What is it exactly? Lack of belief in the existence of a supreme being; indifference to any such being which may exist; or belief in some other alternative?

It's definitely not a belief. A belief is anchored on faith and conviction. I doubt if an atheist can relate to such principles.

The absence of belief in a supreme being, nothing more, nothing less.

My dear,

Atheism is a philosophy. It is the lack of interest in a supreme being a Deity and any God or gods what so ever. Don't need the concept, don't care!

Whatever it is, I'm in. Problem is, how are we going to get married to nice, good-mannered Nigerian girls if we can't use the church as a dating arena?

@loco

Atheism is a philosophy. It is the lack of interest in a supreme being a Deity and any God or gods what so ever. Don't need the concept, don't care!

Ever wondered where it all came from? The world and all in it? What do you do when you are down? Go see a shrink or drink yourself silly?


@otitoloju
Gothya! So I guess what you are saying is that the best it can be is a position.

If it is, how does one come to arrive at this position? Another alternative, or like loco plain don't care?

loco:

My dear,

Atheism is a philosophy. It is the lack of interest in a supreme being a Deity and any God or gods what so ever. Don't need the concept, don't care!

Can you explain to me the atheist philosophy. I, as an atheist, am not aware of it being a philosophy.
What does the atheist philosophy tell us?

otitoloju:

It's definitely not a belief. A belief is anchored on faith and conviction. I doubt if an atheist can relate to such principles.

It is not a belief. It is the opposite of a belief. It is the lack of a belief in a supreme being.
A belief does not need to be anchored on faith and conviction. It can be anchored on evidence and logic as well. Hence my belief in the Theory of Evolution.
I can indeed not relate to the principle of faith. Faith is belief without evidence. I cannot relate to such a concept
Conviction on the other hand, I can relate to. I am convinced that the monotheistic God does not exist.

@nferyn

I am convinced that the monotheistic God does not exist.

You must mean you are yet to be convinced that he does exist.


@seun

If you are in, there must be a reason. Lack of belief in the existence of a supreme being, period, as nferyn says or disinterest in any such being which may exist.

disinterest in God sounds more like agnostism?

@seun

disinterest in God sounds more like agnostism?

So which is it? Justify you inclusion.

shredbaron:

@nferyn

You must mean you are yet to be convince that he does exist.

No, I am convinced that he does not exist. His properties are contradictory and logically impossible

Agnosticism is a position in which you say that you cannot possibly have knowledge of a supreme being. You can believe in a supreme being and at the same time state that you cannot have knowledge of that being.
You have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists

No, I am convinced that he does not exist. His properties are contradictory and logically impossible

Interesting! So how do you explain the various religions? The Bible for instance? Is it some sort of a mass conspiracy? If so who is behind the conspiracy?

shredbaron:

Interesting! So how do you explain the various religions? The Bible for instance? Is it some sort of a mass conspiracy? If so who is behind the conspiracy?

Why do I need to explain the various religions?
As far as I know, there is no mass conspiracy. There is a mass delusion. religion sticks for many people for a number of reasons:
* fear of death
* need for purpose
* need for an explanation for the less than perfect functioning of this world
* overall irrationality of the human race (which was evolutionary understandable for wandering hunter-gatherers, but no longer functional in our complex societies)

maybe it's just me but atheism appears to require as much 'belief' as a religion (say Islam or Christianity)...

To say that current ideas on 'God' are misguided/wrong isn't hard, the evidence is there...but to say that there isn't something out there that is greater than us, something that man has not thought of yet requires a lot of faith in oneself...

exu:

maybe it's just me but atheism appears to require as much 'belief' as a religion (say Islam or Christianity)...

To say that current ideas on 'God' are misguided/wrong isn't hard, the evidence is there...but to say that there isn't something out there that is greater than us, something that man has not thought of yet requires a lot of faith in oneself...

Why is that? I know of no atheist that claims there is nothing greater than us. We're just grains of sand in the cosmos.
To positively proclaim there is a supreme being, possessing all of these qualities (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, ...) takes a lot of faith (and twisted logic to make everything fit)

@exu - I hear you!

@nferyn

Why do I need to explain the various religions?

You don't need to explain what they are, just why so many people subscribe to religions that are based on the existence of a supreme being? Delusion or not, there is a hankering by all humans to have an understanding if not access to this being.

* fear of death
* need for purpose
* need for an explanation for the less than perfect functioning of this world

I agree. Apart from the fear of death part, you may count me in. But why does this so often lead to the conclusion that there must be a superior being? Does not matter which part of the world you are in, the conclusion is the same.  As you know there is no country in the world that does not have some religious belief in a supreme being.

Something more I think. An innate awareness/consciousness of this being. There is a Ghanaian proverb that says: one does not need to tell a kid about God. Somehow they already know. I think I get that. This is built into the human framework. It's part of what we are. It is some evidence I think.

I've always taken the word 'Atheist' to mean:


One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


an outright denial of anything greater than what we can see.

Personally I don't care, most atheists I know are what I prefer to call 'free thinkers'...

Well, in order to think freely, you must be open to all arguments. How can you when you've closed your mind to some possibilities?

@Shredbaron, Joseph McCabe, a 20th century author on Atheism, Atheism is the absense of belief in a god of whatever nature and of whatever name so called. Chapman Cohen, the president of Britain's National Secular Society defined it as below:

If one believes in a god, then one is a Theist. If one does not believe in a god, then one is an A-theist -- he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely, exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God

.

To expand this debate a little, I am going to give you Flint's definition of Atheism. By the way, Robert Flint is an adent defender of theism. Here is his declaration regarding Atheism

The atheist is not necessarily a man who says, There is no God. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds.... [E]very man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God.

Flint concludes that

The word atheist is a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less

Which leads me to the issue of the burden of proof. As an unbeliever in any god or gods, I believe that the onus of proof lies on the person making the allegation to come forward with the said proof to substantiate his or her claims. In this, therefore, I am totally in concurrence with Annie Besant who defined atheism as without God. Here it is in her own words

If my interlocutor desires to convince me that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence in support of his contention. The burden of proof evidently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God's existence to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden of proof lies on him.

the onus of proof lies on the person making the allegation to come forward with the said proof to substantiate his or her claims.

thank you.

@elbaron
Many thanks for your definitions. So you don't believe in God or any gods. Do you describe yourself as an atheist therefore?

If my interlocutor desires to convince me that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence in support of his contention. The burden of proof evidently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God's existence to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden of proof lies on him.

Well that's easy. Life on other planets, who gives a shit? (pardon my language) I always thought the people who mainly harp on about it are trekkies addicted to or over excited about some tv program. My point, not a situation which is as fundamental as how the whole world came to be and whether or not some superior being clicked it into place.  Point is I believe that for one to say no to a superior being who did all this, one must either have an alternative theory or must plain not care.

Which one are you and why.  

The issue of evidence is difficult with this subject particularly when talking to those who have already ruled it out. Babbling about miracles and pronouncement in some scriptures that have come to pass will just fly by you. Point is, so where did it all come from? Do you care to know? Do you already have another althernative or do you not care?

Looking at what the world as turned into today, one begins to wonder the effect "a supreme being" is having on it - if any exists. However due to the fact that man has an innate predisposition to subject himself to a greater power - seen or unseen, he has continued to accept the beliefs passed on to him by society and more profoundly his parents. An atheist is just someone who, standing outside the norm of the society, has decided to examine critically the possibilities of the existence of a supreme being and came to the conculsion that "Life is a chain of events linked together by actions and reactions[i][/i]" and whatever decisions we take and the consequent outcome is certainly not governed by any supreme being. He therefore takes charge of his life, believing only in one thing - HIMSELF.

Atheism is a position...a shaky position.

@nferyn

PHILOSOPHY means the understanding of reality. It has two aspects: first, the understanding, and second, the reality.

The principle of atheistic philosophy is: what is capable of verification and necessary for the individual should be tested and known; what is incapable of verification or unnecessary for the present need, should be respected as an opinion. To respect an opinion is not to accept it as a truth; it is a social norm to enable the growth of knowledge. Unless the free flow of opinions is permitted, while recognising them only as opinions, we lose the benefit of imagination. The danger is not in respecting an opinion but it is in mistaking it for a truth. Atheism, therefore, adopts the scientific method for acquiring knowledge. It promotes understanding through verification wherever possible and through respect for opinion wherever necessary.

The principle of atheistic philosophy is: what is capable of verification and necessary for the individual should be tested and known; what is incapable of verification or unnecessary for the present need, should be respected as an opinion. To respect an opinion is not to accept it as a truth; it is a social norm to enable the growth of knowledge. Unless the free flow of opinions is permitted, while recognising them only as opinions, we lose the benefit of imagination. The danger is not in respecting an opinion but it is in mistaking it for a truth. Atheism, therefore, adopts the scientific method for acquiring knowledge. It promotes understanding through verification wherever possible and through respect for opinion wherever necessary. 

Nicely said loco, nicely said.

loco:

@nferyn

PHILOSOPHY means the understanding of reality. It has two aspects: first, the understanding, and second, the reality.

The principle of atheistic philosophy is: what is capable of verification and necessary for the individual should be tested and known; what is incapable of verification or unnecessary for the present need, should be respected as an opinion. To respect an opinion is not to accept it as a truth; it is a social norm to enable the growth of knowledge. Unless the free flow of opinions is permitted, while recognising them only as opinions, we lose the benefit of imagination. The danger is not in respecting an opinion but it is in mistaking it for a truth. Atheism, therefore, adopts the scientific method for acquiring knowledge. It promotes understanding through verification wherever possible and through respect for opinion wherever necessary.

I definitely can find myself in that position.
Atheism does not necessarily imply a specific philosophy though. I know atheist that just haven't given the source of their knowledge a second thought. They just lack the belief in a supreme being. I even know some atheists (my aunt is one of them) that believe in the supernatural - that's a weird combination

I believe in the supernormal

Perhaps they might see religous people acting like fundamentalists. I think spiritual persons can learn from natural men

DBest:

[SNIP]
An atheist is just someone who, standing outside the norm of the society, has decided to examine critically the possibilities of the existence of a supreme being and came to the conculsion that "Life is a chain of events linked together by actions and reactions[i][/i]" and whatever decisions we take and the consequent outcome is certainly not governed by any supreme being.

This depends on what society you talk about. In Western Europe, atheism is certainly not outside the norm of society. Depending on the social group you belong to, atheism can even be the default position (e.g. my case)

DBest:

He therefore takes charge of his life, believing only in one thing - HIMSELF.

This is not true. How do you come to that conclusion?

I agree. There is no clear cut definition. People has different reasons. I once went to this church and the only thing i heard was Hell Fire this and Hell Fire that, and so on and on. I hated it. How can people live that kind of pressure. Just crazy.