Hawking Picks Physics Over God

[Nathan.]

Not true. It can be either, and perhaps other things as well. (I suppose some people might even describe themselves with both definitions at once.)

I've always felt that if I went with the definition you're using, I might as well just shoot myself in the head, become a theist, and be done with it (in that order). That definition's premise seems to be that there ARE gods, but I simply choose not to believe in them. I reject that definition because it doesn't accurately describe me; I don't think that gods exist, period. In this case, semantics is everything. I should also note that many times, theists have tried to use that definition to convert me. I don't know why they bother. They do what works for them, and I do what works for me. I have never tried to convert them to my way of thinking.

Personally, I don't think I'm capable of believing in a deity. I don't think I'm hardwired for it. Perhaps I'm a sport. (Or perhaps I would have been very pious in an overwhelmingly pious society. One never knows.)

So far, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that gods, as they are traditionally defined, exist. I've seen plenty of evidence that the universe operates quite nicely by itself. But I suppose it depends on how you define key terms like "god," "universe," and "itself."

Atheism means without god. Thats all, you be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist.

I don't see how that the definition means that there are gods but i'm rejecting them.

I lack a belief because there is no evidence or reason to believe in god(s). Same reason why babies are atheists, they have no reason to be anything else.

[Rayalisse]

Chiming in here too - (seems like this discussion has really strayed into a different forum tho...)

Whether or not there are god(s) or fairies or unicorns or underwear gnomes, since they do not interact with my life, I live my life as if there are no supernatural beings / gods and there is a natural explanation for everything.  Everything comes from nature and nature doesn't care about us specifically we're just a part of the process.  I guess you could say I'm a naturalist (not to be confused with naturist. )

If there is some eventual proof of a supernatural being's actual existence and/or physical impact on the world and/or personal interest in my life or humanity, I may change my mind, but I'm going under the assumption that the supernatural does not exist in nature.  (self-describing definition?) 

Besides, to me the idea of monotheism - a perfect mystical dude who made everything including EVERYTHING , all of the bad stuff and good, but still "loves us individually" but is secretive and doesn't physically interact with us personally / individually; seems inconsistent and kinda like a jerky a-hole. 

As far as my own definition of a god that makes sense to me -- my deity is spelled T-H-E_L-A-W-S_O-F_N-A-T-U-R-E and she does not have an interest in me or anything for that matter.   My holy days follow the cycles of the seasons, national and local celebrations, and personal milestones in my life and my loved-ones lives.

Cheers
Rayalisse

[Vanessa_yhvh]

Prior to Hawking book jackets of late, ZinniaJones has led me to pause and reflect recently:

[Arch]

Atheism means without god. Thats all, you be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist.

I don't see how that the definition means that there are gods but i'm rejecting them.

If you want to argue etymology, then knock yourself out. I was under the impression that you were talking about definitions. As you pointed out, there is a big difference in the two definitions you stated in your earlier post. The first one can be taken to imply that gods exist; the second really can't. But the wording in definitions varies from reference book to reference book, and I've seen some older definitions that openly assume that god/God exists. Neither one of your definitions does that. But if you look in a variety of reference books, you'll find your second definition liberally represented.

Same reason why babies are atheists, they have no reason to be anything else.

Unless they are incredibly precocious, babies are not atheists; they're nonreligious or areligious (like my ex, except for different reasons).

[Nathan.]

Unless they are incredibly precocious, babies are not atheists; they're nonreligious or areligious (like my ex, except for different reasons).

That what atheism is, it's not a view point or religion it's the default position. We are born with pretty much no knowledge and we learn stuff along the way, the unlucky ones are tought theism.

[spacial]

Atheism isn't a default position any more than Islam is. (Islam teaches that all babies are born Muslim).

[Nathan.]

No one is born with a belief in god(s). Atheism is the lack of belief not the belief that there is no god that makes babies atheists.

[Muffin]

Atheist is still a label.

anyway this pic is more entertaining....

[Nathan.]

Atheist is still a label.

I don't recall ever saying it wasn't  It is a label.

[Muffin]

oh my bad... I should of added this.... babies don't care much for labels (from what I gather). They don't hold an opinion on the subject hence no label.
Expressing that you don't believe there is a god (or whatever definition you prefer) is an opinion, that is defined by a label. That is all my point is.
But yeah that is just my opinion, I see where you are coming from I just feel that if a baby has no idea of what it is then how can they be labelled as thinking or believing a certain idea.
Personally I don't consider myself anything, though my POV is no doubt similar to someone who is agnostic I don't feel the need to label my POV, especially when a label can have several ideas attached to it. Like you've pointed out with atheism. It's a complicated topic that sure does ruffle a lot of feathers. When really it shouldn't because we are all entitled to our own opinions, it's only when we challenge each others opinions that problems occurs. Like now for example.
I remember saying to my ex years ago "I'm going to worship a tomato, if I try hard enough and believe in the tomato just enough then I should theoretically have a vision come to me of a tomato face... ala attack of the killer tomatoes". I thought it was funny but yeah.

[Nathan.]

Again atheism is the lack of belief. It doesn't matter that babies are unaware of the label atheist it doesn't change the fact that they have no belief in god.

[Muffin]

lol yeah ok.

[Nathan.]

That was a mature thought out reply 

I hate making rifts especially here at Susans but I debate this stuff often and can't help myself 

[Muffin]

lol what would you have me say? We've both expressed our opinions and ...yeah.....ok.

[Arch]

Again atheism is the lack of belief. It doesn't matter that babies are unaware of the label atheist it doesn't change the fact that they have no belief in god.

Once again, semantics is important here. If you do a little more reading, I think you'll find that atheism is not simply a lack of belief or a nonexistence of any thinking on the subject; it's a profession of belief or nonbelief, an act of believing or not believing. People profess atheism; they do not simply default to it.

[Nathan.]

A = without
theist = god.

[Ayaname]

No one is born with a belief in god(s). Atheism is the lack of belief not the belief that there is no god that makes babies atheists.

IMO, it's not fair to label someone as "atheist" until they at least have an understanding of what religion is. Babies aren't "defaulting" to atheism until they are actually presented with the choice in understandable terms. You can't just fix such a focused label to such broad forms of ignorance.
But again, that's just my opinion on the definition. I don't think anyone can really have a successful debate about this without sourcing those who are in charge of our language. To me such a broad usage of the word "atheism" just seems impractical though.

[Octavianus]

Kind of agree.  Seems like god was created to explain away things that couldn't be explained, back in the day.  It's all hearsay.

Steph

My old religion teacher used to draw this on the blackboard to explain what you just wrote.


I think science can never say anything of the existance of a god simply because something supernatural that can't be proven by the means that study nature.
The belief in a supreme being will always be what it is: a belief without any evidence. It is up to people themselves to choose what and if to believe.

I can never dream of reaching the insight Stephen Hawking has in nature so I am not able to discuss his findings.

[Nathan.]

IMO, it's not fair to label someone as "atheist" until they at least have an understanding of what religion is. Babies aren't "defaulting" to atheism until they are actually presented with the choice in understandable terms. You can't just fix such a focused label to such broad forms of ignorance.
But again, that's just my opinion on the definition. I don't think anyone can really have a successful debate about this without sourcing those who are in charge of our language. To me such a broad usage of the word "atheism" just seems impractical though.

I apologise if this post doesn't makes sence i'm slightly drunk

I don't understand what the porblem is, atheism is the lack of belief in god and atheists lack a belief in god. They are atheists. Atheist should not be a label that is looked down upon, it's a label and nothing more. It's meant to mean nothing other then the lack of belief in god(s).

Atheism was not something I chose, I just lost my belief in god, when I lost my faith it felt like I had lost a limb, I was devestated.

[Julie Marie]

This has become a very grave subject!  And heavy too man.

I've kinda been waiting for someone to tackle the whole "gravity proves" part of this so I didn't have to think!