[User23]

Atheism is a positive belief system. It actively asserts special gnosis of God’s nonexistence which effectively makes it a particularly bare-boned form of Protestantism.

Agnosticism on the other hand isn’t a religion, it’s just intellectual humility or maybe just laziness.

[woodruffw]

> Atheism is a positive belief system. It actively asserts special gnosis of God’s nonexistence which effectively makes it a particularly bare-boned form of Protestantism.

Asserting the nonexistence of something is not asserting special knowledge of something's nonexistence. Atheism isn't a Platonic Beard[1].

On a more practical level: if Protestants and atheists don't find their views mutually intelligible, there probably isn't any really meaningful sense in which one is a "bare-boned form" of the other.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_beard

[sklivvz1971]

I'm sorry, but that's just incorrect.

Atheists are people who assert "I do not believe in God" and not, "I believe there is no God." It can not be otherwise, because the opposite makes no logical sense. Which God would the correct one to "believe against"? There are infinite Gods that one must equally disbelieve. Not believing in Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Ra, Yahveh, and the flying spaghetti monster does not require any evidence at all, it's merely the default position which any rational person must take.

Atheists merely believe in one God less than believers.

[User23]

I appreciate the sophistry, but it just doesn't accurately describe the empirical reality. Western atheists are observably interested in the nonexistence of the biblical God. As you correctly note, none of them define themselves by, say, disbelief in Trimurti. I doubt they even think about it.

Furthermore, every atheist I encounter actually asserts something like "I do not believe in God, because there is no God." After all "I do not believe in God, because there is a God" is irrational and, given the consequences of disbelief if God is as described in western tradition, exceedingly foolish. Atheism is only a rational belief if God is known to not exist. Otherwise it's no different than not believing in climate change or dinosaurs.

And in any event a transcendent creator God (first cause, etc) isn't anything at all like the easter bunny, comic book superheroes, or bad fictional characters.

[sklivvz1971]

Atheists are well aware of the distinction, I can assure you. A statement like "I do not believe in God because there is no God" proves absolutely nothing. I could tell you "I do not believe in pink unicorns because there are no pink unicorns" and you would not take it as a statement of faith, just as the obvious truth. Such a truth is also obvious about the Judeo-Muslim-Christian God to atheists: there is no evidence of God, and in particular, there is no evidence whatsoever of Yahweh.

As a side note, the strange idea that Yahweh is the only "possible" God is taken as granted by religious people, but it makes really little sense to those who came to disbelief through a philosophical journey. A lot of atheists will tell you that the specificity problem is one of the most convincing reasons not to believe in God.

[dragonwriter]

> As a side note, the strange idea that Yahweh is the only "possible" God is taken as granted by religious people,

It's really not, especially by most people who follow non-Yahwistic religions. But even those who personally believe in Yahweh who pose arguments for the existence of a god often do so for a god of a far less defined nature; belief in the existence of a god (however that term is defined) and belief that the god that exists has, in addition to those traits which are reviewed as inherently defining being a god, also has the other traits classically identified with some particular image of Yahweh are often coinciding but distinguishable beliefs.

[User23]

You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors.

You've unintentionally acknowledged my original point with your obsession on the nonexistence of the biblical God. Why aren't you going on about your lack of belief in Susano-o?

What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity. Granted, the particulars of the incarnation are a matter of testimony. Setting that aside though, the logical argument for the necessity of a creator God is no different than the logical argument that we live in a "simulation."

[SketchySeaBeast]

> who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity

Care to unpack that for me? Are you arguing for a "God", or a Prime Mover? I think they are very distinct - people attribute certain anthropomorphized qualities to a "God". I don't find an argument that there must being a prime mover particularly compelling, and if there were such a thing, I would very much doubt that it would represent any sort of deity as we define it - if anything I'd expect it to be energy and chaos. I'd just like to know which side of this argument you're going with.

[AnimalMuppet]

See "He Is There And He Is Not Silent" by Francis Schaeffer.

However, be aware that this book is more a sketch or outline of an argument, not detailed at every step. You're going to have to do a lot of thinking about various points to decide whether you agree with his argument.

You're also going to have to pay careful attention to his definitions of words, specifically his distinction between rationality and rationalism.

[BackBackBack]

> What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity.

And what you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a disbelief in a transcendental creator in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical impossibility.

> You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors.

The arrogance is simply astounding.

[User23]

> because it's a logical impossibility.

Really? Why don't you share your theorem?

We know that the existence of God can be found logically, because Gödel wrote a formal proof.

> The arrogance is simply astounding.

Indeed, I'm impressed by your self-awareness.

[satellitec4t]

Atheism is just a-theism, not-theism. If you are not a theist ("i believe in a god or gods"), you are an atheist.

You can be atheist and agnostic - most atheists are.

[BackBackBack]

See, you’ve redefine it.

If you assert “gnosis” then you are not talking about belief you are talking about knowledge. Gnostics claim to know there is a god, Agnostics claim they do not know if there are gods.

But I’m an Atheist. Why? Because I do not BELIEVE there are gods. I have not made any claims. I have not asserted anything. I simply find all the arguments in favor of gods lacking.

Atheism IS NOT a positive belief system, but simply the rejection of one.