Of it's self Atheism makes a simple statement, a rejection of the belief in deities. There is nothing else here, no philosophy of life, of conduct, no political insight and no philosophy of economics. There is no statement, as to moral conduct, decorum, social interaction. There is no indication of Rights and obligations of,both citizen and government.
Under Marxism and too, Communism, Atheism is embraced by government and, as the theism's force themselves on the people,as history demonstrates.Does such an Atheistic government pick up the mantle of a godly omnipotence, and if so, is there a difference?
Atheism rejects the belief in god/s, not god/s as no Atheist possesses universal intelligence and it would be foolish to make such a claim. The exercise of reason however,give proper indication that a god/s do not exist. That one would reject a god, may allude to the premise that there may be a god to reject. A side thought.
There are no certainties in this world.You fly in an airplane with no certainty that you will land safely, why do it? You do it because it is reasonable to believe that you will land safely.There is less reasonable evidence to conclude that you will land safely then there is that a god exists.
I know a great many people, who are very bright, high IQ's, that believe in a god, they are not stupid people. They are intelligent professionals, with families and contribute greatly to society. There is nothing stupid here.
There may be stupid people in this world that believe in a variety of things, to include Atheism and agnosticism.
It would seem to me that to claim others, as stupid, without reservation is to possess an absolute truth, a 100% truth.
I do not claim a universal intelligence, a 100% knowledge of anything, what I do claim is a reasoned position based upon a knowledge of the origins, history and practice of theistic belief, along with an workable understanding of science and with that a reasoned determination that the existence of gods are highly improbable. With that it is incumbent upon me to take a position.
I am not fond of the word Atheist. It was, is and will always be a pejorative and it does not identify me or my thinking. The capacity to reason is the essence of human life, no more or no less.It is that, that best describes me and my thinking, a reasoning being, nothing else, as it is that which sets us apart and above the other earthly inhabitants. It is that 1.3% difference in DNA that allows us to ask the question and then we answer ourselves. It is Homo sapiens-sapiens, a wise Man, a discerning Man, a reasoning Man. Sapien. But i digress and I do tend to ramble. Thank you for the input.
The reason I said this, is that an agnostic may be a fence sitter 50/50 or a virtual atheist 99.9/0.1 or anywhere in between
The only thing they have in common is an unwillingness to claim outright that god doesn't exist. And so when you critique agnostics for being fence sitters and for not recognising the sufficient evidence that god doesn't exist you miss the point that not all agnostics are 50/50 fence sitters and that there will never be sufficient evidence to outright prove gods non existence. Agnostics (regardless of their position in the spectrum from fence sitters to near atheists) are simply unwilling to state conclusively that god doesn't exist.
No matter how unlikely it us that scientific evidence of god should surface; if it did.....are you saying you would deny it?
The point is that we are NOT religious about atheism. We remain rational in our quest to learn the truth about ourselves and the universe.
The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. I do not believe that, but I can calculate it and with verification, it is then incumbent upon me to accept it. The same would apply to the gods.
You may not be religious about Atheism, but some are. Perhaps, we can call them the atheistic theists, as there seems to be agnostic atheists.
That reminds me of a little quip concerning Marxism and Marx, the philosophy of the omnipotent atheist.
Evidently my communication skills are not what they used to be, as it would seem that my thoughts are not translating. I will continue to try however.
Many years ago I joined a Humanist group only to resign my membership a week later. I found that Ayn Rand and humanism were a contradiction in terms and I like the philosophy of Rand.
Charles, I was replying to Davis....
I am relieved and apologetic. Being new have to get use to who is replying to whom.
You may not be religious about Atheism, but some are.
This is absurd.
If atheism is religion, "off" is a television channel, health is a disease, abstinence is a sex position, and baldness is a hair color.
What you described sounds more like a virtual atheist rather than a full out atheist.
Agree but I prefer a step beyond that.
There is no God. Although most here would probably disagree, that COULD be thought of as a scientific statement. Let's draw a parallel to gravity. Were I to hold a pen in front of me supported by nothing (but the buoyancy of the atmosphere), I feel comfortable in stating that, if I release my grip, the pen will fall. Despite the "possibility" some heretofore undiscovered force may intervene, or that a comet which has escaped the notice of all astronomers arrived in that instant and it disrupts Earth's gravitational field causing the pen to hit the ceiling, I need not say, the pen will probably fall. If making a simple assertion about a "fact" (the pen will fall) requires that I take into account every infinitesimal chance of any possibility, then one simply cannot make ANY statement about ANYTHING. What then is the point of communication.
"Serious study is now underway that may prove that the universe is two dimensional, not three."
Hahaha, that's funny.
For the record: There are no doGs. I'm absolutely certain there is not need to "prove" a nill position.
I am sure that you are right, as we all know that inquiry is nill, but then this is not soccer. There were many who believed Columbus's side trip was a waste of time and Einstein was off in Disneyland. It is good that we have you to define what legitimate science and inquiry is all about. Pity the first man who looked at the moon and questioned the shadow. Its nill his buddy said, leave it alone.
@Charles J Hunsinger:
Sorry about that Charles "nil position" (single L), the zero position, the beginning position of all inquiry, the nothing position, the no knowledge position, the blank sheet position, does that help?
Columbus, Einstein, Disneyland...never met the first two but I did enjoy Disneyland the second time I went.
"It is good that we have you to define what legitimate science and inquiry is all about."
Wasn't aware I had done that for you...but...ahhh shucks...you're welcome.
"Pity the first man who looked at the moon..."
Who was that...Adam? :)
I do pity him, look at all the trouble his ol' lady got him into. :0
Now to the "Serious study" of dimensional space.
Charles, stand up, take one step to the left, now take one step to the right, take one step forward, take one step backward, now jump up, and land.
There you go Charles you have just conducted a Serious Study of dimensional space and proved that you do indeed exist in three dimensional space.
The next time someone tells you that the universe you live in is only two dimensions, just perform the above "scientific proof" for him, and then back away slowly (sometimes 2 dimensional people explode when they realize they are in a 3 dimensional space).