Atheism: what is it?

[Archaea]

For me, the crux of the matter of the disbeliever versus the believer is the disbeliever defines the world in terms of what it is not, whereas the believer defines the world in terms of what it is.

Critical faculties are fine, but if that's all you have, you have nothing but "nots".

It seems atheism is a stark scalpel, with no hope for future.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

For me, the crux of the matter of the disbeliever versus the believer is the disbeliever defines the world in terms of what it is not, whereas the believer defines the world in terms of what it is.

I think you have that completely backwards. The disbeliever sees the world for what it is, whereas the believer sees it for what he wishes it were. The believer wants there to be a Santa Claus. He wants Cinderella to hook up with the Prince. He wants God to come to the rescue. He sees the world as it is and isn't satisfied, so he creates a happy ending.

[SoCalCoug]

So, are we having a problem here with the definition of "is"?

I guess it does all depend on what your definition of "is" is.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I think you have that completely backwards. The disbeliever sees the world for what it is, whereas the believer sees it for what he wishes it were. The believer wants there to be a Santa Claus. He wants Cinderella to hook up with the Prince. He wants God to come to the rescue. He sees the world as it is and isn't satisfied, so he creates a happy ending.

I think both are believers, just believers who choose to believe in two completely different realities.

Atheists choose to believe that there is no God. Of course, there is no rational scientific explanation for much of anything. Where did the universe come from? How is it possible that it has always existed (and it must have always existed if matter can neither be created nor destroyed). There is no possible answer for those questions, but atheists choose to believe that science will someday find an answer.

Non-atheists choose to believe in a higher power (which in many ways is more rational since it actually offers a simpler answer than what scientists can offer, ironically invoking Occam's Razor).

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think both are believers, just believers who choose to believe in two completely different realities.

Atheists choose to believe that there is no God. Of course, there is no rational scientific explanation for much of anything. Where did the universe come from? How is it possible that it has always existed (and it must have always existed if matter can neither be created nor destroyed). There is no possible answer for those questions, but atheists choose to believe that science will someday find an answer.

Non-atheists choose to believe in a higher power (which in many ways is more rational since it actually offers a simpler answer than what scientists can offer, ironically invoking Occam's Razor).

I've always maintained that they both have the same problem. Neither group really has an answer for where it all started. The believer can't answer where God came from other than he just always existed. The non-believer can't answer how the universe started either. The answer is that it just always existed.

It's interesting you bring up Occam's razor. Some people are able to come up with what appears to me to be preposterous explanations for why certain things in religion don't make sense. To me, the easiest explanation makes the most sense. Not that the easiest answer is always the correct one. It just makes the most sense until further information brought to light. I find it interesting the Occam's razor could be used on both sides of the argument.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think both are believers, just believers who choose to believe in two completely different realities.

Atheists choose to believe that there is no God. Of course, there is no rational scientific explanation for much of anything. Where did the universe come from? How is it possible that it has always existed (and it must have always existed if matter can neither be created nor destroyed). There is no possible answer for those questions, but atheists choose to believe that science will someday find an answer.

Non-atheists choose to believe in a higher power (which in many ways is more rational since it actually offers a simpler answer than what scientists can offer, ironically invoking Occam's Razor).

This post evinces a classic religious person's misperception of what is atheism. Really a religious person's self-delusion about what is atheism because what they want to do is categorize atheism as religion by a different name. It's not religion by a different name. It is qualitatively different.

Atheists are in the tradition of materialists like Democrates, Epicurus, and Lucretious. They simply don't believe what they can't sense. It's that simple. It is absense of faith. Nothing more. Atheists don't "believe" science will find an answer to anything. On the contrary, thoughtful atheists are imbued with scientific ethos which by its very nature does not presume anything. It is about constantly searching for truth and never reaching an end point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Now here is my personal gloss. As I've stated before, the only difference between atheists and agnostics is nomenclature--what label they choose for themselves. They "believe" the same thing.

Also, traditionally, when most people have talked about atheism, what they mean is non-belief in the Judeo-Christian God. This is plain from Sam Harris' and Richard Dawkins' writings. Harris calls himself an atheist and then extolls the virtues of Budhism. I read an interview in which Dawkins, Europe's premier popular science writer and paleontologist, admitted he didn't know what happened or exhisted before the Big Bang. He doesn't know and he has no belief that science will discover anything about it. He just doesn't know, and absent evidence he won't profess a belief or expectation or pretend to know about it. Dawkins simply rejects the Judeo-Christian God, and is unyielding in his reliance on reason and empiricism in his search for truth.

Religious people shouldn't project their own paradigm on atheists. They're completely different.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It is absense of faith.

No, it isn't. Agnosticism is an absence of faith. Atheism is faith in absence.

We've been over the definitions of the words-- we shouldn't have to go over that again. A person who has no knowledge of the existence of God, who hasn't seen God and doesn't recognize anything that amounts to His fingerprints is an agnostic by definition. The moment he steps beyond the evidence provided and construes that there IS no God, he is an atheist.

I can respect an agnostic or an atheist just as well as any other person who follows what they in all sincerity believe to be true. When any person persists in pushing his beliefs on people who have no interest in hearing it, whether they be agnostic, atheist, or Mormon, they've crossed the line, as far as I'm concerned.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

No, it isn't. Agnosticism is an absence of faith. Atheism is faith in absence.

Hey, don't get him started.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

No, it isn't. Agnosticism is an absence of faith. Atheism is faith in absence.

No, you're most emphatically wrong. Atheists have no "faith" in anything. The very idea is antagonistic to what they stand for. Again, this is what religious people typically think about atheists, projecting their own paradigm, but it's not accurate. Combining the words "atheist" and "faith" in the same sentence is ludicrous. At most what they believe does not exist is a personal god, as in the Judeo-Christian tradition. To that extent they do deny the existence of God. But again, they reject a personal God because it requires faith; reason or empiricism doesn't support a personal god. As nonsequitor said, it's Santa Clausish. Agnostics don't want to be called atheists for understandable reasons given the social stigma but it's basically the same thing. But an atheist will agree with you that no one can know what came before the universe began.

[SeattleUte]

Chris Hitchins or Richard Dawkins would reject any claim that their assertions are founded on "faith" in any shape or form. That's the very thing they despise. They do not claim to be making any leap.