How is the idea that there is no credible evidence of the existence of a supernatural being a belief system? A common misconception about atheism is that somehow it was construed to "the belief in no god". That is not atheism. Atheism is accepting the notion that no credible evidence exists for a supernatural being. Big difference. Religion requires a "leap of faith". Atheism requires no such leap of faith. In fact many theists belief that there is no credible evidence for a higher power yet take that leap of faith and believe in a god. I just don't understand why someone would believe that not believing in blind faith is a religion? Atheists do not determine their moral code from a notion that there is no credible evidence for god. There is no traditions or rituals derived from the notion that there is no evidence of a supernatural being.
Atheism is the absence of belief. We don't believe in nothing, we know that God cannot be proven to exist without evidence, therefore the default condition is that God doesn't exist until evidence comes forth. This is not a belief, its the default condition. Just like there could be a invisible unicorn behind me, the possibility is there. However, until evidence comes forth we assume it to not exist. Now there are the "hatas" and they are the self-proclaimed Atheists that will not be moved by evidence, those are the fake Atheist "hatas".
No, that is not the definition of atheism. You can define atheism however you want, but the common definition is not the lack of evidence that there is no supernatural being. On definition of Atheism is the absence of believe in essentially god / religion (we'll leave supernatural being out since you could be religious believing in the "force" or whatever). Problem with that is if you subscribe to that thinking you might be agnostic. Carl Jung pointed out that Atheism in it's pure form was irrational, because if you are truly scientific, rejection of supernatural forces when the nature of reality is inexplicable is a leap of faith. Also Absence of belief is not the same thing of a lack of evidence. Because Believing in something, or not believing in something - has little to do with absence of evidence but rather human psychology - it is not a scientific process. Yes, that is a proper definition. But the issue is how to you differentiate that from agnosticism? Atheism usually goes further and is seen as a rejection of the existence of god, not just the mere lack of evidence. Regardless of that, you also believe that your life has purpose. You build a nest egg, you have kids, you care about things. You have morals and ethics. You have a sense of right and wrong. If you didn't believe in "anything", then why would you pursue any path. Why would care about the future if you believed death was final and nothing more. Science tells you that all of life will ultimately end in this universe. If you accept that as true, that in the end, everything will be an empty sea of space filled with absolutely nothing, why do you get up out of bed each and every morning. You have faith in something. You might not believe in a deity, but you certainly believe in something.
Oh good. I was composing a long post pointing out my issues with those posts, and you went and did it for me. :grin: Those definitely sounded more like agnosticism to me. Sure you can talk about a distinction between lack of belief in god and active disbelief of god, but even if you insist on the former, if you further have a lack of non-belief in god... you're basically agnostic. Sooo... yeah. The one kind of leads into the other anyway.
Good lord, here we again... that damn "if there's no god, and you only believe the universe is all there is, then what's the point of getting out of bed every morning?" The hell do animals live for...? They don't believe in a god.... some don't seem to care less that they're born to simply feed other animals.... yet, they all seem to do everything in their power to stay alive as long as possible.... and they have a lot less going for them than we do, and are less aware of the enormity of the world and vastness of universe around them... ffs..!! Wake the hell up....! What a waste of perfectly good flesh and blood... and worse, a civilized mind... To dismiss all the worth of all you were bloody born with when you were born a human being simply because there's "nothing afterwards"..... What a despicably abhorrent mentality... Better if these "people" were birthed as roaches, they contribute to the betterment of mankind just as little... What a spit in the face of the incredible wonder that is all creation.... Repulsive... And these same people wonder why there can be such "intolerance" towards religion.... It breeds and festers this sort of regressive mindset that only serves to diminish and devalue the significance and worth of humanity and hold back it's potential as a species....
I'm a hedonist. I want to enjoy my life and kick the bucket. I don't believe in anything why do people romanticize faith and purpose so much. Live, procreate, have as much fun as possible, die. I am not driven by purpose, I'm driven by my wants and needs. I'm materialistic not spiritual. I don't really care if I die today or 60 years from now. I fade away into nothingness, there are no human feelings like regret, fear, anxiety, etc. You simply cease to exist, what's so bad about that? Is that really so scary that people cling onto faith so hard? Just a different train of thought I suppose.
Wait....what? Since when not believing something becomes a belief system itself? It's like saying bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby.
