Arguments for Atheism

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Most of them are theists, in fact most are Christians, though with increasing numbers of atheists they have been made to correct the old definitions.

And your attempt to abuse a term does not mean that the definition is incorrect.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Most of them are theists, in fact most are Christians, though with increasing numbers of atheists they have been made to correct the old definitions.

Dude, I lack a belief in gods, and I don't identify as an atheist. At most I identify as a agnostic or nonbeliever. Your definition is absurd because it doesn't define anything, it removes definition by making everything and everyone atheist.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Most of them are theists, in fact most are Christians, though with increasing numbers of atheists they have been made to correct the old definitions.

And your attempt to abuse a term does not mean that the definition is incorrect.

And prove to me that most lexicographers at Oxford, Cambridge and Webster's are Christians or theists. You seem to have inside knowledge, so prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude, I lack a belief in gods, and I don't identify as an atheist. At most I identify as a agnostic or nonbeliever. Your definition is absurd because it doesn't define anything, it removes definition by making everything and everyone atheist.

No, it is obvious by usage that it only applies to people. Second, you might not identify as one, but technically you are one. No one from the atheist side will force you to identify as one. You can call yourself whatever you want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And prove to me that most lexicographers at Oxford, Cambridge and Webster's are Christians or theists. You seem to have inside knowledge, so prove it.

All that is needed is a general percentage of the beliefs of that population to "prove it". I am getting that you do not fully understand the burden of proof either.

 

[Milton Platt]

How isn't this a claim? In the English language making the pronouncement "god doesn't exist" is a claim.

Not believing that gods exist is different from claiming no gods exist. It’s called the null hypothesis.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

It always slides in this direction. People seem to think that dictionaries dictate how a word is to be used. They do not. They attempt to show the way words are used. There are multiple uses of the word atheism, both current and historical. When one uses the word as if there was and only has ever been one usage of the word, everyone talks past each other. The OP should have stated what his particular usage was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not believing that gods exist is different from claiming no gods exist. It’s called the null hypothesis.

A concept that those that those without some training in logic seem to have trouble understanding. Being an atheist does not mean that you are claiming there are no gods. It is just a lack of beliefs in gods. If you can't name a specific god or even a general one that you believe in then by definition you are an atheist. Most agnostics are atheists. It is not an "either or" situation. Though one could say that all agnostics are either atheists or theists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Question: According to Webster's an is:
"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates a atheism."

So if a person never heard of any gods, never heard of the positions of theism or atheism or and therefore gives any thought to both positions, would you call that person an atheist?

Yes, of course. They do not believe in any gods.

Two questions for you:

- do you agree that atheists exist?
- do you agree that theists aren’t atheists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Do you understand the difference between “lack of belief IN gods” and “lack of belief ABOUT gods?”

You do not have to lack all beliefs about gods - or anything else - to be an atheist; it’s just that none of these beliefs are the deciding factor in whether a person is an atheist.

 

[siti]

Can I give an argument for my adefinitionism instead?

 

[Jumi]

So if a person never heard of any gods, never heard of the positions of theism or atheism or and therefore gives any thought to both positions, would you call that person an atheist?

I would. When I was atheist, it wasn't any kind of decision. The kind of indoctrination to theism at the time (3-18 years old) wasn't convincing enough so I didn't have to change at any time. For decades this was enough, though people in debates tried to force me into some neat box. Theism on the other hand was a choice, one I adopted as consequence of mystical experiences. Of course the people still keep trying to force me into some neatly boxed definition, but that's another topic.

 

[Curious George]

This thread is for sound arguments for the thesis of atheism, and critiques thereof.

It is more probable than not that no intelligent, immortal entity--that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing-- exists.

This is supported by a weighing of the evidence:

We find no definitive footprint of such an entity. Not one event has occurred where said event could not have occurred without the involvement of such an entity.

False claims regarding the actions of such an entity or entities have consistently been disproved.

There is considerable understanding surrounding the origin and evolution of stories involving such an entity or entities. In all cases understood, we find humans creating stories. In cases not understood, we lack sufficient historical data necessary to reach any conclusions.

We cannot observe such an entity or entities.

So we must ask ourselves, is the existence and non-existence of such an entity or entities equally likely? If, given the totality of evidence, you find non-existence more likely, then you do in fact believe that no god exists. The degree of such a belief or conviction may change from person to person but it is still there.

Still, you wanted a sound argument not just a reasonable one.

So:

Any interaction with our universe will leave a trace of that interaction.

No trace of an interaction from any god exists.

Therefore no god that interacts with our universe exists.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

It always slides in this direction. People seem to think that dictionaries dictate how a word is to be used. They do not. They attempt to show the way words are used. There are multiple uses of the word atheism, both current and historical. When one uses the word as if there was and only has ever been one usage of the word, everyone talks past each other. The OP should have stated what his particular usage was.

So dictionaries are "fake news" and lexicographers are "the enemies of the people"?

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Y

Two questions for you:

- do you agree that atheists exist?

Not anymore, your definition of the word renders the term meaningless since it makes it the default position of every man, woman and child and gerbil and goldfish on the planet.
- do you agree that theists aren’t atheists?[/QUOTE]
Nope, a theism is now impossible since everyone and everything in the entire universe is now atheist. If atheism is merely lacking belief in gods then the most strident Bible thumping Christian is now a atheist because he lacks belief in Zeus.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Do you understand the difference between “lack of belief IN gods” and “lack of belief ABOUT gods?”

You do not have to lack all beliefs about gods - or anything else - to be an atheist; it’s just that none of these beliefs are the deciding factor in whether a person is an atheist.

Ok, what is the deciding factor and what beliefs about the gods do atheist have?

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

All that is needed is a general percentage of the beliefs of that population to "prove it". I am getting that you do not fully understand the burden of proof either.

You have no proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not anymore, your definition of the word renders the term meaningless since it makes it the default position of every man, woman and child and gerbil and goldfish on the planet.

The term "atheist" typically only refers to people, and yes, you could think of it as a sort of default, but I was talking about your understanding of the term: do - by how YOU understand the word "atheist" agree that atheists exist?

Nope, a theism is now impossible since everyone and everything in the entire universe is now atheist. If atheism is merely lacking belief in gods then the most strident Bible thumping Christian is now a atheist because he lacks belief in Zeus.

I'm having trouble giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being deliberately obtuse.

A convention of English grammar is that when a person does not have any of a thing, we use the plural: if someone has exactly one apple, we would not say "he has no apples."

A person who believes in one or more gods is not a person who does not believe in any gods.

And again: I'm referring to YOUR understanding. As YOU understand the terms, would you agree that theists aren't atheists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, what is the deciding factor and what beliefs about the gods do atheist have?

The only belief about a god that an atheist can't have is the belief that the god exists. The moment an atheist thinks this, they are a theist and therefore not an atheist.

The only deciding factor is whether the person believes in any gods. If they do, they're a theist. Otherwise, they're an atheist.

An atheist may decide to go on and, say, reject particular gods, but doing this is a separate matter from what makes them an atheist.