Atheism discussion thread

[Mike Gayner]

As an atheist I have no interest in discussing atheism. Science? Yes. Skepticism? Yes. The stupidity of religion? Yes. But I as much interest in discussing atheism as I have in discussing my disbelief in the tooth fairy.

 

[El Guaraguao]

the meaning of life to me, is just like every other animal out there. to reproduce.

why do you think men are always horny? it aint because were possessed by some kind of demon....lol, demons...:awesome:

 

[Jeff7]

As an atheist I have no interest in discussing atheism. Science? Yes. Skepticism? Yes. The stupidity of religion? Yes. But I as much interest in discussing atheism as I have in discussing my disbelief in the tooth fairy.

Now you've gone too far!D:

 

[Matthiasa]

Incorrect.

Might I suggest you pick up a dictionary and look?

It is what it is, it doesn't change with you believing it is what it is not.

 

[Fritzo]

I don't believe in this thread.

 

[mjrpes3]

Neither of those are correct.
An atheist doesn't believe in a god. This is not the same as actively disbelieving in a god.

I don't see the difference nor understand what you mean by "actively disbelieving". An atheist denies the existence of God. Your version of atheism sounds more like agnosticism, not making any strong claims for or against the existence.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Might I suggest you pick up a dictionary and look?

Might I suggest that a dictionary isn't the best place to find the definition of a complex term. If you want to learn about atheism pick up a book on atheism, the dictionary definition is simply not correct.
Read this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Antony Flew: "I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist."

 

[Matthiasa]

Might I suggest that a dictionary isn't the best place to find the definition of a complex term. If you want to learn about atheism pick up a book on atheism, the dictionary definition is simply not correct.
Read this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

When speaking the English language looking in the dictionary for a word gives the words proper meaning, in this case atheism a word that was defined centuries ago. As such it is the correct meaning, although because of that it hasn't kept up with the twisting of its meaning by those who claim to be such.

As the proper definition though is by the very fact of being such... correct.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

When speaking the English language looking in the dictionary for a word gives the words proper meaning, in this case atheism a word that was defined centuries ago. As such it is the correct meaning, although because of that it hasn't kept up with the twisting of its meaning by those who claim to be such.

As the proper definition though is by the very fact of being such... correct.

I'm not at all surprised to see you didn't read the article I linked. Or you're too stupid to understand it, which is likely considering you think that dictionary definitions are infallible.

 

[sandorski]

There is no god making a list of who is naughty or nice to reward/punish anyone after they die. Sorry.

 

[IronWing]

IDRTT, has any poster gotten indignant or prissy yet?

 

[mjrpes3]

this was a better explanation for me:

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

agosticism is related to knowledge of God, while (a)theism is a question of belief.

so an agnostic atheist is a sort of weak atheist, and believes there is no God but makes no claim of complete knowledge on the subject.

a strong atheist believes there is no God and also feels their knowledge of the subject to be complete; not only is there no God, but God is now an impossibility because I have complete knowledge on the subject. Maybe this is what you mean by "actively disbelieving".

 

[Matthiasa]

I'm not at all surprised to see you didn't read the article I linked. Or you're too stupid to understand it, which is likely considering you think that dictionary definitions are infallible.

No I'm just extraordinarily lazy, just read it though and I'm pretty sure its been linked to before in one of the countless threads on it. It's mostly about absorbing so as to make it more encompassing of various ideas about atheism. Much of which stems from wanting to simply reintroduce the original greek meaning of .


As for

Antony Flew: "I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist."

With theist being currently defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods" to be atheist is still simply not believing in the existence of god or gods. Although has mentioned in said article it could also mean not having a believe in god or gods, though in modern usage that would most likely be termed agnosticism which is part of what they are trying to get incorporated into atheism.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't even like the term Atheism because Atheism sounds like a religion.

Well it is a belief about God isn't it?

It's just a POV like many things.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Well it is a belief about God isn't it?

It's a lack of belief.

 

[RESmonkey]

rawr

 

[El Guaraguao]

There is no god making a list of who is naughty or nice to reward/punish anyone after they die. Sorry.

Sandorski, how exactly can you provide absolute evidence that would disprove the existence of a omnipotent being?

As an atheist myself, I cannot provide such evidence. maybe you can enlighten me on this?

 

[destrekor]

Might I suggest you pick up a dictionary and look?

It is what it is, it doesn't change with you believing it is what it is not.

How about... why do we spend so much mental effort trying to label someone who abstains from religious faith?
You know, there is no label for someone who doesn't believe in santa claus, leprechauns, magic, prophecies, fate... etc etc etc. Well, unless you count "sane" as a term befitting of such a person.

Oooo. Sane has an inverse word that means the opposite of it, much as Theism has the opposite Atheism. That word is "insane."

Can we apply that label to devout leap of faithers?

 

[sandorski]

Sandorski, how exactly can you provide absolute evidence that would disprove the existence of a omnipotent being?

As an atheist myself, I cannot provide such evidence. maybe you can enlighten me on this?

If there's no Evidence to the Positive, there is no need for Evidence to the Negative.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a lack of belief.

If that were true then there would be no opinions about religion at all. Instead we often see the "you are stupid because you believe in God and I don't" comments made. You know it's true.

There is a very active belief held by some, and Cthulhu forbid you don't agree with it.

I can of course go to the more lively P&N threads and pull out quotes, but that's not necessary. You know precisely what I mean.

Religion AND atheism are similar in that there are those who use their opinions about god to look down on others. Maybe that's not how it's supposed to be, but again I can cite threads to show it's true. I recall you seemed rather irked by that attitude yourself.

Now I believe that the majority of people can be fairly well behaved, but the most obnoxious ones have a definite opinion and are glad to voice it.

 

[sandorski]

If that were true then there would be no opinions about religion at all. Instead we often see the "you are stupid because you believe in God and I don't" comments made. You know it's true.

There is a very active belief held by some, and Cthulhu forbid you don't agree with it.

I can of course go to the more lively P&N threads and pull out quotes, but that's not necessary. You know precisely what I mean.

Religion AND atheism are similar in that there are those who use their opinions about god to look down on others. Maybe that's not how it's supposed to be, but again I can cite threads to show it's true. I recall you seemed rather irked by that attitude yourself.

Now I believe that the majority of people can be fairly well behaved, but the most obnoxious ones have a definite opinion and are glad to voice it.

Fail

 

[Matthiasa]

How about... why do we spend so much mental effort trying to label someone who abstains from religious faith?
You know, there is no label for someone who doesn't believe in santa claus, leprechauns, magic, prophecies, fate... etc etc etc. Well, unless you count "sane" as a term befitting of such a person.

Oooo. Sane has an inverse word that means the opposite of it, much as Theism has the opposite Atheism. That word is "insane."

Can we apply that label to devout leap of faithers?

To be fair even current science can seem like magic to the average person and Santa Claus is actually of based on someone who really did exist. People in prison also have there fate dictated to them so in a sense so do have theirs predestined after a given point in time. Okay so the other are a little harder to explain away but im sure with enough effort it could be done.

Besides it's a leap of faith on either extreme.

 

[destrekor]

Sandorski, how exactly can you provide absolute evidence that would disprove the existence of a omnipotent being?

As an atheist myself, I cannot provide such evidence. maybe you can enlighten me on this?

I think it is unfair to ask for evidence proving something does not exist.

Can we provide evidence leprechauns do not exist? Pixie-dust-spreading fairies (not the type in SF)?

It is fair to say "this is the way it is" without citing evidence that proves wrong something that never had any evidence in support of it in the first place.

We have enough evidence to declare that everything we know, is the way it is because "the universe just works." Some fantastical intervention is not needed, not implied, nor alluded to by any evidence currently available.

Yes, science changes and adapts as time progresses on, because science is all about doing exactly that; science is about determining the facts, the truth... scientists do so with the tools available, making sense of what can be understood at the time. If future advancements provide evidence that something previously discovered is just not right, then science places the burden of proof on the one claiming their way is correct (if it aims to disprove something previously discovered).
Will things discovered now be amended in the future? Quite likely. Certain aspects of science are more likely to see that then others.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fail

Really? Prove this next line scientifically.

There is no god making a list of who is naughty or nice to reward/punish anyone after they die. Sorry.

That poster makes a definitive claim. In truth he doesn't know if it's true or not, however he apparently believes it's true.

That would make you one of those I alluded to from GA's response to mine.

You were perfect. Thanks.

 

[sandorski]

Really? Prove this next line scientifically.



That poster makes a definitive claim. In truth he doesn't know if it's true or not, however he apparently believes it's true.

That would make you one of those I alluded to from GA's response to mine.

You were perfect. Thanks.

Where is this god?