Atheistic quotes

@William,

William wrote:

No. I was agreeing with you. "yes, abundance is not sought" just didn't sound right. Sorry. The lines we are attempting to distinguish here are sheer and thin and it is my belief we are both right. It is in the individual interpretations that will, it seems, be something that will always on the table. Just as the statement "God helps those who help themselves" is a truth some choose to live by. By the same token, interpreted another way it could be the motivation that could cause an enormous amount of bloodshed. It depends on how you interpret it. There are many such truisms that have apposing meanings.

I stand corrected, thank you very much.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

Hue-man,

Let me try to clarify the situation for you:

For an atheist to denounce a belief in "God", he must have first constructed a notion of "God" to denounce. Otherwise, there is nothing to denounce. It's not that he doesn't believe in the notions' existence (there's no way he cannot believe the notion exists, as he's denying it!), he simply denies the notion. Similarly, I can deny that "goblin" actually exists but naturally only after I've constructed a notion of "goblin".

Therefore, you're correct when you say:

Quote:

Atheism is the opposition of the idea of God

Kolbe provided the definition for us, but he didn't bold the correct parts. Let me help:

a⋅the⋅ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] -noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbeliefin the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I know it's hard to fathom, but there is actually common ground between theists and atheists. You'd be surprised to find that many atheists are even more overzealous than those they oppose!

With that said, avatar is wrong when he says:

Quote:

If God did not exist, how could you oppose him . You cannot set yourself in opposition to a fiction, any more than I could set myself in opposistion to harry potter

First of all, of course you can oppose fiction, and you could definitely set yourself in opposition to the notion of harry potter. Just because there isn't a majority agreeing on harry potter's actual existence does not mean you cannot oppose the notion.

Next, the quote you've provided:

Quote:

If there was no God, there would be no Atheists.

does not prove, by any stretch of the imagination, that any notion of "God" is actual, but merely that notions of "God" do exist. It follows then, that atheists would not exist if notions of "God" did not exist. This is circular logic, and doesn't really tell us much at all. Either you misinterpreted the quote of this man, or the man is an idiot.

0 Replies

@MITech,

The huge problem for me in defining atheism is that it is largely a religious concern. As an atheist, my atheism is only a concern for me when contrasted by another's theism. Left to my own devices, I am not in a state of 'opposing' or 'disbelieving in' God, nor in 'believing' God does not exist. We have a word for atheists because we're not all atheists. If many people did believe in Harry Potter, we'd have a word for those who don't.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

The huge problem for me in defining atheism is that it is largely a religious concern. As an atheist, my atheism is only a concern for me when contrasted by another's theism. Left to my own devices, I am not in a state of 'opposing' or 'disbelieving in' God, nor in 'believing' God does not exist. We have a word for atheists because we're not all atheists. If many people did believe in Harry Potter, we'd have a word for those who don't.

Exactly, Bones. And this is actually a point I made in another thread. Neither of these labels, theist and atheist, are all-inclusive as not every consciousness knows of every notion of "God" that has been, is, or will be. That is, an atheist doesn't denounce every notion of "God", as it's not humanly possible to know. Likewise, a theist doesn't accept every notion of "God", as it's not humanly possible to know. Essentially, we are applying categorization to a notional construct, a construct that varies, sometimes wildly, between cultures and people. So, when we say we're "Atheist" or "Theist", it can most definitely vary profoundly, and I feel it's essential that one clarifies further lest misinterpretation arise.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

... That is, an atheist doesn't denounce every notion of "God", as it's not humanly possible to know. Likewise, a theist doesn't accept every notion of "God", as it's not humanly possible to know. Essentially, we are applying categorization to a notional construct, a construct that varies, sometimes wildly, between cultures and people. So, when we say we're "Atheist" or "Theist", it can most definitely vary profoundly, and I feel it's essential that one clarifies further lest misinterpretation arise.

Yea, very good point here. I don't believe in any dieties; have a seat while I list them all <?!>

There seems to be a human propensity to "divide into two camps" . I really get tired of it. Politics, religion, race... you name it. If it doesn't already come down to just 2 elements, people shoehorn the issues until they find a way to do it. ugh

Good posts - thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Yea, very good point here. I don't believe in any dieties; have a seat while I list them all <?!>

There seems to be a human propensity to "divide into two camps" . I really get tired of it. Politics, religion, race... you name it. If it doesn't already come down to just 2 elements, people shoehorn the issues until they find a way to do it. ugh

Good posts - thanks

I believe it falls into the category of logical fallacy: Affirming a disjunct.

We have A (Theist) or B (Atheist)
Someone chooses A (Theist)
Therefore, they conclude it is not the case of B (Atheist)

Why is this a fallacy? Because, logically, both can be true on some level. "God" is incredibly ambiguous and could be a placeholder for a plethora of different notions, some not even dealing with mysticism! One could believe in intelligent design on some level, denounce all beliefs of a benevolent "God", and call themselves an atheist!

Of course, as you note, this isn't just existent when we speak of theism. Oh god, not by far; there is this tendency to 'divide into these camps' throughout nearly every situation of discourse we can ponder! It seems humans thrive on categorization, and it's unfortunate that we apply this same need for immediate labeling on creatures as complex as humans.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Do not throw that excuse at me good sir, "listen to your heart, what does your heart tell you. God wants you to use your heart, your soul"

The heart solves paradoxes, it doesn't create them. Indeed the brain creates paradoxes.

(Not directed at anybody here)

0 Replies

@MITech,

This is not a quote but there was this great website I went on that posed this:
I will believe in god if you can answer this question. Why does god hate amputees? Christians say it was god who cured their grandmothers cancer, or god who saved their life in a car wreck, or god who got them out of a coma, etc. But why has he never cured an amputee? Does he simply hate them? And please don't reply with the corny statement that he leaves them as amputees for some greater reason!
Just something to think about.

0 Replies

@MITech,

Just think, by this logic god gave their grandmothers cancer, caused the car crash and put them in the coma. It ain't all that grand.

Not really atheistic, though it could be taken with religious warfare, I just like it:
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
~Voltaire

1 Reply

@Kolbe,

Zetherin wrote:

I believe it falls into the category of logical fallacy: Affirming a disjunct.

We have A (Theist) or B (Atheist)
Someone chooses A (Theist)
Therefore, they conclude it is not the case of B (Atheist)

Why is this a fallacy? Because, logically, both can be true on some level. "God" is incredibly ambiguous and could be a placeholder for a plethora of different notions, some not even dealing with mysticism! One could believe in intelligent design on some level, denounce all beliefs of a benevolent "God", and call themselves an atheist!

You are absolutely right. We can look at Taoism for an example, as well: often times Taoism is considered an atheistic philosophy, yet when we look at this "Tao" (what we might call the great Tao rather than just any ol' tao) we find a concept remarkably similar to many concepts of God.

In most cases, atheism and theism is a matter of semantics.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

no, the position you outline is agnosticism. To be an atheist is not simply an abscence of belief, but a denial. We don't believe in a fictional charachter in a novel, but we don't deny their existance. Atheists, particualarily the fervent ones, have, in my experiance, somthing to set up in the place of God, and the denial of God is for them the denial of a false idol.

Would you perhaps catagorize the fervent ones as fundamentalists?

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Avatar: what you appear to be describing is 'strong atheism'. There is also the term 'weak atheism' which applies to those who are non-theists. The 'strong atheist' accepts the assertion that 'God does not exist'. We can see why these definitions become problematic: the agnostic is a non-theist.

Atheism, the definition thereof, relies heavily upon context. Throughout most of history an atheist was someone who doubted or denied the spiritual tradition of his homeland: Socrates, for example. No definite definition exists for "atheist": it's a remarkably relative term.

0 Replies

Atheistic quotes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know