Why I'm an atheist...

[okinrus]

Atheisism is usually defined to be complete disbelief in God(s). Otherwise the line between an atheist and an agnostic is too blurry to differentiate. However you might scientifically verify a fact, you still have some doubt as to whether the fact is valid. It appears that a boldly saying that there is no God is making yourself out to be a God because only a god would absoulutly know the truth of that claim.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by okinrus
Atheisism is usually defined to be complete disbelief in God(s).

It is not usually defined that way by atheists.

Originally posted by okinrus
Otherwise the line between an atheist and an agnostic is too blurry to differentiate.

I'm sorry that you find it so difficult. Most atheists have no trouble at all differentiating between the two.

 

[Redoubtable]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Only rarely.

By the its very definition, atheism is always belief in the nonexistence of God.

That's silly.

No, it's not.

ag·nos·ti·cism Pronunciation Key (g-nst-szm)
n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

As you can see, agnosticism is basically a sort of categorized, intellectually supplemented and fortified uncertainty. It's dependence on perceptual data. As God is not perceptible, all true agnostics would have "no belief" in Him.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
It is not usually defined that way by atheists.

The dictionary doesn't agree with them; they're wrong.



I invariably find myself relying on definitions from Dictionary.com . . . Must all my quagmires necessitate it? Should I be so fastidious, so tenaciously attentive to these seeming trifles? Will I ever convince anyone, or am I too boorish, too rude, too antagonistic?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Redoubtable
"Agnosticism" is "no belief in God."

Originally posted by Redoubtable
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

Redoubtable, do you truly maintain that these two quotes mean the same thing?

 

[Repo Man]

Once again, the strong vs weak definitions of atheism.

The definition for atheism that we use, put simply, says that atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. The one thing that all atheists have in common, according to this definition, is that they are not theists. One either believes one or more of the various claims for the existence of a god or gods (is a theist) or one does not believe any of those claims (is an atheist).

This, our working definition for the meaning of the words atheism and atheist, is known as the weak definition for the word atheism. We will cover several aspects of this definition during this discussion.

To assume that atheism involves more than the absence of theism is an error. Atheists are not necessarily Communists [3] (though some are). Atheists are not necessarily immoral or "wicked" [4] (though some are). Atheists do not necessarily assert that "no gods exist" (though some do). Atheism is but one component of an atheist's larger philosophical outlook and can influence that outlook, but atheism is never itself that primary outlook.

More, http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#REGULARATHEISM

Also see strong atheism, http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#STRONGATHEISM

I think the consensus of the atheists on this forum is that we favor the weak definition.

There is much more to atheism than can be expressed in a two line definition.

 

[Redoubtable]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Redoubtable, do you truly maintain that these two quotes mean the same thing?

The way I see it, the first statement is an immediate and patent implication of the second.
As I stated previously:

. . . agnosticism is basically a sort of categorized, intellectually supplemented and fortified uncertainty. It's dependence on perceptual data. As God is not perceptible, all true agnostics would have "no belief" in Him.

I will try to clarify the above: If one is fully reliant on information collected by the senses, then one must have "no belief in God."

I really don't understand why you'd disagree.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Redoubtable
You know "a" is a negative prefix and "theos," or god, from the Greek? He did say that he was an "atheist," did he not?
Atheists are the ones claim that God is a fallacy. It's AGNOSTICS that are indifferent and unsure about the whole thing.

Cris, can we get a sticky to clear his up. This issue jacks everyone up. Can we maybe start a thread or find some info to put it succinctly?

ConsequentAthiest, you're the expert, do you think you could get the point across in 500 words or less?

 

[okinrus]

I think this is neatly contrived definition of atheism so that theist are forced to admit that two year olds are atheist. Lack of knowledge does not mean that you are an atheist.

 

[SnakeLord]

Lack of knowledge does not mean that you are an atheist.

No, it means you're a christian.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
No, it means you're a christian.

Ha, good one.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wesmorris
ConsequentAthiest, you're the expert, do you think you could get the point across in 500 words or less?

No to both.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
I really don't understand why you'd disagree.

Redoubtable, how would you distinguish between the atheist and the fideist? Both are fully compatible with agnosticism.

Language is organic and highly nuanced, as is human culture in general. Meaning is more than etymolology and vernacular usage, and Dictionary.com is hardly the final word in philosophy. I am an agnostic in that I readily acknowledge that the supernatural can neither be known nor disproved. I am an atheist in that, in my opinion, I see no evidence warranting belief in the supernatural. In fact, I do not believ in God(s). Call that what you will.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No to both.

Man I swear I feel like you're John Houseman in "Paperchase" and I'm some groveling damned wannabe whom you scoff at like a dog who seeks coitus with your pantleg. LOL

 

[Redoubtable]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Redoubtable, how would you distinguish between the atheist and the fideist? Both are fully compatible with agnosticism.

Well, I'd say that both the atheistic and fideistic positions are hilariously untenable and indefensible. They both make definitive claims on the relative existence/nonexistence of God, a shadowy matter for which no corpuscular or valid evidence may be found.

. . . Dictionary.com is hardly the final word in philosophy.

I should say that it is not, yet I had deemed this not to be a philosophical dicussion, but simply a tussle over terminology.

I am an atheist in that, in my opinion, I see no evidence warranting belief in the supernatural. In fact, I do not believe in God(s).

Then you aren't atheistic at all, friend. Rational doubt is not synonomous with outright denial.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Well, I'd say that both the atheistic and fideistic positions are hilariously untenable and indefensible. They both make definitive claims on the relative existence/nonexistence of God, a shadowy matter for which no corpuscular or valid evidence may be found.

You're begging the question, but I'd expect nothing better from you.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
... I had deemed this not to be a philosophical dicussion, but simply a tussle over terminology.

No, it is a tussle over a childish and dogmatic insistence on a specific definition and a sophomoric conception of language.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Then you aren't atheistic at all, friend.

You are wrong on both counts.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Rational doubt is not synonomous with outright denial.

Nor, necessarily, is atheism.

 

[420Joey]

Most arguments regarding god (to athiests) try to decredit the bible and that concept of god. I believe that concept of god was invented by mankind to avoid difficult philosphical questions and uncertainty in life ;

Athiests on these boards I ask you this question ; do you outrule god completely? or just the one conversed in the bible.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by 420Joey
Athiests on these boards I ask you this question ; do you outrule god completely? or just the one conversed in the bible.

First, permit me two quotes, both of which have been posted before ...

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

• You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible. ... For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts."

-- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism by Doctor Barbara Forrest

On the one hand, I rule out extraordinary claims for which there is no verifiable evidence until such evidence is forthcoming. On the other, the ongoing and pervasive successes of methodological naturalism continually reinforce my confidence in this stance.

 

[420Joey]

On the one hand, I rule out extraordinary claims for which there is no verifiable evidence until such evidence is forthcoming. On the other, the ongoing and pervasive successes of methodological naturalism continually reinforce my confidence in this stance

I can infer extraordinary claims that are obviously pious but to rule out anything intangable is to rule out existance. I do not think you infer that there is no verifiable evidence to support the protrude of nautralism.

 

[Cris]

Wes,

Cris, can we get a sticky to clear his up. This issue jacks everyone up. Can we maybe start a thread or find some info to put it succinctly?

I've begun a sticky thread.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by 420Joey
I can infer extraordinary claims that are obviously pious but to rule out anything intangable is to rule out existance. I do not think you infer that there is no verifiable evidence to support the protrude of nautralism.

Let's agree to the following -- make a comprehensible statement and I'll do my best to provide a reasoned response; choose, instead, to blather about the rejection of "anything intangable [sic]" and the "protrude of naturalism", and I'll dismiss you with all of the ridicule such contrived and ignorant formulations deserve.

 

[420Joey]

I was not blathering anything intangable in terms of no physical or materalistic evidence and the protrude of naturalism in terms of something had to commence to begin..

I may not be that rhetoric but english is not my first language h