Dear David,

I cannot explain in general why atheists do not accept that a god exists as I cannot know all their reasons.

I can only speak for myself and others who I know share my reason. I do not accept that a god exists since I know of no reasonable evidence for such an entity and therefore do not believe in something for which there is no evidence. I know of no reasonable evidence for any kind of supernatural.

We deal with religions as we deal with words. The meaning of words change through usage. So do the meanings of religions. As Buddhism exists many if not most Buddhists have given the religion a supernatural component therefore it has a supernatural component. I don’t think early Christianity had the notion of a trinity. We define Christianity as it exists, and it has invented a trinity.

You are free to define any word any way you like. However, you can only communicate successfully with those who agree with that definition.

Ideology is defined as the body of beliefs of a nation, group, political movement etc. AFA has defined atheism in a definition consistent with their body of beliefs. Although I also do not accept the existence of a supernatural I will continue to use the word, atheism, as a lack of belief in God because I want to be understood by those who talk with me, and I think most people I talk to do not define atheism in the same way that AFA defines it.

If atheism means something other than a lack of belief in god we will now need a new word to define a lack of belief in god.

I do not appreciate your peremptory demand that I not vacillate. You sound quite authoritarian. I am 85 and enjoy a good round of vacillation before breakfast.

I am 85 and enjoy a good round of vacillation before breakfast.
Posted by david f,
Commendably flexible for the age. Perhaps it is in the genes - obviously not too tight.
Personally, I also have no belief whatever in the supernatural. I have thought that this would be sufficient to acquire the label of atheist. However, at half a decade less senior than david f I too have retained flexibility - at least in regard to whatever other people are pleased to label my attitude.

Rhian your assertion that I was nasty is absurd.The simple fact is that many who choose an immoral lifestyle use pseudo science' as a way of excusing themselves. I to am comfortable that belief in God is based on faith and not sceince. The simple fact is that unbelief in God is based on greater faith especially when you look at the idiotic belief in evolution. It certainly is not scientifically based.

davidf,

I asked you why you think a god doesn’t exist and you have answered according to the definition by the AFA. Good, we agree.

“I do not accept that a god exists since I know of no reasonable evidence for such an entity and therefore do not believe in something for which there is no evidence. I know of no reasonable evidence for any kind of supernatural.”

The AFA definition; ATHEISM is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

“You are free to define any word any way you like. However, you can only communicate successfully with those who agree with that definition.” Sorry, but you do.

You agree as shown above and so do most other Atheists. And really, my observation is that pedantic worry over the definitions of Atheism (As there are quiet a few definitions) is way down the negligible scale as to not affect the way most people see the AFA. It is so popularly accepted amongst our Public Relations Team and Management Committee that there would be a revolution if I tried to change it.

And David, I don’t mind one little bit if you disagree with the AFA’s definition. I guess you belong to another Atheist group with a definition more suited to your way of thinking. Goodonya.

I’m sorry but you have lost me on your explanation of ideology and the AFA definition. Keep it simple; if it is somehow bad, explain the bad.

Rhian,

The AFA definition suits you as a Christian. So, where do you get the notion a) of a god and b) the notion that that god is Yahweh/Jesus? Read the AFA definition before answering. Thanks.

David

runner
The only one that is "shaking their fist" is you. At those who do not share your world views. I don't think I deserve anything. It appears that by contrast you believe that your faith makes you deserving of all that you receive.

Lost me on that one I am afraid.

AFA,

Imagine a world in anyone who said “God does not exist” dropped dead. Within a matter of days the churches would be full, the censuses would report 0% of the population as unbelievers - and human life would be utterly changed, for the worse. A God whose existence is provable in a scientific sense or through coercive logic would leave no space for human autonomy or development, nor for freely-chosen communion with God.

However, I don’t think that belief in God is irrational. It is supported by an accumulation of circumstantial evidence. This lies in subjective human experience, in the interchange between human intelligence and the intelligibility of the world, in the sense of transcendence that human community or the mysteries of the universe can inspire in us (that the religious call spiritual or mystical, though it may be sensed and named differently by atheists). It is in our strong, (largely) shared ethical sense and its connection to our capacity for transcendence. It lies in the power of scripture to provide meaningful and coherent explanations of human existence. Scripture uses metaphor, myth and symbol to convey its message, and can appear absurd when take too literally (by believers or non-believers). But there are some truths that cannot be demonstrated in an equation or laboratory experiment, and biblical stories can be particularly effective at conveying these.

Perhaps the anthropic congeniality of the universe may point to purposeful design, though I do not share runner’s denial of evolution and the sciences of cosmology and biology (nor do the great majority of Christians I know).

I believe in God because this is consistent with my subjective experience and because it provides a coherent framework to engage with the world and society and to explore what it means to be human. I believe Jesus was and is a uniquely human expression of the divine, in part because of the way his life and teaching contribute to that meta-narrative. But I accept that Buddhists, Moslems, Jews and even atheists have other stories and other frameworks which provide the same coherence for them