Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Understanding Atheism?

What exactly is an "atheist" and what is the point of stating that one is an atheist?

If I am to understand, generally speaking, atheism refers to a lack of belief in all deities for whatever reason.

That being said is it not logical to state for CERTAIN that deities do/did not exist? How can you ABSOLUTELY prove this? I challenge that you can not. ]

I am NOT suggesting that atheists are immoral or mislead.. rather how can one conclusively disprove something without being able to prove it?

I am not a religious zealout; so do not go there.

The belief in God is irrational, says some atheists. Why?.

Should not the point of "science" to be: to include all possibilities as plausible; unless proven absolutely NOT true.

In other words I try to understand the atheist. Also I try to understand the person who describes themselves as "atheist"; so what? You distinguish yourself as a category; such as man, woman, black ,white etc.. what is the point? Are you stating that you are special; that you are a PROTECTED class?

Indeed, when one projects that they are "atheist" one can question the motives behind such claims.

Again, I am not assigning morality (I assume that each adult "knows" what is right and what is wrong"). I do not dis-approve of one who claims to be an atheist; rather I seek to clarify a) why bother to designate oneself as an atheist (are you special?, and b) do you have "truth" and keen acumen that others lack?

I can see the arguments for and against "God". They are equally logical and compelling, to me. But stating that one is "atheist" is tantamount to stating that one is of a "protective class"; draw your conclusions from that..

Are billions of people wrong? Are billions of people unable to discern the "truth".

Is not the fact that we do NOT KNOW whether or not God exists; so therefore, why claim to have "truth" one way or another?

Who says that "God" has to have "good" justifications for inaction (against seemingly negative human experience) or that "God" believes in the success of humanity?

Humans could possibly be one of trillions (or more) of "experiments" regarding the collection and execution of atoms. Is that not what we are? An assemblange of atoms?

What is "atheism" to you? And why the need/desire to state as such?

Another problem is that anyone who rejects the existence of God must also believe the following:
1. Matter is eternal
2. Matter without life created life
3. Matter without mind created mind
4. Matter without intelligence created intelligence
5. Matter without morals created morals
6. Matter without conscience created conscience
7. Matter without purpose created purpose and order
SIMPLY HARD TO BELIEVE!

Atheism especially saddens me when I read the philosphies of so many adherents to this way of thinking, they express a life with no meaning or purpose, where all of mankinds efforts are an utter waste of time, acheiving nothing. It saddens me that anyone could live without true meaning. Who wants to live purely for the purpose of dying.

Remember this isn't about how God exists and Gods relation to us, it's questioning if atheism is a viable belief system. If so, prove it beyond reasonable doubt since it is supposedly based on FULL logic and reasoning.

An atheist might counter," We are all atheists in some sense. Do the christians believe in Zeus, or Brahma, or Shiva? No, so they are atheists in respect to all those gods. I just believe in one less god than they do.
Now, I am absolutely sure that certain gods do NOT exist... including the christian god. This can be proved with logical arguments. If you said that you had a square circle, I would absolutely know that you were lying, because there is no such thing. In a similar way, when claims are made for the christian god that are self-contradictory, then we can say with
confidence that no such being could exist."

The paradox I see is that declaring oneself as an "atheist" eliminates the possibility of a deity. How exactly is this "scientific"?

Again, I intend NO insult of atheists or the dimishing of their beliefs.

Sincerely,

ROFL

Mung ... you have made statements that are valueless and thus they stand there forlornly because there is nothing to prop them up except empty verbiage.

An atheist is one that does not believe in that for which no evidence exists. Not just deities. I don't believe in the tooth fairy or lucky rabbit's feet (sure weren't lucky for the rabbit), or four leaf clovers, or ghosts, or little green men in UFOs abducting morons.

So you ask: "is it not logical to state for CERTAIN that deities do/did not exist?"

To which I respond yes it is. It is logical for the same reason that you don't believe in the invisible purple rhinoceros. And you have precisely the same amount of evidence for any mystical all powerful deity as you have for the rhinoceros: None. And if you can point to a single shred of verifiable evidence otherwise then state it.

Now on to this gem:
"Another problem is that anyone who rejects the existence of God must also believe the following:
1. Matter is eternal
2. Matter without life created life
3. Matter without mind created mind
4. Matter without intelligence created intelligence
5. Matter without morals created morals
6. Matter without conscience created conscience
7. Matter without purpose created purpose and order
SIMPLY HARD TO BELIEVE!"

Since when is the criteria for "REALITY" that you, with your limited mental capabilities, can't find it easy to believe? You put up straw men and thus I get to knock them over.

For example:

Mung:
"anyone who rejects the existence of God must also believe Matter is eternal."

The Invisible Purple Rhinoceros (IPR):
Hydrogen bombs prove God exists.

Do I need to spell it out for you?

1. Hydrogen bombs prove matter is not eternal.
2. Thus God must exist.

Finally folks proof of God ... we too can turn innocent people into cinders just like the almighty. Yesiree ... made in his image. I like it. Perhaps you could use it on a bumper sticker. Jesus loves you that's why he gave us the bomb. Nice ring!

Mung:
"2. Matter without life created life"

Hard to believe? Hardly! You would prefer that we believe that some mythical murderous deity without providence or origin has always existed. You want to side-step the question of where your spoiled-child came from eh? Created the entire universe out of nothing. And gave you both nipples and a brain: Neither of which seems to be used.

Hardly intelligent design.

Would you like me to take apart the rest of your nonsense? Either that or you can start using your brain for analytical analysis.

Ok, I admit I was talking out of me arse in order to get a rise outta ya

Sincerely,

"If a million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing." -- Anatole France

Thanks for clearing that up Mung. In the future it would be just a little helpful if you would not be some good at it.

But then looking around this site you have so many fine examples to emulate I can hardly blame you.

Hi Mung: You ask in part:
?What exactly is an "atheist" and what is the point of stating that one is an atheist??

Religion has a fascination for me because of how people seem compelled to tell you about what they are or what they think. Out of about 50 comedians I have listened to those that are Jewish feel they must say so, why? I say be funny, I don?t give a damn about your religious beliefs. Do they think being Jewish is funny? I hope not.

When Atheist?s feel compelled to tell people what their belief is they are playing the same game as the religious types. Who cares? All of this identification seems to me as a sign of insecurity that applies to both sides of the issue. Do these people seek the approval of the rest of us? Do they seek to establish a form of superiority? Probably all of the above- I repeat who gives a damn?
jjw

Atheists, by definitin, don't have a belief.

They don't run around erecting buildings subsidized by taxpayers to the glory of nothing.

They don't run businesses and claim they are special and should be exempt from taxes.

They don't ask people to pay them money to subsidize their non-belief.

They don't intentionally brainwash children into fearing reality: That life and death are normal.

Do I feel any compelling reason to tell you what I believe ... no ... and I've never done so ... not once. What I do feel compelled to do is let my invisible purple rhino point out that your belief system is preposterous, illogical, and an insult to any sentient being.

The invisible purple rhino says: "Deal with it."

This is a Science forum. Proselytizing is inappropriate.

I object.
Atheists, by definitin, don't have a belief.
REP: Atheists believe that there is no Supreme Power.(Belief in Negation as there is no evidence to prove it otherwise.)

Find yourself a nice religious forum. The web is full of them. Prosletyzing ... trying to sell, market or auction your religion is not something for which you are granted a license by virtue of the fact that this is the internet and the moderators have not done what I'd do which is pull the plug on your ability to post.

If you want to sell your fiction do it at fictionagogo.com. If fictionagogo.com does not exist then go buy the URL and run your own site anyway you wish.

After all, that would be the Christian thing to do. ;-)

I don't believe in a grey bearded old man sitting in a chair up there with a big list of who has been good and who has been bad, to hand them reward or punishment accordingly,.. then again I stopped believing in Santa a long time ago. I realize that to an Atheist anyone who believes in a God/higher being/afterlife must seem just as superstitious as the person who believes in that literal Santa. From my point of view however, it takes a lot from a reasonably logical, reasonably intelligent person to believe in something that cannot be proven and/or be put under a microscope. I believe that there is something out there that gives faith to people in hard times that isn't just definable as placebo or wishfull thinking. A lot of people have experienced out of body experiences where they saw a bright light at the end of a tunnel, with loved ones waiting there for them, maybe that is synnapses firing wildly from a dying brain, there are people who feel they have talked to people long dead, maybe that's weird chemicals in our brains that cause us some wicked hallucinations? but dispite all these "labels" it doesn't mean there is no bright light, and it doesn't meen I and others just like me haven't talked to those that passed away years ago. I don't know what the really real truth is, but at least I don't claim to know, I only tell you my point of view, what I believe to be true.
While I realize my experiences may have been caused by this or that it doesn't mean what I have experienced is any less real, Just because I have no scientific measure of my beliefs doesn't mean I am wrong to believe and it doesn't mean there never will be such a measure.. that is the strenght and weakness of the scientific method and the strenght and weakness of personal belief.
It is fashionable maybe to be a critic, but only a true critic will be able to be unbiased and open minded, and very few people seem to be able to do that. I feel that in not talking about my own beliefs I do myself and science an injustice, and believing that the rest of us are less logical and fearful and mentally less strong than those that disagree with me is just as arrogant and blind as those that believe in God in that very simplistic "Santa" way and that both will be as likely to cut off the head of anyone with a different opinion. Call it a cruisade, call it a holy war, call it what you will, isn't it ironic that in religion as well as science we can't help but harp on our differences rather than focus on what we have in common and go from there?

Sorry to have to correct you in a matter so important but the physics of bumblebee flight has now been established.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/news-item223.htm
follow the links on the page.

Sorry to say that claims like the bumblebee one are the stuff of urban myths. They just keep being repeated over and over again long after they are invalid.

Yes it is fashionable to be a critic. And anyone can criticize. It is also fashionable to belong to the majority which means being a Chrisian in the US, a Moslem in Saudi Arabia and a Jew in Israel. Unfortunately nothing stands anywhere other than ego to claim that the person in one of those three countries is right and the other two misguided or worse.

My cat believes I can deliver food whenever I choose. That may make me his lord and master. It does not make me a god. Not even when I control how fast the faucet in the bathtub drips. And have no doubt, to my cat, that is magic.

From the science prespective I rather like to give credit to the Supreme Consciousness.
Supreme Consciousness remains a possible explanation .. It can not be negated. And all the doubts are limited to the extent of Not finding "Strong" Evidence.

I would find it easier to believe in a divine force provided the force was not sentient. As soon as you add consciousness ot the mixture you inject intent. Smallpox by intent. Malaria by intent. Relgious wars by intent. Genocide by intent.

Maybe you have some reason to favour a god of evil but I think most people don't.

dvk: Your first sentence is logical and thus I responded. The second one is not and thus is being ignored. Please seek professional help.

Hey what do you know thanks for the link!
heck now I have to come up with a new favorite quote!

As for the cat,lord and master analogy: define God, define magic, I probably should mention that I do not believe God owns me or cares to own me, and that I probably have a less than traditional defenition of a God (see my Santa analogy).. I guess my only real defining part of my personal belief in a God is that I am not an Atheist, I believe there is something more between heaven and earth, and I believe in a continued form of existance though not in any heaven and hell other than the ones we collectively create. I would have called myself an Atheist a couple of years ago but it is to narrow a belief for me. People seem to think in opposites and a need of a "one truth" rather than a spectrum of possibilities, a lot of wars seem to come down to that Ofcourse people looking for a war will find some excuse to start one, and what better than a matter of faith? somehow I don't think it would have mattered if Hitler knew the effects of inbreeding, or if somehow we knew for certain whether Jesus was god, a massiah or a prophet or just a carpenters son or any or all of the above.. the cruisades probably would have happened all the same.. and such is human nature


Yes I wish there was strong evidence one way or another, wouldn't that be nice? but maybe the scientific method just isn't the right tool for matters of faith, religion being one of the big matters of faith..

Scientists never showed that bumbles cannot fly.

What they showed was that bumble bees cannot fly, if their wings are inflexible. They did not conclude from the disproof that bees could not fly, but that their wings cannot be inflexible. When it got to the popular press, it was misconstrued and used as battering ram to take scientists down a peg in the public consciousness.

Bee ... you are certainly welcome to fashion your own belief system. But do understand that in doing so you are merely replacing the inane nonsense of your ancestors with your own brand.

There is not a single shred of evidence that death is not final. Take no comfort in the future. Live life well now: Each and every day. You only get one shot to do it correctly.

Well, any of what I would call modern religions cannot be negated (do you mean 'refuted?'), provided the religion isn't based on some concrete claim about the physical universe. (In my definition, a modern religion is one that doesn't require the literal belief of ancient, magical myths.)

Makes sense soilguy. But modern religions have one very huge weakness and that is the lack of historical roots.

If a religion is modern then it follows that the "revelation" upon which it was founded was also recent. And thus can and should be exposed to the full light of day.

If someone in 2006 claims they know something new that no one has known before, or understand something in a way never before understood, then the full scrutiny of 2006 science should be applicable.