There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Nathan Poe]

You missed the 53% that said there is some sort of SPIRIT or life force. I would count them as basic deists if not theists. They sure as heck are not atheists.

Well that's the problem, isn't it? Can an atheist believe in karma, for example, and still be an atheist? What exactly does that 53% believe in?

It comes down to semantics, really -- does one define atheism as belief in no spirituality whatsoever, or simply no belief in a personal deity?

[Sparko]

Well that's the problem, isn't it? Can an atheist believe in karma, for example, and still be an atheist? What exactly does that 53% believe in?

It comes down to semantics, really -- does one define atheism as belief in no spirituality whatsoever, or simply no belief in a personal deity?

Atheism generally is the nonbelief in any sort of spiritual power/force. After all, if there is a belief in a spirit and an afterlife, how could one plausibly deny belief that there could be a God?

[Rational Gaze]

Tazzy Wazzy is trying to make his position look more valid, then it truly is?

That goes without saying. Tassman would make misleading uses of statistics even if were he were trying to convince someone that the sky were blue.

[Nathan Poe]

Atheism generally is the nonbelief in any sort of spiritual power/force.

Is it now? Like I said, when it comes to things such as karma, fate, etc., we're venturing into a grey area... especially if these things can operate (or more importantly, if people believe these things operate) without any divine guidance. One could see karma as no more personal or judgmental as entropy.

After all, if there is a belief in a spirit and an afterlife, how could one plausibly deny belief that there could be a God?

It would seem plausible, but doesn't automatically follow. And whether or not one concedes that there could be a god doesn't mean that they wouldn't decide against the possibility.

If one believes that this world is governed by forces (let's call them natural laws) which do not necessarily need a deity to command and enforce them, then one could just as easily believe that what happens to oneself after death is similarly ordained, but not necessarily under any sort of divine control.

Consider: physics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. A person who considers their mind, life, or (for lack of a better word) "soul" to be nothing more than a unique pattern of energy could easily believe that after death, that energy must go... somewhere, without believing a god is necessary for the transition.

So a belief in an afterlife doesn't necessarily mean belief in a god.

Now, that's just one example out of literally an infinite number of possibilities -- while the 53% have claimed to believe in some sort of spirituality, that alone, IMO, is far too vague for us to automatically put them in the theist camp.

[Sparko]

Is it now? Like I said, when it comes to things such as karma, fate, etc., we're venturing into a grey area... especially if these things can operate (or more importantly, if people believe these things operate) without any divine guidance. One could see karma as no more personal or judgmental as entropy.



It would seem plausible, but doesn't automatically follow. And whether or not one concedes that there could be a god doesn't mean that they wouldn't decide against the possibility.

If one believes that this world is governed by forces (let's call them natural laws) which do not necessarily need a deity to command and enforce them, then one could just as easily believe that what happens to oneself after death is similarly ordained, but not necessarily under any sort of divine control.

Consider: physics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. A person who considers their mind, life, or (for lack of a better word) "soul" to be nothing more than a unique pattern of energy could easily believe that after death, that energy must go... somewhere, without believing a god is necessary for the transition.

So a belief in an afterlife doesn't necessarily mean belief in a god.

Now, that's just one example out of literally an infinite number of possibilities -- while the 53% have claimed to believe in some sort of spirituality, that alone, IMO, is far too vague for us to automatically put them in the theist camp.

But such a thing as you suggest would be a natural thing (energy) and not a spirit. I think the word spirit pretty much means something supernatural unless you just want to completely redefine the English language to mean whatever you want, in which case we have nothing in common to discuss because we cannot share definitions of terms since your definitions can be anything whatsoever.

[Yogi]

But such a thing as you suggest would be a natural thing (energy) and not a spirit. I think the word spirit pretty much means something supernatural unless you just want to completely redefine the English language to mean whatever you want, in which case we have nothing in common to discuss because we cannot share definitions of terms since your definitions can be anything whatsoever.

I am alittle confused where you two are coming from in relation to atheist views. Whereas I thought atheists just don't believe in God what so ever. Whereas Agnostics might fall into the definition you both are speaking of; including atheist agnostics and theist agnostics. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

Can you clarify for me, I have been following this thread, and this has throw me alittle.

[Nathan Poe]

But such a thing as you suggest would be a natural thing (energy) and not a spirit. I think the word spirit pretty much means something supernatural unless you just want to completely redefine the English language to mean whatever you want, in which case we have nothing in common to discuss because we cannot share definitions of terms since your definitions can be anything whatsoever.

The issue, however, isn't what you or I think the word "spirit" means or should mean, but what the 53% thought it meant when they answered the poll. It's their belief; they get to define their own terms.

[Sparko]

The issue, however, isn't what you or I think the word "spirit" means or should mean, but what the 53% thought it meant when they answered the poll. It's their belief; they get to define their own terms.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I think the default position is to assume that they were using the word "spirit" in the normal sense, meaning something supernatural, especially something that lives on after death.

[Adrift]

http://www.atheists.org/atheism

What is Atheism?

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

© source where applicable

[Nathan Poe]

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I think the default position is to assume that they were using the word "spirit" in the normal sense, meaning something supernatural, especially something that lives on after death.

"Normal" sense, or your own?

I think the default position is to assume that they were using "spirit" in whatever way they wanted to.

[Sparko]

"Normal" sense, or your own?

I think the default position is to assume that they were using "spirit" in whatever way they wanted to.

and what way is that?

Perhaps we should extend that and say that those who said they believe in God and who did not believe in God were using "God" in some personal way also. In that case we can't determine what anyone believes and the terms theist and atheist have no meaning either.

The reason we can communicate is that languages have words that represent ideas and concepts that are shared by most of the people using that language. If 53% of a population is using a word in a nonstandard way to mean something personal, then all language has no meaning and you should not even be able to understand this post, [or perhaps you might just redefine it to mean that I agree with you 100% :-) ]

[Chrawnus]

and what way is that?

Perhaps we should extend that and say that those who said they believe in God and who did not believe in God were using "God" in some personal way also. In that case we can't determine what anyone believes and the terms theist and atheist have no meaning either.

The reason we can communicate is that languages have words that represent ideas and concepts that are shared by most of the people using that language. If 53% of a population is using a word in a nonstandard way to mean something personal, then all language has no meaning and you should not even be able to understand this post, [or perhaps you might just redefine it to mean that I agree with you 100% :-) ]

I've decided that this post means that Sparko will be giving me all his bacon.

[Tassman]

That goes without saying. Tassman would make misleading uses of statistics even if were he were trying to convince someone that the sky were blue.

Standard RG malice-motivated bald assertion contributing nothing of substance as usual.

Tassman is not interpreting the statistics from Adherents.com, merely presenting them and clarifying the disparity which Sparko queried. So, once again: "The Adherents survey states that the large disparity is between ‘hardcore’ atheists who do not consider there are any gods or supernatural realm of any sort and those who think that there may be ‘something’ but are not prepared to define what it is, i.e. agnostics – the overall figure of 85% representing those who do not identify with standard religious beliefs or organized religion of any kind".

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

[Nathan Poe]

and what way is that?

I don't know, and neither do you -- and that's precisely my point.

Perhaps we should extend that and say that those who said they believe in God and who did not believe in God were using "God" in some personal way also. In that case we can't determine what anyone believes and the terms theist and atheist have no meaning either.

You can extend it to the point of utter meaninglessness if it makes you feel better -- but I still want to know what that 53% meant, and I'd rather hear it from them than from you -- no offense.

The reason we can communicate is that languages have words that represent ideas and concepts that are shared by most of the people using that language.

Using which language -- English or Swedish?

Different languages, different cultures, and the possibility of different meanings. I, for one, would like to double-check the facts before deciding who's a theist and who's not.

If 53% of a population is using a word in a nonstandard way to mean something personal, then all language has no meaning and you should not even be able to understand this post, [or perhaps you might just redefine it to mean that I agree with you 100% :-) ]

I wouldn't understand your post if it were written in the same language the poll was -- since I'm not fluent in Swedish, it really would have no meaning for me.

[Sparko]

I don't know, and neither do you -- and that's precisely my point.

nice of you to just chop off the rest of my post and disregard it.

Kinda shows me where you are coming from: Just ignore any evidence or argument that you don't like.

I am sure you will redefine my words above to say "Nice Job Nathan, I totally agree with you"