Any other Atheist here?

[Monadnock]

As far as your beliefs and martial arts go, I don't think that they have anything to do with each other. Whether I believe in god or not is not going to make me kick any higher, or grant me the ability to perform a throw better, or more importantly, praying to a god will not allow me to defend myself when the time comes. Only training will do that.

So you ask how people deal with the more metaphysical aspects of the martial arts...As with this entire discussion, that question depends solely on your definition of terms. Most philosophical arguments or disagreements begin with a lack of common definition.

Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal
Pronunciation: -'fi-zi-k&l
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to metaphysics
2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : [SIZE=-1]SUPERNATURAL[/SIZE]
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : [SIZE=-1]THEORETICAL[/SIZE]
4 often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery
- meta·phys·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

How do I deal with the supernatural aspects? Well, people only fly in Chinese martial arts movies.

The abstract or abtruse aspects...I believe that the only "belief" or lack thereof that can influence your practice of martial arts is your belief in yourself. Your mind, your feelings, and your composure are more powerful than any belief...in fact, they are what dictate your beliefs.

Apparently, many other cultures disagree with you. From the kamikaze to almost any other militarized group (be they tribal, or modern day US troops receiving a blessing from a priest) the "metaphysical" is quite entwined. It may help some, even if just a sense of security, but it has been and is still there.

Not that anyoneis forcing you to look into it....I'm just saying.....

 

[Cruentus]

Well the reason I am surprised at the response is that I was asking for the opinion of other atheist. I did not mean for this to turn out to be another thread where I had to discuss atheism misconceptions.

Let's be honest. You don't appear to be surprised, or not wanting the discussion...

On the topic:

I know I really shouldn't post on this because I don't want to get involved in a lengthy discussion, but here is some food for thought...

A lot of people need to separate the difference between a positive athiest and a negative athiest. A negative atheist believes that there is no God; a positive atheist doesn't believe in God because there is no material evidence. Yes, the two perspectives are different. A positive atheist is essentially saying "there could be a God, but I am not going to put my faith into something without proof," which is different then asserting, "there is no God."

The difference is that negative atheists are relatively easy to "pick apart" because their assertion is based in faith without objective evidence the same as any other religious belief. Yes, contrary to popular misconception, if you assert a negative, the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion the same as if you asserted a positive. If you don't make an assertion at all (other then that you aren't going to believe in something without evidence) then there is no way you can be disproved. By nature of the positive atheist argument (that being that the p.atheist bases the argument only on objective evidence where as a theist and n.athiest bases the argument at some point on subjective belief), one can philosophically disagree or even philosophically refute the position, but the p.atheist arguement cannot be disproved in the objective format.

How does a metaphysical perspective effect training?

Many times, in secular martial arts schools, it doesn't. But if you go to a Christian karate school, an Animist or Islamic Silat school, a Shintoist Aikido school, a Taoist Tai Chi school, etc., then it could matter greatly. If that particular school roots the training process and practices in a particular metaphysical perspective, then it will matter at some point. The only important thing would be how would it matter to YOU.

Independent of metaphysics or religion, Philosophical approaches to training, however, do matter greatly, and not just subjectively. If, for example, you're at a school that can't separate the subjective training format from the objective format of an actual fight, then that would greatly effect how one trains, what one trains, and what is assumed to be effective in combat.

Paul

 

[CoryKS]

A negative atheist believes that there is no God; a positive atheist doesn't believe in God because there is no material evidence. Yes, the two perspectives are different. A positive atheist is essentially saying "there could be a God, but I am not going to put my faith into something without proof," which is different then asserting, "there is no God."

I think you are comparing atheism to agnosticism. I probably fall more into the latter category in that I can allow for the existence of a "higher" being, but not as defined by any of the existing belief systems.

 

[Ram]

Let's be honest. You don't appear to be surprised, or not wanting the discussion...

I will admit that I am sucker for a good discussion.:hammer: I guess I did not expect the side comments to come as quick as they did.:matrix:

I know I really shouldn't post on this because I don't want to get involved in a lengthy discussion, but here is some food for thought...

A lot of people need to separate the difference between a positive athiest and a negative athiest. A negative atheist believes that there is no God; a positive atheist doesn't believe in God because there is no material evidence. Yes, the two perspectives are different. A positive atheist is essentially saying "there could be a God, but I am not going to put my faith into something without proof," which is different then asserting, "there is no God."

The difference is that negative atheists are relatively easy to "pick apart" because their assertion is based in faith without objective evidence the same as any other religious belief. Yes, contrary to popular misconception, if you assert a negative, the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion the same as if you asserted a positive. If you don't make an assertion at all (other then that you aren't going to believe in something without evidence) then there is no way you can be disproved. By nature of the positive atheist argument (that being that the p.atheist bases the argument only on objective evidence where as a theist and n.athiest bases the argument at some point on subjective belief), one can philosophically disagree or even philosophically refute the position, but the p.atheist arguement cannot be disproved in the objective format.

Agreed. Although I think that there comes a time and place for the negative in me to come out if need be. Like when a certain president stated that atheist are not citizens.On a quick note Pat Tilman was one and he was a great person and a hero and was defiantly fulfilling his duties as a citizen.
You can't let people walk all over you. They will if you give them a chance especially when they are in group think mode.One on one people are generally open to conversation.

 

[Cruentus]

I think you are comparing atheism to agnosticism. I probably fall more into the latter category in that I can allow for the existence of a "higher" being, but not as defined by any of the existing belief systems.

No. Agnosticism and Positive Atheism can be similar, but are distinctly different. Agnosticism states that it isn't possible to have knowledge of a diety in this life, so religious matters are unknown. Positive athiesm doesn't make a claim that such matters cannot be known; it simply states that there isn't evidence for a diety and will not take a leap of faith to assume that there is or isn't without that evidence.

So the two are fundamentally different.

 

[Ram]

I think you are comparing atheism to agnosticism. I probably fall more into the latter category in that I can allow for the existence of a "higher" being, but not as defined by any of the existing belief systems.

Not really. I can not believe in a god but with the proper evidence I will reassess if need be. I don't believe in the lock ness monster but if someone captured one alive or found a full carcass after the examination was shown to be it then I would believe in it.

Or you could look at it as everyone is agnostic because no one knows about it for sure. In this scenario you could have a agnostic/atheist or a agonstic/theist.

 

[Cruentus]

Agreed. Although I think that there comes a time and place for the negative in me to come out if need be.

I should clarify that the terms "positive" or "negative" aren't value judgements like "good" or "bad," they are just ways of characterizing the different perspectives.

 

[Ram]

I should clarify that the terms "positive" or "negative" aren't value judgements like "good" or "bad," they are just ways of characterizing the different perspectives.

Thats true.:ultracool

 

[CoryKS]

No. Agnosticism and Positive Atheism can be similar, but are distinctly different. Agnosticism states that it isn't possible to have knowledge of a diety in this life, so religious matters are unknown. Positive athiesm doesn't make a claim that such matters cannot be known; it simply states that there isn't evidence for a diety and will not take a leap of faith to assume that there is or isn't without that evidence.

So the two are fundamentally different.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Andrew Green]

I don't think anyone will claim that there is nothing that would convince them of the existance of God. Agnostics are undecided, athiests believe there isn't. But even the strongest athiest could probably tell you what could happen to convince them of the existance of a God. How many Christians can tell you what it would take for them to convince them that there is no God?

 

[Cruentus]

I don't think anyone will claim that there is nothing that would convince them of the existance of God. Agnostics are undecided, athiests believe there isn't. But even the strongest athiest could probably tell you what could happen to convince them of the existance of a God. How many Christians can tell you what it would take for them to convince them that there is no God?

Your stating the obvious, really. By nature of the theist position, when one has a perspective based in faith, it would be difficult to state exactly what objective element could change that subjective perception. Someone without that subjective belief would want to see objective proof to change his/her position, and could therefore easily state what that might be.

So, not that your doing this, but it is worth saying that one shouldn't make a value judgement on the willingness or unwillingness to state what would change ones position, when this willingness or unwillingness is a product of the philosophical position itself.

 

[Monadnock]

I don't think anyone will claim that there is nothing that would convince them of the existance of God. Agnostics are undecided, athiests believe there isn't. But even the strongest athiest could probably tell you what could happen to convince them of the existance of a God. How many Christians can tell you what it would take for them to convince them that there is no God?

Christians, or Theists? Funny people choose them over the 100's of other Theist religions....

But proving a negative requires proof of the positive. Maybe people do not understand that religions are based on Faith. No more need to prove or disprove. End of discussion. You either develop Faith, follow it, or sleep well at night with Science.

Night night.

 

[qizmoduis]

No one is without a theism.
Sean

That's just silly. Why debase your own beliefs by redefining the core words of your beliefs into meaningless gibberish.

Try to take use of language, especially in discussions such as this, a little more seriously.

I'm an atheist. I do not believe in deities of any stripe. You cannot make me a theist by arbitrarily deciding to redefine theism to include any belief that suits your fancy.

Believing that the sun will rise on schedule tomorrow does not make me a christian. Understanding that jumping off of a very tall cliff will almost invariably result in an uncomfortable and likely fatal splat at the bottom is not even remotely the same as believing that thunder is the result of angels running regular Heaven Leagues at the celestial alley.

I've said this before on this very forum, and I've said it before on almost every forum where religion occasionally gets discussed. And like Ram, I tire of seeing this silliness crop up from religious apologists every single time. I am an atheist. I do not have the same beliefs or belief patterns that you do, and you cannot make it so by inventing your own private word definitions.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I don't know but I have "faith" in the theory of gravity.

Lot a holes in that theory. We understand less about gravity than we do light. Who's theory do you place your faith in?
Sean

 

[Ram]

Lot a holes in that theory. We understand less about gravity than we do light. Who's theory do you place your faith in?

I can tell you that I believe in the theory of gravity enough not to jump off a 100 story building without a parachute any time soon. Of course if you would like to prove me wrong.....

 

[Ram]

B.T.W. we have actually be getting a lot closer to figuring out the abstract parts of gravity lately. I agree that it is a very interesting subject.

 

[Touch Of Death]

That's just silly. Why debase your own beliefs by redefining the core words of your beliefs into meaningless gibberish.

Try to take use of language, especially in discussions such as this, a little more seriously.

I'm an atheist. I do not believe in deities of any stripe. You cannot make me a theist by arbitrarily deciding to redefine theism to include any belief that suits your fancy.

Believing that the sun will rise on schedule tomorrow does not make me a christian. Understanding that jumping off of a very tall cliff will almost invariably result in an uncomfortable and likely fatal splat at the bottom is not even remotely the same as believing that thunder is the result of angels running regular Heaven Leagues at the celestial alley.

I've said this before on this very forum, and I've said it before on almost every forum where religion occasionally gets discussed. And like Ram, I tire of seeing this silliness crop up from religious apologists every single time. I am an atheist. I do not have the same beliefs or belief patterns that you do, and you cannot make it so by inventing your own private word definitions.

Didn't you used to believe there were nine planets in the solar system? Did you not accept it as scientific fact?
Sean

 

[Andrew Green]

I believe that gravity is a very real force. I can pretty much prove this. What is in doubt is pieces of our understanding of why the force exists and exactly what causes it. However I suppose you say that my "faith" leads me to believe that we will eventually be able to understand gravity.

And for me that is a important distinction. Science assumes that we can and eventually will understand the universe. Religion assumes that we can never comprehend it.

Guess I am a optimist

Anyways... Trying to define science as Theism is IMO, along the same lines as trying to define Creationism as a science. Put them under the same umbrella in a attempt to jumble the distinctions between them and balance there credibility.

Religion is just one of those things that requires faith without reason, and those that have it do, and those that don't do not. But I really think trying to justify religious beliefs by claiming they are what they are not weakens there position, not strengthens it.

 

[crushing]

Didn't you used to believe there were nine planets in the solar system? Did you not accept it as scientific fact?
Sean

I'm not sure where you are going with that. Changing the definition of the word 'planet' doesn't negate the existence of those known celestial bodies.

 

[Andrew Green]

Didn't you used to believe there were nine planets in the solar system? Did you not accept it as scientific fact?
Sean

I could be wrong, but I believe it wasn't until Pluto was cast out that any real definition was created. Until then "proper" form was just "Satellites" for planets, moons and things like Pluto