Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

[Windwalker]

Ah. Yeah... is an argument a misunderstanding of atheism really an argument against atheism?

Are misunderstandings of theism really an argument against theism? Isn't arguing in general largely just asserting positions of respective misunderstandings?

Personally, I've never seen "atheism provides an insufficient basis for morality" as an actual argument against atheism. All it implies is that atheists will have to derive their morality from something other than the mere lack of belief in gods... which seems obvious to me and not a reason to become a theist.

You should go read this thread: Anti-Materialism The argument goes that since there is no objective source, all you have is subjective relativism, which appears to be insufficient to say anything is truly right or wrong. I don't agree with that argument, but that is the argument that is made to challenge atheism as a truly viable position to hold. It is based on a poor understanding of relativism, which pretty much only atheists who are postmodernists would think in those terms anyway. You can read my counters to those arguments in that thread.

 

[Augustus]

Lots of people here have repeatedly argued against my atheism...

They keep on telling me it is not a belief

 

[Falvlun]

Weak atheists have an absence of two particular beliefs. That gods exist and that gods don't exist. They haven't taken any of those two positions. They are positionless.

Ok, so they lack two particular beliefs. That doesn't make them positionless.

Abstaining is still a type of vote.

Zero is still a spot on the number scale.

Neutral is still a position in relation to "for" and "against".

Refusing to choose between two options is a choice in itself. It's the third choice, the third option, the third position.

And even if you reject all these analogies, think of the reason weak atheists give for their lack of belief: the evidence and arguments so far presented have failed to convince me that I should believe.

This is unquestionably a position on the quality of the evidence provided and it's ability to convince you.

 

[ArtieE]

Ok, so they lack two particular beliefs. That doesn't make them positionless.

Abstaining is still a type of vote.

Zero is still a spot on the number scale.

Neutral is still a position in relation to "for" and "against".

Refusing to choose between two options is a choice in itself. It's the third choice, the third option, the third position.

That depends on whether you're an implicit or explicit weak atheist. Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia

 

[Falvlun]

That depends on whether you're an implicit or explicit weak atheist. Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia

And no one here is an implicit atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

And no one here is an implicit atheist.

Everybody are implicit atheists from conception. Positionless. Then you can become a theist, a weak explicit atheist who understands the two positions but consciously hasn't taken sides, or become a strong atheist.

 

[Willamena]

Everybody are implicit atheists from conception. Positionless. Then you can become a theist, a weak explicit atheist who understands the two positions but consciously hasn't taken sides, or become a strong atheist.

Implicit atheism isn't positionless, it's just implicit. If you imply atheism applicable to babies, rocks, and trees, you have implicit atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And no one here is an implicit atheist.

Everyone here is an implicit atheist with respect to most gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Abstaining is still a type of vote.

Robert's Rules of Order say otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

Everybody are implicit atheists from conception. Positionless. Then you can become a theist, a weak explicit atheist who understands the two positions but consciously hasn't taken sides, or become a strong atheist.

Hooray! Babies and rocks make a welcome return

The assertion that you are definitely an implicit atheist from conception only makes sense if you also believe that gods definitely don't exist.

Yet the people here who most commonly make such a 'default position' argument also seem to be those who insist they 'lack belief in gods' rather than 'believe gods don't exist'.

Regardless, it's still a very silly discussion

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hooray! Babies and rocks make a welcome return

The assertion that you are definitely an implicit atheist from conception only makes sense if you also believe that gods definitely don't exist.

I'm not following the leap there.

Yet the people here who most commonly make such a 'default position' argument also seem to be those who insist they 'lack belief in gods' rather than 'believe gods don't exist'.

I don't see that many atheists arguing that they merely "lack belief" in any particular gods; it's more that they argue that atheism only requires lack of belief in gods.

Just as "you don't have to live in New York to be an American" doesn't imply "*I* don't live in New York," "you don't have to reject gods to be an atheist" doesn't imply "*I* don't reject gods."

 

[Willamena]

Everyone here is an implicit atheist with respect to most gods.

If there were gods, you might have a point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there were gods, you might have a point.

God-concepts.

 

[Willamena]

God-concepts.

Special pleading.

 

[Falvlun]

Everyone here is an implicit atheist with respect to most gods.

No. If you say "I don't believe gods exist", by definition, you cannot be an implicit atheist. Implicit atheism is only for people who have not made a conscious decision regarding their beliefs in the existence of gods.

 

[Falvlun]

Everybody are implicit atheists from conception. Positionless. Then you can become a theist, a weak explicit atheist who understands the two positions but consciously hasn't taken sides, or become a strong atheist.

And there are no babies here.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not following the leap there.

Gods often have special powers that may include the ability to influence the thoughts of babies in a manner we cannot comprehend.

Unless one 100% rules out their existence then one cannot 100% rule out their sneaky baby mind tricks


Saying babies are atheists presupposes that there are no gods.

I don't see that many atheists arguing that they merely "lack belief" in any particular gods; it's more that they argue that atheism only requires lack of belief in gods.

They tend to express some form of philosophical doubt which precludes them from "believeing gods don't exist".

Said philosophical doubt should also apply to the beliefs of

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. If you say "I don't believe gods exist", by definition, you cannot be an implicit atheist.

Depends what the person means by "gods".

You can't reject what you've never even considered, regardless of your word choice.

 

[Falvlun]

Depends what the person means by "gods".

You can't reject what you've never even considered, regardless of your word choice.

In the spirit of compromise, would you agree that even though we are implicit atheists regarding gods we've never considered, we are also explicit atheists regarding the gods we have?

Don't wanna derail from my main argument that weak (explicit) atheists have taken a position.

 

[Nakosis]

I suppose you could start with the fact that it is quite obviously untrue.

You have beliefs about many gods.

No argument there.

Atheism doesn't mean you can't have beliefs about gods in a fictional/theoretical sort of way. In my case it just means I see no reason to make any decision about their factual existence. Maybe down the road I'll come across something that will cause me to change my mind. However in this moment IMO there is no scientific evidence in which to base a decision on their factual existence.

So let me change the statement to say It silly to argue against atheism unless you can bring scientific evidence a god's existence to the table.