Atheism: What's the point?

[Ifreann]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

You really think that any kind of god is stupid enough to let you into any kind of heaven just because you're using the right religion as insurance?

[Treznor]

I have heard of Baha'i, I just question what your post has to do with this discussion.

People were posting things about Christianity so I just felt like saying that.

Ah, okay. So, care to explain why you believe in the Baha'i tradition of gods?

[Tmutarakhan]

I believe that God is real, you believe there is no God. If I am wrong and you are right then what differance does it make?

All the difference in the world: since you are wasting your one and only precious life, you are losing EVERYTHING.

[Treznor]

I believe that God is real, you believe there is no God. If I am wrong and you are right then what differance does it make?

All the difference in the world: since you are wasting your one and only precious life, you are losing EVERYTHING.

They also help to justify the foundation of other irrational beliefs, like the folks who piloted plans into the World Trade Center. Just because they're different religions doesn't mean they don't have an awful lot in common.

[Dyakovo]

I believe that God is real, you believe there is no God. If I am wrong and you are right then what differance does it make?

All the difference in the world: since you are wasting your one and only precious life, you are losing EVERYTHING.

They also help to justify the foundation of other irrational beliefs, like the folks who piloted plans into the World Trade Center. Just because they're different religions doesn't mean they don't have an awful lot in common.

Like worshiping the same god...

[Canuck Utopia]

The Explicit Atheist actively believes there is no god. It's a statement of faith, if you analyse it - he is saying "I believe... there is no god".

To a lot of people who don't have that kind of certainty, that act of 'faith' is incomprehensible. I, personally, can't quite see how someneone gets from "the evidence doesn't convince me" to "therefore, it MUST be wrong, wrong, wrong!" And that's what Explicit Atheism looks like to me.

The Implicit Atheist doesn't have an active belief - what he has is a LACK of belief. Do you believe there are gods? No. Do you believe there are NO gods? No.

One is a faith in the absence of gods - the other is a lack of faith in their existence. The two things are similar (hence, both are 'atheism'), but profoundly different outlooks.

Therefore:

Explicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods

Implicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods at the present time, but might entertain the possibility if presented compelling evidence

At one time, there was just atheists. Now there is a split based on different beliefs.

I can see now why some atheists don't buy into the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. The true definition of atheism is being watered down by those who haven't quite made up their mind or are in transition.

[Treznor]

Therefore:

Explicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods

Implicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods at the present time, but might entertain the possibility if presented compelling evidence

At one time, there was just atheists. Now there is a split based on different beliefs.

I can see now why some atheists don't buy into the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. The true definition of atheism is being watered down by those who haven't quite made up their mind or are in transition.

I like that. "The true definition of atheism." I see some coloring of religion in that statement. Shall we turn it around a bit?

"The true definition of theism is being watered down by those who refuse to believe in the correct religion, or are in transition."

We don't believe in gods. It doesn't matter if we believe that gods do not exist or that we simply lack belief in gods. We don't buy into theistic claims of gods, which makes us atheist. As I've said before (and you've avoided commenting on), atheism is a statement about belief. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. The two descriptions are not mutually exclusive, which is why another name for "implicit atheists" is "agnostic athiests," just as there are "agnostic deists."

[The Tofu Islands]

Therefore:

Explicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods

Implicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods at the present time, but might entertain the possibility if presented compelling evidence

Seriously, you're wrong. GnI explained what they both are in the post you quoted.

Explicit Atheism = believe in a lack of gods.

Implicit Atheism = lack of belief in gods.

At one time, there was just atheists. Now there is a split based on different beliefs.

I can see now why some atheists don't buy into the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. The true definition of atheism is being watered down by those who haven't quite made up their mind or are in transition.

What "true definition"? The lack of belief in theism? Oh wait. That apparently doesn't count.

Why do you claim that implicit atheists are "in transition"? It's perfectly possible to have thought things out and decided that there isn't evidence enough to prove the existence of any gods, but not decide that gods definitely don't exist . No "transition" involved.

[Dyakovo]

Therefore:

Explicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods

Implicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods at the present time, but might entertain the possibility if presented compelling evidence

At one time, there was just atheists. Now there is a split based on different beliefs.

I can see now why some atheists don't buy into the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. The true definition of atheism is being watered down by those who haven't quite made up their mind or are in transition.

I like that. "The true definition of atheism." I see some coloring of religion in that statement. Shall we turn it around a bit?

"The true definition of theism is being watered down by those who refuse to believe in the correct religion, or are in transition."

We don't believe in gods. It doesn't matter if we believe that gods do not exist or that we simply lack belief in gods. We don't buy into theistic claims of gods, which makes us atheist. As I've said before (and you've avoided commenting on), atheism is a statement about belief. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. The two descriptions are not mutually exclusive, which is why another name for "implicit atheists" is "agnostic athiests," just as there are "agnostic theists."

Indeed there is at least one right here on NSG (900)

[New Brittonia]

I have heard of Baha'i, I just question what your post has to do with this discussion.

People were posting things about Christianity so I just felt like saying that.

Ah, okay. So, care to explain why you believe in the Baha'i tradition of gods?

Well actually there is one God and the belief is that there one god and all the main religions - Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and other ones that I haven't listed - all come from the same God. Each faith came from its messengers at a different time, to serve a purpose of uniting people towards god. Every religion contains the same sacred truth however there are social teachings applied to different religions because of local cultures and problems for different times.

[Treznor]

People were posting things about Christianity so I just felt like saying that.

Ah, okay. So, care to explain why you believe in the Baha'i tradition of gods?

Well actually there is one God and the belief is that there one god and all the main religions - Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and other ones that I haven't listed - all come from the same God. Each faith came from its messengers at a different time, to serve a purpose of uniting people towards god. Every religion contains the same sacred truth however there are social teachings applied to different religions because of local cultures and problems for different times.

Very ecumenical. So, why do you believe it?

[New Brittonia]

Honestly, I just feel that there is a God and I've never could bear the idea that someone who was born in Bermuda could die because they were Christian and God happens to be what Al-Qaeda believes this entire time.

And it's not like I'm really losing anything here, honestly. I mean I don't feel like I'm wasting my life.

[Treznor]

Honestly, I just feel that there is a God and I've never could bear the idea that someone who was born in Bermuda could die because they were Christian and God happens to be what Al-Qaeda believes this entire time.

And it's not like I'm really losing anything here, honestly. I mean I don't feel like I'm wasting my life.

I have no problem with feelings when we have the self-control to keep them to ourselves. The problem is we've got an awful lot of people in the world who not only feel that there's a god, but they also claim to know that their god wants them to impose theocratic rule upon everyone, and those who reject such rule should be punished. So far as I've seen, they're in every single nation around the world, and they've been stirring up a lot of trouble lately. Plus, they claim kinship with you because you also believe in a god, even if your beliefs about that god are heretical to them. It won't spare you from their wrath, but it does provide them with some measure of validation.

So, what's your god doing about that little quirk in his system?

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes I am very willing to put my trust in my beliefs in spite of your math. Can you say the same?

If you are willing to put your trust in your belief despite the math... then why bother with Pascal's Wager in the first place?

Pascal has nothing to do with this except that God loves him too

I'm guessing that whoever preached it to you, didn't tell you what it was, then.

"Pascal's Wager" is the model you suggested, where the atheist loses all in both scenarios, but the believer wins when it is proved that 'god' exists.

It's also notoriously broken, because it is only even vaguely useful if you start from the assumption that there are only two options.

[Grave_n_idle]

Um... could you please be more specific? I mean, I could ask what's the point of religion as well.

Well with atheism when you die you are gone, that is it, and there is nothing after.

With religion you have something to look forward to afterward.

Look at Pascal's wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_W ... ion_theory

Doh.

[Grave_n_idle]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

Doh.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is what people think you mean when you call yourself "anarchist". I am not saying you should live up to that, but that if you deliberately choose to call yourself by a name that causes people to think this about you, then you should not be surprised at the reactions you get; you should expect to have to explain yourself over and over again: you're the one who cause the communications problem.

I don't mind explaining myself again and again.

You, for some reason, think that the simple fact that I have to - makes me wrong.

I've explained myself, in this thread. I've explained myself in posts you have seen. Why am I having to explain myself to YOU again and again? Why are YOU not accepting the technical usage of 'Implicit Atheism'?

No, that is not what most people would think the word meant. There is a small group of pedants in the poli-sci field who use "democratic" for a system of direct governance without representative intermediaries, but that technical usage has never gained any traction in the public at large.

Rubbish. That's why the US is called a Republic.

You are evidently too young to remember the original floppy disks, which did have such a consistency. It is only after the common understanding of the term shifted, so that "floppy disk" came to suggest "any small storage medium", that the rigid squares came to be commonly called floppies; if the rigid squares had been introduced first, of course they would never have been named "floppy" disks.

I well remember the original floppy disks. They were maybe a little bendy, but they were hardly actually 'floppy'. Indeed, the only 'disks' I ever saw that really fitted the name 'floppy', were called flexi-disks.

WTF?????? I cannot imagine anyone having any such expectations on hearing those words.

You don't know what the words revolution or independence mean?

Ah - no, I understand - you mean you know what they mean because of the CONTEXT.

No. It won't. If you keep describing yourself in a way that is bound to be misunderstood, then you will continue to be misunderstood. A few hundred posts from now, somebody will join this thread and, without reading all the discussion you have read before, will take your words at their normal meaning and start the whole thing again; this failure to communicate is what you have chosen.

A hundred posts from now, someone will join this thread and be confused by the term 'Implicit Atheism'. Yes.

Somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 NSG posts ago, I realised that people didn't understand my position with reference to 'god'. I researched the subject, and found out that a lot of other people were in the same situation as me, and that there is a whole 'jargon' to deal with this issue.

Now, dozens of people on NSG use the already-existant philosophical terminology, and call themselves Implicit Atheists, because this termonology is gradually making it's way from esoterica into the mainstream.

I don't see Canuck "crusading" against anything. He is simply defending his right to talk the way that just about the entire population of English speakers talk.

Go back and re-read Canuck's posts. That would be my suggestion. He seems to be arguing that Implicit Atheism is somehow a delusion, and that Implicit Atheists are actually agnostic and/or Atheists of the old school (what WE would call Explicit) lying to themselves.

[Grave_n_idle]

Therefore:

Explicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods

Implicit Atheist = does not believe in ANY Gods at the present time, but might entertain the possibility if presented compelling evidence

At one time, there was just atheists. Now there is a split based on different beliefs.

I can see now why some atheists don't buy into the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. The true definition of atheism is being watered down by those who haven't quite made up their mind or are in transition.

The Explicit Atheist not only 'doesn't believe in any gods', but actively believes that there ARE NO gods.

That's the difference. It's small (as I said) but significant (as I said).

There have ALWAYS been Atheists that weren't accurately served by the terminology. I called myself Atheist, but didn't believe what Atheists were apparently supposed to believe - I didn't believe in an absolute non-existence. To me - that didn't even seem LOGICAL - if you can't prove they exist, you sure can't prove they DON'T.

It's not about 'watering down Atheism' any more than the existence of Baptists 'waters down' Catholicism. It's about believing something (or not beleiving something) different, and actually being able to put a label on it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed there is at least one right here on NSG (900)

I don'r know if Jocabia has made the transition from the old forum to the new, but he has identified as an Agnostic Theist.

[The_pantless_hero]

There have ALWAYS been Atheists that weren't accurately served by the terminology. I called myself Atheist, but didn't believe what Atheists were apparently supposed to believe - I didn't believe in an absolute non-existence. To me - that didn't even seem LOGICAL - if you can't prove they exist, you sure can't prove they DON'T.

Sir, might I introduce you to my friend Occam's Razor. And my good buddy, can't prove a fucking negative.

[Grave_n_idle]

There have ALWAYS been Atheists that weren't accurately served by the terminology. I called myself Atheist, but didn't believe what Atheists were apparently supposed to believe - I didn't believe in an absolute non-existence. To me - that didn't even seem LOGICAL - if you can't prove they exist, you sure can't prove they DON'T.

Sir, might I introduce you to my friend Occam's Razor.

Ah, I'm aware of the tool, but it can't PROVE what it would need to prove.

[Dyakovo]

Indeed there is at least one right here on NSG (900)

I don'r know if Jocabia has made the transition from the old forum to the new, but he has identified as an Agnostic Theist.

I haven't seen him as of yet... CM (i.e. 900) is the one that springs to mind immediately.

[The_pantless_hero]

Ah, I'm aware of the tool, but it can't PROVE what it would need to prove.

And my good buddy, can't prove a fucking negative.

[Deschenek]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

Another idiot who thinks Pascal's wager is a convincing argument...

When will they learn? Oh well...

Well it`s not the only reason I worship Jesus and the God of Isreal, boy that drew a lot of attention torwards me

[Dyakovo]

Ah, I'm aware of the tool, but it can't PROVE what it would need to prove.

And my good buddy, can't prove a fucking negative.

Ummm, you do realize that you are both saying the same thing, yes?