atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun: the belief that God does not exist.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk
[I hate to start like this but I couldn't think of a better intro]
Some people claim that they are atheists. But the problem with their argument is that they only "Believe" that the God does not exist. It sounds contradictory,because if you take "belief" as the basis then there is really no difference between those who believe that He does not exist and those who believe He exists.
Therefore there is not difference between a christian missionary who is trying to spread Christianity and atheists who are trying to spread so called rational thinking. Both of them trying to put their argument based on their belief and not some proof within the well accepted frame of logic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Makes some sense in principal.
However, conventionally, we have defined to use the word "believers" as a proxy to describe those who believe in God. True, everyone has some belief (some believe in His existence, some don't). But being a non-believer does not mean that you have no beliefs.
The whole point is that these sets of people have different beliefs, and are different on that count.
You claim that atheists "believe" that god doesn't exist. But if you see them as "not believing" anything without reason, then there's a difference. Theists are more willing to accept the "common wisdom" passed down through generations, than atheists.
bottom line: it depends on whether you see "absence" as absence of presence or presence of absence (is a null set same as an empty set?)
My argument is not that a religious person is no different from a non-religious person. So the question of common wisdom being passed on without questioning does not arise. As far as the analogy is concerned, my point is that null set and set which has only zero are essentially sets. I am not concerned about their contents.( I assume that this is what you meant.Otherwise, empty set is indeed equal to null set)
I agree with you, in the sense that both the stance are based on a 'belief' rather than on evidence. I misinterpreted you earlier...
You are interpreting "not believing a thing exists" as "believing a thing does not exist" and then trying to equate both. (Is doing good and doing evil, by whatever standards, alike because "doing" is common between both?)
I think one has two options when deciding on the existence of something: to believe or not to believe. You are trying to say that both the options available are to believe, one in the existence of the thing and the other in the non-existence. That is not true. You need not believe that something does not exist; you just have to reject the belief that it exists, if you don't have enough proof of its existence. I believe this is why courts of justice treat every accused as innocent unless proved otherwise. (The judge is not sure if the accused is guilty or not, so he maintains the status quo, i.e., treats the person as not guilty, until he/she has enough evidence to convict the accused.) So, even while deciding whether to believe in the existence of something, a rational person should preserve the status quo until he has enough evidence to change his stance. The king was naked. The question was whether he had invisible clothes or not. The boy who said out loud that the king is naked just did not believe that he had enough evidence to confirm the existence of the clothes. The boy did not have to "believe" that the king is not wearing clothes.
I think most people believe in God because of social pressure, exerted on them right from their childhood, by none other than the parents they trust the most. (No one is born with the belief of God..we tell the kids that if they lie, God will punish them..I think instead, we should try to get them understand the importance of integrity.) Once the kid grows up and becomes educated, he has a choice whether to continue blindly believing what the others say or to trust his/her own judgment to make a decision. Most people don't make the effort to look back and question the basics. Some, though they do look back, are just not ready to change their opinion because of fear of society. This is in stark contrast to those who do question the basics and form their own judgment based on perceived evidence.
So, I do not agree with you. Belief and non-belief are not the same; they are indeed, opposites.
Post a Comment