What exactly is atheism?

[Jan Ardena]

Well Jan, although Cris has provided a very nice explanation, which you seem to agree with, I think the definition can be better refined without causing more confusion, in fact, we can give it more clarity.

Not only are there gods to contend with in religion, there are demons, angels, devils, ghostly spirits and all sorts of imps and cherubs, including a talking snake, of all things. And of course, atheists will have a tendency to not believe in those as well. So, the definition requires some updating, we're not strictly dealing with gods.

Cris' definition also has a flaw in that it begins from the position that god IS an entity, but that the entity god is not believed by atheists. Again, this could use some updating.

So, how do we fix it?

Gods and demons and learning to lie are written in scriptures, and scriptures were written by men. Whether or not they are the word of god is another debate, but theists certainly believe them to be.

A 'claim' is a state that is asserted or affirmed as true or existing. Scriptures makes a number of claims that include gods and demons and learning to lie.

So essentially, scriptures can be regarded as a book containing a number of claims, and it is these claims that 'atheists' have a problem believing. They are simply not accepted. And since any given set of scriptures is so widely interpreted by it's followers, we find theists contriving all kinds of claims, hence we cannot accept theirs either.

Perhaps then, we can further define 'atheism' thusly:

"Not accepting the claims of scriptures or theists."

You're just confusing the issue. Atheism is non- belief in God, you have just added the for whatever reason.
Neither atheist or theist can prove they are right. To do that they must step outside their designation.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

To know what I believe, I would have to know what exactly this I is ...

That's like saying, 'to know how to drive a car, I must know exactly what a car is. The truth is you don't.

Perhaps ... What I was trying to get at was that the communication that theists have with atheists, at least here at these forums, is often one where there is little or no common ground established, where atheists tend to persist in their own, non-scriptoral definitions of God, soul, self, and so on.

This is the ...for whatever reason part of my definition. They are simply, atheists, looking to defeat the theist.

In contrast, two people from the same religious tradition would have quite a different type of discussion as they would both keep in line with the normative descriptions provided by their reference scriptures and other specific guidelines.

It works the same way for atheists as well.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

I don't know why so many religious people, especially here, seem to struggle with the concept of atheism.

They don't James, there's nothing to struggle with as it is a simple case of an atheist is a person who does not believe in God for whatever reason.
How can anyone struggle with that?

The atheist is the one who struggles. They struggle to stay in a discussion by adding that the theist has no understanding of atheism.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Please cite your sources, as every dictionary I've looked it up in says "It's the belief that there is no god."
Thx.

We are in agreement as my definition is; one who does not believe in God for what ever reason
All the other stuff, we are; rational, logical, more intelligent, have a sense of humour, and many more descriptions bestowed on atheists, mainly be atheists. Is the for whatever reason part of my definition.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

There is no evidence for tooth fairies. Do you entertain the possibility of their existence ? I don't.

If you can find a society which believes the tooth fairy is an actually real phenomenon, and have at their desposal, ancient scriptures, precisicion built places of worship, exquisite art, music , philosophy, etc.. and whatever exquisitness is devoted to God.
Get back to me and we shall resume. Otherwise you're just wasting my time.

Despite claims to the contrary, nobody knows whether god exists. I reject the idea of god for the same reasons that I reject the existence of tooth fairies.

Yes..."for whatever reason".

jan.

 

[Myles]

Myles,



If you can find a society which believes the tooth fairy is an actually real phenomenon, and have at their desposal, ancient scriptures, precisicion built places of worship, exquisite art, music , philosophy, etc.. and whatever exquisitness is devoted to God.
Get back to me and we shall resume. Otherwise you're just wasting my time.



Yes..."for whatever reason".

jan.

The Christiam scroptures are of unknown provenance, they contradict each other in places, not to mention those of Muslims . Hindus and others. Of course they are all true.Then we must consider Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

I said to you recently that you cannot reason and I'm telling you again. not that I thnk it will make a scrap of differece.

The existence of temples, scriptures , priests and all the other baggage that goes with religion proves nothing other than a lot of people believe in god. It offers no proof whatever that god exists. Remember when everyone believed the world was flat ?

Bye

 

[Jan Ardena]

The Christiam scroptures are of unknown provenance, they contradict each other in places, not to mention those of Muslims . Hindus and others. Of course they are all true.Then we must consider Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

I said to you recently that you cannot reason and I'm telling you again. not that I thnk it will make a scrap of differece.

The existence of temples, scriptures , priests and all the other baggage that goes with religion proves nothing other than a lot of people believe in god. It offers no proof whatever that god exists. Remember when everyone believed the world was flat ?

Bye

How is it possible to prove whether God exists or not, by scriptoral accounts?
You accuse me of not being able to reason properly, yet you constantly ask for physical evidence for the existence of God. What is the reason for such a request, based on scriptoral religion?
In light of the fact that all scriptoral religions give their account of God being the original, spiritual cause to our perceptions, it is futile to attempt to seek God outside of our own selves as a rule, to make the decision as to whether we should believe in his existence. No scriptures endorse this, so what are you actually talking about when refer to religion, or scripture?

You and I come into conflict simply because I bypass the idea that God is a physical being. And as far as scriptoral religion goes, I am right. You on the other hand cannot function in the correct parameters of such a religion, to make your point, and as such, have to alter the information in such a way in order facilitate your line reasoning.

The truth of the matter is, you don't believe in God, period, but have taken it upon yourself to show that God doesn't exist, by whatever means you deem necessary. Your line of reasoning is actually irrelevant, and being exposed of this is distateful to you.

jan.

 

[(Q)]

You're just confusing the issue. Atheism is non- belief in God, you have just added the for whatever reason.
Neither atheist or theist can prove they are right. To do that they must step outside their designation.

jan.

You are confused, Jan. An atheist doesn't accept your claims for gods, angels and everything else you might say about your religion. Atheists ARE NOT making any claims, hence they have nothing to demonstrate that they are right, they simply do not accept your claims.

How much simpler can that be, Jan?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You are confused, Jan. An atheist doesn't accept your claims for gods, angels and everything else you might say about your religion. Atheists ARE NOT making any claims, hence they have nothing to demonstrate that they are right, they simply do not accept your claims.

How much simpler can that be, Jan?

So. An atheist doesn't believe in God because......
Let's go with, there is no evidence to suggest that there is such a being.
That is a claim. You are claiming that if there was such a being, then it would be detected by scientific means.

jan.

 

[(Q)]

So. An atheist doesn't believe in God because......
Let's go with, there is no evidence to suggest that there is such a being.
That is a claim. You are claiming that if there was such a being, then it would be detected by scientific means.

jan.

What about the devil? What about angels? Why have you chosen to leave these out? Religion is not just about gods, Jan.

Responding with the fact that there is no evidence to back up your claims isn't making a claim. It is a response to a claim, Jan.

And, in fact, atheists ALWAYS ask for evidence to claims of theists. By asking for evidence in no way is the same as making a claim, Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

What about the devil? What about angels? Why have you chosen to leave these out? Religion is not just about gods, Jan.

People can believe in angels, fairies, ghosts, and all manner of supernatural beings and not believe in God. Theism is a belief in God.

Responding with the fact that there is no evidence to back up your claims isn't making a claim. It is a response to a claim, Jan.

Claiming that God can only be detected via scientific evidence is a claim.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

So. An atheist doesn't believe in God because......
Let's go with, there is no evidence to suggest that there is such a being.
That is a claim. You are claiming that if there was such a being, then it would be detected by scientific means.

jan.

If God has any interaction with the physical world at all, which religions claim he does, it could be detectable through scientific means. I wouldn't say it must already have been detected, since it might be detected one day, but so far it hasn't.

 

[spidergoat]

Claiming that God can only be detected via scientific evidence is a claim.

jan.

I claim that scientific evidence is the only claim I can trust, and even that is provisional. People may claim to detect God in other ways, but such claims are historically much less reliable than scientific ones.

 

[Myles]

How is it possible to prove whether God exists or not, by scriptoral accounts?
You accuse me of not being able to reason properly, yet you constantly ask for physical evidence for the existence of God. What is the reason for such a request, based on scriptoral religion?
In light of the fact that all scriptoral religions give their account of God being the original, spiritual cause to our perceptions, it is futile to attempt to seek God outside of our own selves as a rule, to make the decision as to whether we should believe in his existence. No scriptures endorse this, so what are you actually talking about when refer to religion, or scripture?

You and I come into conflict simply because I bypass the idea that God is a physical being. And as far as scriptoral religion goes, I am right. You on the other hand cannot function in the correct parameters of such a religion, to make your point, and as such, have to alter the information in such a way in order facilitate your line reasoning.

The truth of the matter is, you don't believe in God, period, but have taken it upon yourself to show that God doesn't exist, by whatever means you deem necessary. Your line of reasoning is actually irrelevant, and being exposed of this is distateful to you.

jan.

Just tell me why you introduced the topic of scriptures in the first pllace ! Are you now agreeing that it is irrelevant ?

You won't learn, will you ? I have not taken it upon myself to show god doesn't exist; you are putting words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the notion that there is a god. Where have I said that god is a physical being ? And which scriptures do you favour becaus a lot of them are inconflict.

Are you serious about Satan and angels ? The year is 2008 !


If you must distort things, may I suggest you visit a few Creationist sites, where you will be welcomed with open arms

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

I claim that scientific evidence is the only claim I can trust, and even that is provisional.

And I claim that there is more to understanding life, and, ourselves, than what can be observed through science, irregardless of trust.

People may claim to detect God in other ways, but such claims are historically much less reliable than scientific ones.

If something is true, it is true whether anyone knows it or not, the trick is, how do get to know what is true.
Does a tree make a sound when it falls, if no one is there to hear it?
No amount of scientific observation can answer such a simple question, unless it involves us hearing the phenomena, or not.
Whether we regard claims as more or less reliable, is irrelevant to actual truth.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Just tell me why you introduced the topic of scriptures in the first pllace ! Are you now agreeing that it is irrelevant ?

You won't learn, will you ? I have not taken it upon myself to show god doesn't exist; you are putting words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the notion that there is a god.

If you must distort things, may I suggest you visit a few Creationist sites, where you will be welcomed with open arms

You introduced the topic of scriptures when you said;

The Christiam scroptures are of unknown provenance, they contradict each other in places, not to mention those of Muslims . Hindus and others. Of course they are all true.Then we must consider Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

Unless of course you actually meant "scroptures", then I apologies.

I have come to the conclusion that you are incapable of conducting a reasonable discussion regarding this subject.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Anything may indeed be true, all our science may be wrong, but I think it's history of reliability as a method of finding things out exceeds that of religion. One may simply feel that something is true, and that's fine, but to proclaim it as universal, to convince rational people, requires something more.

 

[Myles]

James R,



They don't James, there's nothing to struggle with as it is a simple case of an atheist is a person who does not believe in God for whatever reason.
How can anyone struggle with that?

The atheist is the one who struggles. They struggle to stay in a discussion by adding that the theist has no understanding of atheism.

jan.

Can I take that the question in your op is rhetorical as you have just answered it. Pity you didn't do so earlier !

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can I take that the question in your op is rhetorical as you have just answered it. Pity you didn't do so earlier !

I did give a definition as to what i think atheism is, maybe you missed that part. Here it is again;

non-belief in God, for whatever reason.

 

[Myles]

You introduced the topic of scriptures when you said;



Unless of course you actually meant "scroptures", then I apologies.

I have come to the conclusion that you are incapable of conducting a reasonable discussion regarding this subject.

jan.

Yet again you are twisting things. You asked about the tooth fairy ans scriptures etc. Look back and yoi will see.

There is really nothing to discuss. Bye. Give my regards to the angels. thrones. dominions and the choirs cherubim and seraphim.