I am literally exhausted having to define what atheism is over and over again in this forum. There should be a sticky. I'm not quite sure why it's so hard to understand. In fact, I'm not even sure it is a misunderstanding at all. It's possible that theists chant these misconceptions over and over hoping the label will eventually stick and strengthen whatever point it is that they're trying to make. It never does, and I think it just leads to more animosity between theists and atheists.

This will probably be the last thread I participate in for awhile. Summer's coming and I've set some personal goals that do not include the time I spend on message boards. I'll stick around long enough to provide responses if anyone has questions about anything I've said here. I've gotta hand it to Gunth. The guy really tired me out the last few days to the point of exasperation. I need a rest anyway. So here is MY outline of what an atheist is:

If you're a theist and feel you're position is being misrepresented by atheists, I'd welcome your clarification. But here is what a 'rational' atheist is and is not.

1. Atheism is a belief.

First let's get this 'atheism is a belief' out of the way. Any belief should have an inherent degree of certainty attached to it. We all have to put a degree of certainty on our beliefs. For example: I am 99% certain that I wasn't adopted.

Atheism is just a very low degree of certainty that there's a god somewhere out there. No rational atheist will ever claim to 'know' there is no god. The best we can say is that it is extremely unlikely. So unlikely, that if you ask me if I think there is a god, I will say no. Does that mean I believe there is no god? Yes, but it's misleading to think of it that way. It's more correct to say, I do not believe there IS a god. This distinction is lost on many theists here.

It truly amazes me that even theists like Jib don't understand the comparison to leprechauns fairies. He genuinely states, "I don't see why you bring up leprechauns". Why is it so hard to understand that god to an atheist, is the fictional equivalent of a leprechaun to him? Is it because he cannot step out from his own belief and objectively see things from another point of view? I honestly don't get it.

2. Atheism is a choice.

We don't 'choose' atheism over theism. This is another seemingly simple concept that Jib doesn't understand. I'm picking on Jib, because he is a mod now and mods should at least know a little bit about the different views on the subject(s) they are modding.

If I felt the chance for there being a god was right around 50/50 and was forced to render an opinion, you could say I was 'choosing' a side. But if that were the case, I wouldn't be an atheist. Being an atheist means I assess the odds for a god as being so low, that I do NOT have a choice as to what my opinion on the matter of god's existence is! So please. Let's stop saying atheism is a choice. It is not.

3. Atheism claims there is no god.

Atheism is a response to a claim. Or you could say it is the rejection of a claim. But if we make any claim at all, it is the claim that there is insufficient evidence to support your claim that there is an invisible god somewhere.

In summary, atheism is a lack of belief. It is not a choice. And it is the rejection of a claim. You guys who insist on calling it a staunch belief, a choice, or as making a claim, are flat out wrong, no matter how many times you repeat this mantra. We are simply saying, 'We don't think there is enough evidence to buy into your belief in a god. If you want to make the claim that a god exists, the burden of proof is on you, not us. Until then, we reject the idea and the notion of a personal god". And if you want to get into religion and the idea that not only is there a god, but it is YOUR version of god, well… We're probably going to think that's even more unlikely.

Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is distinguished from theism,[4] which in its most general form is belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.

^^ wiki


atheism: the believe that there is not God.- webster

scientism- 1methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist. an exaggerated trust in scientific and especially materialistic methods.- webster

This is a misrepresentation of my claims. It is not that I don't understand how you can relegate God to the level of the tooth fairy, it is that you move the goal posts depending on the conversation. Look at the most recent postings about the subject. If you want to claim that your level of belief is the same as that of the tooth fairy then it should be fair for me to say that you are essentially affirming that the universe is inexplicable and that everything around us was produced by natural unguided processes, etc. You cannot when pressed fall back on "well I am not affirming anything". IMO, this is the most used trick that many atheists on this forum employ so they do not ever have to be on the defensive. You do make positive claims about reality when you claim God is as equally probable as the tooth fairy, so be a man and back them up. That is all that I ask.

Once again, this is wrong. It is not that I don't "understand" it is that I don't agree. I know what you think about the subject and how you would like to be characterized, I just think that it is wrong and that you do not have solid ground to back up your claims.

Also, you never answered my post from the other thread, "does a YEC choose to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or is it out of his control"

P.S. I want add that very often I add a disclaimer when talking about atheists that some people not fall under the category that I am making the post about. I am not going to pretend that you represent all atheists (nor would I think you would want me to)

I'll happily accept those descriptions. Much more succinct than the way I put it. The question is, do YOU accept the above quoted definitions of what atheism is? Actually, I don't recall you ever getting it wrong. You just disagree with it, which is fine. But so many theists do get it wrong that it really gets frustrating at times.

I don't believe in god, I don't believe in the tooth fairy. All theists believe in god, very few theists believe in the tooth fairy. This makes the tooth fairy a fine example to explain the natures of my beliefs regarding the topic of god(s). That they find this insulting and think there is an argument to be had that this comparison is not analogous, equivalent or fair is not really a big concern to me. Also I don't derive much from my lack of belief in the tooth fairy, and on the same tangent I don't derive much from my lack of belief in god.

Having no belief in the tooth fairy does not make me a materialist. Having no belief in god does not make me a materialist.

Having no belief in the tooth fairy does not make me a nihilist. Having no belief in god does not make me a nihilist.

Having no belief in the tooth fairy does not make me irrational. Having no belief in god does not make me irrational.

Having no belief in the tooth fairy does not make me immoral or amoral. Having no belief in god does not make me immoral or amoral.

Having no belief in the tooth fairy does not make me believe in science. Having no belief in god does not make me believe in science.

I'm glad that my last few days here for a while have been spent getting a better understanding of where (some) theists are coming from.

So if I do not believe there is a god, then I must affirm a naturally guided process. I cannot then say, I'm not affirming anything. Fair enough! That actually makes 100% perfect sense to me. But will you allow me to state 'I don't know' when it comes to what exactly that natural process is, or how it is guided? As long as I don't claim it's a god?

We're kinda getting into agnosticism here. I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I do not claim knowledge. For all I know, there IS a god! I certainly don't think it's impossible. Just very, very, improbable. Again, I make no claims even when it comes to god except to say it's improbable given the evidence to date.

Once again, this is wrong. It is not that I don't "understand" it is that I don't agree. [/quote]

Fair enough again. Just so long as you believe me when I say, I am not consciously choosing whether or not believe.

What claims? That believing in god is not my choice?

I would say that if he's educated, then he is willfully choosing to ignore evidence in order to justify his belief. Unfortunately, this is an all too common practice among many religious people. If he's ignorant of science, then I suppose it might not be a choice. He is using what evidence he thinks he has to ascertain his degree of certainty. It's WRONG, but neither is it his choice.

No, I wouldn't.

That's pretty dumb. You don't have to affirm a natural process just because you believe in god.

"I don't believe in god, because the universe is a result of magic"

This works just fine. Case closed.

Yep. I know plenty of atheists that don't believe in just natural processes or a purely scientific explanation. The majority of my fairly large sample actually.

It is this quote from Hopey i disagreed with

What do you call people who think the probability that there is a personal god is between five and twenty percent?

Anal.

Brilliant laugh-out-loud jokes aside you probably call them "people who think the probability that there is a personal god is between five and twenty percent".

It's a start.

I call them "the majority of college graduates from Harvard, Yale, Stanford or MIT."

Overly dependent on their 5 senses.

And most likely given to certain personality approachs or temperaments.

Calling this a trick is unfair. I think what you miss is the goalposts do change for some of us but in a fair way. The tooth fairy, the Mayans Gods and Yahweh are unlikely enough for me that you might as will call me a a strong 100% atheist. But the idea of a guided process by a creator God with unknown attributes for the creation of the universe is different and more of 50/50 unknown weak atheist kind of thing, i just don't know. My atheism varies depending on Gods description. Thats not a trick its just what i believe.

I don't think 25% is enough to remain ambivalent. So I'd still refer to such a person as being an atheist.

However, putting the chance for the Christian god at 25% is probably enough to start taking some precautions. While I wouldn't marry my gf so we didn't live in sin, I don't think I'd deny the holy spirit either.

While I wouldn't marry my gf so we didn't live in sin, I don't think I'd deny the holy spirit either.

That is denying the holy spirit.

You specifically said personal god. I highly doubt you'll find too many graduates from these schools who put the odds anywhere near 25%. That's way too high given evaluation of real world evidence. Understand I'm only referring to those who have actually thought about it before arriving at how certain they were. Just because someone's smart, doesn't mean they've seriously thought every subject through.

So if we poll them we'd have 51+% at 5 -25%?
Some % at 0 - 0.1%
Some % at 0.1 - 5%
Some % at 25-30%
Some % at 30 - 40%
some % at 40 - 50%
Some % at 50 -70%
Some % at 70 - 90%
Some % at 90 - 95%
Some % at 95 - 99.9%
Some % at 99.9 - 100%

All those total less than 49%? I can't find any studies to see if you're right. I'd actually be disappointed if all the college grads have been polled and cited their beliefs in your version of god in any meaningful version of %.

I just want to know if they are atheists. The silly comments that you and luckyme made regarding people who use probability to sharpen their thinking show that you two are actually in the same category whether either of you realize it.

How do you arrive at those numbers?

If they aren't theistic, IE they don't live their life in accordance to a holy book or religion, then by definition they are atheistic.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...theism-704129/

Theos, the root word for "theism" means god. Theism literally means "belief in a god."

Now, the prefix "a" means "without" or "not"

So "atheism" literally means "without belief in a god" or "no belief in a god"

Atheism does not imply materialism, naturalism, moral relativism, or anything other than that, for some reason, the person does not hold belief in a god. That is the only sure thing you can mean when you use this word.

Anyone identifying themselves as an agnostic who doesn't hold a positive belief in the existence of god is not theistic, and they are therefore atheistic.

Agnosticism is an atheistic position, by virtue of the fact that it isn't a theistic position.

LOOOOOL