Hammegk,
You are touching a very sore nerve that few here, or anywhere, want to examine.
How do you reconcile this belief with the fact that several people here seem to be quite happy discussing this?
If you are *not* 100% certain that 'god does not exist' -- actual atheism -- you have a difficult philosophical problem:
you must be either; a dualist, or an idealist.
Complete nonsense. Not only does this presuppose that dualism and idealism are the only alternatives to the non-existence of god, but it also presupposes that one must be 100% certain that dualism and idealism are false, in order to hold some position other than them.
Interactive Dualism of any flavor is illogical, non-Interactive Dualism is irrelevant, and a choice of idealism would mean the entire worldview based on materialism (of some form) has been and is wrong.
Some state is does not make a difference, since the empiricism of science cannot differentiate materialism-as-Truth from idealism-as-Truth.
Why do you think that every person in the world must hold one of the three metaphysical positions of dualism, materialism, or idealism? What about people who think all three are nonsense? What about people who think that metaphysics in general is nonsense? What about people who have never even given metaphysics any consideration in the first place?
KingMerv,
This is simply incoherent. Without stipulating which definitions of the word "god" are being referred to, it is meaningless. If I call my cat "god", does that make atheism false? How about if I choose to refer to the totality of existence as "god"? Or if I choose to refer to the laws of nature as "god"?
This is why I define atheism to simply be the absence of theism. None of the above conceptions of god qualify as being theistic.
Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took those definitions of agnostic and atheist off of dictionary.com so you beef is with them not me.
I have no beef with anybody. You asked why people would be atheists when the definition of atheism you gave is logically indefensible. My answer to that question was that most of the people who call themselves atheists don't define it that way.
I really really really really REALLY did not want to get hung up on definitions. Just play along even if I don't define something completely.
I did. Like I said, by the definitions you gave, I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic, and I consider both positions, as you defined them, to be incoherent ones.
new drkitten,
This is why I define atheism to simply be the absence of theism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, yeah, that's a brilliant definition, all right. Define atheism as the opposite of a term you carefully leave undefined.
Ummm, apparently you did not read my entire post. I did define theism. I defined theism to be the belief in a particular type of conception of God, namely god as a sentient being of some sort. This is also often referred to as a "personal god".
Theism is defined by most dictionaries as a belief in a god or gods.
OED: Belief in a deity, or deities
dictionary.com: Belief in the existence of a god or gods
If you are going to berate me for failing to define terms, I would expect you not to fall into the tired old mistake of thinking that dictionaries provide formal definitions of terms. They do not. They provide common usages. For example, defining theism to be the belief in deities or gods means absolutely nothing if you do not also explain what qualifies as being a deity or god. The definition I provided for theism, which you apparently missed, does this.
All the issues you raise about the ambiguity of the definition of these terms (deity, god, etc.) are simply copied wholesale.
They would be, if I had not explained what I meant by theism, but I did.
jzs,
Murray herself, of the American Atheists, said "There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any" (source:
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html). If that isn't categorically claiming there are no god(s), I don't know what is!
That is categorically claiming that certain conceptions of god do not exist, namely supernatural ones. It says nothing about various naturalistic conceptions of god. I also agree with her. I believe that the supernatural does not exist. I believe this because of the substantial supporting evidence for the hypothesis of naturalism. Note that this does not mean I am 100% certain that the supernatural does not exist. I am not 100% certain of any claim about reality.
Dr. Stupid
