Well I went out to the bar tonight, "so to speak", long awaiting anything that resembled moderate discourse on your behalf (rather than the child's play you seem so eager to engage in).

I will refrain from responding to the flagrant disingenuousness of your comments until tomorrow. Don't worry, I'll make sure to address all feeble trivialities with sober mind as I did earlier, if at the very least for "argument's sake". — chiknsld

You go around asking theists for proof of God — chiknsld

but you are not genuinely interested in their beliefs. — chiknsld

No supernatural ability has ever stood up to scientific scrutiny, so I conclude that its just a product of human fear. Born from all the scary reptilian screeches we heard when we hid in caves at night because we were unable to fight in the dark! No natural night vision ability. You would think a benevolent god would have at least given us night vision when we lived in the caves, if it had then perhaps we would not have needed to develop the ability to sleep for 8 hours a day. — universeness

Again apologies. — Tom Storm

Most forms of atheism are about interrogating... — Tom Storm

Cheers for now. — Tom Storm

But unlike faith or belief-based hypotheses, scientific hypotheses can be progressed into accepted fact! — universeness

You missed the point of my argument about the existence of dreams. And you totally did not get the dreams/dreaming exist. There's no doubt about it, people dream. My point of saying that while dreams exist, and people really do dream, we cannot show proof that we're dreaming. Yes, maybe a brain scan of a person dreaming might show some active parts of the brain through imaging, but the imaging wouldn't show the "dream" itself, only that the person's part of the brain is at the moment active. — L'éléphant

My point of saying that while dreams exist, and people really do dream, we cannot show proof that we're dreaming. Yes, maybe a brain scan of a person dreaming might show some active parts of the brain through imaging, but the imaging wouldn't show the "dream" itself, only that the person's part of the brain is at the moment active. — L'éléphant

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

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.

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

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

.

Theism asserts God created the universe, whereas atheism "doesn't positively assert anything".

No, it's not a weaker position to not collect stamps. But an a-stampist would be a weak position.


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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Scientific hypotheses can have faith-based hypothesis for inspiration — EugeneW

If you know the gods you know the universe. — EugeneW

As such, theism is indispensable for science. "How would the gods have made this particle act?" This question stood at the base for my massless matter fields view. — EugeneW

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

this has to be a troll. Best left alone.
2 days ago — Wayfarer

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

this has to be a troll. Best left alone.
— Wayfarer

You'd think so. But I've heard this kind of incoherent, quasi-libertarian shit from some apologists in recent times. Next comment is usually a connection between Communism and atheism, along with a conspiracy to deprive people of liberty, along with their faith. — Tom Storm

I highly recommend the following musings of Sean Carroll — universeness

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.
— L'éléphant

I don't believe that a purple man with seven arms rules the Omniverse on a throne made of cotton candy. — lll

Which will not only conspire to deprive males of their lives, females of their freedoms but along with that (all) faiths not worshiping God the Mother. — Gregory A

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

I give up. Why? — praxis

↪Gregory A Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?
a day ago — baker

I mean mermaids are not super-natural — Gregory A

for the benefit of III:

God belief is completely valid. IT'S A BELIEF. It purports no knowledge. Atheism, ditto, but the opposite.

Any arguments against beliefs that they should be supported by evidence is invalid. You can't demand evidence for something that is not knowledge.

This goes for both theists and atheists. It is futile to try to convince someone to discontinue his or her BELIEF.
— god must be atheist

The assertion 'God is real' is an assertion of belief. But! To say you can't demand evidence of something that is not knowledge (being in receipt of the facts) isn't quite true as evidence of 'dark matter' exists without anyone knowing dark matter really exists. God too could be a theory, not simply a belief. — god must be atheist

The fact that the universe, in its eternal infinity, exists.
— EugeneW

It would be a proof of god's existence if that were the only valid explanation. But other valid explanations exist, and they are not any less or more valid than the other. Therefore the only thing you can claim is that the infinite space and matter in it have existed forever; but the cause of their existence is not necessarily god, AND it is not necessarily the lack of god. Either beliefs are possible, therefore either beliefs are valid AS BELEIFS but not as knowledge. — god must be atheist

I mean mermaids are not super-natural
— Gregory A

So how do you categorise mermaids? Obviously they are not 'natural,' or at least they have never been physically discovered anywhere yet on planet Earth. I categorise mermaids as fictitious, just like god. — universeness

I'd chosen mermaids to avoid the 'out' that tooth fairies allow by being super-natural. Your atheism says nothing about mermaids, unicorns, etc, so we need to believe you accept these as real as you do not protest their unlikely existence (up until now that is)? New species are discovered daily by the way. — Gregory A

he at least could have answered some of the questions I asked — EugeneW

One increasingly hears rumors of a reconciliation between science and religion. In major news magazines as well as at academic conferences, the claim is made that that belief in the success of science in describing the workings of the world is no longer thought to be in conflict with faith in God. I would like to argue against this trend, in favor of a more old-fashioned point of view that is still more characteristic of most scientists, who tend to disbelieve in any religious component to the workings of the universe.

The title ”Why cosmologists are atheists” was chosen not because I am primarily interested in delving into the sociology and psychology of contemporary scientists, but simply to bring attention to the fact that I am presenting a common and venerable point of view, not advancing a new and insightful line of reasoning. Essentially I will be defending a position that has come down to us from the Enlightenment, and which has been sharpened along the way by various advances in scientific understanding. In particular, I will discuss what impact modern cosmology has on our understanding of these truly fundamental questions.

The past few hundred years have witnessed a significant degree of tension between science and religion. Since very early on, religion has provided a certain way of making sense of the world — a reason why things are the way they are. In modern times, scientific explorations have provided their own pictures of how the world works, ones which rarely confirm the pre-existing religious pictures. Roughly speaking, science has worked to apparently undermine religious belief by calling into question the crucial explanatory aspects of that belief; it follows that other aspects (moral, spiritual, cultural) lose the warrants for their validity. I will argue that this disagreement is not a priori necessary, but nevertheless does arise as a consequence of the scientific method.

Did you send him an email and got no response? — universeness