What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[WestRedMaple]

Again, and? You're tilting at windmills. Not once did I comment on the level of proof.

Typically, when a person takes issue with a claim, one is to provide proof of that claim.

The claim was made that atheism requires zero proof. If someone claimed that 2+2=4, and I was doubtful of that, that person would post proof of it (which I've just done). However, repeating the same claim without proof does nothing.

Atheism makes no claim.

[Galloism]

I, and everyone else grasping the concept of atheism.

This should not be too terribly surprising, given that nobody has been able to find any required faith for it.

Only for gnostic atheism which is, presumably, the knowledge that God doesn't exist.

However, I have a hard time believing anyone who says is a lack of faith would actually ascribe to the worldview they know and are absolutely positive that there is no deities whatsoever, as that requires formal proof.

Well, given 6 percent of atheists are absolutely certain God exists, I probably should not have been so hasty as to specifically what an atheist even is.

[Galloism]

Typically, when a person takes issue with a claim, one is to provide proof of that claim.

The claim was made that atheism requires zero proof. If someone claimed that 2+2=4, and I was doubtful of that, that person would post proof of it (which I've just done). However, repeating the same claim without proof does nothing.

Again, this has utterly nothing to do with my point. You're making this much more complicated than it ever was.

Then don't answer when I take issue with a claim, namely that "atheism requires zero faith".

[Galloism]

Typically, when a person takes issue with a claim, one is to provide proof of that claim.

The claim was made that atheism requires zero proof. If someone claimed that 2+2=4, and I was doubtful of that, that person would post proof of it (which I've just done). However, repeating the same claim without proof does nothing.

Atheism makes no claim.

I didn't say atheism made a claim.

You did.

[Mavorpen]

Again, this has utterly nothing to do with my point. You're making this much more complicated than it ever was.

Then don't answer when I take issue with a claim, namely that "atheism requires zero faith".

I didn't. I answered to you being seemingly baffled that someone repeated a claim as though it's something we've never seen before.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Only for gnostic atheism which is, presumably, the knowledge that God doesn't exist.

However, I have a hard time believing anyone who says is a lack of faith would actually ascribe to the worldview they know and are absolutely positive that there is no deities whatsoever, as that requires formal proof.

Well, given 6 percent of atheists are absolutely certain God exists, I probably should not have been so hasty as to specifically what an atheist even is.

Those people are, by definition, not atheists.

[WestRedMaple]

Only for gnostic atheism which is, presumably, the knowledge that God doesn't exist.

However, I have a hard time believing anyone who says is a lack of faith would actually ascribe to the worldview they know and are absolutely positive that there is no deities whatsoever, as that requires formal proof.

Well, given 6 percent of atheists are absolutely certain God exists, I probably should not have been so hasty as to specifically what an atheist even is.

0% of atheists are absolutely certain god exists. The two are mutually exclusive by definition.

Now, making up anything desired in a poll is extremely easy. I could claim to be a Hindu with 12 fingers and a doctorate in Eastern European Literature, but that doesn't make it true.

[Mavorpen]

Well, given 6 percent of atheists are absolutely certain God exists, I probably should not have been so hasty as to specifically what an atheist even is.

Those people are, by definition, not atheists.

The actual question here is what these individuals mean by "absolutely certain." Because I could also state I'm absolutely certain there is no God given the blatant lack of evidence. That doesn't have to be true for all eternity. It doesn't mean that I could never change my mind. It means that given the current state of a lack of evidence, I don't entertain the idea of a God existing as being legitimate.

[Galloism]

Then don't answer when I take issue with a claim, namely that "atheism requires zero faith".

I didn't. I answered to you being seemingly baffled that someone repeated a claim as though it's something we've never seen before.

I'm not baffled.

Disappointed maybe. Not baffled.

[WestRedMaple]

Atheism makes no claim.

I didn't say atheism made a claim.

You did.

That is not truthful. That is literally the opposite of what I said

[Mavorpen]

I didn't. I answered to you being seemingly baffled that someone repeated a claim as though it's something we've never seen before.

I'm not baffled.

Disappointed maybe. Not baffled.

That's even sillier. You need to make/repeat claims in order to move the thread forward.

I'm personally disappointed you're skipping posts containing the bulk of my argument and choosing to respond to these ones instead.

[WestRedMaple]

I challenge you, Galloism, to come up with one bit of faith required to be atheist.

[Galloism]

I didn't say atheism made a claim.

You did.

That is not truthful. That is literally the opposite of what I said

Your claim sir:

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

Atheism requires exactly 0 faith.

[Mavorpen]

I challenge you, Galloism, to come up with one bit of faith required to be atheist.

He already tried. It ended up being an argument by which he essentially argues the core of science is based on faith.

[Esternial]

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

It can certainly become awe-inspiring, but trust me when I tell you that when you get down to it and study these things thoroughly, you'll see the simplicity behind seemingly complex things.

Naturally I can only speak about things from my field of study, which includes cellular metabolism and microbiological evolution.

Not only is nature very simple down to it's core, it's also very messy. A God would have done a much better job. Metabolism could have been made much more efficient, and some means of molecular transport are needlessly complicated.

[WestRedMaple]

That is not truthful. That is literally the opposite of what I said

Your claim sir:

Atheism requires exactly 0 faith.

So you didn't bother to read the post. I am not atheism. I am an atheist.

[Galloism]

Well, it wasn't a perfect analogy. Aside from restating a "universe within a universe" as an example again, there's no real way to draw an absolute and direct comparison. No analogy within our universal context is perfect.

It was not intended to imply that the laws are necessarily the same. It was intended that understanding something does not automatically imply lack of intelligence. Sometimes, it confirms intelligence instead.

Except no it doesn't. Not once does it confirm intelligence. The actual demonstration of the existence of intelligence confirms intelligence. You're completely skipping that step and taking a leap of faith. You're not being scientific. You're adding faith based assumptions to a theory. I have no idea what experience you've had with science, but you don't do that.

You are right in a way: it doesn't absolutely confirm intelligence.

It only implies it - heavily. Similar to if I were an ancient man and I found an empty skyscraper (lets not get too deep on how an ancient man found a modern skyscraper), we cannot absolutely confirm it was made by an intelligent being. There are no intelligent beings around (except the man, and he didn't make it). Even if he doesn't know how it was made, or made by man or a god, he could take one look at a skyscraper and tell there was intelligence behind it.

I study the universe and see the same type of effect.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your claim sir:

So you didn't bother to read the post. I am not atheism. I am an atheist.

[Galloism]

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

It can certainly become awe-inspiring, but trust me when I tell you that when you get down to it and study these things thoroughly, you'll see the simplicity behind seemingly complex things.

Naturally I can only speak about things from my field of study, which includes cellular metabolism and microbiological evolution.

Not only is nature very simple down to it's core, it's also very messy. A God would have done a much better job. Metabolism could have been made much more efficient, and some means of molecular transport are needlessly complicated.

We'll have to discuss that sometime. I've been on a physics/astrophysics kick for the last few months, and... well, here I am.

[The Alma Mater]

It can certainly become awe-inspiring, but trust me when I tell you that when you get down to it and study these things thoroughly, you'll see the simplicity behind seemingly complex things.

Naturally I can only speak about things from my field of study, which includes cellular metabolism and microbiological evolution.

Not only is nature very simple down to it's core, it's also very messy. A God would have done a much better job. Metabolism could have been made much more efficient, and some means of molecular transport are needlessly complicated.

We'll have to discuss that sometime. I've been on a physics/astrophysics kick for the last few months, and... well, here I am.

Especially astrophysics should also show you the chaos and disorder that underlies our existence

[Galloism]

Your claim sir:

So you didn't bother to read the post. I am not atheism. I am an atheist.

Stephen Hawking fucking Edwin Hubble in the ass... Fucking read.

You claimed atheism requires zero faith. That's the claim.

Fuck.

[Mavorpen]

You are right in a way: it doesn't absolutely confirm intelligence.

No, it doesn't confirm it in any way.

It only implies it - heavily.

No, it doesn't.

Similar to if I were an ancient man and I found an empty skyscraper (lets not get too deep on how an ancient man found a modern skyscraper), we cannot absolutely confirm it was made by an intelligent being. There are no intelligent beings around (except the man, and he didn't make it). Even if he doesn't know how it was made, or made by man or a god, he could take one look at a skyscraper and tell there was intelligence behind it.

So you ARE doing the thing you insisted you aren't before: arguing from ignorance.

I study the universe and see the same type of effect.

That's fine, just don't pretend that you're actually using a scientific basis. You aren't. You're using a faith based one.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So you didn't bother to read the post. I am not atheism. I am an atheist.

Stephen Hawking fucking Edwin Hubble in the ass... Fucking read.

You claimed atheism requires zero faith. That's the claim.

Fuck.

He does this all the time.

[WestRedMaple]

So you didn't bother to read the post. I am not atheism. I am an atheist.

Stephen Hawking fucking Edwin Hubble in the ass... Fucking read.

You claimed atheism requires zero faith. That's the claim.

Fuck.

That's my claim, not atheism's claim as you falsely stated.

Do try to catch up


I notice that you've been unable to meet my challenge to you

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

So you didn't bother to read the post. I am not atheism. I am an atheist.

Stephen Hawking fucking Edwin Hubble in the ass... Fucking read.

You claimed atheism requires zero faith. That's the claim.

Fuck.

And it was addressed like 4 pages ago.
Atheism is lack of a belief in god. If insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate to your satisfaction that a god exists, you are an atheist.
The default position is that a god does not exist, and therefore no faith is required to be an atheist. If you claim that the default position is instead that a god does exist, you are special pleading because of your faith.
So far, all of YOUR claims have been faith-based. You've displayed a distinct LACK of true skepticism. You've shown too much faith in divine creation to be an atheist, not too little faith.