Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

riVeRrat Ok let us argue this on grounds that are hopefully pertainent.The terrorists that flew into the world trade center had faith in God did they not? The faith they had was sufficient enough for them to overcome the instinct to self-preservation.Now if faith in something is what gets you your evidence then the terrorists can be seen as a stunning example of the depth to which faith can drive a person's actions. Of course,we know that they had the wrong kind of faith because the book they read from is not the right one eh? We all know that no one who has read the bible has ever commited such atrocities.So it seems that you have withheld some crucial point that differentiates the bible from other texts and the establishment of what faith is.
However, there is a huge difficulty that arrives on our doorstep if this is the case. If you have some means of differentiation then this must beevidence of some sort and bringing in evidence for the differentiation would be contradictory to the requirement of faith that is the central tenet of your claim.Perhaps you need to clarify what you consider faith to be?

If you defined redness at light between certain wavelengths, then yes, redness is an objective concept.How people SEE red is a different matter. Some people are color blind though.

You mean subjective evidence, then.

In defense of iano I would have to say that 'redness' is certainly an objective concept because it is clearly defined by the reflection of a specific range of wavelengths of visible light.But on the subject of belief in atheism, I note that the Catholic Church will be forced to appear in the high court of the European Union to present evidence that Jesus actually existed.You can see a CNN video clip here:CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and VideosThe instigator of the suit?
You guessed it. An atheist.I always enjoy seeing the Catholic Church get called on the carpet to defend their ridiculous dogma - and try to protect their ridiculous wealth.They are saying this has the potential to be more controversial than the Da Vinci Code which, after all, is self-professed fiction.
But then I suppose that when you're devoted to a dogma, even fiction can pose a threat to your fragile world view.

Damn straight. Which is viciously circular. Hopefully because it is, by definition, a belief. I disagree.Take the holocaust for example. I'd rather not believe that such a horrible thing occured. I never decided to believe in the holocaust. Right. Nope. I'd rather believe in God than not. (especially if one existed) Yep. I haven't. Nope. Correct. I think you're trying to say it's a positive belief? Atheism isn't necessarily antitheism, most atheists simply lack a belief.In any case, a lack of belief for something without evidence is pretty healthy, IMO. If people believed in all sorts of fictional creatures without any evidence, they might do scary things. No I'm not, and neither are most atheists I know. Unfortunately for your argument, "God" can be replaced with any fictional character of your liking. The only way you can be a (true? as opposed to false?) atheist is if you don't believe in God. You've met atheists who have never heard of God? I would fall under the category of the atheist who has no "inner feeling" nestled deep within my bosom that any gods exist. Oh, I'm sure that would be rich.

There is another dogma which says that all publicity is good publicity. It's not like Jesus hasn't been attacked before (ref: the Bible) Assuming it is a court-as-we-know-it-Jim, then I imagine the defendant (in this case the RC church) will settle itself comfortably into the position of 'innocent until proven guilty' and poor old Luigi, the position of the prosecutor. I noted his age, his smoking habit and the fact that this will run and run. And see the writing on the wall.Maybe we should send him an invitation to EvC so he can get a little practice(Thanks for rushing to my defence all the same EZ)

I am not sure that they will be able to do this.
The prosecution's strategy will be that the onus is on the RC to produce convincing evidence that Jesus exists. Their very claim to legitimacy as a (tax free) organization rests on this 'fact'.Otherwise, de facto, they have been perpetrating, and profiting from, a huge scam on gullible world populations.

The old "guilty until proven innocent" ploy. Cunning.It would be worth a guilty verdict to see the cheers from the (less able elements of) other side of the EvC camp.Edited by iano, : title correctionEdited by iano, : clarify

quote:

---

The only way you could be a true atheist, is if you have never heard the word God, and you have no inner feeling that there is one. The thought has never crossed your mind.

---

Well, that would be everyone on the face of the planet.Everyone is born an Athiest.Culture creates, teaches, and and reinforces supernatural/religious belief.

hallelujah.

Riverrat, there is a profound difference between believing that God does not exist, and not believing that God does exist. The first is something that a person can actively engage in, whereas the second is something that's just not there in a person's list of activities. When I describe myself as an atheist, I have the second possibility in mind. I think of myself as someone without a belief in God, not as someone actively believing there is no god.The word 'atheism' is a bit troublesome in that it ends in 'ism', which usually points to a body of thought about something, complete with tenets and dogmas and all that. When something ends in 'ism', most frequently you'll find it has a shoal of followers. But atheism, despite the word, is a noted exception to the rule.Atheism has no tenets, no dogmas, and no followers. Atheism lacks all those things. In fact, 'lacking' is the defining feature of atheism: the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in a god or gods. I disagree. When I close my eyes and try to imagine seeing the colour red, I experience redness without any real light coming into play. So I think that redness is a purely subjective conscious experience that takes place in our brain. Seeing light of a certain wavelength is one thing, experiencing redness is another.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I doubt it. If an atheist believed in nothing at all then you might have a case. But an athiest doesn't believe in nothing at all. He has beliefs in something - which just happen not to be a belief in God. The trouble about the word atheist is that it is God-centric. Whereas an atheist is something other than God-centric. The only shows in town are a belief in God or something else. An atheist has a belief in something else. ...you have the wavelength 'red' burnt onto your harddrive. It always amazes me this. I'll come back from church and a particular hymn will be humming in my head. I don't remember what chord started it off so I hum a note - say at the start of the chorus. I pick at a string and find that the note I am humming is an A. Not an A.... plus a little bit or an A.. minus a little bit. Just A. The sound I heard in church has burnt itself into my consciousness.Mini-experiment: I've been humming Johnny Cash's song 'Hurt' this last few days. I picked it out - playing along with the CD 3 days ago. First chord is A minor. Just now I hummed the first chord. Well not the chord - for who can hum a chord made up of a number of notes! I hummed the dominant note of the chord. Just now - after 3 days, I picked up my guitar, hummed the dominant note and strummed. Yup - there it was. Spot on - within a % or two.Point being. If you can see red it is because the wavelengths of red have burnt themselves into your brain. You came, you saw, you burnt.

arggggg... this is a very minor but important point - it's not a disbelief or belief in God, it's GodS. Consciously or subconsciously by phrasing it as a problem with a singular god, it's framing it totally in terms of the monolithic religions!It's not a Christian god or atheist thing - it's wider than that! Just because christians try and frame it in terms of a belief of their god or no god, doesn't mean we should allow them to do so!Their god is just one of many I reject!

quote:

---

The trouble about the word atheist is that it is God-centric. Whereas an atheist is something other than God-centric.

---

No it's again a word that deals with GodS not god (singular).Edited by CK, : No reason given.

Whatever

That's why I prefer the term "nihilist." It's more definite.