What is Atheism?

My interpretation of atheist was always on of someone who merely "lacks a belief" in a particular deity as opposed to actively disbelieving.
I suppose we could then go into the scales of atheism (weak -> strong) etc.

The big bang theory is fairly well founded based on the evidence, and is what I think happened. What happened before then? Well I suppose the jury is out on that one. Whether it was "god" or some other kind of force, I'm not making any commitments.

Whether you take a completely scientific approach or a religous view, there will always be some degree of faith will be involved.

-Chimpdaddy-
 
V3g3tto said:
Meaning out of all those religions, only one can be considered correct, as a Diety's teachings must be followed, it can't give 1000 different versions, like an international version of MS Windows.

Therefore,by following an incorrect one, if you are at all, you are actually 'sticking it to the man' as the yanks would put it :)
Click to expand...

So not true :) Not all religions claim exclusivity, only Christianity and Islam of the ones I've heard of do. Fair enough they are pretty damn big, but not all adherents to those religions claim exclusivity either.
 
V3g3tto said:
What i don't agree with is when people say "you gotta follow some religion". At its base, religion is meant to be thanking the creator for your existence,yet i get the sneaky suspicion a lot of people do it out of fear or wanting an afterlife. Humans look after number one.

Tell me, would many religious people goto church, pray,etc if a) they knew for a fact afterlife didn't exist, b) the deity wasn't listening, c) their actions would have no impact on their or others lives. Prayer is surely selfless thanks, praise to the lord right? I'm betting it would change those who do.
Click to expand...

A: How can they know? It is their Faith that tells them the after-life exists. It is unprovable so they cannot truly ever know either way.

B: I swear sometimes whatever appropriate Deity I am praying (read: asking, demanding, swearing at) deliberately does the exact opposite. I blame my poor choice of appropriate Deity.

C: Sometimes just the comfort in believing has a positive effect. If you feel happy those close to you tend to feed of that.

Praise the Lord? Who is this "the Lord" you speak of. Unless you mean praise the LordSplodge? No thanks I am not quiet ready for Deityhood just yet. ;)
 
A-theist. Literally: "without god". A state of non belief.

"Hard" atheists may actively deny the existence of a god (or gods), but they would not call this a belief; instead they would describe it as a logical conclusion founded upon the basis of empirical evidence and rational deduction.
 
Even though i'm Agnostic, probably more Athiest, i've seen some wierd crap in my time.

I've seen my mother speak in tongues in a church when i was i kid, with the priest translating what she was saying. My mum wasn't that into it either, she only went because my aunty dragged us there. I can explain it, my mum was probably drunk again taking the mick and the priest was simply chanting. Wierd though.
 
Atheism is the faith based belief that you can take a stance on an untestable hypothesis (whether or not a god or gods exist), either in a strong (I know they don't exist), or weak (I have seen no evidence that they exist, so I'm going to assume they don't) fashion.

Some people have tried in recent years to define it as lack of belief, rather than disbelief, but this is basically an attempt to bolster atheist numbers and allow certain people to claim that 'all children are atheists' and so on. Historically, atheism is defined as disbelief in the existance of a deity, simple lack of belief isn't enough to constitute atheism, as that would also cover many other stances and a few religions (including buddhism) within it.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17812372

Huge thread there in SC about it, it's long and hard going in places (and still ongoing), but well worth a read.
 
Evangelion said:
"Hard" atheists may actively deny the existence of a god (or gods), but they would not call this a belief; instead they would describe it as a logical conclusion founded upon the basis of empirical evidence and rational deduction.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter too much whether they want to call it a belief or not, they are resting on a position that is unprovable and therefore it must be a form of faith.
 
Evangelion said:
A-theist. Literally: "without god". A state of non belief.

"Hard" atheists may actively deny the existence of a god (or gods), but they would not call this a belief; instead they would describe it as a logical conclusion founded upon the basis of empirical evidence and rational deduction.
Click to expand...

Religious people frequently describe their positions in exactly the same way (rational evaluation of evidence), but that doesn't make either position less faith based.

The only difference is where the faith in placed, in a deity or in a set of unprovable assumptions used for predicitive modelling.
 
Big words, 11am, whats the crack.

I want the big print version with pop-up pictures and smiley faces please.
 
Ugh, 3 pages is enough for me and at the moment, it's like people arguing which is better between coffee and tea, it's obviously tea, but i'm too blind to see that coffee really exists :)
 
Dolph said:
Shhh! You'll spoil my cunning plan!
Click to expand...

Gimme tha...give it to me!!..

Hand it o...come 'ere, gimme that thesaurus!..dont you run from me!

Don't bite..don't you dare bite..right that's it, drop it, droop-p it!!

Now in your basket!

:)
 
V3g3tto said:
Big words, 11am, whats the crack.

I want the big print version with pop-up pictures and smiley faces please.
Click to expand...

Simplified, atheism is one position on the following question.

"Is there a god?"

You have a range of possible answers.

Yes there is, it's x (Theist)
I don't know (agnostic)
I haven't seen any evidence for one, so I don't think there is (weak atheist)
No, there is not (Strong atheist).

The problem with the question is that there's no way to actually test to try and work out the results, and there's no evidence defined if the question was true. This means that the theist is working entirely on faith, and so are both atheist stances. The weak atheist stance basically says that "we haven't seen evidence, so absence of evidence is evidence of absence", but you can't sensibly use that logic if you don't know what the evidence would be. The strong atheist stance is pretty much exactly the same as the theist stance, but in the other direction.

Does that help?
 
Dolph said:
Religious people frequently describe their positions in exactly the same way (rational evaluation of evidence), but that doesn't make either position less faith based.

The only difference is where the faith in placed, in a deity or in a set of unprovable assumptions used for predicitive modelling.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between a conclusion founded upon verifiable empirical evidence, and a conclusion founded upon religious faith in the absence of verifiable empirical evidence.
 
V3g3tto said:
Therefore, i concede my mind cannot comprehend these points, from my knowledge they offer no explanations both from science and religion, just half assumptions. As such, i accept it "happened".
Click to expand...

s'me too.

though i've had a couple of occasions (usualy when i've got flu like symptoms and am lying in bed) when i've begun to think about the massiveness of the universe and how it started and the numbers and stuff assosciated with and made myself physically sick because its just so horribly incomprehensible.
 
Dolph said:
Simplified, atheism is one position on the following question.

"Is there a god?"

You have a range of possible answers.

Yes there is, it's x (Theist)
I don't know (agnostic)
I haven't seen any evidence for one, so I don't think there is (weak atheist)
No, there is not (Strong atheist).
Click to expand...

Actually, the "I haven't seen any evidence for one, so I don't think there is" is an Atheistic Agnostic I believe, and you also have the position of "I haven't seen any evidence for one, there probably won't be, but I still think there is one" which is a Theistic Agnostic (taken from the thread on religion many years ago)
 
Evangelion said:
There is a difference between a conclusion founded upon verifiable empirical evidence, and a conclusion founded upon religious faith in the absence of verifiable empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

Only if you can legitimately apply the assumptions of the scientific method to the problem at hand, and you believe those assumptions represent the truth about the universe, rather than a means to predict future observations.

It's all about context and whether the scientific method is the correct tool for the problem. Remember also that the scientific method only describes the simplest way the data can be achieved, it does not state how the data was achieved.
 
Last edited:
Ex-RoNiN said:
Actually, the "I haven't seen any evidence for one, so I don't think there is" is an Atheistic Agnostic I believe, and you also have the position of "I haven't seen any evidence for one, there probably won't be, but I still think there is one" which is a Theistic Agnostic (taken from the thread on religion many years ago)
Click to expand...

You're right, I think I oversimplified.

Yes there is, it's x (Theist)
I haven't seen any evidence for one, there probably won't be, but I still think there is one (agnostic theist)
I don't know (agnostic)
I haven't seen any evidence for one, so I don't think there is (agnostic atheist)
I haven't seen any evidence, and until I do there isn't one (weak atheist)
No, there is not (Strong atheist).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom