What is the Definition of Atheism?

[osgart]

Atheism would be the inability to see the possibility of a god existing. Therefore no such God exists.

Reality requires perfect reasons for its existence, otherwise there is no God.

 

[McBell]

Atheism would be the inability to see the possibility of a god existing. Therefore no such God exists.

Funny.
I accept the possibility that a god exists.
I just find the probability on the low end.

Reality requires perfect reasons for its existence, otherwise there is no God.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[PureX]

A "misconception" that you put in it.
I said nor implied anything about god.
YOU jumped there all on your own.

I was merely pointing out your inconsistency:

Forget beliefs, believe in possibility....​

But I actually posted about trusting in the possibility. "Believing in" is just pretending we're right. "Trusting in" is acknowledging that we may not be right, but that we are choosing to act on that hope. Why you felt you had to try and pursue this silly attempt at exposing some "hilarious" contradiction that wasn't there is ... whatever.

 

[osgart]

Funny.
I accept the possibility that a god exists.
I just find the probability on the low end.



I have no idea what this means.

Specific atheists have an inability to see God as anything more than magic, or Santa Claus.


God is claimed to be perfect; perfect goodness, perfect knowledge. Without error in judgment is a quality of God. Therefore reality is the perfect place for life on Earth; it can be no better place for such life.

I claim that reality for life on Earth is not ideal, nor is it perfectly suited for the purposes of a God. Nor is life perfectly created. Life on Earth is lacking perfect justice; a lot of people are defenseless victims of crime, and nature.

Anything perfect has sufficiency and no lack.

 

[McBell]

But I actually posted about trusting in the possibility. "Believing in" is just pretending we're right. "Trusting in" is acknowledging that we may not be right, but that we are choosing to act on that hope. Why you felt you had to try and pursue this silly attempt at exposing some "hilarious" contradiction that wasn't there is ... whatever.

Ah, so you did.

I wonder what it is like to not believe anything.
Do you believe you are right?
About anything?

Or is your forget about belief only applied to god?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't care about your belief or your 'disbelief'. It's all just silly hubris, to me.

So it's "hubris" to not believe in any of the various
gods offered up without evidence? Strange.

 

[Audie]

And yet the possible existence of God remains, regardless.

I might go to Mongolia, find the crown
of the great Kahn and anscend to the throne.

Being a descendant, this is quite possible.

 

[McBell]

Specific atheists have an inability to see God as anything more than magic, or Santa Claus.

So an over generalization?

God is claimed to be perfect; perfect goodness, perfect knowledge. Without error in judgment is a quality of God. Therefore reality is the perfect place for life on Earth; it can be no better place for such life.

I claim that reality for life on Earth is not ideal, nor is it perfectly suited for the purposes of a God. Nor is life perfectly created. Life on Earth is lacking perfect justice; a lot of people are defenseless victims of crime, and nature.

Anything perfect has sufficiency and no lack.

Since I am not convinced a god exists in the first place, all the argueing over what god wants, demands, needs, does, etc. are merely entertainment for me.

 

[Martin]

I found the spectrum approach quite useful, though it's application seems limited to monotheism.

Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

 

[osgart]

So an over generalization?



Since I am not convinced a god exists in the first place, all the argueing over what god wants, demands, needs, does, etc. are merely entertainment for me.

Yes, I overgeneralized.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, I agree. Sadly, the more positions we allow the term "atheism" to include, the less actual information the term conveys, until it becomes nearly useless at conveying any pertinent information at all. Which is why I suggest that we all use those OTHER terms that already convey the more specific individual positions: like 'indifferent', skeptical', 'undecided', 'undetermined', 'indeterminate', 'non-religious', anti-religious', and then 'atheism' only for the negation of theism as a whole.

What about us igtheists?

 

[blü 2]

Specific atheists have an inability to see God as anything more than magic, or Santa Claus.

Yes, supernatural claims have big problems, especially since there's not even one authenticated example, nor even any hypothesis as to what they actually might be or how they actually might work.

God is claimed to be perfect; perfect goodness, perfect knowledge. Without error in judgment is a quality of God.

These are all undefined or insufficiently defined terms, and not compatible with the bible, where God orders invasive wars, massacres of populations, mass rapes, human sacrifices, murderous religious intolerance, and approves women as property and slavery as a norm. The God of the NT is no better, requiring, for reasons I've never understood, a sacrifice of [his] son to [him]self. Apart from the vile morality of such a course, why on earth would a being billed as omnipotent and benevolent need anything even remotely resembling that, when with one snap of those omnipotent fingers [he] can bring about anything [he] wants?

Therefore reality is the perfect place for life on Earth; it can be no better place for such life.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Reality is all there is, unless you count being imaginary as "being" in this sense.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes, I agree. Sadly, the more positions we allow the term "atheism" to include, the less actual information the term conveys, until it becomes nearly useless at conveying any pertinent information at all. Which is why I suggest that we all use those OTHER terms that already convey the more specific individual positions: like 'indifferent', skeptical', 'undecided', 'undetermined', 'indeterminate', 'non-religious', anti-religious', and then 'atheism' only for the negation of theism as a whole.

I mean I'm so past the definitional debate at this point in my life that I simply agree. I think something could be said for people defining their own terms, but it's whatever at this point.

As I've said, I just say nontheist. I'm not a theist. It helps to avoid some of that baggage.

 

[PureX]

Ah, so you did.

I wonder what it is like to not believe anything.
Do you believe you are right?
About anything?

What would it matter ... to anyone but me? What do I gain by pretending I'm right when I can never really know that I am? ... Except to tickle my own ego?

Or is your forget about belief only applied to god?

It applies especially to the god proposition because that's the greatest existential mystery there is. To blindly presume upon that one (that God is, or is not) would be the most absurd presumption of all. Yet, because we cannot know, the possibility remains open, as well as the nature of such a possibility. And in that, I find a very interesting and useful array of choices.

 

[PureX]

So it's "hubris" to not believe in any of the various
gods offered up without evidence? Strange.

Yes. First, it's silly to presume that any of those human characterizations are accurate. And then it's just as silly to reject them as being false (for the same reason). It's all just a big waste of time, in the service of ego.

 

[PureX]

I might go to Mongolia, find the crown
of the great Kahn and anscend to the throne.

Being a descendant, this is quite possible.

What you fail to recognize, here, is that you had to resort to this silly analogy because you could not deny the fact, directly. And so in this ignorance, you presumed your analogy to be clever.

 

[PureX]

What about us igtheists?

That term conveys no information at all. Congratulations! Now no one can possibly ask you to defend it.

 

[PureX]

I mean I'm so past the definitional debate at this point in my life that I simply agree. I think something could be said for people defining their own terms, but it's whatever at this point.

As I've said, I just say nontheist. I'm not a theist. It helps to avoid some of that baggage.

An elegant solution. I am a non-religious (philosophical) theist. Which confuses a great many self-proclaimed atheists who are actually just anti-religious agnostics and skeptics. So I can't seem to avoid their confused resentment.

 

[blü 2]

That term conveys no information at all. Congratulations! Now no one can possibly ask you to defend it.

Alternatively, it refers to someone who thinks that the concept of a real god ─ one with objective existence, one not imaginary ─ is incoherent.

Which is why, for example, there's no definition, no description of God such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not.

There isn't even a concept of "godness," the real quality a real God would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c, would lack.

 

[Audie]

What you fail to recognize, here, is that you had to resort to this silly analogy because you could not deny the fact, directly. And so in this ignorance, you presumed your analogy to be clever.

Suggest a better analogy contrasting something with a
small but factually real possibility v something for which
there is zero known factual basis.

One can point out that no analogy is exact with fewer
than six falsehoods and no snark at all.