It’s NOT “lack of superstition” , that would be agnostics. Atheists believe, with nothing but faith, that there is no god.
SSM is now a matter of law, the issue is dead. Got anything current?
The definition of when a life begins is not a silly superstition. We all believe (unless you think that is a silly superstition) that “thou shall not murder” - the question of when a zygote becomes a child is a matter of definitions and law, not superstition. In fact the Bible barely touches on abortion, if at all.
That is false. As has been explained innumerable times here.
Even if it weren’t false, that still is not “superstition”. Unless not believing in unicorns until/unless one actually sees one is “superstition”.
No, the certain belief that there are none is a matter of faith, not knowledge, and thus, comes under 'superstition" by that posters definition of faith = superstition.
Agnosticism is lack of belief. Atheism is a belief that there are no gods.
Is not believing in ghosts a “superstition”?
"I have never seen a ghost, thus I find their existence extremely doubtful, given all the research done. " =Science, not superstition.
“I know Ghosts cant exist, they are outside my belief system” = faith- and thus by HIS definition, superstition.
LSLGuys definition of any faith is “silly superstition”, remember that.
Thus faith , a belief that there are no ghosts=silly superstition.
Now, I dont think all faith is a silly superstition. But if you go by his definition, then a belief backed by faith , even if that is Atheistic =silly superstition.
I don’t believe Mondale got elected president in 1984.
I don’t believe you’re a super-powered Kryptonian.
I don’t believe I’m married to multiple wives.
Do any of those involve superstitious faith?
You know, it is kind of offensive for you to tell atheists that they are wrong about our definition of our position. Gnostic is knowledge. theism is belief. Atheism is lack of belief.
This may include a provisional belief that there are no gods, due to lack of good evidence for any and plenty of evidence against many gods - not to mention that some have self-contradictory definitions.
I suggest you call an atheist show and tell the hosts how they don’t know their position. You’ll get your ass handed to you.
BTW I don’t believe that there are no gods in a galaxy 100 million ly from us. I lack belief in any such gods, but without any evidence one way or another that’s as far as I can go.
I’ve read Huxley, by the way.
It is kind of offensive for someone to call fall faiths on Earth=silly superstitions.
“strong atheism” is certain knowledge, based on personal faith that there are no gods. Not my definition: “Positive atheism , also called strong atheism and hard atheism , is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist… " Positive " atheists explicitly assert that it is false that any deities exist…”
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia.
Other versions of atheism are, IMHO, just forms of agnosticism.
Your problem here is obvious. You are mixing up knowledge and belief. There is a big difference between saying “I know ghosts don’t exist” (for whatever reason) and saying “I believe no ghosts exist” because of lack of evidence and evidence against a soul or any mind outside a body.
In 45 years of discussing atheism on line, I think I’ve run across one atheist who claimed to know that no gods exist. He was an idiot, in the opinions of the atheists on the newsgroup.
We clearly can’t know no gods exist, since there are a near infinite number of possible gods.
From Footnote 5 of your link:
negative atheism, the position of not believing a theistic God exists" / “positive atheism: the position of disbelieving a theistic God exists”; p. 464: “Clearly, positive atheism is a special case of negative atheism: Someone who is a positive atheist is by necessity a negative atheist, but not conversely”.
Disbelief is not knowledge.
Positive atheism in the ACA sense is definitely about doing good works to show atheists can and do good works. It has nothing to do with the definition. ACA programs are the ones I referenced. They explicitly reject atheism as a statement of knowledge since that would put the burden of proof on atheists, and because of the many inconsistent definitions of god it is impossible to disprove all of them.
The wiki quote talks about assertions. I have no idea whether belief that there are no gods counts as an assertion, or if only a statement of knowledge that there are no gods counts as an assertion.
Define “God”.
And no, I am not nitpicking. We can’t possibly sensibly have this discussion unless we have a clear definition of what you mean by the word.
BTW, here is the first paragraph of the wiki article on atheism
Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the 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][[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-8) Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]
That sounds fairly reasonable to me. Note that the position there are no deities is different from the statement that I have knowledge that there are no deities. I can have the position that aliens exist somewhere in the universe without claiming I have knowledge of these aliens.
For some, yes. For others, no. You’re re-defining the word improperly.
Also, as noted, we don’t have a definition of “God.” Some definitions that have been put forward over the centuries appear to be self-contradictory, and thus it does not entail “faith” to disbelieve in those.
You’re direly oversimplifying a situation that calls for more nuance and diversity than you are permitting.
Excellent. We can prove that the tri-omni god does not exist, due to contradictions in its definition, but the existence of the deistic god is unfalsifiable, and we certainly cannot its nonexistence.
Maybe the real god lives beyond our event horizon.
If someone asked me if I voted for Dole in ‘96, I’d normally say “no, I voted for Clinton.” But, if pressed by someone who went on and on about how memory can be unreliable and, hey, man, how sure can you be about, like, anything, y’know? — I’d grudgingly admit that, yes, technically, I only believe that I voted for Clinton and not for Dole.
Is that description like unto superstition, or merely apt?
That 3 people have broken down atheism as “strong” or “weak” based on a theoretical division is nonsense. I have never met a single atheist who hasn’t said that if evidence for a god presented itself, they’d believe it. Out of hundreds upon hundreds of atheists. Anybody can make a wiki page. It’s not a cite.
Pretending that “strong” atheism is a thing is what you use to justify your marginalization of atheists. You’ve been told countless times here that it’s not real. You choose to believe your own superstition about atheists. Congratulations.
Hardly three people. That is wikipedia, and if it was only three people in the world, it would be edited out by now.
When the facts are uncomfortable, attack the facts.
And, here we go: Here on the SDMB, every thread about religion eventually devolves into a debate over the definition of atheism.