What is an Atheist?

[Lulu2]

Quite simply, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods.

Here some valid reasons atheists think as they do:

1. Biology adequately describes the development of life on the planet without depending on mythical dieties.

2. Astronomy adequately describes the formation of stars/planets/universe/etc without depending on mythical dieties.

3. Geology adequately describes the evolution of the planet, land formations, etc without depending on mythical dieties.

4. Depending on mythical dieties appeals to ignorance, rather than education and scientific pursuit.

5. There is no physical evidence for the existence of mythical dieties nor can they be proven through hypothetical testing. Lack of information in a given subject does not prove the existence of mythical dieties, it merely exists as an unknown.

6. Thousands of mythical dieties have been posited by various societies and are now known to be products of imagination and scientific ignorance.

7. Believing in mythical dieties seems unrealistic when those who posit the dieties begin explaining why and how they exist without proof of physical evidence.

8. As scientific knowledge increases, the role of mythical dieties is pushed further back.

Yeah but LULU, the whole basis of religion is faith, I think. The belief and faith in something.

Seems to me that if we were to apply the same logic to your explanation of what an atheist is, then the belief in science as the answer, is its own religion.

I'm definitely NOT the person to be arguing this, because what little faith I have, is in a very select few people. And all that I know about anything, is that I know very little..

But if someone wants to say science is the correct answer because it is exact, then I would have to ask them this..

How many planets are there in our solar system?

[Lulu2]

Floppy, religion tries to answer the "why" and science merely answers "how." Religion tries to connect human beings with the deity and make us the end-all, be-all or the creatures for which the cosmos was created. Science doesn't even go there.

And the recent flapdoodle about poor little Pluto was merely a definition of terms....Pluto's still there.

[gmc]

a‧the‧ist  /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]

—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

posted by flopstock

Seems to me that if we were to apply the same logic to your explanation of what an atheist is, then the belief in science as the answer, is its own religion.

Science is a tool-methodology not a belief system.

Faith is completely irrational and can't be explained-you either believe in god or you don't.

One of the problems some religious people have is they cannot accept choosing not to believe is a viable option because it calls in to question their own faith hence the frenetic desire of fundamentalists of all faiths to stop and take away anything that might be seen as questioning their belief system. Believe as I do or else.

posted by flopstock

I'm definitely NOT the person to be arguing this, because what little faith I have, is in a very select few people. And all that I know about anything, is that I know very little..

Ditto, but then most people know a great deal less than they think and those who don't like having their views challenged usually are afraid to think about them. Doesn't mean they will change them if challenged might even reinforce them who knows. Even JC questioned his faith.

lulu2

Floppy, religion tries to answer the "why" and science merely answers "how." Religion tries to connect human beings with the deity and make us the end-all, be-all or the creatures for which the cosmos was created. Science doesn't even go there.

Looks like you start from the standpoint that there is a deity in the first place.

How about.

Science is a methodology used by people to try and explain and understand the world around you.

Religon is a series of myths and stories to try and explain and understand understand the world around you.

Religon is seen as a belief system that its followers see as intrinsically true and don't like being questioned. Since the logic of science is indisputable then phrases like

religion tries to answer the "why" and science merely answers "how."

Those who reject evolutionary theory and insist the genesis myth (the how) is true are entitled to their belief even if patently absurd.

As to the why-we don't know why just have faith is not much of an answer IMO.

Atheism is not a religon. You cannot have a belief system about belief in something that does you believe does not exist, that would be absurd.

[Adam Zapple]

Originally Posted by gmc

One of the problems some religious people have is they cannot accept choosing not to believe is a viable option because it calls in to question their own faith hence the frenetic desire of fundamentalists of all faiths to stop and take away anything that might be seen as questioning their belief system. Believe as I do or else.

Sounds a lot like atheism. All the science in the world does not disprove the existance of God; you are making an extrapolation based on faith that He doesn't exist. If atheism is simply the belief that there is no God and can be no God, how intolerant is that. An entire classification has been created that doesn't have any beliefs of its own other than to deny what some others believe. How often have people railed against religion because some believers think their belief is the only one right? Because some believers think their belief is superior to others? Seems atheist are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

[Lulu2]

Not at all, Adam. Atheists don't need to DISPROVE anything. The burden of "proof" (of gods' existences) here is on the theists' shoulders...if that's what they choose to believe.


GMC "Looks like you start from the standpoint that there is a deity in the first place." Nope...didn't mean to give that impression. OBVIOUSLY, there are forces operating within the universe to cause the creation of what we can see. Ascribing a "godship" to it is one approach toward thinking about this...and working to understand the HOW through scientific process is another.

Atheism is certainly not a religion.

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Adam Zapple

Sounds a lot like atheism. All the science in the world does not disprove the existance of God; you are making an extrapolation based on faith that He doesn't exist. If atheism is simply the belief that there is no God and can be no God, how intolerant is that. An entire classification has been created that doesn't have any beliefs of its own other than to deny what some others believe. How often have people railed against religion because some believers think their belief is the only one right? Because some believers think their belief is superior to others? Seems atheist are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

Swop the words round then it applies to the intolerant in general. Atheists can be just as intolerant as religious people.

One of the problems some atheists have is they cannot accept choosing to believe is a viable option because it calls in to question their non belief hence the frenetic desire of fundamentalist atheists to stop and take away anything that might be seen as questioning their belief system by suggesting there might be a god. Believe as I do or else.

Believing in god is irrational, so is not believing in god. neither side can prove the existence or non existence of god. I have little sympathy for atheists that want all religious teaching banned just as I have little sympathy for religious people that dont want science tauught in schools. Let people make up their own minds.

Religious tolerance means you accept other faiths or non faith have equally valid beliefs and don't take steps to ban or stop them being practiced. It's about respecting others free will to choose for themselves. Agree to differ and live in harmony with each other.

Fundamentalists of all types have a difficulty with that basic idea.

If god gave mankind free will to believe or not believe then religions that try to force others to their faith take on themselves a burden that god didn't want them to take. Maybe the greatest challenge god set is to have the ability to accept and value others regardles of colour or creed.

JC told his followers to go out and convert others I don't recall seeing anything about setting fire to those that didn't convert or torturing them for the good of their souls but that is what many christians did in the past in the name of their religon.

I have no issues with someone that believes in God, I have issues with the practices of some religious people. I have no issues with atheiests but I have issues with soome of the practices of some atheists.

People can proselytise as much as they so far as I am concerned just don't try and force your beliefs on others.

If I had to choose I would say I was a skeptical agnostic.

[Casey Morgan]

Bear in mind that I am an Atheist.

Originally Posted by Lulu2

Quite simply, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods.

Here some valid reasons atheists think as they do:

1. Biology adequately describes the development of life on the planet without depending on mythical dieties. I agree that biology makes the concept of a creator unnecessary.

2. Astronomy adequately describes the formation of stars/planets/universe/etc without depending on mythical dieties. Same as above.

3. Geology adequately describes the evolution of the planet, land formations, etc without depending on mythical dieties. Same as above.

4. Depending on mythical dieties appeals to ignorance, rather than education and scientific pursuit. I really hate that one. It's no different than when Christians tell me in effect that I'm too stupid to recognize god around me.

5. There is no physical evidence for the existence of mythical dieties nor can they be proven through hypothetical testing. Lack of information in a given subject does not prove the existence of mythical dieties, it merely exists as an unknown. The first point is moot. The second makes the subject up for debate. I just haven't seen anything that suggests to me that the explanation is the existance of a deity.

6. Thousands of mythical dieties have been posited by various societies and are now known to be products of imagination and scientific ignorance. Oh they are, are they?

7. Believing in mythical dieties seems unrealistic when those who posit the dieties begin explaining why and how they exist without proof of physical evidence. physical evidence isn't required. See #5 above.

8. As scientific knowledge increases, the role of mythical dieties is pushed further back. As scientific knowledge increases, the need for there to be a diety decreases. Different arguement.

I'm largely an Atheist because of Occam's Razor. In order to be consistant, the concept of a deity as put forth by most religions is the more complicated reason.

[zinkyusa]

Science does not adequately explain the origination of the physical universe or describe the prior state and neither does any religion i am aware of..

[bigears]

I'm sure I'd be an agnostic if I could actually summon up the enthusiasm to care