Are you an atheist?

[Brianwarnock]

...and yet the popularity of theism within developing countries is very high.

people are always looking for reasons and to put the "blame/thanks" to a higher power is not unnatural if one's experience/education can think of no other.

Perhaps it is the luxury of the priviliged to have the belief of atheism and still be comforted by their material possessions?

I did not say I was an atheist or materialist, but then neither did you even if there seemed to be an implication,
Many very privileged people are religious and therefore I assume believers.
They believe that they have a God given right to rule and inflict their views on the world, to take land from others and destroy their beliefs etc etc

Brian

 

[Alisa]

...and yet the popularity of theism within developing countries is very high.

Perhaps it is the luxury of the priviliged to have the belief of atheism and still be comforted by their material possessions?

Atheism isn't a "belief". Theism is the belief in the existence of a diety (or dieties) of some sort. A-theism is simply the rejection of theism, by definition.

I don't follow your argument. I suppose atheism and religious beliefs alike could be considered luxuries for those who live in theocracies were they are told what they must believe. For the rest of us that live in the supposedly free world, it is simply our right to choose what we believe and don't believe.

Or are you saying that only "believers" get "comforted by their material possessions" in developing countries???

 

[dan-cat]

Atheism isn't a "belief". Theism is the belief in the existence of a diety (or dieties) of some sort. A-theism is simply the rejection of theism, by definition.

Well, without getting into semantics, atheism is a standpoint on something that is, by your consent, unprovable. So whether you like it or not, you hold an opinion on something that cannot be proved. Whether you call this a belief or not is up to you.

I don't follow your argument. I suppose atheism and religious beliefs alike could be considered luxuries for those who live in theocracies were they are told what they must believe. For the rest of us that live in the supposedly free world, it is simply our right to choose what we believe and don't believe.

I was refuting Brian's suggestion that the underprivileged don't have the luxury of looking at the glass half-full. On the contrary, religion is more popular in developing countries because they need to look at the glass half-full to survive, that is to say, find the will to keep going. It is the luxury of the priviliged to not require such a belief. They can simply turn the thermostat up a couple of notches.

 

[dan-cat]

I did not say I was an atheist or materialist, but then neither did you even if there seemed to be an implication,

My remarks weren't meant to be personal Brian. I was just trying to give you a response which was a little longer than the average nose.

 

[Alisa]

Well, without getting into semantics, atheism is a standpoint on something that is, by your consent, unprovable. So whether you like it or not, you hold an opinion on something that cannot be proved. Whether you call this a belief or not is up to you.

No, atheism is simply the refusal to believe something for which there is no evidence. Not believing is not the same as believing (unless this is 1984 and no-one told me about it).

I was refuting Brian's suggestion that the underprivileged don't have the luxury of looking at the glass half-full. On the contrary, religion is more popular in developing countries because they need to look at the glass half-full to survive, that is to say, find the will to keep going. It is the luxury of the priviliged to not require such a belief. They can simply turn the thermostat up a couple of notches.

So you are basically saying that belief in god is simply a coping mechanism, and that if humans did not need a coping mechanism, we would all freely state that god does not in fact exist.

 

[Rich]

I was refuting Brian's suggestion that the underprivileged don't have the luxury of looking at the glass half-full. On the contrary, religion is more popular in developing countries because they need to look at the glass half-full to survive, that is to say, find the will to keep going. It is the luxury of the priviliged to not require such a belief. They can simply turn the thermostat up a couple of notches.

Well that's odd, I thought they looked to the evil materialistic West for comfort

 

[dan-cat]

No, atheism is simply the refusal to believe something for which there is no evidence. Not believing is not the same as believing (unless this is 1984 and no-one told me about it).

I'll let you take it up with the OED.

Link

So you are basically saying that belief in god is simply a coping mechanism, and that if humans did not need a coping mechanism, we would all freely state that god does not in fact exist.

It would be quite silly of me to say that considering how many religious folks in my country live comfortable lifestyles.

 

[Rich]

So you are basically saying that belief in god is simply a coping mechanism, and that if humans did not need a coping mechanism, we would all freely state that god does not in fact exist.

Despite Danny's claims that it's God that keeps man going during adversity, it's just hope, hope for a better future God doesn't figure there at all

 

[Alisa]

I'll let you take it up with the OED.

Link

Oxford's definition notwithstanding, look at the root of the word: a, meaning without, and theism, meaning the belief in dieties. So it literally means a lack of belief in dieties, not, as oxford puts it, a belief that there is no god.

I think we have split hairs here before about the different types of atheism. There is the type that picked option 1 on the poll, who will say definitively there is no god, period. I think those are the ones you are referring to when you talk about holding an opinion that can not be proved.

Then there are those of us who picked option 2 on the poll. We will not tell you there is no god, period. But we will tell you there is no evidence of god to date, and until there is, we have no good reason to believe that there is a god.

 

[dan-cat]

Oxford's definition notwithstanding, look at the root of the word: a, meaning without, and theism, meaning the belief in dieties. So it literally means a lack of belief in dieties, not, as oxford puts it, a belief that there is no god.

I think we have split hairs here before about the different types of atheism. There is the type that picked option 1 on the poll, who will say definitively there is no god, period. I think those are the ones you are referring to when you talk about holding an opinion that can not be proved.

Then there are those of us who picked option 2 on the poll. We will not tell you there is no god, period. But we will tell you there is no evidence of god to date, and until there is, we have no good reason to believe that there is a god.

Like I said, it's a matter of semantics that you're getting yourself, and yourself only, wrapped up in.

My turn of phrase was grammatically correct and had absolutely nothing to do with your rather weak reference to Orwellian authoritarianism.

 

[Alisa]

My turn of phrase was grammatically correct and had absolutely nothing to do with your rather weak reference to Orwellian authoritarianism.

Your attempt to equate lack of belief with its exact opposite may have been grammatically correct, but it was factually incorrect. You can call it semantics if you want, but you are still wrong.

 

[Rabbie]

You said this.



The absence of God, in your opinion, demands the 'shaping' of the world by 'randomness'. The statement itself is a contradiction. As we both know, patterns have a great deal to do with the shaping of the world don't they?

If you applied your undoubted intelligence you would realise that I used the word random in my quote as a shorthand way of saying the events were not caused by by some imaginary superatural being. I as referring back to the Chaos Theory referred to in the post I was referrig to.

Please do not demean yourself by pretending to be stupid. It does not suit you and I am sure it embarresses Pinky

 

[dan-cat]

Your attempt to equate lack of belief with its exact opposite may have been grammatically correct, but it was factually incorrect. You can call it semantics if you want, but you are still wrong.

My point remains completely unchanged regardless of whether you call it a belief or not. You just jumped into semantics with your weak reference to authoritarianism in an attempt to score points of no relevance.

Like I said, you think that the OED has got it wrong. So take it up with them.

 

[Alisa]

My point remains completely unchanged regardless of whether you call it a belief or not. You just jumped into semantics with your weak reference to authoritarianism in an attempt to score points of no relevance.

Like I said, you think that the OED has got it wrong. So take it up with them.

What was your point again?

 

[dan-cat]

If you applied your undoubted intelligence you would realise that I used the word random in my quote as a shorthand way of saying the events were not caused by by some imaginary superatural being. I as referring back to the Chaos Theory referred to in the post I was referrig to.

Please do not demean yourself by pretending to be stupid. It does not suit you and I am sure it embarresses Pinky

I know it was said in a light-hearted way but suggesting that I'm playing dumb doesn't lessen my point.

The world simply doesn't work randomly.

We see a car work in a certain way and have no problem with the idea that it is by design. We see our natural surroundings work in remarkable patterns and dismiss the notion of contrived design as absurd.

I ask why to the atheist.

 

[dan-cat]

What was your point again?

I reiterated my point specifically for you here

 

[Alisa]

I reiterated my point specifically for you here

Oh yes, I remember now.
Let me ask you a question: Do you agree that there is no physical evidence that god exists?

 

[dan-cat]

Despite Danny's claims that it's God that keeps man going during adversity, it's just hope, hope for a better future God doesn't figure there at all

I never made any such claims.

 

[thisisntwally]

I know it was said in a light-hearted way but suggesting that I'm playing dumb doesn't lessen my point.

The world simply doesn't work randomly.

We see a car work in a certain way and have no problem with the idea that it is by design. We see our natural surroundings work in remarkable patterns and dismiss the notion of contrived design as absurd.

I ask why to the atheist.

although hesitant to call myself an atheist, I will answer as such, and concede that I've been to lazy to read this thread in its entirety. So this may have been touched on.

I've never thought of these remarkable patterns as anymore than ptolemaic discriptions of an infinitely complex system. Accurate for nothing more than predictions. That a car works as its designed seems to me a poor comparison for a uni/multiverse as vast as the one we inhabit. We pick out pieces of the process and have the audacity to suggest that anying beyond our comprehension or powers of observation must be a result of magic. This seems rather miopic to this atheist.

 

[Alisa]

I've never thought of these remarkable patterns as anymore than ptolomaic discriptions of an infinitely complex system.

What is a ptolomaic description?