Atheism is not a belief.

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a stance on whether there is proof or evidence for God. Although not technically by definition, it is so by reality.

Yeah, but then there are strong and weak as related to to know if there is no gods versus no to know one way or another.

 

[Viker]

"Atheism is not a belief."

We agree on something. Perhaps.

 

[Link]

Yeah, but then there are strong and weak as related to to know if there is no gods versus no to know one way or another.

That's true, but all of them deny the proof for God and evidence for God in reality. There is very few if any who say there maybe proof for God and they may have come across it and it maybe a fault of theirs to not see it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yep. Some study. PEW research.

Any chance that you are, I don't know, misunderstanding either the research or what atheism is?

I know. What are the odds?

 

[Link]

The following comes with atheism in reality (although technically doesn't have to):

1. They are not at fault for not seeing God. (Very few would say it maybe they haven't sincerely striven or looked or see perhaps they maybe blinded for reasons that they are partially responsible for).
2. Believers aren't right (again, they aren't neutral, they have the view that believers believe in God for not good reasons).
3. They are righteous and would go to heaven if there is a God (very few see it possible they are evil)
4. Even if say they are evil which they don't give possibility to, God would be merciful and hell is irrational is the stance they take for this "if".

This is the reality of atheism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's true, but all of them deny the proof for God and evidence for God in reality. There is very few if any who say there maybe proof for God and they may have come across it and it maybe a fault of theirs to not see it.

Yeah, we all like that as atheists.
But yes, I do get the proof for God in some sense. I just don't need it, because I have been an atheist for so long now, that I do wiithout God.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

They are smart enough to know that mythology doesn’t need to be explained as being myth. The controversy comes with irrational believers.

Why do you always use insulting, demeaning, and degrading language for cultures different from your own?

And why does the degrading language so closely track the historical language that anthropologists tell us about?

Have you been reading some science? Perhaps the same articles that I’ve been reading?

If not, where does your degrading language come from?

And how were you able to guess it with such historical accuracy?

You probably know more about this topic than anybody else here in this forum.

Congratulations on reading some real science.

 

[Tomef]

3. They are righteous and would go to heaven if there is a God (very few see it possible they are evil)
4. Even if say they are evil which they don't give possibility to, God would be merciful and hell is irrational is the stance they take for this "if".

The last 2 are a bit dubious. There are certain behaviours and attitudes that are taken to be good or evil across cultures, regardless of the predominance of any religious belief or none. That a religious person might think of some set of notions particular to their religion to be good or evil in addition to the things their society generally puts in those categories is a function of that religion. Atheists as a general group follow the same basic moral principles religious people do, other than those particular to religions, such as ritual observances or taboo words etc.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Atheism is a faith choice, just like theism is. The atheist does not know, yet chooses to presume, that there are no gods. And then he lives his life as if this is so. Just exactly in the same way as the theist does not know, but chooses to presume that there is a God of his own understanding and then to live accordingly.

I don’t recall ever making a choice to be atheist.

It’s just a label that others applied to me as a child just because I believed that God does not exist.

Atheism is not in general a choice, although given enough motivation, one could change one’s beliefs thru sheer willpower, alone, no doubt.

I do that with other stuff, so I’m sure that I could do it in the end.

On the other hand, even if my wife were atheist, Catholicism would still be a significant part of her identity.

I think that it is more accurate to see religion as a part of one’s cultural and historical identity, rather than a choice.

The language of individual choice implies a whole slew of western cultural concepts that may or may not be actually present.

The advantage of taking this approach is that it allows anthropologists to do their job their way, without blatant cultural biases of rugged individualism.

 

[F1fan]

Well, it is beyound your understand how even reason has a limit, because as far as I can tell your self-worth is connected to your belief that your are really in effect objectively rational. You are not, but you can't understand that because you can't catch when you are subjective.

Have you considered your judgment might be personal?

As for materialism is a winner. That is not science, objective or rationality. That is a subjective feeling.

No, materialism is a winner because it allows science and reason to be productive for humanity.

So you hold on faith that you are objectively rational and materilism is a winner, but that it is evithout evidence.

The mundane definition of faith, yes. The definition that what we experience as consistent and predictable factors in life do not need constant attention. Faith that gravity will keep on working through the day is not something anyone needs to worry about.

The people who need to worry are those who think a God exists and can eliminate gravity any second.

But you can't understand that, because you really are in your own understanding objectively rational.

You want me to be you. But only you are you, and I think differently. I don’t understand why you think the way you do.

 

[F1fan]

Why do you always use insulting, demeaning, and degrading language for cultures different from your own?

Cite some examples of me insulting other cultures. Make sure it is a direct reference and not your assumption.

And why does the degrading language so closely track the historical language that anthropologists tell us about?

Give us some examples.

Have you been reading some science? Perhaps the same articles that I’ve been reading?

I’ve read some. I don’t know what you are reading.

If not, where does your degrading language come from?

How is my language degrading, exactly? Use examples.

And how were you able to guess it with such historical accuracy?

Guess what? I can’t read your mind. Why be so vague?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Have you considered your judgment might be personal?


No, materialism is a winner because it allows science and reason to be productive for humanity.

The mundane definition of faith, yes. The definition that what we experience as consistent and predictable factors in life do not need constant attention. Faith that gravity will keep on working through the day is not something anyone needs to worry about.

The people who need to worry are those who think a God exists and can eliminate gravity any second.


You want me to be you. But only you are you, and I think differently. I don’t understand why you think the way you do.

Thank you for your answer.

 

[Alien826]

Just some secs, no more:

That would be a good way to spend my last minutes.

Oh, sorry, I thought you said "sex"!

 

[Audie]

A famous meme says, "There are no atheists in a war." A renowned atheist replied that
this is an argument against wars, not atheism.

But there are no atheists in a falling aircraft, either. Is this an argument not against
atheism but against aircraft falls? Who cares about the falls? It is safer to take a plane than a train.

It's important to note that atheism is not merely a belief, but a lack of belief in a higher power. This is why it can be 'switched off' so easily, as it's not a belief system that requires constant affirmation.

Every christian soldier upon seeing the tanks
coming, calls out, " Glory and tidings of good cheer!!
I is about to receive E- ternal life!!"

Right? Or is this god- ism just some self deception
that needs constant church goin', fellowshippin'
self convincin' to keep up the pretense?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Cite some examples of me insulting other cultures

Irrational believers

That’s historically a direct identity based attack

Identity based attacks like that are used to encourage violence.against those cultures by la cultura mayor.

You got that from anthropologists and historians, right?

 

[firedragon]

Any chance that you are, I don't know, misunderstanding either the research or what atheism is?

Not at all. It's well documented.

 

[ppp]

You cannot. But life can: there are no atheists in a falling aircraft.

Just one of those things that god believers tell themselves to salve their own egos; rather than face the fact that the things that deeply matter to them are utterly irrelevant to others. People face mortal danger every single day with no thought towards your god or any others. Every. Single. Day.

 

[PureX]

I don’t recall ever making a choice to be atheist.

Nevertheless, you’re still choosing to presume what you can’t actually know. Aren’t you?

It’s just a label that others applied to me as a child just because I believed that God does not exist.

Atheism is not in general a choice,

Of course it is. What is not a choice is our not knowing. At any point you could have put away the atheist label and simply admitted that you can't know if gods exist or not. But you chose not to do that. And you're still choosing not to do that.

although given enough motivation, one could change one’s beliefs thru sheer willpower, alone, no doubt.

All it takes is a little logical honesty.

I think that it is more accurate to see religion as a part of one’s cultural and historical identity, rather than a choice.

But that ignores all the OTHER important reasons why people choose theism, and/or religion. So it's not really more "accurate", is it. It's just more convenient for your bias against it.

The language of individual choice implies a whole slew of western cultural concepts that may or may not be actually present.

More importantly, theological choice rests on a slew of individual internal desires and necessities that are most certainly present in all of us.

The advantage of taking this approach is that it allows anthropologists to do their job their way, without blatant cultural biases of rugged individualism.

It also allows you to completely distract yourself from the real and personal issues at hand by chasing down the anthropology rabbit hole.

 

[Audie]

Just one of those things that god believers tell themselves to salve their own egos; rather than face the fact that the things that deeply matter to them are utterly irrelevant to others. People face mortal danger every single day with no thought towards your god or any others. Every. Single. Day.

It's so typical of religious rhetoric to
simply make things up.
And like as not present same as profound
Spiritual Truth.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is a faith choice, just like theism is. The atheist does not know, yet chooses to presume, that there are no gods. And then he lives his life as if this is so. Just exactly in the same way as the theist does not know, but chooses to presume that there is a God of his own understanding and then lives his life accordingly.

The interesting thing is that most theists recognize this, and willingly admit that it is a faith choice. While most atheists fight tooth and nail to insist that what they believe is a logical fact, and not faith. Even while in the same breath they admit that they don't know this to be so.

Why this weird irrational disjuncture? Who knows.