Do Atheist Bow to Anthromophism?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

No I am saying that Atheism bows to conclusion that reality can be explained. Despite the clear fact that humans simply do not understand enough about to form such conclusion.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: zazzafrazz

No

But that's exactly what Anthropomorphism means. Perhaps a dictionary or thesaurus would be handy prior to using words you don't know the definition of in thread titles?

I am saying that Atheism bows to conclusion that reality can be explained. Despite the clear fact that humans simply do not understand enough about to form such conclusion.

Atheism doesn't bow to anything though. It is simply the position that one doesn't believe in a god or gods of any sort. There is no universal, default or prescribed dogma in regards to Atheism. Different people do not believe for many different reasons. And in my experience, none that I know believe that we have the answers for everything. Just that there is no evidence supporting a supernatural creator entity. The entire premise of this thread is an argument from ignorance. You don't know what atheists believe and you sure don't know what anthropomorphism means!

a reply to: peter vlar

Chaos theory presents that in nature much of what we define as random is in fact not.

That could also and very well relate to reality a whole.

The dogma in atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities. Anthropomorphism is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.

The idea that God does not exist relates to intent

Pure and simple Atheism is a religion.

a reply to: Kashai

When I was a kid I thought Santa Clause and god were one in the same. I stopped believing in both at the same time.

In such a case by your standards a non-belief in Santa Clause is a religion as well.

If that seems ridiculous to you then you should be able to relate to how ridiculous it seems to me that you try to label atheism as a religion.

Try pondering that for a while.

a reply to: Grimpachi

In relation to modern science Nature presents experiences that make clear that Randomness is an illusion.

And there actually was a Santa Clause and is known as Saint Nicholas and so related to Christianity.

In perspective, 'it is better to give than receive".

A rather novel philosophy that on this planet is in general celebrated yearly.


Try pondering that for a while.

a reply to: Kashai

In relation to modern science Nature presents experiences that make clear that Randomness is an illusion.

So what? None of that concerns me.

And there actually was a Santa Clause and is known as Saint Nicholas and so related to Christianity.

Did he jump down chimneys make lists of naughty and nice delivering presents around the world to kids in a magical sleigh pulled by reindeer? If not then we are not talking about the same entity.

Anyway, are you arguing that non-belief in Santa Clause is a religion?

If non-belief were actually a religion then every entity/deity that people do not believe in would be a religion.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I do not think is matters, what is relevant to Christmas is that giving is better than receiving.

As far as I am concerned given that Randomness could be an Illusion logic demands that despite their Dogma the could be completely wrong.

Adult to adult I really do not care that to you this issue is not relevant.

No offence intended that is just how I roll.

a reply to: Kashai

I have been trying to explain to you in a way you can relate/understand that atheism isn't a religion as you stated, but it seems you don't want to address that.


As far as the other things you are going on about to me they are irrelevant.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I am pretty sure you and I debated many years ago.

Is a Positive and a Negative related?

is Anti-Religion no different than a negative integer as in -7 vs. +7 or visa versa.


How can one actually claim that given, that modern science presents infinity as mathematically valid, anything is not possible.

a reply to: Kashai

Not to be rude, but if you are not willing to address what I said then I will simply move on.

You seem a very dismissive person apparently unable to leave your box.

Any thoughts?

I think I don't even know what is being discussed anymore.

What is being discussed is that Atheism is a belief system that is based upon human experience.

And based upon current understanding Randomness could very well be an Illusion.


Despite apparent facts there are some that engage in denial due to Anthromophism. They insist that God cannot exist because humans can conceive such a potential despite evidence exist that they could be wrong.

Agnosticism

The real meaning of Agnosticism is God can not be proven or disproven.

It is the default position. Atheism or Theism is which way you lean from there.

It's a mouthful "Agnostic Atheist". I don't feel the need to tag my Atheism with the default position every time Atheism is discussed. It's unnecessary.

I am an Agnostic Atheist. I would say any genuine Atheist is an Agnostic Atheist.

Try telling a Christian they are an Agnostic Theist.

William L. Rowe ---- In the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational. In the modern period, agnostics have appealed largely to the philosophies of Hume and Kant as providing the justification for agnosticism as a philosophical position. www.rep.routledge.com...

a reply to: Annee


I am not sure I understand are you suggesting there is no such thing as an Agnostic Theist?


As I understand it there are about 799,190,323 Agnostics world wide.

Kashai, it's page 8 now and the responses are the exact same thing to everything you say. Why? Because you simply are incapable of understanding how you are in fact incorrect about your initial description of what Atheism really is.

There has only been one main argument that you've made in the entire thread, and it's false premise has been pointed out to you nearly 100 times (this is the actual number, not a hyperbole). At what point is it not blazingly obvious that you are actually incorrect?

~ Atheism does not have a universal set of beliefs.
~ Atheists are not required to follow everything Science says (in fact, more theists accept what science says than atheists).
~ Atheism isn't a position, it's a lack of belief.
~ Atheism says nothing about how we determine what is reality in the universe around us.
~ An Atheist can reject anything and everything that Science says and still be an Atheist, because the two terms are not synonymous.
~ The only thing that connects one Atheist to another is a shared lack-of-belief in all gods.
~ Atheism does not claim, absolutely, that Gods do not exist. Rather, they are usually Atheists because there simply isn't anything to suggest that any sort of god does exist, and all of our observations we've made thus far have been natural occurrences.

Now, instead of just acting like a broken record and literally saying the exact same thing you said on page one (despite the claim being debunked nearly 100 times), how about you address each and every one of the points I just made and tell me how you believe they are not factual, in detail. Because, at the moment, you're just saying the same thing over and over again, you're being corrected by everyone over and over again, and then you continue to say the same thing, over and over again.

a reply to: Ghost147

All you are suggesting is that Atheist can be just as Delusional. Stubborn and Arrogant, as extremist members of any other theology.

Some Atheist refuse to accept that in reality "we do not know" and that this, should be acknowledged as a positive in relation to Atheist Dogma.

Because truth is secondary when it comes to belief.

Which by the way is silly.

Any thoughts?

The truth being, you have no way of confirming your belief. But that is OK. Because your beliefs takes precedence over reality as humans understand it. Meaning that you really have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Yes it has been 8 pages and you still are having problems addressing that very rational and simple to understand point.

Any thoughts?

What part of --- atheists are individuals with only one thing in common "lack of belief in a god" --- do you not get?

Beyond that they can be a housewife, student, car washer, scientist, bull rider, commedian, doctor, homeless, anything, any personality, any race, any gender, ANYTHING.

You keep trying to group atheists other then they lack belief in a god.

It's not happening.