The most basic belief of Atheism is the belief that there is no god. It's not that Atheists deny things as much as it is that Atheists simply don't believe things that are presented without evidence. The real difference between Atheism and traditional religions is that all traditional religions are based upon the fallacy of appeal to authority. They say "It's true because the holy man says it's true" or "it's true because the holy book says it's true." We say "We're going to treat it as true only if the preponderance of scientific evidence shows it to be true." Yep! We're equal opportunity rejectors! It seems to me that everything, even Atheism, requires some amount of belief. When you sit in a chair, you do so because you have a belief that the chair will hold your weight. This is (usually) a reasonable belief. "Faith" might be a better word for the concept you're thinking of? Login and science -- these are a few of my favourite things.
I corrected the typo there. *bursts into song about "these are a few of my favourite things!"* (I notice we spell favourite the same way.)
Do you believe that Australia exists? No. you know that Australia exists. Do you believe that jennies who live in bottles and will make all your wishes come true exist? No. you don't believe. Nonetheless, you can't prove they don't exist. But you have no reason to believe that they exist, until evidence is presented to you. According to the philosophy of modern science nothing exists, even if theoretically possible, until proven otherwise. If you believe it exists or not, it doesn't matter. Therefore, in the lack of evidence, it takes belief to accept god's existence --> because it breaks the above rule of modern science. But it DOES NOT require belief to deny it: its just the default position. Or, No more than it takes belief to deny the possibility that the world was created by a fairy living in my underwear 15 minutes ago and give you all the memory and created all the lights. Both have the same amount of evidence. This is just another creationist "trick". Don't fall for it. Atheism requires reason, knowledge, not belief. There are no school systems that teach atheism as a belief system. There is no deity to worship. There is no punishment if you fail to worship. There is no clergy that has the ability to live in palaces without blushing. There is no inherit hate to everything different. There are no daily ceremonies. There is no censorship ---> on the contrary, atheism thrives in an environment where everything is put to scrutiny. There is nothing similar between atheism and religion, no matter how the religious dudes who follow their dogma would try to make you to think. There is no philosophical symmetry between making a huge and absurd claim without a shred of evidence and between rejecting that claim. The first requires belief, the latter requires reason. Mine too.
guess you mean communists are totalitarian. Anyway communists also are believing in something. Maybe you were right according to word meaning. Atheism= anti Theism. As I see most of you believe Atheist is a belief and beside you add it's follow by some evidence. I guess Theists also can show some evidence for their believe. some times we site in a chair when haven't another option and hope it hold our weight for a while till we find a trustable chair. What am I talking about! rather to be the same I guess.
Yep. Unfortunately Communism is a belief system based upon revenge for imaginary wrongs done by a theoretical "class" of people. Marxism leads to the same totalitarian hell on Earth as Mohammedanism. If a theist could introduce me to God, I'd be eternally grateful. That's almost more of an Agnostic approach. I'm not personally fond of Agnosticism, but at least Agnostics don't frequently engage in religious violence. That sets them ahead of most other groups.
What I meant was that under communism as we knew it, there was no priesthood or religious leaders supporting the regime, so they had to outlaw anything but atheism to ensure no religious opposition would rise to threaten their ruling.
oh, and also, the discussion about communism/atheism is not a good one. you compare a political/social ideology with something that is completely different. These are unrelated. You can be a religious communist, or an atheist communist. I don't see any relation between the two.
Have the Atheist who believe there is a soul bothered to define its meaning - in relation to its proximity with the body? .
You can be. As I have pointed out, many Catholic priests are Communists and Ayn Rand was one of the worlds most effective anti-Communists. Nonetheless, due to the historical social relationships between Communism and Atheism, I would feel morally uncomfortable if I did not specifically denounce Communism as the evil that it is. Historically, the Communists were very effective at spreading Atheism, and often at simply murdering non-Atheists. In the United States and Europe, there is still a close relationship between Communism and Atheism. What is the first step towards recovery? It is admitting that you have a problem. I believe that we as Atheists cannot successfully reform Atheism until we admit that we have a few problems. This is not significantly different than my continual pushing of Muslims to admit to the problems of Islam -- which they consistently refuse to do. I like to believe that we as Atheists are better than that.
Communism wanted to destroy religion not because it cared about the existence/inexistence of god, but simply because they wanted to destroy the authority of clergy and be the only ruler of the crowds. nothing more, nothing less. Same goes for all other totalitarian politics ideologies such as fascism nazism, and simply dictatorship like in N. korea. Hitler even rewrote the bible and introduced two extra commandments http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200806413536661 If most priests were pro communism this is just because they had to. But not always: In extremely religious countries, like Poland, the communists failed to destroy religion and learned how to co-exist with it. read more on the web on the relations communism/church in Poland. There is no benefit in long discussions on atheism/communism in an atheist thread as the two are very very loosely related. One is about politics/sociology/hisotry/etc', the other is about science/philosophy/logic
That depends upon what you mean by "the spiritual world". Atheists tend to deny ghosts and other such psychic tomfoolery. If, on the other hand, you mean the joy one might receive from a beautiful symphony, my answer will be the opposite.
This doesn't properly answer the question on how atheism can be used to "justify the good", one can say that this is simply your personal view which does not represent the whole "belief" of Atheism. What is "good" according to atheism? What are the conditions of one having done an "evil" if a moral compass is non-existent? If I am an atheist, and I believe that "according to what I think for" myself that giving alms is an "evil" and that robbing is "good", how does an atheist try to argue otherwise? I have yet to see any answers to these very real questions from atheists. Islam is far superior as a religious doctrine as it have answered these questions and more from its very inception. Unless this Steven Weinberg is someone who is the equivalent of a prophet in Atheism, I don't see why should I take his opinion about Atheism doctrine seriously.
You won't see answers you like, because it is obvious that the only answers you will accept are built upon the fallacy of appeal to authority. Atheism is far too intellectually honest for that. Wrong answers are far worse than no answers at all. Once again, who a person is has no relation to the the correctness of their arguments. You are begging to be a victim of the fallacy of appeal to authority. Human beings have an incredible capability for reason. To beg for some external authority to tell you what to think and what to do is to refuse to think for yourself. It is to deny the most special part of your human existence. To be a human without thinking is to be little more than an ape.
That still doesn't answer the question. I am sure you would be able to answer the question if you reread it properly. I thought I am the one who is asking the questions here. I hold no judgement on your "answers" unless if you don't answer the question at all. "This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious." Since you have quoted him, I would assume that he is an authority in Atheism, yes? Otherwise, what was the point of the quoting? No one is saying otherwise, so let's go back to the topic again. I would like to ask a question on what, in your "incredible capability for reason", is Atheism's argument on what is "good and evil"?
These atheist use what is given than finding what other there is that gave it, simply to die. The sole is meant for the outerworld, to reach across the void where it is found. .
The only answers you accept are answers built upon the fallacy of appeal to authority. Therefore, Atheism has no answers for you. You will not accept answers, therefore your asking has no purpose or value. You have made it very clear that you only accept ideas that are based upon the "authority" of the Qua'ran and those who slavishly follow it. With those preconditions, the only answer that will fit your requirements is fundamentalist Islam. Atheism isn't for everyone. It requires a capable mind and an independent spirit. Absolutely not! Once again you fail to escape your complete dependence upon authority. We quote people for the wisdom of their words, not for their names. Ignore the name; it's the ideas that matter. Scroll back. That's been answered in this thread. You just keep refusing to accept the answer because it requires independent thinking.
I have pretty much indicated that I am willing to read your answer and will attach no "judgement" to it. Since I have not made any quote from the Qur'an or hadith during this discourse for the purpose of learning about Atheism, I fail to see how did you come to this assumption. So if I "independently" decide on what is the "good" and "evil", how does one tell whether that decision is "right" or "wrong"?
If you seek answers, scroll back and read them. They are already posted. You have shows yourself incapable of accepting answers that do not meet your preconceptions about what an answer should look like. This is not the first conversation we have had. In this discussion, you continually reject data which is not based upon the fallacy of appeal to authority. The same way that Muhammad did it -- you think it through and invent your own answers. This is why I say that Atheism is not for everyone. Some people are too mentally or emotionally weak to think for themselves.