Atheism - Shadows of Doubt - 2/6

[@NorseRonin]

thank you for posting this.

[@ZarathustrasCrown]

@miskbalder Sorry, character limit cut me off :P a good way of differentiating is that an implicit atheist lacks a belief without a conscious rejection of the concept of a deity. An explicit atheist lacks belief BECAUSE of a conscious rejection of the concept of a deity...if that makes sense :)

[@ZarathustrasCrown]

@miskbalder the big distinction is that one makes a positive assertion, "there is no god" and will argue that positive assertion, the other lacks an actual positive assertion, they simply "lack a belief" in god. As far as I remember (it's been a few years since University so forgive me here), there is no precedent for implicit and explicit theism (though one could use the terms, an implicit theist would be by definition the belief that knowledge of God is intrinsic, the other positively...cont.

[@ZarathustrasCrown]

@miskbalder arguing "there is a god...here is why" and presenting evidence to back that positive stance, I just dont remember it having any philosophical precedent like I said). There IS however philosophical precedent for Implicit and Explicit Agnosticism, the distinction I mentioned in my first post there. To make it even MORE confusing there is also strong and weak atheism and agnosticism, each distinct from the others :) wikipedia has a well written article with some good references :)

[@blueprintwizard]

Lucretius said Fear is the mother of all gods. wise and true

[@miskbalder]

your 23 first words affirmes and proves my point, that is exactly an agnostic view of god.. an atheist believes there is no god, a religious one believes that god exists.. otherwise i would like you to tell me what an explicit and implicit theist are, because there should be one of those too to make it liable logically

[@ninawillams]

when i lost santa claus i started to think,well it felt so real,everybody told me it was true but it didnt make sense,theres more freedom this way,im not tied to any collective ideology,im free to form my own understanding

[@ZarathustrasCrown]

@miskbalder There's subtle distinctions...an implicit atheist still actively LACKS a belief in god...if you ask them "do you believe" they would answer "no, there's nothing to suggest there is such a thing so therefore i don't believe". An agnostic would answer either "I don't know if there is a god or not, maybe there is, maybe not...I don't know" or "knowing if there is a god is fundamentally impossible". It's a subtle difference but it makes all the difference in the world.

[@sensur1]

@SunTzuing Please elaborate then, what cause belongs to atheism? what kind of principles do Atheism stand by and what system of beliefs do atheists adhere to?

[@sensur1]

I've discoverd that the US is much more secular and tolerant "on paper" than in reality. The last 100 years have seen most of the european states progressing further than the american society on social issues. The freedom of thought and egalitarity was something that the US could be proud of up to the 1900's, but sadly they are beginning to lag behind. There wont be many decades until the state churches will be abolished throughout europe i hope.

[@Blastfromthepastchannel]

There are many 'secular countries' who are still enthralled to religion. I believe that many religious organisations in the US are tax exempt? Many Catholics in Germany pay an alternative tax to the Church and the construction of faith schools is increasing in the UK

[@ZarathustrasCrown]

@miskbalder No, what I'm saying is that a split that hadn't been noticed before between differing branches of atheism has led to new terms, implicit and explicit...both equally atheist, just in a different manner. It's really simple actually, if someone is asked "do you believe in a deity" and answers "no" then they are an atheist, no matter what other philosophical views they may have. If they answer "I don't know" then they are agnostic...implicit atheists would definitively answer "no".

[@SonofOxford]

charr05, good point. Many atheists make the same error -- assuming Christianity is monochromatic, or even more ridiculous, assuming 'religion' is an identifiable notion whereby somehow all religions have something in common (which they do not; there is nothing that 'all' religions have in common other than that they are human).

[@ZarathustrasCrown]

@miskbalder Agnosticism would be saying "I don't know if there is a God or not" or "the existence of a deity is fundamentally unknowable" (which are very distinct branches of agnosticism). Atheism has it's own branches in the same way, what he's describing would be considered as "implicit atheism", which is contrasted to "Explicit atheism". An infant who is incapable of understanding the concept of god whatsoever would be, by nature, "implicitly atheist"...Richard Dawkins is closer to explicit

[@CynicalSkeptic1]

1) Here are two links in relation to agnosticism and atheism. /watch?v=j2Py1Bz8XOo starting at approximately the :55 second mark. /watch?v=5WxEwr7tYvM Starts at beginning. There are four positions you can have in regards to god(s): 1. Gnostic Atheist - Knows and believes there is no god. 2. Agnostic Atheist - Lacks belief, but does not know there is no god. 3. Gnostic Theist - Knows and believes there is a god. 4. Agnostic Theist - Believes, but does not know there is a god. (continued)

[@CynicalSkeptic1]

2) Agnostic-Atheist is the most reasonable position. Atheism is the answer to a simple question: "Do you believe in gods?" If you answered yes then you are a theist and if you answered no then you are an atheist. Gnostic has to do with knowledge and obviously nobody knows with 100% certainty whether or not any gods exist in the universe. So, being an agnostic-atheist is the only logical conclusion.

[@miskbalder]

"my atheism, if thats what one insists to calling it was at no point a rejection of anything. what i was introduced, scarcely seemed to be something against which i would have to rebel" well i would not insist on calling it atheism, but rather agnosticism

[@ZarathustrasCrown]

that question has all sorts of answers, Yes and No are the core, but it's not that answer that makes an implicit atheist or explicit one, it's the context of that answer..."no, I don't believe in God based on a conscious rejection of the idea" is an entirely distinct mindset to "no, I don't believe in god due to the simple lack of evidence of such a being". Implicit and Explicit atheism have been core parts of modern philosophy for years now, if you don't like it, fine, but it's still there.

[@touyubeusr]

NO! It doesn't "beg" the question, What is a theist? It might raise the question, but it certainly does not beg it.

[@Murchad99]

These are just labels, and are meaningless if the people who use the terms to describe themselves interpret these labels differently than the person attempting to pigeonhole them. In the general sense, skepticism means doubt is the default position and all claims must be supported by evidence... while agnosticism means there is likely no evidence possible that could justify something as 'knowledge'. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[@Kafei]

@SunTzuing That's right! These poor atheists, so blinded by their own thoughts. They're lost souls undergoing existential crisis, trying to find meaning and getting lost in duality. If they would just but open their minds to the truth of God in which they are embedded in, and which is all-pervasive even through themselves.

[@bheadh]

Romans, chapter 1, vs 18-32.

[@miskbalder]

no its not, a sceptic is a person who doubts that god exists(in this example), but an agnostic doesnt doubt that god exists, he/she keeps his mind open for ALL possibilities, because there is no evidence that would or could prove the existense of god, so until the, an agnostic is open to try both ways til the end of time until he/she feels it is the truth.. most probably die before finding out, but someday one agnostic might actually turn one way or another before dying

[@arxidakis]

That sounds very uplifting and I'd wish it to be true, but why do half of the americans deny evolution? Why is abortion still such a hot issue?

[@dakotadenverdexter]

@deathxninja Don't generalize....the Brits are smart people but they still have a national religion and still place the Church of England in a place of extreme importance. People in America are as religious as they are because we have as many freedoms as we do. Of course that leads to problems, but in time, they will be worked out.

[@miskbalder]

@ZarathustrasCrown if an atheist even suggests there to be even the slightest chance in the world of the existence of god, he/she is not an atheist, if a religious person even feels the slightest bit that god might not exist, he/she is not an theist.. they are called agnostics.. if i totally LACK a belief it means i most certainly belief the other way around doesnt it, too bad you had to learn that crap in school but then again 50% of stuff we learn in school end up being bs

[@vincentpol]

If atheism was a tv channel, it would be 'off'.

[@Mike3303]

Sarcasm doesn't work in text, unfortunately.

[@miskbalder]

@ZarathustrasCrown not being able to, for sure, say if there is a god or that there is no god is agnosticism.. if one has a belief but cant say for sure it couldnt be the other way around, he is agnostic. then some are trying to branch agnostics into atheism or theism like that dude in the 70ies because he doesnt find anything better to do

[@miskbalder]

@ZarathustrasCrown what you are saying is agnosticism isnt going anywhere, call it agnosticism or make up a new word for it and call it "implicit atheist"

[@miskbalder]

ill just redirect you to the post above that i replied to :)

[@headshooter44]

ever heard of germany?

[@miskbalder]

@ZarathustrasCrown Im an agnostic, i certainly dont believe there is a god but i cant say for sure there isnt a god.. no im not atheist

[@miskbalder]

@ZarathustrasCrown seems like some nuthead in the late 70'ies just gave agnosticism a new name. implicit atheist is merely agnostic i guess, but then there are implicit/explicit theists too where implicit theist is the same as agnostic

[@miskbalder]

@ZarathustrasCrown which by any definition makes an implicit atheist an agnostic.. i am an agnostic: there might be a god, there might not, but until proven wrong i will believe there is no god.. im leaving the possibility open for the existence of god.. an atheist or a theist doesnt do that even if a nutcase in the 70ies who didnt understand the concept of agnosticism wanted to be called an atheist even though he knew he was an agnostic, so he made up some new stuff

[@TheMisterGuy]

@deathxninja No, they're really not. You're comparing the highly-educated and extremely intelligent British people you see here to the people you see in your daily life in the USA. You can find hordes of idiots in any country, and you can cherry-pick the best and the brightest of any other country, and if you compare those groups of people, the second country will look way smarter. It's not an even comparison.

[@miskbalder]

dont bring logical into a discussion that involves god

[@ZarathustrasCrown]

Implicit and Explicit are certainly words, whether they were made up by morons or not, you'll have to discuss that with the people who write the dictionaries they're in. And I agree, the question "do you believe there is a god" has only two answers, yes or no...I answer no of course but in a purely implicit context. I never proclaimed there to be some "third" option, an atheist is an atheist, they'll always answer "no" to "is there a god", the CONTEXT of that answer can, and does, vary widely

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@Hanahleia You poor religionists. If you would just but open your minds to the truth of the magical unicorns. You want proof? Just look around you!

[@thedaystripper]

@bheadh What you're trying to do here is cute but a worthless attempt at proving your side of the case. I am not greedy nor have I been filled with depravity. I am not filled with murder or envy or deceit. And nor do I deserve death because I do not believe. I do not believe because there is no evidence; not because of the list of name calling given in the posted verses. Look outside of the Bible for proof of God's existence and you'll be saddened to know there is none.