Atheism does not exist

[LuisDantas]

Then what is it? Semantics do not really matter. Belief or opinion it makes no difference.

Not opinion, knowledge. One believes in things that one does not know to be true. Such as the existence of God.

Irish midgets who look for pots of gold and look up gals skirts.
Very plausible if you ask me unless there is a mythical element of some sort I am forgetting.
But leprechauns like anything else can easily be viewed in a rational way considering their appearance and characteristics.

So you are saying that you believe in their existence?

Would you say that it is illogical to disbelieve in leprechauns? If you would not, why not, and why would it be any different for God?

(...)

But you just stated earlier that belief is incorrect. You are falling back on semantics.

No, he did not, and incidentally, semantics deal with the meaning of words, therefore semantic objections are quite proper here.

Anyway, an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of god. No more, no less.

Why you treat that as meaning "... does know god not to exist" I can't tell, but that is something quite different and far less reasonable than actual Atheism.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Who is trying to prove that god does not exist?

About half the people commenting on this thread since they are misreading the OP.

Do you understand the difference between a) rejecting a claim and b) asserting a contradicting claim?

I understand it but many others do not (not even atheists). The purpose of this thread is to get atheist to brainstorm and form a solid unshakable definition of atheism that cannot be misused or misconstrued into something it is not.
I can pull out definitions from all sorts of virtual dictionaries which get it wrong.
This is no different then in communist countries int he way they make it appear an atheist is a person who knows for a fact there is no god. They make it as religious as theism. This is an old fallacy I wanted to give you atheist a chance to rebut.
That is it essentially.

 

[LuisDantas]

This does not prove god does not exist.

And it never needed to, either.

It is entirely irrelevant. I do not want anyone to consider there is or is not a god.

Why do you keep demanding evidence that he does not exist then? :areyoucra

Nor am I asking for prove of the atheistic or theistic claim about god.
If there is no evidence for god it does not mean one has disproven it.

No, but it is plenty enough to allow those who disbelieve in him to do so without being accused of contradiction. Despite you denying that fact on some inescrutable grounds.

Just means there is no evidence as all evidence pro or against a god is highly subjective and unobtainable.

Debatable. God is such an ill-defined concept that I guess I agree, although it is painfully obvious that what you mean with that statement makes no sense to me.

By the common mistake of people viewing an atheism as the certainty there is no god they believe atheists "know there is no god".

Atheism is not the same as strong atheism, but strong atheists do exist. Neither strong nor weak atheism are "mistakes", though.

We all know this is not true because a person cannot truly know this.

To his or her own satisfaction, at least, one can indeed know this.

But that is not even the point, although you keep drifting the conversation back to that irrelevancy.

The plain fact is that one does not need to know anything at all to legitimally be an atheist.

It just means it is a question left unanswered. The believe in god and the disbelief in god is just a theory.

Not even a theory, actually. Just a personal inclination, a choice at most. A theory is something far more evidenced.

I know for a fact atheist do not have this sort of thinking and that they are just convinced there is no god because they find it unlikely, improbable or any various other means. Not because they have found proof that a god does not exist.

With all due respect, you know very little about atheism, and you also misinterpret a great deal of what little you know.

Otherwise you wouldn't treat "disbelief in god" and "knowledge of the inexistence of god" as if they somehow were equal.

We are not debating what atheism is, we are debating on what atheism is not.

That too.

By giving it a proper definitive stance that cannot be mistaken for something it is not.
Being a deist I have this same issue because of the fact a deist believe in a non-interfering god people assume we believe in an unloving god which is not true. People are also assigning false attributes to atheism as well.

You have to look at my original post because others are derailing this thread far off topic and it's purpose is becoming diluted.

IMO the OP has issues, and this thread must address and at least partially resolve them before going on.

 

[jmn]

They make it as religious as theism.

Make sense of that?

 

[LuisDantas]

This is no different then in communist countries int he way they make it appear an atheist is a person who knows for a fact there is no god. They make it as religious as theism. This is an old fallacy I wanted to give you atheist a chance to rebut.
That is it essentially.

So you are also equating dogmatism with religiosity?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why do you keep demanding evidence that he does not exist then? :areyoucra

This has been my issue. I am not demanding this everyone else is . I keep getting off off topic statements saying "there is proof god does not exist".
Nobody wants to keep the original topic in discussion :thud:

Debatable. God is such an ill-defined concept that I guess I agree, although it is painfully obvious that what you mean with that statement makes no sense to me.

I am merely saying that both theists and non-theists are on equal grounds. Neither can prove the other right or wrong if they are only referring tot he existence of a god and not a specific one.

Atheism is not the same as strong atheism, but strong atheists do exist. Neither strong nor weak atheism are "mistakes", though.

Strong atheism? This appears like something I should have been told but other kept derailing the topic.
I just searched this up and it is the answer to my question. There is a separate form of atheism which matches what I was describing.
I have no idea about this.

To his or her own satisfaction, at least, one can indeed know this.

But that is not even the point, although you keep drifting the conversation back to that irrelevancy.

The plain fact is that one does not need to know anything at all to legitimally be an atheist.

I know this already. I am not drifting the conversation though. You actually provided the proper answer to my question all along

With all due respect, you know very little about atheism, and you also misinterpret a great deal of what little you know.

I actually know a great deal except for the one part you mentioned about strong and weal atheism. I do remember it in a Richard Dawkin's clip but I never thought anything about it.
I have not stated much of my knowledge about atheism to begin with.

Otherwise you wouldn't treat "disbelief in god" and "knowledge of the inexistence of god" as if they somehow were equal.

I have been doing the exact opposite . It is the atheists who are treating them as the same. I have been trying to ask for a proper definement of atheism which separates the two concept of "disbelief in god" from "knowledge of the inexistence of god".
Nobody tackled this issue and simply combined the two making me try to inform atheists about the very definition they hate. What do you think was the purpose of me asking my question int he OP?
I specifically asked for a definition of atheism which separated these two concepts. Which is why I have been placing so much emphasis on the words believing/accepting and knowing/proving. Almost everyone's comments have been ignorant to the subject of my OP and my other posts trying to explain it.

You just provided me with a positive answer and the best one which I am happy for. I totally overlooked the strong and weak forms of atheism. I am very thankful you stayed on topic though.

I recommend you close this thread though. just you and a handful wish to continue with what I was asking for so the rest of the questions will just derail my thread.

Thanks a lot though again. You stayed faithful to the topic :namaste

 

[dust1n]

I never said I could or would prove he existed, you did. Not me. I am just asking for a clearer definition of atheism.
I also never presented any of this as fact, I have made it obviously clear it is just speculation. You are the one assigning false notions to my words.

Also I never declared it a fact of any kind that god exist. As I have said numerous times on RF I believe the odds of a god existing are higher then the odds of him not.



I never said I was going to prove anything. To repeat myself, you are the one who claimed to prove that there is no god and shortly after that statement you said you wouldn't. You copped out before the argument began.



I have stated this before but you keep assigning false words to me. :yes:



I am not applying skepticism you are, again. You started the argument about something I do not even support as fact.
I am asking for a defined and improved definition of atheism .
I told you that you would end up arguing with yourself. You are talking in circles assuming all the way through.
How do you expect to disprove a persons argument if they are speculative? This is like trying to prove a theory as theoretical. It is essentially an oxymoron.

I never said I can disprove God. I said multiple times I don't need to. Of course I can't. Much like I can't disprove anything absurd.

I think it's hilarious you would call yourself a deist, talk about the nature of God, and then apply a probability to it. Even probability has to be based in something. One doesn't just decide whether something is more probable. Talking about the probability of something is still feigning the fact that the concept is baseless.

Your determination of probably is as unfounded as much as anyone trying to disprove God. Much like one could never prove or disprove good, one could never establish "probability" to whether God exists or not, because one could never establish it's accuracy. It's the exact same situation. Every claim/feeling/belief/notion you have of god is as ultimately as baseless as trying to prove or disprove god.


I also find it strange you say, "I also never presented any of this as fact, I have made it obviously clear it is just speculation." But a look at all your posts reveal that there is no mention on your behalf (until this point that is) of any speculation of your part or that anything you were suggesting was speculation.

Nothing mentioned about speculation in this post neither:

I am not setting up an argument against atheism I am just stating that atheist should keep the meaning of atheism pure to prevent contradictions in the line of thinking.

My god is the deistic god. he does not intervene with his creation because he is so perfect he does not make mistakes so he has no further reason to provide anything else to this universe as it is in accordance to his will. The heavens themselves exist the way there needed and mankind according to my god is not the center of the universe.
I have encountered spirits once and have experience my god multiple times but only 1 moment I can recall.
he existed before religion and he will exist after.
He is irrefutable as well. If he was not then Dawkins himself would not testify that he is unable to do so nor would Michio Kaku. SO I challenge you to denounce something which I have experience and nobody else can refute because his only scripture is everything you see and believe. If you believe in wind, you believe in my god, if you believe that your hand is real you believe in my god.

Was I just suppose to assume that when you make statements in logic, like "if you believe in wind, [then] you believe in my god" that you weren't actually making a claim about a conditional relation between wind and god, but rather speculation, the notion of which was just never actually mentioned? At what point was speculation made on your part "obviously clear." I would think that would actually use the word speculation in some format like "This is all speculation, but..."

 

[Falvlun]

I have not ignored them, I read them and I made comments about them. They were satisfactory.
Everyone else seems to be more concerned in proving evidence a god does not exist which is not my argument.
Just read back further to find my replies.

You didn't comment on any of my posts. Particularly post #97, which covers the very topics you claim haven't been addressed, even though everyone else has pretty much addressed them.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Your friend is declaring everyone agnostic, and that's not the case. Some atheists do know precisely what it is that they are rejecting, just as some theists do know precisely what it is they believe in.

It's not a logical absurdity to have sound reason to reject someone else's claims.

 

[Falvlun]

Your friend is declaring everyone agnostic, and that's not the case. Some atheists do know precisely what it is that they are rejecting, just as some theists do know precisely what it is they believe in.

It's not a logical absurdity to have sound reason to reject someone else's claims.

That sums it up nicely, Willa. Frubs.

 

[Willamena]

Strong atheism? This appears like something I should have been told but other kept derailing the topic.
I just searched this up and it is the answer to my question. There is a separate form of atheism which matches what I was describing.
I have no idea about this.

"Knowledge of the inexistence of God" is indeed an absurdity, but that's not the strong atheist. The strong atheist says, "There is no god," for a reason. Usually it is because he has decided what "god" means.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then what is it?

What is what? Belief? Is it your position that all belief is knowledge?

I just want to make sure because if I'm understanding you correctly, then I've never encountered anyone arguing from your position.

Semantics do not really matter. Belief or opinion it makes no difference.

If we're talking about definitions, then semantics are all that matter.

Irish midgets who look for pots of gold and look up gals skirts.
Very plausible if you ask me unless there is a mythical element of some sort I am forgetting.

Seems like there is:

The Leprechauns spend all their time busily making shoes, and store away all their coins in a hidden pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If ever captured by a human, the Leprechaun has the magical power to grant three wishes in exchange for their release.

Leprechaun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But leprechauns like anything else can easily be viewed in a rational way considering their appearance and characteristics.

But can this approach lead a person to the conclusion that leprechauns don't actually exist?

That's the point I was getting at: in my experience, everyone has things that they have no problem concluding don't literally exist, whether it's vampires, the Loch Ness Monster, chupacabras, fairies, leprechauns, Middle Earth, or the gods of religions they don't accept.

Depends on how you look at it. Classical deism like mine is a subset of theism.

So your form of deism is unsupportable?

But Modern Deism can often be outside of both ranges as some subscribe tot he concept that the universe created god and when I say god I mean a super powerful transcendent being who created the stars and everything else within the massive time frame. It is rather complex but the view of a deistic god is not often supernatural.
This is why most deists just say "Supreme Being" as it refer to the highest being int he universe.
They acknowledge a supreme being but denounce he is supernatural but at the same time accept that he is god and deny the concept of a supernatural god while also denouncing atheism.
That is about as simplistic as I can say this. Keep in mind deism heavily varies. It can go from simplistic to down right confusing.

... or misleading. If there are deists using the word "god" the way you describe, then I wonder why they feel the need to use the term "god" at all.

Deism is founded upon subjective empirical reasoning. Lack of holy books or superstition to me is a good thing.
Clinging to a thousand year old ancient holy book only makes one's argument increasingly invalid since not only does he have to prove the existence of god but he has to prove the validity of his overly complex holy book.
Deism just gets rid of dead weight if you ask me.

Exactly where does the deist's decision to slap the label "god" on something come from if not from "ancient holy books"?

But you just stated earlier that belief is incorrect. You are falling back on semantics.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you re-phrase?

Why do you have belief that there is no god? The belief in the lack of gods or theism is just non-theism.
Earlier when I said "the belief that there is no god" I did not say belief implies knowledge. I should have said it more clear which is when one states that they known there is no god. We can belief anything but the context of the belief or lack of belief is different.
I am debating an atheist in this very same thread who claims he can prove there is no god. So far he has been dodging the bullet for 11 pages.
By making such a statement he is as irrational as the theists he himself believes is irrational.

I think two separate issues are being confused in this thread. This started (AFAICT) as a question of definition: is it possible for a person to be an atheist? However, it seems like a side discussion has slipped in: do atheists have good reasons for being atheists?

Personally, I'm happy to talk about either question, but I think it just makes things muddled if we treat the two questions as equivalent.

I really prefer the definition given to me by a few other who state that atheism is merely the viewpoint that the existence of a god is highly unlikely. Which is about all that can be proven.

That describes a reason why a person might be an atheist, but it doesn't describe atheism itself. Again: the question "what is an atheist?" is different from the question "why might a person be an atheist?"

 

[McBell]

I have not ignored them, I read them and I made comments about them. They were satisfactory.
Everyone else seems to be more concerned in proving evidence a god does not exist which is not my argument.
Just read back further to find my replies.

You missed post #88...

 

[McBell]

The purpose of this thread is to get atheist to brainstorm and form a solid unshakable definition of atheism that cannot be misused or misconstrued into something it is not.

Then you should really get a hold of theists and start whining about it to them.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any deity.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Anything that people (regardless of if they are atheist or theist) add to that definition is an explanation of their personal beliefs and not another or further definition of the word atheist.

I can pull out definitions from all sorts of virtual dictionaries which get it wrong.

Says who?
Meaning, who says they are wrong?

This is no different then in communist countries int he way they make it appear an atheist is a person who knows for a fact there is no god. They make it as religious as theism. This is an old fallacy I wanted to give you atheist a chance to rebut.
That is it essentially.

I already explained away that "fallacy".

What I find most interesting is how you are whining about atheists "misusing" the word atheist when it is mostly theists who screw it up in order to better fit their agenda.

 

[LuisDantas]

I still can't quite puzzle out the OP's intent.

It almost sounds like there is some artificial demand that an Atheist should somehow have the means to prove (what? that god does not exist? something else?) before somehow "earning the right" to disbelief.

Doesn't really make a lot of sense, but that is how I can understand it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Atheism is a disbelief in god. Not necessarily a belief that there is no god. There is a difference.

IT has to do with the Gnostic and Agnostic scale on where you stand as far as what you claim to know and what you claim to doubt.

It does not go Theist-Agnostic-Atheist. It is split into 4 general quadrents of Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist, Gnostic Theist and Gnostic Atheist.

Agnostic Atheists are what almost all Atheists are. Gnostic Athests are just as unfounded as a Gnostic Theist which is someone who believes TOTALLY in god. Angostic Theist is what a lot of people think an "agnostic" is.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism is a disbelief in god. Not necessarily a belief that there is no god. There is a difference.

No, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, or as wikipedia puts it "the absence of belief that any deities exist". Think of it as a pendulum hanging straight down. It can swing one way to theism or it can swing the other way to hard/strong atheism. But the foundation is always atheism as in the pendulum hanging straight down. This is the default position of somebody who has never heard about gods. If he hears about them he can become a theist, stay neutral or become a hard/strong atheist.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, or as wikipedia puts it "the absence of belief that any deities exist". Think of it as a pendulum hanging straight down. It can swing one way to theism or it can swing the other way to hard/strong atheism. But the foundation is always atheism as in the pendulum hanging straight down. This is the default position of somebody who has never heard about gods. If he hears about them he can become a theist, stay neutral or become a hard/strong atheist.

I think your splitting hairs. Though you are right in the sense that it is a lack of a belief. Though technically when they are introduced to religion and remain an atheist they are at that point having a "disbelief" in god. I don't know of anyone that hasn't at least heard of the concept.

Either way it changes nothing. Belief that there isn't and lack of belief that there is are two different things. They end up at the same place but the causality of how they got there differs greatly. Someone who claims to KNOW there is no god can no further substantiate their position than someone who simply "knows" there is a god.

 

[zaybu]

I still can't quite puzzle out the OP's intent.

It almost sounds like there is some artificial demand that an Atheist should somehow have the means to prove (what? that god does not exist? something else?) before somehow "earning the right" to disbelief.

Doesn't really make a lot of sense, but that is how I can understand it.

Most atheist understand that there is a possibility that God could exist, but there are no convincing evidence, and so we come to the conclusion that its existence is highly improbable. And so atheists like me choose to not believe in the existence of God.

Most theists can't understand this subtlety.

 

[Willamena]

No, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, or as wikipedia puts it "the absence of belief that any deities exist". Think of it as a pendulum hanging straight down. It can swing one way to theism or it can swing the other way to hard/strong atheism. But the foundation is always atheism as in the pendulum hanging straight down. This is the default position of somebody who has never heard about gods. If he hears about them he can become a theist, stay neutral or become a hard/strong atheist.

The absence of belief is disbelief. You can't say (or it can't be said of you), "I lack belief in a whatever" unless you've somehow been informed about a whatever and found something about it to reject.