What exactly is atheism?

You're just confusing the issue. Atheism is non- belief in God, you have just added the for whatever reason.
Neither atheist or theist can prove they are right. To do that they must step outside their designation.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

greenberg,

That's like saying, 'to know how to drive a car, I must know exactly what a car is. The truth is you don't.

This is the ...for whatever reason part of my definition. They are simply, atheists, looking to defeat the theist.

It works the same way for atheists as well.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R,

They don't James, there's nothing to struggle with as it is a simple case of an atheist is a person who does not believe in God for whatever reason.
How can anyone struggle with that?

The atheist is the one who struggles. They struggle to stay in a discussion by adding that the theist has no understanding of atheism.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We are in agreement as my definition is; one who does not believe in God for what ever reason
All the other stuff, we are; rational, logical, more intelligent, have a sense of humour, and many more descriptions bestowed on atheists, mainly be atheists. Is the for whatever reason part of my definition.

jan.

 

Myles,

If you can find a society which believes the tooth fairy is an actually real phenomenon, and have at their desposal, ancient scriptures, precisicion built places of worship, exquisite art, music , philosophy, etc.. and whatever exquisitness is devoted to God.
Get back to me and we shall resume. Otherwise you're just wasting my time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes..."for whatever reason".

jan.

 

The Christiam scroptures are of unknown provenance, they contradict each other in places, not to mention those of Muslims . Hindus and others. Of course they are all true.Then we must consider Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

I said to you recently that you cannot reason and I'm telling you again. not that I thnk it will make a scrap of differece.

The existence of temples, scriptures , priests and all the other baggage that goes with religion proves nothing other than a lot of people believe in god. It offers no proof whatever that god exists. Remember when everyone believed the world was flat ?

Bye

 

How is it possible to prove whether God exists or not, by scriptoral accounts?
You accuse me of not being able to reason properly, yet you constantly ask for physical evidence for the existence of God. What is the reason for such a request, based on scriptoral religion?
In light of the fact that all scriptoral religions give their account of God being the original, spiritual cause to our perceptions, it is futile to attempt to seek God outside of our own selves as a rule, to make the decision as to whether we should believe in his existence. No scriptures endorse this, so what are you actually talking about when refer to religion, or scripture?

You and I come into conflict simply because I bypass the idea that God is a physical being. And as far as scriptoral religion goes, I am right. You on the other hand cannot function in the correct parameters of such a religion, to make your point, and as such, have to alter the information in such a way in order facilitate your line reasoning.

The truth of the matter is, you don't believe in God, period, but have taken it upon yourself to show that God doesn't exist, by whatever means you deem necessary. Your line of reasoning is actually irrelevant, and being exposed of this is distateful to you.

jan.

 

You are confused, Jan. An atheist doesn't accept your claims for gods, angels and everything else you might say about your religion. Atheists ARE NOT making any claims, hence they have nothing to demonstrate that they are right, they simply do not accept your claims.

How much simpler can that be, Jan?

 

So. An atheist doesn't believe in God because......
Let's go with, there is no evidence to suggest that there is such a being.
That is a claim. You are claiming that if there was such a being, then it would be detected by scientific means.

jan.

 

What about the devil? What about angels? Why have you chosen to leave these out? Religion is not just about gods, Jan.

Responding with the fact that there is no evidence to back up your claims isn't making a claim. It is a response to a claim, Jan.

And, in fact, atheists ALWAYS ask for evidence to claims of theists. By asking for evidence in no way is the same as making a claim, Jan.

 

(Q),

People can believe in angels, fairies, ghosts, and all manner of supernatural beings and not believe in God. Theism is a belief in God.

Claiming that God can only be detected via scientific evidence is a claim.

jan.

 

If God has any interaction with the physical world at all, which religions claim he does, it could be detectable through scientific means. I wouldn't say it must already have been detected, since it might be detected one day, but so far it hasn't.

 

I claim that scientific evidence is the only claim I can trust, and even that is provisional. People may claim to detect God in other ways, but such claims are historically much less reliable than scientific ones.

 

Just tell me why you introduced the topic of scriptures in the first pllace ! Are you now agreeing that it is irrelevant ?

You won't learn, will you ? I have not taken it upon myself to show god doesn't exist; you are putting words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the notion that there is a god. Where have I said that god is a physical being ? And which scriptures do you favour becaus a lot of them are inconflict.

Are you serious about Satan and angels ? The year is 2008 !


If you must distort things, may I suggest you visit a few Creationist sites, where you will be welcomed with open arms

 

spidergoat,

And I claim that there is more to understanding life, and, ourselves, than what can be observed through science, irregardless of trust.

If something is true, it is true whether anyone knows it or not, the trick is, how do get to know what is true.
Does a tree make a sound when it falls, if no one is there to hear it?
No amount of scientific observation can answer such a simple question, unless it involves us hearing the phenomena, or not.
Whether we regard claims as more or less reliable, is irrelevant to actual truth.

jan.

 

You introduced the topic of scriptures when you said;

Unless of course you actually meant "scroptures", then I apologies.

I have come to the conclusion that you are incapable of conducting a reasonable discussion regarding this subject.

jan.

 

Anything may indeed be true, all our science may be wrong, but I think it's history of reliability as a method of finding things out exceeds that of religion. One may simply feel that something is true, and that's fine, but to proclaim it as universal, to convince rational people, requires something more.

 

Can I take that the question in your op is rhetorical as you have just answered it. Pity you didn't do so earlier !

 

I did give a definition as to what i think atheism is, maybe you missed that part. Here it is again;

non-belief in God, for whatever reason.

 

Yet again you are twisting things. You asked about the tooth fairy ans scriptures etc. Look back and yoi will see.

There is really nothing to discuss. Bye. Give my regards to the angels. thrones. dominions and the choirs cherubim and seraphim.