What is your perception of atheism

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

What do you think it means to be an atheist?

What do you think of atheists in general?

all

[suzukihime]

What do you think it means to be an atheist?

Since I have no clue, and I believe there can be thousands of answers to this question based on each person's general idea of what they themselves(atheists) believe is atheism, I refrain from answering this question...

What do you think of atheists in general?

That all depends on who we are talking about. I have met very personable people who later told me they were atheists, and then again I have met some rather rude people who declared their atheism loudly to everyone who would listen... IMHO there is no reason for rudeness no matter what your spiritual beliefs (or lack of) are. So, in general, and not being very specific, I would have to say that my opinion of atheists is benign.

[Acumen]

I typically don't think of atheists that much.  I don't run into many of them.

[Acumen]

My honest perception of atheists, or first impression if you will, is they are rebels looking for some attention.  I don't think any atheist has a solid rational position for their beliefs, whereas I believe the theist's ground of belief is relatively solid. 

[metis]

My honest perception of atheists, or first impression if you will, is they are rebels looking for some attention.  I don't think any atheist has a solid rational position for their beliefs, whereas I believe the theist's ground of belief is relatively solid. 

Such as...?

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Hey, I'm just trying to keep this board going because our token atheist poster is on some sort of vacation.

[metis]

Hey, I'm just trying to keep this board going because our token atheist poster is on some sort of vacation.

OK.

But you can still try and answer the question, no? 

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Alright, I'm here.  Token atheist reporting for duty. 

I've been getting caught up on my paperwork etc. 

I was going for controversy with this thread to drum up some interest, and you guys are just to agreeable.  I've still got to write a little article thingy for the front page as well.  My initial idea is proving to research intensive. 

Anyway.  I think Acumen might have provided me with what I was looking for. 

My honest perception of atheists, or first impression if you will, is they are rebels looking for some attention.

I am interested in how you developed that impression.  Would you care to expound?

I don't think any atheist has a solid rational position for their beliefs, whereas I believe the theist's ground of belief is relatively solid.

What beliefs do you think an atheist has that are not on a solid position?  How do you think a theist ground is more solid?

all

[sobeit9]

Simone sums up my appreciation of the atheist:

An atheist may be simply one whose faith and love are concentrated on the impersonal aspects of God. ...Simone Weil

Since our normal secular life are expressions of the impersonal aspects of God, the atheist is quite correct in their conclusions.

Their danger IMO is in becoming a skeptic and adopting an emotional denying attitude that prevents the emotional impartiality that often allows a person to come to see in a new way or experience what the Bible refers to as metanoia or the change of inner direction and the opening to a new quality of awareness.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

I don't think we need to be so traditional on how we approach this topic or any topic on our new board.  I suggest that "All" give us his testimony and his rational behind his atheism and those things which continue to perpetuate his feelings towards theism.

That is if he is willing to let us into his personal space.  I am sure that many interesting discussions will result.

Ok,  I can do that. 

Atheism to me is not the specific denial of any supernaturally asserted thing, but instead the non-acceptance of them.  I will admit that I will fight force with force, so in regards to some assertions of supernatural things that I have been thrust into the middle of, I have developed reasons why I do not think that they are the way believes say they are. 

Atheism is simply the lack of theism.  I do not follow a theology because I have not seen a reason why I should follow a theology. 

I guess that's what I was getting at with Acumens assertion that the atheist position is less logical than the theists position.  I don't see how following something that I don't think is valid is more logical than not following it because I don't see it as valid.

all

[Acumen]

Hey All,  good to see you again!

Ok,  I can do that.

Atheism to me is not the specific denial of any supernaturally asserted thing, but instead the non-acceptance of them. 

There is no conceptual difference between the non-acceptance of theism and the denial of theism.

I guess that's what I was getting at with Acumens assertion that the atheist position is less logical than the theists position.  I don't see how following something that I don't think is valid is more logical than not following it because I don't see it as valid.

The problem with atheism, as I've come to understand the notion, is that it fails to explain the why or how we are here.  In other words, the explanatory power of theism makes it a more credible belief.  Of course, this is tied to the meaning of life, and therefore to the morality of man.  I believe that theism offers a better package explanation for the human experience.

-Acumen

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Hey All,  good to see you again!

Good to be back. 

Atheism to me is not the specific denial of any supernaturally asserted thing, but instead the non-acceptance of them. 

There is no conceptual difference between the non-acceptance of theism and the denial of theism.

Yes, but that is not what I said.  There is a difference between denial of the potential of supernatural concepts and the non-acceptance of means of worship of those concepts. 

Since a negative position cannot be proven, a person can say that there is a possibility, however slim, that supernatural creatures of various genders, descriptions, and temperaments, could in fact exist without substantiating or believing in any concept or submitting to worship of them. 

I guess that's what I was getting at with Acumens assertion that the atheist position is less logical than the theists position.  I don't see how following something that I don't think is valid is more logical than not following it because I don't see it as valid.

The problem with atheism, as I've come to understand the notion, is that it fails to explain the why or how we are here.  In other words, the explanatory power of theism makes it a more credible belief.  Of course, this is tied to the meaning of life, and therefore to the morality of man.  I believe that theism offers a better package explanation for the human experience.

Atheism makes no attempt to explain why we are here.  What you are saying is analogous to saying that the problem with horses as a mode of transportation is that they don't make any attempt to fly. 

I should remind you as well, that explanations are not always answers.

all

-Acumen

[Acumen]

All,

Since a negative position cannot be proven, a person can say that there is a possibility, however slim, that supernatural creatures of various genders, descriptions, and temperaments, could in fact exist without substantiating or believing in any concept or submitting to worship of them.

Yes, I've heard this before, but it's simply not true.  Negatives can be proven; it happens all the time.  All one needs to do is show a logical contradiction between the nature of God and the nature of reality.  For instance, the classical argument given that an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God wouldn't allow suffering because an all-powerful God has the power to eliminate suffering and an all-good God would want to end suffering, and since suffering exists, therefore an all powerful and all knowing God must not exist. 

I'm not saying this is the best of arguments, but I'm sure you get the gist of how to prove a negative.

Acumen:  The problem with atheism, as I've come to understand the notion, is that it fails to explain the why or how we are here.  In other words, the explanatory power of theism makes it a more credible belief.  Of course, this is tied to the meaning of life, and therefore to the morality of man.  I believe that theism offers a better package explanation for the human experience.

All:  Atheism makes no attempt to explain why we are here.  What you are saying is analogous to saying that the problem with horses as a mode of transportation is that they don't make any attempt to fly.

An understanding of truth provides an account of what is, and that is why theism is so appealing.  Atheism doesn't attempt to answer the question because like the horse that cannot fly, it doesn't have the capability.  So, it's not a matter of not doing, but rather not capable of doing.

I should remind you as well, that explanations are not always answers.

Right.

-Acumen

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All,

Since a negative position cannot be proven, a person can say that there is a possibility, however slim, that supernatural creatures of various genders, descriptions, and temperaments, could in fact exist without substantiating or believing in any concept or submitting to worship of them.

Yes, I've heard this before, but it's simply not true.  Negatives can be proven; it happens all the time.  All one needs to do is show a logical contradiction between the nature of God and the nature of reality.  For instance, the classical argument given that an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God wouldn't allow suffering because an all-powerful God has the power to eliminate suffering and an all-good God would want to end suffering, and since suffering exists, therefore an all powerful and all knowing God must not exist. 

Yes, the riddle of Epicurus.  That is not proof of a negative though, that is an argument against the assertion of a triple omni deity.  There are more potential variants of belief out there than ones described as triple omni.  The deity described by deism is much more difficult to refute.  There are ways to solve the riddle of Epicurus, but as I enjoy theists try to come up with them, I'm not going to spoil my own fun. 

I'm not saying this is the best of arguments, but I'm sure you get the gist of how to prove a negative.

In order to actually prove a negative, that negative would actually have to offer evidence of it's non-existence.  Since things that do not exist simply do not offer evidence that they do not exist, a negative cannot be proven, but can be argued. 

As Asimov said:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
-- Isaac Asimov, in "Free Inquiry", Spring 1982, vol.2 no.2, p. 9

An understanding of truth provides an account of what is, and that is why theism is so appealing.  Atheism doesn't attempt to answer the question because like the horse that cannot fly, it doesn't have the capability.  So, it's not a matter of not doing, but rather not capable of doing.

I agree that atheism does not have the capability of doing.  We have no argument there.  I just take it one step further and say that theism also is not capable of doing, but unfortunately that does not stop them from asserting their attempts as the way it is.  They are the horse that swears they can fly, but offer no evidence that they can.  Since they are still a horse, it can be dismissed  unless shown otherwise.

all

[Acumen]

All,

Yes, the riddle of Epicurus.  That is not proof of a negative though, that is an argument against the assertion of a triple omni deity.

Call it what you want, it's still a proof of a negative.

There are more potential variants of belief out there than ones described as triple omni.  The deity described by deism is much more difficult to refute.  There are ways to solve the riddle of Epicurus, but as I enjoy theists try to come up with them, I'm not going to spoil my own fun.

It's really not difficult, they taught us in philosophy of religion 101.

In order to actually prove a negative, that negative would actually have to offer evidence of it's non-existence.  Since things that do not exist simply do not offer evidence that they do not exist, a negative cannot be proven, but can be argued.

Why do you require the non-existent thing to provide evidence?  The concepts ascribed to a negative can logically contradict each other without requiring the actual existence of the negative.

Acumen:  An understanding of truth provides an account of what is, and that is why theism is so appealing.  Atheism doesn't attempt to answer the question because like the horse that cannot fly, it doesn't have the capability.  So, it's not a matter of not doing, but rather not capable of doing.

All:  I agree that atheism does not have the capability of doing.  We have no argument there.  I just take it one step further and say that theism also is not capable of doing, but unfortunately that does not stop them from asserting their attempts as the way it is.  They are the horse that swears they can fly, but offer no evidence that they can.  Since they are still a horse, it can be dismissed  unless shown otherwise.

I don't know, theism offers some fairly impressive arguments including cosmological and teleological viewpoints.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Call it what you want, it's still a proof of a negative.

I think the disconnect that we are experiencing here is the result of a miscommunication.  Something can be "a proof" as in a formal statement of logic showing that if one thing is true then something else necessarily follows from it, and still not be "proof" defined as factual evidence that helps to establish something as correct. 

There are more potential variants of belief out there than ones described as triple omni.  The deity described by deism is much more difficult to refute.  There are ways to solve the riddle of Epicurus, but as I enjoy theists try to come up with them, I'm not going to spoil my own fun.

It's really not difficult, they taught us in philosophy of religion 101.

Well, don't spoil it either.  I like watching the uneducated ones who don't even have a grasp of it themselves and think they can. 

Why do you require the non-existent thing to provide evidence?  The concepts ascribed to a negative can logically contradict each other without requiring the actual existence of the negative.

I hope I explained that.

I don't know, theism offers some fairly impressive arguments including cosmological and teleological viewpoints.

I disagree.  They all seem to be reaching for straws.

all

[Acumen]

I disagree.  They all seem to be reaching for straws.

You're right, many of the proposed arguments grasp for straws, hence the nature of philosophy and its various arguments.  The teleological argument, which I thought was formidable, took major hit with the advent of evolutionary theory inculcated in the minds of the public via Darwin and others.  Biological machines that have intricate design can now be explained through natural selection and gene mutation, and it takes the wind out of the sails of teleologists.  However, I don't think the argument is over.  There is still design out there (natural law, environmental processes) not efficiently explained by the theory of evolution, and when coupled with cosmological arguments, they become harder to refute.   

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

I disagree.  They all seem to be reaching for straws.

You're right, many of the proposed arguments grasp for straws, hence the nature of philosophy and its various arguments.  The teleological argument, which I thought was formidable, took major hit with the advent of evolutionary theory inculcated in the minds of the public via Darwin and others.  Biological machines that have intricate design can now be explained through natural selection and gene mutation, and it takes the wind out of the sails of teleologists.  However, I don't think the argument is over.  There is still design out there (natural law, environmental processes) not efficiently explained by the theory of evolution, and when coupled with cosmological arguments, they become harder to refute.   

The argument will never be over, but the arguments to me don't have any weight.  The coupling of the cosmological arguments with the assertions of design in the things you refer to seem a scrambling for a god of the gaps that can be shown to be logical. 

all

[Acumen]

All,

The argument will never be over, but the arguments to me don't have any weight.  The coupling of the cosmological arguments with the assertions of design in the things you refer to seem a scrambling for a god of the gaps that can be shown to be logical.

Are you saying that the "God of the gaps" explanations are illogical?  And if so, then why?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All,

The argument will never be over, but the arguments to me don't have any weight.  The coupling of the cosmological arguments with the assertions of design in the things you refer to seem a scrambling for a god of the gaps that can be shown to be logical.

Are you saying that the "God of the gaps" explanations are illogical?  And if so, then why?

No.  I am saying that there is a scrambling to find the remaining gaps of unanswered questions so there can be a place found to say that that is what god does/is.  The arguments themselves can be logical, given that there isn't real knowledge about the gap.  It's the continued scrableing and redefining that for me makes the arguments lose their weight. 

all