Sqrl said:
PhoenixKing said:
Sqrl said:
PhoenixKing said:
They're "atheist" in the sense that they think that other religions are false beliefs the same as atheists do. They don't state it outright, of course, but I've spoken to some and they admit, if you really believe that one religion is the truth then it denotes that the other religions are fake in their minds.
In THAT regard, they are "as athestic" about other religions as atheists are. At the broadest sense, they believe God is being worshipped the wrong way in other religions.
So, I'm not saying they atheists, I'm saying they can be looked upon that way because the share the same qualities atheists do regarding religions that they don't believe in.
But, you're right, they should be counted as theists anyway. I worded that wrong previously.
|
I really don't follow your logic on why athiesm is on any more solid ground by your reasoning...if one of the religions is right athiesm is wrong just as well as other religions are. If any one theory among athiesm and theism of any form is correct, then the rest of the theories pretty much by definition are wrong whether they share their theistic status or not.
As for theism being a 'form of' athiesm...no this is an oversimplification of the issue. A theist might believe another theist has the details wrong but they all agree on the fundamental existence of a higher power. An atheist disagrees on the fundamental point. These are the definitions of what seperates these groups, there is no more clear way to define them than by this fundamental disagreement.
Simply pointing out that a given atheist and a given theist can have similar beliefs in regards to a second theistic belief system does not override their disagreement on the fundamental question of whether god exists, particularly when the given atheist and theist will have vastly different reasoning for why the other theistic belief system is off...and in many cases the two theistic belief systems will probably exhibit considerable overlap.
|
That ignores the fact that some religions, like Hinduism, Shintoism, etc, believe in Gods that are entirely different from the one believed in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
Specifically what about what I wrote ignores those religions? Please quote the exact excerpt. I said quite clearly that those theistic religions share the common thread of belief in a higher power and that some of them have considerable overlap. The statement is blatantly true and does not ignore or conflict with any of the religions you listed in any way.
So, you're oversimplifying as well. There are MANY religious faiths out there that have no distinct similarities or the same higher power existing in the world. We should look at them as religious believers view them: As different entities entirely.
How, exactly, have I oversimplified the issue? That's actually the opposite of what I've done honestly. You seem to think I'm saying you should ignore the differences between religions when I'm not, I'm saying you can't focus on them exclusively. I'm saying you have to consider the fundamental disasgreement theists and atheist have, which is not mutually exclusive with considering the differences in theistic beliefs.
And when did I say their similarities overrided the personal differences? I didn't say that. I just said there is a measure of hypocrisy on the theistic side. They don't always have vastly differing reasons for why a theistic belief is off. Most of it still stems from the idea "it just isn't true" or can, hypocritically enough, stem from the belief that it is lunacy (such as with Scientology, Mormonism, or Voodoo).
When you say theist are atheist, even "in a sense", you're saying the similarities between a given brand of theism and atheism are greater than that brand of theism and other brands of theism. Your entire point is that theists are somehow atheistic about other brands of theism, which means you believe that because they believe their brand of theism is right they disagree just as much with other brands of theism as atheists do. This is obviously falacious on the most critical point of all, a belief in a higher power. That one point of agreement alone brings them into more agreement with theist than atheist because it is the central question at the heart of the issue.
The problem with theistic religions invalidating each other is that NONE of them can give proof for why their beliefs should be followed anymore than the other. After all, it's about faith. Faith is the belief without evidence. The burden of proof lies with the theists making the claim.
So, how can there be VALID certainty that any one of them is more true than the other? All religious believers have certainty that their faith is the correct one and therefore superior to all others.
Ok, first: Certainty in atheism requires a leap of faith just the same as theism does. You cannot factually disprove the existence of a higher power and thus while you can make a very reasonable argument against there being a higher power, at the end of the day you still have to have faith to bridge the gap left by your lack of absolute proof.
Second: Burden of proof lies with the person trying to convince someone else of their position. If a theist wants to convince another theist or even an atheist to follow their brand of theism then they have burden of proof, and the individual being recruited has the right to determine what is and is not sufficient proof for them. Similarly, an atheist trying to convince a theist to become an atheist has the burden of proof, and the individual being recrutied to atheism has the right to determine what is and is not sufficient proof for them. Such is the nature of convincing others to believe as you do.
Now, while one religion being right would invalidate atheism as well, it shows that they didn't really lose out as much as the theists who were wrong, who most likely will face the same punishments as atheists for believing in a false God/Gods/or manner of believing in God(s) their entire lives. Thus atheists lose out less.
Uhm..ok I don't even know where to start on this. You want to try and argue that if a form of theism is correct that atheist "didn't lose out as much" as theists? Doesn't that depend on which form of theism turns out to be correct? For all we know the form of theism that turns out to be valid could be open to anyone who has faith in a higher power...or it could be ridigly dogmatic and require you adhere to strict rules of it's specific doctrines...we just don't know. Trying to speculate on who is closer is asanine unless we know or assume which for of theism is correct before we analyze it.
|
See the green.
|
This is rather convoluted when answering... but.. eh, whatever floats your boat.
1st Green.) Yeah, and what does that have to do with Thiests having some commonalities with athiesm? I never said thiests agree more with athiests, I said there is a common idea towards other beliefs, particularly those that are foreign to them.
Greek mythology is a perfect example. Some people still believe in it in certain countries but many view it as just folklore now.
2nd Green.) Yes, and that had nothing to do with them also having certain similarities. The higher power's that certain religions believe in being different from other higher powers is also something one shouldn't ignore. To do so would change the underlying facts based upon an argument.
3rd Green.) No, you're just obviously offended and took my statements too personally.
4th Green.) Wow, this part is just ignorant. The BURDEN OF PROOF lies on the thiests side who claim God exists. You obviously have no understanding what Burden of Proof actually is. Thiests have the burden of proof because they claim God exists, athiests do not because their claim is based on the idea that no proof has been found. For thiests to be right they would require EVIDENCE not faith.
Why? Well then, let me ask you, can you prove that a 200 foot long invisible pink polka dotted ghost elephant does not exist high-up in the stratosphere?
Obviously, you can't. Does this mean that you're wrong and that the burden of proof now lies on you because you can't prove it? No, of course not. I'm the one making the claim that this elephant exists, it would be absurd to ask you to prove something that I claimed.
Thiests have the same problem, they cannot prove God's existence and try and argue that atheists can't disprove it, not realizing that the burden only lies on the thiests because they're the ones making a claim.
Another thing, which God would it be? As I have shown before with the religions I specified completely different God's as the ones who exist. So which God would be the real one?
5th Green.) Yes, thus the problem. Which faith is the real faith? Ah, yes. Nobody really knows. So how do you know you're following the legit faith? How do you know that what you're believing in is not the devil's faith and that God will punish you in the afterlife for not strictly obeying its faith?
There is no possible way to determine which religion is right or wrong, or false or true. If one were real than a majority of the others would be completely false anyway.
Atheists believe God doesn't exist. They DON'T have faith, they just believe this because there is no evidence of God's existence.
Theists are faithful to God's existence. They never use proof to claim they're right because they have comfort in faith's ignorance and certainty.
I believe that this whole issue is moot because you never know until you're dead anyway.
