The problem, Theresa, is that most people do not have fully consistent belief systems.
So someone who does not believe in God may also believe in karma and in angels. Is this person an atheist? Yes.
Afterall, there are many people who don't believe in the existence of God but who accept the existence of men and of rocks. And these beliefs are also inconsistent.
33 comments
I don't believe in karma per se, but I do believe that if you live long enough eventually the results of your actions will catch up with you. Not because of any divine force or supreme being, but simply because of good old cause and effect.
Main Entry: atheism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
If you believe in god, you are not an atheist. It doesn't matter if you also believe in karma, black magic, or the easter bunny.
The problem, Theresa, is that most people do not have fully consistent belief systems. So they should believe in the fully consistent Bible instead, huh?
Say, I see what you're up to. Anything that isn't your view is inconsistent. It's a minor strain of debate by blatant assertion.
Different theistic cosmology? Not your theism, therefore inconsistent, therefore atheism.
Atheism itself? Not your belief system, therefore inconsistent.
Just cut it short: "Not mine" and give a raspberry.
The problem, Theresa, is that most people do not have fully consistent belief systems.
Usually calling themselves Christians...
"The problem, Theresa, is that most people do not have fully consistent belief systems."
I don't believe you have a "fully consistent belief system," Lifesaver. If you're a Bible-believing Xian and you don't stone your disobedient children and your adulterous neighbors, you're not consistent.
"So someone who does not believe in God may also believe in karma and in angels. Is this person an atheist? Yes."
As long as s/he doesn't believe in any gods, s/he is an atheist.
"Afterall, there are many people who don't believe in the existence of God but who accept the existence of men and of rocks."
Yes, it's true. I confess that I DO believe in the existence of human beings and rocks.
"And these beliefs are also inconsistent."
Really? Please go to the blackboard and show the class how you worked out that conclusion.
In support of the opposite position, I've looked in a mirror and seen a living, existing man, and outside my window I see several very real rocks. It all seems very consistent.
Even if they believe in other magical creatures, or engage in other magical thinking, atheism simply means rejecting the existence of any deity. Most atheists don't believe in angels though... or karma as an actual force in the universe.
OK, I read it again, I think Lifesaver is saying if you belive in men and rocks, you must believ in god. I'm not saying it's correct, I'm just saying, I think I deciphered it. These posts should come with a decoder ring.
There are very easy logical tests for inconsistency. The simplest one goes like this:
Start with your list of premises. (For example, god doesn't exist, rocks exist, men exist.) Now try to prove a contradiction. (For example, god exists and god doesn't exist.) If you can do it, your premises are inconsistent.
Now, it's clear that--rephrasing with the usual quantifiers--what we have is:
Everything is not god.
There exists something that is a man.
There exists something that is a rock.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can't actually prove anything here. If we had a premise like "Every man is god." or "Every rock is god." we might be able to get somewhere. As it is, we can prove statements like, "No men are god." "No rocks are god." "Bob is not god."...and that's about it. We can also prove the (fairly interesting) "There exists something that is not god," but no contradictions.
Now, this doesn't prove logical consistency--that's harder. But if anyone else can come up with a contradiction, without introducing new premises, I'd very much like to see it.
I think she is reasoning like this:
-> If someone is not a Christian then he is an atheist.
-> If you believe in karma then you are not a Christian
Therefore, if you believe in karma, then you are an atheist
Her problemn is the mayor premise...
What she means is: "Because it was God that created men and rocks, and this is a self-evident fact (at least to a fundie), the acceptance of men and rocks requires an acceptance of the existance of God."
That doesn't make it any less batshit insane.
Afterall, there are many people who don't believe in the existence of God but who accept the existence of men and of rocks. And these beliefs are also inconsistent.
So because I understand that rocks exist but deny the existence of your sky-man, which I can neither see nor sense as I can a rock, I'm somehow illogical?
Try again.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.