I don't believe you. Actually here are some definitions- Webster- "Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing --1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths." Wikopedia-"Nihilism (From the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.[1] Nihilism is often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche. Although Nietzsche ridiculed Nihilism, he did so under the definition of Fatalism" Religion in its simplist form is related to the belief in the existence of diety. But that is also an oversimplification of human conscienciousness. We humans live according to a belief system- perception, reason, conviction. Whatever you label the process we all make choices based upon our own belief system- or process for conviction. You cannot make a choice without a conviction. Simply put if you doubt you must be convinced you do not know. If you know you must be convinced you do not doubt. The human personality is so constructed that we always choose what we want. That is the definition of will. I will, therefore I choose. Let me explain, someone may say I want to lose weight. If they choose to burn more calories than they take in and if their metabolism is normal they will lose weight. But If they choose to take in more calories than they burn then they will not lose weight and they have simply mistaken a perception or an intention for a choice. So you always choose what you believe. To do otherwise is to confuse your intentions with your will. In human conscienciousness our belief system can never be defined as not believing. An atheist opposes the belief of diety. But an atheist has a belief system just like a theist has a belief system. The only difference is the theist generally accepts a spiritual or a god realm with regard to the belief system. An atheist opposes such and therefore has a belief system without a spiritual or diety element. The practices and choices of a theist and an atheist are not really different. When observing their choices it is evident they are both religious in perception, conviction and belief. The atheist may oppose a belief in god but in no way does the atheist make choices in any different way- the atheist believes in something even if it is himself and acts just as religious about his faith as the theist. I think there are theists and agnostics but I am not sure I believe in atheists.
There has always been a greta deal of misunderstanding of the term "atheist". It can mean to some a belief in the non-existence of deities. This is sometimes called "strong atheism". But it can also mean a lack of belief in deities. This is called "weak atheism". However they are not equivalent. Believing in the opposite of something and having lack of belief is not the same thing. Most people who consider themselves atheists are "weak atheists" in that they do not affirm belief in deities but also do not necessarily affirm that they do not or cannot exist. A weak atheist only says that there is no reason or basis to believe in their existence and so lacks a belief in such a thing without claiming that they do not outright exist.
What you call a "weak atheist" is an agnostic. (By Merriam-Webster's definition.) agnostic (n.) - 1b. one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. atheist (n.) - one who believes that there is no deity.
A weak atheist isn't exactly an agnostic though IIUC. Someone who is a weak atheist lacks the belief in a deity without affirming that deities can't exist only that there is lack of sufficient (for him) proof. Someone who is agnostic claims not to know whether there are deities or not and is uncommitted to either possibility. The difference is very subtle but it is there.
The best way to demonstrate the difference is with these hypothetical answer to the question "Do you believe in deities?" Agnostic: I have no idea whether to believe in them or not. Maybe they exist, maybe they don't. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Weak Atheist: I lack the belief in deities. There is a possibility that deities exist but without sufficient evidence, I won't believe in something that simply based on faith. They may exist and I won't claim they don't exist but I until stronger proof is presented I remain skeptical. Strong Atheist: Deities absolutely do not exist. They are creations of the human imagination.
What argument? There is no argument. You can't call something a religion because it is based on a lack of belief due to no evidence existing to say otherwise. Is not believing in Santa Claus a religion? How about the Tooth Fairy, or Zeus or gremlins? More of the same from you. I guess you entertain ALL possibilities in every situation? Since we can't prove anything in the sense that you are demanding that atheists prove their disbelief in god then I guess you apply this same level of proof in your life. Think about what you are saying and try to realize how ridiculous it is.
No. There is not evidence or you would have produced it instead of repeating the same thing over and over. I propose that a lack of belief is not a religion. If you want to call lack of belief a belief system then I guess bald is a hair color too, right? See my response to Madmax. If not believing in something is a religion then every person on this planet belongs to thousands if not millions of religions. Don't believe in dragons = religion No unicorns = religion Lack of belief in invisible gnomes = religion You get the point. Also, who cares if atheists actively try to convert. I think you're full of it, BTW but even if they do how is that religion?
Just to throw this conversation for another loop what about people who hold more than one belief that may conflict? Take for instance a paleontologist who is also a devout Christian who believes in the Bible but also accepts the proof and process of Evolution. There are many ways that one can accomodate those type of beliefs but leaving those aside for now there are many people who hold what could be considered contradictory beliefs and in one context could be considered an atheists or agnostic and in another context a theist.
He isn't saying anything ridiculous. He is pointing out that at some point the atheists made a decision, to not be open to the idea that Jesus might exist, or might have existed. Just as a "believer" made the decision that Jesus might have. It isn't that anyone has to prove or disprove anything. It is just that people on either side of the argument have made decisions about what they will believe and won't believe in.
Webster's is fine if not overly simplified and general (it is a dictionary, after all) but wiki is a bit all over the place so I don't really think that is helpful in the least. This is a bit repetetive and nonsensical to me (and no, I do know what an atheist and a theist is...I just don't understand your point beyond "atheists believe in not believing in God...which goes without saying). I also think you have an odd definition or "religious". Pretty much every definition of "religious" states that it is believing in a supreme power or diety so I don't know how an atheist can be religious with his/her "perception, conviction and belief." Of course you just spent a few paragraphs describing a group of people that you don't think exist (does that mean your are an atheist with regard to atheists?) so confusion over your use of language should be expected I suppose. As I said, everybody on earth is an atheist to some degree. You as a Christian have chosen to not believe in every other religion out there. An "atheist" (in quotes so it can remain hypothetical!) just adds one more to your list.
you don't have to prove your disbelief. but if you can't prove a statement, it's not empirical...and is based, in some measure, on faith. to say, "there is no God" presupposes a ton of things. it takes a measure of faith. that's all i'm saying. no need to get personal. why is this so upsetting? i say there is a God. someone else says there's not. neither one of us can prove our statements. the agnostic sits in the middle saying, "i don't know for sure."
Hi MadMax, I am God, and if you give me all your money, I will make you live forever. Now since you cannot prove that I'm not God, you have to believe that I am God and give me all your money.
I could be wrong, but wasn't Jesus suppose to comeback, and very few people would believe he was the second coming and worship him, while majority of the people would worship the false prophet?
I think the false prophet comes first then Jesus comes back. I havent read Revelations in a while because frankly it spooks me each time and it's a pretty difficult book to read, but I'm fairly certain that the false prophet and antichrist comes first, then Jesus comes and gets rid of both fo them.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Extrabiblical+Evidence+of+Jesus&btnG=Google+Search Most results quote four separate mentions by Josephus, a Jewish historian; one mention by Tacitus, a Roman historian; one mention by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor; one mention in the Talmud; and one mention by Lucian, a Greek writer. But here is the reason that I believe denying that Jesus existed is just silly: Jesus's followers really believed that he was God. Contemporaries of Jesus traveled as far as France, Ethiopia, and India to spread the Gospel. Quite a few were killed because they refused to quit preaching that belief in Jesus could lead to everlasting life. And they were quite convincing. They converted tens of thousands of Jews and Pagans. Churches in Asia, Greece, and Italy grew enormously very early on. Religion normally grows by force. Yet despite Christianity being illegal in some areas of the Roman Empire and a "secondary" religion in others, 25% of all Romans claimed to be Christians in 300 AD, when the first emperor converted. (Of course, probably only 10% were practicing.) I find it highly improbable that these men would dedicate their lives and even die for what they knew to be a myth. Again, atheism is not simply "lack of belief" in God. It is active belief that there is no God. It requires a conscious decision to believe something. Therefore atheism is a belief system. My original comment was meant to be somewhat satirical, that is why I used the word religion.
Are you honestly telling me you didn't know that? Come one DaDa, for all the entertaining Islam-bashing you do you should effort to learn a few things about the object of your disaffection. But yes, Muslims believe Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad to all be extraordinary men and messengers of God, but men nevertheless.
Why is it not useful? If MadMax is willing to believe in the existence of a God that no one alive has ever seen, heard or in anyway able prove to exist, then why wouldn't he believe that I'm God? At least I tried communicating with him! -NP
