RE: What is Atheism?
March 8, 2017 at 11:34 am
(This post was last modified: March 8, 2017 at 12:07 pm by Harry Nevis.)
(March 6, 2017 at 12:59 pm)SteveII Wrote:(March 6, 2017 at 12:46 pm)mlmooney89 Wrote: I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like you are saying you don't know if gods really exist but then turn around and say they don't. I'm not criticizing I just don't understand. To me it's very black and white- either gods exists or they don't. I say they don't so I'm an atheist. I have no belief in them and when reworded I lack a belief in them.
It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief.
With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief". The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.
Babies ARE atheists. Are you saying we're born with a belief in god? If I lack a belief, how can I shoulder any intellectual burden about it?
(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote:(March 7, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: There are plenty of secular members here on AF who don't leap to belief in god, because from their perspective, like the reasons given by you in [A], it has not been proven and their worldview provides them with more possibilities than a theist. Hence, in your opinion, is such a position a valid alternative to theism?
Also, regarding , there have been secular members on this site who have made similar remarks about their atheism, namely that if theists prove it (god), then they will amend their beliefs? Do you think that this is reasonable? What are your thoughts?
An atheistic worldview provides more possibilities? I think they have it backwards. Naturalism is more limiting because of two things: 1) it cannot explain the existence of logic, mathematics, morality abstract objects, consciousness etc. and 2) rejects supernatural possibilities/events/causes/persons (which is a philosophical position, not a scientific one). Naturalism leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and as is often the case, relegating those question asked to "not relevant" or "meaningless".
Why are the number of possiblilities a factor in deciding what is true?
Why are unanswered questions a problem?
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam