I have no idea how the statement that atheism is simply a disbelief in God would make you wonder that.

The fact that Prax, Splenda, Pletho, etc. seemingly cannot grasp this very simple concept is very telling imo.

I think the confusion is over the word "disbelief." In this forum, my understanding is that atheism has two flavours - soft atheism, held by most here, being the lack of belief in a God or gods - and hard atheism, held by some, being the belief that no God or gods exist. Even worded that way, the distinction is imprecise to me. When you use a word like disbelief, which can connote either the lack of a belief or holding that something is not true, the distinction is even less clear.

Though I'm not sure how either interpretation leads to no possibility of being wrong. That seems to require a Praxising or a Pletho.

"To disbelieve" is a fairly active verb. It's not like "an atheist is one who doesn't believe in God" which kind of leaves the door open to possible belief in future. To make a statement of "disbelief" sounds more like a decision.

Because I don't know just what was meant, and because I suspect it can be different for different people who call themselves atheists, I thought I'd ask.

You seem to believe its clear as you can't understand why I'd wonder, so do you want to go ahead and answer for all the atheists, then?

i speak for all atheists when i say that we do not believe that it is impossible for there to be a god or for our beliefs to be proven wrong. might be confusing for you how we don't just have a blanket view and then decide it can't be wrong, i know.

hard to go wrong.

Here are some definitions:

With the exception of the metal band from Hesse, I think these definitions pretty well hit the mark. I would call myself a soft atheist too. I think there are relatively few atheists who would say they could never be convinced of the supernatural.

I think, Prax, one of the reasons that you got the reaction you did to your post, is because this point of view has been repeated over and over again by the atheists on the board, even as the theists keep on insisting that atheists deny the possibility of a god.

It varies. Some are certain there is no god, other simply don't believe in one without making much of a judgement as to god(s)' existence, some just don't like religion so therefore they don't believe (it isn't as weird as it sounds, think of god more as an abstract term like say..."justice"...and you understand what goes on), some are ignostics and the list continues for a long, long time.

Personally I'm an agnostic atheist so I make no judgement as to the existence of god(s), but I find assuming the existence of God(s) to be fallacious.

Atheism isn't "a thing" in the sense that any religion is. It's just lack of something. It is only defined through the existence, prevalence and importance of that something. If there was no religion to begin with, atheism would in a way cease to exist much like a-greendragoncirclingaroundPluto-ism doesn't really exist in a significant manner unless a noticeable portion of people actually believe that there's a green dragon circling around Pluto, and guide their life by a book dictated by this creature.

However, because religion is right now in terms of impact like the single most ridiculous thing that exists in the society (I mean astrology and alien abductions are even more ridiculous, but they have no impact) , no wonder if a lot of atheists get pissed off and try to make people realise how terribad it is.

Thanks for the discussion all - personally - I believe the that the internet is 'bad' for religion.

My personal opinion is that the "NO" side of most debates is the easy side. In that respect - I believe that Atheism is the easier side to defend in a debate - "prove it."

I also believe that in religion (Christianity being the only one I've personally experienced) - face to face communication; praying together in person etc; etc; etc is a huge factor. Creating a personal relationship with Christ - often through personal relationships with others - is kind of the foundation of it all - it's how it happens -

and the internet being such an impersonal place - a place of anonymity - and a place where many (most?) people behave in a way that they would never consider 'acceptable' in a face to face conversation - all lead me to believe that the internet will damage relationships -

beyond that - in my experience - the internet LOVES a good flaming - and religion is often a nice; safe target

The internet has massively increased my faith due to podcasts.

I listen either the Bible (via podcast) or a sermon (via podcast) every day. I've turned my work commute into a time of spiritual growth.

Without these podcasts, I don't think my spiritual growth would be near as rapid as it has been these last 24 months.

To avoid a full hijack I will say that I agree, except from the atheist/skeptical side.

Now minor hijack: LT: what are you using to plug into your car? I'm starting to look for adapters that I will use primarily for podcasts, not music. Which are you using and would you recommend it?

Yeah, I get that. But I also get that in practice this isn't the case. In posts, many atheists take the stand that God is a figment of our imaginations possible only because of our limited intellectual capacities and anyone who believes in God is "too stupid for science" to quote one atheist hereabouts.

There are no open doors.

Some atheists have unlocked doors, they have the ability to say, "No, I don't believe that, but let me know if you get some new evidence..." Kind of like the way I don't believe in Big Foot. I don't. But I'm not going to say something might not exist or at one time didn't that could fit the general idea. Or even the exact idea, I suppose.

I'm also not going to go around attacking anyone's belief in such and trying to change their mind.

Atheists differ. And I'll keep asking when I don't understand an individual's POV. And if folks choose to take offense at that - it's not in my control to change.

This is how I was perceiving it, also. Thanks.

There are all these forums where people of similar beliefs come together and share faith, and they do it from different countries and maybe do it more effectively without any "faces" or ages or anything else to interfere but just what they see in print. There also used to be a chatroom on AOL where we'd all come and say a Rosary together every day. I know fit sounds odd, I thought it was when I heard about it, but it was really powerful.

Maybe the Internet will cause there to be fewer "religions." But it may also be a gateway for support of an increase in faith. And it also can be a venue for folks who might never encounter one another in the faith discussion to at least unite in dialogue - like here.

That's a good thing.




(BTW, People in this forum pray together every day. We pray for us all. The times might be different, but in Eternity, Time is irrelevant, anyway.)

LOL... I just use my headphones. According to my Gen Y employees, that makes me a total loser. LOL.

T

Well if you are then I am too. But I don't feel particularly safe driving with a a headphone in one ear. Thanks anyway!

Grunching

I would guess that the impact is extremely minimal. The internet allows people who share ideas and hobbies to unite moreso than encourage debate. It spreads bad ideas and good ideas indiscriminately. Think it basically confirms whatever a person is seeking to believe and gives them a place to discuss their views with a sympathetic audience. All of this is speculation but seems right to me