Atheism does not exist

[Sha'irullah]

I was talking to a friend of mine one day and he told me atheists do not exist. I asked him how can you say that if he himself is an atheist.
He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity. Because an atheist can cloud his or her disposition by holding strong to science they are also holding strong to scientific principles. Meaning to declare the unknown that is not known is a fallacy in thought.
Hence no such thing as atheism occurs in the normal sense. Atheists often take a strong stance saying "god does not exist" and will ramble on and on about cosmological sciences when they themselves are a fool by default for ignoring their very own source of reason.

I believe the only proper way of making a logical definition for atheism is to change the definition itself. It is definition by many sources implies the absolute denial of a god. But by denying something unproven it stands at criticism.

But the other issue is that if a person concludes there is no god then they are at equal footing to that of a theist.

See where this confusing puzzle is going folks?

I would like to ask and encourage atheist to provide a proper definition of atheism as it is HEAVILY misused and often contradicts itself when used improperly. The definitive key point though is how can one keep it separate from agnosticism.

But also if this is not the case and it cannot be differed from agnosticism then perhaps atheism should just be lumped with theism as the core thinking is the same . Like a sad case of the irony when one realizes their greatest enemy is themselves.

 

[Falvlun]

There are many definitions for atheism.

The most popular one on RF is simply "absence of the belief that gods exist". So, basically, unless you actively hold the belief that gods exist, then you are an atheist. This definition doesn't seem to have the problems your OP addresses.

I am not a huge fan of such a definition, since I think it waters down the sort of meaning that I think such a word should convey. I favor the more direct "atheism is the belief that gods do not exist." I think this has the benefit of being more accurate, as well as more descriptive.

Note that "rejection", as in the definition you provided in the OP, is not really necessary.

I do not see what the logical absudity of such a belief would be. After all, there are very few things in life that we can prove beyond a shadow of the doubt.

Most atheists cite "lack of evidence" of the existence of gods as the reason for their atheism. Not believing something that you feel does not have enough evidence to support it is a reasonable, rational conclusion.

 

[sonofdad]

There is a difference between not believing a claim on one hand and asserting that the claim is false on the other.

I put myself in the former camp. I do not accept any claim for the existence of gods unless it is supported by sufficient evidence. If someone can prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that a personal god exists, I will become a theist.

Some will take it a step further and assert that there is no god, what happens then is that the burden of proof is shifted on the atheist because she is the one making the claim.

But the only thing atheism entails is the lack of belief in gods.

 

[Falvlun]

Some will take it a step further and assert that there is no god, what happens then is that the burden of proof is shifted on the atheist because she is the one making the claim.
.

Any position has a "burden of proof". It's just lazy to assume otherwise.

 

[sonofdad]

Any position has a "burden of proof". It's just lazy to assume otherwise.

I disagree.
If you don't have any evidence for your claim, I am not required to provide you with evidence to disprove it, I could but there is no obligation on my part.

 

[Falvlun]

I disagree.
If you don't have any evidence for your claim, I am not required to provide you with evidence to disprove it, I could but there is no obligation on my part.

Your claim is that they have no evidence for their claim. Hey presto: Now you have to prove your claim.

I stand by my assertion: There are no freebies. You should be able to back up any position you have with reasons, evidence, rational argumentation, etc. Otherwise, I won't think much of your position. It doesn't count if you get the right answer just by blind luck.

 

[outhouse]

The definition is fine the way it is.

I can prove for myself, no deity exist by the evidence in mythology well enough to understand man has a habit of creating deities.

I can also see the concept of god evolving for thousands of years in mythology always mirroring the culture changing the definition to meet their personal need, wishes and wants.

 

[Willamena]

He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity.

But there are people who do know what it is they are rejecting--many of them. So while he may not be an atheist, it's not like atheists don't exist.

I would like to ask and encourage atheist to provide a proper definition of atheism as it is HEAVILY misused and often contradicts itself when used improperly. The definitive key point though is how can one keep it separate from agnosticism.

But also if this is not the case and it cannot be differed from agnosticism then perhaps atheism should just be lumped with theism as the core thinking is the same . Like a sad case of the irony when one realizes their greatest enemy is themselves.

I am fond of atheism as rejection of an image of "god." With every description of "god," with every artistic rendering and poetic waxation, with every attribution and characterization, an image is built of something that is supposed to "be."

That is what gets rejected.

 

[Falvlun]

The definition is fine the way it is.

I can prove for myself, no deity exist by the evidence in mythology well enough to understand man has a habit of creating deities.

I can also see the concept of god evolving for thousands of years in mythology always mirroring the culture changing the definition to meet their personal need, wishes and wants.

A perfect example of a well-thought out line of argumentation to support his position.

 

[Quintessence]

Honestly, I find theist and atheist to be extremely problematic labels given that god-concepts literally run the spectrum of everything imaginable. I'd wager there's no such thing as a person who is atheistic with respect to all god-concepts, nor is there such a thing as a person who is theistic with respect to all god-concepts. The only distinction I notice is mostly semantical. For example, my concept of the sacred is synonymous with reality. Obviously atheists don't disbelieve or lack belief in reality. What they disagree with is labeling reality "gods." The label is a pretty trivial distinction, especially considering that some of these atheists practice the exact same religious celebrations and rituals that I do. Atheist? Theist? Both labels are of little informative value.

 

[Falvlun]

Honestly, I find theist and atheist to be extremely problematic labels given that god-concepts literally run the spectrum of everything imaginable. I'd wager there's no such thing as a person who is atheistic with respect to all god-concepts, nor is there such a thing as a person who is theistic with respect to all god-concepts. The only distinction I notice is mostly semantical. For example, my concept of the sacred is synonymous with reality. Obviously atheists don't disbelieve or lack belief in reality. What they disagree with is labeling reality "gods." The label is a pretty trivial distinction, especially considering that some of these atheists practice the exact same religious celebrations and rituals that I do. Atheist? Theist? Both labels are of little informative value.

I think considering reality to be god makes it different than the mere reality us atheists believe in.

When you get down to it, every word has wiggle room, nebulous grey areas that are difficult to pin down. In general, I don't believe the word "god" is quite as un-definable as people seem to believe it is. We all have a pretty intuitive concept of what a god is, and what one isn't, and while we may not agree on specifics, I don't think that's as big a deal as it is made out to be.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism is ultimately so simple as to be boring. But like so many other things, it is also as holds so much variety as we dare to want to perceive.

Muichomotsu created a few interesting and informative threads on the matter, including:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ous-beliefs-dir/145302-atheos-alignments.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/non-theism/98420-defining-atheism-nontheism-etc.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tes/98419-religious-perspectives-atheism.html


But rest assured, we definitely do exist. And we are many. And we are everywhere. :camp:


More seriously, let's go through some of the OP:

He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist.

"Reject" is a weird verb to use here. Maybe he was kidding?

In any case, of course one should feel free to reject God as an hypothesis, for the simple fact that there is no good evidence of its truth.

So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity.

Barring divine revelation, it is not even possible for atheism to be a logical absurdity.

Now, granted, I have read (once) about a case of revealed Atheism. Yep, that means someone reaching communion with God and learning from Him that he does not in fact exist. Yes, I also find that crazy. But I don't make them, I only tell them as I remember them.

In any case, that is definitely the rare exception. Very few cases of Atheism lack in logical soundness.

Because an atheist can cloud his or her disposition by holding strong to science they are also holding strong to scientific principles.

What is "clouding one's disposition" supposed to mean here? Or holding strong? Are you presuming some sort of conflict I am not aware of?

Meaning to declare the unknown that is not known is a fallacy in thought.

I have no idea of what that is supposed to mean, so no other comment.

Hence no such thing as atheism occurs in the normal sense.

Hmm, does that make me a strange visitor from another realm? Cool! I always wanted to be one of those.

Atheists often take a strong stance saying "god does not exist" and will ramble on and on about cosmological sciences when they themselves are a fool by default for ignoring their very own source of reason.

Sounds like a fascinating fictional scenario. What are the premises that shape that world that you are describing?

Specifically, why do Atheists need to ramble about cosmology instead of simply being Atheists? And why would they need to be fools to be Atheists?

I believe the only proper way of making a logical definition for atheism is to change the definition itself. It is definition by many sources implies the absolute denial of a god.

Is that so? How absolute a denial are we talking about here?

It looks a bit more like some variations of Satanism than actual Atheism, going by that expression.

Most Atheists simply aren't nearly that worried about God, you know.

With all due respect, I can't help but wonder how well chosen those sources would be, if they even bother mentioning God so often to "absolutely deny" him. That is a caricature, not a realistic portrayal of atheism.

But by denying something unproven it stands at criticism.

Because we are supposed to believe in anything until we can prove otherwise? That doesn't make a lot of sense, sorry.

On the other hand, it is nice to know that I am now the sole legitimate inheritor of all surviving monarchies. Which I must be, since no one can prove otherwise.

But the other issue is that if a person concludes there is no god then they are at equal footing to that of a theist.

Except that the theism is making one, arguably significant arbitrary assumption more than the atheist, you mean?

See where this confusing puzzle is going folks?

Actually, no. I have a hard time attempting to picture what you conceive of as being Atheism. It looks like some sort of evil cult from an animated picture or something. It does not look at all like something that one can actually find in the flesh.

I would like to ask and encourage atheist to provide a proper definition of atheism as it is HEAVILY misused and often contradicts itself when used improperly. The definitive key point though is how can one keep it separate from agnosticism.

One shouldn't always, and arguably not often even.

Agnosticism is after all little more than a very specific form of common sense, fully compatible with pretty much any religious stance worth considering.

But also if this is not the case and it cannot be differed from agnosticism then perhaps atheism should just be lumped with theism as the core thinking is the same.

Except for the defining traits of both being direct opposites, you mean?

Seriously, what on earth do you mean by that, good sir?

 

[Sha'irullah]

The definition is fine the way it is.

I can prove for myself, no deity exist by the evidence in mythology well enough to understand man has a habit of creating deities.

I can also see the concept of god evolving for thousands of years in mythology always mirroring the culture changing the definition to meet their personal need, wishes and wants.

Hindus accepted the world was round far before space travel. This was later confirmed thousands of years ago.
You are only providing evidence Thor does not exist or any other pagan deity engraved in stone. Please provide evidence god does not exist.

I myself do not believe in any pagan deity or god of old or revealed scripture so please prove my god wrong.

I can assure myself that this will be futile for you :yes:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

To be an atheist, all you have to do is not hold the belief that god(s) exist. How or why you come to that view isn't really relevant to the broad definition of the word. Whether one calls it rejecting, disbelieving, or anything else, doesn't really matter, as the fundamental commonality is simply not holding a specific belief. If someone finds this logically absurd, they probably need to think a little more about logic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know that atheists exist.
I checked, & there are 2 in my house right now.
Thus, your friend is proven wrong.

Since we've no evidence that gods exist, I speculate that they do not.
This requires no proof.

 

[sonofdad]

Your claim is that they have no evidence for their claim. Hey presto: Now you have to prove your claim.

I stand by my assertion: There are no freebies. You should be able to back up any position you have with reasons, evidence, rational argumentation, etc. Otherwise, I won't think much of your position. It doesn't count if you get the right answer just by blind luck.

Yeah, but that's a different claim.
I am not taking the opposite of your claim and stating that it's false. I am stating that the reason you have for believing your claim is irrational or not convincing to me.

 

[idav]

Someone answering no to the question of believing in god is a trick. As soon as the "atheist" answers no the theists got you cause they got you to accept some nuanced concept.

 

[Sha'irullah]

To be an atheist, all you have to do is not hold the belief that god(s) exist. How or why you come to that view isn't really relevant to the broad definition of the word. Whether one calls it rejecting, disbelieving, or anything else, doesn't really matter, as the fundamental commonality is simply not holding a specific belief. If someone finds this logically absurd, they probably need to think a little more about logic.

Of course and that is where it should end but it is often sited as the rejection of a god and is used by some atheist as a factual standpoint that "there is no god" when the other party has not proven a god exist no more then how atheist have not proven a god does not exist.
It is about the way atheist is used. One is opinionative and the other infrangible.

The position of the friend I was talking about as referring to the infragible argument that a god does not exist. He is Romanian so the language barrier is different and the fact he grew up in the communist ideology of atheism also adds to it.

 

[steeltoes]

I was talking to a friend of mine one day and he told me atheists do not exist. I asked him how can you say that if he himself is an atheist.
He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity. Because an atheist can cloud his or her disposition by holding strong to science they are also holding strong to scientific principles. Meaning to declare the unknown that is not known is a fallacy in thought.
Hence no such thing as atheism occurs in the normal sense. Atheists often take a strong stance saying "god does not exist" and will ramble on and on about cosmological sciences when they themselves are a fool by default for ignoring their very own source of reason.

I believe the only proper way of making a logical definition for atheism is to change the definition itself. It is definition by many sources implies the absolute denial of a god. But by denying something unproven it stands at criticism.

But the other issue is that if a person concludes there is no god then they are at equal footing to that of a theist.

See where this confusing puzzle is going folks?

I would like to ask and encourage atheist to provide a proper definition of atheism as it is HEAVILY misused and often contradicts itself when used improperly. The definitive key point though is how can one keep it separate from agnosticism.

But also if this is not the case and it cannot be differed from agnosticism then perhaps atheism should just be lumped with theism as the core thinking is the same . Like a sad case of the irony when one realizes their greatest enemy is themselves.

The existence of atheists is predicated on there being theists, if there were no theists running around declaring that invisible gods exist out there, there would be no one to say, "I don't believe you."

 

[steeltoes]

Of course and that is where it should end but it is often sited as the rejection of a god and is used by some atheist as a factual standpoint that "there is no god" when the other party has not proven a god exist no more then how atheist have not proven a god does not exist.
It is about the way atheist is used. One is opinionative and the other infrangible.

The position of the friend I was talking about as referring to the infragible argument that a god does not exist. He is Romanian so the language barrier is different and the fact he grew up in the communist ideology of atheism also adds to it.

I am supposedly an atheist because I don't believe theists. Why? Because anything that can be presented without evidence can be summarily dismissed without evidence.