Atheism isn't a belief?

Not true. This MIGHT be the reason an atheist believes in no God, but it needn't be!It might be that the atheist finds even the concept of a god to be illogical. It might be that every concept of God the atheist has seen are ridicolous. there could be many reasons to bleieve there are no gods. even if this was true - why would that make it an untenable posistion? It still doesn't change the fact that the atheist lack faith in any gods. A faith in other things does not negate a lack of faith in gods!/Soren

It says a belief and then it says a lack of a belief?

quote:

---

He lacks belief in God but has belief in something else.

---

There is a difference between belief in a god and beliefs drawn from experience and probability.

quote:

---

The athiest says "no evidence" but doesn't look in the appropriate place.

---

Why do you feel it is the responsibility of the atheist to find your God? If I want people to see the dragon in my garage, I need to show them how. It's not their responsibility to figure out how.

quote:

---

Lacking any indication that there is a natural reason, a supernatural reason is equally possible.

---

The fanciful or imaginary belongs to the realm of the possible and when imagining, the mind is free from the restraints and restrictions of truth and reality.OTOH, knowledge and opinion (a belief not based on certainty or knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable) put the mind in the region of the real or actual rather than the merely possible, which makes them subject to the criteria of truth and falsity.IMO, the atheist deals with probablity not possibility.Anything is possible since our imaginations can take us anywhere, but not everything is probable (reasonably so, as on the basis of evidence, but not proved as in the probable cause of a disease).

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

You're just not getting it, iano. I'm an atheist who lacks belief. I lack belief in a god or gods in the same way I lack belief that there are maple trees in South Africa. Why, there may be a whole damn grove of maple trees in South Africa, but since I don't know about it and no one has ever shown me any evidence of maple trees in South Africa I have no reason to believe they're there. Neither do I believe that there aren't maple trees in South Africa. I don't know if there are any maple trees there, and what's more important I don't care.It's the same with god(s). I don't believe there is a god, I don't believe there isn't a god. I don't know and I don't care.Since you brought it up, let's have a look at the dictionary definition of 'atheist' and contrast it with 'agnostic': I'm not entirely happy with the definition of 'atheist' since it uses the word 'disbelieve', which implies action. If we grant a bit of lattitude to that word and interpret it to mean 'fails to believe', though, we are on target, at least so far as I'm concerned. In any case, according to these definitions I am much closer to an atheist than an agnostic.

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

While individually we are pretty impressive amongst the lifeforms of this planet, we've only manages to occupy a miniscule piece fo the universe for a relatively short period. How then does it follow that a God would be interested in us especially ?Secondly there are numerous conflicting claims of divine revelation. Are they all real ? How can we tell ? And if even some of them aren't aren't how can we be sure that any "revelation" we might recieve is the real thing ?As to your test I have to ask, do you mean it as a real test or if it fails will you just make excuses ?

It's two definitions. Alternative meanings. Don't you know how to use a dictionary ?

I wouldn't say that at all. It certainly is not a fool's errand. If one can recognize "natural" it should be quite easy to recognize "supernatural". In fact, I would say that someone who knows nature will be more likely to recognize something that is truly supernatural than someone who is less knowledgeable regarding nature. What is true is that the less knowledgeable person will be more likely to ascribe natural events to a supernatural cause. This is why the Greeks and Romans needed so many gods. We don't need a god to explain thunder and lightening because we know the natural explanation.

Would you not agree that supreme confidance in ones own reasoning, rationality, and access to cumulative wisdom would be akin to a belief in human wisdom as the most penultimate explanation for anything and everything? The belief is not religious in the sense of the traditional definition of religion and/or deities, but the belief could be argued to be akin to self deification of humanity in general.In other words, I could say that I don't know everything, Stephen Hawking knows more, a roomful of scientists knows still more and, given enough time, humans should figure out everything that it is possible to figure out.Anything that falls outside of rationality can be assumed to be false until "proven" otherwise.The problem with this approach is that it limits belief to human wisdom.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-17-2005 08:57 AM

See post currently in Proposed topics: "A reasoned proof of God" It demonstrates that you, as you are this instant, was guaranteed to happen given the initial conditions that existed at the start of the universe. If that holds then it means you are no accident and there is nothing random about you being here now. There is nothing else known more special than us so it's reasonable to assume hypothetically, that we're the most special thing of all. If so, then God knew you would be here - then. The hypothesis is based on what we CAN surmise about God should we chose to assume for a moment that he exists. I don't think there are many others which could avoid the suggestion that a) he must do the revealing and b) all we can really do whichever hypothesis we use - is ask him to reveal himself to us. The rest of the hypothesis concerns what terms and conditions might reasonably apply. The hypothesis is the easy bit the preparation for testing it is hard. The only important revelation is the one you would recieve personally. What others think/experience is irrelevant to you. You would have to judge for yourself. I suppose if someones terms and conditions wavered from the ones that seem most apt then other super natural doors could be opened. If God then God is sovereign but that doesn't mean he doesn't permit other supernatural beings to act (a part you could add into the hypothesis based on how natural beings act - they have free will. Some are 'good', some 'not good' at all) If someone was determined to invite the supernatural in, but in doing so, avoided the 'requirement' to admit to and accept God's sovereignty (ie: tries to get god on their own terms rather than Gods terms)then who knows what'll come in. Like I say, putting all one's trust not in self, but in God, is about the safest thing to do. If there are any subsequent consequences for ones attitude to belief in God (or not) then at least the person can say that they did the very best they could do. Asking him, trusting him and being willing to put oneself at his 'mercy' - what else could a person have done. Although possibly flippant, I am being deadly serious. I posed before that God/No God was THE question. And I haven't read anything in that thread which suggests otherwise. I've heard of folk asking God to do this, that and the other to prove himself to them but you may by now agree that this is trying to get God to jump through our hoops - which is anything but showing sensibly appropriate humility. I asked him in this way. I didn't believe in him, I didn't know the first thing about him, but when I did ask I asked more or less in the way described: humility, acceptance of his sovereignty (if he existed), I said something like " I don't know if your there or not but if you are then I need and want to know you. Nothing else is going to make sense of this life. It must be you or I'll go nuts" It was a genuine prayer - from the heart. Now that I know him a bit better I've come to understand that it's the heart he's interested in. If you ask from the heart truly because you want him to come in - and not to carry out an experiment then prayer won't fail. If it's a test and done as a test - then it is bound to fail. Trying to get God to jump through hoops. If you do say some prayer inviting him into your life and you know it was from the heart then that's it. He'll come. It may not be that second and you may not be able to put your finger on it straightaway but he will come. And when he does - you will know. Me? I'm more certain of God than I am the sun will rise tomorrow. That's how sure you can be. Surer than sure. It may be that you don't do so now. No matter. If a day comes when you do feel you can genuinely ask from the heart - do it then. No one is going to laugh at you for asking. Their not going to know. He will though

I wonder if there are not two different problems in that statement. First, is the former statement correct or should it be "Anything that falls outside of rationality can be assumed to be unknown until "proven" otherwise."The later statement is also not true. While many of us will say that we can only know things that can be supported by evidence which can be independantly verified, that does not limit what we might believe to be true.Atheists do not say it's impossible for there to be a GOD, only that there is no independantly verifiable evidence that there is a GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Alternative meanings for the same word?It says a belief or doctrine then it says a disbelief.So I am guessing the first atheism isn't the atheism crashfrog expresses.

Well I find it interesting that you are prepared to go with very incomplete information when it comes to declaring the importance of humanity but are dead set against it when it comes to arguing against the existence of God.Moreover I disagree that only a "revelation" given to me could count. If there is to be any objective assessment of these alleged "revelations" then simply relying on personal experience - and discounting anyone elses won't do. And without that, even if I do get a revelation then it's at most a subjectively convinving experience.FInally I'll tkae you at your word as to the seriosuness of your test. And since I've tried it in the past and got no result we must conclude that you were wrong.

quote:

---

Alternative meanings for the same word?

---

Yes. That's what the numbers are for.

Yes I am an avowed atheist. In my interpretation of my atheism is that there is no god. Never has been, never will be. To me it is not that I don't believe in god, it is that I know there is no god.Atheism is at times broken down in two pieces. They are called weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheism is defined negatively as the absence of belief in a god. Strong atheism is defined positively as the belief that a god does not exist.Therefore, I think to continue this thread two things have to happen.
1)what the definition of a belief is.
2) Determine why it is so important for the theists to say atheism isnt belief.Definitions say atheism can be a lack of belief or a belief.
Discussion over??

Well, I can't speak for all people who call themselves atheists, but for me, I believe that there is no god.Does that help?