What is Atheism?

[masterofpuppets]

It's not that science may show that universe creation is possible. It's that science cannot demonstrate that it is impossible. Science by definition can only explain what can be observed.

If something has not been demonstrated to be impossible, it does not follow that it is possible. All that means is that we don't know whether it is possible or not.

[comet]

there is the definition.
then there is how each person expresses the definition.

for me, I describe how the universe works.
Other people label me this or that.
Omni dude never comes up so theist call me atheist.
Anti-religion never comes up, so atheist cry foul.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"I lack belief in god because....(insert reason)" To give a reason is to express a belief.

I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in fairies. I think its a silly idea that in no way conforms to the reality I see and has no evidence to support it. Now if some one was to actually capture a fairy and show it to me I'll have to admit I was wrong. I wont hold my breath. Is this fair enough?

No it's not fair.

Occasionally, I listen to paranormal podcasts just because they are fun, a minor vice I suppose. Some "researchers" think fairy folklore contains surprising parallels with the so-called greys. Fairies abduct people in rings. The abductees report time distortions. Etc. It's all very interesting. Maybe there is something to it, maybe not. I can't say they don't have evidence because they do. There is a lot of Medieval folklore. Lots of people report having been abducted. Have they reached the right conclusion? I don't know and don't care. I'm not going to waste any time researching it myself. Whether fairies exist or not wouldn't really affect my life much. They kind of keep to themselves :-)

On the other hand if God exists, then it does have profound significance, one touches every issue of a person's life. So to not seriously wonder about God would be rather incurious. There is lots of evidence presented to support the idea that God exists, so it's not a lack of evidence; but rather, that you do not feel the evidence supports the conclusion.

Presumably you have seriously examined the evidence and found it wanting. That's okay. You're entitled to your opinion. Still, that means you have reasons not to believe. Those beliefs about why the evidence should not be accepted are every bit as subject to scrutiny as claims that they should. It's one thing to say "Don't know, don't care" in response to apologetics. It's another thing say, "I don't believe because...." since that now creates a burden of proof to show that your objection is valid.

[Nonpareil]

Occasionally, I listen to paranormal podcasts just because they are fun, a minor vice I suppose. Some "researchers" think fairy folklore contains surprising parallels with the so-called greys. Fairies abduct people in rings. The abductees report time distortions. Etc. It's all very interesting. Maybe there is something to it, maybe not. I can't say they don't have evidence because they do.

Yes, you can.

Because they don't.

There is a lot of Medieval folklore. Lots of people report having been abducted.

That is not evidence.

On the other hand if God exists, then it does have profound significance

Whether or not an event is significant to you personally does not affect whether or not it is rational to believe in it.

God has no more evidence for its existence than fairies do.

[downbeatplumb]

I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in fairies. I think its a silly idea that in no way conforms to the reality I see and has no evidence to support it. Now if some one was to actually capture a fairy and show it to me I'll have to admit I was wrong. I wont hold my breath. Is this fair enough?

No it's not fair.

Occasionally, I listen to paranormal podcasts just because they are fun, a minor vice I suppose. Some "researchers" think fairy folklore contains surprising parallels with the so-called greys. Fairies abduct people in rings. The abductees report time distortions. Etc. It's all very interesting. Maybe there is something to it, maybe not. I can't say they don't have evidence because they do. There is a lot of Medieval folklore. Lots of people report having been abducted. Have they reached the right conclusion? I don't know and don't care. I'm not going to waste
any time researching it myself. Whether fairies exist or not wouldn't really affect my life much. They kind of keep to themselves :-)

This is how I feel about god. It is an irrelevance.

On the other hand if God exists, then it does have profound significance, one touches every issue of a person's life. So to not seriously wonder about God would be rather incurious. There is lots of evidence presented to support the idea that God exists, so it's not a lack of evidence; but rather, that you do not feel the evidence supports the conclusion.

And this is what a fairy believer would say.

Presumably you have seriously examined the evidence and found it wanting. That's okay. You're entitled to your opinion. Still, that means you have reasons not to believe. Those beliefs about why the evidence should not be accepted are every bit as subject to scrutiny as claims that they should. It's one thing to say "Don't know, don't care" in response to apologetics. It's another thing say, "I don't believe because...." since that now creates a burden of proof to show that your objection is valid.

[/quote]
I have never even seen a coherent description of god let alone evidence for one.

[masterofpuppets]

On the other hand if God exists, then it does have profound significance, one touches every issue of a person's life. So to not seriously wonder about God would be rather incurious. There is lots of evidence presented to support the idea that God exists, so it's not a lack of evidence; but rather, that you do not feel the evidence supports the conclusion. 

Even if there were evidence for a god, I'm still not sure how I could differentiate between the thousands of god claims to know which one is the real one.

If we are addressing the Christian God specifically, He is only a concept. It's the concept that theists imbue significance with. Atheists see no significance in a being that they don't believe in. That's why I don't "seriously wonder" about Him. It doesn't mean that I am incurious. I would argue, actually, that theists are incurious, because instead of trying to get answers, they're satisfied with a made-up one.

That brings me to my third point. I don't agree that there is "lots of evidence" in favour of God. If it's the Christian God, I would actually argue that there is lots of evidence against his existence (age of the Universe, omnipotence-free will paradox, no evidence of the resurrection).

[comet]

I am just an atheist. I don't practice atheism.

[Whateverist]

Yeah, me neither. I'm a natural. No practice required.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Presumably you have seriously examined the evidence and found it wanting. That's okay. You're entitled to your opinion. Still, that means you have reasons not to believe. Those beliefs about why the evidence should not be accepted are every bit as subject to scrutiny as claims that they should. It's one thing to say "Don't know, don't care" in response to apologetics. It's another thing say, "I don't believe because...." since that now creates a burden of proof to show that your objection is valid.

What happens if what you call evidence for your God is not viewed as evidence by someone else?  In your opinion, do you think that theists, deists, atheists, agnostics, and etc, are using the term 'evidence' in the same way?

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what would be valid and acceptable reasons for disbelief? Furthermore, is it possible that reality is far more complex than seeing it in terms of belief and disbelief?

P.S. Could you please elaborate on what you consider to be evidence for your God?

[downbeatplumb]

Presumably you have seriously examined the evidence and found it wanting. That's okay. You're entitled to your opinion. Still, that means you have reasons not to believe. Those beliefs about why the evidence should not be accepted are every bit as subject to scrutiny as claims that they should. It's one thing to say "Don't know, don't care" in response to apologetics. It's another thing say, "I don't believe because...." since that now creates a burden of proof to show that your objection is valid.

What happens if what you call evidence for your God is not viewed as evidence by someone else?  In your opinion, do you think that theists, deists, atheists, agnostics, and etc, are using the term 'evidence' in the same way?

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what would be valid and acceptable reasons for disbelief? Furthermore, is it possible that reality is far more complex than seeing it in terms of belief and disbelief?  

P.S. Could you please elaborate on what you consider to be evidence for your God?

He keeps banging about Aquina's 5 ways which are all unsupported claims and NOT evidence.

A bit like saying there is a troll in my basement is evidence that there I have a troll in my basement, or indeed a basement.