How do you view atheism?

[Tricky]

No sir the predominate position of an atheist is one who denies the existence of god, by definition.
An agnostic ( which I define myself as ) is a person who believes only things that can be demonstrated by evidence.

While your position is supported by some, though not all dictionaries, I believe that if you took a formal poll of all those here that call themselves atheists, you would find that the predominant position is that atheiests don't believe in a god, rather than they believe there is no god. I'm sure you can understand the difference.

Go ahead. Ask around.

 

[Kodiak]

Your definition of atheist only includes strong atheism. Even the website you quote mentions that actively denying a diety is a sub-set of atheism. The definition you give for atheism is, therefore, incomplete.

The definition you have of atheism is too narrow.

Exactly my point. My definition was too narrow.

Your definition was too narrow also, though.

It seems the best definition (coming from the website I linked) encompasses BOTH of our versions (thus the "we're both right" remark I made)...

 

[Valiant Dancer]

Exactly my point. My definition was too narrow.

Your definition was too narrow also, though.

It seems the best definition (coming from the website I linked) encompasses BOTH of our versions (thus the "we're both right" remark I made)...

No. The definition I had encompasses both. The website singles out traits of two sub-sets. My contention is that the basis of atheism is a lack of a God belief. How does weak atheism or strong atheism not conform to this contention? Both do not have a God belief.

Here is what I said about atheism, "Atheists lack a God belief. They do not necessarily have to deny the existance of anything."

"Lack a God belief" is a very broad statement. It includes both strong and weak atheism.

"Do not necessarily have to deny the existance of anything" indicates that there are strong atheists as well as those who merely do not have a God belief.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes, there is a very small probability that a teapot currently orbits the sun. This does not IMPLY that there is one, only that it is not rational to believe that no such teapot exists.

One ticket in the lottery has to win, just as one proposition in the set of propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...


must necessarily be true. It is not rational to BELIEVE of every ticket that it is a losing ticket, and likewise it is not rational to BELIEVE any of the above propositions false. One may think it very very unlikely that any particular one is true, but believing it to be false it irrational.

To parrot an old cliche, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Edited to add: There is a difference between "disbelieving" a proposition (ie, believing it to be false) and "not believing" a proposition.

OK, it seems that I must have, for whatever reasons, completely misread your post and I think you can simply forget about my response to it. Apologies.

 

[SlippyToad]

That's not the same thing. Dragons as we have defined them are limited to living on the Earth. Since we have explored the vast majority of the surface and seen no dragons, it is rational to conclude that dragons do not exist. "God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe. Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god.

And thanks to the Amazing Razor of William of Occam, we don't need to. There is no concrete question about the Universe we can ask to which "God" is an answer. God is more like the stuff you jam into the places where your questions are. It stops you from thinking further about whatever topic is on your mind.

In pre-scientific times the fabric of religious understanding covered the Universe completely. No natural phenomenon existed that wasn't explained as the actions of God, or spirits. As science advanced, that fabric was pulled back. It now is reduced to a dime-sized shred, covering a very remote sector of our understanding, in a place where most people don't really go. But to assume that because modern cosmology hasn't stated clearly the cause of the Universes' origin, it therefore still could be God, is silly. My atheism proceeds from an understanding of the last 5-600 years of history, and the faith, oddly enough, that we will eventually figure it out. Even in the last ten years, we have made dramatic strides.

The fallacy that you are committing is that of false alternative. Atheists don't think of things in terms of "God" and "No-God." There isn't an entity that we put in God's place. Rather, there is simply a recognition that God was created by Man, in the imagination of Man, and therefore there is no need to seek him in the Cosmos because like dragons he won't be there.

The origin of the God theory isn't born from someone's careful examination of the evidence and conclusion that there was no better answer. Rather it is born and perpetuated out of the primal fear of death. Since the origin of the God theory, we have discovered far better tools with which to examine the Universe. Theism is like the biological appendix.

In the context of theism's political role, I believe (I hope, actually) that our society will eventually evolve itself out of the need for theism, because in my opinion theism leads society to do a great many things that are against our own best interests.

 

[slimshady2357]

However, in the light of the above, no, it cannot and does not exist.

Wow, way to go Jon!

First person ever to prove a negative existential claim

If ever there was a candidate for the illogic award, you are it.

Adam

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I don't believe it exists.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Malichi151:
"This "should" mean that your view that "god" might exist is the same as you view that "giant pink planet eating space monkey's" might exist.

The existence of either has not been disproved. In fact according to the "agnostic" position anything anyone can image is equally likely to be real and you hold out the possibility that it may in fact be real.
Your dirsion is duly weighted and discarded.
That kind of statement belongs more to the fanatical adherents of QM or homeopathetic remedies in the Science forum.
The claim that an agnostic embracing everything equally is absurd on it's face, as I stated I accept things provable while you enjoy the position of the self-convenced that what you believe is true , regardless of the fact that a negative hypothesis is unprovable.
Space monkey indeed.

 

[Beanbag]

Dyed in the wool, born again athiest.

It's my most desperate wish that one of these days the rest of the world will grow up and abandon their belief in imaginary friends. They spend too much time trying to prove that their imaginary friend is greater than the other's imaginary friend.

And unfortunately, too many people get hurt in the "discussion".

Beanbag

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Dyed in the wool, born again athiest.

It's my most desperate wish that one of these days the rest of the world will grow up and abandon their belief in imaginary friends. They spend too much time trying to prove that their imaginary friend is greater than the other's imaginary friend.

And unfortunately, too many people get hurt in the "discussion".

Beanbag

Very very true.

Rather, there is simply a recognition that God was created by Man, in the imagination of Man, and therefore there is no need to seek him in the Cosmos

That's exactly it.