Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have noted before that Stanford's entry on atheism was not very good.
It is not good when talking about atheism as a whole, however, it is talking about atheism as a philosophical position. The semantic gibberish of the theists is to pretend this is all of atheism, and therefore atheists have to defend why we do not believe Saint Peter resurrected fried fish.
We do not see people resurrecting fried fish. We do not see conscious entities without a brain. We have met the burden of proof.
That might put a different spin on it. I have nemtioned before that the philosophical type of materialist -naturalism (metaphysical) is a position that everything in the universe (read 'cosmos' as the universe is (presumably) in the cosmos and may be one of many universes, even apart from other dimensions) cn be explained 'naturally' (which I take to mean through natural physical laws).
Now this position is not without its' merits but does fall into the logically flawed position of making a claim that one cannot know is universally true, so practical or mechanical (scientific) naturalism makes no such claim, but asserts that the natural explanation for any phenomenon is the default one to work with unless someone can demonstrate something else.
That could indeed explain why Philosophical atheism looks so odd, and in fact damn' insulting when compared with the practical, logically sound, position of atheism, apart from - as you say - what this or that atheism might think, about Biblegod or about any kind of god.
1) People have personality traits. how would different personality traits express atheism.
2) also, personal experience. How would personal experience affect weights people assign to observations. In other words, how would a person burned by religion react to religion?
3) how would a person here for social change (for and against religion; makes no never mind to me) talk to people that are just looking at what is reliable or not?
And the bold is the point you keep on missing. Most atheists are not making a philosophical claim, they are saying they do not believe in things like fried fish being resurrected.
Yet you want to pretend this, and only this, negative belief is a belief. You do not do this for any other negative belief. Because this is the game, being pedantic to avoid how people actually use language.
Why? Because you want to deflect from the fact that your beliefs do not match what we see in reality. No gods firing laser beams from their nose; no resurrections or miracle cures; no intelligent, conscious, brainless entities.
Implicit atheism is simply not believing your extraordinary claims based on subconscious rules of thumb. Most atheists go no further because 1) they do not need to, and 2) it plays no role in their life. Explicit atheism is asking why we do not believe. You are pretending all atheists are explicit.
The bad news for you is explicit atheism has the evidence. Philosophically this is what you need to address, not your silly word game to avoid the fact that your extraordinary claims goes against what we do know.
We get it. You ONLY want to debate the absurd religious claims ABOUT God because you can NOT refute the EXISTENCE of God. That has been my point all along so have at it. I tend to agree with you about the absurd and irrational religious claims about God. BUT they are neither evidence FOR nor AGAINST the EXISTENCE of God which is an entirely empirical question for which BOTH sides have and use identical evidence. There is NO DEFAULT except in your fevered imagination since "We Do Not Know!"
You ONLY want to debate the absurd religious claims ABOUT God because you can NOT refute the EXISTENCE of God. That has been my point all along so have at it.
Once again, been there, done that, we are still waiting for an explanation for how intelligence can exist without a brain. And your response does not follow from what I wrote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I tend to agree with you about the absurd and irrational religious claims about God.
Which is why implicit atheists do not believe in gods. Then they get on with their life, because what they observe is no gods required. What you are arguing is they should then question why, because for some reason 'no evidence for gods' is apparently not good enough.
We get it. You ONLY want to debate the absurd religious claims ABOUT God because you can NOT refute the EXISTENCE of God. That has been my point all along so have at it. I tend to agree with you about the absurd and irrational religious claims about God. BUT they are neither evidence FOR nor AGAINST the EXISTENCE of God which is an entirely empirical question for which BOTH sides have and use identical evidence. There is NO DEFAULT except in your fevered imagination since "We Do Not Know!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I doubt it.
Once again, been there, done that, we are still waiting for an explanation for how intelligence can exist without a brain. And your response does not follow from what I wrote.
Which is why implicit atheists do not believe in gods. Then they get on with their life, because what they observe is no gods required. What you are arguing is they should then question why, because for some reason 'no evidence for gods' is apparently not good enough.
So you do not consider to be attributes of God relative to us the obvious evidence that our Reality is WHY we and EVERYTHING else exists and its "laws" control how we and everything function. How do you scientifically justify dismissing those traits as evidence of God?
We get it. You ONLY want to debate the absurd religious claims ABOUT God because you can NOT refute the EXISTENCE of God. That has been my point all along so have at it. I tend to agree with you about the absurd and irrational religious claims about God. BUT they are neither evidence FOR nor AGAINST the EXISTENCE of God which is an entirely empirical question for which BOTH sides have and use identical evidence. There is NO DEFAULT except in your fevered imagination since "We Do Not Know!"
do you notice how "religion-ist" type people always say "You don't understand us."
They cant see that we understand them totally and don't agree. They think "If you feel like me you will agree with me." maybe, but we are more observation based.
How we feel about religion (good or bad) doesn't decide how the universe works.
do you notice how "religion-ist" type people always say "You don't understand us."
They cant see that we understand them totally and don't agree. They think "If you feel like me you will agree with me." maybe, but we are more observation based.
How we feel about religion (good or bad) doesn't decide how the universe works.
Good post. If I might take it one step further, they can't fully grasp that many of us who are atheist WERE christians for a good part of our life.
We can’t have a thread about defining atheism without consulting the A&A FAQ. It contains the official definition, as it applies to R&S and it’s sub forums, so it offers a handy point of reference for further discussion.
———————— A&A FAQ: https://www.city-data.com/forum/athe...l#post43274606
What is atheism? Is it a religion?
Atheism is a very narrow position about belief in deities. It is the lack of belief in ANY deity.
“Atheist” literally means “without god” and the opposite term is “Theist”. A theist believes in one or more gods, an atheist believes in no gods at all.
There is no central atheist organization promoting some sort of atheist “orthodoxy”. Atheists by definition believe in zero gods, but despite this can be for example, politically conservative, practice one of the atheistic religions like Buddhism or Taoism, believe in an afterlife, or many other things that violate typical stereotypes about atheists.
It’s true that most atheists tend to be irreligious rationalists, empiricists, philosophical materialists, and affirm the scientific method as a means of investigating the nature of reality. It is true that they tend to be politically liberal. But all of these characteristics are far from universal.
————————
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
