The Atheist Perk

[Revoltingest]

Some strong points!
But the label "atheist" requires conception and acceptance, which is conversion to a new mind set/attitude.

I stretched the definition a tad...just cuz I thought that would be fun to say.

No dogma to remember, haha, then the dogma is set into an unreflective position of denial of arrogance.

I have no idea what that means.
But at least I don't have to remember it.

And there isn't much contradiction towards science with a majority of other beliefs, just those scientists that all agree on something but haven't proven it. So I wouldn't say directly contradicting science, but contradicting what scientists generally agree on.

To say "isn't much contradiction" is still to face contradiction.
Atheists are free to see where science leads....or misleads....them.

 

[freethinker44]

You all know of Atheism, so what are the perks?

Since the only requirement to be considered an atheist is to not have a belief in a god, the "perks" are only limited by your imagination and what is physically possible of course. For the though, the greatest "perk" of building my own personal philosphy is not having to live by some archaic, immoral religious ideology that contributes little to nothing good in our daily lives. I get to do what's right because it's right, not because someone else told me to, and I don't have to unjustly judge someone else because of racism, sexism, or homophobia that some guy leaked into a book he helped write thousands of years ago.

 

[Splarnst]

I'm not an atheist because of the perks; I'm an atheist because I have no reason to believe in the supernatural. But the biggest perk is that I can think for myself. And that I have no reason to worry about being treated unjustly after death.

 

[Matthew78]

The biggest perk for being an atheist for me was total sexual liberation. I could have sex with anyone I chose to, anytime I chose to, however I chose to, as long as she was a consenting adult. I could have total casual sex or friends-with-benefits but I preferred being in love with a lady. My biggest joy was not being forced against my will, kicking and screaming, into marrying a Christian lady.

 

[Orias]

I have no idea what that means.
But at least I don't have to remember it.

Well it either means that One denies their own arrogance, doesn't care to reflect upon it or realize it, or just assumes the position of "I'm right, your wrong, no matter what".

But your right, you don't remember what you don't see as important.

To say "isn't much contradiction" is still to face contradiction.
Atheists are free to see where science leads....or misleads....them.

Of course, there will always be contradiction simply because man is inconsistent, but the strength is dependent upon the belief.

Science hasn't really proven anything besides that man is attached to the natural creativity within him.

M-Theory and String theory wasn't something that was simply stumbled upon, and you know that.

could this be because you were never an atheist to begin with?
see i thought i was one too but non theist seems to be fulfilling what i am, until something penetrates my current understanding and then i go with that.

as i have grown older i find that if i change my mind about something and gain a new and different POV i am growing and what other choice do i have than to grow and learn?

edit:
i just want to clarify
that i am in no way suggesting atheism isn't fulfilling

That could be, since I was really indifferent in such matters until I was 16, when I started studying different religions and coming up with different view points of life on my free time.

Naturally, I challenged myself to gain a greater understanding of who I am.

But you know, I have yet to disagree with one of your posts

Atheism doesn't teach anything. It's merely a label for people who don't believe there's a god. Any moral choices then come from other sources, not their disbelief in a god. I'm an atheist and I do volunteer work, donate to charities, and have a good relationship with my friends and family. I don't do these things because I don't believe in a god, I do them because they're right. I don't turn to doctrine but my fellow man. As for atheism and Buddhism I don't really see where you're coming from since the Buddha even recommended not relying on a belief in gods, and by nature most Buddhists are also atheists. Atheism is a lack in belief of a god not any other philosophical concepts.

-Benhamine

Edit: In regards to calling oneself an atheist leading to dishonesty, self deceit, and hypocrisy I'm not saying it doesn't happen but since it's just one concept, God, it's much easier to dodge these vices than a label that regards more than one topic such as any religious title.

Atheism teaches a whole lot, simply because it is an ontological stance.

I've had many Atheists tell me that its not an ontological stance and that its not a belief, and I don't really care about that anymore since I made a a pretty popular thread a while back which was about these topics.

But really, anything believed is a belief. And thats all thats to it, which essentially makes Atheism a philosophical stance, because there is Atheist doctrines, manifestos, Atheist Buddhist, and Atheist Satanists.

Yes these people have another philosophical branch attached to their "Atheism", but it only adds onto their "Atheistic" position which is viewed to strengthen and boost One's ego and faith towards this belief.

Basically, people tend to try and strengthen their own position by attaching numerous devices that distract people from the main point, that no belief is original and arises from the same matrix.

The mind.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Not simply a "lack of belief" So yes, it is entirely possible to be both an atheist and a Buddhist.

I know that, which is why I said you can't be atheistic about Buddhism if you don't believe that atheism is a belief.

Unless of course you are capable of realizing that anything believed to be true is a belief, than sure, you can be an "Atheist" and a "Buddhist", though the origins are hardly compatible.

How so?

Well...man didn't find science under a rock, and man wasn't given the gift of "art", and Man surely hasn't received any divine intervention to create religion.

Obviously, I thought it would be self explanatory, since the words you use and the environment (for the most part) you see was created by us, from the mind (which is the tree).

Since the only requirement to be considered an atheist is to not have a belief in a god, the "perks" are only limited by your imagination and what is physically possible of course. For the though, the greatest "perk" of building my own personal philosphy is not having to live by some archaic, immoral religious ideology that contributes little to nothing good in our daily lives. I get to do what's right because it's right, not because someone else told me to, and I don't have to unjustly judge someone else because of racism, sexism, or homophobia that some guy leaked into a book he helped write thousands of years ago.

I agree 1000%.

Its almost like you know what Satanism is

Probably one of the most truest forms of reality a person can live.

In terms of reality being what you want it to be, sure.

We are by nature primitive beings, we are violent and very imaginitive. Atheist see the world and people for what it is. There are no deities or religions to wage war for, on the other side of the coin we are not anti establishment either. We have no beliefs to protect or project.

If Atheists see the world for what it is, then how come they don't do anything about it?

I know, its because like everyone else, they claim to "see" which tends to manipulate people and the world into what they "see". You left out that man is naturally manipulative as well, look around you, you don't have what you have because of atheism or because some God handed it down to you.

Not to mention, you don't have Atheism because it is naturally innate within Man, if that were so then such concepts of God would not exist. But like all things in the Universe, conception is capable because of balance, maturity tends to take sides.

Sure, the definition of Atheism may be naturally innate within man, just as the definition of theism can be too, but when it comes down to atheism is just a big a bag to carry as anything else, simply because it has been evolved, added onto, and conceptualized throughout its existence.

Generally speaking, atheist are a more educated group and most likely never labeled sheeple.

Generally I don't think you should be speaking of who is the more educated group, since education covers Christian science as much as it does cosmetology.

Since when does getting your nails done have any practical survival application besides getting a guy? Since when is "Christian science" considered an education? What makes theoretical science so darned important that those scientists make more money than our army or farmers?

Face it, education is simply having a more developed knowledge of what people have invoked into existence.

Disagree, I dare you, education means nothing if you cannot realize that most people have one now days . Just because One is educated in a favored field does not make them more educated, just more one sided and likely to have irrational and unthought of biases.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not all Atheists are honest with themselves about their Atheism, same goes with Christianity or any other belief.

Indeed. Most often, Atheists who are dishonest with themselves about their Atheism don't admit that they are really Atheists. A fair number may not even realize that they are Atheists.

Still, you are implying that Atheism is a belief, which it generally isn't, and inviting misleading parallels with positive beliefs.

Some strong points!

But the label "atheist" requires conception and acceptance, which is conversion to a new mind set/attitude.

Actually no, it doesn't. Calling oneself an Atheist requires conception of some sort of deity and of Theism, since otherwise the label would have no meaning. Actually being an Atheist only requires not believing in gods, though. Not all (and not necessarily even many) Atheists are "converts"; Atheism is quite liable to being inborn, and in fact it is often enough an inate vocation of sorts.

No dogma to remember, haha, then the dogma is set into an unreflective position of denial of arrogance.

It sometimes is. I assume it was in your case, since you have so much trouble with the concept.

And there isn't much contradiction towards science with a majority of other beliefs, just those scientists that all agree on something but haven't proven it. So I wouldn't say directly contradicting science, but contradicting what scientists generally agree on. (...)

You may say whatever you want, but to the extent that what you mean by "science" is clear, it has little to do with the actual meaning of the word.

As an example, I once considered myself an atheist for some period of time, though I never really felt "fulfilled" I guess, and I broadened my horizon.

Good for you, but that doesn't change what Atheism is.

Atheism doesn't necessarily teach the Self to restrain or discipline the self in matters of emotional and mental gratification (ego), which can mislead a lot of people into their own sense of hypocritical dogma.

True enough. Atheism, being an absence as opposed to an active doctrine, doesn't in fact teach anything at all. It is incompatible with teachings that demand belief in deities, but that is not teaching anything.

Dishonesty, self deceit, hypocrisy, these are all perks that come along with taking on a label that isn't directly specific to the beliefs of a person.

I wonder why you say so. Plenty of labels are taking simply because they are convenient (e.g. those related to birth circunstances, such as nationality) and have nothing whatsoever to do with beliefs or lack of same.

This isn't the first time that you have shown a peculiar demand that Atheism be an active concept instead of the simple, elegant absence of active meaning that it actually has.

If an atheist takes on the philosophical position as a Buddhist, then they're representation of atheism becomes false under the single premise that atheism is a lack of belief, which means you cannot be atheistic about buddhism if you believe that atheism is not a belief.

One can't be "atheistic about buddhism", since buddhism is not a deity. For that matter, atheism isn't a lack of belief in the general sence, either. Lack of belief in deities is quite different from lack of belief.

The same argument can be considered when observing the topic of "spiritual scientists", which I have no problem with, just the people that think any sort of spiritual verification is false under the study of science. Since science, religion and art are all really branches of the same tree.

May you reword or elaborate on that? It isn't really very clear what you mean here.

 

[Orias]

Still, you are implying that Atheism is a belief, which it generally isn't, and inviting misleading parallels with positive beliefs.

The only misleading parallel is those Atheists, (the strong Ones to be specific).

Its like Satanism, commonly misrepresented because of what people "generally" think.

But a belief is simple, that which is thought to be true, which can be in, of, about, around, outside, and parallel to any form of conceptualization.

But I'm not going to debate over whether or not Atheism is a belief, since I made a thread for it long ago and it didn't help anyone with anything besides further separating each other.

We have our own views and beliefs, and I realize that these views and beliefs can be separate of the label one takes unto them self but usually isn't, since those who accept that they have beliefs generally view Atheism as a belief, while Atheists "generally" deny that their Atheism is a belief.

Actually no, it doesn't. Calling oneself an Atheist requires conception of some sort of deity and of Theism, since otherwise the label would have no meaning.

Like I said, the label Atheists requires conception and acceptance. Perhaps I should of been a little more clear by adding on that those who take the label unto themselves require such a thing.

You're not an Atheist if you have not conceived of what it is, and your not an Atheist if you can't accept what it is.

Anyone can say that atheism is naturally innate within Man, but its not, what's naturally innate within man is the desire to conceptualize and conceive and invoke things into existence.

The label essentially has no meaning, since there are those who say babies are atheists, without the baby ever having a choice.

Actually being an Atheist only requires not believing in gods, though. Not all (and not necessarily even many) Atheists are "converts"; Atheism is quite liable to being inborn, and in fact it is often enough an inate vocation of sorts.

Sure, some at a young age naturally have an "atheist" attitude but people learn by association, which means people don't generally care to think about such topics until a necessary time, and the view and acceptance of said topics converts One's mindset and attitude, especially if there are devices that One has never heard of but agrees upon hearing of it.

All forms of enlightenment convert people to a new mind set, even if they naturally posses the core, any practiced label will continue to be evolved and "bettered".

It sometimes is. I assume it was in your case, since you have so much trouble with the concept.

Not at all, I have good reason in my own view to accept my own arrogance.

But your a mod, and that comment seemed a little personal

You may say whatever you want, but to the extent that what you mean by "science" is clear, it has little to do with the actual meaning of the word.

Actually I view science for what it is, observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Which is why I agree so much with Albert Einstein when he said..."All arts, sciences and religions are branches of the same tree.

You can say whatever you want, but you clearly cut down definition to what you want it to be (like most people do, which is comparable to another Albert Einstein quote).

Funny, Einstein really had a psychological approach to his findings as well, realizing how people react to certain words and topics of interest.

The Universe is far more mind blowing and fascinating (which can turn into being more important) than the world in which we live, I'm sure you can imagine the end result.

As for the experimental part, we can't experiment with God, and we can't experiment with stars. Yet science seems to have been given authorization as to what is and isn't real, just because of what we can see with our eyes.

Good for you, but that doesn't change what Atheism is.

This doesn't appear to have any sort of relevance besides boosting your ego.

I understand completely.

True enough. Atheism, being an absence as opposed to an active doctrine, doesn't in fact teach anything at all. It is incompatible with teachings that demand belief in deities, but that is not teaching anything.

Actually, I have observed that Atheism commonly teaches oneself to be more confident and less subtle, perhaps reckless.

The lesson isn't direct, its psychological subtlety.

I wonder why you say so. Plenty of labels are taking simply because they are convenient (e.g. those related to birth circunstances, such as nationality) and have nothing whatsoever to do with beliefs or lack of same.

Nationality doesn't describe what you, as a human are, your nationality doesn't describe the characteristics you posses, and the sincere meaning you find in your personal truth, or your belief. Of course besides that you belief you are (said nationality), but it still doesn't describe the totality of the individual's belief.

There is, however, One label that can do so, and to put it simply, its called being human.

My nationality is American, obviously, and when you ask most Americans "what they are", they will go on about their ancestry, like "Oh I'm Scottish, German, Norwegian and Irish", no your American.

I can't speak for people outside of the United States, I generally view Americans as arrogant, condescending, and the global "fuzz", no body likes em but needs em. The label doesn't directly speak for what I belief as a whole and can actually mislead people to believe that I believe the Opposite just because of certain biases or sides that they were taught or developed because of some sort of disagreement.

This isn't the first time that you have shown a peculiar demand that Atheism be an active concept instead of the simple, elegant absence of active meaning that it actually has.

I know, its because it isn't the first time I've seen an atheist actively contemplate what atheism is.

And plus, active concepts are usually that, a concept in which people partake in. If it wasn't active, it would be just that, absence, but atheism doesn't describe mere absence, like you and others have said, it describes absence of belief in Gods.

One can't be "atheistic about buddhism", since buddhism is not a deity. For that matter, atheism isn't a lack of belief in the general sence, either. Lack of belief in deities is quite different from lack of belief.

One can be atheistic about Buddhism, since being atheistic merely describes the attitude or inclination of an atheist. Being "atheistically Buddhist", simply means that One is an atheist with Buddhist views.

If you can't be atheistic about Buddhism, then you can't be an Atheist Buddhist.

May you reword or elaborate on that? It isn't really very clear what you mean here.

Basically that science is as functional as we are, since we created it.

The strength of it is determined by you, since we obviously have contrasting views.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Atheism teaches a whole lot, simply because it is an ontological stance.

I've had many Atheists tell me that its not an ontological stance and that its not a belief, and I don't really care about that anymore since I made a a pretty popular thread a while back which was about these topics.

But really, anything believed is a belief. And thats all thats to it, which essentially makes Atheism a philosophical stance, because there is Atheist doctrines, manifestos, Atheist Buddhist, and Atheist Satanists.

Yes these people have another philosophical branch attached to their "Atheism", but it only adds onto their "Atheistic" position which is viewed to strengthen and boost One's ego and faith towards this belief.

Like I said before, I just love when non-atheists presume to lecture me about what Atheism truly is. It's comedy gold, folks.

-Nato

 

[Orias]

Like I said before, I just love when non-atheists presume to lecture me about what Atheism truly is. It's comedy gold, folks.

-Nato

Like I've said a million times, I just love when people assume I am a theist.

 

[DinChild]

Atheism teaches a whole lot, simply because it is an ontological stance.

I've had many Atheists tell me that its not an ontological stance and that its not a belief, and I don't really care about that anymore since I made a a pretty popular thread a while back which was about these topics.

But really, anything believed is a belief. And thats all thats to it, which essentially makes Atheism a philosophical stance, because there is Atheist doctrines, manifestos, Atheist Buddhist, and Atheist Satanists.

Yes these people have another philosophical branch attached to their "Atheism", but it only adds onto their "Atheistic" position which is viewed to strengthen and boost One's ego and faith towards this belief.

I hate to say, but I agree with Nato. Atheism, like we've discussed, isn't an ontological stance. There is no study to be done. In fact, if I wanted to get an F on a term paper about complete nonsense, I wouldn't read the literature. 'Cause I thought it was bollocks. Would I fail? Sure. Would I care because not buying into the unsubstantiated claims was better? Nope!

Belief has many different definitions. No atheist BELIEVES anything; unless you derive belief from the definition including "opinions." The only way it's a philosophical stance is because for as long as we know, people have believed. And there have been unbelievers. Belief does not MAKE a philosophical stance (though any stance on life is technically philosophical), a true atheist has nothing to submit.

And finally, there is no ego or faith boosted toward this belief. There's nothing. It's as if someone came to you and said; "the only reason your eyes are green, is because I pee on rose bushes every morning." It's up to them to prove that, but until then, I HIGHLY doubt it would sway any faith in the color of your eyes. It's white noise in the world of information. Weightless. Fruitless.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Calling oneself an Atheist requires conception of some sort of deity and of Theism, since otherwise the label would have no meaning.

Not necessarily. It's a matter of opinion how "meaningful" most theistic concepts are in the first place.

If I'm not persuaded by arguments for a conventional deity, I can consider myself an atheist. I don't think it's difficult to conceive of the standard Big Magic Guy deity, but evidence doesn't support the notion. It's like not believing in the existence of thylacine wolves: we understand what sort of evidence would indicate that they're not extinct, and we don't see such evidence.

If I find other conceptions of a deity absurd, I can likewise consider myself an atheist in regard to them. All sorts of New Age definitions for God are absurd or (perhaps deliberately) meaningless. We have no way of knowing what evidence would indicate the existence of something "outside time and space" or "an impersonal oneness beyond all distinctions." Therefore, the non-belief in any such concept is predicated precisely on the fact that it's not a comprehensible concept in the first place.

-Nato

 

[Orias]

I hate to say, but I agree with Nato. Atheism, like we've discussed, isn't an ontological stance. There is no study to be done. In fact, if I wanted to get an F on a term paper about complete nonsense, I wouldn't read the literature. 'Cause I thought it was bollocks. Would I fail? Sure. Would I care because not buying into the unsubstantiated claims was better? Nope!

Like I have previously said I'm not going to debate over this, but I will state for a last time, anything that has to deal with the nature of being is an ontological stance, atheism being one of them.

Since it is said that atheism can be synonymous with naturalism.

Belief has many different definitions. No atheist BELIEVES anything; unless you derive belief from the definition including "opinions." The only way it's a philosophical stance is because for as long as we know, people have believed. And there have been unbelievers. Belief does not MAKE a philosophical stance (though any stance on life is technically philosophical), a true atheist has nothing to submit.

You wouldn't be resorting to the "No True Scottsman fallacy now would you?

And finally, there is no ego or faith boosted toward this belief. There's nothing. It's as if someone came to you and said; "the only reason your eyes are green, is because I pee on rose bushes every morning." It's up to them to prove that, but until then, I HIGHLY doubt it would sway any faith in the color of your eyes. It's white noise in the world of information. Weightless. Fruitless.

There is alway an ego and boost of faith by which something one believes, otherwise one wouldn't believe it.

Simple, people don't believe in something because it is discomforting to them, what is satisfying and gratifying to the ego boosts their confidence and natural disposition towards the concept.

 

[DinChild]

I hate to say, but I agree with Nato. Atheism, like we've discussed, isn't an ontological stance. There is no study to be done. In fact, if I wanted to get an F on a term paper about complete nonsense, I wouldn't read the literature. 'Cause I thought it was bollocks. Would I fail? Sure. Would I care because not buying into the unsubstantiated claims was better? Nope!

Like I have previously said I'm not going to debate over this, but I will state for a last time, anything that has to deal with the nature of being is an ontological stance, atheism being one of them.
Since it is said that atheism can be synonymous with naturalism.

My problem is with those who claim atheists bear the weight of an ontological claim when it was never theirs to bear. They don't hold a belief or faith in their worldview. I strongly insist that you adopt this profile of the atheist proper. It's very fundamental.

Belief has many different definitions. No atheist BELIEVES anything; unless you derive belief from the definition including "opinions." The only way it's a philosophical stance is because for as long as we know, people have believed. And there have been unbelievers. Belief does not MAKE a philosophical stance (though any stance on life is technically philosophical), a true atheist has nothing to submit.

You wouldn't be resorting to the "No True Scottsman fallacy now would you?

I wouldn't. I tend to avoid fallacy whenever necessary. It speaks negatively of argumentation. In this case, I'm clearly not arguing the universal claim. In that, like the broken record, NOT believing is NOT a claim. It's a rejection of a claim. If you're referring to my statement on the "true atheist," I might remind you that like any religious organization, there are a few bad apples outside of the religious realm. Those who don't help the integrity of atheists.

And finally, there is no ego or faith boosted toward this belief. There's nothing. It's as if someone came to you and said; "the only reason your eyes are green, is because I pee on rose bushes every morning." It's up to them to prove that, but until then, I HIGHLY doubt it would sway any faith in the color of your eyes. It's white noise in the world of information. Weightless. Fruitless.

There is alway an ego and boost of faith by which something one believes, otherwise one wouldn't believe it.
Simple, people don't believe in something because it is discomforting to them, what is satisfying and gratifying to the ego boosts their confidence and natural disposition towards the concept.

Again, atheists do not believe anything. We don't have faith in anything. Not in the religious context we don't. Perhaps I should not have included the term "ego" with the other terms, but simply put, atheists are exempt from the divine aspects of belief and faith.

 

[Orias]

My problem is with those who claim atheists bear the weight of an ontological claim when it was never theirs to bear. They don't hold a belief or faith in their worldview. I strongly insist that you adopt this profile of the atheist proper. It's very fundamental.

Atheism is a position that tokens itself with a God position, which references a natural state of being. There is no claim or burden that needs to be made to make something an ontological stance.

"I'm an atheist", speaks as "I like sleeping on the floor". These sentences speak from a position that a person is naturally comfortable with. I could go into the whole, "Speaking an opinion or belief is a claim that requires burden of proof on everyone" thing but I don't think thats necessary because it will just make the topic all the more confusing.

I'm not adding anything onto atheism besides that a belief is something thought to be true, and there is atheists who think atheism is true and there are those who are capable of changing at the example of evidence (haha, yea...right).

A belief is what it is and there is no way around it because the world is simply full of beliefs, having yet to prove something other than kindergarden fundamentals.

Besides that though, taking the label unto oneself is essentially claiming that one is an atheist. The meanings people tie onto it after that is irrelevant,

I wouldn't. I tend to avoid fallacy whenever necessary. It speaks negatively of argumentation. In this case, I'm clearly not arguing the universal claim. In that, like the broken record, NOT believing is NOT a claim. It's a rejection of a claim. If you're referring to my statement on the "true atheist," I might remind you that like any religious organization, there are a few bad apples outside of the religious realm. Those who don't help the integrity of atheists.

Thats the point I'm trying to make, labels don't hold integrity because people follow what others say blindly and without question. What makes atheism a position free of burden of proof? When you claim that don't you necessarily have to prove it?

Atheism is merely a position that reflects upon an individuals belief involving the existence of God (not defined). When you take the label "atheist" onto yourself you are essentially denying God by saying I merely lack belief at the lack of "evidence", which is in Heinz height completely subject to the person.

The poem, "Elephant in the Dark" by Rumi is a great example of this. If you care, you would look it up

Again, atheists do not believe anything. We don't have faith in anything. Not in the religious context we don't. Perhaps I should not have included the term "ego" with the other terms, but simply put, atheists are exempt from the divine aspects of belief and faith.

The divine parts sure, but atheists must be faithful that they are in fact atheists, otherwise they wouldn't call themselves atheists.

Just like everyone has faith in the words we use, that doesn't necessarily make the words any more compatible with what we are trying to describe, it just shows that us as humans are constantly changing and forming believes about simple semantics.

 

[DinChild]

My problem is with those who claim atheists bear the weight of an ontological claim when it was never theirs to bear. They don't hold a belief or faith in their worldview. I strongly insist that you adopt this profile of the atheist proper. It's very fundamental.

Atheism is a position that tokens itself with a God position, which references a natural state of being. There is no claim or burden that needs to be made to make something an ontological stance.

"I'm an atheist", speaks as "I like sleeping on the floor". These sentences speak from a position that a person is naturally comfortable with. I could go into the whole, "Speaking an opinion or belief is a claim that requires burden of proof on everyone" thing but I don't think thats necessary because it will just make the topic all the more confusing.

I'm not adding anything onto atheism besides that a belief is something thought to be true, and there is atheists who think atheism is true and there are those who are capable of changing at the example of evidence (haha, yea...right).

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are. An opinion of self-gratification is one thing. I don't like sleeping on the floor. It's straight. It doesn't contour to my body. It's TERRIBLE. However, it's not that I like NOT believing in a god...I simply don't. I don't wish to speak down to anyone, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the "burden of proof." Atheists don't suppose anything by supposing nothing. That is an INCREDIBLY incorrect approach to atheism. And by simply assuming as much cheapens your argument. And trust me, I understand what you're putting down.

Atheists do NOT think our worldview is "true" in the sense that someone who posits something different is more true. We, as I've said before, only await proof. Until then, there is uncompromising evidence to the contrary. Atheists come from a religiously baseless foundation. It's not even remotely in our architecture. This includes belief, faith, trust...None of these are atheistic terms. You'd do well to remember that (speaking from a friendly place.)

I wouldn't. I tend to avoid fallacy whenever necessary. It speaks negatively of argumentation. In this case, I'm clearly not arguing the universal claim. In that, like the broken record, NOT believing is NOT a claim. It's a rejection of a claim. If you're referring to my statement on the "true atheist," I might remind you that like any religious organization, there are a few bad apples outside of the religious realm. Those who don't help the integrity of atheists.

Thats the point I'm trying to make, labels don't hold integrity because people follow what others say blindly and without question. What makes atheism a position free of burden of proof? When you claim that don't you necessarily have to prove it?

Atheism is merely a position that reflects upon an individuals belief involving the existence of God (not defined). When you take the label "atheist" onto yourself you are essentially denying God by saying I merely lack belief at the lack of "evidence", which is in Heinz height completely subject to the person.

Heinz Height? Is that a word play of hind's sight?

Anyway, this is why we're having a lot of problems. You're operating under the assumption that burden of proof is a subjective thing. It's not. And as long as you continue to believe that rejecting something is equal to believing in something, then there's nowhere left to go, intellectually speaking. Burden of proof, I'm afraid, has a very definite and rigid definition. Those who posit the existence of something, bear the burden of proof. No questions asked.

Again, atheists do not believe anything. We don't have faith in anything. Not in the religious context we don't. Perhaps I should not have included the term "ego" with the other terms, but simply put, atheists are exempt from the divine aspects of belief and faith.

The divine parts sure, but atheists must be faithful that they are in fact atheists, otherwise they wouldn't call themselves atheists.
Just like everyone has faith in the words we use, that doesn't necessarily make the words any more compatible with what we are trying to describe, it just shows that us as humans are constantly changing and forming believes about simple semantics.

We have no faith that we're atheists. Faith is a religious concept. We don't have confidence or trust to the contrary. We don't "believe" god doesn't exist based on no proof. We simply march on; irrespective of the fly on the windshield -- God.

I like to think of God in terms of the hall of fame. Consider all the great athletes vying for their position in the elite. Then, ascribe metaphorical values to them. Those working toward the hall of fame are theories. Those in the hall of fame, are fact. The theory of relativity puts up HUGE numbers every game, but he's still in the running. Still has a few hundred seasons to go. The theory of evolution, also has his strong games. But no hall-of-famer. God, as well, is in this game. However, he's hardly a front-runner. He scores no points; he has no goals defensed. But the majority think he has potential, so they keep him in.

The point is, God isn't apart of the hall of fame. He's not a fact. And until he is, Atheists won't consider him at all. AT ALL. Not subconsciously. Not consciously. Not accidentally. There is no faith. As far as relativity and evolution are concerned, there are "points" to evaluate. There are "games" to consider. The scientific method requires just enough evidence to move the ball along. God has no balls.......haaaahahaha, I made a terrible joke I didn't intend to make.

 

[Orias]

Alright, the posts are getting long and daunting to read, so I'll cut it down...

First of all, my fundamental understanding is not incorrect, a belief is something thought to be true, period. Its not that atheists see atheism as being true, just that atheists usually believe that they are atheists and their brand of atheism.

Sincerely, a belief is a habit or condition of placing trust in someone or something. Obviously, those who take a label unto themselves must trust it enough to be considered. Unless the dictionary is lying to me...again.

The excuse is..."we await proof" when you know there will never be any proof besides the subjective matter and what people want to see.

Many atheists scientists believe in dark matter/energy yet have no physical proof of its existence.

For all you know I could be God telling you that God exists and you would still deny it upon the premise that you have an entirely different image of what God is to you.

And Heinz Height is a reference to the ketchup and the difficulty it is to acquire such a perfection.

I've never heard of Hind's Sight but I looked it up and it kind is like a "post-amble" if you will.

And is a fact a fact? What makes something necessary to be factual? The senses? Because you can see it, touch, taste, hear it, or smell it?

I couldn't get to the rest of your post because Call of Duty keeps distracting me, so I'll get to it another time.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

atheists must be faithful that they are in fact atheists, otherwise they wouldn't call themselves atheists.

-Nato

 

[DinChild]

Alright, the posts are getting long and daunting to read, so I'll cut it down...

First of all, my fundamental understanding is not incorrect, a belief is something thought to be true, period. Its not that atheists see atheism as being true, just that atheists usually believe that they are atheists and their brand of atheism.

Sincerely, a belief is a habit or condition of placing trust in someone or something. Obviously, those who take a label unto themselves must trust it enough to be considered. Unless the dictionary is lying to me...again.

The excuse is..."we await proof" when you know there will never be any proof besides the subjective matter and what people want to see.

Many atheists scientists believe in dark matter/energy yet have no physical proof of its existence.

For all you know I could be God telling you that God exists and you would still deny it upon the premise that you have an entirely different image of what God is to you.

And Heinz Height is a reference to the ketchup and the difficulty it is to acquire such a perfection.

I've never heard of Hind's Sight but I looked it up and it kind is like a "post-amble" if you will.

And is a fact a fact? What makes something necessary to be factual? The senses? Because you can see it, touch, taste, hear it, or smell it?

I couldn't get to the rest of your post because Call of Duty keeps distracting me, so I'll get to it another time.

Lol. Man. I am now drunk, but I'll continue, dammit! But this is my last response.

NOOO!!!! Atheists don't BELIEVE ANYTHING TO BE TRUE!!!! They don't believe ANYTHING. It's the theists that believe something to be true, and by default, we non-believers are sucked into the nonsense. We do not TRUST atheism to be a truth. We have nothing to trust against. We never assumed anything BUT. That's the problem. God isn't a factor. AT ALL. I know I'm drunk, and now my responses are a bit edgy, but seriously...we never took a label unto ourselves. We just chose not to accept the claims of those who claimed the existence of something and someone with NO PROOF.

Sure, we await proof...and perhaps we know there will be no proof. But hey! That's not up to us, is it? And it's not a subjective issue. That's up to the theists. They need to prove it!

And those atheist scientists (or as I like to call them, scientists) who "believe" in dark matter and anti-matter don't BELIEVE in it. That's why I can't stand the misunderstanding of the definition of belief. There is a divine definition of it; and a literal definition. Look in the dictionary, belief has many definitions. With regards to your context, it's a theory. Belief is synonymous with theory.

Haha, Ketchup. I never used to like it until about two years ago. 24...that's insane. But also, you never heard of hindsight is twenty-twenty? I wrote it wrong the first time because alcohol does funny things to me. But yeah. You can see how Heinz Height and Hindsight walk a similar line.

I didn't say senses make anything factual. If you must inquire, numbers. Numbers, math, geometry...all of the framework that make things like the internet function. There must be some form of objective reality in order for millions upon millions of people to communicate...hell language is another. These are facts.

Anyway, I'm drunk, and I need to sleep. I've had fun! I can't wait to wake up and look at all this **** and hate myself for my posts, haha. Sometimes I wish I didn't say anything.

G'nite.

 

[DinChild]

-Nato

LOL Yeeeeeeeah.

 

[Orias]

-Nato

Oh how I envy you lack of justification, when mine is so sincere.