|
subjeremy2 -> RE: What do you think of Aetheists? (11/20/2010 5:36:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hard2handle1
quote:
ORIGINAL: hertz
quote:
ORIGINAL: hard2handle1
Atheists don't, usually, have an active belief that god doesn't exist, they just don't believe in the existence of gods.
I think this may be false. Making the claim 'I am an Atheist' is an active proclamation of one's lack of belief in a deity.
Um, yes. Isn't that what I said? See the bit after the comma, that's the bit. The active claim is not 'I believe gods don't exist', it is 'I don't believe that gods exist.'.
To believe that gods don't exist requires definite evidence and many atheists will be unhappy making such a definite statement without good supporting evidence. To not believe in the existence of a thing for which there is no evidence, or poor evidence, is far more eaily supported.
There seems to be some trouble understanding the difference between believing a thing doesn't exist and not believing it does.
Saying 'I am an atheist' is more a statement than a claim. I am quite comfortable claiming that most atheists don't hold a belief in the non existence of god, rather they just don't hold a belief in his existence. I'm not sure how many different ways I can put it.
quote:
One might easily be an Atheist and say nothing about it at all - this, I would think of as an inactive lack of belief in a deity, which is what you are describing. I would therefore argue that any Atheist who participates in a discussion about the existence or not of a deity is, by definition, actively Atheist.
There can surely be no doubt that being an Atheist can be, and usually is, as active an activity as being a Christian or a Muslim or whatever, although I accept that atheists who disbelieve in a inactive way can exist. Incidently, I would argue that the opposite cannot be true, since the belief in a Deity always implies active participation. Unless someone has a better idea?
It's a bit of a stretch to claim that just because an atheist is 'active' that his view must be an active belief that gods don't exist. Surely he can actively promote his claim that there is no evidence for gods and give his reasons.
quote:
Why is this important? Because the subtle disbelief in a deity seems to be quite rare nowadays. More often, disbelief is accompanied by an active and extreme prejudice against people of faith, an unquenchable desire to 'prove' the believer to be some sort of dullard, and an almost irrational hatred of established religion. I am an atheist, but it pisses me off that my fellow atheists are generally a pretty bigoted bunch.
From what you have said I assume that you are an atheist who believes god dosen't exist. that's a pretty strong position to hold. How do you justify that?
Unfortunately the atheist/theist argument is almost bound to lead to attacks on the intelligence of the theists.
Your average theist is a normally logical creature in most aspects of their life. When they switch on a light they don't think that there is a fairy inside the bulb making it glow, they know about electricity. When they drive a car they understand, to a greater or lesser degree, the workings of the IC engine. When they fly in a 'plane they know it is Bernoulli and not magic that keeps it aloft. They would look at people who disagreed as if they were mad or stupid.
But when it comes to religion the same average theist wants to move the argument outside of the realm of reason, science and logic and make it a special case. Just like the guy who claims that Tinkerbell's glowing aura lights his home.
Recent research on how the brain works is suggesting that our minds are very divided and compartmentalised*. It is that attribute which allows us to hold conflicting ideas. It may go some way to explaining the way obviously intelligent people can square just one particular illogical and unreasonable idea with their normal reasonable intelligence and reason.
*last week's New Scientist has the article and the cite for the original paper
I don't know if you have ever heard of Occam's razor, basically put it says that given two explanations for something the simplest is the most likely to be correct
sp you have two competing ideas or explanations for life, the universe, and everything. the first is that it just happened, the second is that it happened because some all powerful all knowing sky fairy created everything over a pretty busy week, then got pissed of when the people he created didn't turn out as he wanted and he is now having a monumental hissy fit and he won't talk to you unless you like his son. I know which one is the simplest.
|
|
|
|
