I forgot, seeing you made me blow my mind ... again. :sigh:

 

Well, as has been pointed out there were more than a few people who were unhappy with some of the decisions made...

 

Well it is not just academics and scientists who are atheists, people are atheists for many reasons. Such as they may feel violated by the church or let down by their religion and have lost their faith, some may simply have been brought up in a family without religion. There are many reasons why people are atheists and all are legitimate, you don't have to pass a science exam to become one.

My personal views are of a naturalistic stand point, with no divine intervension governing the cosmos, or having any kind of contact with our universe. One could say there is room for a god outside these boundries, a god that created fundamental forces and now hes letting this universe run its course. But that view doesn't bring anything to the table, it replaces an unknown with another unknown, it is a pointless addition. The only universe that matters to me is this one, relativity and quantum mechanics govern the nature of this universe. I believe in searching for answers using the scientific method, these answers are measurable, and bring forth new technologies, driving the human race forward.

 

People have a really hard time grasping that atheism is the absence of faith, not faith in the absence of a god. It's not the same thing.

I don't have faith that there is no god. It is simply that there is not enough evidence for me to believe there is one.

Worth noting is that someone who has lost their faith, or someone who is not religious, is not necessarily an atheist. They may still believe in the supernatural, which would make them agnostic.

 

Surely that makes you agnostic. Atheism is indeed "faith in the absence of God" and because there is no evidence either way I am an agnostic. But then the God I think there might be isnt an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is either benevolent or malignant. In that sense I am an atheist. I have faith that there is no such God. I am agnostic about the creation of everything. Not to say I'm a creationist in any way shape or form.

 

No. You aren't getting it, that's not how science works. In science you observe something then form a theory about it then try to prove your theory (ultimately searching for the truth). I have never observed anything to give me any reason to make a theory about god.

I don't have faith that snoopy isn't an all mighty being in control of my fate. There is just no evidence to support that he is.

Its not faith, its' observation. There is no evidence to support god, or the easter bunny, or ghosts, or big foot. I don't have faith that these things are not real. I have no reason to think that they are anything but imagination in the first place.

I am not a non-believer, there is simply nothing to believe.

 

It is not a belief system, there is nothing to believe.

 

Well said.

 

When someone hears a voice in their head, and then does what it says...isn't that schizophrenia?

 

ARGH! I give up, I can't keep reading this because popular opinion is both wrong and frustrating.

 

What I find most peculiar is that the religious camp (and even some atheists are tricked into it) can only see the "other side" as having a belief in nothing... like your curiousity would die if you don't believe in some sort of God.

On contrary - if you don't accept a very suspicious religious explanation, it only makes you more curious and want to really KNOW what's it all about. I understand atheists as the searching party, not the ones who believe in nothing...
It is an interesting stance, not the boring one.. It is like with some hardcore carnivores asking vegetarians - "but what will you eat?" They simply can't imagine a meal without meat. That only shows their lack of imagination, not ours...

We don't have lack of faith - we have a broader sense of faith - accepting all possible credible outcomes, not just the one narrow and predetermined...

An atheist-parade would chant slogans like: "We demand the freedom to explore, the freedom to doubt and question, the freedom to change opinion, the freedom to learn and expand the knowledge without interfering of dogmas, we demand freedom from any kind of psycho-socio-political influence of religious institutions on our life, we demand FREEDOM for our alleged souls!

 

faith and credible outcomes are mutually exclusive. If you have faith you would never search for the reason why. If you have a credible outcome, you would not need faith as evidence would be provided.

 

I have faith that there is something to explore... I have faith that there are possible credible outcomes, I have faith that we still need to explore...

I argue that it is not true that atheists believe in "nothing" as this "nothing" would be an "entity" substituting "God".

We (if I as a humble agnostic can count myself among the atheists) EXPLORE this "Nothing", not believe in it... if we do believe in it - they are right - we would be sort of "religously atheistic"...

That's what I mean.

 

All I can say is..."thank god Im an atheist"

 

Jason, I know exactly how science works having 'majored' in History and Philosophy of Science. I wasn't talking about scientific method, I was talking about semantics. It's not me who isn't getting it. Atheism is a belief system whether you like it or not.

On the hypothesis side of things, just because YOU don't have evidence, the man in the church will say to you, but look at this leaf on this tree, THAT is evidence. Therefore, it is a theory. Fortunately, it isnt the case that theories are only allowed if YOU have the evidence.

 

I never suggested that atheist believe in nothing. Quite the opposite. I have said that there is nothing to believe in.

All the things you say you have faith in, you actually don't. You know those things, because existing evidence suggests it. You are making reasonable conclusions based on existing evidence.

 

Well then your school sucks, or you weren't listening in class.
In order to "believe" in something, you have to accept that something is real without evidence. I don't. I do ont believe there is no god, anymore than I believe there is no zeus.. There simply isn't. Otherwise there would be a new religion that we would all be art of called Azeusism.


OK let me try something new. My approach to this is scientific. So if all of a sudden I found proof of god. Something I could repeat in front of others and that others could repeat given the same tools, then I would agree that god exists. but it still wouldn't be belief or faith. It would be acceptance of the evidence. Which is not even close to the same thing. If you think it is then you just don't get it.

 

No, those are Nihilists.

"We believe in nossing, Lebowski, nossing."

P.S. Carry on, j42ason....some of us do get it. Whenever I hear this particular debate, I get the feeling that religious people are always looking for ways to drag atheists down to their level or irrationality.

 

Yeah but I get sucked in so easily. I love talking about it, but I still wish that just one person who was on the fence, could have the light turn on, so that they could actually see the difference.
I often think that it is because English is not my first language, that I lack the ability to properly convey the message. but then, I have never tried to do this in Italian, 'cause every Italian I know would just yell at me for saying that I don't believe in god. (note that they would not believe it, they would just think I was trying to get attention)

 

You totally miss my point but maybe it is me not explaining myself correctly. I understand about scientific method, observed phenomena, fair tests, repeatable cause and effect etc etc. But let me repeat for you, that is NOT what I was arguing about. I was arguing about semantics.

And from what you write, I would suggest that it is probably your school that "sucked". To believe in something, you dont have to accept it as real without evidence. I believe the sun is made of hydrogen and helium and nuclear reactions take part in it. There IS evidence for that. I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. There IS evidence for that. I could go on and on, like you do, but I don't think it's necessary.

Also you write that "I do ont (sic) believe there is no God." Surely a man of your education would see that means you do believe there is a God. Typo or no typo it's a double negative. Maybe you should calm down a bit, read what people write and then discuss it like an adult instead of getting all het up and attacking your keyboard before your brain and second rate education clicks into gear.