Other type of atheism?
Offline Hi all,
I just came across this forum after watching "The God Who Wasn't There" movie. I'm not a theist, nor agnostic. Atheist is my closest position. But IMO I found atheist definition in this website not quite precise or clear. From the thread: www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33479#comment-397947 I found the founding members aren't seemed to be really atheist. Because they still believe in god (or God, whatever) who is the Creator, the Supreme Being. Positive atheist definition doesn't mention anything about what 'god' means, to be more specific. My understanding of atheism, to be more precise (so that the term won't confuse anyone,) deny or reject any claim of:
- Supreme Being, Creator, who is responsible for everything (universe creation, decide afterlife, etc)
- The Supreme Being as salvation
I'm that kind of atheist, and not agnostic. I don't think positive atheism has the same criteria. CMIIW.
-
- Login to post comments
the thread was more or less about atheism and the most common religion that we encounter, to get more specific atheism is just a disbelief in any claim made in regards to claims about any deity/god/goddess/supernatural being. Basically for me, I am not convinced about the evidence/claims is true as A) the evidence is pretty much non existent, B the claims made tend to be contradictory or require the being to some how defy all known laws of physics and the laws of this universe to exist. C the definition for said god is to vague or not defined properly to make a proper coherent claim.
Regarding the importance of evidence, no doubt I'm in the same position. But regarding supernatural being, I think you should differentiate between those who exist in reality and those who's only imaginary. I do believe the existence of supernatural beings in term of common deities/gods. It's very common in the west to believe they're not real. It's understandable since the west has very limited (if not none) exposure to such phenomena. But FYI, in the east, supernatural stuffs including supernatural beings are quite commonly known. There are many cases where people can see and/or communicate with supernatural beings, e.g. ghost caught on tape. No matter you believe it or not, they're real.
But for any supernatural being in term of a being who is Almighty, the Creator, Supreme Being, there's no proof. It's only imaginary. Theists cannot provide any single proof.
Thus I think the more specific regarding the term 'god' needs to be added to the definition of atheism. Since the meaning of theism has the sense of salvation (given by Creator god) in it, more precise definition for true atheism should deny the existence of Creator god/supernatural being.
-
James Randi has a great deal of money for anyone who can prove such claims. So far, no one has been able to win his prize -- after all, the presence on non-believers often causes the supernatural beings to run away. I wonder why that is so?
Very easy to fake ghosts on tape. Even I could do it and I am not very interested in special effects.
As for communicating - "Eenie meenie chilee beanie, the spirits are about to speak!" And who can prove me wrong?
Skepticism - I highly recommend it.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
To any claims of supernatural beings, the issue is if they are supernatural they are automatically beyond nature and therefore outside of this universe. If they exist within this universe they have to be natural beings following the physical laws of our universe. Therefore the issue is the definition of supernatural.