Atheism is not just another religion. It's more of a 'refusal-of-belief' system - or, at most, a 'tries-to-believe-only-that-for-which-there's-evidence' system.
Occam's razor, an' all that.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:22,
archived)
Occam's razor, an' all that.
It's the belief that there is no god.
Otherwise, one is an agnostic.
(Or believes there is a god, obviously).
All religions are based on belief.
Well - that and strong social control mechanisms.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:23,
archived)
Otherwise, one is an agnostic.
(Or believes there is a god, obviously).
All religions are based on belief.
Well - that and strong social control mechanisms.
in which case,if you are,just stay the fuck away from reality.you talk too much sense.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:24,
archived)
Nope. You're conflating a positive belief ("the world is thus-and-so") with a negative belief ("the world is not thus-and-so"). Atheism, qua atheism, is a negative belief.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:26,
archived)
does not make it an even, 50-50 likelihood one way or the other.
I think most atheists would accept that no-one can ever know for sure, but base their position on an overwhelming lack of evidence for God's existence, rather than any dogmatic belief system.
I don't refuse to believe in God, I just haven't been given a convincing reason to do so.
Whether or not you consider this position to be truly atheist or not is more an argument of semantics, rather than theology.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:38,
archived)
I think most atheists would accept that no-one can ever know for sure, but base their position on an overwhelming lack of evidence for God's existence, rather than any dogmatic belief system.
I don't refuse to believe in God, I just haven't been given a convincing reason to do so.
Whether or not you consider this position to be truly atheist or not is more an argument of semantics, rather than theology.
