Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
Why go to a christian site for a definition of atheism? It's wrong, and it's self-serving. "Belief in the non-existence of a deity" is just wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no belief involved: there is dis-belief, but no belief. As I've said dozens of times on this forum, give me the incontrovertible evidence of the existence of a deity, and I'll change my world-view and move on. I don't "believe in the absence of god/s": I simply don't have any reason to believe in their existence.
If you want a definition of atheism, wouldn't you seek it on an atheist website? Why go to a christian website, PartSkeptic? And do you now accept that what it said was misleading?
The problem is that there are two meanings of belief, one like faith where the goal is to stay firm despite evidence, and another more like an opinion, or a conclusion one draws from available evidence.
The first meaning, faith, would make the absence of gods a matter of faith that the atheist clings to as surely as the theist has faith his god exists regardless of evidence. That's the straw man that theists try to stick on atheists, perhaps because it's what theists understand.
But the second meaning works quite well and I'd apply it to my own atheism. I believe there are no gods in the same way I believe there are no living dodos or humans colonizing Mars.
It's where all the evidence points, both a lack of evidence for testable attributes of proposed gods, and positive evidence that humans are predisposed to imagine agency behind things and to want answers. Add in the illusion of control that prayer brings, plus the political power that religion creates, and the evidence is overwhelming that gods are human constructs to fulfill various needs.
I realize that many atheists don't take it that far and merely say they lack belief in all the gods they've been made aware of. But that's why there's a hard/soft (or strong/weak or positive/negative) atheist divide.