fed up.

[Gorgo]

Yes, I understand your point and I'm kidding, but for all intents and purposes, you can prove things exist. Hit yourself with a hammer and tell me the hammer doesn't exist. It is a mind game and little more.

[Rounddaworld]

Quote by: Joe Dangerous Atheists, conversely, have a weaker intellectual framework to defend. They claim to know God exists, then cite science. But if God existed, science would be subordinate to Him, and it may well be the means by which he establishes reasonable doubt for His existence -- thus necessitating faith.

Athesim is a lack of belief only. Anything else is added to that. I would not make a claim that you can prove the negative of god. It is that the evidence does not prove a god. If you make the claim you have the burden of proof. Otherwise you are saying lack of belief can be used as proof. Think of it this way and you can believe anything you like is true when it cannot be proven false.

Quote by: Joe Dangerous Science has never, ever, disproved metaphysical causation, period. I can't even imagine what such an experiment would look like and I defy one of you to find it for me. Claiming that science disproves God isn't rationality, it's philosophical dogmatism.

Lack of proof is not proof. People used to believe that the gods threw lighting bolts down to earth to punish humans and demonstrate their power. Do these invisible gods exist?

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Quote by: Joe Dangerous Beyond that, it's simply a matter of what's best for you. I believe in God, believe Christ died for our sins and that salvation comes through faith alone. If I'm wrong, I'll never know. But if you're an atheist and you're wrong... well, you know. (I know that's not an argument for God, just an argument for belief in God). So, IMO, rational religion ("I don't know God exists, but I believe he does") is the only pragmatic ideal. Atheism is just another philosophical dogma that requires fanatical devotion to unproven thoughts.

Atheism is a lack of belief, any dogma a person believes in is a separate issue. Please provide one example of a fanatical devotion to an unproven thought that is a direct result of a lack of belief.
Again we have:
"Occam's Razor-one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."
Using your logic if say Allah, is the real god you will be in serious trouble when you meet your maker. Your argument works against you not for you. While I understand the comfort religion brings from personal experience I now see it as mostly that. Comfort from the unknown and the fear of death.

Every theist declares with faith that their god is the god. This has been and continues to be a great source of conflict, suffering and misery for th human race. I would think it would be wiser to give up the game. I just lack a belief in one less god than you do.

[shanartisan]

Atheism is a lack of belief, any dogma a person believes in is a separate issue.

Actually, agnosticism (a=not, gnosis=knowledge) is lack of belief. Atheism (a=not, theos=god) is a belief that there is no god. Atheists have chosen their side.

Given that there either is or is not a god, one of us is wrong. Belief is all fine and dandy, but when you get down to it, belief is self contained. If there really is a god, he ain't you, and your belief doesn't affect the fact of his (non)existence.

To Samildanach: If there's a god, he already knew you were going to ask where he was. (If he didn't know, he's just a higher being, and no business of mine, at least.) The assumption a lot of believers make is that he's smart enough to have left a message already, in a durable form.

[Rounddaworld]

Quote by: shanartisan Actually, agnosticism (a=not, gnosis=knowledge) is lack of belief. Atheism (a=not, theos=god) is a belief that there is no god. Atheists have chosen their side. Given that there either is or is not a god, one of us is wrong. Belief is all fine and dandy, but when you get down to it, belief is self contained. If there really is a god, he ain't you, and your belief doesn't affect the fact of his (non)existence. To Samildanach: If there's a god, he already knew you were going to ask where he was. (If he didn't know, he's just a higher being, and no business of mine, at least.) The assumption a lot of believers make is that he's smart enough to have left a message already, in a durable form.

You are correct that agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism deals with belief,or rather the lack of it. There is a distinction between stating there is no god as a matter of a provable fact and lack of belief due to a lack of evidence to the contrary.

Atheism is a lack of Theism. It is not a belief it is the lack of belief. For that matter it is the way we are born. All beliefs are learned and most Theists are a product of their culture.

If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

This is a more comprehensive look

There are Theists who believe that we are all a part of god as well. There really is no way to prove any of this so they are just as correct as any other Theist.

If there is a god she certainly isn't demonstrated among the definitions I have seen in every major theist religion. The arguments I have gotten from theists fall often fall into the universal negative fallacy.

[Nono]

To hell with dictionaries. In practice, when someone says he's an atheist, what he means is "I don't believe in God", which means the (positive) belief that God does not exist.

Likewise, in practice (and that's what counts in language, not dictionaries), an agnostic says "How can we know?", yes, and this means "How can I have faith since I can't know?".

Thus, being an atheist means being sure there is no God (a leap of blind faith in my view) and being an agnostic means feeling unable to pronounce on the matter.

[Gorgo]

I am an atheist because I lack a belief in god. I also think that most gods I ever heard of probably have no basis in existence. I think Jesus and Siddartha and Hercules also probably never existed.

Gnosis is about knowledge. An agnostic says he/she cannot know god. Theism is about belief.

You are an atheist in every religion but one. I have just done you one better.

[Nono]

No, Gorgo, if you merely lack a positive belief in God without positively believing that He does not exist (i.e. remaining open to the possibility of His existence) then I think you're an agnostic, not an atheist.

[MerlinsByte]

If god existed, how could there possibly be so much doubt over his existence?

Everyone knows that god or a higher power exists. Some of us are in denial and some aren’t. It’s that simple. Homo sapiens are designed to believe in God. I don’t think that science is foolish, I think that the tenured arrogant priests of science that hold the established scientific paradigm of the day as irrefutable fact are at the pinnacle of stupidity.

mb

[Samildanach]

Again, that would be missing the point. Faith strengthens character; he wants people to have faith, not proof, because proof denies faith and therefore weakens character. This isn't even a matter of "God working in mysterious ways" because if God does exist then his motives for not revealing himself are pretty obvious: he wants people to believe in him of their own free will.

In that case why reveal himself EVER. He has made a precedent of revealing himself in the past. Did he not require Moses for example to have faith?

why does my response prove existance? you see it therefore it exists? you may assume that I exist because I respond, but that's still working on a few assumptions. Science tells us that the most simple answer is usually the correct one, but not always and science teaches us to never assume anything. So really you believe i exist because i am responding, but that is not proof of my existance, just proof of your belief that i exist.

Anything that you can interact with exists. It might not be quite the same thing that you believe it to be in the end however, if you can interact with it and other people can interact with it, it is generally acknowledged to exist. Occams razor definitely says the simplest solution is that you exist...not absolute proof but proof beyond reasonable doubt is the objective here.....God fails the proof beyond reasonable doubt test.

[MerlinsByte]

In that case why reveal himself EVER. He has made a precedent of revealing himself in the past. Did he not require Moses for example to have faith?

merlin replies.....
Moses was the only man that truly believed in God and worshiped him, this is why he was given the law, to put it in a sound byte, its a bit more complicated than this short answer but you get the picture?

mb

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Nono then I think you're an agnostic, not an atheist

Then you disagree with a lot of atheists.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Everyone knows that god or a higher power exists.

Belief in such things as gods is a belief in a lack of self-worth. You can lose the need to get your false sense of self-worth from such things.

[Rounddaworld]

Quote by: Nono To hell with dictionaries. In practice, when someone says he's an atheist, what he means is "I don't believe in God", which means the (positive) belief that God does not exist. Likewise, in practice (and that's what counts in language, not dictionaries), an agnostic says "How can we know?", yes, and this means "How can I have faith since I can't know?". Thus, being an atheist means being sure there is no God (a leap of blind faith in my view) and being an agnostic means feeling unable to pronounce on the matter.

Dictionaries are indications of the current usage of a word. A definition of an atheist is a lack of belief or a negative it is not a positive assertion.

Numerous claims by Theistic religions that their god is the only true god makes your stance just as untenable as theirs. It is on one level the same as being sure there is no god. Are you sure your god is it and their god is false? That in a way makes you an atheist to Theists who have a different god. It is impossible for all the Theists gods to exist.

Most atheists I know are of the agnostic, atheist variety. The type you claim all atheists are and set up the black and white scenario over are at times termed militant atheists.

I cannot see how you can prove god does not exist or does exist. You do not have to be certain that something does not exist to have good reason to lack a belief that it does.

I don't know where you are trying to go with your assertion except to attempt to peg the term "atheist" so nit fits into a neat black or white corner. I think you are making a claim about atheism on faith.

[Nono]

I'm just observing usage as I've experienced it. People I know who say they're atheists are invariably convinced that God doesn't exist. People who call themselves agnostics (like me) invariably leave open the possibility that He might exist, but are far too doubt-plagued to go out on a limb.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Rounddaworld I cannot see how you can prove god does not exist or does exist.

It doesn't take much, however, to assume that Hercules is a fairy tale. It's not a far leap to assume that Jehovah the tribal war god is a fairy tale. Go through the bunch and you'll understand that there isn't much there at all. Why assume that there's much possibility of any of the rest of them being real? What reasonable evidence is there? The laws of physics do not cover much possibility of a supernatural. Since there is no reasonable evidence to think there is a supernatural, why bother with the idea.

Define your god, tell me what you can do that I can't do without it, and then we'll see how easy or hard it is to prove it doesn't exist.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Nono that God doesn't exist

Yes, there is strong atheism and I don't know what the other types of atheism and agnosticism are. What they're saying is that they see no reason to believe in your gods and other people's gods, just like you see no reason to believe in other people's gods.

[IndieC]

Lets get this straight about Agnosts and Atheists. Atheists believe there is no god. So, fo anyone saying "it is absurd to believe in god" anyone else can also reply "it is absurd to believe there is no god". There is no hard evidence proving it either way. That is why there are Agnosts. Agnosts have no proof either way. They just say "there is no proof, i am awaiting it". Some wait all their lives, some seem to see somthing happen which proves god does not exist, and others see that there are too many coincidences in their lives to call it chance, or just simply find some other proof in their own lives to start believing in God, or in any other religion. If you "lack a belief in god" you are an agnost, however, if you believe they have no basis in fact, and that god cannot exist, then you are an atheist, and thus contradict youself, for, as you say, "theism" is a belief, and yet atheists believe that there is no God.

[MerlinsByte]

...by GORGO....Belief in such things as gods is a belief in a lack of self-worth. You can lose the need to get your false sense of self-worth from such things.

Merlin.......Yes, I agree that I am not worthy, and that my worth is 100% dependent on the path that God has provided for us. The question is however, If man has the answers and has by the proof of history never obeyed gods teachings, why we still live in a world where mass starvation, plagues and death are the norm for the world taken as a whole? We are not worthy on our own to govern or to even multiply as a species in harmony with the universe without God. Turn on CNN or LINK for a few minutes if you disagree with me, man is lost without God. What do you base your self worth on?

[Gorgo]

Quote by: IndieC Atheists believe there is no god

I try to lose beliefs and think instead. I am an atheist. That means I lack a belief in god. Theism means belief in god, A-theism means a lack of belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheists and agnostics and all kinds of people argue about those meanings, but those meanings are now accepted meanings. There are other meanings, you are correct, but in my mind, these are the most proper and the most accepted among the atheists that I know.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte why we still live in a world where mass starvation, plagues and death are the norm

Because beliefs rule the world, rather than reason.