Why I raise my children without God.

[Bodhi]

You gave me shit atheism is more than what you gave me. atheism is not just non-belief in god but non-belief in the possiblity of god

Being atheist does not necessarily mean that you have to rule out the probability of some type of "god" existing but being that there is no evidence or proof of any god's existence, there is no reason to believe in one. There's a difference between strong and weak atheism but both forms are atheism, nonetheless.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

So again, atheism of any shape, color or form is The theory or belief that God does not exist.

 

[zombie]

who the fuck is reading all this shit ??

Any literate person.

It's basically there to show you were wrong. You don't have to worry about it. Just know that you were wrong.

The Buddha taught against the existence of the soul/spirit.

No motherfucker i was right there are also many forms of buddism and many buddist who are agnostic and polytheistic.

Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man; self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Ātman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically.

The Buddha’s teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, but aims at making man enlightened by removing and destroying them, striking at their very root. According to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in an intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology. These ideas are so deep-rooted in man, and so near and dear to him, that he does not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any teaching against them.
https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawhatthebuddha/the-doctrine-of-no-soul

Do Buddhist believe in god?

No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,

sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".

Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.
http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

And one cracker writing one book does not mean a fucking thing

It means you can be atheist and a Buddhist at the same time. Many Indian natives, monks and scholars agree with him.

It means nothing more than one man can have their own interpertation of budda's teachings .
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_2.html

 

[zombie]

You gave me shit atheism is more than what you gave me. atheism is not just non-belief in god but non-belief in the possiblity of god

Being atheist does not necessarily mean that you have to rule out the probability of some type of "god" existing but being that there is no evidence or proof of any god's existence, there is no reason to believe in one. There's a difference between strong and weak atheism but both forms are atheism, nonetheless.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

So again, atheism of any shape, color or form is The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Then you are not fucking atheist jack ass you are like the budda closer to being agnostic, the whole strong atheism weak atheism thing is bullshit. First you tried to make the definition of atheism simple saying it's just non-belief, now you say there is weak and strong atheism. gtfoh weak atheism is an i don't know, it's not important position.

 

[alissowack]

You gave me shit atheism is more than what you gave me. atheism is not just non-belief in god but non-belief in the possiblity of god

Being atheist does not necessarily mean that you have to rule out the probability of some type of "god" existing but being that there is no evidence or proof of any god's existence, there is no reason to believe in one. There's a difference between strong and weak atheism but both forms are atheism, nonetheless.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

So again, atheism of any shape, color or form is The theory or belief that God does not exist.

It just may be a personal preference that you don't want to rule out the possibility of the existence of God, but atheism, philosophically, doesn't allow for a personal preference or any sort of wiggle room for another definition. It out right denies the existence of God. Being a "true" atheist means you don't consider the possibilities or have any doubts.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Some people should have their rights to use reaction buttons revoked.

 

[Bodhi]

It just may be a personal preference that you don't want to rule out the possibility of the existence of God, but atheism, philosophically, doesn't allow for a personal preference or any sort of wiggle room for another definition. It out right denies the existence of God. Being a "true" atheist means you don't consider the possibilities or have any doubts.

Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

 

[Bodhi]

Then you are not fucking atheist jack ass you are like the budda closer to being agnostic, the whole strong atheism weak atheism thing is bullshit. First you tried to make the definition of atheism simple saying it's just non-belief, now you say there is weak and strong atheism. gtfoh weak atheism is an i don't know, it's not important position.

I didn't make any of these terms up. I'm giving you definitions straight out of the dictionary/encyclopedia.

I'm an atheist by definition. Webster' s definition:

Atheism

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Dictionary.com' s definition of "atheist":

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Pay attention to the words being used. Notice in the definition of atheism, there are two distinct positions for one term. The first is simply disbelief in the existence of a deity. The second is the doctrine that there is no deity.

In the definition for atheist, we are given the same treatment. An atheist is a person who either, a.) disbelieves (weak atheism); or b.) denies (strong atheism) the existence of God.

Wikipedia's definition of strong/weak atheism:

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

Because of flexibility in the term god, it is possible that a person could be a positive/strong atheist in terms of certain conceptions of God, while remaining a negative/weak atheist in terms of others. For example, the God of classical theism is often considered to be a personal supreme being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, caring about humans and human affairs. One might be a positive atheist for such a deity (see problem of evil), while being a negative atheist with respect to a deistic conception of God by rejecting belief in such a deity but not explicitly asserting it to be false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

 

[VIBE]

Name names

 

[zombie]

Then you are not fucking atheist jack ass you are like the budda closer to being agnostic, the whole strong atheism weak atheism thing is bullshit. First you tried to make the definition of atheism simple saying it's just non-belief, now you say there is weak and strong atheism. gtfoh weak atheism is an i don't know, it's not important position.

I didn't make any of these terms up. I'm giving you definitions straight out of the dictionary/encyclopedia.

I'm an atheist by definition. Webster' s definition:

Atheism

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Dictionary.com' s definition of "atheist":

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Pay attention to the words being used. Notice in the definition of atheism, there are two distinct positions for one term. The first is simply disbelief in the existence of a deity. The second is the doctrine that there is no deity.

In the definition for atheist, we are given the same treatment. An atheist is a person who either, a.) disbelieves (weak atheism); or b.) denies (strong atheism) the existence of God.

Wikipedia's definition of strong/weak atheism:

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

Because of flexibility in the term god, it is possible that a person could be a positive/strong atheist in terms of certain conceptions of God, while remaining a negative/weak atheist in terms of others. For example, the God of classical theism is often considered to be a personal supreme being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, caring about humans and human affairs. One might be a positive atheist for such a deity (see problem of evil), while being a negative atheist with respect to a deistic conception of God by rejecting belief in such a deity but not explicitly asserting it to be false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

I am not saying that you are not giving me what the meaning of the word atheist means, i know what it means that is why i am saying that you are not an atheist. If you are a buddist then you cannot be an atheist. Your so called negative atheism is really just another term that means agnosticism, you are splitting hairs like a little bitch because you are to scared to say you don't believe in god. I might respect you more if you were a real atheist, i would consider you more of a fool but a respected fool.

 

[Bodhi]

you are to scared to say you don't believe in god.

I don't believe in God. I think your God is imaginary, illogical and and not based on any facts about the universe. Nor do I believe in any other version of a supreme being and creator of physical existence. I think the whole idea is childish. In addition, I'm not scared of you or your God.

I might respect you more if you were a real atheist, i would consider you more of a fool but a respected fool.

It's a good thing my happiness doesn't depend on your respect or opinion.

 

[Bodhi]

It means nothing more than one man can have their own interpertation of budda's teachings.

Including yourself.

 

[alissowack]

It just may be a personal preference that you don't want to rule out the possibility of the existence of God, but atheism, philosophically, doesn't allow for a personal preference or any sort of wiggle room for another definition. It out right denies the existence of God. Being a "true" atheist means you don't consider the possibilities or have any doubts.

Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

I don't see how adding agnostic or gnostic adds or takes away from what atheism really means. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as the denial of the existence of God. The only thing these adjectives do is to allow grounds for people to explain themselves. Atheism alone has no explanation...it just is.

It's kind of like someone saying they are a Christian. There are certain expectations you have that if they are not met, then they are not a Christian. A Christian has to explain their stance and the can't be like...I am an agnostic or gnostic; strong or weak Christian. Either they are or they are not.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

It just may be a personal preference that you don't want to rule out the possibility of the existence of God, but atheism, philosophically, doesn't allow for a personal preference or any sort of wiggle room for another definition. It out right denies the existence of God. Being a "true" atheist means you don't consider the possibilities or have any doubts.

Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

I don't see how adding agnostic or gnostic adds or takes away from what atheism really means. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as the denial of the existence of God. The only thing these adjectives do is to allow grounds for people to explain themselves. Atheism alone has no explanation...it just is.

It's kind of like someone saying they are a Christian. There are certain expectations you have that if they are not met, then they are not a Christian. A Christian has to explain their stance and the can't be like...I am an agnostic or gnostic; strong or weak Christian. Either they are or they are not.

That's not fully the case. You have "Christian" sects like the Mormons that others do not consider to be Christian. Christians don't even accept the Catholics even thought they formed one of the first Christian Churches. Then you have orthodox and non practicing. People are Christian by name only because their parents are but they prob never read the bible or go to Church. They just say they believe in the Christian God or was born a Christian in a cultural sense.

I think adding Agnostic takes away from your stance as an atheist which is really, you presented your evidence and i don't believe you, you need more people. When you say you are Agnostic, you give slight credibility to the theory where as, Atheist by default not accepting a stance, don't see the theory fitting into the overall possibility or probability of the universe; this is simply based off of the lack of evidence and the concepts presented. If you consider the concept, then you move towards a possible belief as if there is possibly a Tooth Fairy but hey, we will never know.

The bottom line for me is Humans don't fit into any of the Ideas that are presented as to their Origin coming from God do to their very nature. The very nature of the universe not requiring consciousness or direction also decreases the possibility because we overstate our role in this Universe in terms of our necessity to be in it. If you don't know and the only evidence is quotes and musings from other humans, why put your faith fully into a lacking position? I mean, folks are quick to dismiss the "cult" beliefs and theories of others and they hold the same amount of evidence, None.

 

[Bodhi]

I don't see how adding agnostic or gnostic adds or takes away from what atheism really means. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as the denial of the existence of God. The only thing these adjectives do is to allow grounds for people to explain themselves. Atheism alone has no explanation...it just is.

It's kind of like someone saying they are a Christian. There are certain expectations you have that if they are not met, then they are not a Christian. A Christian has to explain their stance and the can't be like...I am an agnostic or gnostic; strong or weak Christian. Either they are or they are not.

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

^^^ An atheist can take one of two positions. Either to simply disbelieve in the existence god or deny the existence of god.

A convo with two atheists; one weak, one strong, may go something like this:

Q: Do you believe in god?

WA: No.

SA: No.

Q: Why don't you believe in god?

WA: There is no current evidence to support the idea.

SA: All of the evidence says the existence of a god is impossible.

^^^ One atheist disbelieves in god. The other denies the existence of god.

Here is how the OED defines "atheism":

atheism

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve

1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.

Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).

To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.

To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Here is Webster's definition of atheism:

atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief

Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

^^^ This is the same thing I said but maybe seeing it from someone else will help you understand.

 

[alissowack]

It just may be a personal preference that you don't want to rule out the possibility of the existence of God, but atheism, philosophically, doesn't allow for a personal preference or any sort of wiggle room for another definition. It out right denies the existence of God. Being a "true" atheist means you don't consider the possibilities or have any doubts.

Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

I don't see how adding agnostic or gnostic adds or takes away from what atheism really means. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as the denial of the existence of God. The only thing these adjectives do is to allow grounds for people to explain themselves. Atheism alone has no explanation...it just is.

It's kind of like someone saying they are a Christian. There are certain expectations you have that if they are not met, then they are not a Christian. A Christian has to explain their stance and the can't be like...I am an agnostic or gnostic; strong or weak Christian. Either they are or they are not.

That's not fully the case. You have "Christian" sects like the Mormons that others do not consider to be Christian. Christians don't even accept the Catholics even thought they formed one of the first Christian Churches. Then you have orthodox and non practicing. People are Christian by name only because their parents are but they prob never read the bible or go to Church. They just say they believe in the Christian God or was born a Christian in a cultural sense.

I think adding Agnostic takes away from your stance as an atheist which is really, you presented your evidence and i don't believe you, you need more people. When you say you are Agnostic, you give slight credibility to the theory where as, Atheist by default not accepting a stance, don't see the theory fitting into the overall possibility or probability of the universe; this is simply based off of the lack of evidence and the concepts presented. If you consider the concept, then you move towards a possible belief as if there is possibly a Tooth Fairy but hey, we will never know.

The bottom line for me is Humans don't fit into any of the Ideas that are presented as to their Origin coming from God do to their very nature. The very nature of the universe not requiring consciousness or direction also decreases the possibility because we overstate our role in this Universe in terms of our necessity to be in it. If you don't know and the only evidence is quotes and musings from other humans, why put your faith fully into a lacking position? I mean, folks are quick to dismiss the "cult" beliefs and theories of others and they hold the same amount of evidence, None.

When I gave that example, it was to make the exact same point you are making. People would have to meet certain expectations in order to be considered Christian; that there is no middle ground or flexibility when it comes to who is considered Christian. Mormons and Catholics are not considered Christian by some people like you said.

The term atheism isn't based on the lack of evidence. It is simply an assertion that states that God does not exist. Now, the lack of evidence might be a motivator for the assertion, but the term itself doesn't aim to explain why God does not exist. It doesn't attempt to show and prove. That's on the behalf of the people who proclaim it. I'm not particularly saying atheists must show and prove anything, but it is to say that atheism alone doesn't give grounds for it. You say it and that's it.

I don't think people are dismissing cult ideas. There is a lot of info out there to consider them. I think people are misinformed about what religions teach because of a bias that exists against religion anyway. People are so caught up in the "magic" that people care less what religions truly have to say. And people have been hurt by religion that it doesn't matter what it says as well. We are not willing to put our feelings aside and actually think through what religious texts have to say.

 

[whar]

It just may be a personal preference that you don't want to rule out the possibility of the existence of God, but atheism, philosophically, doesn't allow for a personal preference or any sort of wiggle room for another definition. It out right denies the existence of God. Being a "true" atheist means you don't consider the possibilities or have any doubts.

I know of no atheist that would agree with your statement Alissowack. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are all atheists, and famously so, and all hold that God may well exist, however insufficient evidence exists to justify a belief in one.

It would be equally untrue if I stated one can not be called a theist (believer) is they have doubts or uncertainties about the existence of God.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

It just may be a personal preference that you don't want to rule out the possibility of the existence of God, but atheism, philosophically, doesn't allow for a personal preference or any sort of wiggle room for another definition. It out right denies the existence of God. Being a "true" atheist means you don't consider the possibilities or have any doubts.

Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

I don't see how adding agnostic or gnostic adds or takes away from what atheism really means. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as the denial of the existence of God. The only thing these adjectives do is to allow grounds for people to explain themselves. Atheism alone has no explanation...it just is.

It's kind of like someone saying they are a Christian. There are certain expectations you have that if they are not met, then they are not a Christian. A Christian has to explain their stance and the can't be like...I am an agnostic or gnostic; strong or weak Christian. Either they are or they are not.

That's not fully the case. You have "Christian" sects like the Mormons that others do not consider to be Christian. Christians don't even accept the Catholics even thought they formed one of the first Christian Churches. Then you have orthodox and non practicing. People are Christian by name only because their parents are but they prob never read the bible or go to Church. They just say they believe in the Christian God or was born a Christian in a cultural sense.

I think adding Agnostic takes away from your stance as an atheist which is really, you presented your evidence and i don't believe you, you need more people. When you say you are Agnostic, you give slight credibility to the theory where as, Atheist by default not accepting a stance, don't see the theory fitting into the overall possibility or probability of the universe; this is simply based off of the lack of evidence and the concepts presented. If you consider the concept, then you move towards a possible belief as if there is possibly a Tooth Fairy but hey, we will never know.

The bottom line for me is Humans don't fit into any of the Ideas that are presented as to their Origin coming from God do to their very nature. The very nature of the universe not requiring consciousness or direction also decreases the possibility because we overstate our role in this Universe in terms of our necessity to be in it. If you don't know and the only evidence is quotes and musings from other humans, why put your faith fully into a lacking position? I mean, folks are quick to dismiss the "cult" beliefs and theories of others and they hold the same amount of evidence, None.

When I gave that example, it was to make the exact same point you are making. People would have to meet certain expectations in order to be considered Christian; that there is no middle ground or flexibility when it comes to who is considered Christian. Mormons and Catholics are not considered Christian by some people like you said.

The term atheism isn't based on the lack of evidence. It is simply an assertion that states that God does not exist. Now, the lack of evidence might be a motivator for the assertion, but the term itself doesn't aim to explain why God does not exist. It doesn't attempt to show and prove. That's on the behalf of the people who proclaim it. I'm not particularly saying atheists must show and prove anything, but it is to say that atheism alone doesn't give grounds for it. You say it and that's it.

I don't think people are dismissing cult ideas. There is a lot of info out there to consider them. I think people are misinformed about what religions teach because of a bias that exists against religion anyway. People are so caught up in the "magic" that people care less what religions truly have to say. And people have been hurt by religion that it doesn't matter what it says as well. We are not willing to put our feelings aside and actually think through what religious texts have to say.

It is a stance against an assertion. There isn't an implicit knowledge that there is a God. That is a position learned. And so to make such a statement as an atheist, you must first have a reason to make such a statement. It may be a simple statement to say there is a God, but you would have to define what this God is which usually initiates a descriptive concept of God which is derived from a detailed imagining via pondering. So as an atheist even in making such a statement with no obvious reasoning, you have to implicitly indicate that a position that is presented is fraudulent, and it is the human ability to analyze evidence in real time (or probability) that gives us such conclusions as soon as you finish telling your tall tale.

Is Christianity just that? You claim that it's narrow but it's anything but. It isn't even implicitly and uniformly defined amongst all groups. I can include Jehovah's witness, and 7 day Adventist, or maybe Quakers in the sudo Christian faction, but they would protest. Who is setting the definition though, evangelicals? The church of England? Really, Catholics are the only true Christians being that the other churches are splinter groups. All groups use the bible with supplements even if those supplements are the interpretations of individual ministers.

I appreciate thoroughly what religions are trying to say if that was all they were saying. They seem to speak loudly beyond the original claims derived from their doctrine with clear intent to dismiss and marginalize other undesirables. Religion isn't a necessity to arrive at the philosophical principles of morality. Truthfully, the original doctrine which is itself questioned in it's original authenticity shows fragility when it comes to moral principles that are acceptable across all existing societies which is why we have splinter sects from Judaism to Catholics to Mormonism.

 

[alissowack]

I don't see how adding agnostic or gnostic adds or takes away from what atheism really means. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as the denial of the existence of God. The only thing these adjectives do is to allow grounds for people to explain themselves. Atheism alone has no explanation...it just is.

It's kind of like someone saying they are a Christian. There are certain expectations you have that if they are not met, then they are not a Christian. A Christian has to explain their stance and the can't be like...I am an agnostic or gnostic; strong or weak Christian. Either they are or they are not.

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

^^^ An atheist can take one of two positions. Either to simply disbelieve in the existence god or deny the existence of god.

A convo with two atheists; one weak, one strong, may go something like this:

Q: Do you believe in god?

WA: No.

SA: No.

Q: Why don't you believe in god?

WA: There is no current evidence to support the idea.

SA: All of the evidence says the existence of a god is impossible.

^^^ One atheist disbelieves in god. The other denies the existence of god.

Here is how the OED defines "atheism":

atheism

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve

1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.

Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).

To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.

To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Here is Webster's definition of atheism:

atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief

Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

^^^ This is the same thing I said but maybe seeing it from someone else will help you understand.

So you don't agree with the Stanford Encyclopedia Definition of atheism. You can post other definitions, but you can't deny that this particular definition exist. That definition is what I am basing my argument on.

Those other definitions attempt to put a person in a position to explain themselves...which is alright, but then it wouldn't be atheism if it is based on something outside of the definition. Atheism is then depended on the finding (of lack of finding) of a deity instead of it being self-sustaining regardless.

 

[Bodhi]

I agree with that definition which you have not cited but I agree moreso with the Oxford English and Webster dictionary definitions. I feel like they are more complete definitions.

Here are others:

Dictionary.com definition:

a·the·ist/ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Freedictionary.com definition:

a·the·ist (th-st)

n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Wikipedia definition:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

The wikipedia definition of atheism explains how I feel about the Stanford English Encyclopedia definition. It is narrow and IMO, incomplete.

 

[alissowack]

I agree with that definition which you have not cited but I agree moreso with the Oxford English and Webster dictionary definitions. I feel like they are more complete definitions.

Here are others:

Dictionary.com definition:

a·the·ist/ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Freedictionary.com definition:

a·the·ist (th-st)

n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Wikipedia definition:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

The wikipedia definition of atheism explains how I feel about the Stanford English Encyclopedia definition. It is narrow and IMO, incomplete.

Well, I have...just not in copy and paste form. It's like this. Theism is the assertion that God does exist and atheism is the assertion that God doesn't exist. Now, both assertions in and of themselves don't leave any wiggle room to ask questions. It just is. It is meant to be unbiased or not appeal to personal opinion. It is meant to be narrow for it represents what we believe to be the absolute truth. Both sides would have to say with certainty they know it to be absolutely true, but they can't. However, they can refer to things they believe point in the direction of the truth. Theists have religion and atheists have science.