Why do Atheist/Unbelievers always clash heads with Christians?

[billvon 3,120]

>Atheism is not a disbelief; it is a lack of belief. There is a distinct
>difference between the two.

I'd say that a lack of belief would be consider agnosticism.

To use a concept from physics (I know, I'm crossing that evil barrier but stick with me a minute here:)

There is currently a many-worlds interpretation that derives from quantum physics. I won't get into the definition of that, but some physicists believe strongly that it's a valid interpretation. Some believe strongly that it is NOT a valid interpretation. Both of these sorts have a belief on the topic. In religious terms, these would be the theists and atheists.

Many physicists see it as an interesting alternative view of wave function collapse, but don't know if it's a real phenomena or just an interesting way to think about it. They may not even care. These people would be considered agniostic because they don't have a belief either way.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I'm with Shotgun on this. Atheism is a 'faith', with all the bells and whistles.

Whats the difference between disbelief in a supernatural story you have heard, and lack of belief in one you haven't heard?

Edit: I'm now beginning to think Billvon has supernatural powers...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I'm with Shotgun on this. Atheism is a 'faith', with all the bells and whistles.

Whats the difference between disbelief in a supernatural story you have heard, and lack of belief in one you haven't heard?

Edit: I'm now beginning to think Billvon has supernatural powers...

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

that's easy - but, I prefer to answer the question "sit" on the head of the pin rather than dance - but the methodology is similar

first measure the width of the pin head, determine the circumference of the head (assumed 'round') through simple trigonometry axioms - call this number A

then measure the width of a statistically significant number of angels and obtain the average butt width - call this B

be sure A and B are converted into similar units......

divide B into A and get a 'typ' answer

the activities are left as an exercise for the prof

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Whats the difference between disbelief in a supernatural story you have heard, and lack of belief in one you haven't heard?...

active disbelief promote zealotry and emotional converts

lack of belief promotes apathy, if that

watch the posts and you can make your own assessment on who's really identifying themselves accurately....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,120]

>How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I'd do that experimentally.

Take, say, 100 angels. Crush them down to the size of a pinhead with a hydraulic press. Place them on the pinhead. Observe if they dance. If they do, then increase the number of angels you crush down in the next experiment. If they don't seem to be dancing, then reduce the number of angels crushed. When you discover that N angels seem to be dancing (or at least hopping) but N+1 angels don't dance, you have your answer.

I suppose the usefulness of that experiment would depend on the number of angels available, and I'd expect certain people to object to this sort of use of angels. But if you use angels only from defunct religions (there are a lot of them!) you shouldn't have a problem.

[rehmwa 2]

Alternatively, you could press out the pin head thinner and thinner in order to add an additional dancing angel

at some point the large pin surface would be too structurally damaged (or at least to thin) to hold an additional angel. This would also set a limit.

perhaps a combo - the smushed pinhead/crushed angel methodology

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Alternatively, you could press out the pin head thinner and thinner in order to add an additional dancing angel

at some point the large pin surface would be too structurally damaged (or at least to thin) to hold an additional angel. This would also set a limit.

perhaps a combo - the smushed pinhead/crushed angel methodology

Here's the empirical evidence. It's a field ion microscope image of a pinpoint at atomic resolution, and you can clearly see the wings of a single angel.

The angel seems to have a wingspan of about 15 atom diameters, which would make it around 25nm.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[unformed 0]

Did you know that when a baby is born the smell of its breath is what angels smell like?

This ad space for sale.

[CameraNewbie 0]

Quote

They don’t view that as an act of “faith”; they simply do not have a belief that those things exist, and that’s that.

That was a bit long winded but I'm with Andy908 on this one.

Is the definition of Atheism like one of those things that change with the times?

What do protesters want? Dead cops! When do they want it? Every 2 weeks!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

They don’t view that as an act of “faith”; they simply do not have a belief that those things exist, and that’s that.

That was a bit long winded but I'm with Andy908 on this one.

Is the definition of Atheism like one of those things that change with the times?

I am an atheist. I find it too improbable that a super being created the universe and then went off to hide. Say two mice. But my evidence is no better than the evidence being spouted by ID folks about how the eyeball is too complex to evolve on its own.

Therefore, you can only call it a belief, and that is faith.

Christians: there is a God. Faith.
Atheists: there is no god. Faith.
Agnostics: there may be a god. They're the ones that do not have a belief.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Whats the difference between disbelief in a supernatural story you have heard, and lack of belief in one you haven't heard?

My point.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Christians: there is a God. Faith.
Atheists: there is no god. Faith.
Agnostics: there may be a god. They're the ones that do not have a belief.

Atheist: “It would never occur to me to believe, or even consider believing, in the existence of a deity. I have heard that some people do believe in deities. My awareness of that fact does nothing to alter my state of mind, any more than the fact that many children believe in the Tooth Fairy does anything to alter my state of mind."

Lack of faith/belief.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Christians: there is a God. Faith.
Atheists: there is no god. Faith.
Agnostics: there may be a god. They're the ones that do not have a belief.

Atheist: “It would never occur to me to believe, or even consider believing, in the existence of a deity. I have heard that some people do believe in deities. My awareness of that fact does nothing to alter my state of mind, any more than the fact that many children believe in the Tooth Fairy does anything to alter my state of mind."

Lack of faith/belief.

Christian: It would never occur to me to believe, or even consider believing, in the nonexistence of God. I have heard that some people don't believe in deities. My awareness of that fact does nothing to alter my state of mind, any more than the fact that many children don't believe in the Tooth Fairy does anything to alter my state of mind."

Equally silly, and besides the point. You redefined the term to suit you.

[Andy9o8 2]

You're using the same circular logic that Shotgun did.
Non-belief in non-existence is belief in existence. And that's faith.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You're using the same circular logic that Shotgun did.
Non-belief in non-existence is belief in existence. And that's faith.

nonsense, if you never heard of the thing, nor considered it, you wouldn't be agnostic, atheist, nor agnostic, just gratefully oblivious of the subject (sounds pretty nice, huh?)

all three terms related to how people feel about the potential existence or not of any deity - since you're in the debate, then you are aware of the discussion

you can't claim an innocence based on ignorance, you are taking a stand because you are aware of the option - you're just playing the word game because you "believe" there really isn't any option.

This sentence itself "It would never occur to me to believe, or even consider believing, in the existence of a deity." is a complete contradiction

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

you can't claim an innocence based on ignorance, you are taking a stand because you are aware of the option - you're just playing the word game because you "believe" there really isn't any option.

Completely silly and, in case I hadn't said it before, circular. I stand by my posts.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Atheism is not a disbelief; it is a lack of belief.

Ah, you might want to write to the publishers of the American Heritage and Merriam-Webster's dictionaries and inform them that their definitions of atheism are wrong.

But if you say that your atheism is not based on faith, that's fine with me. I don't really care whether my none-of-the-abovism is based on faith, and I'm frustrated with the limitations of all these silly words anyway.

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm

Definition of Atheism and Atheists Today

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism.

With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.
Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god — if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite — a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Completely silly and, in case I hadn't said it before, circular. I stand by my posts.

That's fine. It's a win as long as we can at least understand the other's viewpoint. I get what you're saying, I just disagree. It's much better than just throwing your point out without trying to understand or calling it 'silly' or 'circular'.

but less fun

After all,

WHO are WE, to have differing opinions on these things?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

you can't claim an innocence based on ignorance, you are taking a stand because you are aware of the option - you're just playing the word game because you "believe" there really isn't any option.

And thats just the point isn't it? Once you've heard it you have to take a stand on any damn fool story that anyone makes up. I've told you about my pixie - have you made a stand that it does not exist (or do you never make up your mind about anything)?

For those of us that have never considered any organised religion to be any more plausible than that pixie then taking a stand and calling ourselves 'atheist' really doesn't take that much 'faith' at all.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[unformed 0]

Does your pixie assert its own existence?

Are you inspired by it?

What is the internal cohesiveness of this supposed pixie?

How any books has it written?

What morals has it taught you?

What is its stance on abortion, burritos, and the answer to everything?

I need to know these things before I can make an accurate decision....

This ad space for sale.

[jakee 1,596]

As long as it has a steady supply of German fetish porn it seems to be pretty easy going.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PeterB 0]

Ok pet peeve of mine. Why do otherwise educated and intelligent people keep on misusing the term agnosticism?

Agnosticism is not indicative of belief or non belief in god or gods. It's simply a belief in whether knowledge of whether such deities can be had.

As such you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities — is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable - from Wikipeda.

Lots of discussions follow this pattern:
A) I am not a theist.
B) But I am not an atheist.
C) Therefore I am an agnostic.

The flaw being that A + B = C is that C is tangential to A and B. C is a property that can be attached to A and B without modifying the inherent nature of A and B.

I know agnostic theists (a minority) and I know agnostic atheists (the majority of them).

Now I am oversimplifying things a bit here since there are various variants of agnosticism itself but the heart of the matter is that agnosticism is *not* necessarily absence of belief but merely belief in whether definite knowledge of the existence of gods can be attained.

[smiles 0]

Quote

absence of belief but merely belief in whether definite knowledge of the existence of gods can be attained.

I do not have definite knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a god. My insticts at this time are: that definite knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a god cannot be attained.


SMiles

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Atheism is defined as the disbelief in the existence of God, which is the same thing as belief in the non-existence of God. And that belief is not based on material evidence; therefore, it is faith.

Utter nonsense. A completely circular argument.

Atheism is not a disbelief; it is a lack of belief. There is a distinct difference between the two.

Your definition is like saying that my not believing that dragons exist in Middle Earth is a form of faith because, after all, I have no “evidence” that neither dragons nor Middle Earth exist; therefore, my “disbelief” in dragons or Middle Earth is an act of faith. Completely circular and invalid logic.

For some reason, people, even agnostics, take for granted that at least the possibility of God exists, and therefore it can only be rebutted with certainty with hard “evidence”; and if there is no hard evidence in rebuttal, then non-belief is an act of faith. And yet these same people have no difficulty in not believing in even the possibility of the existence of Middle Earth, or monsters (I mean real monsters) under my bed, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I mean a real monster, made of spaghetti, which flies, and is omniscient and omnipotent). They don’t view that as an act of “faith”; they simply do not have a belief that those things exist, and that’s that.

Put another way, the existence of a deity or deities is somehow accorded a superior possibility than any other human-contemplated, non-physical, non-corporeal concept. I think that’s intellectually dishonest, and I call bullshit on it. And that’s why atheism is neither a “faith” nor a “belief”.

I nominate this for post of the week. 10/10.