Can an atheist define exactly what it means(to/for them)to be atheist?

Comments

• So it's inactive rather than active, It's not something you spend your day thinking about.

  • Report
  

  by noletters on March 22nd, 2007

• Not really. I mean after all, what is the athiest belief? That religions and God is a false concept. It doesn't affect my day really, because it doesn;t influence much except my poinion on religious matters. My morals which are there regardless of my religious beliefs is what effects me most

  • Report
  

  by anonymous on March 22nd, 2007

• So you're really only an atheist around people who aren't. That makes sense. The only atheist i've met we're people who were scorned by their religions. As you could imagine they were pretty bitter. I thought I would ask other athiest what it means to them rather than make assumptions.

  • Report
  

  by noletters on March 22nd, 2007

• Very wise, I am glad you did. As there is no shared belief between athiest, the term really only means we believe none of the above. It is a shame that a person should be scorned by religion to make them the way they are. I was a tad... but I came to the decision myself and do not feel bitter towards any religion. I just can't believe it.

  • Report
  

  by anonymous on March 22nd, 2007

• Woops, dp

  • Report
  

  by anonymous on March 22nd, 2007

• The atheists that you met noletters sound as if they are not atheists but people who have 'rejected' God! There is a subtle difference. If someone had faith but hates their religion then they haven't lost faith (belief), they merely hate.

  • Report
  

  by Farino on July 5th, 2007

• If you realize that your religion does not warrant faith, and you see that your religion does more harm than good to humanity, then you might hate the religion and also be a true atheist.

  • Report
  

  by genesyz on May 28th, 2009

• I agree with you genesyz. Still there are some who are in the sad position where they try to reconcile hating Someone they don't believe in.

  • Report
  

  by Factotum on May 28th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• http://www.secular.org
  http://www.the-brights.net
  I invite you to check these two links out if you have not already.
  I normally say "no gods", and I don't capitalize the word gods.

  • Report
  

  by mrrw on May 27th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Wordy but wise.

  • Report
  

  by mrrw on May 27th, 2009

• absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence HAHAHAHA.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 30th, 2009

• That is true, but, there is so much evidence to the contrary.

  • Report
  

  by mrrw on August 30th, 2009

• we dont know everything. until we do everyone should be some sort of religion. ya kno, as a back up plan. just in case after you do die your not totally effed. thats how i look at it. you can be athiest and thats fine, but you have no proof, and we have no proof. looks like theres not much to argue about

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 30th, 2009

• Pascal's wager:
  If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
  
  Here is an interesting site for you:
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html
  
  Which is more amoral? Honest disbelief or false piety?

  • Report
  

  by mrrw on August 31st, 2009

• are you a religious person?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 31st, 2009

• I'm more like Christopher Hitchens, an anti-theist.

  • Report
  

  by mrrw on September 1st, 2009

• whats that

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 1st, 2009

• Someone who believes that religion is a waste of time and resources. They take your money but you get nothing in return except beautiful buildings and some not so beautiful. These are filled will gold and jewels and other wealth that could go to the poor. Very limited amounts of their funds go to help people unless you consider converting them so they can give money is helping them.
  The largest scam in the world. We would be better off without any religion.

  • Report
  

  by mrrw on September 1st, 2009

• aye. as much as i want to say somethign about what you just said, i'm just going to let you do your own thing. no good comes in fighting. peace

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 1st, 2009

• I didn't think we were fighting. I'm just stating my beliefs. And I'm willing to listen to you.

  • Report
  

  by mrrw on September 2nd, 2009

• yea i know. but these things tend to get out of hand really fast. i study religion, i am a catholic spiritually, but i also follow islamic teachings. i'm not one who converts people, but rather focuses on the actual word of the bible and koran. i don't teach you my god, but i do teach you their teachings.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 2nd, 2009

• Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It's just not absolute.
  
  If something is absent from a particular piece of space, then it means that there is nothing that indicates that the thing is not in the particular piece of space. Contradictory evidence adds to this as well (i.e. something else entirely being at the particular piece of space).
  
  Why don't reasonable adults believe in Santa? Because they have never seen evidence for it. The additional evidence of their parents placing the presents is, at the same time, contradictory evidence AND evidence for that alternative explanation. Also, myriads of North Pole documentaries attest to the ABSENCE of toy factories in the vicinity.

  • Report
  

  by Jiggy Kaiser on September 7th, 2009

• wow. your the only one who doesn't get that term. and you come back at me with a long paragraph full of pretty words. lemme explain it to you - just cause you dont have evidence of something doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist. they use to think the earth was flat, but they had no evidence. try not to think about that too hard now. unsubscribed.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 7th, 2009

• Erm, if you don't have anything indicating the presence of X then that indicates the absence of X. I qualified it with the "not absolute" because absence doesn't necessarily preclude existence and therefore the absence could be for some other reason or it could be an illusion.
  
  Absence =/= existence OR non existence, so, apparently, you're the one who doesn't get it. And, of course, running away from a discussion just compounds the fail.

  • Report
  

  by Jiggy Kaiser on September 29th, 2009

Comments

• The question is not asking why but what!

  • Report
  

  by Farino on July 5th, 2007

• What is the difference between "what it means" and "why it means it"? To me, it's obvious. I refuse to fall prey to logical fallacies and faith-based thinking that pervades theistic thinking. That's what it means: a refusal to accept illusion in order to be comfortable even if you're wrong. There is inherent existential anxiety is being an atheist, there's no doubt about that, but the acceptance of life's inherent purposelessness means you become conscious of your creative abilities.

  • Report
  

  by kellygorski on July 5th, 2007

• "What it means" leaves it open to give a definition AND an explanation of significance. Good answer.

  • Report
  

  by genesyz on May 28th, 2009

Comments

• It is not a hypothesis that they are floating at us, it's a claim. Without any evidence.

  • Report
  

  by mrrw on May 27th, 2009

• It is a proposed explanation, so in that sense, it could be considered a hypothesis, though certainly not an objective one, since it is not open to possible refutation, because of the no evidence thing. Hmm.

  • Report
  

  by genesyz on May 28th, 2009

• I've always thought that was what a hypothesis was. A guess you play with before getting evidence. Does it become not a hypothesis when there is no intention of trying to disprove it?

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 29th, 2009

• I know kids are often taught in school that a hypothesis is an "educated guess" about what is going to happen. That is definitely wrong, and should be called a prediction. Hypotheses are proposed explanations. Both predictions and hypotheses can be tested by experimentation. A well designed experiment should attempt to disprove the hypothesis, so if the hypothesis is not open to the possibility of being shown to be wrong, then there is not way to design a good experiment to test it. In which case it is not objective. I don't know if you can call it a hypothesis if it is not objective. I guess you could, but it wouldn't be useful in the scientific method.

  • Report
  

  by genesyz on May 29th, 2009

• This from Wikipedia:
  A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις [iˈpoθesis]) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.
  The difference is when they say "observable" and "reasoned".
  There is nothing observable or reasoned with their claim.

  • Report
  

  by mrrw on May 30th, 2009

• Agreed.

  • Report
  

  by genesyz on May 30th, 2009

• Well put. Thanks!

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 31st, 2009

Comments

Comments

• :) Some of us just go one god further in our atheism than most believers.

  • Report
  

  by genesyz on May 28th, 2009

• Yup. Equal opportunity.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on May 29th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• Incorrect, atheism is the disbelief. It's like whether you like someone, don't like them or dislike them. the first means you get along with them, the second means that you are indifferent (you neither like nor dislike) and the last means that you hate them.

  • Report
  

  by Farino on July 5th, 2007

• next time you want to pretend you know what you are talking about, make research before hand.
  
  Here is a link to a dictionary who gives the difinition of atheist: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=atheist

  • Report
  

  by sweetfrench on July 5th, 2007

• What does "make research" mean?
  
  Farino is correct. A-theism means a lacking belief in anything theistic. However, there are many atheists who physically manifest such indifference differently.

  • Report
  

  by kellygorski on July 5th, 2007

• Make a research ... look for a info. Look at my definition, look at the dictionary (same thing) he says I'm incorect ... Atheism is simply they do not beileive in the existance of a God or a supreme beign or a religion (theism). It's not indeference. their is no in betweens ... atheism is denying the existence of a supreme beign a God... how can their be levels in that... if they are it's agnostic.

  • Report
  

  by sweetfrench on July 5th, 2007

• So, because you don't believe in Zeus, do you have faith he doesn't exist?

  • Report
  

  by kellygorski on July 7th, 2007

• kellygorski: Good answer. I don't believe in Thor either.

  • Report
  

  by Yarnlady is happy every day on May 26th, 2009

• How can anyone say he is incorrect when he qualified his answer with "I"? Some of these comments have the mean/condescending tone of that lady from "The Weakest Link". I would not blame him if he physically manifested his disdain using sign language directed at the screen. :)

  • Report
  

  by genesyz on May 28th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Well said!

  • Report
  

  by MrJosh on May 31st, 2009

Comments