Atheism does not exist

[steeltoes]

The atheist label is only useful for the theist claiming nonbelief dis belief lack of or whatever the theist wants to call it. No other concept makes it logical to label the non belief of a nonexistant concept.

True enough. It has been said that if 90% of the worlds population played golf there would have to be a label for those that did not play golf. As it is there is no label attached to those that don't golf, but only because of the percentage of golfers.

 

[Willamena]

No we can't. We can say "the theist believes in god, the atheist neither does nor does not believe in god, the hard/strong atheist does not believe in god." It isn't either or, it isn't belief or non-belief, it's belief, neutral, non-belief. Atheism is the pendulum hanging neutrally straight down, belief is the pendulum swinging one way, dis-belief is the pendulum swinging the other way.

Well, not believing in god is all I require of an atheist.

My point exactly. So you have belief, atheism which is the neutral state, and hard/strong atheism which is non-belief. We are all born atheists with no belief and no knowledge of gods. We can choose to believe, stay neutral atheists like we were born, or choose to dis-believe.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

[Willamena]

Perhaps if only true atheists answer on what atheism is we can finally agree. Is it the atheist giving this label or the theist who actually believes in said concept?

Only true Scottish atheists.

 

[Sunstone]

The atheist label is only useful for the theist claiming nonbelief dis belief lack of or whatever the theist wants to call it. No other concept makes it logical to label the non belief of a nonexistant concept.

Celibacy aside, you have a point.

 

[Sunstone]

No two groups of fools waste more time and effort trying to spin their competition's meaning, rather than do anything productive, than anti-atheists and second-rate pee bucket salespeople.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No two groups of fools waste more time and effort trying to spin their competition's meaning, rather than do anything productive, than anti-atheists and second-rate pee bucket salespeople.

You mean there are first-rate pee bucket salespeople out there?

 

[Sunstone]

You mean there are first-rate pee bucket salespeople out there?

Well, maybe only compared to the "salesmanship" going on in this thread.

 

[steeltoes]

No two groups of fools waste more time and effort trying to spin their competition's meaning, rather than do anything productive, than anti-atheists and second-rate pee bucket salespeople.

What do you mean, "second rate?"

 

[Willamena]

You mean there are first-rate pee bucket salespeople out there?

First-rate Scottish pee bucket--nevermind.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Atheism is not believing in god. It is the ABSENCE of belief in god. If you have never heard of god before then you are an Atheist. Babies for example are Atheists. Animals are Atheists. Now what you are talking about is Agnostic and Gnostic scales.

Are they a Gnostic Atheist or are they an Agnostic atheist. There is no inbetween. Both are truely atheists.

Agnostic theist and Gnostic theists exist. Agnostic theists are like Deists. They believe in no particular god but have the axiom that god exists. Gnostic theists are those that promote THEIR religion as true.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheism is not believing in god. It is the ABSENCE of belief in god. If you have never heard of god before then you are an Atheist. Babies for example are Atheists. Animals are Atheists. Now what you are talking about is Agnostic and Gnostic scales.

Are they a Gnostic Atheist or are they an Agnostic atheist. There is no inbetween. Both are truely atheists.

Agnostic theist and Gnostic theists exist. Agnostic theists are like Deists. They believe in no particular god but have the axiom that god exists. Gnostic theists are those that promote THEIR religion as true.

Are inanimate objects atheists? Single-cell amoebas? Fetus?

I know it sounds like I'm being a knob, but I'm actually interested in where the line is in your opinion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I know it sounds like I'm being a knob

No that sounds like you're being a Brit. They use "knob" Down Under? You learn something new everyday.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No that sounds like you're being a Brit. They use "knob" Down Under? You learn something new everyday.

Meh...I do. I had one English grandfather, maybe it's due to that? Although I don't remember him ever saying knob...lol

*ponders*

I'm going with yes. Aussies say knob.

 

[Willamena]

Are inanimate objects atheists? Single-cell amoebas? Fetus?

I know it sounds like I'm being a knob, but I'm actually interested in where the line is in your opinion.

The entire natural world fails to believe or disbelieve, yes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The entire natural world fails to believe or disbelieve, yes.

So I can return to my infantile 'even church pews are atheists' argument.

 

[Falvlun]

Atheism is not believing in god. It is the ABSENCE of belief in god. If you have never heard of god before then you are an Atheist. Babies for example are Atheists. Animals are Atheists.

See, that's precisely why I disagree with the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. It just makes things silly. (And, not to mention, makes assumptions that you cannot possibly know are true. Maybe all babies are born singing god's name, as Sinead O'Conner asserts.)

I believe that atheism is an opinion. It is the belief that gods don't exist, or the disbelief that gods exist. It's a position.

I also am strongly suspicious of the claim of mere "lack of belief" coming from someone who has thought about this subject enough to form an opinion about it.

The way I see it, the only people who can truly claim to have a mere "lack of belief" are:
1. People who have never heard of god concepts, and therefore have no knowledge about the subject.

2. People who are completely apathetic about the subject and have never thought about it long enough to form an opinion. (note: if you are debating on a religious forum about it, this means you do not qualify for this category.)

3. "True" agnostics, in the popular sense. These are the people who believe that the evidence for and against god is equally weighted. They believe that it is just as likely for god to exist as it is for god not to exist, and therefore, cannot be said to have an opinion either way.

 

[McBell]

I believe that atheism is an opinion.

Yes, just like theism is also an opinion.

It is the belief that gods don't exist, or the disbelief that gods exist. It's a position.

Again, just like theism.

I also am strongly suspicious of the claim of mere "lack of belief" coming from someone who has thought about this subject enough to form an opinion about it.

I lack the belief that a deity exists.
I do not believe that no deity exists

The way I see it, the only people who can truly claim to have a mere "lack of belief" are:
1. People who have never heard of god concepts, and therefore have no knowledge about the subject.

2. People who are completely apathetic about the subject and have never thought about it long enough to form an opinion. (note: if you are debating on a religious forum about it, this means you do not qualify for this category.)

3. "True" agnostics, in the popular sense. These are the people who believe that the evidence for and against god is equally weighted. They believe that it is just as likely for god to exist as it is for god not to exist, and therefore, cannot be said to have an opinion either way.

So to you I am a "true" agnostic?

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, just like theism is also an opinion.

Again, just like theism.

Is it your assumption that atheism should be in a different category than theism? Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is.

I lack the belief that a deity exists.
I do not believe that no deity exists

So to you I am a "true" agnostic?

Do you fall into any of the above categories? If not, then no. If you do not fall into one of the above categories, then I do not believe you merely lack a belief that a deity exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Theism and Atheism are not quite symetrical. One claims simple lack of belief in something that is not demonstrated to exist, which is in some sense a default.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are inanimate objects atheists? Single-cell amoebas? Fetus?

I know it sounds like I'm being a knob, but I'm actually interested in where the line is in your opinion.

If an inanimate object had opinions I guess they could make up their own mind.

See, that's precisely why I disagree with the "lack of belief" definition of atheism. It just makes things silly. (And, not to mention, makes assumptions that you cannot possibly know are true. Maybe all babies are born singing god's name, as Sinead O'Conner asserts.)

I believe that atheism is an opinion. It is the belief that gods don't exist, or the disbelief that gods exist. It's a position.

I also am strongly suspicious of the claim of mere "lack of belief" coming from someone who has thought about this subject enough to form an opinion about it.

The way I see it, the only people who can truly claim to have a mere "lack of belief" are:
1. People who have never heard of god concepts, and therefore have no knowledge about the subject.

2. People who are completely apathetic about the subject and have never thought about it long enough to form an opinion. (note: if you are debating on a religious forum about it, this means you do not qualify for this category.)

3. "True" agnostics, in the popular sense. These are the people who believe that the evidence for and against god is equally weighted. They believe that it is just as likely for god to exist as it is for god not to exist, and therefore, cannot be said to have an opinion either way.

You are both right and wrong.

Your right in saying its just a position. Because thats all it is. Most Atheists or Agnostic atheists at least don't make a claim "there is no god". We haven't went out in the universe and looked under the rugs and we cannot difinitvely say there is no god.

However we can come to the conclusion based on the evidence (lack there of) that there is no god. We have no reason to believe in something that has no evidence. Just because there is no evidence against something doesn't mean we have to believe it.

You don't believe an infinite number of things for the same reason. It is a lack of belief. I lack the belief that there is a go. I can't prove he doesn't exist but I don't have to impose the idea that he does i there is if no supporting reasons are there. Its the default.