Atheism: The True Path?

[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