Atheism isn't a belief?

Naturally. It has to have some way to rationalize the total lack of proof on which it is founded and the fact that these "unbelievers" can see right through it. Just shift the onus onto the "unbelievers". They will never notice. And what if when you die you find yourself waking up after a good long sleep session in a fantasy induction-anti-boredom machine. In this machine you dreamed that you lived in a fictitious country called Ireland and spent your dream life believing in some god that had absolutely no evidence. You engaged in long, interesting (and possibly a little wacky) discussions with an imaginary person called Purple Youko by means of a thing called the internet.
Once you leave the boredom reduction facility, you would go back to your mundane immortal life of boredom and long for the next time you can take some R&R in dreamland. Your turn will come around again... eventually.Is this just a fantasy story? or does it have exactly as much reason to believe in it as the story you are proposing?As you say, we will all find out when we die.

I will go along with that. No it isn't. There is no doctrine of Atheism and there is no "something else". A newborn baby is by definition an atheist. Nobody formed a doctrine. There is no doctrine. Atheists become atheists because they lose (or never had) a belief in god. End of story. I am utterly lost for words. Has nothing that Purple Dawn, DominionSeraph, myself and others have said, sunk in at all? OK you got me. I believe in air. Satisfied? I have absolute faith that there is air in this room with me. Oh wait that doesn't work since air can actually be measured, tested, falsified so it isn't faith.
Bugger that must mean I don't exist then. POOF!! (vanishes in a puff of logic)I don't want to sound rude here but debating you is a bit of a waste of time. No matter how many examples I throw at you that substantiate my position, you just ignore them and carry right on, utterly unaffected. There is no middle ground here. You are making assertions that atheism is a religion with tenets, creeds, faith etc. You are trying to push belief systems onto me that are just plain wrong.Atheism is defined by one single thing. That thing is a lack of belief in god.
It doesn't matter one tiny little bit what else I believe or don't believe. That one central feature defines me as an atheist. I don't believe in god. Everything else is completely and utterly irrelevent to everybody except you.

Maybe the IPU was right all along.Maybe nobody pays any attention to us poor people of purple persuasion.Take care with that purple dragon of yours.I am off to study up on the holy video of Star Wars and see if I can find the deeper meanings of that strange noise that Chewbaka always makes.

But A-Theism as a definition of being without an active belief in God, very much does sit in a vacuum. My own personal case is not typical.
When a baby is born, it has no concept of God and is therefore by definition lacking an active belief in God. It is an atheist. Beliefs, either positive or negative are built upon later. You are correct that every action or movement has a cause. However Atheism is (again by definition) a complete lack of action or movement. As such it is the default position at which we all start. A cause is required for us to move away from this position but not if we simply do nothing and stay there.The definition of SA that we both arrived at is a different point from this since is was driven toward the position of atheist by positive reinforcement of science. The pure essense of atheism, however, does not require this. All it needs is a complete lack of belief in god.
If someone has never heard of god they have no belief in him. Period. They are as pure an atheist as it is possible to be. Most of us cannot fall into this catagory. Understood. I think the thing that bugs me most is this a-anything which you keep throwing around. If somebody is a-anything then they must not believes anything at all, including the fact that they have hands and feet, that they actually exist, that Chevy Chase isn't actually funny and so on. The term is patently ludicrous.

Thanks for your input Phatboy. I agree with this 100% (except for the bible bit that is ) I quite agree. The very essence of my point is that it cannot be proven objectively, just as you say.

I wonder if finally you are getting it?
I doubt it though.
The point is that this statement actually strengthens the atheist position since the entire concept of god cannot be falsified or verified so this makes any kind of belief in it, utterly non-scientific and irrational. In your own word this makes god the direct equivelent of "nothing at all" so since I have no belief in this "nothing at all" due to its complete and utter insignificance then I am being 100% rational.

This is quite simply not true. Please stop trying to force non-existent beliefs on me. There are no atheistic beliefs just as there is no light in absolute darkeness. Let's look at a few definitions from th eweb to see if we can put this to rest once and for all.
From Religious tolerance .org

quote:

---

Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.

---

Or this from Atheism about.com

quote:

---

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

---

There are hundreds of definitions out there that support a complete lack of belief in god without any other belief to replace it. Why can't you just accept that the definition of atheism does not stretch as far as reasons for the lack of belief or to any other beliefs that the atheist may or may not have.
The fact that I reached my own position through logical deduction and examination of evidence is completely irrelevent to my atheism.
The difinition of atheism simply stops at a lack of belief in GOD. Nothing else is included or excluded.

Don't try and twist this around. I am not the one making the claim that there are limits. You haven't shown that the limits even exist. You haven't shown that God exists. You haven't shown that atheism includes any beliefs.
Proof can only be objective since it is consists of evidence which is capable of convincing others of your point. You have shown no evidence at all of your point.
You can't prove something subjectively. The concept is meaningless

OK then. What is a proof?
Here is a nice easy definition from The free dictionary.com

quote:

---

proof (prf)
n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

---

There are a few others but they don't really match the situation.
These all relate to evidence.How about "Objective" (same web site)

quote:

---

objective (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.

---

"Something that exists." I like that. I also like "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices"
So when I ask for objective proof, I want evidence that exists. Is that too much to ask for?
Now can there be a proof that is not objective? That would be (by dictionary definition) evidence that does not exist.OK I have now thoroughly backed up my claim that evidence that actually exists is the only form of evidence which has any meaning.Over to you nowThis message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 08-29-2005 10:08 AM

This is just getting silly.
Proof = Evidence
Objective = Something real, that exists.It quite obviously follows that "Objective Proof" is the same thing as "evidence that exists"The fact that the definition of "Proof" does not include the word "Evidence" and vice versa is utterly irrelevent.Look up the word "big" if you like. You will find that it means large, huge, not small etc.
Now look up the word "Elephant". (An african or Indian mammal with a trunk). It doesn't say "Big" in it does it?
Does that mean that the definition of "Big" is invalidated because it isn't included?Of course not.Proof and Objective are not the same word are they. Why the heck would the definition of one include the other. They are totally unrelated except when placed together in a sentance just like Big and Elephant.If you are going to twist things around beyond all sensible meaning just for the heck of it then this whole debate is pointless.Give us credible, believable, objective ("Real") evidence or don't expect any more responses at all.All you are doing is disputing reality.

Right. That would be NO. Why should it?

Hi PhysrhoAll good questions. Many have no definite answers as yet. Scientists are constantly working to find those answers.
Maybe you are right that science is beginning to cross into the spiritual and that really agrees with my own views that there is intrinsically no difference between the physical and the spiritual and that any "barrier" is just percieved by the individual. Here, though is where I diverge from your views. I do not see any way that it requires faith to say "I don't know". Atheists (as a group)have no faith in naturalism as faith requires belief without proof. As a scientist (who happens to NOT believe in God) I have no problem at all with simply saying "I don't know" when faced with these tricky questions. Maybe one day I will find out. Maybe I won't.
Either way I draw no conclusions beyond the available evidence so where exactly is the "faith"?

Not quite what I meant but close enough.
I just think that what exists simply exists, spiritual, natural, whatever. It is all just part of the same thing. Science has traditionally started in at one end of the spectrum while religion has started at the other. It is inevitable that they are going to meet in the middle at some point. If I am right then science will just keep moving on till it encompasses everything.
I guess that what I am trying to say is that in my philosophy, God (if he indeed exists) is just as natural as a lump of rock. He will eventually become every bit as quantifiable as any other part of the natural universe. If he created the universe then he used science to do it, science unimaginably beyond the meagre knowledge that we have now granted, but science all the same.
Supernatural is just stuff that we don't understand yet and in the short sighted fashion that is typically human, we have erected barriers of our own making and called one side natural and the other side supernatural. Take them away and it is all natural.

I wouldn't say so, since we typically designate those things that we can measure and understand as "natural".
As science progresses, we find ourselves able to measure more and more things that at one time were thought to be supernatural. The percieved barrier moves.
Right now it has already been moved a long way from where it was a couple of hundred years ago. Nobody knows how far it can move into what has always been the bastion of the supernatural. If it moves all the way then everything that was previously supernatural is now natural.Natural just means understood after all.

But then who defined God in the first place? I will grant you that the Christian God (as defined by man) is not possible on purely logical grounds.And again, who defined these limitations? Man did. Maybe there aren't any limitations on God or on us.
It is quite possible that our universe exists in a small subsection of some larger, wholly natural, universe. We already theorize a reality that consists of 11 dimensions (M theory) and that allows for any number (possibly infinite) of alternatate, largely self contained universes created when membranes collide.
Let's just imagine that God is just some scientist in one of these other dimensions who happened to be messing about with manipulation of the membranes and figured out how to make two or more collide to create our universe. Now imagine that he has some way to look into our universe like we watch fish in a bowl or microbes under a microscope. Maybe even manipulate stuff now and again.Would this scenario make him supernatural?I don't think so. It makes him a scientist who just happens to know a lot more than we do. One day perhaps we too can figure out how it all works and make our own universes. Maybe move outside of our own and actually shake hands with our "Creator" as complete equals.Science fiction? Maybe, but yesterday's science fiction has an uncanny knack of becoming today's science.Of course this is all assuming that there ever was a god to begin with. My point all along is that I am unwilling to rule out what has not been proven to be impossible.