Atheism does not exist

[Falvlun]

But i think that's still the majority concept of God among Americans. When Falvlun complains that we all actually have a good idea of the meaning of God, I think (s)he is talking about a Guy up above somewhere. A conscious being who actually exists somehow.

It's got nothing to do with my own God, but it does seem to still be the majority definition.

Hey, I don't complain!

I whine in only the noblest fashion!

But to clarify, yes, I do think that that sort of conception is the usual one for most Westerners, but I do think most are aware of other god-categories, such as polytheism and the all-is-god/god-as-reality notion. And nerds, at least, are familiar with deism as well.

 

[Falvlun]

You're friend is wrong. Being atheist doesn't mean you reject god. It only means : "I don't believe there is a god (or gods) because there's absolutely no evidence that support the existence of god (gods)."

Well, actually, it could just as easily be "I don't believe there is a god because my mom fed me green beans". The "because" part is just gravy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hey, I don't complain!

I whine in only the noblest fashion!

I know, I know. I just called you a complainer to see if you would (nobly) whine about it.

But to clarify, yes, I do think that that sort of conception is the usual one for most Westerners, but I do think most are aware of other god-categories, such as polytheism and the all-is-god/god-as-reality notion. And nerds, at least, are familiar with deism as well.

Deism? What the heck is that??

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I wasn't introduced to the idea of God until I was five so obviously I was an atheist until then. I don't know what it is you are trying to convince people of but it isn't working.

I'm stating my opinion. You're welcome to yours.

You can count rocks as atheists if you like, and I understand what you mean in that. People also broaden or use the term God until it has no meaning.
I think that the semantic battle is largely related to whether you are trying to convey atheism as the natural state of all things, or not.

IN some ways, I couldn't really give a crap. I have consistently argued that atheism doesn't inform anyone of much at all in terms of my beliefs, morals, political leanings, or whatever. But I also think it's kind of a nonsense to equate atheism in a human with atheism in a rock.

 

[idav]

Im kinda partial to the idea that babies and carrots are closer to enlightenment therefore more aware of their roots. After all it is our minds breaking us away from the absolute.

 

[steeltoes]

I'm stating my opinion. You're welcome to yours.

You can count rocks as atheists if you like, and I understand what you mean in that. People also broaden or use the term God until it has no meaning.
I think that the semantic battle is largely related to whether you are trying to convey atheism as the natural state of all things, or not.

IN some ways, I couldn't really give a crap. I have consistently argued that atheism doesn't inform anyone of much at all in terms of my beliefs, morals, political leanings, or whatever. But I also think it's kind of a nonsense to equate atheism in a human with atheism in a rock.

Yes, it is nonsense to equate atheism in a human with atheism in a rock. :clap

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And some don't see the point of artificially broadening it.

If we're expanding the definition beyond "a person who doesn't follow the predominant religion", then we're already broadening it. In the original sense of the term, Hindus in Christian Europe would be "atheists" in the same way that Christians in Pagan Rome were.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I actually do have a problem with people limiting the Term Atheism. Mainly out of sheer ignorance. Every time I ever discuss religion with people and they find out i'm an Atheist about 9 out of 10 times if I"m talking to someone who isn't normally aquainted with how atheism works and atheists actual views have this strange idea that just because I claim atheism that I claim to know for a fact that there is not a god.

They think that I have "faith" there is not a god. Isn't that even a book now? I don't have enough faith to be an atheist or something? But in reality thats NOT what it is. Despite what people seem to think it is absolutly wrong.

 

[Almustafa]

its not that you have faith in "no God"
its that science is your "god"

in Hinduism a murti or idol is used as the medium in which we focus our mind to tune in to the Absolute reality, which by definition is all things

the Atheist, having no religious belief, rely on a scientific measurements & study to learn about the Absolute reality, which again by definition is all things everywhere...

thus does an atheist have faith in science to convey the truth, just as a religious person does religion...

by no means do i wish to impose on you anything, whatever makes sense to your mind is cool, like they say; whatever floats your boat...
but from the religious observer it would appear atheism is a religion of empirical science,
& sometimes, a more spiteful theist go so far as to call it a religion for materialists(lol thats more like the satanist dudes)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

its not that you have faith in "no God"
its that science is your "god"

in Hinduism a murti or idol is used as the medium in which we focus our mind to tune in to the Absolute reality, which by definition is all things

the Atheist, having no religious belief, rely on a scientific measurements & study to learn about the Absolute reality, which again by definition is all things everywhere...

thus does an atheist have faith in science to convey the truth, just as a religious person does religion...

by no means do i wish to impose on you anything, whatever makes sense to your mind is cool, like they say; whatever floats your boat...
but from the religious observer it would appear atheism is a religion of empirical science,
& sometimes, a more spiteful theist go so far as to call it a religion for materialists(lol thats more like the satanist dudes)

Well I contest this on 2 points.
1) There are people that believe in science that are religious people. So science does not equate to atheism.
2) There are many very stupid atheists. Many of them dont belive in science or don't know science.

So atheism has no root in science. The fact that so many scientists are atheists has to do with discovery of our world and I think logical implications that become apparent. But despite this many people still cling to religious views within the respected scientific community.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

its not that you have faith in "no God"
its that science is your "god"

in Hinduism a murti or idol is used as the medium in which we focus our mind to tune in to the Absolute reality, which by definition is all things

the Atheist, having no religious belief, rely on a scientific measurements & study to learn about the Absolute reality, which again by definition is all things everywhere...

thus does an atheist have faith in science to convey the truth, just as a religious person does religion...

by no means do i wish to impose on you anything, whatever makes sense to your mind is cool, like they say; whatever floats your boat...
but from the religious observer it would appear atheism is a religion of empirical science,
& sometimes, a more spiteful theist go so far as to call it a religion for materialists(lol thats more like the satanist dudes)

Naw...I gotta disagree with you. It's not 'faith' in science.
For example, it is possible to be a theist and a scientist. So...they hold faith in both concepts? No...they hold faith in a god-concept. Science is a process they follow to arrive at empirical answers. No faith required.

If you are suggesting that atheists have faith that science will provide answers to everything, then not necessarily. I certainly don't. But I think scientific method is the best process we have for determining empirical truths about the universe around us.

Calling it a religion is simply wrong. Name it's doctrines. Name it's tenets.

Is theism a religion? Nup.

 

[jmn]

Faith is believing in something without evidence.

Science is a tool used to test, and give evidence.

 

[Willamena]

Naw...I gotta disagree with you. It's not 'faith' in science.
For example, it is possible to be a theist and a scientist. So...they hold faith in both concepts? No...they hold faith in a god-concept. Science is a process they follow to arrive at empirical answers. No faith required.

If you are suggesting that atheists have faith that science will provide answers to everything, then not necessarily. I certainly don't. But I think scientific method is the best process we have for determining empirical truths about the universe around us.

Calling it a religion is simply wrong. Name it's doctrines. Name it's tenets.

Is theism a religion? Nup.

Empricism demands faith. It outlines an ontological framework whereby man's thoughts do not adequately capture the entirety of reality, so that theories of reality must be put to the test in order for the truth of reality to be "uncovered." The total of these theories, and our capacity to theorize them, represent a degree of uncertainty about the world, yet we rely on them and we trust in our conclusions. That is faith.

 

[jmn]

yet we rely on them and we trust in our conclusions. That is faith.

Scientific tests can be produced, and then reproduced, over and over again. I don't see the faith

 

[zaybu]

Empricism demands faith. It outlines an ontological framework whereby man's thoughts do not adequately capture the entirety of reality, so that theories of reality must be put to the test in order for the truth of reality to be "uncovered." The total of these theories, and our capacity to theorize them, represent a degree of uncertainty about the world, yet we rely on them and we trust in our conclusions. That is faith.

You're conflating "belief" and "faith".

Belief


Noun

• An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
• Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

faith



Noun

• Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
• Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Scientific tests can be produced and then reproduced, over and over again. I don't see the faith

This is kinda where I sit as well.
Scientific hypothesis, like dark matter, are necessary tools in trying to understand our surroundings, and in developing empirical tests which can then prove or disprove them. They should be understood as our best guess, in simple terms.

If theists are claiming God is their best guess, then okay.

 

[Willamena]

You're conflating "belief" and "faith".

I don't think so.

Noun

• Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

its not that you have faith in "no God"
its that science is your "god"

in Hinduism a murti or idol is used as the medium in which we focus our mind to tune in to the Absolute reality, which by definition is all things

the Atheist, having no religious belief, rely on a scientific measurements & study to learn about the Absolute reality, which again by definition is all things everywhere...

thus does an atheist have faith in science to convey the truth, just as a religious person does religion...

by no means do i wish to impose on you anything, whatever makes sense to your mind is cool, like they say; whatever floats your boat...
but from the religious observer it would appear atheism is a religion of empirical science,
& sometimes, a more spiteful theist go so far as to call it a religion for materialists(lol thats more like the satanist dudes)

Meat is my main source of protein, so I define "meat" as "a person's main source of protein." Since everybody has some source of protein, everybody eats "meat". Therefore, there are no vegetarians.

:sarcastic:

 

[Almustafa]

atheism as far as i can tell when it comes to "tenets" and "doctrine" is an empirical philosophy.....
if i can see it, then its real philosophy

perhaps this is only an extreme flavor of atheism

 

[Almustafa]

Meat is my main source of protein, so I define "meat" as "a person's main source of protein." Since everybody has some source of protein, everybody eats "meat". Therefore, there are no vegetarians.

:sarcastic:

its just perspective:yes: