The death of God

Atheism is believing there are no Gods whatsoever.

Nope. Wrong again. Atheism is defined by the absence of belief in a god.

The statement "There are no deities or Gods.

Not a necessary tenet of atheism. The only axiom inherent to atheism is not believing in a god. Which again, is different to believing there are no gods.

which is different than atheists, who say "We know there are no Gods"

What you are arguing against, is how certain atheists choose to define their arguments. Personally, I've never heard any atheist say that they, "know there are no gods" and I'd also never say as such.

As I said, you are arguing against the specific way in which certain atheists represent their views - not an actual inherent axiom of atheism itself.
 
Last edited:
Atheism is a belief system, even if it only has one tenant in it's most basic form.

Dont agree at all. Thats like saying one day a person proclaims, "I believe goats are Gods." What about before no one had thought about goats one way or the other? Did they all believe at that time goats were NOT Gods? No. Do all the people who dont think of goats as Gods now have to BELIEVE they are not just because someone Believes they are?

Atheistism has NOTHING to do with belief at all.
 
Now there is a lot of semantics involved here, but atheism, as I understand it, is about rejecting someone else's beliefs, one that they did not create and refuse to accept as true or valid. That is not a belief, but a rejection of someone else's. Usually once you reject your religion of birth it becomes easy to reject other religions and their God, or deities, because many of them make claims that require a leap of faith, which an atheist has probably already rejected by then. An atheist does not claim to know with certainty that any Gods exists, just with confidence that certain Gods do not.

Now I am not an atheist. I have been though, and may be considered one by others. Again, this depends on semantics. It can only be considered a belief if you equate the definition of belief with having an opinion, which is counter productive because a person with religious convictions hardly feels that their belief is a matter of opinion. They often take their moral codes, based on their belief in and conception of God, very seriously.

I do not consider myself a Christian because to be one you have to believe in a virgin conceiving a child supernaturally, people being resurrected from the dead, and a host of other things I do not believe are possible. Yes, I'm oversimplifying here. I'm just listing some of my own objections. I can understand that it could teach us lessons in metaphor, but you are expected to believe it to be literally true to be considered a believer. According to some people, I would be an atheist because I do not believe in the Christian God. My own conception of God is that if God exists, it is beyond comprehension, hasn't placed humans as the center of the universe, doesn't interfere with our affairs, but has created our universe to be wondrous as it is. I don't think not believing in God leads to despair because I think evolution has taken care of that for us. Most people feel love and the need for connecting with others, have empathy for one another, and follow social moral codes because that is what humans have done for survival since humans first evolved. That is how religion evolved in the first place. It is unique to many social animals. Of course, our brains are different and our social behavior is much more complex and that has made all the difference.

I think it is really fascinating what our brains do. Our brain to body ratio is larger than other animals and as a result we have many abilities unique to humans. The same brain that can create symphonies, great works of art, write insightful stories, discover the cure for diseases, can also come up with a whole host of different religions and concepts of worlds that do not exist except in our heads. I would say that is what sets us apart from other animals is our ability to live our lives in our heads, thereby creating our own universes and stories of our lives, to create a narration to the world around us as if it is the largest epic ever to be told. Our brains are king when it comes to imagination and creativity.

I hope to neither offend anyone or win a debate here, only to share perspectives and arrive at some truth.
 
Last edited:
Everyone on the planet is an atheist concerning every god except for their own. Atheist simply take it one god further. Think about it.
 
Unfortunately with the following definitions I would have to say though I consider myself an athiest, I do believe in the possibilty of "God" or gods. Lets be serious though, God could be a 16 year old kid playing a video game he created yelling at the fact we have not all died yet. God could be a group of people who created a simulated universe via programming to see how certain events play out given certain criteria. God could be something we have no hope of understanding such as, all life put together and the universe contemplating itself. Do our brain cells have some understanding of their own existence?

God


God [god] Show IPA
noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.
( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
 
Atheism, atheos in the greek means without gods. It's opposite would be theos or theism the belief in God or gods. You can be one or the other but not both, to say that you do not believe in gods or to say that you believe there are no gods is just semantics the point is that atheism is a part of how you view the world, your worldview and that's how the word belief is being used in this context.
 
To say that you do not believe in gods or to say that you believe there are no gods is just semantics.

"Just semantics."

At the core, everything eventually comes down to semantics. In certain cases where people take the liberty of changing the meaning of a word to support nonsensical arguments - establishing the correct meaning of the word is the only thing relevant.

LucyJr's ideas about atheism as expressed in this thread don't even warrant acknowledgement. They're founded on his lack of understanding or unwillingness to accept what atheism means. The matter is very simple: atheism is not a belief - it is literally defined by a lack of a belief.

The point is that atheism is a part of how you view the world, your worldview and that's how the word belief is being used in this context.

Yes. Except in this case, dependent on semantics: one wording is wrong and does not necessarily describe the worldview of an atheist, while the other does.
 
"Just semantics."

At the core, everything eventually comes down to semantics. In certain cases where people take the liberty of changing the meaning of a word to support nonsensical arguments - establishing the correct meaning of the word is the only thing relevant.

LucyJr's ideas about atheism as expressed in this thread don't even warrant acknowledgement. They're founded on his lack of understanding or unwillingness to accept what atheism means. The matter is very simple: atheism is not a belief - it is literally defined by a lack of a belief.



Yes. Except in this case, dependent on semantics: one wording is wrong and does not necessarily describe the worldview of an atheist, while the other does.

For someone who's arguing semantics, you seam to be ignoring the meaning of the word belief. Belief -[FONT=arial, sans-serif]an acceptance that a statement is true or to acknowledge something is real/true, a firmly held opinion or conviction.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Do you accept the statement that there are no gods to be true? If yes then you believe in atheism.[/FONT]
 
So you are saying the second someone decides they "believe" in something defined by them, everyone then has to believe the same thing or believe something different?
 
So you are saying the second someone decides they "believe" in something defined by them, everyone then has to believe the same thing or believe something different?
No, I think he is saying that few things can be known with certainty, because most of the things remain on 'belief' foundations.
Somthing as big as Atheism, which is a whole worldview, a system of philosophies, IS a belief system, wether atheists want to admit it or not. And I mean 'lay' atheists here, because professional philosophers and humanists of this view know very well their worldview is a system of beliefs.
 
"Just semantics."

At the core, everything eventually comes down to semantics. In certain cases where people take the liberty of changing the meaning of a word to support nonsensical arguments - establishing the correct meaning of the word is the only thing relevant.

LucyJr's ideas about atheism as expressed in this thread don't even warrant acknowledgement. They're founded on his lack of understanding or unwillingness to accept what atheism means. The matter is very simple: atheism is not a belief - it is literally defined by a lack of a belief.



Yes. Except in this case, dependent on semantics: one wording is wrong and does not necessarily describe the worldview of an atheist, while the other does.
A system that is defined by a lack of belief is called AGNOSTICISM. And EVEN in Agnosticism, one has to make the leap of faith. You can't deny everything, you'll have to deny your own denials...which is self-contradictory.

They're founded on his lack of understanding or unwillingness to accept what atheism means.
I don't think I'm the one who is ignorant here, with all due respect.
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] I dont agree that atheism is a belief system. What was before the first "god" was conceived of? There wasn't a belief there were no gods. There was simply no thought to it or of it. One day someone defined their thought on what a god was and said, I believe in my thought. Was it then required everyone this person came into contact to say, I see your belief and counter with my own belief that you are mistaken?

Can I force you to believe in something so easily?

I believe that anyone who does not believe in ALL the same things I do is insane. Do you now walk around in the word partly defining yourself on my belief? Do you now say to the world, I believe I am not insane in accordance to my one definition?
 
So you are saying the second someone decides they "believe" in something defined by them, everyone then has to believe the same thing or believe something different?

I don't see how that's relevant to what I had to say, but from a purely logical standpoint yes. You either believe as I do or you do not, independent of whether either of is right. Both me and LucyJr are Christians, but if we sat down and talked about the things we believe I can guarantee that he does not believe as I do on several things.

All I have been doing in this thread is point out that by the definition of the words used in this thread that Atheism is both a belief as commonly described as a world view or an accepted statement. Both epistemologically and etymologically Atheism is a belief.
 
I don't see how that's relevant to what I had to say, but from a purely logical standpoint yes. You either believe as I do or you do not, independent of whether either of is right. Both me and LucyJr are Christians, but if we sat down and talked about the things we believe I can guarantee that he does not believe as I do on several things.

All I have been doing in this thread is point out that by the definition of the words used in this thread that Atheism is both a belief as commonly described as a world view or an accepted statement. Both epistemologically and etymologically Atheism is a belief.

Its an interesting concept, you are causing something to be just by defining it where it never existed before.
 
The question of whether or not some sort of god exists is not one which should necessarily occupy the minds of atheists all of the time. Theists – especially Christians – regularly challenge atheists with arguments and ideas which supposedly demonstrate that their god definitely exists. But prior to that, there is an even more important issue to address: is a god really important in our lives? Should atheists even care about the existence of any gods in the first place?
If the existence of a god isn't important, we certainly needn't waste our time debating the issue. It should be expected that theists, and Christians in particular, will quickly say that the question of their god's existence is indeed vitally important. It would not be unusual to find them saying that this question eclipses all other questions which humanity might ask. But the skeptic or nonbeliever should not simply grant them this assumption.
Theists who try to argue that their god is indeed important will naturally support their position by reference to all its supposed characteristics – like perhaps that it offers eternal salvation for humanity. This seems like a reasonable direction to go, but is nevertheless flawed. Of course they think that their god is important, and of course this is closely related to what they think their god is and what it does.
However, if we accept this line of reasoning, then we are accepting a particular set of characteristics which have not yet been established to be true. It must be remembered that we didn't ask if their god with its supposed characteristics is important. Instead we asked if the existence of any god, generally speaking, was important.
These are very different questions, and theists who have never thought about the existence of a god outside of the sort of god they've been taught to believe in may fail to see the distinction. A skeptic might choose later to grant that if a particular god with certain characteristics exists, then that existence could be important; at that point we could move on to see if there are any good reasons to think that this alleged god exists.
On the other hand, we might also just as easily grant that if a particular elf with certain characteristics exists, then that existence would be important. That, however, begs the question of why we are talking about elves in the first place. Are we just bored? Are we practicing our debating skills? In a similar vein, it is justifiable to ask why we are talking about gods in the first place.

One reason which some theists, especially Christians, will offer for thinking that the existence of their god is important is that belief in a god is good for, or even necessary for, social order and moral behavior. For hundreds of years, Christian apologists have argued that without a belief in a god, basic social structures would disintegrate and people would no longer find reason to act morally.
It is a shame that so many Christians (and other theists) continue to employ this argument because it's so bad. The first point which should be made is that it obviously isn't true that their god is required for good social order and moral behavior – most of the cultures in the world have gotten by just fine without their god.
Next is the question of whether or not belief in any god or higher power is required for morality and social stability. There are any number of objections which can be made here, but I will try and cover a few of basic ones. The most obvious thing to point out is that this is nothing but an assertion, and empirical evidence is clearly against it.
An examination of history makes it evident that believers in gods can be very violent, especially when it comes to other groups of believers who follow different gods. Atheists have also been violent – but they have also led very good and moral lives. Thus, there is no apparent correlation between belief in gods and being a good person. As Steven Weinberg noted in his article Designer Universe:
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion.​
Another interesting fact to point out is that the claim doesn't actually require any god to really exist. If social stability and morality are only achieved with believing in a god, even a false god, then the theist is claiming that human societies require massive deceit in order to survive. Moreover, the theist is arguing that a society doesn't actually need their god, since any god will apparently do. I'm sure that there are some theists who will quickly agree with this and not be bothered, but they are rare.
A more fundamental objection, however, is the implicit portrayal of humanity which such a claim makes. The unspoken reason why humans need some god to be moral is that they are not capable of creating their own social rules and, hence, require an eternal rule-giver with accompanying eternal rewards and eternal punishments.
How can a theist possibly claim this when even chimpanzees and other primates are clearly capable of creating social rules? The theist is attempting to create ignorant children out of all of us. In their eyes, we are apparently incapable of running our own affairs; worse yet, only the promise of eternal reward and the threat of eternal punishment will keep us in line. Perhaps this is actually true of them, and that would be unfortunate. However, that is not true of any of the atheists I know.

A common reason used to argue that the existence of a god is relevant to us is that a god is necessary to have purpose or meaning in life. Indeed, it is common to hear Christians assert that atheists cannot possibly have any sort of meaning or purpose to their lives without the Christian god. But is this true? Is some god really a prerequisite for meaning and purpose in one's life?
I honestly don't see how this can be so. In the first place, it can be argued that even if a god did exist, that existence would not provide either meaning or purpose to a person's life. Christians seem to maintain that serving their god's will is what gives them purpose, but I hardly think that this is admirable. Mindless obedience might be praiseworthy in dogs and other domesticated animals, but it certainly isn't of much value in mature adult humans. Moreover, it is debatable whether or not a god which desires such uncritical obedience is worthy of any obedience in the first place.
The idea that this god is supposed to have created us has been used to justify the doctrine of obedience as fulfilling one's purpose in life; however, the proposition that a creator is automatically justified in ordering its creation to do whatever it desires is one which requires support and should not be accepted out of hand. In addition, a good deal of support would be needed to claim that this would serve as an adequate purpose in life.
Of course, all of that assumes that we could clearly discern the will of the alleged creator. Quite a few religions in human history have asserted the existence of a creator-god, yet none of them have managed to find much agreement as to what such a creator-god might want from us humans. Even within religions, there is tremendous diversity of opinion as to the desires of the god being worshipped. It seems that if such a god did exist, it probably wouldn't have done such a poor job as to allow this confusion.
I can draw no other conclusion from this situation than that if some sort of creator-god exists, it is highly unlikely that we'll be able to figure out what it wants of us, if anything at all. The scenario which seems to play out is that people project their own hopes and fears onto whatever god they worship. People who fear and hate modernity project that onto their god and, as a result, find a god which wants them to continue in their fear and hatred. Others are open to change and willing to love others regardless of differences, and thus find in a god which is tolerant of change and variation, and wants them to continue as they are.
Although the latter group is more pleasant to spend time with, their position is not actually any better founded than the former. There is no more reason to think that there is a benevolent and loving creator-god than that there is instead a mean-spirited and fearful creator-god. And, in either case, what that god might want from us – if discoverable – cannot automatically give us purpose in our lives.
On the other hand, it is easily arguable that meaning and purpose in life are ready to find – indeed, create – without the existence of, much less belief in, any sort of god. Meaning and purpose at their heart require valuation, and valuation must begin with the individual. For this reason, they must exist first and foremost in the individual. Others outside of us (including gods) may suggest possible paths for us where meaning and purpose could perhaps develop, but ultimately that will depend upon us.
If the existence of a god is not actually relevant to how we live our lives and certainly isn't necessary to being a good person, then debating the existence of any god may not be too important. You might choose to debate the existence of some particular god in order to pass the time or hone debating skills, but it would appear that one of the more effective response to the oft heard "Why don't you believe in God?" is "Why care about gods in the first place?"
So, could it matter that any gods exist? Maybe, maybe not. Some particular god could matter, depending upon its characteristics and intentions. However, the point which must be recognized here is that it cannot be automatically assumed that any god which exists is necessarilyimportant. It rests entirely with the theist to first explain who and why their god could even matter to us before we use valuable time to decide if it even exists. Although this might initially sound harsh, we are really under no obligation to entertain the idea of something existing when it has no relevance to our lives.




 
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] the potential existence of a god is important to me. Primarily because of the rules there by also potentially placed in this universe by it and everything in it. Take for example learning one day that you will live the life you have now, over and over and over without end for the rest of known time. If you knew this, would you not want to try and find a way to change that?

The definition of "God" allows for one that does not have humanities best interest at heart or even any interest at all. God can just be the thing responsible for our known universe's creation. It also allows for a thing that is malevolent toward certain individuals or all of humanity.
 
@Skarekrow the potential existence of a god is important to me. Primarily because of the rules there by also potentially placed in this universe by it and everything in it. Take for example learning one day that you will live the life you have now, over and over and over without end for the rest of known time. If you knew this, would you not want to try and find a way to change that?

The definition of "God" allows for one that does not have humanities best interest at heart or even any interest at all. God can just be the thing responsible for our known universe's creation. It also allows for a thing that is malevolent toward certain individuals or all of humanity.


To me that equates living one’s life in constant fear...I doubt that if God exists He would want that to define our life here.
Why can’t we just live our lives (to quote the Bible) “as you would wish to be treated.”?
Morality exists indifferently to the existence of God or not...they are created by society so we can all live together in a beneficial way.
As for our salvation...
If there was a God who created this universe and existence then His will for us is so far beyond unknowable that our minds could never comprehend His intentions.
Modern religion is no longer the belief and worship of God...instead, it has been devolved into a way to control others through fear.
 
To me that equates living one’s life in constant fear...I doubt that if God exists He would want that to define our life here.
Why can’t we just live our lives (to quote the Bible) “as you would wish to be treated.”?
Morality exists indifferently to the existence of God or not...they are created by society so we can all live together in a beneficial way.
As for our salvation...
If there was a God who created this universe and existence then His will for us is so far beyond unknowable that our minds could never comprehend His intentions.
Modern religion is no longer the belief and worship of God...instead, it has been devolved into a way to control others through fear.

You are still thinking in terms of a "religious" god I think. Out of all the possibilities for a god in this world, that is the one that seems least likely to me.
 
You are still thinking in terms of a "religious" god I think. Out of all the possibilities for a god in this world, that is the one that seems least likely to me.

You mentioned that you were worried about the possibility "you will live the life you have now, over and over and over without end for the rest of known time. "

Perhaps we do....perhaps we don’t....why worry about something so incredibly unknowable?
 
You mentioned that you were worried about the possibility "you will live the life you have now, over and over and over without end for the rest of known time. "

Perhaps we do....perhaps we don’t....why worry about something so incredibly unknowable?

Good question. I think in part because I feel so out of place. Almost like I have been cheated. Like something has been taken away from me that was rightfully mine. I cant shake the feeling.

Im not sure how to explain it better.
 
Back
Top