Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

They both mean the same thing. If one disbelieves in God, then one believes there is no God. Therefore atheism is a belief.

Right. What's your source? Because I've provided a different source with different information.

I think Jac's definition was far more thorough and correct and this is how Christians define the word as per it's classical definition.

Atheism: a belief that there are no God(s).

Lunalle wrote:

RickD wrote:Atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

They both mean the same thing. If one disbelieves in God, then one believes there is no God. Therefore atheism is a belief.

Right. What's your source? Because I've provided a different source with different information.

Just found it by a simple google search here:
http://m.dictionary.com/definition/atheism

Okay, well I guess it is the credibility of Houghton Mifflin Company vs. Oxford University Press then. Honestly, I think we've beaten this horse far past death by this point.

Lunalle wrote:Okay, well I guess it is the credibility of Houghton Mifflin Company vs. Oxford University Press then. Honestly, I think we've beaten this horse far past death by this point.

I guess it comes down to, your in our house and the majority use the classical definition, so in our definition of the word atheism it is a positive belief that there are no God(s) requiring a burden of proof equal to the theist or anyone else making a positive claim. Since you are not an atheist as defined by our definition, you have no burden of proof until you choose an argument that has a presupposition built in that precludes supernatural expanation.

I went with "maybe" because there are a number of different types of atheism, split roughly between the types which explicitly reject deities and the types which implicitly lack a belief in deities.

Etymologically speaking I'm an agnostic atheist. A-theist because I lack an explicit belief, a-gnostic because I believe the answer to the question of whether deities exist is unanswerable in objective terms, at least with today's knowledge.

Label-wise I call myself an agnostic if people ask, because in common usage that word means someone who lacks a belief even though it is possible to be both agnostic and a theist.

neo-x wrote:So guys, is atheism a belief or a position or both or neither?

What is your opinion? please care to cite reasons for what you believe the case to be.

I believe there are many different ways various people define Atheism. Personally I don't even think atheism should even be a word! Nobody should be defined by what they don't believe. If you don't believe in Santa Clause, Lock Ness monster, or Marvin the Martian; nobody cares! But if you don't believe in God all of a sudden everybody wants to give you a name.

I usually refer to myself as a skeptic because the term Atheism was origionally a pejorative coined by religious people to discribe those who do not believe as they do. Christians who were thrown to the lions were called atheists while they were being slaughtered.

If you define atheism as "believing God does not exist"I wonder how you would define a person like myself who may admit what you call God might exist, but I do not call it God? Because there is no being that I would call God, I am refered to as an Atheist.

We would call you weak agnostic, maybe?

I would just say non-believer, or maybe just human like the rest of us.

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:So guys, is atheism a belief or a position or both or neither?

What is your opinion? please care to cite reasons for what you believe the case to be.

If you define atheism as "believing God does not exist"I wonder how you would define a person like myself who may admit what you call God might exist, but I do not call it God? Because there is no being that I would call God, I am refered to as an Atheist.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Calling someone something does not change the thing in question. If god is, then you may call him cotton candy, won't chnage anything. But the word atheist, exists, and for the right reasons I don't think its an insult to be called one. I don't feel too bad when I am called a theist (or a deluded person at times).

1over137 wrote:We would call you weak agnostic, maybe?

Agnostic is defined as the belief that it is impossible to know if God does or does not exist. I believe that is a flawed term as well! The person who coined the term Agnostic made the mistake of assuming when you speak of God you are talking about the Christian God. I believe that is a flawed position to take.

Make no mistake, when I said what you call God may exist” my point is unless you describe what you call God, how can I say it doesn’t exist? Some of the ancient Japanese worshipped a Sun God; there are those who worship nature! I believe in the bible there were some who worshipped a golden calf, I even heard one guy say he worshipped his money (he was probably kidding though) could a golden statute exist? Does nature exist? Does the Sun exist? Does money exist? Of course! So it would be foolish for me to make the claim (as an agnostic) that is impossible to know whether or not what these people call God exists. That’s why before I make a judgment on the existence of your God; you would have to describe him to me.

No I am not any kind of agnostic.

Ken

On weak agnosticism

"If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.

Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic, they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality themselves."

1over137 wrote:On weak agnosticism

"If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.

Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic, they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality themselves."

Does Gold exist? Does Nature? or the Sun? How can anybody be a weak or strong agnostic when you have people worshipping things as God that we KNOW exist?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:On weak agnosticism

"If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.

Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic, they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality themselves."

Does Gold exist? Does Nature? or the Sun? How can anybody be a weak or strong agnostic when you have people worshipping things as God that we KNOW exist?

Ken

In monotheism, the concept of agnosticism is quite abundant, kenny.

neo-x wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:On weak agnosticism

"If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.

Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic, they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality themselves."

Does Gold exist? Does Nature? or the Sun? How can anybody be a weak or strong agnostic when you have people worshipping things as God that we KNOW exist?

Ken

In monotheism, the concept of agnosticism is quite abundant, kenny.

I know it is. I just believe it is abundant out of ignorance. My point is, people can worship what-ever they want! That's why I asked; does the Sun exist? Does Nature exist? Suppose someone only worshipped a Golden Calf as God; wouldn't it be foolish to be agnostic when you are looking right at the statute?

Besides, Atheism and Theism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a completely different question.