|
Post by matisse on Mar 25, 2014 21:18:01 GMT -5
matisse can you elaborate what exactly is a "soft" atheist. thanks The way I understand it is that a "soft" atheist does not believe in the existence of any deities but doesn't assert this belief as fact. There are a lot of variations on not believing in the existence of any deities. There are also a lot of different ways of expressing the variations. There is not a single list of terms that is universally accepted. This is from a Wikipedia article: Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]
The terms negative atheism and positive atheism were used by Antony Flew in 1976,[1] and appeared again in Michael Martin's writings in 1990
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 21:23:50 GMT -5
matisse can you elaborate what exactly is a "soft" atheist. thanks My experience has been that theists are much more interested in the fact that atheists do not believe in a deity or deities than atheists are interested in what theists believe.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 21:26:22 GMT -5
matisse can you elaborate what exactly is a "soft" atheist. thanks The way I understand it is that a "soft" atheist does not believe in the existence of any deities but doesn't assert this belief as fact. There are a lot of variations on not believing in the existence of any deities. There are also a lot of different ways of expressing the variations. There is not a single list of terms that is universally accepted. This is from a Wikipedia article: Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]
The terms negative atheism and positive atheism were used by Antony Flew in 1976,[1] and appeared again in Michael Martin's writings in 1990There seems to be some dancing around the facts to get to these definitions. It is almost like someone saying that they believe they will get wet standing in the rain but do not believe that rain is water.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 25, 2014 21:31:15 GMT -5
The way I understand it is that a "soft" atheist does not believe in the existence of any deities but doesn't assert this belief as fact. There are a lot of variations on not believing in the existence of any deities. There are also a lot of different ways of expressing the variations. There is not a single list of terms that is universally accepted. This is from a Wikipedia article: Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]
The terms negative atheism and positive atheism were used by Antony Flew in 1976,[1] and appeared again in Michael Martin's writings in 1990There seems to be some dancing around the facts to get to these definitions. It is almost like someone saying that they believe they will get wet standing in the rain but do not believe that rain is water. Which facts?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 25, 2014 21:34:31 GMT -5
quote-No, I am fond of theories that have some supporting proof and correctly predict ongoing discoveries.
Cool, that is also how Christians "believe". I suppose, it is natural, then that any theory we choose to be fond of, we will "look" for support to believe , and any theory we are not fond of, we will "discredit' to support our "unbelief"
quote- But I would not use an erroneous example over and over as an analogy to support my point.
I can understand why that analogy would not be supportive for someone who has "seen the wind", but can understand why it would work for someone who has not "seen the wind'.
Alvin
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 22:13:54 GMT -5
For me it's because I haven't seen any verifiable, repeatable evidence of the existence of a god or gods that I am agnostic. Maybe it makes me an atheist?? In any case, I still don't know. I think one can find considerable overlap among liberal Christians, agnostics and "soft" atheists. One word hardly seems adequate. If I can only use one word, I choose atheist - at least here on TMB. Two, and I would probably call myself an agnostic atheist. A few, and I might say I am a culturally Christian agnostic atheist. By then, why not just have a conversation! I think the one-word labels unnecessarily divide. I refuse to use the word "god" to describe my experience. IMO, humans need new words to communicate across differences of belief - a word or words that will work for everyone, including atheists. IMO, the word "god" gets in the way more than it helps. It divides more than it brings together. It has way too much baggage. Calling myself an atheist is at some level a kind of boycott of the word "god." Soft atheist. That sounds interesting. I agree with you, one word labels just can't start to define what a person really believes most of the time. I have a difficulty with the word 'god'. It has way to much sad and disturbing baggage for me. It is rather a useless word anyway because there are so many of them and so many definitions. The word is almost meaningless unless you also attach onto it your religion. I have no use for the Judeo/Christian or Muslim Gods. They are horrific imo. Some of the other religions have Gods that are less brutal and are easier to relate to. But in the end, they are myths that people have told to find the meaning of life. If some day an entity does appear and prove it's existence then I will be happy to meet them. Until then, they do not exist in my understanding of the term.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 22:17:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 22:18:11 GMT -5
your right GOD, meant there to be a division for his people from the world... Mat_10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Perfect! A god that divides humanity. Guess that's why he was the Hebrews god war.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 25, 2014 22:23:40 GMT -5
If some day an entity does appear and prove it's existence then I will be happy to meet them. Until then, they do not exist in my understanding of the term. snow, when the entity(God/Jesus) appears it will be too late to happily meet them... Only for Christians. You believe in one god of many in this world. You could just as easily say the same for you. When Allah appears it will be too late for you to happily meet him. And one could put many names of many different Gods in Allahs place and it would still mean you missed out because you chose the wrong god.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 26, 2014 7:31:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 26, 2014 10:17:44 GMT -5
I'm devastated now. They aren't the pretty fragile little horses with a horn in the middle of their forehead!! Say it's not soooo
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 26, 2014 10:43:57 GMT -5
I'm devastated now. They aren't the pretty fragile little horses with a horn in the middle of their forehead!! Say it's not soooo Snow ~ I was heartbroken, too! Whenever I see "Little Pony" with my grandchild again, I will remember this fact!
From the link above, here are the places mentioned within the Bible (KJV) where you can find references to unicorns, in addition to the description in Daniel's dream in Daniel 8, which seemingly represented the ruler (Alexander the Great) likened to the unicorn in conquering the other rulers before him.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+8&version=KJV
Numbers 23:22 Numbers 24:8 Deuteronomy 33:17 Job 39:9-12 Psalms 22:22 Psalms 29:5-6 Psalms 92:9-10 Isaiah 34:7
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 26, 2014 11:46:49 GMT -5
The way I understand it is that a "soft" atheist does not believe in the existence of any deities but doesn't assert this belief as fact. There are a lot of variations on not believing in the existence of any deities. There are also a lot of different ways of expressing the variations. There is not a single list of terms that is universally accepted. This is from a Wikipedia article: Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.[1][2][3]
The terms negative atheism and positive atheism were used by Antony Flew in 1976,[1] and appeared again in Michael Martin's writings in 1990There seems to be some dancing around the facts to get to these definitions. It is almost like someone saying that they believe they will get wet standing in the rain but do not believe that rain is water. It's more like someone (let's call her "matisse" - unless, of course, you object) saying that she believes she will get wet standing in the rain AND she believes that rain is composed of water. At the same time, she holds open the possibility that she will receive new information that will modify her understanding of rain. For example, the people who assert that raindrops are the tears of God might finally come through with the hard evidence she asked them to provide to back up their assertion, or perhaps she will take a class in environmental science and learn that although rain is largely composed of water, it is almost never completely pure. She may also hold open the possibility that there is a way to stand in the rain and not get wet. It's an unsatisfying analogy, but I'm trying to make the best of what you gave me to work with here, rational.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 26, 2014 13:31:13 GMT -5
There seems to be some dancing around the facts to get to these definitions. It is almost like someone saying that they believe they will get wet standing in the rain but do not believe that rain is water. Which facts? The ones that matter - my facts! But really, the issue is the definition of god. If there is a pencil on the table it either exists or it doesn't. There is little room for saying it almost exists but the lead is not exactly round so it doesn't exist completely - so it only has a soft existence. Pick the facts you wish and explain the idea of a soft belief for existence/non-existance.
|
|
|
Post by gecko45 on Mar 26, 2014 16:41:42 GMT -5
I'm devastated now. They aren't the pretty fragile little horses with a horn in the middle of their forehead!! Say it's not soooo Snow ~ I was heartbroken, too! Whenever I see "Little Pony" with my grandchild again, I will remember this fact!
From the link above, here are the places mentioned within the Bible (KJV) where you can find references to unicorns, in addition to the description in Daniel's dream in Daniel 8, which seemingly represented the ruler (Alexander the Great) likened to the unicorn in conquering the other rulers before him.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+8&version=KJV
Numbers 23:22 Numbers 24:8 Deuterium. 33:17 Job 39:9-12 Psalms 22:22 Psalms 29:5-6 Psalms 92:9-10 Isaiah 34:7
If you have Deuterium in your bible expect a visit from Homeland Security.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 26, 2014 17:02:22 GMT -5
Snow ~ I was heartbroken, too! Whenever I see "Little Pony" with my grandchild again, I will remember this fact!
From the link above, here are the places mentioned within the Bible (KJV) where you can find references to unicorns, in addition to the description in Daniel's dream in Daniel 8, which seemingly represented the ruler (Alexander the Great) likened to the unicorn in conquering the other rulers before him.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+8&version=KJV
Numbers 23:22 Numbers 24:8 Deuterium. 33:17 Deuteronomy 33:17
Job 39:9-12 Psalms 22:22 Psalms 29:5-6 Psalms 92:9-10 Isaiah 34:7
If you have Deuterium in your bible expect a visit from Homeland Security. Gecko45 ~ That's so funny, because I did a spell check on Deuteronomy and thought I had corrected an error. It actually made it worse than I had originally spelled it. Just goes to show that you can't always trust that spell-check function to do as its told?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 26, 2014 17:08:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 26, 2014 19:33:32 GMT -5
The ones that matter - my facts! I believe in you, rational! Are you dissatisfied with the explanation I gave using your rainstorm example?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 26, 2014 19:38:08 GMT -5
The ones that matter - my facts! But really, the issue is the definition of god. If there is a pencil on the table it either exists or it doesn't. There is little room for saying it almost exists but the lead is not exactly round so it doesn't exist completely - so it only has a soft existence. Pick the facts you wish and explain the idea of a soft belief for existence/non-existance. Rats, if there is a pencil on the table, there's no question -- it exists. The question at hand is whether there is a pencil on the table. Some claim there is, but they produce no independently verifiable, repeatable evidence of there being a pencil on the table.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 26, 2014 22:20:38 GMT -5
If you have Deuterium in your bible expect a visit from Homeland Security. ;) Especially deuterium-33! The energy required to hold that isotope together would be enormous!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 26, 2014 22:32:36 GMT -5
The ones that matter - my facts! But really, the issue is the definition of god. If there is a pencil on the table it either exists or it doesn't. There is little room for saying it almost exists but the lead is not exactly round so it doesn't exist completely - so it only has a soft existence. Pick the facts you wish and explain the idea of a soft belief for existence/non-existance. Rats, if there is a pencil on the table, there's no question -- it exists. The question at hand is whether there is a pencil on the table. Some claim there is, but they produce no independently verifiable, repeatable evidence of there being a pencil on the table. Sometimes when you respond to a post and launch your answer into the ether, it is like launching a missile with multiple bad acceleration modules and it just goes off aimlessly among the clouds, seeking its own way based on random signal noise inherent in the system! Put just because there was a bad launch does not mean there should not be a follow-up! How about this: There is no way to discuss the existence or non-existence of god until the theist provides their definition of god. If their god is the chair sitting in the corner with no paranormal powers then the conclusion would be that god exists!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 27, 2014 22:17:54 GMT -5
How can licentiousness be licensed if there's no God? Well, fortunately, licensing is usually done by society and hopefully without the input of those who believe in a deity or deities. Licensing is simply a form of control and society has a right, perhaps even a responsibility, to control and monitor activities to protect its members. Regarding licentiousness, society would be better of is some forms of this behavior were licensed instead or existing illegally in the shadows. Society can only confer rights; they do not originate with them. In the movie "God's not dead" the professor jeered at Josh when he told him his major was pre-law.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 27, 2014 22:28:04 GMT -5
Atheism is a disbelief. How can it be a POV? This is not quite true. For something to be a disbelief implies that there is, or was, something to believe in and not that belief is no longer held as true. Speaking for myself, there is no disbelief. God just does not exist for me. Right. You believe you're a finite phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 27, 2014 22:31:30 GMT -5
The pursuit of the truth is a positive preoccupation. Yes, and it must be separate from the pursuit of beliefs. Truth is the same for everyone and needs to be reproducible and testable, like the speed of light in a vacuum. Anyone can set up a test case and verify the truth. A test case for the existence of the paranormal is not the same. Clever Hans seemed indeed to be a paranormal horse but in reality without Orlov Trotter it was just a horse. Truth is never pursued apart from beliefs such as the truth of truth, the right of right, the beauty of beauty ... all of our interpretations are founded upon prior beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 27, 2014 22:51:03 GMT -5
It seems strange to me that because someone doesn't believe in something....this would mean that they have no point of view.....Do you really believe this? One thing the Atheist on this board HAVE demonstrated is that they definitely have a point of view. They only seem to. The atheist's concept of existence is temporal and individual. Existence carries no meaning if it can not relate to something eternal and 'other', to something fixed and objective.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 28, 2014 12:09:02 GMT -5
Well, fortunately, licensing is usually done by society and hopefully without the input of those who believe in a deity or deities. Licensing is simply a form of control and society has a right, perhaps even a responsibility, to control and monitor activities to protect its members. Regarding licentiousness, society would be better of is some forms of this behavior were licensed instead or existing illegally in the shadows. Society can only confer rights; they do not originate with them. In the movie "God's not dead" the professor jeered at Josh when he told him his major was pre-law. Society provides you with a license to drive a car. I am pretty sure society is granting that right. I have not seen the movie. Was the professor a theist who didn't like the law?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 28, 2014 12:12:04 GMT -5
Yes, and it must be separate from the pursuit of beliefs. Truth is the same for everyone and needs to be reproducible and testable, like the speed of light in a vacuum. Anyone can set up a test case and verify the truth. A test case for the existence of the paranormal is not the same. Clever Hans seemed indeed to be a paranormal horse but in reality without Orlov Trotter it was just a horse. Truth is never pursued apart from beliefs such as the truth of truth, the right of right, the beauty of beauty ... all of our interpretations are founded upon prior beliefs. This is incorrect. While all have prior beliefs, the wise ones modify their beliefs when the data does no longer supports their original beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 28, 2014 12:17:29 GMT -5
It seems strange to me that because someone doesn't believe in something....this would mean that they have no point of view.....Do you really believe this? One thing the Atheist on this board HAVE demonstrated is that they definitely have a point of view. They only seem to. The atheist's concept of existence is temporal and individual. Existence carries no meaning if it can not relate to something eternal and 'other', to something fixed and objective. No, your existence has no meaning for you without your belief in your paranormal being. It is true that the atheist's existence is temporal but that does not mean that existence does not have meaning. How does believing in god add anything to your existence here with the rest of us? What does your belief in the eternal add to your existence in the here-and-now?
|
|