How do you define "Athesim"?

[Orias]

What I want to know is how a persons conviction of what they are "atheist" or "theist" makes the definition of "atheism" anymore valid.

A belief is a belief, and thats all thats too it. If you want to complicate it, all you have to do is add "simplicity".

In the end its all narrowed down to the most basic and primal accords of human instinct, all warfare is based on deception.

 

[Warren Clark]

This is all very true. But for the sake of reality, you can't narrow it down to just Muslims.

One should always remember that war is a two way street, both in spark and in fire. We may think its wrong for them to kill anything that dishonors their code, but how are we excluded from any of this "code" or "moral" obeying? If its wrong to us for them to do that (kill anything that dishonors or contradicts their moral codes), then don't you think its wrong for us in their eyes to do what we do?

This all goes back to my whole, creating a new breed type thing :bat:

I agree 100%. I feel everyone is responsible for their actions. All religions provoke conflict.

 

[Orias]

I agree 100%. I feel everyone is responsible for their actions. All religions provoke conflict.

Exactly, but even with that being said not one person should take the claim of an individual, who may speak on behalf of a certain religion, as being the sole goal or motive of that religion.

This is why its so darned complicated because the individual starts as many conflicts and problems as the group of individuals does.

But with that being said, I do certainly love religion, and the study of it

 

[Warren Clark]

What I want to know is how a persons conviction of what they are "atheist" or "theist" makes the definition of "atheism" anymore valid.

A belief is a belief, and thats all thats too it. If you want to complicate it, all you have to do is add "simplicity".

In the end its all narrowed down to the most basic and primal accords of human instinct, all warfare is based on deception.

I've heard the notion that it takes more faith in belief that there is no god.

I don't "believe" there isn't a god. There not being a god isn't a figment of my imagination. I don't think there is NO GOD or any possibility.
I just lack the sufficient evidence. I lack the belief. There is no belief.
I can't NOT believe something that I don't have evidence to think of one way or the other.

Birds have feathers. But if I have never seen a bird, I wouldn't be able to say whether it is true or not or even if birds truly exist. But I wont say I believe they don't exist. Because there is no proof one way or the other.

 

[Orias]

I've heard the notion that it takes more faith in belief that there is no god.

I don't "believe" there isn't a god. There not being a god isn't a figment of my imagination. I don't think there is NO GOD or any possibility.
I just lack the sufficient evidence. I lack the belief. There is no belief.
I can't NOT believe something that I don't have evidence to think of one way or the other.

Birds have feathers. But if I have never seen a bird, I wouldn't be able to say whether it is true or not or even if birds truly exist. But I wont say I believe they don't exist. Because there is no proof one way or the other.

I would have to agree somewhat with this. Faith isn't something just for the "theists", like we have to have faith in our speech, in what we are doing as justified and everything else we do in daily life. It simply requires faith.

But I look at the question of belief like this, if someone asks you if you believe in God, the answer is not implying a factual device. Rather, its clearly explicating what you believe, since thats all thats being asked for. Anything else is a personal implication, and is something that should be discussed among people who share similar views.

But when it comes down to the main question and the point the OP is making, a belief that one holds with certainty is still a belief, regardless of whether or not it involves the opinion (as oppositional they tend to be) of others.

If you believe that atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God, then its a belief. If your an atheist that claims to belief that there is no God while continuing to advocate that you believe atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God then its a belief. Every single idea and device used to express and uphold our own mental sanity and consciousness is based upon what we believe. Even if these believes latter turn into facts and literal self help equations, they are still beliefs.

 

[Warren Clark]

I would have to agree somewhat with this. Faith isn't something just for the "theists", like we have to have faith in our speech, in what we are doing as justified and everything else we do in daily life. It simply requires faith.

But I look at the question of belief like this, if someone asks you if you believe in God, the answer is not implying a factual device. Rather, its clearly explicating what you believe, since thats all thats being asked for. Anything else is a personal implication, and is something that should be discussed among people who share similar views.

But when it comes down to the main question and the point the OP is making, a belief that one holds with certainty is still a belief, regardless of whether or not it involves the opinion (as oppositional they tend to be) of others.

If you believe that atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God, then its a belief. If your an atheist that claims to belief that there is no God while continuing to advocate that you believe atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God then its a belief. Every single idea and device used to express and uphold our own mental sanity and consciousness is based upon what we believe. Even if these believes latter turn into facts and literal self help equations, they are still beliefs.

Right.
So there are ultimately two questions.

Including human emotion and all that you feel with all science aside, do you believe there is a God?
Yes or No

Is there a God?
Yes or No

As an Atheist with out science, I would say I do not believe.
But I have no certainty that he truly doesn't exist.

The difference here is that my mother as a Catholic would say she believes that there is a god and that there is a god without question.
All empirical evidence is thrown out, and she completely relies on faith.

 

[Orias]

Thats the thing about empirical evidence though.

If you have in mind that God cannot be empirically observed then it doesn't really matter, its out of the question.

Also considering the human psychology, most thoughts, feelings, and interpretations are often confined to the individual, being that they are not expressed at all to the outside world.

Facts and truths are founded off of beliefs, which are founded off of interpretation and perception. We perceive because we exist, and we exist because...

 

[Willamena]

Well, it may be a very long time relative to our single lifespan.

It is a useful notion only because, as I suggested, making a fuss over who's god is more real when there is no evidence to suggest that either are, it is just pure nonsense.

Its like 5 year olds playing space rangers.
Timmy got mad at Bobby for making up an imaginary gun that has bigger badder lasers than his gun.

Its just as ridiculous.

Right now everything about deities is scientifically in the air. There is no telling who is more right than the other. There is no point in fighting over it and causing "holy war".

This is the whole reason the middle east is at a never ending war. They just can't stand to play nicely. You have your radicals on both sides casting stones and in this sense missiles.

So atheism is defined by the idea that theism is silly?

 

[Warren Clark]

So atheism is defined by the idea that theism is silly?

The post you quoted had nothing to do with the "definition" of atheism.

But dont you find it ridiculous that the cause of war is over something that no one can see?

 

[Willamena]

The post you quoted had nothing to do with the "definition" of atheism.

But the question I'd asked did. But nevermind.

 

[Orias]

But dont you find it ridiculous that the cause of war is over something that no one can see?

Actually I think its caused by something that only some can see, and thats others simply refuse to even attempt to see.

 

[Warren Clark]

But the question I'd asked did. But nevermind.

well like i said, by definition, atheist lack the belief in god.
new born babies are atheists because they don't even think cognitively yet.
a belief in god is developed by experience.

I personally just find it hilarious that people argue over who's invisible man is better.

 

[Warren Clark]

Actually I think its caused by something that only some can see, and thats others simply refuse to even attempt to see.

Well that goes with the theory that I have that in each dimension we are all right in the end.
All our gods exist and they are all better than the other...

 

[Orias]

I personally just find it hilarious that people argue over who's invisible man is better.

I too find it hilarious, that people argue over the invisibility of something speaking directly to your face

 

[Orias]

Well that goes with the theory that I have that in each dimension we are all right in the end.
All our gods exist and they are all better than the other...

I think you mean M-Theory, which proposes that anything and everything that could possibly happen in our understanding of existence does in each of these differing dimensions.

Its not about who's God is better, but who, among the followers of this certain God, understands it better than the others.

 

[Orias]

What helps me when I think of God is air, you can't see it, but we can change it, and we also depend upon it.

 

[Warren Clark]

What helps me when I think of God is air, you can't see it, but we can change it, and we also depend upon it.

air is a vague expression. air is a mix of particles, oxygen and nitrogen, etc.
We know their affect and we cant see them with the naked eye...
A better idea would be wind. You cant see it but you can witness the effect it has.
But what if the things people were claiming were acts of god were just circumstantial?
Its my belief that they are circumstantial.

A person might not die in an accident because of a said miracle of god. but in reality it is just because the right things happened at the right time.
If the right things didn't happen at the right time, its no longer a miracle but a tragedy.
No room for god to be inserted.
Either a person lives or they die. Its just the way it is. The circle of life.

There is yet no viable explanation or reason to assume that a god exists.

 

[Orias]

air is a vague expression. air is a mix of particles, oxygen and nitrogen, etc.

Its not that vague, and wind isn't honestly much more precise. Wind is apart of air.

But regardless, the expression stands, regardless of its vagueness. And I say that because I know by your reaction, that you understood what I meant.

But what if the things people were claiming were acts of god were just circumstantial?
Its my belief that they are circumstantial.

And what if I said "God" were a circumstantial being, what if I said I was "God" or that right now, "God" was speaking to you, through me?

But in reality it is just because the right things happened at the right time.

But what does real time or "reality" have to do with the right things happening at the right time?

A person surviving an accident and then saying the cause of their survival is God is so cliche and overused when it comes to atheist's trying to make a debate out of "God(s)" nonexistence.

Realistically the matter isn't about what happened and didn't happen, but what the individual did after it happened. If they didn't believe in God and after a car wreck they believe in God doesn't that tell you a little something about the psychology of the matter?

Same being said about a person that loses a loved one, therefore losing faith in whatever God they believed would save them feeling certain emotions.

No room for god to be inserted.
Either a person lives or they die. Its just the way it is. The circle of life.

If there is no room for God to be inserted, then how come we have discussion and topic about it? Realistically speaking, there is room for anything.

There is yet no viable explanation or reason to assume that a god exists.

This isn't part of the OP, but for the sake of debate I'm just going respond...

What if the viable explanation or reason was us? Not to put us on a pedestal or anything...

But if you look at the universe, you will see certain parts that have a higher concentration of a certain material, and you will see other parts that lack the essential building blocks of life.

Believing in a God is subject for the most part to desire and emotion. Once we push these aside "like a man" then its easier to narrow down the sincerity of the belief.

Some people like to learn and study all there is, some just need the notion of a "fatherly" figure beyond our "biological" fathers, some don't care, and others need the energy so they can try and overcome it. The human and its psychology is very vast and fascinating, especially when applying and trying to learn the psychology of the matter when talking about the metaphysical realm.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My preferred definitions of theism and atheism are:

1) theism = acceptance of a belief in one or more gods
2) atheism = rejection of a belief in one or more gods

But doesn't #2 turn all Christians and Muslims into atheists? Really, anyone who has faith in a particular god concept, to the exclusion of other god concepts, would be an atheist as I understand your defintion.

I don't conceive of 'god' as a physically-existing entity, who can either exist or not exist. So for me, it's not a matter of accepting or rejecting the existence of god. That notion really doesn't make sense to me. I think of god as a concept concocted within each human mind, at least in those minds who care to create such a conception.

So I think the whole issue of who's-an-atheist is a (fun) word battle, signifying the thought of the debater but having nothing to do with the actual nature of theists/atheists. I don't believe in such a thing as an actual nature of an atheist.

A complication in these arguments is that definitions are precise heuristic statements, whereas meanings are very complex bundles of associated concepts. All words exhibit a certain amount of ambiguity (different precise word senses) and vagueness (lack of precision). So, to the extent that the concept of "god" shifts around, the concept of "atheism" shifts around.

I certainly agree with that, but I'd take it much further. I'd argue that to the extent that the concepts of 'belief' and 'exist' and other words shift around, so will the concept of atheism shift around.

 

[Willamena]

1) theism = acceptance of a belief in one or more gods
2) atheism = rejection of a belief in one or more gods

But doesn't #2 turn all Christians and Muslims into atheists?

Can't a person be atheist in regard to another's concept of "god" and theist as it relates to god(s)? Everything is, after all, relative.