Rectifying atheism, without science

[Desert Snake]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

Easy. I don't believe in deities. Nothing I have ever seen or read or experienced has ever convinced me; that's all there is to it. Anything else in the world I might believe or not believe is totally beside the point.

 

[HonestJoe]

What exactly do you mean by "asserted atheism"? These kind of threads usually fall down on unclear definitions so it's important to be specific and detailed, even if it seems obvious to you.

Science doesn't say anything. Science can be used (and has been) to say some things about the cause or beginning or matter and the universe though. Of course, atheism says nothing of those things, so that's not relevant anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rectifying" atheism. It's a label that means not believing in any god or gods. It applies to a whole bunch of people and doesn't apply to another bunch of people. It's really given far much more attention that it deserves.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

I think that about sums it up. Richard Dawkins' best selling book was called 'The God Delusion' not 'Evidence for Atheism'. Its a belief which is very difficult to support on its own merits, or lack thereof...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Atheism (and theism) have no arguments. They are just defined by claims that one believes in god(s) and the other does not.

Anything extra is not atheism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

Atheism existed before scientific method, albeit with a different meaning.

Do you believe in all Gods? All definitions of God? No? Me either.

 

[columbus]

Its a belief which is very difficult to support on its own merits

We go over and over this.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of one. Like bald is not a hair color.
Atheists have beliefs. But atheism is not one.
Tom

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've seen no compelling reason to believe in god(s), nor that any mechanism in the natural universe, including its origin, needed some non-physical intervention, let alone the further assumption that the non-physical thing with physical capabilities is intelligent or personable. Therefore I find claims of theism to be unintelligible at the worst, unsubstantiated at best. That is the beginning and end of my atheism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We go over and over this.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of one. Like bald is not a hair color.
Atheists have beliefs. But atheism is not one.
Tom

Okay sure I understand. Just like my a-naturalism is not a belief, I just lack belief in naturalism.

(and default to the obvious alternative)

 

[jonathan180iq]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

Even if I believed that the Universe was secreted out by a magical Brontosaurus that flies through space peeing out Universes, I'd still be an atheist because I don't believe in gods...

Your argument is invalid.

 

[columbus]

and default to the obvious alternative)

Of course, supernaturalism. As long as we both recognize that your beliefs more resemble the Greek Pantheon or shamanism than biology or computer science, we're good to go.
Tom

 

[Deathbydefault]

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

I don't, nor do I need to.

 

[jonathan180iq]

asserted atheism is a position that is proposed or adhered to as a 'fact', a truth'.

You mean, like my claim that Zeus doesn't currently, nor did he ever actually exist? Is that an example of asserted atheism?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course, supernaturalism. As long as we both recognize that your beliefs more resemble the Greek Pantheon or shamanism than biology or computer science, we're good to go.
Tom

If the explanation for nature, is not super-natural. Then the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by.. those same laws? You see the problem here Tom..

likewise in computer science, the automated functionality of the code, does not suggest that the code ultimately wrote itself by that same automated functionality. Quite the opposite

 

[HonestJoe]

asserted atheism is a position that is proposed or adhered to as a 'fact', a truth'.

Still not entirely clear but that sounds like you're talking about what is more commonly known as "strong" or "hard" atheism, a definitive statement that no gods exists. Most atheists are "weak" or "soft" atheists, simply meaning a lack of belief in any gods. Many weak atheists consider strong atheism no more valid than theism.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism?

All historical arguments for god(s) have been in the absence of knowledge. Gods have been disproven an innumerable amount of times throughout history. I see no reason why that pattern shouldn't continue. Just because you have a god that you prefer doesn't mean that it's any more valid than any of the other gods of antiquity.

Before people understood the weather, they would pray to some deity concept and just hope really hard that it would rain. If it rained, then that validated their actions and/or belief. This lasted for a very long time... We've come quite a long way in our understanding of how weather works, so we no longer spend all of our dry seasons burning things that smell good and trying to appease the rain gods, do we? We've come to learn that they were just inventions of our mind, trying to deal with the world around us. We know how weather works, and how temperatures and wind patterns determine when and where rain will fall. That's all because of science and the slow-but-steady accumulation of knowledge that it brings.

Every time we learn something new, God gets pushed just a little further out. Today, he's hiding somewhere beyond the beginning of time - a place that we may never be able to comprehend. It's a clever place to hide - and as many theists will enjoy pointing out - we can't PROVE that he's not there. But I really see no reason why we should assume he is. Theists have been wrong about where god is hiding every single time they've ever made an assertion. I see no reason why I should expect them to suddenly get one right...

Zeus was never at the top of Mt. Olympus. Zeus was a complete fabrication. So is Yahweh, just like all those before him and all that will be invented after him.

 

[fantome profane]

Asserted atheism cannot rely on science, /because science says nothing of the //cause, or beginning, etc., of matter, ,the universe. Science merely attempts to test hypothesize . Hence, as a asserted position, what is the actual reasoning, argument, for atheism? It seems completely arbitrary. A reactionary , to 'theism', yet with no actual argument.
A position that is a non-positon, a contradiction in assertion.

How do you rectify atheism? /personally?

What do you mean by "without science"? Every time you make an observation and draw a conclusion that is science. What exactly are the restrictions here?

 

[McBell]

You don't ''need'' to have a logical reason for any of your positions, however, the thread premise is addressing the idea, or people who actually might have good arguments, etc.

I am unclear on what it is exactly you want to discuss.
Thus far it seems your "argument" does not apply to me.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You don't ''need'' to have a logical reason for any of your positions, however, the thread premise is addressing the idea, or people who actually might have good arguments, etc.

No, I don't need to rectify my atheism, it stands on it's own as a response to theism.
I don't believe in the god explanation and am therefore an atheist.
Whatever explanation I rely on instead is my business and cannot be tied to atheism, as atheism isn't applicable to it.