To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. It's a circular argument.

That's the correct way of putting it. 'A circular argument'. They have in a sense brought themselves into existence, explaining maybe why they are only a sub-group in society. But still there is some sort of motive required on their part I would think. Otherwise, why not leave people to their beliefs, after all religion (which is very real) has contributed a lot to society. An example is in that it has, in days gone by at least, kept marriages together longer.

Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion. — Gregory A

Sweet fuckin' Jeezus. :roll:

Atheism preceeded the Bible by millennia and every religion that rejects worship of all deities entails atheism with respect to those unworshipped deities. So, on these two points alone, your post is grossly uninformed and thereby "invalid" itself.

To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. — L'éléphant

Suppose atheism claims only that 'theism is not true', that – regardless of whether or not there is a theistic deity – what is said in religious texts and believed 'about some deity' is demonstrably not true. Does such a formulation of atheism make more sense to you?

Atheists dwell on the Bible, so unless you can produce some of these 'pre-bible' atheists, well....
And one thing that can never be is atheism preceding theism, as the title says it all. We also need to keep in mind, barring one very small statistical error, all societies have had their god/s.

There is polytheistic. Belief in all gods.

I guess the thing is, the onus is on the atheists, not the theists.

Theists: God exists, we believe in god.

Atheists: God does not exist, we don't believe in the existence of god.

Note that the atheists deny the existence of god, not that they would not believe it if god exists. If god truly exists, the atheists would turn into theists.

That's right, their denials are in effect a disclaimer. They leave open the possibility of there being a God so that they may say (if 'evidence' were to arise) 'this is what we have been waiting for'. Which is In effect still a reversal of much of what they have said already regardless. Arrogance is a trait we see in them. Which really shouldn't be there if they were being truly scientific.

Atheists dwell on the Bible, so unless you can produce some of these 'pre-bible' atheists, well.... — Gregory A

"The Riddle of Epicurus", circa 3rd century BCE. No reference to the Hebrew scriptures and nearly seven centuries before the Christian Bible and over nine centuries before the Qur'an. Hopefully you're not allergic to a short wiki article on "the history of atheism": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism :chin:

I find that article suspect because pygmies would not have been able to make a statement, god does not exist. If they didn't have a concept of spirituality or deity, they would not have been able to make that statement -- which is essential to be an atheist, no?

I mean, they could not be called atheists. Maybe something else -- but not atheists.

... which is essential to be an atheist, no? — L'éléphant

No. :point:

:halo:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. — a pigmy

Who said that? I was referring to the article you linked, which referenced 6 BCE, and then proceeded to describe the pygmies as non-spiritual, non-superstitious, non-religious, and no concept of a god or gods.

Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion.
— Gregory A
Sweet fuckin' Jeezus. :roll:

Atheism preceeded the Bible by millennia and every religion that rejects worship all deities entails atheism with respect to those unworshipped deities. So, on these two points alone, your post is grossly uninformed and thereby "invalid" itself.

To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place.
— L'éléphant
Suppose atheism claims only that 'theism is not true', that – regardless of whether or not there is a theistic deity – what is said in religious texts and believed 'about some deity' is demonstrably not true. Does such a formulation of atheism make more sense to you? — 180 Proof

What is 'not true' is false? Atheism, in its dishonesty, needs to avoid such a declaration. It does not have the backing of science, Big bang and evolution still technically theories. Atheism is really the rejection of a perceived harshness, evolving over time, currently rejecting the patriarchy Moses, Jesus & Muhammad represent. So, no this formulation makes no more sense to me.

Atheists dwell on the Bible, so unless you can produce some of these 'pre-bible' atheists, well....
— Gregory A
"The Riddle of Epicurus", circa 3rd century BCE. No reference to the Hebrew scriptures and nearly eight centuries before the Christian Bible and eleven ceenturies before the Quran. Hopefully you're not allergic to a short wiki article on "the history of atheism": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism :chin: — 180 Proof

God would need to give us the power to solve evil, and which is something we are presently doing. And isn't it that 'evil' was a choice we made ourselves, the original sin, itself an act of free-will we chose.

I'd dismissed "barring one small statistical error" but it does seem more involved than I'd first understood.
I can't explain the Pygmy lack of belief, but can't understand how any tribe couldn't contemplate a basis for its own existence. They must have been subject to a lot of survival pressure to not allow a/any supernaturally-based philosophy.

Atheism is a belief, a fairy tale, a myth. Theism deals with reality, with the beings that live in an eternal parallel world, who, by ingenious design or accidentally, created spacetime in its eternity and infinity, the basic stuff in it, and the laws according to which it behaves. Those laws are too stupid to invent themselves and their very existence is a proof of god.

If people wanna believe it's up to them. Everyone has the right of their own reality. Theists know, atheists believe.

Atheism is a belief, a fairy tale, a myth — EugeneW

Wrong. :wink:

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. A responsible contemporary atheist is more likely to say - 'I am not convinced that god/s exist.' For the same reason that a Christian does not believe in Zeus, Allah, Ganesh, Ahura Mazda, Thoth, Krishna, whichever.

Theism deals with reality, with the beings that live in an eternal parallel world, who, by ingenious design or accidentally, created spacetime in its eternity and infinity, the basic stuff in it, and the laws according to which it behaves. — EugeneW

Demonstrate any of this? I thought not..

@Gregory A,

Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself

This is a critique of theism, not atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in God/gods. If you think that God/gods have never been shown to exist, then you would be an atheist (unless you choose to believe with, self admittedly, 0 evidence). Atheism cannot be tangible in a literal sense by definition, just like not-stamp collecting is just as real as the number zero: neither are tangible yet are very real.

Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion.

The Bible is not holistically religion. Atheism is the rejection of theism (or, more generically, yes, religion): not just merely Christianity.

Theism offers an explanation for our existence, atheism offers no explanations of its own, a weaker position.

It is not a weaker position because it doesn't positively assert anything (it is a doctrine of negations). Is it a weaker position to not-stamp collect, or be an avid stamp collector? Neither. Atheism is not meant to provide anything beyond simply lacking a belief in God/gods. This doesn't mean in the slightest that someone should be a theist because "atheism is a weaker position", nor does it have anything to do with naturalism.

Naturalism is the counter-position to theism

No it is not. Traditional physicalism or materialism would be an appropriate counter argument. Naturalism is a philosophical theory that rejects supernaturalism, while not necessarily negating metaphysics. Naturalism is not the claim that all there is is definitely the material world, it is the theory that all natural events must be explained by natural laws, logic, reason, etc.

atheism occupying a non-existent middle ground

You either believe something, or you don't (principle of noncontradiction). Therefore, each person either believes in God/gods, or doesn't. Theism is the belief in such, atheism is the negation. These are, in terms of beliefs, the only two options.

If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths.

Atheism is opening your mouth and claiming you don't believe, that is it. Other philosophical theories have to invoked to claim further. If I'm not a stamp collector, that is all I am going to be able to say about the matter, but that has nothing to do with other, completely unrelated, positions I may voice.

Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists.

What exactly did you prove here? Atheist is the term for those who subscribe to atheism. I'm not following the logic here.

The invalidity of atheism does not validate theism, as naturalism may still be right, but atheism needs to be invalid for theism to be right.

It is not "theism" vs "naturalism". You can be an atheist and subscribe to metaphysical truths (you can also not be a naturalist and be an atheist). Likewise, naturalism is a philosophical theory pertaining to epistemic claims, theism is pertains strictly to belief. Not all theists claim to "know" God exists. Lots do, but some don't (some are agnostic theists). Some prefer, contrary to a 2 dimensional labeling system, a 1 dimensional representation: atheism - agnosticism - theism. However you fancy, none of it implies naturalism.

Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc.

Atheism does not necessitate that one should believe in mermaids. I honestly haven't met a single atheist that does, nor does it pertain to atheism in any way imaginable: that would be a separate assertion.

Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left).

Not at all. Again, atheism is the negation of theism. Theism is the belief in God. Gnosticism (not in the sense of the gnostics) is the claim of knowledge (epistemically) either way, agnosticism the negation thereof. This has nothing to do with "Left" (I would presume you are referring to politics) nor free-speech.

A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. We look and that is what we see. Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself. Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion. — Gregory A

Fortunately, many religions preceded the Bible, so atheists existed far before Christianity did. For example, Epicurus, the Pyrrhonists, Diagoras, Kesakambali, Lucretius, and Theodorus, who, all of which, believe it or not!, lived before Jesus did. How could this be?

Are they simply a product of something that hasn't come into existence yet?

The atheist believes in the fairy tale that no gods exist. So it's a belief. Do they have demonstrate of any of this? I think not.

Sure, what method did you use to show Zeus doesnt exist? Ill just use that one.

The atheist believes in the fairy tale that no gods exist. So it's a belief. Do they have demonstrate of any of this? I think not. — EugeneW

No, again you are wrong. :wink: The atheist says they have no reason to believe there are gods. They do not necessarily say there are no gods. I don't believe in Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster for the same reason. I don't say they do not exist I say I have seen no reason to think they are real. Big difference.

Sure, what method did you use to show Zeus doesn't exist? Ill just use that one. — DingoJones

Exactly. :up:

They do not necessarily say there are no gods. — Tom Storm

Then they are no atheists. Agnostics maybe. I'm a theist but to be honest don't give a fuck about them gods.

I'm a theist but to be honest don't give a fuck about them gods. — EugeneW

I think of you more as an eccentric, based on your entertaining responses.

Sure, what method did you use to show Zeus doesnt exist? — DingoJones

Zeus does exist.

I think of you more as an eccentric, based on your entertaining responses. — Tom Storm

Well, you know, it's just that I think nature by itself can't have spawned a creature like my wife. Somehow, some mad god must be involved. Luckily, I might add!

I don't believe in Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster for the same reason. I don't say they do not exist I say I have seen no reason to think they are real. Big difference. — Tom Storm

Big Foot can be met, in principle. But proving no gods to exist is a more exquisite task. How can you met gods that don't exist?

Xenophanes was a kind of atheist too. He denied the plethora of gods on Mount Olympus. For whatever reason he replaced them by some unimaginable unified omni monster, with which we are stuck today.

Zeus does exist — EugeneW

Ok, so do you believe in all gods or are you going to rely more on something like “Zeus exists as feature of greek mythology”?

I believe there are as many gods as creatures in the universe. The Greek saw a few of them. Western man sees some unified omni god monster.

What is your definition of a god?