Atheism doesn't mean much.

[Desert Snake]

It can be a choice, of course. I've already stated this, in fact that is why I'm a theist. I think you are putting parameters onto 'belief' that shouldn't be there.

I don't accept that belief is a choice, so no, there's no responsibility that that entails. Our beliefs are our beliefs, regardless.

If someone populates the term "deity" with meaning, and accepts that as true, they believe.

I agree with the underlined part.

 

[Bunyip]

Agree with all except the need for evidence. If you make a claim, you either support said claim with evidence or you are simply making baseless (and irrational) assertions. The assertion of non-existence is still a positive claim in that it has taken a step beyond the rejection of an existence claim.

Atheism is not the assertion of non-existence. It is the disbelief in existence. That is not a positive claim.

 

[Willamena]

It can be a choice, of course. I've already stated this, in fact that is why I'm a theist. I think you are putting parameters onto 'belief' that shouldn't be there.

I agree with the underlined part.

Religion can be a choice--orientation can be, and 'theism' can be an orientation. But we have no control of belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion can be a choice--orientation can be, and 'theism' can be an orientation. But we have no control of belief.

To lack control of belief is to be incapable of learning better. I'm sure that is not really what you mean.

 

[Willamena]

To lack control of belief is to be incapable of learning better.

How do you figure? New information happens all the time, each moment.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

When someone says, 'I'm an atheist', my reaction is pretty much, "so what"? I mean, it's not telling me anything, it's basically a statement in the negative. It doesn't tell me that the person is excercising some 'rationale' to reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be assumed that atheism is the default position for that individual when not thinking about the ideas at all.

There are ways you could continue that conversation though, you could ask them for example if they like what science has got going on. Or some philosopher, or if they have their own theories. I hate to repeat myself anywhere in forum land, but where is it ordained or written in the fabric of reality that we human beings must have these driving beliefs about where we came from and what is all out there. Leave it to a scientist, or someone who really cares, unless you really are that interested and truly care to wonder and theorize, is kind of what I come to in all this. I mean, we really are just talking monkeys, our energies might be better diverted toward figuring out a better way to get by on this planet.

 

[Andywelikandy]

When someone says, 'I'm an atheist', my reaction is pretty much, "so what"? I mean, it's not telling me anything, it's basically a statement in the negative. It doesn't tell me that the person is excercising some 'rationale' to reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be assumed that atheism is the default position for that individual when not thinking about the ideas at all.

Did you know that atheists get converted to theists on their way down to hell?

 

[Erock13]

Traditionally, this is the moment to mention Russell's Teapot.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki



Claims that things that leave no trace of their existence do, in fact, fail to exist do not need evidence.

I believe you're misunderstanding the nature of strong atheism. Russell's teapot and Hitchen's razor alike apply to the dismissal of unsupported claims (as you say, a claim of existence wherein there is no trace of said existence). Rejecting such claims requires no evidence as the burden of proof is on the claimant. However, the strong atheist, which is quite rare, asserts that there is no God, and this claim is a truth claim, not the rejection of theistic claims. To assert anything as truth means that the claimant then takes on the burden of proof, whether its existence or non-existence being claimed. So how would one prove non-existence? The evidence is the lack of evidence itself, but this runs aground of another fallacy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This illustrates why it is ludicrous to take up such a position as strong atheism; it is nonsensical to claim to know something about which there is no knowledge to be had.

 

[Erock13]

Atheism is not the assertion of non-existence. It is the disbelief in existence. That is not a positive claim.

Agreed. What was said was that strong atheism, the positive claim that a god doesn't exist, would itself also require no evidence.

 

[Cephus]

Did you know that atheists get converted to theists on their way down to hell?

Since there's no evidence that hell exists, I reject that claim as absurd.

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you figure? New information happens all the time, each moment.

I don't. You are presenting that premise, not me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe you're misunderstanding the nature of strong atheism. Russell's teapot and Hitchen's razor alike apply to the dismissal of unsupported claims (as you say, a claim of existence wherein there is no trace of said existence). Rejecting such claims requires no evidence as the burden of proof is on the claimant. However, the strong atheist, which is quite rare, asserts that there is no God, and this claim is a truth claim, not the rejection of theistic claims. To assert anything as truth means that the claimant then takes on the burden of proof, whether its existence or non-existence being claimed. So how would one prove non-existence? The evidence is the lack of evidence itself, but this runs aground of another fallacy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This illustrates why it is ludicrous to take up such a position as strong atheism; it is nonsensical to claim to know something about which there is no knowledge to be had.

Actually, the point is that it is actually quite sensible, which in itself is evidence of the truth of the claim.

 

[sunofmysoul]

When someone says, 'I'm an atheist', my reaction is pretty much, "so what"? I mean, it's not telling me anything, it's basically a statement in the negative. It doesn't tell me that the person is excercising some 'rationale' to reach that conclusion. It could just as easily be assumed that atheism is the default position for that individual when not thinking about the ideas at all.

While it is true, that atheism is merely the nonbelief in a deity /deities, and this point can be reached by education , skepticism, critical thinking, and thorough studying, it can also be reached by apathy, and a default position. I would suggest it is rather simple to discover which sort is making the proclaimation in a reasonable conversation. Assumptions never profit honest intellect.

I would also suggest that you could find the same sort of options in any belief system. To some being a christian means going to church. Assumptions could be made about anything. But should they?

 

[Willamena]

I don't. You are presenting that premise, not me.

I am, yes. I'm trying to understand how you figure.

How does lacking control of belief mean being incapable of learning better when new information happens all the time?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Did you know that atheists get converted to theists on their way down to hell?

Pithy.
I'm hoping you're not going to waste your nice new RF account by just posting drive-bys. Why not offer something of substance?

 

[LuisDantas]

I am, yes. I'm trying to understand how you figure.

How does lacking control of belief mean being incapable of learning better when new information happens all the time?

It comes directly from the meanings of the terms, far as I can figure them.

What else could lack of control of belief mean?

Did you perhaps imply that people lack control of belief until they learn better or because for whatever reason they can't learn better?

I may have assumed an understanding of responsibility of belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did you know that atheists get converted to theists on their way down to hell?

Wait, are you serious? I mean, are you not consciously joking?

 

[Azihayya]

I personally don't relate to atheism as an idea, while I do relate to religions of the world. To me, it seems to be essentially nothing of interest, while coming across as non-pragmatic in the sense that I have few clues as to the origins of the word religion or its use throughout time, and in whatever vague sense you could muster religion to mean (which usually boils down to word-fighting), it's impossible to approach knowing or understanding what every individual of a denomination or shared idea truly thought.

In the sense of any modern conclusion that we can agree on (without resorting to word-fighting), the same still holds true that atheism doesn't tell me anything, while 'Religion' explicitly has a lot to offer me. It's not simply that I'd research a particular religion and derive some common conclusion from it, but rather that, what artifacts there are of religion are rooted in our personal history, which have created, both cynical and non-cynical, cultures which represent a certain level of attainment. Such artifacts demand my attention as a curious resident of life who seeks knowledge & wisdom.

It's far beyond me to reason from my limited experience in life that all or most religious people are indoctrinated or unreasonable, or that the thoughts that they've invested into thinking about, what I consider to be such a deeply profound history, are insignificant, and more irrational of me to take whatever common definition that we share to define any particular religion to at face value without considering what individuals happen to believe regarding their experiences or knowledge, or whatever other possible conclusions I could arrive at from studying religious artifacts myself.

 

[Willamena]

It comes directly from the meanings of the terms, far as I can figure them.

What else could lack of control of belief mean?

Did you perhaps imply that people lack control of belief until they learn better or because for whatever reason they can't learn better?

I may have assumed an understanding of responsibility of belief.

I didn't mean to imply anything that connects belief with learning. I'm asking why you do.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't mean to imply anything that connects belief with learning. I'm asking why you do.

Because belief with religious significance does by need bring a responsibility to learn better if at all possible with it.