Not all god’s are supernatural. Atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive...

@Ungod None of the gods I read about were human once they became a god.

Well then, I’d say that your understanding of the definition of “god“ is culture bound...

Totally incompatible with any religion YOU know about...

All I am saying is that Atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive...

In certain cases yes.

But when you have a challenge to meet, it’s all up to you and it’s do or die at this very moment. The time to believe in yourself is NOW, regardless of the evidence!!

I do believe in myself. I exist. Solipsism is a non-started for me as it genuinely is unfalsifiable, so I have to go with the evidence I see around me. If I was something I had made up, it would be incredible for me to accept that I had written the complete works of Shakespeare and all of the world's art and history. In what case is it OK to believe that something exists before there is any evidence for it?

You are drifting off into unending argument. To BELIEVE IN YOURSELF, means to think you can do a particular thing: Win a contest, achieve a goal, become something, stop doing something, etc... Waiting for ‘evidence’ in these cases is often foolish.

@Ungod
I disagree.
If I believed I could beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match, my belief would be no different to faith. I have no evidence that I could ever beat him in a straight contest.
However, I am a motorcycle drag racer. I believe that I can win this year's championship - this is a reasonable expectation based on evidence of past performance, despite the fact I am up against teams with far bigger budgets, more suitable machinery and years more experience. Last year I was fourth overall, this year I believe I can do better.
Those that make decisions about their futures and their abilities without evidence often end up as candidates for the Darwin Awards

Don’t be ridiculous... You would never be pitted against a Mike Tyson! But you would be pitted against someone in a motorcycle drag race that you DID have a chance against.

Contests are exciting because of the real possibility of defeat for the “better” competitor, and victory for the underdog.

You MAY win, even as an underdog, if you DO believe in yourself. But you WILL lose if you don’t... Buster Douglass believed in himself and shocked the world!

And there’s nothing to stop BOTH fighters from believing in themselves!

It’s like training for a fight or contest... You MUST train if you expect to win. You MUST believe in yourself also. But there’s no guarantee either way!

And you have just confirmed my point. If you train hard, you would know your own level of fitness and commitment and therefore have evidence to reinforce your belief that you can win - in those circumstances that belief can give you the edge. It is the power of positive thinking that can help in all areas of life. If you believe you can't win, then you probably won't.

If I went out and bouight a boat and decided to row across the Atlantic because I believe I can do it, with no evidence other than I use a rowing machine at the gym once a week, then my belief amounts to nothing more than faith and will likely end in tears.

The time to believe in something, including yourself, is when there is evidence to justify that belief. It may not be the strongest evidence, but you need evidence of some sort to evaluate your chances.

Of course, that doesn't stop me believing that I can acheive anything I put my mind to, so with the right training, equipment and practice I probably could row across the Atlantic.

I stand by my original statement that the time to believe in something is when there is evidence to support that belief.

I sooo fully agree with your second sentence, “The crowd here...”. It seems people are locked (culture bound) into certain definitions of the words that are important in these discussions, like SPIRIT, GOD and even THEIST and ATHEIST.

But I have a real problem with the idea of a “real meaning” of words “as that evolves with use over time:

1. Words just don’t have a “real meaning”, but only the USAGE meaning of daily use.
2. That this meaning “evolves with use over time” flies in the face of a word having a “real meaning”, in the first place.
3. There’s just no intrinsic meaning (real meaning) to a word, except in the most scientific, technological uses, and especially the words we use in these discussions!

The words we use in these discussions are in the realm of RELIGION, where any word, group of words and even events, seem to have whatever meaning the person using or hearing them gives them.

Usually you can make headway in a discussion when you agree as to the definition of words and their usage.

But in many of these discussions, the meaning of these important words GOD, RELIGION, SPIRIT, THEIST, etc, seem to have a different meaning for each person using them and the conversation just goes nowhere!

Correct @ungod - these words have different meanings, but not just to different people... different dictionaries as well. I simply put that up to the fact they deal with concepts, not scientific, technological issues which is where I'm coming from.

Yeah, discussion is pretty useless when you make up your own definition for words!

But you won’t find “different dictionaries”, of American English, published at the same time, with different meanings!!

Dictionaries merely record the CURRENT meanings and usages of words...

That would assume theism is a “truth”...

@Ungod Theists hold their truth without evidence. Those two little words entirely change the complexion of the statement. We don't need to make any assumptions.

But you very much so DO! Saying something is “truth”, especially without evidence, is the very definition of assumption: [dictionary.com]. You also have to clarify what “two little words” you are talking about!

@Ungod The only assumption being made is by the theist accepting truth without evidence. Reading is fundamental, but comprehension is key.

“Theism is truth...” your words. Your assumption...

@Ungod I wrote that theism is the acceptance of truth WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I'm sorry that you can only read statements WITHOUT COMPREHENSION.

You wrote, “Theism is truth...”, your words, your assumptions!

Save your sorrows for your lack of written English communication skills!

Save your sorrows for your lack of written English communication skills!

@Ungod My only sorrow is that I get to interact with half-wits. Thanks for my daily dosage.

@atheist Exactly! One can only believe in a god through faith. So long as there isn't a symbol separating, a double negative is positive. However, it could cancel out with a -, much like what happens when theists apply logic to their faith.

Yes, note that the original definition of atheism did not necessarily mean that one did not believe in God, but that one did not believe in a particular type of God.

You can’t believe in a non-interactive supernatural (or natural) being?

Some believe in a god that set creation in motion and then withdrew from all interaction with it.

And ou’re making a mistake by defining something as a “not”.

@Ungod

Yes indeed people can believe in a non-interactive god. A god who 'set things going' long ago, but plays no active part in the day-to-day running of the universe (who does not, for example, listen to prayers).

This is certainly a very different concept from most forms of organised religion, and the term I have heard used for it (and I, myself, use) is 'deist' rather than 'theist' to make that distinction.

I don't believe in that either - so I happen to be an 'adeist' as well as an 'atheist'.

And why is it a 'mistake' to define something in terms of a 'not'?

X is a concept.

Some people believe X is true - there is a term for such people.

Others are not a member of the above group - their membership of the 'not the above' group is as clearly and precicely defined as the membership of that group, and there is a term for them.

So you ask someone 'Do you believe in an interactive, supernatural being?' They answer either 'Yes' (in which case they are a theist) or they no not say 'Yes' (in which case they are not a theist - which makes them an atheist).

Then you have agnostics who (quite rightly, I believe) state that the matter cannot be proven - but that is a separate matter. That is 'Do you accept there can be PROOF for or against the existance of a god?'

Saying 'I don't accept the matter can be proven' does not mean that you, personally, neither believe in the existance of such a god, or do not so believe - so both theists and atheists can also be agnostic.

For myself:-

I am atheist - I am not a person who believes in the existance of an interactive god.

I am adeist - I am not a person who believes in the existance of a non-interactive god either.

I am agnostic - however I accept that it is unlikely the matter will be effectively 'proven' either way.

The error with “I am not”, is that it doesn’t clarify what you ARE!

But it does define what you are, @Ungod.

Theist defines a particular sub-set of humanity. 'Not a theist' defines you with equal precision as one of the population outside that sub-set.

Absolutely @Ungod - that's why I am as much an adeist as I am an atheist.

“Adeist”!?? You are DROWNING in meaningless split hairs!

@Ungod - I'm defining 'atheist'. What I believe it to mean is what I actually believe it to mean - not 'nearly that meaning' or 'that meaning plus a bit so that other things get included'.

An atheist is someone who is not a theist - a theist is someone who believes in the existance of an interactive, supernatural being.

It's actually rather simple.

A theist is ATHEIST to every god but his own. An ATHEIST goes one step further...

Absolutely true, @Ungod. That statement is entirely compatable and consistant with my own definition as well.

Your own definition would have both of them “defined” as atheists. But I understand, It’s impossible for some folx to admit error! . But enjoy making up your own definitions for words...!

No @Ungod. The theist believes in an interactive supernatural being - therefore he's not an atheist. The fact that there are other such beings that he does not believe in does not stop it being true that he believes in one.

Not all gods are supernatural beings...

If they're not supernatural, then they're a pretty shit god - because they can't do anything 'un-natural' and are therefore just ordinary people or creatures.

That’s because you insist on the definition of god as being a SUPERNATURAL BEING, or “creature”...

I don’t know if you are ready for it, but there are concepts of gods that are far more practical, real, logical and SCIENTIFIC, than the typical SILLY concepts found in western civilization of invisible beings and “creatures” in inaccessible but natural places like certain mountains and bodies of water, supernatural realms, and now “beyond space and time” dominions...

Atheism also was defined as the view of people who didn’t believe in the “correct” god - the one(s) the dominant society believed in, such as with ROME and GREECE...

The problem is what you define as “god”... I have heard someone call themself and atheist, and then tell me he prays to SATAN! I hear atheists say they are “spiritual”. The only real world natural definition of “spirit” I have ever heard was MIND. I don’t think that’s what these atheists I am referring to mean by spirit. My college comparative religion instructor taught that angels, demons and the like are gods - challenging the monotheism of the Abrahamic religions!

@Ungod Well, I don't believe in any of that.

You don’t believe you have a mind??

@Ungod Depends on the day.

Well, then you do believe SOME of it!

We are born atheists without “rejecting” anything for any reason. Atheism is merely a description of one’s outlook on life. One answer to one question (if asked). I don’t think there are unicorns because I never thought there were in the first place. Ditto Sasquatch...

There is one problem with that argument. According to the Webster dictionary a atheist is somebody that believes there is no God. So you cannot be born in atheist because when you are firstborn you don’t know about religion or Gods. So you can’t believe something doesn’t exist if you have never heard of it. @Ungod

Merriam Webster defines atheism as “lack of belief” [merriam-webster.com].

Like belief in a god, you can lack (a particular kind of) money even though you have no idea what that money is!

Now once someone actually presents the concept of god to you as something for you to believe, THEN you can reject it if you so choose...

You can’t believe something doesn’t exist if you never heard of it. Now if you want to a you are born agnostic I could go along with that. @Ungod

Atheists don’t believe “something doesn’t exist”.

Your definition of atheism is off...

To be fair, whites (trash or class), are not the only ones that can be “not pro-diversity”...

this is true-however think most Nazis,KKK, white nationalists are white.

It's true that science and technology are nowhere near their pinnacle, if indeed that's even a useful concept. However science is the only vehicle that can actually deliver any information about the existence and nature of god or any other entity, and most (arguably, all) gods are inherently unfalsifiable. Hence, never the twain shall meet. Hence, it's an irrelevant question to which I'm indifferent.

The argument is not that there is no god (knowledge claim) but that there's no valid basis to form a belief about one (belief claim).

well, that there "is no god" is the conclusion many have reached and they cite this lack of evidence as proof.

I suppose if one is going to lean on science and logic they need to learn how to use it.

@hankster "there is no god" would be a legitimate verbal shorthand in almost any other context but when it comes to god it becomes a big deal. In my experience if you press even the minority of atheists who are staking a knowledge claim, they will admit they don't literally mean that. Atheism in any case is a denial of belief to the unsubstantiated. It's a statement that there's no evidence for god -- not directly that there's no god. Atheism is just one side effect of skepticism.

@mordant well I guess if an atheist doesn't mind being misunderstood then its fine to exchange those terms, because they mean very different things, at least to those outside of the atheist community. And it's entirely possible that they don't mind being misunderstood of course.

@hankster Some atheists (like me) care about being precise and also about not feeding the theist perception that we are "arrogant" and making unjustifiable knowledge claims. Some do not. Some haven't thought it through that well. Being an atheist doesn't make someone logically consistent, or Spock-like, or even guarantee that they have given it any thought at all. Fortunately most of us end up embracing skepticism and critical thinking, and our minority status keeps us on our toes, too.

If you define god as someone who was crucified, to death, and then returned to life, yes. There is plenty of scientific proof that THAT is not the case!

I don't accept the premise that science / logic are anywhere remotely close to even guessing what evidence of god would look like, much less how to measure it. And I'm not sure god would leave any "evidence" to begin with. So..... thats where i am with the universe before me.

Your comment misses the mark... The argument that there IS a god when there is NO evidence is the argument that is weak. You also mention “scientific evidence”. What other evidence do you have that PROVES the existence of god? What other evidence is there other than SCIENTIFIC evidence? And please show an example of what it PROVES !!

You look in an empty room and see NO ONE is there. THAT is “lack of evidence” anyone IS in the room. That “lack of evidence” is evidence of absence...

@Ungod you and i are not going to agree on this one. Our lenses and senses seem far apart. peace.

I asked you for evidence and you have none...

@Ungod you don't either in my book, no one does. I find your posistion presumptive based on the faith of a science that isn't anywhere near capable of determining these things. however that's your business not mine. your argument, your assumption, reminds me of a Christian who's absolutely convinced that there is a God. you strike me as the type who just wants to win an argument regardless.
so I'm done with you. peace if you can.

And still, you have NO EVIDENCE for a “god claim”!!

Claiming there is a god requires EVIDENCE to support it...

NOT claiming there IS a god, means NO EVIDENCE is required!

Anyway, the evidence FOR god is non-existent, that alone invalidates that claim! Thus, that argument is 100% “weaker” than the logical conclusion that there is no god.

No room for FALSE EQUIVALENCY... The preponderance of the evidence proves NO GOD! Just as the lack of evidence of guilt = NOT GUILTY!

You just can’t make a case when there’s NO EVIDENCE to support it!

lol.... even if I had evidence I wouldn't show it to you. I never claimed with any certainty there was a god. I never characterized anything about a god. what I'm telling you is the science, is incapable determining whether there is or is not a god. you tell me what would evidence of god looks like. science has no idea what evidence of God would be or look like, it's even possible you've been looking at evidence of god for centuries and calling it something else because you explained it with science. nevermind.

I asked you what other evidence is there other than SCIENTIFIC evidence, and for an example of what this “other than scientific evidence” proves.

So far you’ve avoided answering that question 100%!

You have to first thoroughly DEFINE the god, before you talk about evidence that proves its existence!

You have absolutley NO basis for “telling me, science is incapable of determining whether or not there is a god”. You have to first define the god!

Those who claim god is supernatural, have to first define “supernatural” and then come up with evidence, not only for the god, but the supernatural!

YOU have to define the god, before I can tell you what the evidence would look like!

“Even if I had evidence, I wouldn’t show it to you,”
LOL! How weak a statement can you make!??

But at least you admit you don’t have the evidence in the first place!

nonsense. bye.

STILL avoiding the question !!

there is no evidence, even if there were science couldn't validate it. you've still got your cart way before your horse. your conclusions are presumptive, your logic is incomplete, and your caps key needs rest.

your style of atheism adds up to a troll. a wanna be atheist trolling agnostics, sad life.