Atheism does not exist

[Falvlun]

And as for the deist perspective, they are the people who scoff at the shimmery pink description of the dragon. They believe that it is the normal color of a dragon-- kind of a brownish green. You know, natural looking. And it doesn't eat sheep or make it windy. It used to fly around and do stuff, but now it just sleeps in a cave somewhere.

 

[outhouse]

circular reasoning

A deity must first be proven to exist, before one can prove it does not.

So far no deity has any evidence of any kind, anywhere. So scientifically, they do not exist until there is something to test for.

This answered your question but ignored when reality doesn't fit your game.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This answered your question but ignored when reality doesn't fit your game.

You never made such a claim as I just looked through the previous posts made. I have been waiting for answer from you and the best so far is a false quotation :sarcastic, seriously?
Please explain to me how this proves anything I said wrong.
Besides being off topic I have never explained the proven existence of a god and I am not even trying to. But I do no you cannot proven the nonexistence of a god so you are using this moment to make an effort to improve your outlook.

Please just provide a definitive answer for atheism.

 

[outhouse]

This is my view.

A deity must first be proven to exist, before one can prove it does not.

So far no deity has any evidence of any kind, anywhere. So scientifically, they do not exist until there is something to test for.

So your original question of proving a deity doesn't exist is faulty, until someone proves they do exist. this negates your silly questions completely on atheism.

The current definition of atheism stands just fine on its own

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is my view.

A deity must first be proven to exist, before one can prove it does not.

So far no deity has any evidence of any kind, anywhere. So scientifically, they do not exist until there is something to test for.

So your original question of proving a deity doesn't exist is faulty, until someone proves they do exist. this negates your silly questions completely on atheism.

The current definition of atheism stands just fine on its own

I apologize for being aggressive and rude with you earlier.
This is not what I have been asking.

I never asked for anyone to prove a deity exist. I asked for a definition of atheism which doe snot imply that atheist can prove god does not exist.
Because I know more then enough atheist (some who have posted int his thread) who claim that they have proof god doe snot exist.
Atheism according to many is not the standpoint that one :knows god exists". it just means one does not believe int he possibility of a god.

You are arguing on the wrong thing here. I never asked for anyone to prove god does or does not exist I asked for atheist to provide a definition of atheism that does not make the same claims of faith that theists do. Most have understood this but you and a few others.

You just read a tiny bit of what I said then got angry and went on a tirade without knowing you are arguing about the wrong thing. :thud:.
This cannot get anymore laughable.

 

[LuisDantas]

I asked for a definition of atheism which doe snot imply that atheist can prove god does not exist.

Do you realize that no definition implies that?

 

[outhouse]

I asked for atheist to provide a definition of atheism that does not make the same claims of faith that theists do.
.

You missed the boat bud on my interpretation.

Faith is not required for atheism because scientifically god doesn't exist. There are no claims of faith at all.

I lack any sort of faith in my views.

Because an atheist can cloud his or her disposition by holding strong to science they are also holding strong to scientific principles.

There is no clouding of anyone's disposition scientifically

See where this confusing puzzle is going folks?

Your the one who started with word salad tossed about liberally.

But the other issue is that if a person concludes there is no god then they are at equal footing to that of a theist.

This is where your in serious error

There is no faith involved in or equal footing in claiming when it comes to a claim god doesn't exist.

Scientifically god doesn't exist, nor has "any" ever been proven to exist.


Until the concepts are proven to exist, the current definition stands correct and in tact.

 

[camanintx]

I was talking to a friend of mine one day and he told me atheists do not exist. I asked him how can you say that if he himself is an atheist.
He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity.

Your friend needs to understand the distinction between an object and concepts of that object. While I readily reject the existence of God, I equally accept that concepts of God exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is fairly correct :yes:. I am often told that atheism is "the belief that there is no god". This forms an absolute as it implies an atheist knows there is no god.

No, it doesn't. Belief does not necessarily imply knowledge.

Both parties believe in something about god (one says he exist and the other says he does not) yet both cannot provide evidence for either statement. To me this would just lump atheism and theism together since they are founded on the same level of thinking. One rejects god without knowing and other other accepts god without knowing. Both provide subjective evidence to validate their claims and both have been bickering for a thousand years almost.

Out of curiosity, what's your position on leprechauns? Do believe in them? Do you reject them? Are you "agnostic" about leprechauns?

Bear with me - I have a point, but I need you to answer the question first.

To a deist they are equally the same since we strip both thoughts to their provided claims and remove superstition and empirical thinking out of the way. Once that is done atheist who claim they "know there is no god" and theists who claim they "Know there is a god" are mutual partners.
If you know the works of deists int he past you would have known they lump the two together and declare foolery of them both.

I should also make it clear my question is based on my point of view which is a deist so like all deist I am not atheistic or theistic. I stand out of both realms and view both as opponent to deism. Christians battle outside religions and those without religion while a deist battles ALL religion, superstition, and non-theism.
Being a deist requires a lot of enemies

How is deism "not atheistic or theistic"? IMO, deism is a subset of theism: theism is the belief in gods in general, and deism is the belief in a god that does not intervene in the affairs of the universe.

I'd say that between atheism, "mainstream" theism, and deism, it's deism that's on the shakiest ground, since it asserts the claim of God's existence just as much as any other form of theism, but it takes away any possible support for this claim.

You are arguing on the wrong thing here. I never asked for anyone to prove god does or does not exist I asked for atheist to provide a definition of atheism that does not make the same claims of faith that theists do. Most have understood this but you and a few others.

Here's a definition: an atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods.

If you want to tweak this so that babies aren't atheists (which I don't really mind, but as to not pull the thread off-track with a side argument), we could
refine it by saying that an atheist is a person who has encountered god-concepts, considered them, and not accepted any of the god-concepts he has encountered.

How does that definition work for you?

 

[Willamena]

A deity must first be proven to exist, before one can prove it does not.

That doesn't make sense. If it's proven to exist, how can it also be proven to not exist?

 

[idav]

That doesn't make sense. If it's proven to exist, how can it also be proven to not exist?

Evidence is necessary in order for it to even be evaluated. That thought was from god, no it was from the brain, what does the evidence say. But yeah real proof would be hard to disprove like a picture or DNA sample.

 

[outhouse]

That doesn't make sense. If it's proven to exist, how can it also be proven to not exist?

I stand corrected, you caught me again in my wording.

What I was trying to say was this

Scientifically of course,If someone says they have proof a deity exist and provide this evidence to scientist, it is there job to test and define such evidence.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Scientifically god doesn't exist, nor has "any" ever been proven to exist.


Until the concepts are proven to exist, the current definition stands correct and in tact.

Please provide to me how god is scientifically proven not to exist .

You keep stating this yet you are providing nothing

 

[LuisDantas]

Please provide to me how god is scientifically proven not to exist .

You keep stating this yet you are providing nothing

You are misreading it. There must be evidence of god for it to be considered. To do anything else would be quite pointless from a scientific standpoint.

 

[McBell]

I asked for a definition of atheism which doe snot imply that atheist can prove god does not exist.

And then you promptly ignored all the definitions provided...

So now it is rather difficult to take you seriously on this matter.

 

[Sha'irullah]

No, it doesn't. Belief does not necessarily imply knowledge.

Then what is it? Semantics do not really matter. Belief or opinion it makes no difference.

Out of curiosity, what's your position on leprechauns? Do believe in them? Do you reject them? Are you "agnostic" about leprechauns?

Irish midgets who look for pots of gold and look up gals skirts.
Very plausible if you ask me unless there is a mythical element of some sort I am forgetting.
But leprechauns like anything else can easily be viewed in a rational way considering their appearance and characteristics.

Bear with me - I have a point, but I need you to answer the question first.

:yes:
How is deism "not atheistic or theistic"? IMO, deism is a subset of theism: theism is the belief in gods in general, and deism is the belief in a god that does not intervene in the affairs of the universe.

Depends on how you look at it. Classical deism like mine is a subset of theism. But Modern Deism can often be outside of both ranges as some subscribe tot he concept that the universe created god and when I say god I mean a super powerful transcendent being who created the stars and everything else within the massive time frame. It is rather complex but the view of a deistic god is not often supernatural.
This is why most deists just say "Supreme Being" as it refer to the highest being int he universe.
They acknowledge a supreme being but denounce he is supernatural but at the same time accept that he is god and deny the concept of a supernatural god while also denouncing atheism.
That is about as simplistic as I can say this. Keep in mind deism heavily varies. It can go from simplistic to down right confusing.

I'd say that between atheism, "mainstream" theism, and deism, it's deism that's on the shakiest ground, since it asserts the claim of God's existence just as much as any other form of theism, but it takes away any possible support for this claim.

Deism is founded upon subjective empirical reasoning. Lack of holy books or superstition to me is a good thing.
Clinging to a thousand year old ancient holy book only makes one's argument increasingly invalid since not only does he have to prove the existence of god but he has to prove the validity of his overly complex holy book.
Deism just gets rid of dead weight if you ask me.

Here's a definition: an atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods.

But you just stated earlier that belief is incorrect. You are falling back on semantics.
Why do you have belief that there is no god? The belief in the lack of gods or theism is just non-theism.
Earlier when I said "the belief that there is no god" I did not say belief implies knowledge. I should have said it more clear which is when one states that they known there is no god. We can belief anything but the context of the belief or lack of belief is different.
I am debating an atheist in this very same thread who claims he can prove there is no god. So far he has been dodging the bullet for 11 pages.
By making such a statement he is as irrational as the theists he himself believes is irrational.

If you want to tweak this so that babies aren't atheists (which I don't really mind, but as to not pull the thread off-track with a side argument), we could
refine it by saying that an atheist is a person who has encountered god-concepts, considered them, and not accepted any of the god-concepts he has encountered.

How does that definition work for you?

I really prefer the definition given to me by a few other who state that atheism is merely the viewpoint that the existence of a god is highly unlikely. Which is about all that can be proven.

 

[Sha'irullah]

And then you promptly ignored all the definitions provided...

So now it is rather difficult to take you seriously on this matter.

I have not ignored them, I read them and I made comments about them. They were satisfactory.
Everyone else seems to be more concerned in proving evidence a god does not exist which is not my argument.
Just read back further to find my replies.

 

[sonofdad]

Who is trying to prove that god does not exist?
Do you understand the difference between a) rejecting a claim and b) asserting a contradicting claim?

 

[jmn]

Please provide to me how god is scientifically proven not to exist .

It is just a mental representation in the brain, so without your brain......

 

[Sha'irullah]

You are misreading it. There must be evidence of god for it to be considered. To do anything else would be quite pointless from a scientific standpoint.

This does not prove god does not exist. It is entirely irrelevant. I do not want anyone to consider there is or is not a god. Nor am I asking for prove of the atheistic or theistic claim about god.
If there is no evidence for god it does not mean one has disproven it. Just means there is no evidence as all evidence pro or against a god is highly subjective and unobtainable.

By the common mistake of people viewing an atheism as the certainty there is no god they believe atheists "know there is no god".
We all know this is not true because a person cannot truly know this. It just means it is a question left unanswered. The believe in god and the disbelief in god is just a theory.

I know for a fact atheist do not have this sort of thinking and that they are just convinced there is no god because they find it unlikely, improbable or any various other means. Not because they have found proof that a god does not exist.
We are not debating what atheism is, we are debating on what atheism is not. By giving it a proper definitive stance that cannot be mistaken for something it is not.
Being a deist I have this same issue because of the fact a deist believe in a non-interfering god people assume we believe in an unloving god which is not true. People are also assigning false attributes to atheism as well.

You have to look at my original post because others are derailing this thread far off topic and it's purpose is becoming diluted.