Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[lucent]

The problem is that the vast majority of modern atheists do not view atheism this way. They view atheism as a lack of belief in all deities. You speak of modern relevance as an argument that unpopular deities can be dismissed offhand. Cannot that same modern relevance be extended to include MODERN atheists, as oposed to how atheists of old conducted their arguments compared to how modern atheists conduct themselves?

The question is "does God exist?", not "which God is He?". The new atheists wish to redefine the definition of atheism to make atheism the default position and not have to justify their position. That is the difference in argumentation.

That is typically known as agnosticism. modern atheists do not consider atheism and agnosticism to be very different from each other. In fact, many atheists (myself included) hold BOTH titles. I am an agnostic as in I dont have clear knowledge that any deities actually exist outside of fiction, and, because I do not have that knowledge, I therefore have no reason to BELIEVE they exist, hence the atheism.

You cannot be both an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic has no reason to believe God exists, that is true. He also has no reason to disbelieve Gods existence. An atheist is saying he does have a reason, therefore you are no longer agnostic on the existence of God, and are just plainly an atheist.

actually, in science, a theory is a tested running platform for many formulas. The theory of gravity comes to mind. Gravity has been tested over and over again. Germ theory is another well tested theory. Sure, demons could be making diseases SEEM as if they are caused by germs, but the data is utilitarian. Antibiotics tend to kill off the sickness, unless the bacteria has mutated to a resistive strain, in which better drugs must be used to treat them. Sure, someone could argue that demons are merely being consistant in order to fool humans, but what utility is brought about from such information?

The grand assumption of science is uniformity in nature. Science cannot be done unless it is assumed that what happened in the past will happen again in the future. There is no way to account for uniformity in nature in a secular worldview without a vicious circularity. Uniformity in nature is best explained by God.

But, if they are gods, then how can they not be allowed to make contradictory claims? Sure, I have brought up contradictions in the bible before, but merely to show that the bible was poorly written. I can in no way 100% guarentee that the bible was not inspired by a god. If that god DOES exist, then he WANTED those contradicitons in the book. Remember, a god can do whatever it wants, regardless of your beliefs and what you think a god can or cant do, regardless of your ego. If, for example, Jesus decides that he doesnt want to save those who worship him, and instead send EVERYONE to hell, what can you do about it? Protest about Jesus to a higher power? He is god, he can do whatever the fuck he wants regardless of wether he made a promise to you or not. the variables are endless when it comes down to it. there is no way that you can be 100% sure about any of this.

I have faith that God is who He says He is. If it is all just same grand illusion to mess with us, then there is nothing I can do about it. The only logical move is to have faith that God is truthful. There aren't any contradictions in the bible, just things easily misunderstood by people without spiritual discernment.

Not unless the creator of the universe is a prankster. In that situation you would see a world with many differing religions, and also dead religions (which is what we see now). Another possibility is that we humans are not able to perceive god, therefore we can never be certain. God may have had a fellow Goddess, or a Brother. Twin creator deities, who broke off from each other long ago and now fight each other. Remember, we are talking about the supernatural realm, which means that NOBODY can be 100% certain. that means my thoughts of the supernatural are just as possible and just as relevant as yours.

The only way you could be certain about anything is if you were omnipotent, or you received revelation from an omnipotent being. If you can admit that revelation from an omnipotent being is a logical pathway to certainty, then you will understand why I am certain about the knowledge I have. You have no actual basis in your worldview for knowing anything for certain. You cannot account for the laws of logic, which must be absolute, immaterial and unchanging. This makes no sense in a materialist worldview, because we live in a material universe which is constantly changing. It is best accounted for in a Christian worldview.

And what if the world was created by a council of 10 deities, 5 male, 5 female, and they do not wish to be known? How can you argue for or against them? They are obviously the creators of logic, which means, if they do not want to be known, they would have created logic not to prove that they exist. That would mean every religion known to humanity is wrong, yet a pantheon of gods exist, and that the polytheists are the closest to being correct.

you cant argue against something like that as well. you cant say "Well, if creators exist, then they MUST have a purpose for us that they want us to know". You DONT know that. What if they created us for no purpose at all..because they were bored?

You're talking about a Universal negative. I can say we're all in a giant egg inside a cosmic chicken and the reason the Universe is so dark is because we haven't hatched yet. I could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all your memories are false. You couldn't disprove that either. You can invent any story you like, but this has no parity with claims made by Christianity. It makes many predictions and descriptions; it is a worldview, which means it is falsifiable.

Asatru has, in my opinion, the best creation story I have ever read. This means that you made an argument from ignorance. Thor very much is connected to a cosmology and a creation claim. Ignorance is not an excuse.

The point is, from the millions of Gods, there are only a few candidates that make creation claims, which we can then match to the evidence.

Because modern atheists consider atheism to be a "lack of belief in all deities", not an active disbelief in your specific god. Scoffing is a powerful tool, as well as ridicule. When it comes to supernatural claims, then anything goes, and we atheists know this very well.

All it does is stifle debate, and is a form of bullying. Thoughtful people don't use it, or need it.

So, naturally, you think that everyone who doesnt believe in your godhas a specific prejudice towards your god, not just all gods and goddesses, but especially Jesus and your god. some may consider this to be paranoia.

There is no doubt that atheism is primarily anti-christian. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. None of the other Gods have any authority, but to Jesus every knee will bow. Everyone who rejects God is rejecting the authority of Jesus Christ.

So hell isnt the biggest factor, but love is. Wait, Im not following you. You say "No one is going to go to hell because they thought God was too implausible", then right after that you say "The people who go to hell are unrepentant sinners who reject God "

So I can consider that god was too implausable, yet still go to heaven, but if I reject god, I go to hell.

How the hell can someone consider god implausable (not believable), yet not reject it?

You won't go to hell for rejecting the God that you don't know. You will go to hell for rejecting the God that you do know, and are suppressing the truth about.

---

You know that God exists, and you know who He is. You're rejecting Him now.

Are you on drugs? I do not know that any gods exist, much less a specific god, but if the god you love and have faith in does exist then I reject the fucking loser wholeheartedly.

And proudly!

You do, and you are suppressing the truth.

---

Even if one gave Lucent his favorite definition of atheism, it would still be possible to be an atheist with regards to his god. His favorite narrative has been utterly destroyed by evidence at every conceivable level. If the god he wishes to argue for is the christian god, sourced wholly from this narrative, then it does not exist, and that's not a belief, that's a fact. His god, his book, and his beliefs (as well as his inane ramblings about science) are all demonstrably full of shit.

There is no evidence for macro evolution. Feel free to provide any at any time.

I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution

George Wald - Harvard Professor
Nobel Laureate

---

When I read lucent's posts I get a strange mix of feelings:

1- I start to laugh incontrollably, while I read them and about 5 minutes after.

2- As my laugh dissipates, I start feelind sad, because in this day and age, with all the information available,(he clearly has the skills to operate a computer), there is a human being holding such retarded beliefs. Some part of me wishes he is a poe.

There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.

What's most telling about you is that you approved of this post which said I should go kill myself:

"Tape a bag of porridge to your face, suffocate yourself, and rid humanity of your poisonous and perverted 'understanding' of the endeavour we are currently taking to comprehend the cosmos for all I care:" - Welsh Cake, using classic atheist argumentation