Atheism has got nothing to do with anything other than the concept of theism/or Gods.

What is tomorrow's thread going to be? Why do atheists get out of bed in the morning? Why do atheists drink water? Why do atheists read the newspaper?

Seriously, this shit is getting old. God's non existence doesn't have/and never had any implications on reality.

Stuff existed before men came up with the idea of religion.

Reality proceeds the supernatural, get over it.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Atheism has got nothing to do with anything other than the concept of theism/or Gods.

What is tomorrow's thread going to be? Why do atheists get out of bed in the morning? Why do atheists drink water? Why do atheists read the newspaper?

Seriously, this shit is getting old. God's non existence doesn't have/and never had any implications on reality.

Stuff existed before men came up with the idea of religion.

Reality proceeds the supernatural, get over it.

I guess that if you allow for this imaginary friend to seep into every waking moment of your day, you may find a large hole there if the person lets go of it. Fortunately there's this thing called reality that's quite fascinating. Perhaps they will want to give it a try sometimes, it's really quite fascinating.

How can I possibly answer a question about what atheists believe in? How should I know? What do non ghost believers believe in? What do people without belief in Santa believe in? I can't think of anything I believe in without some form of evidence. I have no idea of what types of circumstances warrant belief. That would be subjective, I suspect. There, that's the best I can do.

FreshwaterSeaCowHero wrote:Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. That is all that it means.

Tbickle wrote:
I guess that if you allow for this imaginary friend to seep into every waking moment of your day, you may find a large hole there if the person lets go of it. Fortunately there's this thing called reality that's quite fascinating. Perhaps they will want to give it a try sometimes, it's really quite fascinating.

And

Agrippina wrote:I believe I am going to die one day.

Actually, you have evidence that leads you to that conclusion, seeing as every single human being that has lived has indeed one day died (with the exception of those still alive at the moment, but the evidence is quite conclusive that they too will die eventually).

/pedant

Fallible wrote:How can I possibly answer a question about what atheists believe in?

Isn't religion the ultimately groupthink? It isn't just some random process where everyone just falls into a common opinion, no, they take it one step further and tell you what to think and make you repeat it in unison with the rest of the group. That appears to be the only logical reason why people are so shocked to find out that there isn't some unifying doctrine or set of beliefs. Is it really that shocking that there are all of these people that don't feel the need to galvanize their beliefs with the consensus of a large group of people who all affirm the same thing?

You wouldn't think so, would you. And yet...

amkerman wrote:
- "pure reason". That's an interesting concept.

Read "pure" as "experience/perception-independent"!
In the epistemological sense, reason is the mental faculty of intuition, i.e. of intellectually "seeing" (necessary) truths. According to rationalism, reason is an autonomous source of knowledge.
In the logical sense, reason is the mental faculty of reasoning (deduction, induction, abduction).

amkerman wrote:Surely "pure reason" objectively exists then?

It is an epistemically objective fact that the mental faculty called reason exists in some animal species, at least in homo sapiens.

amkerman wrote:How could God be "spatially unextended" Without any "space" outside of God to be "unextended" in?

God is a bodiless soul/spirit, and as such he is spatially unextended by definition independently of whether or not he is located somewhere in space. If God had a spatial location, he would occupy only a single point of space. But God doesn't have a spatial location, and there needn't be a surrounding space in order for him to be spatially unextended: God is both spatially unextended and spatially unlocated.

amkerman wrote:
Why can't space exist within a zero-dimensional entity? It would be Duration (philosophically speaking), no?

I've been talking about spatial dimensions, not the temporal dimension.
A zero-dimensional entity lacks a boundary separating its outside from its inside, since it lacks an inside, an interior. The relation x is in y is unexemplifiable in principle in case y is a 0D object.

amkerman wrote:
What does space exist in/ Is it infinite/ Is time then also infinite/ Is the universe infinite, with no beginning and no end/ Any proof?

I don't know whether space/spacetime is infinite or eternal, but space/spacetime as a whole certainly doesn't exist in space/spacetime. Space/spacetime itself is spatially extended but spatially unlocated.

Teuton wrote:

amkerman wrote:
- "pure reason". That's an interesting concept.

Read "pure" as "experience/perception-independent"!
In the epistemological sense, reason is the mental faculty of intuition, i.e. of intellectually "seeing" (necessary) truths. According to rationalism, reason is an autonomous source of knowledge.
In the logical sense, reason is the mental faculty of reasoning (deduction, induction, abduction).

amkerman wrote:Surely "pure reason" objectively exists then?

It is an epistemically objective fact that the mental faculty called reason exists in some animal species, at least in homo sapiens.

amkerman wrote:How could God be "spatially unextended" Without any "space" outside of God to be "unextended" in?

God is a bodiless soul/spirit, and as such he is spatially unextended by definition independently of whether or not he is located somewhere in space. If God had a spatial location, he would occupy only a single point of space. But God doesn't have a spatial location, and there needn't be a surrounding space in order for him to be spatially unextended: God is both spatially unextended and spatially unlocated.

amkerman wrote:
Why can't space exist within a zero-dimensional entity? It would be Duration (philosophically speaking), no?

I've been talking about spatial dimensions, not the temporal dimension.
A zero-dimensional entity lacks a boundary separating its outside from its inside, since it lacks an inside, an interior. The relation x is in y is unexemplifiable in principle in case y is a 0D object.

amkerman wrote:
What does space exist in/ Is it infinite/ Is time then also infinite/ Is the universe infinite, with no beginning and no end/ Any proof?

I don't know whether space/spacetime is infinite or eternal, but space/spacetime as a whole certainly doesn't exist in space/spacetime. Space/spacetime itself is spatially extended but spatially unlocated.

The concept of something like spatial extension/ unextension is interesting. If there is infinite space between any two points I don't see how all space couldn't exist within God, a point and itself outside of space.

It makes more sense than something "existing outside of space"

amkerman wrote:
The concept of something like spatial extension/ unextension is interesting. If there is infinite space between any two points…

Even if space as a whole is infinite, the distance between any two points or regions of space is finite.

amkerman wrote:…I don't see how all space couldn't exist within God, a point and itself outside of space.

You should be able to see that you cannot put a 3D or 4D object in a 0D object.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:It makes more sense than something "existing outside of space"

What about abstract objects such as sets? If they exist, they are spatially unlocated, aren't they? For example, where does the letter A exist?

Teuton wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:It makes more sense than something "existing outside of space"

What about abstract objects such as sets? If they exist, they are spatially unlocated, aren't they? For example, where does the letter A exist?

Can it exist without space/time? (or just material in general) I'm not sure, what do you think?

Teuton wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:It makes more sense than something "existing outside of space"

What about abstract objects such as sets? If they exist, they are spatially unlocated, aren't they? For example, where does the letter A exist?

Inside your consciousness, if you are aware of it. If not, it doesn't exist at all, except in the consciousness of others. So A exists in consciousness.

It also exists in multiple texts, I would assume.

Although I understand you to specifically be talking about the abstract.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:
Can it exist without space/time? (or just material in general) I'm not sure, what do you think?

I think that if it exists, the letter A as an abstract linguistic type (a grapheme, as the linguistics say) is language-dependent, and language is mind-dependent. I also think that minds are spacetime-dependent, which means that the letter A is spacetime-dependent as well.

Interesting, Ok

amkerman wrote:

Teuton wrote:For example, where does the letter A exist?

Inside your consciousness, if you are aware of it. If not, it doesn't exist at all, except in the consciousness of others. So A exists in consciousness.
It also exists in multiple texts, I would assume.
Although I understand you to specifically be talking about the abstract.

There is a difference between abstract linguistic types and concrete linguistic tokens.
The concrete tokens of the letter A exist in minds or texts but, if it exists, the letter A as an abstract type exists nowhere.

Types and Tokens: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/

Fallible wrote:How can I possibly answer a question about what atheists believe in? How should I know? What do non ghost believers believe in? What do people without belief in Santa believe in? I can't think of anything I believe in without some form of evidence. I have no idea of what types of circumstances warrant belief. That would be subjective, I suspect. There, that's the best I can do.

If you took the time to read the OP you would easily realize the question is person specific. I explicitly state such IN the actual question. The actual sentence that is the question, makes the point blatantly clear. I also, in the question, explicitly state that I am not looking for generalizations.

Your indignation is unwarranted.