Why I raise my children without ? .
Options
Comments
-
Atheism is not just the rejection of the ? theory but also it is the absence of belief in the ? theory so there is no contradiction there. Weak atheism and strong atheism are in the definition.
-
Denial is a noun. Deny is the verb.
Atheism is a noun. Atheism is the absence of belief in the ? theory. The word absence is also a noun. Atheism is also the doctrine that no ? exists. Doctrine is a noun.
There is no such thing as a weak atheist. An atheist is a person , atheism is the denial of the existence of ? it is an action like I have been saying all along. To Denial something requires an active position. -
A) The real meaning of Atheism = Belief that ? definitely does not exist. = A disbelief that ? exists. = A denial of the existence of ? .
The wrong meaning of Atheism = Absence of any belief in ? .
1. The word Atheist was originally created to describe those that deny the existence of ? . The atheist were criminals in ancient grecce because they denied the gods existence.
3. It is illogical to consider a disbelief/denial too be equal to " a lack of belief ". By definition, a denial is an outright claim that the proposition is false. Same with a disbelief. It is an active position, and an outright rejection of the statement. A would not consider babies to be theists, any more than they are Marxists, capitalists, or atheists. "a lack of belief " means not having belief,not having something and denying something are two different standpoints.
There is no such thing as weak atheism. -
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »I think it is a bit sad that someone thinks the real world taken as it is would not spark curiosity and imagination. In my opinion diverting a child's curiosity from the real world to superstitions and fairy tales inflicts actual harm.
I don't particularly know where @bigjames is going with what he said, but I agree with one point. Kids need to be allowed to be kids. They need to be able enjoy what it's like to dream and imagine. Taking away someone's childhood can inflict harm as well. They will grow up still trying to be kids or live like they are in their teens.
What does that have to do with religion? Religion isn't a necessary part of any child's childhood. There are plenty of fantasies for them to partake in with the knowledge that it is for play play. I knew Santa Clause was fake when i was a kid. It's as easy as explaining to your child that there are end of the year traditions where gifts are exchanged with no mention of religion. Isn't it enough that we have to live under the Gregorian calendar and celebrate the end of the year of our lord?
...and I wasn't saying that it needs to be. This was something off the subject that I wanted to address because there was the impression that the only harm posed to kids is being "indoctrinated"...when it's not.
That's the part of learning how to raise a kid isn't it? ? is harmful and influence is everywhere. Critical thinking and honest presentation of information would help a great deal; Parents wouldn't have to worry about another persons private religious choices being vocally spread as a thing they must do in society. I can't imagine anything more harmful than a group spreading creationism in our schools and attempting to eliminate any discussion of evolution even when it's presented honestly as a work in progress theory.
Still, the facts that make up that theory are actual facts while religion permeates our society even though it's built off of a pondering, with no evidence, yet it's consumed as absolute truth. I think that is far more dangerous than giving your child factual information when they are ready. At a young age, Children will see loved ones die. There are ways to explain those circumstances without lying, or without telling them too much which would frighten them. You can look at all the good the deceased person left behind. Religion goes far beyond that. It enforces an rigorous existence bound to it's tenants, in hopes of salvation. It isn't just explaining things, it's co-opting them. -
Atheism is not just the rejection of the ? theory but also it is the absence of belief in the ? theory so there is no contradiction there. Weak atheism and strong atheism are in the definition.
There is no such thing as a weak atheist. Only the so called strong atheism is the real atheism. The absence of something is not it's denial. Atheism is a denial. -
Alright well i'll let you marinate on what I've told you cuz at this point you aint really debating. Youre just repeating yourself and ignoring me.
-
Alright well i'll let you marinate on what I've told you cuz at this point you aint really debating. Youre just repeating yourself and ignoring me.
I am not ignoring you you kept on giving me the same iilogical dictionary menaings without thinking about them. So I started repeating the phase " there is no such thing as a weak atheist."
How many different ways do you want me to explaine to you why strong atheism is the only real atheism ? -
Although I will say one last thing. Picture a cup empty of water. The emptiness of the cup represents absence of belief. The cup is empty of water. The act of filling the cup is belief, or theism. Pouring the water out is rejecting belief or the act of denying. Once the cup is empty, there is no denial. It is simply absence of belief. This state existed before belief was present. There was no action made in the cups emptiness.
-
Although I will say one last thing. Picture a cup empty of water. The emptiness of the cup represents absence of belief. The cup is empty of water. The act of filling the cup is belief, or theism. Pouring the water out is rejecting belief or the act of denying. Once the cup is empty, there is no denial. It is simply absence of belief. This state existed before belief was present. There was no action made in the cups emptiness.
Absence of belief is no atheism, there is no such thing as weak atheism. The pouring out of the cup is atheism and nothing else. People are not cups, and we are never really empty we keep on being filled and Emptied until we die. Escape from this is impossible because we are not Conscious of it.
-
alissowack wrote: »My point was not to say that everything is black and white, but in this particular argument it should be.
Reality is not always what you want it to be or what you think it should be.alissowack wrote: »The "grey" is why there are disagreements on who is a theist and who is an atheist.
The disagreements come from people who don't understand it.
1. Theism = belief in ? (s)
2. Atheism = non belief in ? (s)
a.) weak atheism = non belief on the grounds of insufficient evidence to warrant belief in gods
b.) strong atheism = non belief on the grounds of sufficient evidence to prove the impossibility of gods existingalissowack wrote: »Being religious minded says you accept everything that is associated with it including the existence of a deity, but to say you are an atheist means you would reject the essential part of religions...the existence of a deity.
Religion does not equal theism. There are religions that reject theism and there are religions that do not require theistic beliefs.alissowack wrote: »It's like me being scientific minded, but rejecting the answers that science comes up with.
Many scientists of the past have rejected answers put forth by others and were able to provide an alternative answer that may or may not have led to correct understanding of truth.
Has is occurred to you that maybe...another reason for disagreement is that no one wants to accept the truth? The truth is that the Stanford definition exists. You may not like it's narrowness, but it's a definition you can't deny. It's a part of reality you or I can't control. The way atheist have dealt with this is by redefining atheism in a way that make people not seem so stern; so absolute...so not to be subjected to the criticism of having absolute truth. It's no different from the criticisms posed against theism.
I wasn't saying religions equate to theism. But, for you to be religious minded, you have to accept the non-theistic religions along with the theistic ones. But, your atheism rejects the theistic religions...unless there is reason to say that they are not considered to be religions.
The point of that post was not to say there are not "alternative answers". I'm saying, that I just outright reject any answer that science gives hypothetically as I claim to be scientific minded. -
look, i don't know who made this stuff up, but it is the definition of unnecessary. look, let's take a look at the definition for agnostic:
if you "choose to believe" that there is or is not a ? , you have abandoned this position and are no longer an agnostic. is there a problem with just being an atheist/theist and just not expressing as strong a belief as others?: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as ? ) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of ? or a ?
also, this might be the worst current thread, dudes
-
@janklow it may be unnecessary to you but the terms are out there, things like agnostic atheism and weak/strong atheism have been defined and ppl classify themselves as such. Honestly, I don't have a problem with either label but given that theism encompasses so many different views and beliefs, the labels can become necessary when considering them all.
As far as belief is concerned, you're either a theist which in a way also includes deism, pantheism and panentheism or you're an atheist which is on the other end of the "belief scale".
Atheism is simple: its the lack of belief; literally absence of, or without, the ? theory. It's, in a way, the ground position. At this point, the idea of theism has not yet arisen so we cant even classify this person as agnostic or gnostic. However, once the ? theory has been presented, this person has the choice to believe and slide over to theism or reject the theory and remain an atheist. The denial is strong atheism. The position prior to that was weak atheism. This person has another option though and that is to slightly get off the atheist end and sit on the fence as an agnostic claiming that the truth is unknowable. But since agnosticism deals with knowledge and not belief, this person could choose a position by putting his "best bet" down and believing or disbelieving yet remain an agnostic by continuing to claim that the truth is unknowable.
-
I don't like the term weak and strong atheist. They are terms that were created by a person that was as confused as those terms were confusing. Antony Flew was an atheist in name seeking ? with no conviction in his positions.
-
There is no such thing as a weak atheist.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »I don't like the term weak and strong atheist. They are terms that were created by a person that was as confused as those terms were confusing. Antony Flew was an atheist in name seeking ? with no conviction in his positions.
I haven't heard many ppl use them but I can understand the reasoning behind their usage. I usually call myself a non theist in order to cover every aspect of theistic belief.
-
I guess they exist to be specific, like the terms deism and pantheism. I could understand how someone could say they are unnecessary because ultimately its still theism, but I can also understand why someone would rather call themselves a pantheist than a theist.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »I don't like the term weak and strong atheist. They are terms that were created by a person that was as confused as those terms were confusing. Antony Flew was an atheist in name seeking ? with no conviction in his positions.
I haven't heard many ppl use them but I can understand the reasoning behind their usage. I usually call myself a non theist in order to cover every aspect of theistic belief.
So then what the ? were you fighting with me for. You are not an atheist like I have been saying. -
they can classify themselves as whatever they like, but NOW we're in territory where they're making up weird labels that don't even make any sense. if you want to be an atheist, be an atheist. don't try to have it both ways.@janklow it may be unnecessary to you but the terms are out there, things like agnostic atheism and weak/strong atheism have been defined and ppl classify themselves as such.
but what is the actual problem with this?As far as belief is concerned, you're either a theist which in a way also includes deism, pantheism and panentheism or you're an atheist which is on the other end of the "belief scale".
no, atheism REQUIRES that belief. if you do not think you can commit to that level of belief because you are unsure, you're an agnostic.The denial is strong atheism. The position prior to that was weak atheism.
-
Atheism does not require beliefs. It is the absence of a belief. It is like a cup empty of water.
Let me ask you a question. Is belief and knowledge the same thing? -
Atheism is not lack of belief it is a denial of the existence of ? . It is an Affirmative statement .
Just lacking belief is not atheism. If you have lack of belief on both sides then you are an agnostic and not an atheist.
Atheist believe they have knowledge ? cannot exist. Agnostics say they don't have any knowledge. Belief can be based on knowledge or on ignorance. Both theist and atheist base their beliefs on ignorance. Because it is impossible to have knowledge on the existence of something you cannot describe , have no frame of reference for and cannot even really define. -
well...Atheism does not require beliefs. It is the absence of a belief.
that seems pretty clear-cut on the "requires belief" frontDefinition of ATHEISM
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
nopeLet me ask you a question. Is belief and knowledge the same thing?
-
Definition of ATHEISM
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
Disbelieve
1. : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
Unbelief
1: not : other than : reverse of : absence of
dis-
a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force ( see de-, un-2 . ); used freely, especially with these latter senses, as an English formative:
Disbelief is the absence of belief. The absence of belief does not require a belief. So, as stated, atheism does not require belief. -
nope
Then since gnosticism is pertaining to knowledge (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic), it has nothing to do with belief (which theism/atheism deals with). What you are trying to do is make knowledge and belief synonymous with each other.
A theist believes in ? .
An atheist does not believe in ? .
A weak atheist does not believe in ? because he/she believes he/she lacks sufficient evidence or proof to warrant belief.
A strong atheist does not believe in ? because he/she believes he/she has sufficient evidence to disprove ? 's existence.
None of this is based on knowledge of whether or not ? exists. It is belief based on available evidence.
...
Gnosticism, on the other hand, deals with knowledge, not belief.
Gnostic
1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
Agnostic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as ? , and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
This word comes from Greek, and is translated as "knowledge". Its use derives from the esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation .
So an agnostic would believe that ultimate truth, or ? , is unknowable. You could therefore be a theist who believes in ? yet holds the view that ? is unknowable or you could be an atheist who disbelieves in ? based on either insufficient or sufficient evidence (as explained earlier) yet holds the view that the truth of the matter, or ? 's existence, is ultimately unknowable; in other words, it's not 100% knowable based on facts whether or not ? exists. -
ev·i·dence
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
knowl·edge
noun
1.
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2.
familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3.
acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4.
the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5.
awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
-
This discussion has been closed.