Question For Atheists

[Victor]

to me, atheism only maintains that there is no afterlife.

[IronUnkind]

By this definition, one could believe absolutely in a deity and still be considered an atheist -- this would include many religious Jews and even some Christians.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you still call yourself an athiest if you think that it is quite possible that our universe was created by a non omnipotent being from another dimension.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I can. It is omnipotency and prime cause I have an issue with. What you are suggesting as a cause is simply shifting the issue of god/no god, Which is what the god concept does also, but it does not allow further discusssion, for no other reason that this is how it is defined (smacking of circularity).

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with that idea and certainly think I am an aethiest. Thats because I almost treat being a theist as requiring irrational thoughts. The way you have posed the question makes the option non-rediculous.

I think the other difference between an atheist that believes that is a possiblity, and a religious believer, is that the atheist wouldn't preach it as a certainty without more information.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems silly to me, if I get this right. If you aren't a theist because it requires irrational thoughts, why be an atheist? It requires irrational thoughts as well, because you're trying to explain something that you can't be qualified to explain, ie., the general form or purpose of the universe. I'd go so far to say that theists have a leg up on atheists, in that what they believe in could be proven, and that there might very well be actual evidence for it as well, although I wouldn't consider myself at all informed enough to say if there is or isn't. Atheism, on the other hand, can never be proven.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with that idea and certainly think I am an aethiest. Thats because I almost treat being a theist as requiring irrational thoughts. The way you have posed the question makes the option non-rediculous.

I think the other difference between an atheist that believes that is a possiblity, and a religious believer, is that the atheist wouldn't preach it as a certainty without more information.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems silly to me, if I get this right. If you aren't a theist because it requires irrational thoughts, why be an atheist? It requires irrational thoughts as well, because you're trying to explain something that you can't be qualified to explain, ie., the general form or purpose of the universe. I'd go so far to say that theists have a leg up on atheists, in that what they believe in could be proven, and that there might very well be actual evidence for it as well, although I wouldn't consider myself at all informed enough to say if there is or isn't. Atheism, on the other hand, can never be proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying that there is no solid evidence for the existence of god is not an irrational position. Claiming that there is a god and utilitzing weak arguments such as "god exists because it says so in the bible" could indeed be called irrational.

[kbfc]

Sure. At this point, though, it's not going to affect my life or decision making in any way whatsoever.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that there is a god and utilitzing weak arguments such as "god exists because it says so in the bible" could indeed be called irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is irrational whether one calls it so or not.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that there is a god and utilitzing weak arguments such as "god exists because it says so in the bible" could indeed be called irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is irrational whether one calls it so or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your point, RJT?

[ QUOTE ]

Saying that there is no solid evidence for the existence of god is not an irrational position. Claiming that there is a god and utilitzing weak arguments such as "god exists because it says so in the bible" could indeed be called irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps my definition of atheism is different than yours. What you're describing to me is not atheism. To me, that's an agnostic position

Atheism, to me, and I do make assumptions about common usage, isn't that common religions aren't supported by evidence, it's that there ISN'T a god. I agree, from what I know about religion in general, I think it's weakly supported, but that doesn't mean there is no god, afterlife, superior beings, whatever.

An analogy that sort of works. Let's say you found a box lying on the street. Ignoring information you gather from the size and the weight of the box, you have no idea whats inside. You're theistic friend says there's money inside. That's irrational. You're atheist friend says it's empty. That's irrational. I'm not saying calling them out on that is irrational.

[kbfc]

An atheist (in my mold, at least) doesn't say there's nothing in the box. He basically says, "who knows and who cares? I see no evidence that the contents of this box have any bearing on my life."