| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Alright" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2007 08:36:44 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Atheists Can Relate |
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message news:Xns995CBBF24404Avicman@216.196.97.142...
There is a distinct science of nomenclature, a system of names, in the
Word of God.
Sorry,
"Lack of belief"
.. What does "Lack belief in God" mean?
"Lack" means, deficiency or absence. "Belief" means, acceptance and
conviction that something is true or valid. Therefore, lack of belief
would mean, basically, an absence of belief that something is true. But
even this is debatable on what "absence of belief" can mean. Someone can
say, "I have absence of belief in screaming blue ants" but it is a
meaningless statement. If "Lack of belief" is complete ignorance about
something, then it is a state of non-awareness about it.
It is not a purposeful chosen neutrality about something since this is a
intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing
-- even if the category is called neutrality. We lack belief in concepts
we are not aware of and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of.
If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses to not make an
intellectual commitment to a position, but to remain intellectually
neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.
However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all
concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response. Once you
have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as True, False,
Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental
neutrality or state of ignorance. We do not "lack belief" in invisible
pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position of the
concept. We make a decision to categorize them as True, False,
Ridiculous, Unsure, etc. based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.
To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is
associated with it.
If True, then positive belief is applied. If False, then disbelief (the
positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Ridiculous, then
disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Unsure,
then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome. This is
because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as
also is disbelief (rejection) depending on further information. Being
unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can
logically get but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to
belief or disbelief. Actions reflect belief We act based upon what we do
believe, not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something
because I believe something whether it be that my house is on fire or that
there is food in my refrigerator. However, to say that I believe there is
no food in my refrigerator and therefore, I do not get up to go get food
is actually the active belief that there is no food there and the
resulting decision (action) to remain where I am is the result.
I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot
act based upon them since I am unaware of them. I can only act or not act
based upon concepts I am aware of. If I believe there are invisible pink
unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or
behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist. If I
believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may
not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not
promote their non existence since it is not necessary to do so anymore
than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream
factory on Jupiter. If I believe that the existence of Invisible Pink
Unicorns is ridiculous, I may or may not assert that it is ridiculous, but
I have categorized them and believe they do not exist. If I am unsure
about the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, I would wait for further
information before making my decision.
In this, I would be agnostic about their existence. If an atheist says he
(or she) lacks belief in God, yet actively seeks to undermine theistic
proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his
actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively believes
that God does not exist. Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting
the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his words
and actions are inconsistent. Atheists who say they lack belief in God, or
have disbelief in God, yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to
promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs, not their "lack of
belief." It is more consistent to say the atheist who supports and
promotes the idea that there is no God, believes that there is no God, not
that he lacks belief in God. Otherwise, he is behaving either without a
reason, which is not logical, or with a reason; namely, the belief that
God does not exist. To say that you believe there is no God has problems
To say
"I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what would
the atheist be basing his belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of
evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all? If evidence, then what
positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence? There can be no
such evidence since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect
and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove God's
existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from
it? (I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible). Testimony
is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that
God does not exist. If lack of evidence, then it means he has not yet seen
all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's
existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person
really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is
inconsistent with his statement. If logic then what logical proof do you
have that negates God's existence? At best, logic can only disprove
theistic proofs.
Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means
that the proofs thus presented are insufficient. Logic can only disprove
theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a
refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all
possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does
not disprove God's existence. If there were a logical argument that proved
that God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were
known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's
non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude
that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is
an arbitrary position. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or
faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to
validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate
atheism. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by
faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and
there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all,
virtually impossible to prove a negative.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists Can Relate |
27 Jun 2007 09:24:37 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Alright" <alwrong_32@shotmail.com> bloodied
us up with this:
"Belief" means, acceptance and
conviction that something is true or valid.
Bzzzt! Wrong, moron.
Do you believe there is a computer monitor in front of you? Or do you KNOW
there is a computer monitor in front of you?
Do you believe there are gremlins in your attic, or do you KNOW there are
gremlins in your attic?
Do you see the difference? Intelligent people do. Morons like yourself,
infected with religion, cannot.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
