True atheists?

[Jig]

No, I don’t have some other belief that stops me believing in your God or any other gods. I don’t believe in gods because there is no sound evidence supporting a belief in them so there is no sound reason to believe in them.

You believe the evidence doesn't point to God's existence.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Atheism does not require omniscience, or near omniscience. That is a lie that is often repeated.

Atheism simply requires a lack of belief. Atheists can, and often do, admit that they could be mistaken about the existence of God. Atheism isn't about knowing that there are no gods, but simply not believing that there are any.

And atheists, such as myself, will often call ourselves agnostic-atheists. I have said this many times at CF, and I've seen plenty of other atheists say the same about themselves. Since atheism is about a lack of belief in divine beings, and agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge in divine beings, there is no conflict between the two. Both labels fit.

Likewise, I am "agnostic" regarding the existence of elves, and "atheist" regarding them as well. I don't know that elves don't exist, but I don't hold any belief in their existence either.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, the Oxford dictionary disagrees with you and agrees with the OP.
Atheism is belief that there are no gods.

It is a prejudiced as the belief that there are gods or other unevidenced phenomena.

Dawkins bastardised the term atheism to suit his marketing programme. He redefined it in his God Delusion book to mean empiricism.

So most of the self-professed atheists in here are probably empiricists who do not own a decent dictionary.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

To believe in true dogmatic atheism one must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist. This is quite foolish.

Yet, I see this CF faith(less) icon floating around the forums.

I bet the vast majority (if not all) of these supposed atheists are actually masked agnostics. Why are they afraid to call themselves agnostics?

Yes about atheism.
No about agnosticism. It is defined as believing that nothing can be known about the existence of a god.
Again, the so-called atheists in here appear to be neither atheists nor agnostics but empiricists or, more commonly, sceptics.

 

[3sigma]

You believe the evidence doesn't point to God's existence.

No. There is zero sound evidence supporting the belief that your God is real so I don’t believe it. Why do have difficulty understanding that? Are you really that impervious to reason?

 

[Jig]

Unless you know something for certain, you must rely on faith.

Do you know for certain there is no God? Or are you relying on faith?

A position of faith requires belief.

 

[Jig]

No. There is zero sound evidence supporting the belief that your God is real so I don’t believe it.

All evidence must be interpreted. All interpretation is based on philosophical assumptions. It is quite correct to say you believe the evidence doe not point to the existence of God.

 

[3sigma]

It is quite correct to say you believe the evidence doe not point to the existence of God.

There is no sound evidence supporting the belief that your God is real. If you disagree then please explain what sound evidence and sound reasoning you used to reach the conclusion that your God is real. I’m guessing you will evade this request.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

As atheism means without theism, technically anyone who is not a theist is an atheist (before you ask, the opposite of theism is anti-theism, according to the prefixes, at least).

No. If you are not a theist you may just be sceptical. Not being a theist doesn't imply you do not believe any gods exist. I think that Dawkins would have been more correct to call himself an anti-theist than bastardizing the term atheist. And he is truly against theists.

I think it is funny because it seems to me that Dawkins really really really wants to call himself an atheist by the original definition but realises he cannot because it would breech the scientific approach he has built his reputation on. So he has to define himself in The God Delusion as a 6/7th atheist!!!

So it is all a load of wordsmithing nonsense.

To this, you may reply that my definitions are all wrong and that I'm either an agnostic or an atheist, to which my reply would be that you can call me whatever you want.

Thanks. I'll call you a diplomatic sceptic.

 

[Jig]

There is no sound evidence supporting the belief that your God is real. If you disagree then please explain what sound evidence and sound reasoning you used to reach the conclusion that your God is real. I’m guessing you will evade this request.

You guessed right, I'm not trying to prove my position. So you know for certain there is no God?

 

[3sigma]

You guessed right, I'm not trying to prove my position. So you know for certain there is no God?

Of course you aren’t going to try to prove your position. It’s indefensible.

No, I can’t know that for certain there are no gods, but the idea of your God is so laughably implausible and so vanishingly improbable—given the complete lack of sound evidence—that I simply don’t believe it. That’s all an atheist is—someone who doesn’t believe in gods.

Here’s a question for you, though. How certain are you that your God is real? Are you absolutely certain, fairly certain, not too certain or not certain at all? What makes you so certain that your God is real?

 

[Jig]

Here’s a question for you, though. How certain are you that your God is real? Are you absolutely certain, fairly certain, not too certain or not certain at all? What makes you so certain that your God is real?

I believe my belief is rational, just as you believe you belief is rational. However, I fully understand my belief relies on faith. This is because I cannot "absolutely" know for certain if God exists.

You fail to recognize your position relies on faith too.

A position of faith requires belief. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Of course you aren’t going to try to prove your position. It’s indefensible.

No, I can’t know that for certain there are no gods, but the idea of your God is so laughably implausible and so vanishingly improbable—given the complete lack of sound evidence—that I simply don’t believe it. That’s all an atheist is—someone who doesn’t believe in gods.

Here’s a question for you, though. How certain are you that your God is real? Are you absolutely certain, fairly certain, not too certain or not certain at all? What makes you so certain that your God is real?

No, an atheist is someone who believes there are no gods.

You are making a valid argument regarding plausibility based on reality. You are effectively questioning the judgement of those who conclude there is a god, especially those, I assume, who base this upon the circumstantial evidence of the bible.

I suppose you might also accurately call yourself a realist.
Empiricist, sceptic, realist. All more apt terms, IMO, than atheist or agnostic or 6/7-atheist.

 

[3sigma]

I believe my belief is rational, just as you believe you belief is rational. However, I fully understand my belief relies on faith.

Religious faith is belief without sound evidence or sound reasoning. It is nothing but credulity misrepresented as a virtue. Show us that your belief is rational. Show us that it is based on sound evidence and sound reasoning. Oh wait, that’s right, you can’t so you won’t.

You fail to recognize your position relies on faith too.

Wrong. My position is one of a lack of faith.

Atheism is not simply a lack of belief.

It is for me.

 

[Upisoft]

A position of faith requires belief. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief.

Certainly it is. What you are talking about is that every atheist has beliefs, as every person has beliefs. In fact you share beliefs with atheists and one such belief is that you believe you can get and read a book.

What seems you cannot do is to make the distinction between person and concept. Atheism as a concept is lack of belief in God. An atheist as a person may have many beliefs, but it is certain that he/she lacks one belief, the one that God exists.

 

[Jig]

Religious faith is belief without sound evidence or sound reasoning. It is nothing but credulity misrepresented as a virtue. Show us that your belief is rational. Show us that it is based on sound evidence and sound reasoning. Oh wait, that’s right, you can’t so you won’t.

Red Herring. My position is not the topic.

Wrong. My position is one of a lack of faith.

lack of faith/belief = ignorance

You are not ignorant.

 

[Greg1234]

If I'm under my bed, I still have seen the evidence for the existence of the sun. I don't need constant exposure to the evidence - I have something called memory that helps with that.

Yes I know you don't need direct exposure to know the sun exists. Thats the point. Do you know what the sun represents in the analogy? I didn't count the light in the sky or heat as direct or "empirical" evidence for the sun. For this you would require "a means, method (or whatever you want to call it)" to traverse a given barrier. This method is in the form of a telescope, space travel etc. What is the means in relation to God? This I said (in the first post) I wasn't going to get into.

As for the light in the sky and heat being evidence for the sun, you would have to learn about the nature of the sun, the transfer of heat, astronomy, physics. In other words, you would have to take a class in "leprachology". And under your bed, you would still be exposed to the sun. Or you would be a Popsicle.

And the strawman grows. Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about, or are you just trying to regurgitate a series of lies in order to make us look stupid? Radio waves themselves can be detected and measured, you know. The question also makes no sense and is unrelated to everything else.

I'm the one trying to make you look stupid?
Detection is not an issue. Additionally, the use of instrumentation "a means a method (or whatever you want to call it)" to detect radio waves only reaffirms my point.

 

[Tielec]

No, an atheist is someone who believes there are no gods.

You are making a valid argument regarding plausibility based on reality. You are effectively questioning the judgement of those who conclude there is a god, especially those, I assume, who base this upon the circumstantial evidence of the bible.

I suppose you might also accurately call yourself a realist.
Empiricist, sceptic, realist. All more apt terms, IMO, than atheist or agnostic or 6/7-atheist.

Every atheist that has written on this forum has stated their position clearly. I too lack belief in any theistic concept. Why are you trying to tell us what we believe?

Dictionary definitions usually offer two definitions of an atheist, one is a person believes there is no god, the other is a person who lacks belief in gods.
eg.,
the doctrine or belief that there is no God
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Atheism is used colloquially to mean the former, but all of the major atheistic thinkers subscribe to the second. Given that EVERY post by an atheist in this thread has clearly stated that they lack belief, and all of the major atheistic writers define atheism in similar terms don't you think it is presumptious of you to try to redefine our position? Strawman much?

 

[Tielec]

No, the Oxford dictionary disagrees with you and agrees with the OP.
Atheism is belief that there are no gods.

It is a prejudiced as the belief that there are gods or other unevidenced phenomena.

Dawkins bastardised the term atheism to suit his marketing programme. He redefined it in his God Delusion book to mean empiricism.

So most of the self-professed atheists in here are probably empiricists who do not own a decent dictionary.

According to the online Oxford dictionary-
definition of atheism from Oxford Dictionaries Online
Atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or gods (italics added for emphasis)

So which version of the Oxford Dictionary were you using Brian? The one you made up?

 

[3sigma]

Red Herring. My position is not the topic.

Yet another evasion. But then we all know why you have to evade my requests for you to show us that your belief in your God is based on sound evidence and sound reasoning.

lack of faith/belief = ignorance

Oh? Do you consider your lack of faith or belief in fairies to be ignorance? How about your lack of belief in Santa Claus? Is that also ignorance? What about your lack of belief in Ra, Odin, Zeus, Vishnu and a thousand other imaginary gods? Is it that you are abysmally ignorant or do you perhaps just lack belief?

 

[Tielec]

Red Herring. My position is not the topic.



lack of faith/belief = ignorance

You are not ignorant.

So if I believe everything, literally EVERYTHING, I am the least ignorant person in the world...