Quote:


I'd love to give it a go David… thanks.

I completely disagree of course. At its most fundamental Atheism is the antonym of Theism. So where Theism is 'with belief', Atheism is 'without belief'. Linking Atheism with Science, which is notorious for claiming… We hold this theory to be persuasive unless something better, born of peer reviewed study, comes along., weakens the meaning of Atheism as something akin to, but not exactly like, Agnosticism. I don't subscribe to weak Atheism… Theism for me just doesn't make sense and no amount of persuasive science… which may be arguing a more evidence based, theistic theory can change that. My brand of Atheism, then, is not premised on knowledge of the day. The definition at question, however, is definitely trapped within contemporary known knowns.

Ignoring the matter of gods, which could be described as being of the natural world, and focusing exclusively now on the supernatural which is also mentioned, the definition is fatally flawed due to the absurdity of its assumption, being that; the sciences which study the natural world, exclusively, have something evidence based to say about the supernatural world. And of course, the sciences have nothing to say about the supernatural. The sciences care naught for the supernatural. The supernatural is beyond the scope of natural sciences. No surprises then that the natural sciences have no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence to support the supernatural… they are not seeking it!

On the matter of god/s, the definition of atheism as presented by this forum beg the questions… What is the nature of god/s for which science can find no credible scientific and factually reliable, evidence based support? And who on Earth is doing the research? Why has Atheism become entangled with defining the essence of god? And if Atheism is working off known definitions, which are many and varied, why must they in the first place acknowledge such definitions in order to question the existence of such god/s? Atheism does not believe so there is no room for 'iff' statements. (iff = if and only if)


I am an Atheist. I do not believe in any theistic system because they do not make sense... to me. My position requires no credible scientific and factually reliable evidence based support. My position makes no claims about god/s and their nature nor the methodology required of natural sciences to disprove the supernatural. My position does not seek to question theism, nor denigrate it. Let theists believe what they want and let me choose to not believe. :cool:

 In Eastern religions, the position that god is internal (intrinsic within each human being and a property of their humanity) is commonplace.

Grey

Quote:


I think they [atheist forum australia] may have been the original inspiration for my atheism is a religion argument. They were more dogmatic than any religious forum I have seen, even more so than the fishing forums. I have decided to dedicate my 'ten commandments of atheism' to their honour. I only have 3 so far, but I'm sure a few more will come up.

The 10 commandments of atheism:

1) Thou shalt stick to the message. Atheism is disbelief. This makes perfect sense and needs no clarification. Beware linguistic trickery and questions asked with forked tongue.

2) Thou shalt have no theology but atheology. Beware false prophets who proclaim that God does not exist, enemies who proclaim that God does exist, and agnostics who proclaim neither. Disproclaim them all!

3) Dismember them too, for they ask annoying questions. Post their personal information, but close your forum from public view, for they are all-seeing.

4) ?

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 7:04am:

An immanent 'god' (as opposed to a transcendent one) does not necessarily preclude the proposition that this 'god' is supernatural.

The definition does not distinguish atheism and agnosticism in any way

Even trying to define atheism is a stretch, when the theism that it is being applied against is so loose as to include belief in collective thinking that drives forces like the stockmarket.

Atheism is a responsive attitude that people take to position themselves, and their understanding of the world, and their personal beliefs defined by that understanding.

Because I can conceive of god propositions that are plausible, many people of religious persuasion will then seek to categorise me as Agnostic, while I very strongly identify as Atheist, and I do so because the Theistic beliefs that I absolutely do not believe, are well known, and well defined, and my disbelief in their intellectual validity is absolute.

As I have said before to any religious people, I do not believe in any god, which they do, which is to say, if they believe it is a god, I do not believe it is a god.

So my atheism is firmly correlated to the disbelief that their is any intellectual validity to the religious ideas of theists, as exampled by what they say and do, it is a reactionary position, and if I never had to deal with the consequences of behaviour inspired by, or demanded of people, because of their belief in an interventionist god, I would have no position on the matter, I would not care.

While god may not exist, the consequences of the actions of those who claim it does, certainly do, and so I need to voice my separation from their beliefs.

longweekend58 wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:33pm:


Didn't they do that in the name of 'Communism' ? I don't think that the mob of Christians  who skinned Hypatia alive then dragged her through the streets of Alexandria behind a chariot, did so in the name of Christianity either.  

The common factor is power. Power corrupts.