gravity exists." where as religious belief more or less begins and ends with faith, either in the existence of god/gods/spirits/etc. or the absence thereof.

Quote:
 
These things are demonstrably true though so I wouldn't really label that faith, I don't think many people hear much in the way of science and instantly believe it unless they're conspiracy theorists or similarly gullible.

If one person who's vaguely a scientist says anything about chemtrails thousands of people will preach it like it's gospel but most people will question it, look for other studies and opinions on the matter.

Not so much faith as it is compounded knowledge filtered out to find the truth.
Interestingly people will splinter off in to different groups like a religion though...with science they're usually clearly wrong though so I guess that's why it's on a lesser scale. Chem trails are water vapour dammit.


Well as an example of faith in science, you haven't checked to see that it is water vapor right? You took someone's word for it that it's water vapor without testing it yourself, (for the record, I also believe that the "chem trails" are just water vapor and that the people who don't believe this are... well conspiracy theorists) that is faith. Faith in the scientists and the government or whoever who writes or says that the trails are fake. Science is a lot more likely to change it's views depending on new evidence, but future scientists and future experiments will be held while having faith in that new standard. They are demonstrably true, but we haven't exactly gone out to demonstrate it, so it's ultimately faith that we know these things are how they are.
Edited by Tinny, Aug 23 2017, 11:01 PM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
if you spawned many children on an island they would have no reason to believe in any sort of God until one coined the concept and made it believable.
I guess you could argue it's somewhat faith after you're introduced to the concept of God/religion? At that point you could say one holds their faith in science and/or what they deem logical.

If they are just living out their lives on the island and their lives are too busy to have time to think on the "whys" of life, it's hardly fair. If these people are put into a circle and asked how and why, if they have to philosophize and think over any question, then I think you'd probably find a lot of variety in how each of them would think of the world and its existence.

It is incredibly human to ponder and think about the world around them if they have free time for that. They'll find a way to explain their existence as best they can, and this is their faith.

Also, I feel that people here are just assuming that science is just some monolithic entity. The western school of science popular across the world right now is one such branch, but there were other ways of thinking too. It is by no means the only scientific type of thought that the world has known.
Edited by lazerbem, Aug 23 2017, 11:01 PM.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

Tinny
Aug 23 2017, 10:56 PM
Overly Facetious Goblin
Aug 23 2017, 10:49 PM
Since you all seem fond of drawing false equivalencies between atheism, science, and faith, what does "faith" actually mean?


Yu Narukami
Aug 23 2017, 10:49 PM
What exactly is 'faith' in the context of what you're talking about?

Do I have to have 'faith' that breathing is a involuntary natural process where my body intakes oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide? The way you're using faith, it sounds like it's required for every aspect of our life, no matter how trivial or minuscule, so it'd be a moot point entirely.



In regards to the oxygen and carbon dioxide I would say so if you haven't actually proven for yourself that your body needs oxygen and carbon dioxide specifically.As for what religion means I'm going with "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." the definition dealing specifically with religion can more or less be summed up as faith in the bible and your religious figures without bringing in the belief in god without proof.

As for how this applies to how science, theism, and atheism, it's basically people believing without proof (testing in front of their own eyes) that gravity exists, or that the Earth is round, much in the same way a theist believes in the religion of their choice. The largest difference between science and religion (both in regards to belief and nonbelief) I'd draw is that science uses faith as a starting point and goes from there "gravity exists, so let's perform experiments with the assumption that gravity exists." where as religious belief more or less begins and ends with faith, either in the existence of god/gods/spirits/etc. or the absence thereof.
In that case, what does that change? Everything requires some degree of faith, because you'd have to have faith in the scientists that have done the work and discovered things, so you'd need faith for every tiny aspect of your life. If we act on that assumption, and faith is a pre-requisite for everything, does that change anything?
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
0 users reading this topic
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Designed by McKee91