DEFINING Atheism.

[AlAyeti]

Is it not fair to say that atheism thought of in terms of mathematics is:

0 x 1 = trillions x trillions x trilloins x trillions?

Something from nothing.

The zero, denoting nothing, and the one, being the person who states they are an "Atheist."

Where did the individual believer come from?

[QED]

It seems Atheism is indeed Agnosticism in definition, as it appears, "we really don't know," is quite the common foundation.

When people suggest that, logically speaking, atheists ought to at least convert to agnosticism it annoys me somewhat because it ignores a considerable chunk of the reasoning behind the position: The obvious motives that can be seen for wishing there to be a god.

This forms a large part of my beliefs, because I can see exactly why the concept of god would arise on many different levels. It is an inevitable concept and is at once attractive, comforting and capable of granting vicarious authority to man and state alike. In other words, god needn't exist for all this talk of god to carry on.

Taking this understanding in conjunction with the clearly contingent nature of our existence and the titanic difficulties involved with the notion of a sentient being, with desires for creation that predates everything in the material realm, I suggest that agnosticism is wholly inadequate as a label for my position.

[Curious]

It seems Atheism is indeed Agnosticism in definition, as it appears, "we really don't know," is quite the common foundation.

When people suggest that, logically speaking, atheists ought to at least convert to agnosticism it annoys me somewhat because it ignores a considerable chunk of the reasoning behind the position: The obvious motives that can be seen for wishing there to be a god.

According to the logic of AlAyeti then we should also remain agnostic regarding fairies, unicorns, flying teapots from outerspace etc. As one is unable to prove non-existence then it follows that we would be unable to disbelieve anything imaginary.

[Cathar1950]

bernee51
Why do you keep assuming something 'started'...you are quite happy (I assume) to allow for the fact that nothing started your god
hamilrob
Even if one wants to use "Intelligent Design" to prove that God created the universe, he still has to make an unsupported, ideological leap to characterize that "God" as the God of the bible. The issue always comes down to faith. It never left there. If a Christian is satisfied with faith, then there is no need for any attempt to rationally explain what is known by faith.
Cephus
Certainly there are many concepts of God that are clearly wrong in that they are self-contradictory, inconsistent or just plain ridiculous and there's nothing wrong with saying so. Unfortunately, there are also Christians who insist that those particular concepts of God are the "one true" concept and won't change their minds regardless of the evidence....
Also unfortunate for fundamentalist Christians, one of the most clearly false concepts of God is the "creator of the universe in 6 literal days" idea.

Can I use those quotes in another forum? I think I was trying to say that but you put it so well.

AlAyeti wrote:
Why can't an all powerful God do anything in six days?

Because he didn't and maybe he couldn't.
No one has to swallow the premise that God can do anything even if it is illogical or irrational(nothing wrong with non-rational).

AlAyeti wrote:
... but why do creationist with degrees get denigrated and atheists who don't know AlAyeti wrote:
Note the Christian slight?
what went on, get all of the good collge jobs.

Maybe some of them are incompetent and paranoid?

AlAyeti
Do you believe in "classic" evolution.

As opposed to the other kind of evolution?

[/quote]
Is it not fair to say that an Atheist then, is someone that just doesn't care?
Is it fair to ask what was before God, by those that don't believe in a personal God?
Does Atheism then find a better definition in "I don't care." Since, Atheists will not build an observable or defined strawman.
[/quote]

It is fortunate that no one can follow you reasoning.
I don't know any one that doesn't care unless they are challenged and even they show humor. Your trying to prove Atheism is wrong by screwing with the definitions presenting false and unquestioned premises they answer them. Your you own show.
All this so you can have certainty of God while hoping for an Atheist to give you a sign That your not wrong because your premises, interpetation, belive systems is unacceptable to most reasoning creatures.
This is intellectial dishonesty. Your looking for a fight then you disarm everyone.

[/quote]AlAyeti wrote:
If there is no starter, there is no us.
[/quote]

Well there is an Us. But that doesn't prove a starter or the nature of the starter if agreed upon. If I don't have ice, there is no us makes as much sense.

I tend to think most Atheist are arguing against the traditional western views of God as presented and believed by many superstious Christians
and maybe rightly so. Some are committed to just no God. I admire the commitment. But I don't know enough to go that far or even to belive I am capable to come up with any kind of God that would do the concept justice.
On the other hand I am not going to give away my God or non-God given ability to reason and claim a book is infallabe and inerrant or a human was the God and worship something less. That doesn't even sound Christian or Jewish.
I look at the universe and am in awe. I want our memories to go on for ever because I love them and want everyones to live. So I wish for a heaven and try to make due here. But know one knows what comes, we hardly know what has happened but we keep learning more.
I belive an Atheist can be as moral, loving, kind as any believer and some more so. In the Big three monotheistic religion it seems they are set up to belive they are the only way and everyone else is wrong with a "stone them" attitude. You wonder, Where is the humility?
I don't belive Elijah killed a bunch of kids for laughing at him or Joshua was ordered by God to kill every man woman and child(and animals).
If they did they were creeps. I think the Priests foisted Duetronamy on Josiah. After the return due to Persia, Ezra made them get their act together and get some writing done.
So the wrote rewrote and wrote some more.

[AlAyeti]

Defining Athesim was ended with so much Bible teaching.

I found that interesting.

[Cathar1950]

What if both the Atheists and the Theists are wrong, not just both right,
that wouldn't be funny.
Such that the world reality what ever is not like the Atheist because they just said no and most of it was defending themselves against Theist shoving the bible and their morality down their throat. But the Theist were wrong on every detail because they just didn't get it. Like they weren't even close.
It was just a thought about the unthinkable.