What exactly is atheism?

There is no such thing as hard or soft atheism. If you do not claim that there is no God, you do not fall under atheism. There is no logical reason to group those who do not make this claim under atheism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Somebody who doesn't know if there is a God is not necessarily without God or Godless.

Consider an example of a box. It is given that the box either has a ball in it or is empty. Say there is somebody that doesn't know if there is a ball in it or if it is empty. Because you do not hold the position that there is a ball in the box, does that mean that you automatically fall under a state of being that the box is empty. In the same way, one who does not know if there is a God out there does not automatically fall in the state of being Godless. They simply do not know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No that is self-righteous religious fanatical atheism. The claim that atheists use evidence and log.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do they have a belief in god, yes or no?

If the answer is no then they are without a belief in god...... therefore godless.

If they later on acquire a belief in god then they are no longer godless.

 

I haven't encountered it here. I have encountered it elsewhere.

 

You are shifting what the context, again. You said Mankind was ready to move beyond the Bronze Age. I pointed out that, given this meant to you 'moving beyond theism' it is rather clear that it is not ready to do this. The issue of 'fault' is another issue.

 

Again, your method is faulty. You cannot demonstrate non-existence in the way you described or many things that you believe exist would have been demonstrated, incorrectly, to not exist, at various times in history. It's bad science. And I can't believe you put me in the position of having to point this out. Run your theory about demonstrating non-existence past some scientists.

You are making assumptions.

I believed it because you said it to me and I responded by saying it was strange.

 

I was pointing out that I, as a theist, entered that discussion and defended atheists.

If I see a theist take a line with faulty logic, I've hopped in. Not all the time. I did argue against Lixluxe in linguistics on a very closely related issue to the line he is running here. I have confronted generalizations about atheists made by theists.

It seems to me however that the atheist regulars in the will generally look the other way when theists make absurd arguments or generalize wildly about theists or engage in ad homs, etc.

That is what I meant by team.

JDawg was a welcome exception to this.

1) there have always been believers who were not proselytizers or tormenters. It seems to me atheists view theists as if they are fundamentalist bible thumpers, potential members of the inquisition, etc. I think this is a shallow, and frankly inexperienced sense of theists and the variety of beliefs out there. 2) a small point - heretics were believers.

 

There is a thread somewhere on who kills teh most atheists. Surprisingly, there was a paucity of killers presented.

 

No, mankind has been ready to move on for centuries, it is the slavery and indoctrination of religion that is stunting the process considerably.

 

So its not ready, then.

 

The difference between atheism and theism is that one is learned through experience and the other is innate, or produced from the mind rather than experience. Now this doesn't mean one mind is sharper than the other. What is does mean is that atheists take what they've learned from real life experience and then apply logic to it whereas theistic logic is applied to what their minds have constructed.

Now it must be decided as to which carries more weight. For people who believe the mind is the ultimate difference maker that sets us apart from other creatures then it is easy to see how one might consider the mind as a more powerful advent than any commonplace activity.

 

Such as what?

It's not bad science at all. Gods are tested for their existence with the results being null 100% if the time, observed unanimously. Case closed.

 

You don't test to prove in science, its bad science to have a conclusion before a test. You test to disprove the null hypothesis.

 

You really don't read posts, do you?

 

What is your dependent and independent variable? Whats your positive and negative control?

Whats your empirical observation?

 

Come on Q...quarks, certain not yet seen species of animal, black holes....get it? Go back 50 years in time and imagine things that could, according to your method, have been demonstrated to not exist, which have, since then had their existence demonstrated. This also includes phenomena experienced by some and then later by many and then consensus.

Any thing or phenomenon not yet seen, or only seen by some, cannot be said to have its nonexistence demonstrated by its not being seen, yet, by the main community. You can speak about its existence not being supported, yet. But you cannot say it's nonexistence has been demonstrated. Well, of course you can, but it is poor science and poor philosophy.

Ibid.
Also I notice how you changed it to tested for its existence, rather than your previous demonstrations of nonexistence. Again you are being cagey.
But then, Q, if their non-existence has been demonstrated
why are you reluctant to admit you believe there are no gods. You are what Phlogistan would call an anti-theist and I would call a hard atheist.

You have stated God or gods nonexistence have been demonstrated. I assume you believe your own assertion. Therefore you believe God(s) do not exist.

But you will not admit this. At least you have not admitted it enough times to make you a worthless conversation partner on this issue.

You want your cake and eat it too. You want to say that God's non-existence has been demonstrated while at the same time pretending you are not a hard atheist.

Honestly, I appreciate the fact that you have on at least two occasions admitted you made a mistake - to me that is, here. That's rather rare amongst posters here, theist and atheist alike. And I appreciate that. But on this issue, man to man, there is something strange going on with you.

I will not discuss issues related to atheism or theism with you ever again. Perhaps we will have a chance to discuss something else, though it seems like the main issue you discuss.

 

This is simply not correct. It shows a lack of experience of religious people and writers.

 

If they are without the belief in no God, they are not Godless. To claim "somebody who does not know is Godless" is imposing a belief on them. Being Godless implies a state of being that there is no God.

 

And.......to make up for that lack of experience a writer will what? Ask somebody or invent it? My money is on inventiveness, in the mind of course.