Arguments for Atheism

[oldbadger]

Thesis? Atheism has no thesis. It's merely the pronouncement that one doesn't believe in gods and doesn't accept existing god claims. It needs no defense, since it's not an argument or even a claim.

I don't think that you've got that right.
Deists believe in a Deity but reject Theism, hence they sometimes identify themselves as 'atheists'.

The defense of atheism, if one is requested, is the conviction that a person should have a sound reason before believing anything (rational skepticism), and that there is still no reason to believe in gods?

I think we'll have to introduce a new word for your particular tenet, ADEISM...... how would that work for you?

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

you could think of it as a sort of default

That's absurd. And such a statement requires proof.

but I was talking about your understanding of the term: do - by how YOU understand the word "atheist" agree that atheists exist?

Has per the conventual definition of the word, yes I do.

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

Ad hominin much?

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?

According to the conventual definition and understanding of the word that is not only MINE but is shared by all people with use proper English then yes a theist is not an atheist. But also I believe that one cannot impose a view on people who cannot or will not made a choice has to whether they are atheist or not and that is exactly what your definition does. It's like you people are itching to make an argument that all the babies in the world are atheist because they lack belief in gods.

 

[oldbadger]

Lack of any evidence of the existence of a god.

That won't work.......... look around you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no proof.

You are using a term incorrectly and of are course wrong.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

You are using a term incorrectly and of are course wrong.

You can't prove that most lexicographers are Christians and you know it. Now go away until you provide some proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's absurd. And such a statement requires proof.[/quote[

No, it is not. What part is absurd? And once again you should not use terms that you cannot use properly.

Has per the conventual definition of the word, yes I do.




Ad hominin much?

And another person that does not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.

According to the conventual definition and understanding of the word that is not only MINE but is shared by all people with use proper English then yes a theist is not an atheist. But also I believe that one cannot impose a view on people who cannot or will not made a choice has to whether they are atheist or not and that is exactly what your definition does. It's like you people are itching to make an argument that all the babies in the world are atheist because they lack belief in gods.

If someone, baby or not does not believe in gods than that person is an atheist. It is the starting point. The null hypothesis. You might as well complain about not liking the fact that you are a mammal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't prove that most lexicographers are Christians and you know it. Now go away until you provide some proof.

Sure I can. But if you cannot use terms properly your demand is void. At this point you are merely being rude.

 

[Nous]

After I posted the OP yesterday, it occurred to me that I should have noted the definition of atheism I was referring to, and I sincerely apologize for failing to do so. See here for further:

What Is Your Brand of Atheism? Is There More Than One Brand?

I seek sound arguments for atheism as distinguished from agnosticism, that is, for the belief or conclusion that there is no God, or that God does not exist.

I do not think there is any difficulty in arguing for agnosticism (about most anything). It's the belief or conclusion that something doesn't exist that I find problematic, and I don't see how one soundly deduces any such proposition except perhaps in the case of events in the past that did not happen.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Being an atheist does not mean that you are claiming there are no gods.

Take a look at the people in this forum who describe themselves as atheists: the vast majority actively claim that there is no god. Look at the "celebrity atheists" who make a good living from books, articles, and TV appearences. They aren't saying that they just don't believe — there wouldn't be much marketability in that. Why do you think Huxley coined the word "agnostic"? He saw the need to distinguish between those who didn't believe in a god and those who believed that no gods existed. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not going to assert that on all the planets in all the galaxies there is nothing that could be described as a unicorn.

I find it interesting that when some-one asked for arguments for atheism, the atheists fell back on arguing about what atheism meant. This looks like a displacement activity to me. As I've said before, I've look for a decent argument from an atheist for years and I'm still looking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take a look at the people in this forum who describe themselves as atheists: the vast majority actively claim that there is no god. Look at the "celebrity atheists" who make a good living from books, articles, and TV appearences. They aren't saying that they just don't believe — there wouldn't be much marketability in that. Why do you think Huxley coined the word "agnostic"? He saw the need to distinguish between those who didn't believe in a god and those who believed that no gods existed. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not going to assert that on all the planets in all the galaxies there is nothing that could be described as a unicorn.

I find it interesting that when some-one asked for arguments for atheism, the atheists fell back on arguing about what atheism meant. This looks like a displacement activity to me. As I've said before, I've look for a decent argument from an atheist for years and I'm still looking.

I do not see that. I see many claim the obvious, that the God of the Bible does not exist, or that Allah does not exist. Stating that your personal god does not exist is not a statement that all gods do not exist. Also you should look into claims before making them. Huxley did not coin the term to oppose the idea of atheism. He coined it to oppose the idea of a "Gnostic Church" or a church the supposedly knew that God existed:

'The word agnosticism was first publicly coined in 1869 at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in London by T.H. Huxley, a British biologist and champion of the Darwinian theory of evolution. He coined it as a suitable label for his own position. “It came into my head as suggestively antithetical to the ‘Gnostic’ of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.” '

agnosticism | Definition, Beliefs, & History

And atheists need to continually remind people of what atheism means since they make false attacks based upon their incorrect definitions all of the time.

 

[Willamena]

Not believing that gods exist is different from claiming no gods exist.

And, yet, somehow it is.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Just so. The lack of knowledge disguised as lack of belief is only incidentally atheism. It never rises above implicit atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's absurd. And such a statement requires proof.

Come again? It flows from the definition; you just acknowledged this yourself.

Has per the conventual definition of the word, yes I do.

Okay. The implication of this is whatever the criteria are for someone to be an atheist, they're practically possible for a human being to accomplish.

Ad hominin much?

No, because it's not an ad hominem.

"It seems like you're being deliberately obtuse, therefore you're wrong" - ad hominem

"It seems like you're being deliberately obtuse" - just an observation

According to the conventual definition and understanding of the word that is not only MINE but is shared by all people with use proper English then yes a theist is not an atheist.

Okay. The implication of this is that any definition of "atheist" that includes any theists is necessarily wrong.

So what do you think a person has to do to be an atheist? Make sure that your criteria are in line with those two principles you agree reflect "the conventional definition" and "proper English:"

- atheists exist
- theists aren't atheists

But also I believe that one cannot impose a view on people who cannot or will not made a choice has to whether they are atheist or not and that is exactly what your definition does. It's like you people are itching to make an argument that all the babies in the world are atheist because they lack belief in gods.

No; my argument is that adult, considered atheists are still atheists despite the fact that no one person has even heard of all of humanity's gods, let alone rejected all of them.

 

[Altfish]

That won't work.......... look around you.

I have.
All explained by natural processes.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

So what do you think a person has to do to be an atheist? .

Identify as one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Identify as one.

Do you think that a person has to identify as a mammal to be a mammal?

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

Do you think that a person has to identify as a mammal to be a mammal?

Being a mammal isn't a point of view - atheism is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not see that. I see many claim the obvious, that the God of the Bible does not exist, or that Allah does not exist. Stating that your personal god does not exist is not a statement that all gods do not exist.

It's also important to acknowledge that rejecting an argument or an explanation is not necessarily rejecting the conclusion for that argument.

I can reject the claim "the sky is blue because pixies painted their favourite colour" without rejecting "the sky is blue."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Being a mammal isn't a point of view - atheism is.

Being an atheist is either merely believing in gods or not believing in gods. Your argument is rather poor. This is why it is a good idea to understand the meaning of words.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Identify as one.

So if someone who believes in gods identifies as an atheist, then they really are an atheist?

You just finished agreeing that theists can't be atheists. Try again.