What is Atheism?

[masterofpuppets]

If theists actually had evidence, they wouldn't need to come up with fallacious arguments like the ontological argument, or consistently avoid presenting such evidence when asked. Instead they simply declare that they know God exists, that producing evidence is a sin, or come up with fancy word salad.

If you have to go to such lengths to avoid adequately substantiating the very thing you believe in, it means it probably doesn't exist.

Some theists say that they know God exists, but it is simply impossible to convince atheists. If you can't convince atheists that God exists, it means you probably have no good reason to believe that he does yourself.

Others claim that God exists, but we can never demonstrate his existence. However, a being whose existence cannot be demonstrated even in principle is essentially synonymous with a being who does not exist.

[Cyberman]

This is a little obscure and esoteric, but there is a scene from an early episode of Steptoe and Son in which Harold, the son, challenges Albert, his dad, to show him the shrapnel wounds he claims to have received in WW1 and which he often uses as an excuse to get out of any hard work. Albert keeps prevaricating, throwing out red herrings and threats of violence. Anything to avoid having to actually back up his claim. As a last resort he says "I've got medals in that drawer", as though it's incontrovertible proof.

Long story short, that's what I picture whenever we get logical acrobatics and other smokescreen tactics in place of the evidence for which we ask.

[AceBoogie]

If this turns into a pissing contest try to remember: never cross the streams.

Was just trying to illustrate how silly his argument was!

Or is that exactly what you meant lol

[Brian37]

How do you define atheism? It may seem simple, but small variations exist in accepted definitions.

Individuals, diverse in politics and class and nationality and exist all over the world. Outside that the only core thing we have in common is "off" or "empty" on deity/god claims. I hate "ism" being attached to the word "atheist". It is to me like trying to accuse and empty glass of having a club. 

I personally view my "off" position in context of past, present and future. As far as the past, it is all bunk to me with no evidence ever. Currently I am still in the "off" position. But "technically" and really to me only, future wise it would take extraordinary evidence to convince me of a deity/god. Science is currently pointing away from the need for a cosmic magic supernatural cognition in any case. Even with the future to me, the god of the gap argument is so fleetingly unlikely it really is not worth considering. "Monkeys might fly out of my butt" is about how I feel about the unknown future of a god existing.

I call my position "agnostic atheist", currently I am "off" on all past and present claims. But really even with the future which is unknown, even with that I don't see a future where any deity/god claim made now will be proven. Evolution was around long before our species or human language or the gods/superstitions we make up. Our planet is 4 billion years old and our universe is 13.8 billion years old. Postulating a cosmic super hero who only puts humans in all this this late in the game, only gives us 10,000 years of written language and sedentary communities, in all that, where we still kill and murder over these clubs, really doesn't strike me one bit as efficient, much less loving. 

And especially now having watched my mother die it is a stark reminder of reality. I don't hate a god or God for emotional reasons, anymore than I hate Batman or Lex Luther. I do find the logic believers try to sell simply lacking and intellectually insulting to me as to what is really valuable, our real provable existence, or real provable ability for compassion and empathy. None of the good in life is coming from a magic Sky Santa. 

Yesterday on PBS I watched a nature documentary which to me should be shown in every public school biology class. It showed mammals such as elephants and apes and tigers and how they set up social structures and interact and show EMPATHY for other members of the family. THAT is our reality. That is why I love my mom so much . My mom is the outcome of the good side of reality even with that harsh finality no human can escape. 

I don't even it like it when other atheists think they can re invent the wheel and create moral lists they think every atheist should follow. Not even the word "atheist" is a moral code. Our species behaviors, both good and bad are not a patent owned by a label, but in our evolution. My mom is good, because she is a good individual. And no matter the label, that ultimately is what all of us are, individuals. 

Evolution unfortunately does not care if cruelty or compassion win. Evolution does not care if cooperation or force win. Our advantage as humans can be, when we chose, as to how we move forward and what we choose. But that also goes with atheists too. We do not always agree, we don't have a moral code, nor are we a club. I have more in common with my mom than I do with some atheists even here. 

"Off" is the only way I define my position. Outside that, I do not always agree with others who also hold that "off" position.

[Amarok]

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

Not really the mere fact his exists doesn't make him profound

[Brian37]

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

Not really the mere fact his exists doesn't make him profound

The idea of an ultimate alpha being with unlimited power whom owes nobody an explanation does not strike me as moral, compassionate or loving. It is the very definition of a dictator which puts humans in the position of being mere props,  toys or lab rats. I don't find that "profound" in the least, but sad that anyone would subject themselves to such Big Brother thinking.  God/god/deity belief is a mere reflection of our species desires to have control over our environments and our false perception of immortality. It is a horrible thought to me to even think such a being would be real. "Profound" would not be the word I would use, but "horrifying".

[Neo-Scholastic]

This is a little obscure and esoteric, but there is a scene from an early episode of Steptoe and Son in which Harold, the son, challenges Albert, his dad, to show him the shrapnel wounds he claims to have received in WW1 and which he often uses as an excuse to get out of any hard work. Albert keeps prevaricating, throwing out red herrings and threats of violence. Anything to avoid having to actually back up his claim. As a last resort he says "I've got medals in that drawer", as though it's incontrovertible proof.

Long story short, that's what I picture whenever we get logical acrobatics and other smokescreen tactics in place of the evidence for which we ask.

I see little point in continuing until people stop using the word 'evidence' in a way that begs the question, i.e. as something already proven. This, as opposed to something evident (obvious, apparent, plain) presented to support an assertion.

[comet]

yup. the "ism" part is the club part. Bumper stickers, sages, places to meet, and I even heard of atheism retreats.

The "ism" part also promotes some people thinking that atheist should reject any and all observations that don't line up with atheism's goal, that being the top club with the real truth of "lack belief in anything no matter what observations say."

[Jesster]

That's not actually what the -ism in atheism is about. There's theism and then there's a-theism. It's everything that doesn't belong to that -ism, so it is not an -ism in itself. Atheism does not have a goal, philosophy, or belief system.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

This is a little obscure and esoteric, but there is a scene from an early episode of Steptoe and Son in which Harold, the son, challenges Albert, his dad, to show him the shrapnel wounds he claims to have received in WW1 and which he often uses as an excuse to get out of any hard work. Albert keeps prevaricating, throwing out red herrings and threats of violence. Anything to avoid having to actually back up his claim. As a last resort he says "I've got medals in that drawer", as though it's incontrovertible proof.

Long story short, that's what I picture whenever we get logical acrobatics and other smokescreen tactics in place of the evidence for which we ask.

I see little point in continuing until people stop using the word 'evidence' in a way that begs the question, i.e. as something already proven. This, as opposed to something evident (obvious, apparent, plain) presented to support an assertion.

My apologies if I have come off as thick.  My posts have been aimed at trying to gain a better understanding of your perspective on matters of theism and atheism.  Could you please elaborate on the part quoted in bold above.  From a theistic perspective, what do you define as something that is 'evident' (obvious, apparent, plain) and can be presented to support an assertion?