atheism is a (religious position)

[PureX]

"People who have not taken a position that a god or gods exist" includes a range of people:

Yes, that's true. But they aren't atheists, because atheists have decided to reject the theist proposition. That's what atheism is: the antithetical to theism. And theism is a proposition. So the antithesis is the rejection of that proposition. Propose - reject. See the antithetical here? The atheist is not undecided nor undetermined. And we can clearly see this in all their comments. They are very clearly NOT undecided. They are in fact quite adament in their rejection of the theist proposition that God/gods exist and in a way that matters to we humans (or should matter to us).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can use the term any way you want. But that isn't what the word actually means. Because "without theism" is an infinite set of possibilities. Which renders it a meaningless term because as such it defines nothing. My fernace is "without theism". The moons of Jupiter are "without theism". If it includes anything then it defines nothing.

It's an adjective normally applied to people.

Do you get this confused for words like "vegetarian" (doesn't eat meat), "non-smoker" (doesn't smoke tobacco) or "civilian" (not in the military)?

Do you find it hard to figure out whether people are talking about your furnace when they talk about civilians? Do you find it hard to figure out whether people are including Jupiter when they talk about vegetarians?

If you can handle those words, I bet you can handle "atheist" too if you try hard enough.

 

[PureX]

You have a belief that belief isn't need. M'Kay.

I don't believe that's what I said, but ...

Oh, wait! I see the typo.

You have a belief that belief isn't needed. M'Kay.

Bingo. Yes, I guess that's true. So I suppose I should add here that I find paradox to be the truth whispering to us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, that's true. But they aren't atheists, because atheists have decided to reject the theist proposition.

Begging the question again, I see.

That's what atheism is: the antithetical to theism. And theism is a proposition. So the antithesis is the rejection of that proposition. Propose - reject. See the antithetical here? The atheist is not undecided nor undetermined. And we can clearly see this in all their comments. They are very clearly NOT undecided. They are in fact quite adament in their rejection of the theist proposition that God/gods exist and in a way that matters to we humans (or should matter to us).

Monotheistic chauvinism.

Here's the thing about insisting that atheism be redefined to be some sort of rejection: no atheists would exist.

It's humanly impossible to even be aware of every god-concept, let alone reject all of them.

OTOH, what is possible is a two-tier approach: it is possible for people to reject your God-with-a-capital-G god, so it would be possible to define an atheist as someone who rejects that "top tier" god. Those other "lower tier" gods don't matter so much - it's fine for an atheist to have no opinion on them as long as they don't actively accept any of them.

That's what your position is about: ego. Making your belief the standard.

Needless to say, there's no particular need for anyone else to accept your chauvinism.

 

[PureX]

It's an adjective normally applied to people.

It's a philosophical proposition (theism) and it's philosophical antithesis (atheism). These terms never "applied to people". But when people express their allegiance with one or the other of these philosophical positions, we refer to them as "theists" or "atheists".

Do you get this confused for words like "vegetarian" (doesn't eat meat), "non-smoker" (doesn't smoke tobacco) or "civilian" (not in the military)?

Those words refer to things people do or don't do. Not to things they assert as true or they reject as untrue. I'm not confused about that at all.

Do you find it hard to figure out whether people are talking about your furnace when they talk about civilians? Do you find it hard to figure out whether people are including Jupiter when they talk about vegetarians?

I find that when people fight to misuse words deliberately and repeatedly, even when they've been corrected, it's probably because they want to obscure the truth rather than reveal it.

 

[dybmh]

I don't believe that's what I said, but ...

Oh, wait! I see the typo.

I'm curious what you intended to type. You don't need to share it, of course. Since the rest of your reply seems to indicate it was a happy-accident?

Bingo. Yes, I guess that's true. So I suppose I should add here that I find paradox to be the truth whispering to us.

... whispering: "this statement is a lie, this statement is a lie..."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a philosophical proposition (theism) and it's philosophical antithesis (atheism). These terms never "applied to people". But when people express their allegiance with one or the other of these philosophical positions, we refer to them as "theists" or "atheists".

Those words refer to things people do or don't do. Not to things they assert as true or they reject as untrue. I'm not confused about that at all.

I find that when people fight to misuse words deliberately and repeatedly, even when they've been corrected, it's probably because they want to obscure the truth rather than reveal it.

So again: why do you do it?

 

[PureX]

I'm curious what you intended to type. You don't need to share it, of course. Since the rest of your reply seems to indicate it was a happy-accident?

Actually, it was a joke ... "I don't believe that's what I said ... but you do you. "

... whispering: "this statement is a lie, this statement is a lie..."

Not so, Grasshopper! Paradox is a glimpse at the 'bigger picture'. And we should welcome it as such.

 

[Valjean]

Not me, every atheist that boldy proclaimes, "there is absolutely no evidence that God exists!" is confusing evidence with proof. And it happens constantly on here and everywhere. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard or seen that posted ...

How does this confuse evidence with proof? I don't follow.

 

[Valjean]

You should stop now and give some serious consideration to why that is.

We still don't get it. Please explain.

 

[Valjean]

They aren't my apologetics. I am not religious.

Also, WHY are you pointing out what you perceive to be errors in other people's belief systems if you aren't assuming yours is superior? And how many theists are actually pointing out the logical errors of the atheist's conceptual paradigm (besides me)? I can think of only a couple.

I'm not referring to belief systems. The errors are in specific statements or reasoning, and it's not my reason/logic. If I point out an error in a maths equation, am I promoting an alternative system or personal belief?

Please do point out logical errors in an atheist paradigm, I'd be interested.

 

[Valjean]

Existence as we know of it is the result of what was possible for it to become, and what was not possible for it to become. (Existence is an event happening and how it unfolds depends on what is possible and not possible.) Those possibilities and impossibilities determined that it happened and what it is. Yet we have absolutely no idea what set those parameters, or how, or why, accept that logically, they were supra-extant. Which doesn't even make sense to us. Meaning that existence as we know of it is not all there is. And whatever there is beyond it, it responsible for it as we experience it.

You're still presupposing an intentional design or setting of parameters.
Not making sense to us ≠ conscious designer. You're arguing from incredulity.

"Nature" is an event taking place within a set of possibilities (determined by a set of impossibilities). It is a result of these. Which means that these parameters pre-existed, or supra-exists "nature".

An event? The set of possibilities is part of nature.

What does "well-evidenced" even mean if not "according to my criteria for 'good' evidence"? And isnlt that criteria pretty much always "it works as predicted via my experience of existence". But isn't my experience of existence uniquely mine? Especially when it is primarily a cognitive experience?

Not my criteria. Reason, logic, Boolean algebra.

So you assume that your criteria for "good" evidence is universal, when you have no way of establishing that as a universal fact.

"Eppur si muove"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree that atheism is not a religion, but it can be and sometimes is practiced similarly. And often in terms of it's dogmatic 'evangelism'.

How so?

Most atheist do, but that is not a logically supportable position.

It is the only logically supportable position.

Because in spite of all their claims of "unbelief", they are in fact "true believers" of their atheism.

One does not "believe" in "disbelief".
That makes no sense.

Theism is not about what anyone believes. Theism is a philosophical proposition. It is the proposition that God/gods exist, and in a way that matters to us. If we accept the validity of that proposition, we call ourselves theists. If we reject that proposition as invalid, we call ourselves atheists. If we neither accept nor reject it because we lack sufficient information to determine the validity of the proposition, we call ourselves agnostic.

Accepting the proposition of theism makes you a theist.
Anything else makes you an atheist.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Apparently, 19% of atheists are very confused.

I would contest that figure.

 

[PureX]

How does this confuse evidence with proof? I don't follow.

They set themselces up as the deciders of what is or isn't evidence. So that if some nit of information does not convince them, it's not considered "legitimate" evidence. And of course they have no intention of being convinced, so they see no "legitimate" evidence.

 

[PureX]

I'm not referring to belief systems. The errors are in specific statements or reasoning, and it's not my reason/logic. If I point out an error in a maths equation, am I promoting an alternative system or personal belief?

Please do point out logical errors in an atheist paradigm, I'd be interested.

The biggest error is that they set themselves up as the mighty deciders of all. They decide what is evidence. They decide what the terminology being used mean. They decide the theist must justify his position according to the atheist's criteria for validity. And then they decide that they don't have to do the same.

Their entire position is rife with blatant hypocrisy and bias. They want to claim the theist is wrong because he can't convince the atheist that he is right, by all the atheists rules. While never having to defend or justify the atheist's atheism by those same rules, because the atheist lies and pretends he has no position to defend

Also, atheists constantly confuse and conflate theism with religious symbolism, mythology, and superstition, because these are an easy target for them to attack as "not being real" (which has nothing to do with anything).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion is not just 'having a god concept." I have a concept of a unicorn, but I do not believe in unicorns. Because atheism does not include belief in any spiritual beings, it is NOT a religion. Indeed, it is the absence of religion.

Yes, but the person can still be religious none the less for at least one definition of religion, but just not a theist.

 

[PureX]

You're still presupposing an intentional design or setting of parameters.

The parameters are evident by the results. Setting process parameters to obtain a complex, specific results is called "design".

Not making sense to us ≠ conscious designer. You're arguing from incredulity.

I have not proposed a "conscious designer". But keep in mind that our ignorance does not eliminate that possibility, either.

An event? The set of possibilities is part of nature.

"Nature" is what was possible. So it is what happened. Why was it what was possible, as opposed to say, abject chaos. Seems to e that the highly organized and complex state we call "nature" was far less likely a result of an undesigned existence than abject chaos.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The biggest error is that they set themselves up as the mighty deciders of all. They decide what is evidence. They decide what the terminology being used mean. They decide the theist must justify his position according to the atheist's criteria for validity. And then they decide that they don't have to do the same.

Their entire position is rife with blatant hypocrisy and bias. They want to claim the theist is wrong because he can't convince the atheist that he is right, by all the atheists rules. While never having to defend or justify the atheist's atheism by those same rules, because the atheist lies and pretends he has no position to defend

Also, atheists constantly confuse and conflate theism with religious symbolism, mythology, and superstition, because these are an easy target for them to attack as "not being real" (which has nothing to do with anything).

The problem I have, is that their standard is in effect that any word to be valid must have an objective referent, but the bold one for its reference has no objective referent. Its referent is a first person subjective evaluation for which the rule in effect is this:
I am allowed to be subjective, when it suits me, but you are not, because I subjectively decide for all humans, when subjectivity is relevant, because of reasons...

 

[PureX]

It is the only logically supportable position.

Sipportable with what? "No evidence"?

One does not "believe" in "disbelief".
That makes no sense.

Being "incredulous" in the face of someone else's belief would be a better term for it. But the mistake is in focusing on belief at all. What anyone believes is irrelevant, as I have posy=ted many, n]many, many times already. What matters is what one asserts to others as true, not what one believes to be true within themselves.

Accepting the proposition of theism makes you a theist.
Anything else makes you an atheist.

Then my car is an atheist. You're making the term meaningless.