Now as a disclaimer, I do not advocate any religion, theistic or otherwise. I do however, have a stubborn inability to distinguish any logically coherent version of atheism from any logically coherent version of theism. I think they are the same, not in an esoteric sense, but at their essence. All bullshit aside, I'd like to hear arguments for the distinction of theism and atheism, from advocates of either, or agnostics w/ a sense of humor. I'll in return argue that the are the same. Any takers?
No, they aren't. they're based on lack of faith. In anything. The burden of proof lies on those who beleive in god. They've proved nothing. It doesn't take faith to remain the same, non-beleieving.
Atheism - no one knows, and you've yet to prove anything, so im calling bullshit like i would with any other idea lacking in evidence o its claims.
It doesn't take faith to disbeleive something. It takes lack of reason to beleive. Different. Completely. Atheism isn't faith based.
No-one will ever know. Ever. So they can quite easily call bullshit on you because there's absolutely no evidence on either side for the big question. This argument is retarded and has no conclusion.
This argument is retarded and has no conclusion. My position has a conclusion, i do not see any reason to believe in a god in the same way i do not see any reason to believe in odin, thor or zeus. Not believing in things because of complete lack of evidence is a stronger position to be in than believing in things without evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I treat all ideas with the same level of scrutiny. I dismiss God as quickly as you dismiss the idea of pixies at the bottom of your garden or leprechauns. Of course if you managed to catch a leprechaun or a pixie i would be likely to subscribe to that idea. But to say the chances of there being or not being pixies at the bottom of you garden is equally true or not true is ridiculous and not at all contingent on reality.
I am an atheist (I lack a belief in a god) because I do not have the knowledge that is necessary to believe in a god. How is this dogmatic in any way? Theism and atheism are completely opposite.
Then why is there an "ism" at the end? Atheism is the belief that there is no belief. If you put the pressure on the "theists" to "prove" an existence of "God"; why are "atheists" dismissed from the responsibility of "disproving" an existence of "God" ?? I suppose that's the double-standards that entail peculiar beliefs, such as there are no beliefs, which is still a belief in and of itself. Or maybe, as mrgoodsmoke said, any way you slice it, it's a belief in something for some reason. Do you believe in atheism because science has given you the impression "God" is not real?
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. A less common form of "Atheism" is one that asserts that no god exists, which is why the word becomes capitalized like any other religious belief. When it asserts knowledge, then this is when it becomes a dogmatic belief. This is when you are responsible for justifying your claim. Most people simply lack a belief in a god and see god as an improbable and fanciful concept. There is no responsibility in showing why their belief is valid since it asserts no knowledge that a god exists or does not exist.
So atheists believe there is no "God" as per the theistic definition? An assertion based on ... ? Subjective belief? Atheism asserts, as you said, that no "God" exists. Why is the burden for the evidence placed on those who believe in a "God" versus those who believe in a belief of no "God"? Why would someone believe there is no "God", if not for their beliefs? Atheism isn't simply the "lack of a belief in god", it's the _______ that there is no "God" Of course, this is where most "Atheists" get stuck because it's always easier to prove something than it is to disprove it. Though, having said that, I don't think "God" is a concept that needs proof beyond belief. It's a concept that, in my humble opinion, should exist as a relationship within oneself, not without oneself; ie, in others.
You cannot prove something doesn't exist. You can only prove a positive... that is something that is tangible/observable. You can't bottle up non-existence and send it off to a lab.
Maybe I'm just a little stubborn on the subject, but I find this whole thread sort of dumb. Atheism = The belief that there is no god. Why are people looking into it so much? The faith based aspect of it is just the fact that Atheists have faith that there is no god. Not faith in the religious sense, just belief.
As an atheist I have faith that even though I hold no "religious" beliefs I will not go to some sort of "hell" because of that. I also have faith that weed isn't corrupting my soul or any of that crazy bullshit.
No, lack of a belief in god is not the same as belief in the lack of god. Belief is not knowledge unless it is a justified true belief. When speaking philosophically, the words belief and knowledge are defined a bit differently, see epistemology. Atheism does not assert that, unless you are talking about gnostic atheism. Again, Atheism does not make this claim even though some atheists may. You are certainly entitled to your opinion
Most atheists are actually agnostic. Atheism means you believe that there is no God. It is a proclamation of knowledge and therefore requires evidence beyond "there isn't any of my special type of evidence (empirical), so therefore it doesn't exist." Agnosticism doesn't require any evidence or explanation because its not a belief. Agnosticism is a suspension of judgment.