doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Are you sure it's not the image of Sally Field?Kinda like a grilled cheese sandwich with an image of the Virgin Mary on it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you sure it's not the image of Sally Field?Kinda like a grilled cheese sandwich with an image of the Virgin Mary on it.
That sounds like a verbose way of saying that you provisionally reject belief in the existence of gods. That fits my definition exactly, although I found it unnecessary to include the adverb "provisionally". When assessing an empirical claim, acceptance or rejection of belief is always provisional.
Perhaps you need to go and talk to some more "certain" atheists.
No. Certainty is the self assurance that one's belief will not be contradicted in the future.Certainty has to do with whether one expects the belief to be contradicted in the future.
doppelgänger;1364123 said:Are you sure it's not the image of Sally Field?
Certainty has to do with whether one expects the belief to be contradicted in the future.
No. Certainty is the self assurance that one's belief will not be contradicted in the future.
No, you don't. That's unfortunate (if not literally thoughtless).I see no substantive difference between us ...
doppelgänger;1363264 said:Perhaps we have a habit of happily following along in the trap of projecting thought without self-reflection that so many of the theists we tend to criticize also do.
I mean that in more than one way.
Of course, I always wonder if atheists really exist...
Likely the product of confusing thoughts about "God" with thoughts about "theism." They aren't necessarily the same thing. See Baruch de Spinoza (or pretty much any philosopher worth his or her salt).Why is that?
I see no substantive difference between us ...
No, you don't. That's unfortunate (if not literally thoughtless).
There are atheists and there are athiests. They come in different flavors.
The basic, defining feature of atheism is non-belief in a personage for which there is no evidence.
There are some within this group that go a step further and make the positive assertion that the God for which there is no evidence does not, in fact, exist, but this is not essential atheism. This is a radical offshoot.
The essence of atheism remains a provisional lack of belief -- no assertions of existence or non-existence at all.
My understanding of God is as an energizing spirit indwelling an individual after a transformation and renewing of mind. Everyone is now energized by personal power and we get out of all interaction complimentary experience to what exists inside and gives us our ability to keep our place in the peeking order. This power is much like what is played out in nature, predatory and self protective, but in the mind, the self having ego and intellect and knowledge as developed in a lifetime. Science is showing that the brain can be modified by social and physical environment. An evolutionary step in the brain and mind may help some survive the dramas unfolding on the planet. Athiests are misinformed and are taking too much input from perceptions of religious groups and the false ideas they put across. I never went to church when I was young but read the bible when older and realized after some participation there is no ressemblance to how it could be. The traditions of men prevail.
There are some within this group that go a step further and make the positive assertion that the God for which there is no evidence does not, in fact, exist, but this is not essential atheism. This is a radical offshoot.
I agree that atheism is provisional, but it is not mere lack of belief. Someone who is completely ignorant of God or gods can be said to lack belief in them, but it would be a real stretch to call such a person an atheist. The essence of atheism is rejection of belief in gods. What you describe is what some people would call agnosticism--a failure to take a position on the existence of gods. (Originally, though, agnosticism was more about denying the ability to know reality in an absolute sense.)The essence of atheism remains a provisional lack of belief -- no assertions of existence or non-existence at all.
Actually, the denial of the existence of gods is essentially what atheism means. People get confused when they take atheism to mean an assertion of knowledge that gods do not exist. It is an assertion of belief that gods do not exist, which is slightly different from an assertion of knowledge. That is why atheism tends to be considered a provisional belief. And the claim that there is "no evidence" is also slightly misrepresented. The claim is really that the things believers see as evidence either do not qualify as evidence, or they are unconvincing evidence--e.g. assertions of personal revelation by believers. Atheism cannot exist in the absence of theism.
I agree that atheism is provisional, but it is not mere lack of belief. Someone who is completely ignorant of God or gods can be said to lack belief in them, but it would be a real stretch to call such a person an atheist. The essence of atheism is rejection of belief in gods. What you describe is what some people would call agnosticism--a failure to take a position on the existence of gods. (Originally, though, agnosticism was more about denying the ability to know reality in an absolute sense.)
I don't know whether my stand will generate any controversy, but let's see if there are any negative reactions. Here is my claim: Atheism is not mere lack of belief in gods. It is the rejection of belief in gods.
It is sometimes said that we are all born atheists, but that is just not true. We cannot be said to reject claims before we even consider them. Atheism can only be meaningful after one dismisses arguments in favor of God and/or gods. When an atheist claims that there is no evidence of God's existence, he means that the proofs offered so far have either not really been evidence, or it is insufficient evidence.
Now, I will go a step further and say that there is a difference between so-called weak and strong atheists. Strong atheists claim to have positive evidence against the existence of gods. Weak atheists tend to fall back on the claim that theists have so far failed to meet their burden of proof (meaning that all of their arguments fail).
BTW, the claim that atheism means just "not theism" because a- is a negative prefix in Greek is not a valid argument. It is an etymological fallacy. Word meanings are determined solely by usage, not by their etymological history.
Am I right to criticize the definition of atheism as mere lack of belief in gods?
I 'snipped them away' because they had no relevance to the issue.Sorry if you think I'm being thoughtless, but you snipped away some of my thoughts on why I thought there was little difference. Here they are again: ...No. Certainty is the self assurance that one's belief will not be contradicted in the future.Certainty has to do with whether one expects the belief to be contradicted in the future.