Ask an Atheist Anything

Thank God you started such a thread !

Seriously. Your thoughts on Sam Harris and why he's been labeled as Anti Islam (like when they say he pushes back against the myth of Muslim Golden Age or when he denies the belief that none religion is intrinsically violent). Watched that debate on Islamophobia on Bill Maher's show, against Ben Affleck. In my opinion, Harris owned the Hollywood actor. But I've many friends who think the opposite. That's just an example. To be honest, at first he seemed kinda pedantic to me, but the more I listen to him or read his works, the more I like him and respect him.

Have you seen that George Carlin's routine on religion? To me it's a masterpiece. Can watch it over and over.

AshleyCK wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

AshleyCK wrote: I have a question,

where did you get the definition of atheism that you are using from? Is it personal or from somewhere else?

To its updated definition. Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

Disbelief about something doesn't mean the belief of its polar opposite. And as stated there, in the wikipedia definition, in an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities, and might I expound, there are no deities unless there is substantial evidence to prove one. We do not rule out the possibility of the existence of anything, it is impossible to disprove a negative, but we can determine whether the arguments and justifications of something is inadequate, and when it fails the strict criteria of reason and logic.

So, wikipedia? I was just asking where because according to searches they are from wikipedia and a site about atheism. Am I correct that these are the origins of your definitions? Because I was asking where.

Yup, wikipedia it is, you can google it to though. The word used is the absence of belief, professing unbelief in something doesn't automatically mean the belief of its polar opposite. It means suspending belief, and based on the knowledge on many other fields, taking those into account, It is less likely that a god exists than otherwise. And as Bertrand Russel who is a professed atheist once said and I quote " If something is true, believe it, if something is false, no matter how convenient, do not believe it. If you cannot be sure whether something is true or not, suspend judgment." You may see this to be agnostic in nature. As an agnostic gives it 50/50 chance, however we atheist do not.

Here is why, it is not a level playing ground between two possibilities. We know so much more now, and the scientific advancements made in the branches of science. There is larger and larger volume of knowledge that is greatly incompatible with the idea of a personal god, there is so very little on the other side if not zero,to equate the massive imbalance, and if they do have a decent arguments, it rests on the ever shaky platform if ignorance and credulity. So that is why it is more likely there is no good, than on the contrary.

UltimateContrarian wrote: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." That is the definition of the word atheism. I believe that you subscribe to is the older version, it is now the right time to update it.

First of all, what is the difference between "a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods" and having "a lack of belief in gods?" Because all of them does sound like it doesn't entirely denounce the objective notion that God exist, but rather stresses subjective characteristics such as "disbelief," "denial" or having "a lack of belief" toward God. This is actually a common straw man argument that lot of creationists uses when they argue against atheists - they conveniently chose not to distinguish the difference between having "a lack of belief" in God and having "a belief that there is no God," and treats atheism as having "a lack of belief in God" with their uncritical presupposition of God's existence when atheist belief is a belief that there is no God. The position of atheism is to challenge this uncritical presupposition itself, not deviating from this presupposition by (re)defining atheism as negative subjective response to God.

Atheism defined by your "older dictionaries" is relevant to today's atheism. Your definition of atheism as having "a lack of belief in gods" is deviation from atheism itself. And why is it specifically now that you think is the "right time" to update the definition of atheism into false one when even "New Atheism," the most vocal latest atheist movement rely on "older" definition?

UltimateContrarian wrote:

AshleyCK wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

AshleyCK wrote: I have a question,

where did you get the definition of atheism that you are using from? Is it personal or from somewhere else?

To its updated definition. Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

Disbelief about something doesn't mean the belief of its polar opposite. And as stated there, in the wikipedia definition, in an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities, and might I expound, there are no deities unless there is substantial evidence to prove one. We do not rule out the possibility of the existence of anything, it is impossible to disprove a negative, but we can determine whether the arguments and justifications of something is inadequate, and when it fails the strict criteria of reason and logic.

So, wikipedia? I was just asking where because according to searches they are from wikipedia and a site about atheism. Am I correct that these are the origins of your definitions? Because I was asking where.

Yup, wikipedia it is, you can google it to though. The word used is the absence of belief, professing unbelief in something doesn't automatically mean the belief of its polar opposite. It means suspending belief, and based on the knowledge on many other fields, taking those into account, It is less likely that a god exists than otherwise. And as Bertrand Russel who is a professed atheist once said and I quote " If something is true, believe it, if something is false, no matter how convenient, do not believe it. If you cannot be sure whether something is true or not, suspend judgment." You may see this to be agnostic in nature. As an agnostic gives it 50/50 chance, however we atheist do not.

Here is why, it is not a level playing ground between two possibilities. We know so much more now, and the scientific advancements made in the branches of science. There is larger and larger volume of knowledge that is greatly incompatible with the idea of a personal god, there is so very little on the other side if not zero,to equate the massive imbalance, and if they do have a decent arguments, it rests on the ever shaky platform if ignorance and credulity. So that is why it is more likely there is no good, than on the contrary.

Okay, understood. Do you also use the webster definition or is that as archaic as the word as well?

Aside from that, as I stated to you before being sure of either side is shaky in my opinion. Obviously, we both know that there is no proof or evidence to support or disprove either side. Yes, the idea of personal gods can seem outlandish just as the idea of a wolfman. Just as outlandish as it seemed, the more that it was studied we found it to actually be hypertrichosis.

Humor me and clarify for me the difference in this being a belief or not. It is hard for me to see the difference because is this not a choice to believe that there is no god? I just think that it is kind of risky to still use atheist if what you're saying is (correct me if I'm wrong) that you choose to suspend belief in anything yet are still open to the possibility that there may or may not be a god.

This is only because I look at the literal definition(s) of the word and most of them seem to circle around the webster definition which has origins from the french word athéisme circa 16th century [(Doctrine that denies the existence of God. (This philosophical position not be confused either with agnosticism, which is refusing to take sides in the metaphysical debate or with pantheism, which implies that God could exist anywhere in the universe and to merge with it.) Attitude of someone who denies the existence of God; religious disbelief.] which ultimately comes from the greek word atheos (without god or gods). Is it that each atheist gets to choose which definition resonates most with them or is supposed to be a combination of them all?

I just want a simplified outline or layout just to clarify it all.

Rose Mary wrote: Thank God you started such a thread !

Seriously. Your thoughts on Sam Harris and why he's been labeled as Anti Islam (like when they say he pushes back against the myth of Muslim Golden Age or when he denies the belief that none religion is intrinsically violent). Watched that debate on Islamophobia on Bill Maher's show, against Ben Affleck. In my opinion, Harris owned the Hollywood actor. But I've many friends who think the opposite. That's just an example. To be honest, at first he seemed kinda pedantic to me, but the more I listen to him or read his works, the more I like him and respect him.

Have you seen that George Carlin's routine on religion? To me it's a masterpiece. Can watch it over and over.

Oh thank you Rose.

Oh yes, I have watched that interview, Sam harris and Bill Maher vs Batman himself. Oh my. I can only watch that debate for so long, every time I do makes me cringe at the ignorance on the other side of the table in the form of Ben Affleck. That point is, criticism of Islam is not Racism as Batman accused him to be. Islam is not a race, criticizing Islam doesn't translate to criticizing the people who subscribe to that religion. And Sam Harris has been urging the Liberals in those islamic states to make a stand, Liberals who refused to address the degradation of women, seeing no wrong of it, and that it is part of their tradition that teenage girls be forcefully wed, . And as Richard Dawkins once exclaimed, "Fuck that" Just because abuse and degradation of women is part of their tradition and that Islam is part of their tradition to which mandates it, it doesn't mean it is okay, voicing out that there is no need to reform it, or else, risk losing an integral part of their history and tradition, which I must say, they value more, than they value the freedom of women. Disgraceful..

And yup, I love George Carlin, too bad the bastard is dead, well, he actually survived his first heart attack in his 50's, but the second proved to be fatal. But I cannot be regretful, since his most brilliant and philosophical materials came right between the first and second heart attack. So it is a treat nonetheless.

Wait wait, lots of legend was made out of bullshit.
Monkey kings sun goku's tech was including 72 transformation, golden eye(see through truth form) and jumping 10k miles and flying and immortal God form. They pretty much all Becmae realistic way before 2016 right ?
Except for the last immortal form

Edit: maybe I was wrong, when I have sex the women they always omfg.

AshleyCK wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

AshleyCK wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

AshleyCK wrote: I have a question,

where did you get the definition of atheism that you are using from? Is it personal or from somewhere else?

To its updated definition. Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

Disbelief about something doesn't mean the belief of its polar opposite. And as stated there, in the wikipedia definition, in an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities, and might I expound, there are no deities unless there is substantial evidence to prove one. We do not rule out the possibility of the existence of anything, it is impossible to disprove a negative, but we can determine whether the arguments and justifications of something is inadequate, and when it fails the strict criteria of reason and logic.

So, wikipedia? I was just asking where because according to searches they are from wikipedia and a site about atheism. Am I correct that these are the origins of your definitions? Because I was asking where.

Yup, wikipedia it is, you can google it to though. The word used is the absence of belief, professing unbelief in something doesn't automatically mean the belief of its polar opposite. It means suspending belief, and based on the knowledge on many other fields, taking those into account, It is less likely that a god exists than otherwise. And as Bertrand Russel who is a professed atheist once said and I quote " If something is true, believe it, if something is false, no matter how convenient, do not believe it. If you cannot be sure whether something is true or not, suspend judgment." You may see this to be agnostic in nature. As an agnostic gives it 50/50 chance, however we atheist do not.

Here is why, it is not a level playing ground between two possibilities. We know so much more now, and the scientific advancements made in the branches of science. There is larger and larger volume of knowledge that is greatly incompatible with the idea of a personal god, there is so very little on the other side if not zero,to equate the massive imbalance, and if they do have a decent arguments, it rests on the ever shaky platform if ignorance and credulity. So that is why it is more likely there is no good, than on the contrary.

Okay, understood. Do you also use the webster definition or is that as archaic as the word as well?

Aside from that, as I stated to you before being sure of either side is shaky in my opinion. Obviously, we both know that there is no proof or evidence to support or disprove either side. Yes, the idea of personal gods can seem outlandish just as the idea of a wolfman. Just as outlandish as it seemed, the more that it was studied we found it to actually be hypertrichosis.

Humor me and clarify for me the difference in this being a belief or not. It is hard for me to see the difference because is this not a choice to believe that there is no god? I just think that it is kind of risky to still use atheist if what you're saying is (correct me if I'm wrong) that you choose to suspend belief in anything yet are still open to the possibility that there may or may not be a god.

This is only because I look at the literal definition(s) of the word and most of them seem to circle around the webster definition which has origins from the french word athéisme circa 16th century [(Doctrine that denies the existence of God. (This philosophical position not be confused either with agnosticism, which is refusing to take sides in the metaphysical debate or with pantheism, which implies that God could exist anywhere in the universe and to merge with it.) Attitude of someone who denies the existence of God; religious disbelief.] which ultimately comes from the greek word atheos (without god or gods). Is it that each atheist gets to choose which definition resonates most with them or is supposed to be a combination of them all?

I just want a simplified outline or layout just to clarify it all.

Yes thank you, what we all do have in common is that our absence of belief to a supreme being. That is all you need to know. Now, there are people who call themselves atheists, because they hate god due to a misfortune, there are atheists who are maniacs, sex-offenders, vegan, and who have not once heard of the intellectual and ethical discussions and views that support it, there are people who call themselves atheists while at the same time believing that the earth is flat, believing in magic, and all the other crap, all these do not attribute to the definition of the general term of atheism. Atheism has no say about what is moral and what isn't, it has no say about all the other things except it is entirely about absence of belief to a supreme being or lack thereof.

On the other hand, I am a secular, humanist atheist. I came to be an atheist because I have studied the age-long discourse conducted by the theologians, philosopher's and intellectuals of history. And in my studies of those, brought me to the position of being an atheist, and also because I am a humanist, and I am persuaded by the ethical arguments against religion.

Korean_Romeo wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." That is the definition of the word atheism. I believe that you subscribe to is the older version, it is now the right time to update it.

First of all, what is the difference between "a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods" and having "a lack of belief in gods?" Because all of them does sound like it doesn't entirely denounce the objective notion that God exist, but rather stresses subjective characteristics such as "disbelief," "denial" or having "a lack of belief" toward God. This is actually a common straw man argument that lot of creationists uses when they argue against atheists - they conveniently chose not to distinguish the difference between having "a lack of belief" in God and having "a belief that there is no God," and treats atheism as having "a lack of belief in God" with their uncritical presupposition of God's existence when atheist belief is a belief that there is no God. The position of atheism is to challenge this uncritical presupposition itself, not deviating from this presupposition by (re)defining atheism as negative subjective response to God.

Atheism defined by your "older dictionaries" is relevant to today's atheism. Your definition of atheism as having "a lack of belief in gods" is deviation from atheism itself. And why is it specifically now that you think is the "right time" to update the definition of atheism into false one when even "New Atheism," the most vocal latest atheist movement rely on "older" definition?

Oh my.. basically it is like this. Suppose I have a bestfriend, and when we met on a conspicuous afternoon, he says that he had sex with the 18-year old Jennifer Connelly last night in his apartment. ( I suggest you watch the movie Career Opportunities first so that you can feel the gravity of what is being supposed here ). How can it possibly be true? There might be a chance if Jennifer Connely lived in close proximity in this drowsy town of ours, there might be a chance if she is still 18 when in truth, she is now in her mid-40's.

Of course, it is hard for me to believe that claim, but although, I cannot rule out its possibility, there is a very very tiny part of me that believes it is not that impossible. Time-travel is possible, maybe not now, but in the future. Now, this is what must have happened if his claim is true, it would mean that my best friend, whom I have known not to be scientifically inclined had managed to build a time machine or somehow got a hold of it, and managed to jump into the past, snatch the younger version of Jennifer Connelly, and somehow convinced her with his charm to have sex with him, his charm is questionable in my opinion. Is that possible? Yes, it is possible, I will give it that much room, if there is just as fantastic evidence to prove that fantastic claim. I will have to demand to see the time machine, I will have to know whether it works, I will have to verify that it was indeed Jennifer Connelly, and I will have to verify if he really had sex with her. And if he cant provide these demands of mine, if he cant demonstrate these, then I disbelieve such claim. I cannot be persuaded by being told, well, you cannot disprove, of course I cannot absolutely disprove it, who can, and worse, that I just have to take it on faith, and that is bullshit. My lack or absence of belief to a god, is the same as my lack of belief to my bestfriend's supposed hookup with the Jennifer Connelly from 20 plus years ago ( what a lucky bastard indeed if it is true). That it is why we say, it more likely that it didn't happen than otherwise.

Just imagine this. This is the position that I have on the god question. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, fantastic claims, should be backed by a fantastic evidence.

UltimateContrarian wrote:

Korean_Romeo wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." That is the definition of the word atheism. I believe that you subscribe to is the older version, it is now the right time to update it.

First of all, what is the difference between "a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods" and having "a lack of belief in gods?" Because all of them does sound like it doesn't entirely denounce the objective notion that God exist, but rather stresses subjective characteristics such as "disbelief," "denial" or having "a lack of belief" toward God. This is actually a common straw man argument that lot of creationists uses when they argue against atheists - they conveniently chose not to distinguish the difference between having "a lack of belief" in God and having "a belief that there is no God," and treats atheism as having "a lack of belief in God" with their uncritical presupposition of God's existence when atheist belief is a belief that there is no God. The position of atheism is to challenge this uncritical presupposition itself, not deviating from this presupposition by (re)defining atheism as negative subjective response to God.

Atheism defined by your "older dictionaries" is relevant to today's atheism. Your definition of atheism as having "a lack of belief in gods" is deviation from atheism itself. And why is it specifically now that you think is the "right time" to update the definition of atheism into false one when even "New Atheism," the most vocal latest atheist movement rely on "older" definition?

Oh my.. basically it is like this. Suppose I have a bestfriend, and when we met on a conspicuous afternoon, he says that he had sex with the 18-year old Jennifer Connelly last night in his apartment. ( I suggest you watch the movie Career Opportunities first so that you can feel the gravity of what is being supposed here ). How can it possibly be true? There might be a chance if Jennifer Connely lived in close proximity in this drowsy town of ours, there might be a chance if she is still 18 when in truth, she is now in her mid-40's.

Of course, it is hard for me to believe that claim, but although, I cannot rule out its possibility, there is a very very tiny part of me that believes it is not that impossible. Time-travel is possible, maybe not now, but in the future. Now, this is what must have happened if his claim is true, it would mean that my best friend, whom I have known not to be scientifically inclined have managed to build a time machine or somehow got a hold of it, and managed to jump into the past, snatch the younger version of Jennifer Connelly, and somehow convinced her with his charm to have sex with her, his charm is questionable in my opinion. Is that possible? Yes, it is possible, I will give it that much room, if there is just as fantastic evidence to prove that fantastic claim. I will have to demand to see the time machine, I will have to know whether it works, I will have to verify that it was indeed Jennifer Connelly, and I will have to verify if he really had sex with her. And if he cant provide these demands of mine, if he cant demonstrate these, then I disbelieve such claim. My lack or absence of belief to a god, is the same as my lack of belief to my bestfriend's supposed hookup with the Jennifer Connelly from 20 plus years ago. That it is why we say, it more likely that it didn't happen than otherwise.

Just imagine this. This is the position that I have on the god question. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, fantastic claims, should be backed by a fantastic evidence.

This makes me think of that dumb Chinese woman post a pic of her and says " I dropped a spicy oil in my sweet spot,I felt like all Guang dong guys have been down there at one time". If it became reality wouldn't it make her jump into unseen future ?

Benny wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

Korean_Romeo wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." That is the definition of the word atheism. I believe that you subscribe to is the older version, it is now the right time to update it.

First of all, what is the difference between "a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods" and having "a lack of belief in gods?" Because all of them does sound like it doesn't entirely denounce the objective notion that God exist, but rather stresses subjective characteristics such as "disbelief," "denial" or having "a lack of belief" toward God. This is actually a common straw man argument that lot of creationists uses when they argue against atheists - they conveniently chose not to distinguish the difference between having "a lack of belief" in God and having "a belief that there is no God," and treats atheism as having "a lack of belief in God" with their uncritical presupposition of God's existence when atheist belief is a belief that there is no God. The position of atheism is to challenge this uncritical presupposition itself, not deviating from this presupposition by (re)defining atheism as negative subjective response to God.

Atheism defined by your "older dictionaries" is relevant to today's atheism. Your definition of atheism as having "a lack of belief in gods" is deviation from atheism itself. And why is it specifically now that you think is the "right time" to update the definition of atheism into false one when even "New Atheism," the most vocal latest atheist movement rely on "older" definition?

Oh my.. basically it is like this. Suppose I have a bestfriend, and when we met on a conspicuous afternoon, he says that he had sex with the 18-year old Jennifer Connelly last night in his apartment. ( I suggest you watch the movie Career Opportunities first so that you can feel the gravity of what is being supposed here ). How can it possibly be true? There might be a chance if Jennifer Connely lived in close proximity in this drowsy town of ours, there might be a chance if she is still 18 when in truth, she is now in her mid-40's.

Of course, it is hard for me to believe that claim, but although, I cannot rule out its possibility, there is a very very tiny part of me that believes it is not that impossible. Time-travel is possible, maybe not now, but in the future. Now, this is what must have happened if his claim is true, it would mean that my best friend, whom I have known not to be scientifically inclined have managed to build a time machine or somehow got a hold of it, and managed to jump into the past, snatch the younger version of Jennifer Connelly, and somehow convinced her with his charm to have sex with her, his charm is questionable in my opinion. Is that possible? Yes, it is possible, I will give it that much room, if there is just as fantastic evidence to prove that fantastic claim. I will have to demand to see the time machine, I will have to know whether it works, I will have to verify that it was indeed Jennifer Connelly, and I will have to verify if he really had sex with her. And if he cant provide these demands of mine, if he cant demonstrate these, then I disbelieve such claim. My lack or absence of belief to a god, is the same as my lack of belief to my bestfriend's supposed hookup with the Jennifer Connelly from 20 plus years ago. That it is why we say, it more likely that it didn't happen than otherwise.

Just imagine this. This is the position that I have on the god question. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, fantastic claims, should be backed by a fantastic evidence.

This makes me think of that dumb Chinese woman post a pic of her and says " I dropped a spicy oil in my sweet spot,I felt like all Guang dong guys have been down there at one time". If it became reality wouldn't it make her jump into unseen future ?

I tried reading the posts but then realized I had to start reading critically and analyzing the information displayed and gave up before I even started really. But your post was the shortest so I took a gander, but it took me longer than I expected cause I had a hard time deciphering your message. Are you essentially calling that "dumb Chinese woman" a wh*re? That's what I read from your post. Was curious to know if I was accurate or not. Thanks ahead of time.