Introduction of Me

My name is Aditya and I’m from India. I hope this is the introduction platform . I am 65/m and at this late age, I have resumed my education. Right now I am an undergrad in Philosophy and have completed 2 years. Should grad this year. I have just discovered Richard Dawkins a few years ago and am beginning to understand him more. The 4 Horsemen took me forward. I realized something : Atheism and Theology both believe in each others non-existence, etc. And I realized that they are both reducible to the word belief.

I agree that there must be a rationalist approach versus hand me down beliefs.

My best wishes to you all.
Aditya Raj Kapoor
(Lord FuseBox-thats my bikers call sign)

Atheism is a lack of belief. Can you explain what you mean by the above statement?

Welcome here Aditya

I understand what you mean. Atheism is the belief that no god exists.

You are right in the sense that it cannot be scientifically demonstrated

1 Like


  1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

“he is a committed atheist”

I got this from the net.
I’m just wondering. Both believe in something that is and isn’t. Both are equidistant from each.

This is not to say that atheists are deists or vice Versa. This just to wonder. The word belief or believe is common and part of JTB.

I am not reducing the effect of any one side. I’m just remarking.

Yes, there is no belief because it’s a lack of belief, so you can’t say it boils down to belief. There are two types of atheists- one who lacks belief (weak or implicit or innate) and one who believes there is no god (strong or explicit).

Blockquote • Don’t ‘strong atheism’ and ‘atheism’ mean the same thing anyway?

No. Atheism (also called “weak atheism”) is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It is a personal proposition, that in our minds one particular belief does not exist.

Strong atheism is the position that we should affirm the non-existence of a god or gods. It is a position about reality, that there are no referents to “god” out there. Both therefore pertain to different aspects of the issue.

• Strong atheism posits certainty, but certainty is impossible.

Strong atheistic propositions do not imply certainty.

Blockquote • Isn’t agnosticism the default position?

No. Agnosticism cannot be the default position because it presumes that the word “god” is meaningful and coherent. Until a coherent meaning for “god” is presented, strong atheism will always be the default position. This is true for all concepts also.

I would not say I am a weak atheist though . I consider myself implicit.

So belief has nothing to do with atheism.

Broadly speaking is this statement true?

Atheist: one who believes in the non existence of God

Thankyou for your reply.

Just a “heads-up”. Dawkins has fallen from grace within the atheist community. In fact, there isn’t much of an “atheist community” at the moment. There was in-fighting, then came the pandemic, so there are very few conferences these days. People are still quitting religion just like always though. I would love to start my philosophy education at age 65.

I took this online course a couple of years ago. I had been looking for something like this for a long time. It had been happening in a few universities, but it’s a cross-over discipline, bringing in history, anthropology, psychology, nueroscience and more.

You’re probably busy with other classes, but you could grab the names from the page I linked, and maybe check out an interview, like

I would prefer, “one who is not convinced by any given evidence in the existence of a particular god, or in the idea that a being is needed to create this observable physical universe.”

1 Like

Thankyou for your reply. While I do have to study, I do keep a watch out for other stuff. I shall certainly go through your suggestion and peep into the online course. Meanwhile shall be busy chatting here and busy meeting fresh minds.

1 Like

Ofcourse that is a detailed and technical answer. However to put it simply both do not believe in each other. They both need solid evidence of each other. For a Deist, Atheism is the belief in an impossible situation-a world without God! So on so forth. Both of them have time on their hands.

Hello lordfusebox. If I guessed you have a Hinduism heritage because of your name, Aditya. Would I be correct? You are located in the center of where our history started from pre-history. The Garden of Eden, our language, domestication of animals and plants. Cowrie shells and the upper and lower gods. The rules of law, to name a few. I would like to learn your view points of religion and atheism from India. I rate WION above most of our networks when it comes to truth and facts. Good to have you aboard, Mike

and Hello Mike. Yes I am from India and living here. India is abound with all kinds of theocratic stuff. Some spiritual, some mysticism, lots of Science here. Lots of faith here. Its a fun place to cut your time.

My points of view:

Religion: A code of conduct as written in a book
Spirituality: A code of conduct that doesn’t need the book

I am not an atheist. I am probably a Humanist, Nature lover. I am here to actually discover myself according to Richard Dawkins definitions and am happy to chat at this site. Do I believe in God? Not that which is taught in the religions. I only believe in the Law of Karma. That’s my God. It has been tested by me. I am finding out now that it has some whispers in Natural Selection and Newtons 3rd Law: every equal action…

I follow a Guru. He brought me up and like a teacher, explained all to me. I believe in all that makes sense to me. Compassion is my watchword, so is truth and simplicity. This me.


Welcome to the forum LFB.

I like your style of argument based on reason and logic.
That does not mean we are always correct in our conclusions but it makes for wonderful civilized debate.

I am a hard atheist. And I do in fact believe there is no God. But rather than parsing the term atheist my argument stems from parsing the word belief.

My belief is not based on “faith”, but on “confidence” that lack of any proof of a sentient universal agency and the existence of proof to the contrary., that the inevitable conclusion should be that God is an invention of the hominid mind and has no independent existence except in the minds of the faithful. A Tulpa.

I believe that the concept of a God is superfluous and in practice is detrimental to the advancement of science.

This is not a condemnation of religion as a teaching tool for moral behavior. All myths and fairy tales are usually based on secular moral principles and have social value.

It is an argument that religion is not based on scientific principles and evidence but on socially acceptable behaviors, which have no universal meaning or application in science which deals with an absolute neutral mathematical perspective of universal values and functions.

Thankyou for a wonderful reply. You are right when you base on evidence. I don’t have any as well. These days😌

I disapprove the harm being done in the name of religion. Therefore they are the biggest promoters of the other side.
And if atheists stick to the pursuit of science above all, they’re surely contributing to life!

[quote=“lordfusebox, post:15, topic:8964”]
I disapprove the harm being done in the name of religion. Therefore they are the biggest promoters of the other side.

I am afraid I have to disagree with that blanket statement. History is filled with records of bloody wars having been fought by people of different beliefs because God “told” them it was a good idea.

And if atheists stick to the pursuit of science above all, they’re surely contributing to life!

Indeed and to my knowledge no one has ever fought a war in the name of Science.

OTOH , religious wars usually employed science for greatest effectiveness.

True. In that they contributed.
What does otoh mean?

What I meant was that religious issues leading to atrocities creates well meaning atheists! Therefore they contribute….


“On The Other Hand”
Used to introduce a contrasting point of view, fact, or situation.

1 Like