Quantcast
Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 49 34.51%
 
No 93 65.49%
 
Total:142

You know what my believes are? I believe this thread will never end. And even if it does, nobody changed his/her opinion about this.



Around the Network

No I don't because I thankfully was not brainwashed as a child!



JWeinCom said:

To qualify as an atheist would have to require more than simply lacking a belief in god.  I just ordered a sandwich.  Is the sandwich an atheist? I'm sure we'd agree that the sandwich completely lacked any belief in god.

Sure. However... A Sandwich is an inanimate object, you are conflating the issue now to be something it's not.

A Theist is someone who has strong beliefs in a particular something, I.E. God.
An Atheist is someone who lacks belief in that same something. I.E. God.

Ergo... Everyone that isn't a Theist is essentially an Atheist. That means a new born baby is an Atheist, it is the default position.
Doesn't matter if they lack the cognitive capability to think along those lines either... Because I have worked and looked after allot of people with debilitating disabilities who would never be capable of grasping Theistic principles, they still fall under the Atheist descriptor.

Squall_Leonhart said:
No I don't because I thankfully was not brainwashed as a child!

When I was younger, I was forced to go to the Church every week, was even baptized, probably did that for a good 10+ years.
So it's not my first Rodeo.

Thankfully, I was always more interested in Science and Technology, you know... Concepts with tangible evidence so the Theistic view point never really stuck.
But it does allow me to debate about the topic in a much more comprehensive manner as I have been on both sides of the fence, so that's a plus.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
JWeinCom said:

To qualify as an atheist would have to require more than simply lacking a belief in god.  I just ordered a sandwich.  Is the sandwich an atheist? I'm sure we'd agree that the sandwich completely lacked any belief in god.

Sure. However... A Sandwich is an inanimate object, you are conflating the issue now to be something it's not.

A Theist is someone who has strong beliefs in a particular something, I.E. God.
An Atheist is someone who lacks belief in that same something. I.E. God.

Ergo... Everyone that isn't a Theist is essentially an Atheist. That means a new born baby is an Atheist, it is the default position.
Doesn't matter if they lack the cognitive capability to think along those lines either... Because I have worked and looked after allot of people with debilitating disabilities who would never be capable of grasping Theistic principles, they still fall under the Atheist descriptor.

Well, I'm not trying to conflate anything, I'm trying to clarify

You said you'd consider a pig an atheist, but your current definition seems to exclude that.  Is a pig an atheist, or does it have to be a person?



JWeinCom said:

Well, I'm not trying to conflate anything, I'm trying to clarify

You said you'd consider a pig an atheist, but your current definition seems to exclude that.  Is a pig an atheist, or does it have to be a person?

I have answered that prior.
That I would consider an animal to be an Atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
JWeinCom said:

Well, I'm not trying to conflate anything, I'm trying to clarify

You said you'd consider a pig an atheist, but your current definition seems to exclude that.  Is a pig an atheist, or does it have to be a person?

I have answered that prior.
That I would consider an animal to be an Atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position.

Then I don't understand the distinction between this and my sandwich. Or if you prefer an animate example, a cactus. 

A cactus, by this definition, is an atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position.  So your definition is not specific enough and you need to add to it. 



JWeinCom said:
Pemalite said:

I have answered that prior.
That I would consider an animal to be an Atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position.

Then I don't understand the distinction between this and my sandwich. Or if you prefer an animate example, a cactus. 

A cactus, by this definition, is an atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position.  So your definition is not specific enough and you need to add to it. 

A cactus is also not a gamer if you understand where this is coming from. You can invent a label like atheist for this if you want to and call everyone who doesn't play games this label. 

Atheist is just a label for describing a certain theological position. 



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti 11GB VRAM | Asus PG27UQ gaming on 3840 x 2160 @120 Hz GSYNC HDR| HTC Vive Pro :3

Reached PC Masterrace level.

Peh said:
JWeinCom said:

Then I don't understand the distinction between this and my sandwich. Or if you prefer an animate example, a cactus. 

A cactus, by this definition, is an atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position.  So your definition is not specific enough and you need to add to it. 

A cactus is also not a gamer if you understand where this is coming from. You can invent a label like atheist for this if you want to and call everyone who doesn't play games this label. 

Atheist is just a label for describing a certain theological position. 

I'm not quite sure what point you're making.  If I wanted to make a label for "everyone who doesn't play games" (let's say non-gamer), then that would have to exclude cactii.  Because a cactus isn't part of the set of everyone.  

And if we wanted to create that label non-gamer (which would be different from not a gamer) wouldn't it make sense to define the label in such a way that it would only apply to those with the capability to play games?  Would it be useful or sensible to apply that sort of label to a cactus or a cloud? (although pigs actually can play videogames.) Probably not.  So it would be better to define it a way that would limit it to those with the potential to play video games.  Similarly, I think atheist should be defined in a way which would only apply to those with the capacity for belief.

Atheist is not a label for describing a certain theological position.  That's atheism.  Atheist is a person who holds that position.  If we define it like that (which I would say is probably a good definition), it would exclude cacti, pigs, and babies, as none of them could be demonstrated to hold any position.  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 13 September 2018

JWeinCom said:
Pemalite said:

I have answered that prior.
That I would consider an animal to be an Atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position.

Then I don't understand the distinction between this and my sandwich. Or if you prefer an animate example, a cactus. 

A cactus, by this definition, is an atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position.  So your definition is not specific enough and you need to add to it. 

Because a Sandwich isn't capable of thought.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
JWeinCom said:

Then I don't understand the distinction between this and my sandwich. Or if you prefer an animate example, a cactus. 

A cactus, by this definition, is an atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position.  So your definition is not specific enough and you need to add to it. 

Because a Sandwich isn't capable of thought.


But your definition says nothing about being capable of thought.  It says lacking a belief in god.  So, you need to refine your definition.

So then, an atheist is something that is capable of thought and lacks belief in god?

How about an ant?