? FROM THE ' WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE ' THREAD

[pstrjp]

Sorry, but I made absolutely NO reference to the Christian religion, it is but one of many, which offer the same thing...

You can take this concept all the way back to the very first religions, where the definition of "Weak Hunter" was Shaman...

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I did assume you were discussing Christianity with the illustration as I have heard similar allusions in the past.

Understanding that you are an athiest, I would point out that, to most religions (including Christianity), it would be considered insulting to say a person's faith is just "one of many" that "offer the same thing". There are very few believer's of ANY faith that would agree with this statement and those that would most likely do not adhere closely with that faith. This may be your opinion, which your certainly entitled to, but as a generality, it is an arguable statement from many points of view.

[Morty]

If you cut them up into small enough pieces, yes you can.

Laughing out loud!

Okay, but the blade has to pass an HHT first. ;-)

[trewornan]

As long as we are talking about things that 100% and with no doubt exist, such as hammer.

As a full on "philosophical agnostic" I'd argue even with that - how can you know "100% and with no doubt" when for all you know the matrix really does have you, you're just bits and bytes in some supercomputer, a brain in a scientists vat, hallucinating, etc. We have to work on the assumption that the information we receive from our senses is substantially correct because we have no other way of relating to anything yet we all also know (although not beyond all possible doubt of course) that our senses can be fooled.

[Sailor]

As a full on "philosophical agnostic" I'd argue even with that - how can you know "100% and with no doubt" when for all you know the matrix really does have you, you're just bits and bytes in some supercomputer, a brain in a scientists vat, hallucinating, etc. We have to work on the assumption that the information we receive from our senses is substantially correct because we have no other way of relating to anything yet we all also know (although not beyond all possible doubt of course) that our senses can be fooled.

This is very interesting yet very off topic as well Just like in Blade Runner. Also when we get into quantum physics everything might be different than we've been used to understand.
Even if so, we are not getting wiser. Here or there, we will never be.

Now, as an atheist/agnostic i do not base my thinking on denying gods. They might exist or not. Couldn't care less. Everyone has a right to believe or not to believe the god(s) he/she has chosen. It is not based on rationalism, scientific proof but pure faith. Telling someone that he is wrong with his beliefs has been a major reason for many tragic problems and sorrows in history and present.

I have a safe passage in the nearby forest because the elfs/God/Allah/hammer of Hiisi is watching over me. I have no reason to believe such fairytale bs but i cannot be 100% sure.
Oh it seems that Dionysos talking this time

[northpaw]

I don't see where i'm asking too much. If i were to be asked if i had a 20 oz. hammer in my tool box i could say "I don't BELIEVE i do." meaning i'm not sure. or
i could say " I DO NOT HAVE one" meaning i know i don't have one.
All i'm asking is which of the two is the true Atheist saying.
And i also hope by what i'm saying it's being taken as i have contempt, i'll say it again i'm only looking for a firm answer if there is one.

To me, the dichotomy you're posing only serves to highlight the problematic nature of what it means to "know" something. Even if you'd just reorganized your toolbox ten minutes ago, you can't rule out with 100% certainty that there isn't a 20 oz. hammer there. Someone might have snuck one in when you weren't looking, etc.

Nevertheless, if you really had organized it 10 minutes ago, you'd still speak with certainty. This is the heart of the issue. We're all wired to try to operate on the level of certainties when we can, because at some point, it'd be a pointless waste of time to bother considering all conceivable *extremely* unlikely possibilities. You'd be questioning whether, at each step, your foot might sink through the floor, or explode on a land mind someone has put in the middle of your kitchen.

This is why, to me, the whole notion of pigeonholing the term "atheist" into a tiny box where one must assert 100% confidence in a negative in order to satisfy the definition is solely academic (and rather silly). For all practical purposes, I'd accept the definition to be simply "I do not believe in the existence of deities."

[trewornan]

This is why, to me, the whole notion of pigeonholing the term "atheist" into a tiny box where one must assert 100% confidence in a negative in order to satisfy the definition is solely academic (and rather silly). For all practical purposes, I'd accept the definition to be simply "I do not believe in the existence of deities."

I agree entirely, unfortunately you have to be very careful in any discussion with committed theists about exactly what you say. In normal conversation (at the level of normal practical knowledge) I would say "I know there are no dodos/leprechauns/unicorns/gods/etc" but a committed theist will than say you're making a claim you can't support . . . and they're right, strictly speaking. So when someone starts asking me about atheism and agnosticism I tend to be a bit anal about exactly what I say.