Arguments for Atheism

[Sunstone]

Simply lacking a belief in something doesn't qualify. If I lack a belief in a good Fast and Furious movie doesn't qualify me as an aVinDieselist, it just means I never seen one. Lacking is a state being deficient, which atheist are not because they have a obvious opinions about the gods, if they totally lacked belief they would also lack their opinions about the gods because any belief about the gods would be deficient and therefore unknowns. If you have absolutely no beliefs in or of or about the gods then the gods wouldn't even cross your mind or be part of the equation.

You are simply defining "atheist" and "atheism" in ways to force your conclusion. I'm not buying into your views of those things.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Nous asked for an argument in favour of atheism, basically, and only 12 responses in it's derailed into 'define atheism', and the like. I was actually going to play devil's advocate and put some arguments forth, but I won't bother now.

If you are going to argue for or against something it should at least be defined first. Ambiguity doesn't win arguments.

 

[Rival]

If you are going to argue for or against something it should at least be defined first. Ambiguity doesn't win arguments.

It's just that this argument has been done to death on here, by exactly the same people. Is it so hard for them to go with a generic 'Lack of belief in a god or gods' and go from there?

 

[Woberts]

Nous asked for an argument in favour of atheism, basically, and only 12 responses in it's derailed into 'define atheism', and the like. I was actually going to play devil's advocate and put some arguments forth, but I won't bother now.

I'm surprised it even got that far, if I'm being honest.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

You are simply defining "atheist" and "atheism" in ways to force your conclusion. I'm not buying into your views of those things.

I am defining them the way the dictionary defines them. Lacking something is being deficient and being deficient is no argument for atheism or anything else for that matter. Ignorantia juris non excusat.

 

[Sunstone]

Question: According to Webster's....

Please see my thread on the folly of believing dictionaries provide "proper" or "correct" definitions of terms.

Dictionaries are Not the Final Word on the Definitions of Words

 

[Sunstone]

Lacking something is being deficient....

Really? Do you consider yourself "deficient" because you lack a heart made of plastic?

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Really? Do you consider yourself "deficient" because you lack a heart made of plastic?

Is a plastic heart necessary or essential? If not, then I am neither lacking one or deficient.

 

[Sunstone]

Is a plastic heart necessary or essential? If not, then I am neither lacking one or deficient.

So when you asserted "lacking something is being deficient" you meant "lacking something necessary or essential is being deficient"? But if that is so, then how do you justify your claim that atheism lacks something necessary or essential -- without making a circular argument?

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

So when you asserted "lacking something is being deficient" you meant "lacking something necessary or essential is being deficient"? But if that is so, then how do you justify your claim that atheism lacks something necessary or essential -- without making a circular argument?

I never claimed that, you guys claimed that atheism is merely lacking belief, "atheism" is a noun, not a verb. By stating it is merely about lacking belief you guys are trying to turn it into a verb.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Are people really saying that they need to define what a justified true belief signifies before they are able to argue for or against atheism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never claimed that, you guys claimed that atheism is merely lacking belief, "atheism" is a noun, not a verb. By stating it is merely about lacking belief you guys are trying to turn it into a verb.

It is best defined as a lack of belief. In the same sense "zero" is a noun as well.

 

[Sunstone]

Are people really saying that they need to define what a justified true belief signifies before they are able to argue for or against atheism?

Give it a bit of time and it will probably not only get there, but devolve into a discussion of Gettier defeats.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

It is best defined as a lack of belief. In the same sense "zero" is a noun as well.

Is my kid's goldfish an atheist? Because if that beady-eyed cretin is an atheist, I am going to flush it down the toilet. So if you want to save the precious life of my daughter's goldfish, I think you better examine you Ingsoc redefinition of the term again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is my kid's goldfish an atheist? Because if that beady-eyed cretin is an atheist, I am going to flush it down the toilet. So if you want to save the precious life of my daughter's goldfish, I think you better examine you Ingsoc redefinition of the term again.

Technically yes. Sadly it does not even have the mental capacity to dream up a god, much less believe in it once it did so. Don't blame reality, it is not a proper excuse for ichthyocide.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Technically yes. Sadly it does not even have the mental capacity to dream up a god, much less believe in it once it did so. Don't blame reality, it is not a proper excuse for ichthyocide.

I now have to tell my daughter that her goldfish ran away. Oops. You did a bad thing, mister.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I now have to tell my daughter that her goldfish ran away. Oops. You did a bad thing, mister.

Don't blame me for fish murder

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Don't blame me for fish murder

I am blaming you because your Newspeak definition of the term "atheism" turns everything and everyone into an atheist. My Pontiac is now a damn atheist. I am going to shoot that old bird now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am blaming you because your Newspeak definition of the term "atheism" turns everything and everyone into an atheist. My Pontiac is now a damn atheist. I am going to shoot that old bird now.

But it is not "Newspeak". It is how atheists have defined the term for generations. When it comes to beliefs or a lack of beliefs it is best to go to the people that hold those beliefs for a definition. I would not ask a Christian to define Hinduism, a Jew to define Islam, would you? Then why ask non-atheists to define atheism?

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

But it is not "Newspeak". It is how atheists have defined the term for generations. When it comes to beliefs or a lack of beliefs it is best to go to the people that hold those beliefs for a definition. I would not ask a Christian to define Hinduism, a Jew to define Islam, would you? Then why ask non-atheists to define atheism?

Non-atheists don't define atheist, lexicographers at Cambridge, Oxford and Webster's do. Some of them are atheist. Your definition is absurd because it turns everyone and everything into an atheist, it is no definition at all. According to you even the most strident Bible-thumping, gun-toting, gay Muslim-hating born again fundamentalist Christian is now an atheist because he lacks belief in or of or about the gods. Hell, even the cement and the trees are now atheists. and show me proof the people have been using your definition for decades.