Black Atheists Question?
Options
Comments
-
My argument was that prayer bonds and heals a family in a way no other activity can
But you failed by using a praying family as an example. I will not argue that for a religious family, prayer may be the best bonding experience but that's because it relates to the family's beliefs, personalities and interests. For any other family, prayer may be useless or not as effective as some other bonding experience. Prayer is not universally special.Generally speaking prayer/religion is the most effective because it can bond an entire family from the 8 years olds to the 80 year olds.
Simply talking to each other bonds a family together more than praying to a deity. Praying to a ? is less effective than actually solving disputes and relating to others by holding conversation and spending time. You can do this regardless of what religion you are (or are not). So already, we have something better than prayer.This is a bonding experience atheist cannot have nor can atheist families have.
..or rather atheists don't care about.if i am the only theist in an atheist family then, then my family losses nothing because they don't care to have that experience.
You lose something. We're not talking about them; we're talking about you, the minority. You lose the ability to connect with them at that time of [your] personal need for peace and solace.I also don't lose anything because my religious experience will still make me feel like i bonded with my family on that day.
This is a lie/contradiction.. whatever you want to call it. Previously, you said you wouldn't be able to bond with one atheist family member through prayer but now you say you would be able to bond with an entire atheist family by way of prayer. If you are willing to admit you can bond with an atheist, you negate your whole argument because the bonding experience stops the atheist from being an outsider. But if you can't bond with an atheist family, you are the outsider, as I've been demonstrating. Pick your poison.
-
Budda was not an atheist
He rejected and taught against the belief in permanent beings, e.g. ? . He also taught that the world was uncreated but was instead an eternal process. Any supernatural beliefs other than belief in ? don't matter because they have nothing to do with atheism. -
My argument was that prayer bonds and heals a family in a way no other activity can
But you failed by using a praying family as an example. I will not argue that for a religious family, prayer may be the best bonding experience but that's because it relates to the families beliefs, personalities and interests. For any other family, prayer may be useless or not as effective as some other bonding experience. Prayer is not universally special.Generally speaking prayer/religion is the most effective because it can bond an entire family from the 8 years olds to the 80 year olds.
Simply talking to each other bonds a family together more than praying to a deity. Praying to a ? is less effective than actually solving disputes and relating to others by holding conversation and spending time. You can do this regardless of what religion you are (or are not). So already, we have something better than prayer.This is a bonding experience atheist cannot have nor can atheist families have.
..or rather atheists don't care about.if i am the only theist in an atheist family then, then my family losses nothing because they don't care to have that experience.
You lose something. We're not talking about them; we're talking about you, the minority. You lose the ability to connect with them at that time of [your] personal need for peace and solace.I also don't lose anything because my religious experience will still make me feel like i bonded with my family on that day.
This is a lie/contradiction.. whatever you want to call it. Previously, you said you wouldn't be able to bond with one atheist family member through prayer but now you say you would be able to bond with an entire atheist family by way of prayer. If you are willing to admit you can bond with an atheist, you negate your whole argument because the bonding experience stops the atheist from being an outsider. But if you can't bond with an atheist family, you are the outsider, as I've been demonstrating. Pick your poison.
You misunderstand stand me. the first SITUATION was an atheist among a theist family the second was a theist among an atheist family. when i said an atheist family member would be an outsider i meant that he or she would not be able to feel that bonding with the entire family however when the situation is reversed the theist can STILL FEEL BONDED now the theist may actually be the outsider but he will not feel it, and his family will not feel he is an outsider. but the theist family will feel their atheist member to be an outsider.
You don't come to a funeral to talk about problems and sometimes talking about problems only makes ? worse like i said earlier there is no bonding experience like the religious one. -
There are many buddhist who believe in gods if budda did not come out and say directly that there is no gods then he is not an atheist. -
when i said an atheist family member would be an outsider i meant that he or she would not be able to feel that bonding with the entire family. However when the situation is reversed the theist can STILL FEEL BONDED.
Then it's not really bonding. Bonding with someone denotes a mutual feeling of connection or unity.now the theist may actually be the outsider but he will not feel it, and his family will not feel he is an outsider. but the theist family will feel their atheist member to be an outsider.
If the theist feels included in a non religious or secular activity with atheist family and is able to bond, whatever that activity is is obviously greater than prayer because, as you admit, the theist family is disconnected with the atheist. This means that prayer is unable to unite people regardless of personal beliefs so it is not useful in human relation.You don't come to a funeral to talk about problems
You might not but that doesn't mean other people don't. Grieving is a problem; it means pain over loss.
-
If budda did not come out and say directly that there is no gods then he is not an atheist.
He taught principles that reckons a creator ? impossible and explicitly stated that our universe is uncreated. The main definition of ? is that which describes him/her as the creator of the universe. When Buddha described the universe as uncreated, that meant ? being the creator doesn't exist. Buddha's Teaching of Anatta cancels out the possibility of a ? as traditionally depicted.There are many buddhist who believe in gods.
So what? Buddhism doesn't say you have to or don't have to believe in gods. ..although many monks teach against belief in gods because supposedly it hinders your progress. But I digress.
Anyway, this is beside the point. I will not be addressing anything further on this topic. Whether you consider me an atheist or a not does not have anything to do with our conversation. -
Who said anything about hate????
I'm just stating a fact........
No hating...
You wack.....
-
If budda did not come out and say directly that there is no gods then he is not an atheist.
He taught principles that reckons a creator ? impossible and explicitly stated that our universe is uncreated. The main definition of ? is that which describes him/her as the creator of the universe. When Buddha described the universe as uncreated, that meant ? being the creator doesn't exist. Buddha's Teaching of Anatta cancels out the possibility of a ? as traditionally depicted.There are many buddhist who believe in gods.
So what? Buddhism doesn't say you have to or don't have to believe in gods. ..although many monks teach against belief in gods because supposedly it hinders your progress. But I digress.
Anyway, this is beside the point. I will not be addressing anything further on this topic. Whether you consider me an atheist or a not does not have anything to do with our conversation.
This is the biggest pile of ? I have read in a long time......
-
What's described in the OP has never occurred, have been called a "backslider" and have been told, "You're lost", though.
Also, am agnostic not an atheist.
Sorry to inform you bruh but you're an atheist.
If you don't believe in ? , you're an atheist.
We're not asking you what percentage you don't believe in one?
We're asking if you believe in ? or not.
Atheist need to stop claiming agnostics they are not the same thing.
If you don't believe in a ? you're an atheist.
It doesn't matter how unsure you are.
If you don't believe in ? and you're like 50% you're still an atheist.
I'm 100% sure that there isn't a ? just like I'm sure of one-eyed newts, Leprechaun, Meremaids, ghosts, Aliens and those ? other gods.
If I can't use the scientific method to explain those phenomenon THEY DON'T EXIST. -
Like Fiat said in the thread where they said Feminism is for white women.
Just because it's predominately white doesn't mean it's for white women.
Just like how Science and Engineering is predominately white but it isn't white folks exclusive.
Stop using fallacies because it means you don't have any leg for your argument to stand on.
-
What's described in the OP has never occurred, have been called a "backslider" and have been told, "You're lost", though.
Also, am agnostic not an atheist.
Sorry to inform you bruh but you're an atheist.
If you don't believe in ? , you're an atheist.
We're not asking you what percentage you don't believe in one?
We're asking if you believe in ? or not.
Atheist need to stop claiming agnostics they are not the same thing.
If you don't believe in a ? you're an atheist.
It doesn't matter how unsure you are.
If you don't believe in ? and you're like 50% you're still an atheist.
I'm 100% sure that there isn't a ? just like I'm sure of one-eyed newts, Leprechaun, Meremaids, ghosts, Aliens and those ? other gods.
If I can't use the scientific method to explain those phenomenon THEY DON'T EXIST.
what you have described is weak atheism which in my opinion is hogwash and is really a form of agnosticism. Buddhism is also agnosticism or theism AND IS NOT REAL ATHEISM.
atheism is the stance that ? cannot logically exist therefore there is no ? . -
Agnosticism is an answer to question of knowledge, not belief.
You can be an agnostic theist, which most theists are anyways and etc.
And most atheist are agnostic atheists.
Most folks are agnostics anyways but the question is what is your position?
Atheism or Theism -
What's described in the OP has never occurred, have been called a "backslider" and have been told, "You're lost", though.
Also, am agnostic not an atheist.
Sorry to inform you bruh but you're an atheist.
If you don't believe in ? , you're an atheist.
We're not asking you what percentage you don't believe in one?
We're asking if you believe in ? or not.If you don't believe in ? , you're an atheist.
Following this line of thinking, I'd also be a theist:
You don't believe he doesn't exist, so therefore you are a theist. It doesn't matter how unsure you are.
-
Agnosticism is an answer to question of knowledge, not belief.
You can be an agnostic theist, which most theists are anyways and etc.
And most atheist are agnostic atheists.
Most folks are agnostics anyways but the question is what is your position?
Atheism or Theism
UTTER NONSENSE If you hold the position that ? is unknowable you cannot you say you believe in ? , stop with the verbal games. weak atheism is just another word for agnostic wA is personal affirmation of ? not existing, it says
i lack belief in ? 's existence. so what does that mean? It means "for all I know there's no ? ." which is the same conclusion agnostic comes to.
-
UTTER NONSENSE If you hold the position that ? is unknowable you cannot you say you believe in ? , stop with the verbal games. weak atheism is just another word for agnostic wA is personal affirmation of ? not existing, it says
i lack belief in ? 's existence. so what does that mean? It means "for all I know there's no ? ." which is the same conclusion agnostic comes to.
knowing (or not knowing) and believing (and not believing) are two separate and distinct positions.
For example, let's suppose someone asks me if my brother is currently visiting my father. I either know or I don't know whether or not my brother is at my father's house. But I can also choose to believe or not believe he's there.
An agnostic theist would say: I don't know where my brother is but I believe he is at my father's house.
An agnostic atheist would say: I don't know where my brother is but I don't believe he's at my father's house.
-
UTTER NONSENSE If you hold the position that ? is unknowable you cannot you say you believe in ? , stop with the verbal games. weak atheism is just another word for agnostic wA is personal affirmation of ? not existing, it says
i lack belief in ? 's existence. so what does that mean? It means "for all I know there's no ? ." which is the same conclusion agnostic comes to.
knowing (or not knowing) and believing (and not believing) are two separate and distinct positions.
For example, let's suppose someone asks me if my brother is currently visiting my father. I either know or I don't know whether or not my brother is at my father's house. But I can also choose to believe or not believe he's there.
An agnostic theist would say: I don't know where my brother is but I believe he is at my father's house.
An agnostic atheist would say: I don't know where my brother is but I don't believe he's at my father's house.
semantics and hairsplitting -
UTTER NONSENSE If you hold the position that ? is unknowable you cannot you say you believe in ? , stop with the verbal games. weak atheism is just another word for agnostic wA is personal affirmation of ? not existing, it says
i lack belief in ? 's existence. so what does that mean? It means "for all I know there's no ? ." which is the same conclusion agnostic comes to.
knowing (or not knowing) and believing (and not believing) are two separate and distinct positions.
For example, let's suppose someone asks me if my brother is currently visiting my father. I either know or I don't know whether or not my brother is at my father's house. But I can also choose to believe or not believe he's there.
An agnostic theist would say: I don't know where my brother is but I believe he is at my father's house.
An agnostic atheist would say: I don't know where my brother is but I don't believe he's at my father's house.
semantics and hairsplitting
Demonstrate it. -
Following this line of thinking, I'd also be a theist:
You don't believe he doesn't exist, so therefore you are a theist. It doesn't matter how unsure you are.
You either believe or you don't believe. There is no middle ground. An agnostic is someone who says they don't know; Agnosticism has nothing to do with believing. So, you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. -
UTTER NONSENSE If you hold the position that ? is unknowable you cannot you say you believe in ? , stop with the verbal games. weak atheism is just another word for agnostic wA is personal affirmation of ? not existing, it says
i lack belief in ? 's existence. so what does that mean? It means "for all I know there's no ? ." which is the same conclusion agnostic comes to.
knowing (or not knowing) and believing (and not believing) are two separate and distinct positions.
For example, let's suppose someone asks me if my brother is currently visiting my father. I either know or I don't know whether or not my brother is at my father's house. But I can also choose to believe or not believe he's there.
An agnostic theist would say: I don't know where my brother is but I believe he is at my father's house.
An agnostic atheist would say: I don't know where my brother is but I don't believe he's at my father's house.
semantics and hairsplitting
Demonstrate it.
The only difference between knowing and believing is proof. knowing is believing with evidence if you affirm something with no evidence for or against it then you have a belief. an agnostic affirms nothing. So if you BELIEVE your brother is at your fathers house you have a belief if you don't believe he's at your fathers house you still have a belief.
an agnostic is one who says he cannot know in other words he cannot attain any knowledge and thus cannot prove gods existence or non existence.
An atheist is one who says i know there is no ? and nothing else -
Zombie you are correct in most of your understanding but you overstep a bit in your conclusion. An agnostic is one that claims there are things we can not have any real knowledge of. I am an agnostic atheist. Due to the lack of evidence surrounding ? I see no reason to believe such an entity exists. However given the stated nature of the being there is no way to find such evidence.
Your desire to have the terms apply in the manner you desire seem more based on forcing the atheist to provide proof of the non-existence of ? . Unfortunately atheist do not make a knowledge claim they simple hold that the evidence presented by the theistic side is inconclusive. -
Zombie you are correct in most of your understanding but you overstep a bit in your conclusion. An agnostic is one that claims there are things we can not have any real knowledge of. I am an agnostic atheist. Due to the lack of evidence surrounding ? I see no reason to believe such an entity exists. However given the stated nature of the being there is no way to find such evidence.
Your desire to have the terms apply in the manner you desire seem more based on forcing the atheist to provide proof of the non-existence of ? . Unfortunately atheist do not make a knowledge claim they simple hold that the evidence presented by the theistic side is inconclusive.
an atheist does not believe in ? based on logical evidence if you are not convinced that there cannot be a ? based on logic then you should not call yourself an atheist. in other words an atheist believes there is enough evdience that ? cannot exist,
an agnostic believes that we cannot get that evidence
there is no need to create contradictory words. -
knowing is believing with evidence
No. Knowing is not believing whatsoever. Believing comes from not knowing. If I hold out a closed fist and make a claim that I believe something is there, you have the choice to believe my claim or not believe it. In either case, you would be an agnostic because more than likely you don't know and if you were to be honest, you would admit that you do not know. Not believing my claim is not a belief in itself. This is equivalent to the theists assertion of ? . The atheist lacks the belief in ? but unbelief is not necessarily a belief per se.an agnostic is one who says he cannot know in other words he cannot attain any knowledge and thus cannot prove gods existence or non existence.
And the agnostic then has a choice to either believe or not believe in ? 's existence.An atheist is one who says i know there is no ? and nothing else
An atheist does not have to say that he knows there is no ? . An atheist is one who simply lacks belief in ? . Most atheists are agnostic; they will tell you they don't know for certain whether there is a ? or not but they do not believe in one. -
Zombie you are correct in most of your understanding but you overstep a bit in your conclusion. An agnostic is one that claims there are things we can not have any real knowledge of. I am an agnostic atheist. Due to the lack of evidence surrounding ? I see no reason to believe such an entity exists. However given the stated nature of the being there is no way to find such evidence.
Your desire to have the terms apply in the manner you desire seem more based on forcing the atheist to provide proof of the non-existence of ? . Unfortunately atheist do not make a knowledge claim they simple hold that the evidence presented by the theistic side is inconclusive.
an atheist does not believe in ? based on logical evidence if you are not convinced that there cannot be a ? based on logic then you should not call yourself an atheist. in other words an atheist believes there is enough evdience that ? cannot exist,
an agnostic believes that we cannot get that evidence
there is no need to create contradictory words.
This is completely ridiculous. I see there's no point in trying to make this clear for you. -
-
Zombie you are correct in most of your understanding but you overstep a bit in your conclusion. An agnostic is one that claims there are things we can not have any real knowledge of. I am an agnostic atheist. Due to the lack of evidence surrounding ? I see no reason to believe such an entity exists. However given the stated nature of the being there is no way to find such evidence.
Your desire to have the terms apply in the manner you desire seem more based on forcing the atheist to provide proof of the non-existence of ? . Unfortunately atheist do not make a knowledge claim they simple hold that the evidence presented by the theistic side is inconclusive.
an atheist does not believe in ? based on logical evidence if you are not convinced that there cannot be a ? based on logic then you should not call yourself an atheist. in other words an atheist believes there is enough evdience that ? cannot exist,
an agnostic believes that we cannot get that evidence
there is no need to create contradictory words.
This is completely ridiculous. I see there's no point in trying to make this clear for you.
I REJECT ALL OTHER FORMS OF ATHEISM except strong atheism
weak atheism agnostic atheism all that is ? and is contradictory.
You cannot know some thing unless you can prove it and if you cannot prove it but still affirm it then you have a belief
if you affirm nothing then you are an agnostic.
The agnostic makes no choice
http://youtu.be/j2Py1Bz8XOo