(September 11, 2015 at 2:54 pm)CristW Wrote:(September 11, 2015 at 2:07 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Yes you could still be an atheist and believe in a soul.
You would not be a critical thinker, but you could still be an atheist.
Atheism is a position on a single claim, the existence of a god or gods. Anything beyond that one position is outside the purview of atheism.
Not all atheists are critical thinkers. I know atheists that believe in: alien visitations, ancient aliens, homeopathy, all sorts of conspiracy theories, etc.
1. I will have to disagree on your first point. Yes, there maybe some individuals that claim to be "atheists" but are rather skeptics. If you believe in a soul then you also would have to agree on the transmigration of the soul to either hell or heaven/paradise. If not then either you would believe the soul dies when the physical body dies or reincarnation or something similar.
Absolutely not true.
There many 'ancestor' religions (in China, native Americans, Japan, just to name a few) all over the world that have no god beliefs, or beliefs that the dead go to a heaven or a hell, yet they still believe in a soul that survives death.
Quote:2. The declaration and belief in NO GOD(s) is Atheism.
Nope. The disbelief in gods is atheism.
Quote:3. Atheism is based on a single claim. There are premise(s) to the claim (conclusion).
Atheism is the disbelief in a single claim, that at least one god exists.
The premises to the claim are individually debatable.
Any other position on any other claim is outside the purview of atheism.
Quote:4. Atheists who question and debate on "alien visitations, ancient aliens, homeopathy, all sorts of conspiracy theories, etc." are critically thinking on the previous subjects mentioned. That is "critical thinking". The same thing as we debate on ghosts, angels, demonology, etc.
Not sure exactly what you are saying, but there are plenty of theists that also use critical thinking on these other claims: ancient aliens, homeopathy, etc. [/quote]
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.