Is atheism simply a lack of belief in the supernatural?

[warpspeedpetey]

indeed you are correct!

i was speaking to the chris404, i have trouble quoting anything but the entire post, eye reel smeart if i do it again typically i am referring to the last person who referenced one of my posts. im not the sharpest tool in the shed

i named my outside cats once by numbers in ascending order based on the distance they were from the person referencing them, drove everybody else nuts, but i thought it was hilarious,

i be better leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Chris,

To be agnostic about something is to claim that it is impossible to know the answer to the issue at hand. This is a very different sort of situation from being unconvinced by the available evidence of something.

Best,
Leel

what are you unconvinced of leela?
what evidence do you doubt and why?

 

[JDaniel]

If that definition completely and wholly describes atheism, than why would one bother to argue it?

It would appear, from some the the posts herein, that your posted definition is what is meant by most who argue for atheism. In the past, thinkers have described other ways: For example, St. Anselm’s epistemological proof of God’s existence was defined by Bergson so that the atheist had to conceive of God, but, had to conceive of Him without existence. Obviously, based upon the argument, one cannot do that.

after all, if someone claims that they were abducted by aliens, most people would consider them crazy, paranoid, or just plain delusional.

they would shake their head, grin and wonder if he is off his meds. but they surely wouldn’t stand there and argue with him

Hopefully.

so, i am asking

why bother to defend a disbelief in another’s delusions?

A couple of reasons: (1) I have discovered, after many, many years of living, that those who are unsure about their “beliefs” tend to argue the loudest. One could call this a certain lack of “faith” in one’s own rationale. Thus, the incessant search for rock-solid evidence (or rationale).

(2) A “painful” lack of faith, not only in their position, but also, a lack of faith in “faith”. Some people have such a predilection for “thought” that, if they can’t find the proof they need in the “logical”, or the “scientific”, then, either what they want proof for doesn’t exist (God) or they’re going to pursue it until they find it. Either way, it is anthropomorphism.

True “materialists” practice “atheism” as well, but, the practitioners don’t care to debate it.

Those of us with solid confidence in God, Jesus, the Church, morality (issuing from God), and faith, don’t bother to argue - unless, we are teachers and someone is in need of being taught.

JD

 

[RobinSebas]

A “painful” lack of faith, not only in their position, but also, a lack of faith in “faith”. Some people have such a predilection for “thought” that, if they can’t find the proof they need in the “logical”, or the “scientific”, then, either what they want proof for doesn’t exist (God) or they’re going to pursue it until they find it. Either way, it is anthropomorphism.

I think I am somewhere around here.

Those of us with solid confidence in God, Jesus, the Church, morality (issuing from God), and faith, don’t bother to argue -

JD

I am praying I will get here. Thanks JDaniel

 

[JDaniel]

I think I am somewhere around here.

I am praying I will get here. Thanks JDaniel

RobinSebas - you’re going to get my prayers too.

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

the last two posters may find interest in in the thread, what if g-d gave proof? in the philosophy forum

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Hi Leela,

Meaning is a word that means meaning.

Meaning is a word that means meaning to all?
Or
Meaning is a word that means meaning to you?
Or
Both?

Why would I need another word?

To distinguish between
That which is universal
From that which is individual.

When you say that something means something, what does that mean to you?

When I say that something means something,
It means “sameness” to me.

And to me sameness implies universality,
And to me universality implies transcendence.

Psycho

 

[Leela]

Hi Leela,

Meaning is a word that means meaning to all?
Or
Meaning is a word that means meaning to you?
Or
Both?

To distinguish between
That which is universal
From that which is individual.

When I say that something means something,
It means “sameness” to me.

And to me sameness implies universality,
And to me universality implies transcendence.

Psycho

Hi Psycho,

I don’t think that all people find the same meaning in the same things. I don’t imagine my children mean much to you, for example, but they mean the world to me.

best,
Leela

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Hi Psycho,

I don’t think that all people find the same meaning in the same things. I don’t imagine my children mean much to you, for example, but they mean the world to me.

best,
Leela

Hi Leela,

So when you say,
“Meaning is a word that means meaning.”
you mean,
Meaning is a word that means meaning only to you?

(I think my lips just got chapped).

Psycho

 

[SimonArizona]

To be agnostic about something is to claim that it is impossible to know the answer to the issue at hand. This is a very different sort of situation from being unconvinced by the available evidence of something.

Best,
Leel

If The Great God exists, He doesn’t leave you trails of evidence to follow to a conclusion. He has revealed Himself, He has said these are the means by which you shall find me, and if you choose not to follow those means, you cannot in any right declare He is or isn’t because you have not played by the rules He has said to have set forth; but by your own rules, so you have no evidence at all by way of a skewed looking.
But for me, and for billions of believers there is overwhelming evidence, undeniable evidence that following His way to Him, leads to a living God, the Great God.

I think unbelievers make the mistake of assuming they are the only ones with rational thinking minds.

“You will look for me, and you will find me, when you search for me with all your heart.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think unbelievers make the mistake of assuming they are the only ones with rational thinking minds.

not to be rude but that is how it appears, if you disagree with some of the basic ideas they hold, i.e. there is no G-d, and offer arguments in support of your position after they have stated why they “must be right” then the reaction i have seen here and elsewhere is that you are irrational, as though reason were a tool that only they could wield.