Atheism: The True Path?

[Demonaura]

Incorrect. atheisim is, always has been and always will be and will never be anything more than: the rejection of theological claims reguarding the existence of a god.

Yes there are atheist buddists, the ones that don't beleive in god are atheists.

Is it part of your philosophy to NOT collect stamps? To NOT count the starts every single night before the sun goes down? Of course it isn't that absurd.

If you want to get into what we actually believe in then shut the hell up about what we don't believe in and ask.

I'm getting seriously sick of explaining to every random person that comes in here the most basic thing about the members of this forum that any 12 year old should be able to figure out by himself.

Theisim = a positive claim reguarding the existence of a deity
Atheisim = A-theisim, meaning NOT theisim, as in we think they're nuts.

I agree that atheisim can't stand on it's own feet. It doesn't have feet, it doesn't have anything because it is a word that describes a lack of something, one specific thing, care to take a guess what that thing is?


After all that my point should be pretty clear.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyu, I am sorry but atheism is a philosophy, it just isn't much of one. To be more exact, atheism is philosophies. Atheism is an umbrella term for dozens of different types of beliefs. These range from the very simple 'No God' style to the secular humanist to the Dawkinist. There are even certain brands of Buddhism which could be classed as Atheist philosophy. Pick one and try and defend it.

You can be as sorry as you like but atheism is one thing and one thing alone ... it is what you are when you cease to believe in all gods and that alone should give you a clue i.e. that it is utterly dependent on somethign else getting you there be that science, scepticism, a religion that doesn't enshrine gods. IT doesn't matter what gets you there, the fact is the atheism itself DOES not therefore it is NOT a philosophy in and of itself any more than theism is a philosophy ion and off itself ... for theism you need to embrace a religion to gain the philosophy, for atheism something else.

No matter how much you want atheism to be a philosophy (and like most theists it appears that you do because then you can brand it as something you want it to be) it isn't!

Kyu

[Ace Otana]

This is a little game. Not to be taken too seriously (or too lightly). Convince me atheism is the right path to go down. Just to keep things fresh don't use the classic 'there is no evidence hence such and such does not exist'. Perhaps a little unfair, but if you don't like it, don't post. Anyway, I figure that one of you must have another good argument hidden under your hat.

It's down to you if you believe in the god clam or you do not. I can only speak of why I don't believe it. Just because you don't think atheism is able to stand on it's own arguments doesn't mean your right or that god actually exists. Can you prove to me there is no santa claws? Of course not! You like I cannot disprove anything based on superstition and nor can we prove it.

Atheism is lack of belief. As in I as an atheist reject the god claim. I reject it because not only is there no evidence but also there is nothing to say that I shouldn't worship say allah or thor or even the easter bunny. Why should I believe in a god and which god? Why should I believe in "any" god?

The question isn't "is it the right path" the question is "Why should I believe?"

[fr0d0]

I rather like to think that atheism is the only logical position. All religions or beliefs in the supernatural make claims which you have to take more or less on faith. However, all these doctrines/scriptures whatever cannot be right. Only one can. But they're all the same mumbo jumbo about higher forces which are completely invisible and insubstantiated, so we don't really have a lot to go on as to how to choose which is probably right. Atheism, on the other hand, makes no claims and demands no worship etc. The only thing one needs to be an atheist is skepticism (and often, it's true, some kind of education).

Bollocks



.
.
.
...ok, I jest

Love the post Luke.

Isn't atheism a philosophical position rather than a philosophy? I think it stands as that, and I'm sure I've seen (whispers) Wikipedia list that in it's definition.

Luke's post highlights the scientific standpoint with some objective yet non objective blind superstition to balance the position (not).

You also need to turn off your mind to be an atheist IMO. It is after all the dominant thought stance of our 'generation'. Skeptics are the religious nowadays.



(lubs you guys BTW )

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I rather like to think that atheism is the only logical position

That must be very comforting for you.

I'm not entirely convinced the average firsts year philosophy student would necessarily agree. In fact,I don't either. I don't necessarily conflate 'logical' with "true" EG: A conclusion reached using deduction can be logically valid and wrong;-If the premise is invalid or one does not have sufficient evidence. Police everywhere do it all the time.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Fr0d0...WB fr0d0.

I don't see how not believing in "God(s)" without evidence is 'turning off your mind' or being 'religious' so therefore I don't see how atheism is that either - cos that's all atheism is...not believing in "God(s)" - nothing more by definition.

EvF

[Dotard]

I don't necessarily conflate 'logical' with "true" EG: A conclusion reached using deduction can be logically valid and wrong.

I don't think he said logical was true.

The logically valid, yet wrong, deduction would still be the most logical position.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I don't think he said logical was true. [Image: yeltongue.gif]

No,he did not,but I read it as implied.

Isn't atheism a philosophical position rather than a philosophy?

No; it's a lack of belief ,period.

[lrh9]

My contention is that neurology proves that personal existence is the result of the specific configuration and electrochemical interaction of neurons that compose the brain. Once the configuration of the neurons and electrochemical in the brain degrade past a certain point, personal existence ceases irreversibly. Logically, that does not address the proposition that god exists. It only means that the soul does not exist. In which case I really have no incentive to believe. Of course, a counter proposition is that a deity does exist, and all though we do not have a soul during our physical life, one is created upon our death. To which a counter idea would be that since mortality is a physical problem, it can be physically solved resulting in immortality. To which another counter idea would be that immortality would be no bar to divine intervention. To which another counter idea would be that if humanity had developed the technology to live forever, it might have the technology to oppose a deity. The truth is, anyone can argue theological questions for as long as they can and not arrive to any agreeing conclusion. Which is why instead of expounding upon these ideas in my general interaction with theists, I have one policy towards them.

and

before I kick your

[Kyuuketsuki]

@ Fr0d0...WB fr0d0.

Yes, welcome back ... good holiday I hope?

I don't see how not believing in "God(s)" without evidence is 'turning off your mind' or being 'religious' so therefore I don't see how atheism is that either - cos that's all atheism is...not believing in "God(s)" - nothing more by definition.

I agree ... seems to me Frodo (and I could be wrong) that your argument is the same as those theists who say we (sceptics) are not open-minded which is, of course, interesting because it's what everyone with a nutball claim (from proponents of UFO's, Atlantis and ancient Sumerian advanced technology to flat-Earthers and those who claim we're all part of some super-mind) would say. As far as I'm concerned scepticism is the only rational approach to the non-demonstrable claim ... as a rational observer you have to draw the line somewhere, a line across which you will not allow spurious claims without good reason and effectively the scientific rationalist does just that, simply stands back and asks the claimant to show him (or her) the evidence. At its simplest science is simply a method for sorting the wheat from the chaff, a methodological manner of defining the line (and "policing" it) and ultimately the only real reason for keeping it is it works where nothing else (maths excepted) does.

This is why Dagda is wrong ... it isn't atheism that draws or defines the line, it's science that does i.e. scientific scepticism is the philosophy, atheism is the result (it's a label). Another philosophy could cause someone to be an atheist such as Buddhism (I think someone mentioned that), perhaps even being a UFO-wingnut or even just pooh-poohing it and considering drink and whatever more important (I've more than one friend like that) but atheism is not, in or of itself, a philosophy so (back to Dagda's original premise) one cannot convince anyone it's the correct path because it carries no philosophical implications.

Kyu