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.
At least 26 posts were removed. Some were offensive, some were off topic, and some became orphaned when quoted posts were removed.
This thread is about "Defining Atheism." It is not about some vague "something more," how the Universe works, redefining "reality," or deliberately offending Christians, Jews, or any other group.
Stay on topic and resume your discussion.
I can't imagine how this post was hard to understand, but apparently it was.
Once again, this thread is about "Defining Atheism." It is not about what somebody's default opinion is.
A negative belief, yes, based on the lack of evidence for theism, and the evidence natural forces can create complexity without intelligence. Even my stalker agrees with this.
Until you provide evidence of an intelligence behind everything, yes we can.
It is your ASSUMPTIONS that are unsupportable - that "natural forces" have nothing to do with God and that the complexity it creates does NOT involve intelligence when it clearly is NOT remotely devoid of intelligence (chaotic or random). Your inability to recognize your ASSUMPTIONS (NOT Facts) should be embarrassing.
Quote:
Why should I waste time on your irrational opinions and pretense at being the intellectual here. Natural forces can create complexity without intelligence. If you want us to believe, you need to provide evidence for an intelligence.
How is it that you get to make such a bald-faced assertion without evidence? What IS your evidence that it does so without intelligence? Oh, you don't have to prove a negative? Balderdash! Your naive' philosophical thinking needs much more rigorous training.
It is your ASSUMPTIONS that are unsupportable - that "natural forces" have nothing to do with God and that the complexity it creates does NOT involve intelligence when it clearly is NOT remotely devoid of intelligence (chaotic or random). Your inability to recognize your ASSUMPTIONS (NOT Facts) should be embarrassing. How is it that you get to make such a bald-faced assertion without evidence? What IS your evidence that it does so without intelligence? Oh, you don't have to prove a negative? Balderdash! Your naive' philosophical thinking needs much more rigorous training.
Let me try this on for size ...
So only thing is intellect here. By definition, you say the universe has at least some intellect. Ok, that can be shown to be true.
To me, That fits the definition of atheism lack belief in a god deity thingie.
And since when, as some atheist try to say it is, is the definition based on "Has to be shown intellect behind it."
So only thing is intellect here. By definition, you say the universe has at least some intellect. Ok, that can be shown to be true.
To me, That fits the definition of atheism lack belief in a god deity thingie.
And since when, as some atheist try to say it is, is the definition based on "Has to be shown intellect behind it."
I don't see that in the definition?
I don't think they appreciate your efforts to mitigate their absurd assumptions, Arach. Of course, it is consistent with your objectivity and open-mindedness, but they are too surly to appreciate it, IMO.
So only thing is intellect here. By definition, you say the universe has at least some intellect. Ok, that can be shown to be true.
To me, That fits the definition of atheism lack belief in a god deity thingie.
And since when, as some atheist try to say it is, is the definition based on "Has to be shown intellect behind it."
I don't see that in the definition?
The “simply a lack of belief” definition is a very basic, minimalist definition, and it’s accurate for some atheists, but there are many variations of atheism that go far beyond that minimalist definition. An atheist who’s on a decades-long ‘activist campaign’, describing it as one of the most important things he’s done in his life, is not “simply a lack of belief” atheist. It would be refreshing to see some atheists be honest enough to acknowledge this as reality.
The “simply a lack of belief” definition is a very basic, minimalist definition, and it’s accurate for some atheists, but there are many variations of atheism that go far beyond that minimalist definition. An atheist who’s on a decades-long ‘activist campaign’, describing it as one of the most important things he’s done in his life, is not “simply a lack of belief” atheist. It would be refreshing to see some atheists be honest enough to acknowledge this as reality.
I'll acknowledge it, and point out that it is not very different from a christian who spends a decades-long period of time proselytizing.
I think the problem with this thread is that it presumed that a definition meant more than a definition. To me there was virtually no need to "discuss" a definition. The need is to discuss everything beyond the definition.
Like a lot of things, it can be presented either way. Yes, atheism is what the definition is, not because the definition says so, but because the definition is based on what atheists say atheism is.
The thing gets messed up by people who think that atheism also means 'what atheists do'. That's without the misrepresentation (inadvertent or deliberate) of presenting agnosticism as an alternative belief -position to belief or not. Of course nobody is 100% sure of anything (we could all be a brain in a Vat or however that tosh goes), but the sliding scale of credibility or certainty still does not make a credibility -position a knowledge position. I suppose it's hard to understand for those who confuse belief with fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
because its not about the definition. Its about how people behave.
The question is why the reluctance to talk about all the things atheist believe and only force us into a definition.
The thread IS about the definition, and it is the anti - atheists forcing it into a discussion of how people behave. Atheists (as you ought to know, being one) are happy to discuss anything, so long as it's within Tos and topic, within reason. Discussing, for example, the existence of live species in a biosphere that supports life is (being biology) not relevant to a religion forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Let me try this on for size ...
So only thing is intellect here. By definition, you say the universe has at least some intellect. Ok, that can be shown to be true.
To me, That fits the definition of atheism lack belief in a god deity thingie.
And since when, as some atheist try to say it is, is the definition based on "Has to be shown intellect behind it."
I don't see that in the definition?
Arach, that is utterly off topic (sticking 'definition of atheism' in there doesn't alter that). Please don't do this after a massive crimson warning. Nor the 'definition of God'. Start a thread on that topic (and say God doesn't have to be intelligent) if you must.
(p.s - ok, Mystic dragged it off -topic - not your fault. But we have to watch this).
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-06-2020 at 02:25 PM..
The “simply a lack of belief” definition is a very basic, minimalist definition, and it’s accurate for some atheists, but there are many variations of atheism that go far beyond that minimalist definition. An atheist who’s on a decades-long ‘activist campaign’, describing it as one of the most important things he’s done in his life, is not “simply a lack of belief” atheist. It would be refreshing to see some atheists be honest enough to acknowledge this as reality.
It would be refreshing and honest if you noted posts that refute your argument here.
'atheist belief', as well as atheist campaigns, behaviour or methods, tactics or attitudes towards theists is Not to do with the actual definition of atheism - which is the topic.
I'll acknowledge it, and point out that it is not very different from a christian who spends a decades-long period of time proselytizing.
Thanks for acknowledging it, phet.
In response to your analogy, I would say that someone who spends a decades-long period of time proselytizing would readily acknowledge they have a strong belief and not “simply a lack of belief” that God does not exist.
Would you agree?
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.
