Search for Truth: Atheism

[jarofthoughts]

It isn't "flowery language". What people actually mean when they say "god" is pertinent information without which the question can not be answered.

When a theist asks if I believe in god, they generally mean THEIR god, not Merriam-Webster's god. Then again, pantheists and nature worshippers don't tend to ask.

Then they will have to provide their own definition, which is, I think, a reasonable demand if they decide to go outside the accepted definition of a word.

 

[Willamena]

Then they will have to provide their own definition, which is, I think, a reasonable demand if they decide to go outside the accepted definition of a word.

And what is "the accepted definition" of "god"?

The Abrahamic's god? The Dharmic's god? The Deist's god?

 

[jarofthoughts]

And what is "the accepted definition" of "god"?

The Abrahamic's god? The Dharmic's god? The Deist's god?

Here is the Online Oxford Dictionary definition:

God
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Dictionary search results : Oxford Dictionaries Online

 

[Alceste]

Then they will have to provide their own definition, which is, I think, a reasonable demand if they decide to go outside the accepted definition of a word.

Of course. However, there is no accepted definition of the word among theists. Only dictionaries and fundamentalists think the definition of "god" is a simple task.

 

[Alceste]

Here is the Online Oxford Dictionary definition:

God

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Dictionary search results : Oxford Dictionaries Online

There you go. The Ganges is certainly "superhuman" and has power over nature and human fortunes. As is and does the universe.

 

[Dan4reason]

I can only assume there is a reason, for some, or else pantheism would not be such a popular incarnation of theism.

Ad populum.

 

[jarofthoughts]

There you go. The Ganges is certainly "superhuman" and has power over nature and human fortunes. As is and does the universe.

And yet, there is no reason to think that it is a god.

 

[doppelganger]

Ad populum.

That's not an ad populum, actually.

 

[Orias]

And yet, there is no reason to think that it is a god.

Certainly not a thorough one

 

[Magic Man]

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own. Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

Of course that is not to say that many major atheists talk about and defend science and it is important to address religious claims. I just think atheists need more balance between positive belief and negative disbelief.

Atheism is a negative. It's not theism. It's answering in the negative to the question "Do you believe in God?". I'm not sure atheism is the best option for one of these threads. A better option would be Humanism. Atheism is not a belief system. The only thing atheism identifies is one's position on one particular belief. The way you're talking here would be more appropriate for an actual belief system, like Humanism.

 

[Magic Man]

I also see no need to explain science and reason as I do not see a major need for it in the life of most people.

You don't see a major need for science or reason in most people's lives? Really?

 

[Alceste]

And yet, there is no reason to think that it is a god.

There are two reasons I can think of: you're a pantheist, or you're a hindu.

 

[Orias]

There are two reasons I can think of: you're a pantheist, or you're a hindu.

You always seem to exclude Panentheism, wtf mate?

 

[Alceste]

You always seem to exclude Panentheism, wtf mate?

True, I do. Too many syllables.

 

[doppelganger]

True, I do. Too many syllables.

Tha's my problem with it too. I've tried though . . .

 

[jarofthoughts]

There are two reasons I can think of: you're a pantheist, or you're a hindu.

And there is no empirical reason to be either.

 

[Alceste]

And there is no empirical reason to be either.

There is no empirical reason not to be either.

 

[jarofthoughts]

There is no empirical reason not to be either.

Except for the scientific concept of the Null Hypothesis, which, after all, is a very reasonable stance.

 

[Willamena]

Except for the scientific concept of the Null Hypothesis, which, after all, is a very reasonable stance.

Wouldn't that be null stance?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Wouldn't that be null stance?

The Null Hypothesis is that there is no god, and until that Hypothesis is shown to be false that is how it is.