defining the atheist life....

[Concart]

You commented to me on my comment.

You seem to be saying that...

...you do not "believe" there are no gods...and...

...you do not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I am just wondering why you have chosen "atheist" as a descriptor...when other descriptors are available. If you would rather not clarify...I accept that.

I'm not sure what else you'd call it but I'm game. That whole 'more likely than not' is red herring for me. I know only a tiny fraction of all there is to know in heaven and earth. So saying something with absolute certainty is, IMHO, is the height of human arrogance. But I have not seen one occasion in which a culture invoked 'God' as the cause of some natural phenomenon, and it turns out they were right. Not once. Nope, God did not cause the thunder. A giant dragon eating the sun did not cause an eclipse. Human sacrifice to the Gods didn't stop volcanoes from erupting. My sliding scale is close enough to certain that atheist seems like the most appropriate description. I do not actively live my life based on my lack of belief. It makes no difference to one way or another. What I am even MORE certain of is that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. That petty, small anthropomorphized schmuck isn't a 'Supreme Being'.

[Frank Apisa]

Theism/Atheism denotes belief. Gnosticism/Agnosticism denotes knowledge.

Horseshit. OR...

...what does that have to do with anything?

[AProudLefty]

Horseshit. OR...

...what does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with the definition.

"A-" means without. In this case it means "without belief of god/gods" and "without knowledge of god/gods".

There is no active belief or knowledge.

[Flash]

since the board atheists felt the need to start a thread defining Christian life, I felt it only fair we have a thread to give balance.....

what do we know about atheists......
1) they are forced to struggle through life with no guidance other than their own feeble imaginations........

Most are guided by their morals.

[ThatOwlWoman]

I'm not sure what else you'd call it but I'm game. That whole 'more likely than not' is red herring for me. I know only a tiny fraction of all there is to know in heaven and earth. So saying something with absolute certainty is, IMHO, is the height of human arrogance. But I have not seen one occasion in which a culture invoked 'God' as the cause of some natural phenomenon, and it turns out they were right. Not once. Nope, God did not cause the thunder. A giant dragon eating the sun did not cause an eclipse. Human sacrifice to the Gods didn't stop volcanoes from erupting. My sliding scale is close enough to certain that atheist seems like the most appropriate description. I do not actively live my life based on my lack of belief. It makes no difference to one way or another. What I am even MORE certain of is that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. That petty, small anthropomorphized schmuck isn't a 'Supreme Being'.

You did a good job of summing up how most atheists are about god/gods/religion -- no effect on their personal life one way or the other, basically "meh." It's just a handful who get militant about it, just like it's just a handful of extremists in Islam or Xtianity or___ who go around killing in the name of their deity.

[PostmodernProphet]

Most are guided by their morals.

sorry....their morals are the very things they have chosen with their feeble imaginations.......what you are arguing is that their morals have led them to their morals....../shakes head.....

[PostmodernProphet]

You did a good job of summing up how most atheists are about god/gods/religion -- no effect on their personal life one way or the other, basically "meh." It's just a handful who get militant about it, just like it's just a handful of extremists in Islam or Xtianity or___ who go around killing in the name of their deity.

so you think guano is apt to kill someone in the name of atheism?.......I can see that......

[Flash]

sorry....their morals are the very things they have chosen with their feeble imaginations.......what you are arguing is that their morals have led them to their morals....../shakes head.....

Morals guide their behavior. If you think murder is morally wrong that belief does not have to come from religion.

[]2epo]v[an]

I gave up on atheists, yall are fking morons. Im a non-athiest now.

Cuz i dont even giva fk

[]2epo]v[an]

There are two prime absolutes

Every rule has an exception

And its only known exception

Everything is a poison, it's simply a matter of dosage.

[]2epo]v[an]

So saying something with absolute certainty is, IMHO, is the height of human arrogance.

Ha, just whiped the floor with this schmuck not once but twice and without even thinking about it.

Douche bag. Commits his own crime with the same sentance he used to describe it.... sooo stupid....

[]2epo]v[an]

Slightly less stupid, imho, than

there's no such thing as absolutes

but why dig up old graves for some fool.

[Frank Apisa]

I'm not sure what else you'd call it but I'm game. That whole 'more likely than not' is red herring for me. I know only a tiny fraction of all there is to know in heaven and earth. So saying something with absolute certainty is, IMHO, is the height of human arrogance. But I have not seen one occasion in which a culture invoked 'God' as the cause of some natural phenomenon, and it turns out they were right. Not once. Nope, God did not cause the thunder. A giant dragon eating the sun did not cause an eclipse. Human sacrifice to the Gods didn't stop volcanoes from erupting. My sliding scale is close enough to certain that atheist seems like the most appropriate description. I do not actively live my life based on my lack of belief. It makes no difference to one way or another. What I am even MORE certain of is that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. That petty, small anthropomorphized schmuck isn't a 'Supreme Being'.

First, a note of agreement. The god of the Bible should more reasonably be called a schmuck than a Supreme Being. The god apparently invented by the ancient Hebrews is pathetic. I'd sooner choose Loki to worship.

That said, however, the use of the word "atheist" by someone who claims not to "believe" a god exists and/or not to "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does...makes no sense.

You do not have a "lack of 'belief'"...but rather have beliefs different from the beliefs of theists.

[Frank Apisa]

It has to do with the definition.

"A-" means without. In this case it means "without belief of god/gods" and "without knowledge of god/gods".

So...the word "amaze" in your considered opinion means "without a maze?"

It doesn't actually have to do with definition...it has to do with etymology.

According to many atheists, the word "atheist" is a result of the etymological "a" Greek for without...prefixing "theist" meaning person who believes in a god...and results in "without a belief in a god."

THEY ARE WRONG.

First of all, the word "atheist" came into the English language BEFORE "theist"...so atheist could not have derived that way.

The word "atheist" did derive from the Greek, but through the French. "A" without + "theos" a god...means BEING WITHOUT A GOD.

And for most of it life, atheist meant exactly that...being without a god.

But debating atheists realized there was value in pretending to be without beliefs...so they pretended the word meant what you are pretending it means.

I have never known a person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor who does not "believe" there are no gods or who does not "believe" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Agnostics are the true non-believers on the issue.

Descriptors suck.

Here is my position:

I do not know if any gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.


No need for a descriptor, but if one were applied, I doubt "atheist" would be considered more appropriate than "agnostic."

There is no active belief or knowledge.

People who use atheist...do have an active belief.

[PostmodernProphet]

Morals guide their behavior. If you think murder is morally wrong that belief does not have to come from religion.

the whole point of the original comment was that atheists have no guidance in shaping their moral standards.......for you to argue that their moral standards give them that guidance merely shows you have no clue what the discussion is about........now go back outside and play until supper......