Re: Religion Thread: ...and suddenly, everyone's a theology scholar
That is a grossly simplistic and unhelpful way to define atheism, 5mn. In fact, it suggests a binary way of thinking that is, itself, a philosophy of no.
I've said time and again, I have a large number of atheist friends...most are really cool people. But I always stand by everything I say.
This is all wiki has in its definition:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Sounds like a lot of words to say what I just said. Is it simplistic? Maybe, but there really doesn't appear to be anything else.
Is it unhelpful? Look at the evidence based on commentary initiated by aggressive non believers in this thread. Pretty much 90%+ of all new ideas initiated by them here are a) strictly the worst Christian behavior (they mirror bad Rush L. journalism) b) refute God. I will discuss alternative beliefs, scripture and other cool things going on that align with things I believe. I don't recall any posts where these posters initiate a commentary by saying 'hey, this is what I believe' or 'here's an example of the cool atheists do' or anything else. Whether they are accurate, helpful or not, their posts are apparently a pretty clear manifestation of 'no' to God or Christianity.
Tell me where I'm wrong.