Go look in a dictionary. Hell, go define: atheism into google.

Athiesm:
"lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"This word comes from two Greek words, a the negator, and theos, God. Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime. Some atheists claim to "Excercise no belief in a god" the same way they would exercise no belief in pink unicorns."
www.godweb.org/dictionary/dic_a-b.htm

"a (“without”) the (“deity”, or “god”). Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods."
www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/

Therefore: Atheists do not prosletyze, as they have no belief in the supernatural. They are not making an assertion. Theists make an assertion that a supernatural entity exists (or force, or anything supernatural for that matter) whereas atheists do not make this assertion. Therefore atheists are not hypocritical for criticising the prosletyzing of theists.

A whole bunch of other ideas arise as a result of this basic definition, but people seem to be unable most often to grasp this most basic tenent of atheism. The LACK of belief in the supernatural, or God, or Gods, if you prefer.

Hell, there's been two threads about this already, and I'm sure some of the other more aware atheists in this community are probably starting to get sick of repeating themselves every time someone thinks they've got an original complaint.

Close enough.

I have started a thread similar to this one. In that one i pointed out the fact that (at least for me, that english is not my first language) the sufix -ism makes people feel the opposite that you say... For example the word in spanish is "ateo" instead of "ateista" like "monoteista" (monotheist)

Just because you don't believe doesn't mean you don't proselytize. :rolleyes:

Secondly, atheism isn't nessecarily no belief in the "super natural". It's just no belief in any deities.

By your logic, I could say "Christians don't believe in Allah therefore we don't proselytize".

Yes, everyone who claims to be an atheist completely understands that definition and adheres to it.

Just like everyone who claims to be a Christian goes to church every Sunday, will not ever masturbate, and believes homosexuality should be a crime.

Right?

Yes, everyone who claims to be an atheist completely understands that definition and adheres to it.

Just like everyone who claims to be a Christian goes to church every Sunday, will not ever masturbate, and believes homosexuality should be a crime.

Right?

The definition of a Christian is not one who does all those things, simply one who believes Christ is their saviour and son of god. After that, the actions and beliefs of the people who consider themselves christians differ greatly.

Following that, atheists deff make an assertion (that there is in fact no god). One of those defintions says "Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime" which I thought was funny because it doesnt teach anything.

Atheism can mean that they specifically deny the existance of god but that is more like anti-theism. When i hear atheism people are usually refering to that they just simply don't agree with the believers or nonbelievers.

Atheists, in my mind anyway, think more along the lines of "I don't know that there is a god anymore than i know there isn't."

Just because you don't believe doesn't mean you don't proselytize. :rolleyes:

Secondly, atheism isn't nessecarily no belief in the "super natural". It's just no belief in any deities.

By your logic, I could say "Christians don't believe in Allah therefore we don't proselytize".

Deities = supernatural entities. Deities as in all dieties. Therefore all supernatural entities.

Your comparison fu is broken. You can't speak of your beliefs if you have none. Atheists can't properly prosletyze supernatural or religious beliefs, as they HAVE NO beliefs in the supernatural. Also, Christians can't prosletyze following the definition of the word the Islamic faith, but they can the Christian faith.

Yes, everyone who claims to be an atheist completely understands that definition and adheres to it.



Just like everyone who claims to be a Christian goes to church every Sunday, will not ever masturbate, and believes homosexuality should be a crime.

Right?

That's irrelevant. If one argues against Atheism they argue against the definition of atheism, otherwise it's a strawman.

Following that, atheists deff make an assertion (that there is in fact no god). One of those defintions says "Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime" which I thought was funny because it doesnt teach anything.

Atheism can mean that they specifically deny the existance of god but that is more like anti-theism. When i hear atheism people are usually refering to that they just simply don't agree with the believers or nonbelievers.

Atheists, in my mind anyway, think more along the lines of "I don't know that there is a god anymore than i know there isn't."

"Atheism teaches" is a bit ambiguous, I'll admit, but you're right, it doesn't TEACH anything specifically. Those kinds of definitions you could consider a 'dumbed down' approach to atheism, and not true atheism, because they don't understand the WHY in the atheist argument (or importantly, lack thereof.)

Everyone of course has their own personal definitions, but it's completely unfair to expect atheists at large to adhere to your own personal definition (which is in other words a strawman of the actual definition of atheism) for purpose of debate. So, I decided I'd spell it out, for purpose of further arguments, because apparently I'm having the male equivalent of PMS and getting fucking irritated at people repeating the same mistake, thread after thread after thread.

And Breka, that's a very good point. Sorry if I've stolen your thunder.

You're absolutely right...

However, and I've mentioned this frequently, while atheists are not held together by atheism... most of us are definitely held together and united under what we DO believe in, which tends to be quite similar... perhaps because of our freedom from a deity?

For example. I don't believe the church should be tax exempt. If somebody sees the church just like any other corporation out there... then they're likely to feel the same way. The same goes for separation of church and state. If I believe the church is a bunch of empty phony bullshit, then I don't want them impacting the laws and government that affects me. Other atheists are more than likely going to feel the same way.

We are not united by atheism. I have often stated what a joke it is, to see all these angsty teen atheists waving the atheist flag and fighting for their atheism. In reality atheism is nothing to fight for, or stand up for. Its not something to wave a flag for, or lead a charge for. However we are united by a common belief in ideas such as secularism, humanism, etc.

Deities = supernatural entities. Deities as in all dieties. Therefore all supernatural entities.

Your comparison fu is broken. You can't speak of your beliefs if you have none. Atheists can't properly prosletyze supernatural or religious beliefs, as they HAVE NO beliefs in the supernatural. Also, Christians can't prosletyze following the definition of the word the Islamic faith, but they can the Christian faith.

A deity is a bit different from a "supernatural entity" and regardless there are "super natural beliefs" which are atheistic, such as Buddhism, Raelism, and Scientology.

Buddhists are technically atheists, even though most people would consider their beliefs to be "super natural" and "religious". :p

Furthermore, the term "super natural" is highly subjective. I would consider the belief held by most evolutionists that life can spontaneously appear from abiotic matter (abiogenesis (http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp)) to not only be laughable but also "super natural" (life comming from non-living matter has yet to be observed).

Finally, you should look up what proseltyze means before you falsely claim that atheists can't/don't proseltyze. :rolleyes:

A deity is a bit different from a "supernatural entity"
How?

and regardless there are "super natural beliefs" which are atheistic, such as Buddhism, Raelism, and Scientology.
No, there aren't. The only atheistic belief is the one a strong atheist has which is that it's impossible for gods to exist.

I would consider the belief held by most evolutionists that life can spontaneously appear from abiotic matter (abiogenesis (http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp)) to not only be laughable but also "super natural"
There's nothing supernatural about the scientific explanation for abiogenesis and your link is full of pseudo-scientific bullshit and inaccuracies.


(life comming from non-living matter has yet to be observed).
Non-avian dinosaurs have yet to be observed but that doesn't mean they never existed. It's pretty hard to directly observe something that happened as slowly as life forming under conditions much different than the ones which we exist. Thinking that humans must be around to directly observe a process, or that process must never have happened, is juvenile and idiotic.

A deity is a bit different from a "supernatural entity" and regardless there are "super natural beliefs" which are atheistic, such as Buddhism, Raelism, and Scientology.

Buddhists are technically atheists, even though most people would consider their beliefs to be "super natural" and "religious". :p

Furthermore, the term "super natural" is highly subjective. I would consider the belief held by most evolutionists that life can spontaneously appear from abiotic matter (abiogenesis (http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp)) to not only be laughable but also "super natural" (life comming from non-living matter has yet to be observed).

Finally, you should look up what proseltyze means before you falsely claim that atheists can't/don't proseltyze. :rolleyes:

According to the Oxford Australian dictionary: Proselityse
"try to convert people to one's beliefs, or opinions." While we could state that an atheist could prosilityse such things as, their political opinions, it is impossible for an Atheist to prosilityse their religious beliefs, as they have none. And before you say anything on that matter, refusing to assert there is a supernatural entity (or deity) on the basis that there is no evidence for such a claim is not a belief. The 'religious' usage of the term was the usage we and I assume others are reffering to when they say: "Boo! Atheists suck for proselityzing!"

I disagree, supernatural is a very clear cut word. According to the Oxford Australian Dictionary, "of or caused by power above the forces of nature; magical; mystical". Therefore any deity of any form is by definition supernatural, and thus by rejecting a supernatural deity on the grounds that there is no evidence to assert one exists, all atheist (by definition) also reject other forms of supernaturalism on the same grounds. If something is 'above' or 'beyond' the 'forces of nature', or the universe or reality as we know it, then it would I would imagine be considered without evidence and this unassertable.

Buddhists aren't atheists for the same reason Christians' aren't atheists. Though Buddhists are without gods per se, they propose a supernatural matter, that of reincarnation (or karma, or any other supernaturalism in Buddhist dogma), for which there is no evidence; atheists catagorically deny this assertion on a grounds of no evidence, much like any other form of supernatural entity or existence. Same with Scientology. I'm not familiar with Raelism, but I would be inclined to think it too would not propose a deity but some other form of supernaturalism, which I propose that any atheist (by definition) would reject.

Also, abiogenisis is a red herring and has nothing to do with the 'creed' of Atheism, and more to do with the personal opinions of those who are 'members' of that creed. Go debate that in another forum dedicated to scientific matters, plz.

How?

Most people would consider ghosts, angels, demons, spirits, dragons, goblins, leprechauns, and faeries to be "supernatural entities"; however, they are rarely -- if ever -- regarded as deities.


No, there aren't. The only atheistic belief is the one a strong atheist has which is that it's impossible for gods to exist.

Actually, atheism is the belief that God(s) do not exist (not that it's "impossible" for them to exist), although that's nit-picking. Furthermore, since Scientologists, Buddhists, Raelians, and others do not believe in any gods they are technically atheists.

There's nothing supernatural about the scientific explanation for abiogenesis and your link is full of pseudo-scientific bullshit and inaccuracies.

That's the problem though, there is no scientific explanation for abiogenesis. Nobody has ever observed it or made it happen. :p

I'm sure you didn't even read the essay I linked to, but needless to say it was of very high quality. The author, Dr. Jerry Bergman, holds seven degrees in a variety of subjects (including biology).

Non-avian dinosaurs have yet to be observed but that doesn't mean they never existed. It's pretty hard to directly observe something that happened as slowly as life forming under conditions much different than the ones which we exist. Thinking that humans must be around to directly observe a process, or that process must never have happened, is juvenile and idiotic.

So basically, you're saying you know abiogenesis happened even though you have no evidence to back it up. :p So much for atheists going only by empirical observation. ;)

Buddhists aren't atheists for the same reason Christians' aren't atheists. Though Buddhists are without gods per se, they propose a supernatural matter, that of reincarnation (or karma, or any other supernaturalism in Buddhist dogma), for which there is no evidence; atheists catagorically deny this assertion on a grounds of no evidence, much like any other form of supernatural entity or existence. Same with Scientology. I'm not familiar with Raelism, but I would be inclined to think it too would not propose a deity but some other form of supernaturalism, which I propose that any atheist (by definition) would reject.

Buddhists are atheists, atheism has nothing to do with "rejecting religion" or "rejecting the super-natural". It's simply about not believing in any deities, therefore Buddhists are atheists.

As for atheists not being able to proselytize because they have no beliefs, this is absurd. Believing no god(s) exists is still believing something, and when you try to convince others that your belief is correct you are proselytizing. :rolleyes:

Buddhists are atheists, atheism has nothing to do with "rejecting religion" or "rejecting the super-natural". It's simply about not believing in any deities, therefore Buddhists are atheists.

As for atheists not being able to proselytize because they have no beliefs, this is absurd. Believing no god(s) exists is still believing something, and when you try to convince others that your belief is correct you are proselytizing. :rolleyes:

Buddhists don't believe in deities, but do believe in karma, reincarnation, and other supernaturalisms which by the same logic that atheists reject deities, they reject. At least, this is what I suggest. Just because their theism lacks gods doesn't make them atheists. Edit: Perhaps I'm going too far in my definition of atheism including all rejection of all supernaturalism. That's my personal definition, but for purpose of argument I'll forget about that part. My second point still stands however.

As for your second point, that's a strawman. Atheists don't believe that no deities exist. That's why I started this bloody thread! It's equally absurd for me to bend to your definition of atheism when I supplied the official one. Because atheists don't believe, they don't convince others of their beliefs.

It doesn't matter how many times you roll your eyes, you're wrong, Rolloffle.

rolloffle must be a troll.

If you aren't, the reason why life has never been observed to spontaneously generate from inorganic materials is that it takes a very large amount of time. Given a long enough period of time we would easily be able to replicate it in a labratory.

Inorganic gases in the atmosphere of pre-life earth are hypothesized to have been converted to formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide through light energy in an aqueous environment. With kinetic energy and a long enough period of time, simple sugars and amino acids began to develop which, sooner or later, developed life. Of course no one has observed this happening, but experiments have been carried out that show that it is possible for complex organic compounds to originate out of simple inorganic compounds if energy is put into the system. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

how is this that hard to understand? I think you are just afraid to believe it's true because you prefer the comfort of your god-blanket.

Actually, atheism is the belief that God(s) do not exist (not that it's "impossible" for them to exist), although that's nit-picking. Furthermore, since Scientologists, Buddhists, Raelians, and others do not believe in any gods they are technically atheists.

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Sorry Rolloffle, couldn't resist. Your boy Dick Dawkins, of course :p

That's the problem though, there is no scientific explanation for abiogenesis. Nobody has ever observed it or made it happen. :p

Atheists do not claim to know all there is to know about the origins of life. They speculate through scientific discoveries, but they aren't required to have a solid theory on the origins of life in order to be Godless.

The theory of evolution, which most atheists subscribe to - doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of life. It attempts to explain how life developed from there on out.

In short: Scientific explanation alone does not make up the ideology of atheism. Couldn't one still be considered an atheist (without God) even if it were scientifically proven that God exists? Recognition is one thing, complete submission is another.

That's why "non-belief in the existence of God" falls short as a definition of atheism, IMO. The meaning behind the origin of the word itself is probably the most accurate one to infer - simply being without God.