An atheist is someone who has no gods in their worldview, regardless of whether this is because of a deliberate decision to exclude them, or because they never felt the need to include them. Both are atheists.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science and atheism inconsistent?
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
Right.
But your reasons for atheism are not atheism. "I'm not convinced" is not everyone's reason for atheism.
Edit: The fellow alone on the island, who has never encountered the "god" idea, doesn't have that reason for atheism. We can point at him and say, "He doesn't believe in gods," but it's not because of not being convinced or not enough evidence to be convinced.
The bare minimum for atheism is not being convinced of any gods.
Someone who has - for whatever reason - has explicitly rejected the existence of all gods still isn't convinced of any gods.
A child who hasn't encountered any god-concepts yet also hasn't been convinced of any gods.
in this post i used the word test.
Science and atheism inconsistent?
in this other post, i used the word research.
Science and atheism inconsistent?
and in this post, i used the word research too.
Science and atheism inconsistent?
So you misspoke in that one post. Fair enough - that happens.
I disagree.
Okay.
Regarding this, I will like to draw your attention to the following article.
Atheism | Naturalism.org
Regarding Dr. Gleiser ‘s view, his statement about atheistic stand “I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.', suggests that he is not conflating. At least, I think so.
Last edited:
Yep. Libel. Marcelo Gleiser ought to know better than to misrepresent atheism in such a serious way.
So should you, actually, Atanu.
I do believe that atheism and ontological naturalism are similar, as naturalism dismisses the supernatural in favour of empirical knowledge, whether that knowledge is gained through scientific method or simple experience. Naturalism, as a worldview, isn't defined by its dismissal of anything unnatural, but by its empirically gained knowledge--dismissal of the cosmic supernatural is just a product of it. Atheism is defined by its dismissal or lack of the cosmic supernatural. They are related by appearance, rather than by conclusion.
OMG. It is serious. I will be careful.
There was one thing I could see I over-read was in there that I responded incorrectly to, but it wasn't about the point of self-identification.
I think you know that I self-identified as an atheist for around 10 years, following my giving up on all that mythic-literal anthropomorphic view of the Divine. I was a champion of atheism. To say I'm not well-acquainted with atheism, is like saying the Pope is not well-acquainted with Catholicism.
I'm not sure who Gleiser is that you are referring to, nor what misdirections that may be you mention. I was responding to Altfish's post.
I disagree. Let me give you one example. Let's start with these:
These represent as much of a self-identification as a Christian cross on a chain around one's neck. This is more than just a downplayed supposed "lack of beliefs". It is a self-identify. "I am an atheist", and these symbols represent that self-identity.
Now while a couple of those are farcical, a couple are not. And even those which are still symbolize one's beliefs, not "lack of beliefs". I have trillions of lacks of beliefs, but I don't create symbols for them that I identify myself with, or as.
I realize I can point this out, and I could make a much stronger and more detailed case to support my informed opinion on this, but I've learned that when it comes to this, it's not well-received. When it comes to self-identity and defending that, rational arguments don't work. It's not what someone believes, but how they belief, a matter of style, that is the same whether it is atheism or theism.
Last edited:
Gleiser is the subject of the link in the OP, and his ideas are the (actual) topic of this thread.
Gleiser is the subject of the link in the OP, and his ideas are the (actual) topic of this thread.
I've been a little distracted. Haven't had my morning tea either.
And humbly I ask “Why not a spoon or a wooden log?”
Do you ask the same thing about terms like "non-smoker" or "civilian?"
If you can figure out that the term "civilian" (someone who isn't a member of the military) isn't usually applied to logs, then I have confidence that you can make the same distinction for "atheist."
We will have to agree to disagree, then. I stand surprised, as a matter of fact.There was one thing I could see I over-read was in there that I responded incorrectly to, but it wasn't about the point of self-identification.
I think you know that I self-identified as an atheist for around 10 years, following my giving up on all that mythic-literal anthropomorphic view of the Divine. I was a champion of atheism. To say I'm not well-acquainted with atheism, is like saying the Pope is not well-acquainted with Catholicism.
I'm not sure who Gleiser is that you are referring to, nor what misdirections that may be you mention. I was responding to Altfish's post.
I disagree. Let me give you one example. Let's start with these:
View attachment 27918
These represent as much of a self-identification as a Christian cross on a chain around one's neck. This is more than just a downplayed supposed "lack of beliefs". It is a self-identify. "I am an atheist", and these symbols represent that self-identity.
Now while a couple of those are farcical, a couple are not. And even those which are still symbolize one's beliefs, not "lack of beliefs". I have trillions of lacks of beliefs, but I don't create symbols for them that I identify myself with, or as.
I realize I can point this out, and I could make a much stronger and more detailed case to support my informed opinion on this, but I've learned that when it comes to this, it's not well-received. When it comes to self-identity and defending that, rational arguments don't work. It's not what someone believes, but how they belief, a matter of style, that is the same whether it is atheism or theism.
Gleiser has fed up the trolls that plague atheists by misrepresenting us as warped fools that lack the ability to think correctly.
Gleiser is the subject of the link in the OP, and his ideas are the (actual) topic of this thread.
Many a person mistook his statements for "proper" validation of what is ultimately thinly disguised invitation for social bonding over prejudice against atheism.
There is really no reason to hesitate in pointing out how gross and unproper that is.
Besides, that also emboldens some abominable distortions that we must get rid of, as spelled out here among other places.
You didn’t answer my question.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Did you want to address any of the points I've raised? Would you like to explain why Atheists do not believe in the existence of God(s)? Maybe you think Atheists hate God, and love science more? Maybe you think that Atheists do not have the same level of blind faith as you do? Maybe you think that God only speaks to those that believe in him. Maybe you believe that God chooses only those that will join Him in heaven. These are just some of the reasons I have heard, including profound ignorance. What is your reason?
I won't bother asking for any evidence to support anything out of your mouth, since we both know where that will end.