What exactly is atheism?

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

I see. What are the criteria for being counted as a devotee?

BG, chapter 12, explains it perfectly.

I don't know what exactly Jesus' perspective would be. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways, to support or refute pretty much anything.

You say you don't know exactly. What do you know of his perspective, irregardless of your doubt?

Are you so sure that Jesus existed that you would devote your life to Jesus, exclusively?

Devotion is indirectly for God, through Jesus. The essence of God is displayed through Jesus' words and deeds. If Jesus was fake, then his words and deeds would be fake, and likewise if he was real. So whether Jesus exited in the physical is not important from a trancendental point of view.
Let's say Mozart didn't really exist, would the music still contain those great qualities?

Are you so sure that Jesus existed that if someone threatened to kill me, saying "Do you believe in Jesus, Jan? If you don't, I will kill Greenberg." - would you say you do believe in Jesus?

I can't imagine what I would do in such bizzare situation.

How else can one have faith in Jesus and salvation by Jesus otherwise?

He sets an example, you follow it.
He can be understood by his words and deeds.

It needn't be that the desire to create such a person was there in the beginning. Perhaps it all started small and insignificant, and then over time, a number of different ideas were merged into one character, for the sake of simplicity and efficiency of delivering a story.

Why?
Mohammad is of similar stature within the muslim religion, and yet he was real. Why would Jesus be any different?

Would you declare that something is true, despite knowing that you cannot vouch for the truthfulness of it?

To the level of my understanding of that thing.

I'm afraid that this is not a good criterion. See, just before, I thought I understood the essence of the relationship between Govinda and the Gopis - and then you suggested that I don't. I then changed my mind. Although this means that it was I who decided whether I understood it or not, so I agree with your point above.

You understand it up to a point, as do I. If we want to understand more, then we have to be able to understand it, and for this there are regulative principles to follow. It is a qualification, much like any other pursuit of qualification.
Some of us don't want to follow rules and regs, so we whimsically try and understand, and then claim it is not true, or, change the standard to suit ourselves.

What could I do about that?

Nothing.

Of course I am prepared for that. And I see that believing those threats is basically saying that fear is a better judge in what would be a good thing to do than intelligence could ever be; or that choices made in fear are more true and more justifiable than choices made in intelligence.

If you had children would you want them to follow in that vain?

I mean for a run-of-the-mill person, fear is among the strongest and most pervasive sensations, if not the strongest and most pervasive one, and as such it is the most reliable one.

I see your point.

I don't know anymore. I experience it as a hindrance, but at the same time, it is the most reliable sensation in my life. A few years back, I took up Buddhist meditation and studies, I read a lot of Western psychology and philosophy, then went to reading the Bhagavad Gita and chanting the Maha mantra, discussing various topics more or less closely related to this fear with myself and with all sorts of people, changed my diet, but also pursued various distractions. What all this accomplished is that I am now more able to put this fear into words, to reflect on it - while in the years before, it was just one big impenetrable mass sucking the life out of me; but this fear is still here, and in some ways, it feels stronger than ever before.
But frankly, I am tired, exhausted from this struggle. It's not clear what helps against this fear and what doesn't, and it's not clear either whether it is right to attempt to do something about this fear to begin with.

So you are saying no matter what you have learned upon becoming an individual adult, no matter how you can see that the source of this fear is completely unjustified in their actions, it will never, ever, go away, as long as you live? The fear of going to hell to burn for long as you can be conscious of it.

If that's how you see it, then there's not much I can say.
Do you understand that?

jan.

 

[greenberg]

BG, chapter 12, explains it perfectly.

Thank you for the reference.

I don't know what exactly Jesus' perspective would be. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways, to support or refute pretty much anything.

You say you don't know exactly. What do you know of his perspective, irregardless of your doubt?

I won't quote Bible verses because I don't have a Bible anymore and I don't feel like searching for the passages online, so I'll have to go by memory. So, in brief -
As far as I know, Jesus perspective was that only by him can there be salvation, and that he that is not with him is against him. He made the point that love and charity are important.

But like I said, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, and I am not sure which of these interpretations (the Calvinist, the Catholic, the Lutheran etc.) would be Jesus' perspective, if any. I have the impression that there is a Catholic Jesus, a Calvinist Jesus, a Lutheran Jesus and so on. So far, I think I haven't been able to read the Bible without the influence of those various interpretations.

Devotion is indirectly for God, through Jesus. The essence of God is displayed through Jesus' words and deeds. If Jesus was fake, then his words and deeds would be fake, and likewise if he was real. So whether Jesus exited in the physical is not important from a trancendental point of view.
Let's say Mozart didn't really exist, would the music still contain those great qualities?

Sure. But people usually don't put their hopes into Mozart's music to save them from eternal hell.

It needn't be that the desire to create such a person was there in the beginning. Perhaps it all started small and insignificant, and then over time, a number of different ideas were merged into one character, for the sake of simplicity and efficiency of delivering a story.

Why?

Consider fictional characters in didactic stories for children, as can be typically found in the West. Often, those characters aren't even human -and are instead bears, foxes, all sorts of animals, dolls etc.-, but they are designed to bring across a certain kind of morality. Perhaps similar is the case with some whom we generally consider to be historical persons.

Mohammad is of similar stature within the muslim religion, and yet he was real. Why would Jesus be any different?

I have similar doubts about Mohammed as well, just as about anyone who has ever lived.
The more worldly the person, the less extraordinary their deeds and promises, the easier it is to believe that they existed - but one can't be sure. However, if the person that lived in the past is purported to be relevant to this day, for everyone, then this is another matter. I don't really care whether Ghengis Khan, for example, existed or not. Ghengis Khan isn't purported to be someone I should put my faith in. But Jesus is ascribed to have extraordinary powers, and is purported to be the one and only way to achieve salvation, to avoid eternal hell. So there should be more to Jesus than being a mere didactic device that has been created over time by people, don't you think?

Would you declare that something is true, despite knowing that you cannot vouch for the truthfulness of it?

To the level of my understanding of that thing.

Hm. I suppose you are not all that concerned that you wouldn't be able to answer any and all questions put to you by anyone?

You understand it up to a point, as do I. If we want to understand more, then we have to be able to understand it, and for this there are regulative principles to follow. It is a qualification, much like any other pursuit of qualification.
Some of us don't want to follow rules and regs, so we whimsically try and understand, and then claim it is not true, or, change the standard to suit ourselves.

I appreciate rules and regulations; otherwise, it all gets a mess.
But personally, I feel downright threatened by the approach many Christians have, that "You don't need rules and regulations - all is already in your heart, you only need to look within. You are wasting time trying to learn definitions - God or love or compassion cannot be defined." I crumble under these people's self-confidence. But this isn't limited to Christians, it can be found in all walks of spiritual pursuit - I've seen it among Buddhists, Spiritual Universalists, Humanists.
I've usually made an effort to keep to scriptoral definitions and approaches, but socially, this was quite a setback. Many people would treat me as if I don't have a clue, that I am "less advanced" than them, that I must be patronized and treated like a child. Needless to say, these things were very frustrating for me, and sometimes, I slipped, left the scriptoral references behind and did "free style" just to be more socially interesting.
I'm bringing this up to point out the importance of the social aspect and how social pressures can make one slack, too, not only one's laziness and impatience. But also, I am not sure that keeping with the scriptoral definitions is necessary. Some people don't care about them much, and they seem to be just fine.

Of course I am prepared for that. And I see that believing those threats is basically saying that fear is a better judge in what would be a good thing to do than intelligence could ever be; or that choices made in fear are more true and more justifiable than choices made in intelligence.

If you had children would you want them to follow in that vain?

Of course not. Which is one of the main reasons I don't have children.

So you are saying no matter what you have learned upon becoming an individual adult, no matter how you can see that the source of this fear is completely unjustified in their actions, it will never, ever, go away, as long as you live? The fear of going to hell to burn for long as you can be conscious of it.

If that's how you see it, then there's not much I can say.
Do you understand that?

I am not saying that I think this fear will be forever, but I am afraid that it might be forever. I'm afraid that it might be that ultimately, human action is all for naught, and that samsara is forever.
I don't have faith that "all will be well in the end" - perhaps it will, perhaps it won't.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

As far as I know, Jesus perspective was that only by him can there be salvation, and that he that is not with him is against him.

It stands to reason, who else was there at that time, and in that region, who had direct access to God?

He made the point that love and charity are important.

If possible get chapter and verse.

But like I said, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, and I am not sure which of these interpretations (the Calvinist, the Catholic, the Lutheran etc.) would be Jesus' perspective, if any. I have the impression that there is a Catholic Jesus, a Calvinist Jesus, a Lutheran Jesus and so on. So far, I think I haven't been able to read the Bible without the influence of those various interpretations.

Anything can be interpreted in anyway. The best way to understand anything, IMO, is to see it as it is. "Thou shalt not kill" does not need outside interpretation, unless you wanted to disobey the rule, but still be accepted as upholding it.

Sure. But people usually don't put their hopes into Mozart's music to save them from eternal hell.

But the music would still contain all the essential qualities that it does, whether it was composed by him or not. The point is, Jesus is known through his words and deeds, and if you needed to know of his flesh and blood existence in order to convince yourself of God, then quite frankly you'd have missed the point.

Consider fictional characters in didactic stories for children, as can be typically found in the West. Often, those characters aren't even human -and are instead bears, foxes, all sorts of animals, dolls etc.-, but they are designed to bring across a certain kind of morality. Perhaps similar is the case with some whom we generally consider to be historical persons.

All these characters were created after scriptures. They are simply aspects of spiritual/religious outputs. There are no such things as human morals outside of that, and if you can point to any such structure, I would be glad to see/hear it.

But Jesus is ascribed to have extraordinary powers, and is purported to be the one and only way to achieve salvation, to avoid eternal hell. So there should be more to Jesus than being a mere didactic device that has been created over time by people, don't you think?

It depends on what that didactic device is.
Is your reluctance due to the simplicity of it, or is there some other reason?

Hm. I suppose you are not all that concerned that you wouldn't be able to answer any and all questions put to you by anyone?

Nobody can answer all question put forth, about anything. We can only go as far as our understanding of that thing, if we are being truthful. Things that we don't fully understand, but infer, or speculate about are backed ultimately by faith.

I appreciate rules and regulations; otherwise, it all gets a mess.
But personally, I feel downright threatened by the approach many Christians have, that "You don't need rules and regulations - all is already in your heart, you only need to look within.

I doubt every Christian sees it like that, but even if they did; so what?
That is their business.

You are wasting time trying to learn definitions - God or love or compassion cannot be defined." I crumble under these people's self-confidence.

Why do you?
You seem like an intelligent guy who could smash these weak arguments to pieces.

But this isn't limited to Christians, it can be found in all walks of spiritual pursuit - I've seen it among Buddhists, Spiritual Universalists, Humanists.

Now we're getting somewhere. This is not a religious thing, it is false-ego gone crazy. The more spiritual religion becomes less in any society, the rise of false-ego will become greater.

've usually made an effort to keep to scriptoral definitions and approaches, but socially, this was quite a setback. Many people would treat me as if I don't have a clue, that I am "less advanced" than them, that I must be patronized and treated like a child. Needless to say, these things were very frustrating for me, and sometimes, I slipped, left the scriptoral references behind and did "free style" just to be more socially interesting.
I'm bringing this up to point out the importance of the social aspect and how social pressures can make one slack, too, not only one's laziness and impatience. But also, I am not sure that keeping with the scriptoral definitions is necessary. Some people don't care about them much, and they seem to be just fine.

Without scriptoral injunction, there can be no understanding of God, or spiritual religion. Without such understanding, the powerful can do as they please.
It is in the interest of the powerful to deem the scriptures nonsense.

Of course not. Which is one of the main reasons I don't have children.

Is this past experience affecting your decision to have children, a human right (although if some had their way it would not be)?

I am not saying that I think this fear will be forever, but I am afraid that it might be forever. I'm afraid that it might be that ultimately, human action is all for naught, and that samsara is forever.
I don't have faith that "all will be well in the end" - perhaps it will, perhaps it won't.

I have faith that "all will be as it should be, in the end".

jan.

 

[greenberg]

It stands to reason, who else was there at that time, and in that region, who had direct access to God?

I think I know where you are heading with this, and I am familiar with this line of argument - namely that at that time and that place, Jesus was the only one through whom salvation could be obtained, but that at other times and other places, other persons or means of salvation were/are possible.

He made the point that love and charity are important.

If possible get chapter and verse.

I apologize, I can't do that from memory. I would have to read the Bible again to give you exact references. Anyway, you asked what I knew of Jesus' perspective, not what Jesus' perspective was.

Anything can be interpreted in anyway. The best way to understand anything, IMO, is to see it as it is.

Sure. But seeing things as they are requires a pure, unified, unadulterated mind. I wouldn't dare claim that my mind is such or that I have such a mind at my disposal. For the time being, it appears I am stuck with interpretations (even when I can quote verse and chapter).

But the music would still contain all the essential qualities that it does, whether it was composed by him or not.

There actually is a historic example of this phenomenon: Shakespeare. When theories started to surface that the works we commonly know to be Shakespeare's, might have been written by someone with some other name, or by several authors, there was quite an uproar in the literary community, people were having doubts as to whether to continue valuing texts like Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet etc.

The point is, Jesus is known through his words and deeds, and if you needed to know of his flesh and blood existence in order to convince yourself of God, then quite frankly you'd have missed the point.

But Jesus is ascribed to have extraordinary powers, and is purported to be the one and only way to achieve salvation, to avoid eternal hell. So there should be more to Jesus than being a mere didactic device that has been created over time by people, don't you think?

It depends on what that didactic device is.
Is your reluctance due to the simplicity of it, or is there some other reason?

There have been several instances where Christian proselytizers argued that since there is archaeological and historical and other scientific evidence for the existence of the people and phenomena described in the Bible, this is proof of Jesus' existence, and the solid basis upon which to build one's faith in Jesus.
IOW, it is sometimes Christians themselves who expect that one believes that Jesus existed in the flesh and blood, and that archaeology, history, physics, biology etc. support this.
When it is pointed out to them that such a faith in Jesus is only as strong as archaeology, history, physics etc. - and that these are all relativistic and subject to change and reinterpretation when new evidence is discovered - then those Christians argue that the archaeological etc. findings about Jesus (and some others) are absolute, not subject to change.
To anyone who knows what a soft science archaeology and history are, that even hard science like physics is still about theories and not about absolutes - the above Christian outlook is of course a nightmare.
But yes, as far as I was taught, it was expected that we believe that Jesus actually walked the earth, in flesh and blood, and that there is historic proof for it. That this belief was crucial to faith in Jesus, and that if we didn't believe thusly, we didn't have the right or the sufficient faith.

So for me, in regard to Jesus, it always seemed crucial to believe Jesus existed as a person in flesh and blood, and that to have faith in Jesus also means to give your word of honor that archaeology and history are accurate and absolute sciences. Heaven knows I would not do that.

But also as I said earlier - Jesus is purported to be the one and only way to salvation, and that everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will burn in hell for all eternity - that humans have this one lifetime to make the right choice or be damned for ever and ever. With stakes high like this, surely it is understandable to want as much proof and justification as possible for one's choice, no?

Conversely, in regards to Buddhism and Hinduism, for example, I have never struggled with these problems - even if the Buddha and some others are nothing but didactic devices, they have the benefit of being more detailed, more practical, their instructions more actionable than Christianity's, and most of all, they don't preach eternal damnation if you "don't get it right" in this lifetime. By this I don't mean they suggest slacking or laziness - it is just that they do not put a person under such paralyzing pressure as the common Christian outlook does.

I doubt every Christian sees it like that, but even if they did; so what?
That is their business.

Is it solely their business? If they are right and Jesus is the only way to salvation, and I want to be saved, then what Christians say is my business.
The problem with wanting to know God or wanting to be saved is that one is put at the mercy of everyone who claims to know God or who claims to know the way to salvation.

You are wasting time trying to learn definitions - God or love or compassion cannot be defined." I crumble under these people's self-confidence.

Why do you?
You seem like an intelligent guy who could smash these weak arguments to pieces.

I don't know. It seems I only give my own arguments value if the opponent agrees I am right and changes their position. If they don't, I feel I am wrong, no matter what my arguments are.

Is this past experience affecting your decision to have children, a human right (although if some had their way it would not be)?

You mean whether I feel I am being deprived or am depriving myself of something that I would otherwise want? If that - no.
I really don't think people like me should have children, even if we have the right to. But like I said earlier, this is only one of the reasons why I don't have children. The other reasons have to do with the state of the world economy, my health and the health of the planet.

I have faith that "all will be as it should be, in the end".

Even if this means that you will burn in hell for all eternity?

 

[Simon Anders]

You can't lack belief, you disbelieve

You can lack a belief, but it is unlikely you could merely do this AND mock believers, post complicate arguments against the liklihood of God, and find these kinds of activities interesting. That lack in this case has a causal power that we generally don't attribute to nothingnesses.

Being an atheist here at Sciforums seems to include often a number of the following charactoristics.

1) the urge to engage in arguments with theists
2) the urge to imply or state that theists are irrational
3) some facility in responding to and recognition of a variety of arguments intended to prove God's existence
4) a strong interest in atheism not being seen as a belief
5) the belief that empirical research and deduction from known truths are the only way to arrive at new truths.
6) anger at past and current and potential future wrongs committed by theists

Not all atheists here have all these traits, however a good many are present in most atheists I would guess.

This is a lot of momentum and interest generated from a lack.

 

[S.A.M.]

You can lack a belief, but it is unlikely you could merely do this AND mock believers, post complicate arguments against the liklihood of God, and find these kinds of activities interesting. That lack in this case has a causal power that we generally don't attribute to nothingnesses.

Being an atheist here at Sciforums seems to include often a number of the following charactoristics.

1) the urge to engage in arguments with theists
2) the urge to imply or state that theists are irrational
3) some facility in responding to and recognition of a variety of arguments intended to prove God's existence
4) a strong interest in atheism not being seen as a belief
5) the belief that empirical research and deduction from known truths are the only way to arrive at new truths.
6) anger at past and current and potential future wrongs committed by theists

Not all atheists here have all these traits, however a good many are present in most atheists I would guess.

This is a lot of momentum and interest generated from a lack.

I love this post, it exemplifies all my beliefs about the atheists here. ie for a definition based on something they are not, they sure get excited way too much.:xctd:

 

[(Q)]

Being an atheist here at Sciforums seems to include often a number of the following charactoristics.

1) the urge to engage in arguments with theists
2) the urge to imply or state that theists are irrational
3) some facility in responding to and recognition of a variety of arguments intended to prove God's existence
4) a strong interest in atheism not being seen as a belief
5) the belief that empirical research and deduction from known truths are the only way to arrive at new truths.
6) anger at past and current and potential future wrongs committed by theists

1) We could ask first why theists would come to a science forum to preach their religions and denounce science? The reason (apparently) there is a religion section here is to scrutinize it the same way science is scrutinized.

2) More than that. Many theists here use lies and deceit, and at the very least, intellectual dishonesty to make their arguments. They are beyond irrational.

3) Theists lack the education necessary to support these types of arguments from a scientific perspective and usually make false or fallacious assertions.

4) One of many theists false or fallacious assertions.

5) A reasonable conclusion for a science forum.

6) When theists promote and extol the virtues of their religion on one hand and flatly deny the atrocities committed, being committed and will be committed in the name of their religion on the other, denounce science as the biggest "evil" on earth, hold exclusively their scriptural versions of absolutism as the number one priority of mankind, when their churches and temples are allowed to operate tax free while I pay their taxes, then yes, it's easy to get angry.

 

[iceaura]

This is a lot of momentum and interest generated from a lack.
”

I love this post, it exemplifies all my beliefs about the atheists here.

There is another factor.

Most of the specifically atheist posting here is in reaction. And the reaction is to things like Creationist school meddling, inflammatory accusations, and so forth.

So we have things like Most mass murderers are atheists, and that's why Dawkins is a dangerous maniac. And if someone is interested in that, and generates "momentum" in responding to the various details that come up, and so forth, sooner or later comes the accusation - and that's what it is - that too much effort is in evidence from a claimed lack of belief.

It's not the lack of belief in the Deity involved that generates the heat.

Only some of the atheists here are bothering with this stuff. Those that do are not always well motivated. But anyone raised in the US should be excused for taking a serious interest in the kinds of theistic BS that should be easy to ignore on abstract grounds: they have shown an ability to get police backing, and the support of armed force. You let these people repeat this crap too much without occasionally pointing out that it is crap, and pretty soon you can't get a beer on Sunday to watch the game with. Women can't get birth control at the drugstore. Clerics are writing your science textbooks for your high schools. Or your President has to suck up to self-righteous and violent whackos with apocalyptic fantasies that actually influence US foreign policy.

 

[lixluke]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God. It is the antithesis of Theism which is the belief there is a God.
A belief is 100% certainty in something.
You can only abide by 3 categories:
Atheism: 100% certainty there is no God.
Theism: 100% certainty there is a God.
Neither: Do not know if there is a God.

 

[greenberg]

Jan,


Here are some links for you -

It stands to reason, who else was there at that time, and in that region, who had direct access to God?

They say Jesus is the only way to salvation, there is no other, ever:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84257

The point is, Jesus is known through his words and deeds, and if you needed to know of his flesh and blood existence in order to convince yourself of God, then quite frankly you'd have missed the point.

It seems not according to -
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84257

Is your reluctance due to the simplicity of it, or is there some other reason?

If you continue in your rejection. Yes to the lake of fire you will go.
...
There is no safety in rejecting the Messiah Jesus and no arguments, no matter how well constructed, will stand to protect those who reject God's Word.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1969641&postcount=19

Are you not afraid that you will go for all eternity to hell if you don't accept Jesus as your savior?
And if not - why not?

 

[s0meguy]

You can't lack belief, you disbelieve

This is false. You can lack belief when you do not have a stance on something, you are neutral and you don't believe either way. Also when you believe that the color red is red, you lack belief that the color red is blue. Same goes for atheism, they lack belief in the existence of god.

 

[lixluke]

Say there is a box. Is there a bomb in the box? There can either be a bomb in the box or no mob in the box. There cannot be neither a bomb and no bomb in the box. There cannot be both a bomb and no bomb in the box. This is obvious.

1. You are 100% cetain there is a bomb in the box.
2. You are 100% certain there is no bomb in the box.
3. You are not 100% certain whether or not there is a bomb in the box.

You can only abide by those 3. There is no other possible position to take in logic. Same goes for the question of God. Atheism is #2 with respect to the question of God's existence. You cannot group Atheismin to different categories like strong or weak. It's silly and illogical.

Neutral or not, the question remains. Are you 100% certain about God existing or not existing? If you are not 100% certain, you are neither theist or atheist.

 

[Simon Anders]

1) We could ask first why theists would come to a science forum to preach their religions and denounce science? The reason (apparently) there is a religion section here is to scrutinize it the same way science is scrutinized.

2) More than that. Many theists here use lies and deceit, and at the very least, intellectual dishonesty to make their arguments. They are beyond irrational.

3) Theists lack the education necessary to support these types of arguments from a scientific perspective and usually make false or fallacious assertions.

4) One of many theists false or fallacious assertions.

5) A reasonable conclusion for a science forum.

6) When theists promote and extol the virtues of their religion on one hand and flatly deny the atrocities committed, being committed and will be committed in the name of their religion on the other, denounce science as the biggest "evil" on earth, hold exclusively their scriptural versions of absolutism as the number one priority of mankind, when their churches and temples are allowed to operate tax free while I pay their taxes, then yes, it's easy to get angry.

What you have done is given the reasons why what I described as the qualities of atheists is justifiable. IOW what I said was correct and these are the reasons why. Great. As long as we can see that this seems like something other than a mere 'lack of belief.' As I have stated many times. I think there are people for whom atheism is a mere lack of belief. There may even be some here at sciforums. I do not think however that people who fulfill the description in my list merely lack a belief. Whether they are right or wrong is a whole other issue.

As a side issue: How many theists here at sciforums do you think this describes....
[they]

promote and extol the virtues of their religion on one hand and flatly deny the atrocities committed, being committed and will be committed in the name of their religion on the other, denounce science as the biggest "evil" on earth, hold exclusively their scriptural versions of absolutism as the number one priority of mankind, when their churches and temples are allowed to operate tax free while I pay their taxes, then yes, it's easy to get angry

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Simon Anders- well said.

I guess I am considered a 'theist' though I don't deny any of the atrocities carried out in the name of my personal preferred religion-christendom. I joined these forums, my very first post, was to discuss the difficulty we have in reasonably proving our own existence or subsequent existence of reality. I entered into the religious forum not to preach, but because there was a supposed "proof that God does not exist". I even entered into a debate over a"proof that God exists" against the idea because I saw an obvious flaw in reasoning.

Any belief requires faith. I believe the computer I am sitting at will not erupt in self-immolation. I have faith in this. Atheism is not lack of faith, by my understanding, but a very firm faith that God is not. People who think God is unworthy or that God hates them are not Atheists, they do not have faith that God is not.

 

[shaman_]

Time to dust off the old favourite - atheism is a belief the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The ‘a’ in Atheism means without. Without a belief in gods. The atheist is not making an assertion. You can make claims of certainty if you want to but that isn’t atheism. If someone makes claims about the non existence of every god you can call that strong atheism if you want to. But strong atheism is not atheism.

Whether an atheist enjoys debating these points doesn’t change the definition. It just means they are argumentative and/or frustrated with people still embracing superstition in the year 2008.

 

[lixluke]

Time to dust off the old favourite - atheism is a belief the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The ‘a’ in Atheism means without. Without a belief in gods. The atheist is not making an assertion. You can make claims of certainty if you want to but that isn’t atheism. If you really must then you can call that strong atheism, but strong atheism is not as atheism.

Whether an atheist enjoys debating these points doesn’t change the definition. It just means they are argumentative and/or frustrated with people still embracing superstition in the year 2008.

By definition, Atheism is 100% certainty that God does not exist.
A in Atheism specifies that God does not exist.
A in front of something whereas the that something is a belief in X is not without the belief in X, but the belief in the antithesis of X.
Amoralism is not simpley without the belief in morals, but the belief that morals do not exist. If you are not 100% certain that God does not exist, you are not an atheist.

 

[Simon Anders]

Whether an atheist enjoys debating these points doesn’t change the definition. It just means they are argumentative and/or frustrated with people still embracing superstition in the year 2008.

It might mean that atheist is not a relevent concept here in science forums. If most people who are calling themselves atheists here in fact have a belief that there is no god or some other belief - such as 'the chances that there is a God are infinitesmally small. ' - and a set of beliefs and behavior that indicate more than a simple lack of a belief, I think another term would be appropriate.

Given the definition you gave I think very few people who engage in repeated philosophical scuffles with theists - unless they are cornered by them in their houses - about the existence of God
qualify.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

and hilarity ensues ROFL

I actually laughed so hard my tears welled up.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

more seriously, should they call themselves, possibly, adeists? To mean without a belief in deism/belief that there are no deities?

 

[Simon Anders]

Most of the specifically atheist posting here is in reaction. And the reaction is to things like Creationist school meddling, inflammatory accusations, and so forth.

I do not think this is true. How many threads here have been started by people suggesting that Creationism should be taught in schools. Atheist appear in many religion section discussions, including discussions between theists about things that have very little impact on the public or private lives of atheists.

So we have things like Most mass murderers are atheists, and that's why Dawkins is a dangerous maniac.

Jimmy started it.

But, again, like Q, you are leaping past my post in response to it. I was putting forward the idea that atheists here have more than simply a lack of belief. Now you are saying WHY that is the situation without acknowledging I am correct in my assertion. IOW what you said above strengthens my case that atheists are more than simply people who lack a belief.

And if someone is interested in that, and generates "momentum" in responding to the various details that come up, and so forth, sooner or later comes the accusation - and that's what it is - that too much effort is in evidence from a claimed lack of belief.

It seems to me a lack of belief would not make one join in the discussion in the religion section. How could a lack of belief do that?

It's not the lack of belief in the Deity involved that generates the heat.

I agree. But I disagree that these 'atheists' do not share a set of qualities that pits them in fights with the theists in the sandbox and then boths sides say the other started it.

Only some of the atheists here are bothering with this stuff.

I would argue that given the definition of an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in God it is much more likely that those not bothering with this stuff are the real atheists. Which I said earlier.

Those that do are not always well motivated. But anyone raised in the US should be excused for taking a serious interest in the kinds of theistic BS that should be easy to ignore on abstract grounds: they have shown an ability to get police backing, and the support of armed force. You let these people repeat this crap too much without occasionally pointing out that it is crap, and pretty soon you can't get a beer on Sunday to watch the game with. Women can't get birth control at the drugstore. Clerics are writing your science textbooks for your high schools. Or your President has to suck up to self-righteous and violent whackos with apocalyptic fantasies that actually influence US foreign policy.

Or you could focus on those issues.

I also notice that atheists here very, very rarely point out the weak logic and critical thinking that are used by other atheists in relation to theists. It's like

'well, we know they are wrong, so let's keep a unified front.' Rationality need not be used.

Personally my education was conducted by primarily secular public school teachers. What a hallucinated set of beliefs they handed down about, for example, history and current events.

I think self-proclaimed atheists think that irrationality hinges primarily theism. I just don't see it. I see a world filled, primarily, with loons. And not the wonderful birds.