h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Also...Strong Atheism. The contention that the idea of god has no meaning or value. See AJ Ayer, Isaah Berlin, etc.

You could also have Anti-Theism - the contention that a belief in god has a malign effect.

Of course...in reality, people can't always be shoe-horned into neat categories. Likely as not we fitt into a complex, multi-dimensionall Venn diagram of all these atheisms. And more.


>>Science does not disprove a creator.

Indeed not. But it does more, I think. than simply reveal a dearth of evidence. It shows that there is a lack of goal direction within the universe that is simply inconsistent with any meaningful concept of god. A scientific worldview simply has no role for god, and the idea of god is at best unhelpful within it. If you accept th obvious truth of evolution, for example, then provided you understand it in sufficient depth, you realise that it simply is not directed towards delivering sunbeams for Jesus.

And this brings us onto another subset...

Atheist Humanism (as opposed to covenanter's 'Humanitarian Atheism'). This is, broadly, the contention that given there's no direction or purpose in the universe, it's down to us to make our own.

At the risk of disrupting the more interesting direction this conversation seems to have taken... Cov's attempt at reasoning seems to have been rather stillborn.



Gif

<>

i think he took a look around, saw the pasting that warner and stanley are getting and thought discretion was the better part of valour

I don't think of it as a victory. Is our aim to vanquish? Or to discuss? To challenge? etc.

OK...with warner/Stanley, there's no reasoning with him/them.

Are we sure that science can't disprove the existence of god/s?

Pretty much any god you can define can be shown to have logical inconsistencies which preclude its existence. Certainly the Abrahamic gods are not internally consistent as defined by their scripture; particularly the Christian concept of god which is only consistent if you are a literal creationist believing in Adam and Eve, Noah's ark etc. Any attempt to define god leaves it open to scientific investigation and most believers realise this of course so, although they must have some kind of personal definition in which they believe, they refuse to offer such a definition up for scrutiny in any discussion. Instead god becomes something 'undefinable' or 'supernatural' or 'transcendent' in order to defy explanation but none of these concepts are consistent with reality.

The main issues that require explanation seem to be:
1. how was god created?
2. how does god communicate with his creation (in either direction)?
3. how does heaven / life after death / eternal life actually work (and how do I get to achieve it)?

F

And 'why does unnecessary suffering exist' (please make your answer consistent with your views on the afterlife and the nature of God).

Gif

Dawkins points out that the existence of God is a question about reality, and therefore ought to be subject to science just like the existence of fairies, elephants or phlogiston.

Gif

Ed - "You could also have Anti-Theism - the contention that a belief in god has a malign effect."

I didn't include Antitheism because it is not a subset of Atheism. It's (weak or strong) "Atheism Plus", it's a philosophical position in own right. It's a belief, but also not a religion.

So yes, while people may not fit into neat classes, atheism does. Atheism is a lack of belief in a single proposition and is without tenets or dictates. And can be default/implicit, weak/agnostic or strong/gnostic.

A belief? An empirical observation, surely.

Antitheism? No, a belief justified by observed realities. Antitheism is in opposition to theism, on basis of such observed realities that such beliefs are harmful and without reasoned support.
It's belief, one for which a rational case be built, but belief not a data set.

Or do you think I am in error?

A56743518

Gif

What's your problem?

I hate figs.

Gif

Last night I was in a pub, with friends, discussing everything from the "meatini", to whether or not "The Toyminator" was the worst book my friend had ever written and whether or not Dan Dennett was ever going to convince us that his compatibilism had any merits over determinism.
You have convinced me that I have been living a liberal pseudo-intellectual lie. What really matters is figs. They're a vile amoral plague - to think I was even considering planting figs amongst the ferns in my little garden - such is insidious power of the fig...

I am pleased my humble Bible study has enabled you to reach this spiritual truth.

Of course, the only thing more important (spiritually) than figs is foreskins. I leave that as an exercise for the interested reader.

Gif