atheism is a (religious position)

[Sargonski]

Life and man's sprit are the independent and objective keys to extrapolating the truth - the evidence is before us all.
If by now, at your mature age, you can't tell what causes the world to run, or what compels man to act in a certain way, then blindness appears to be a disease that has affected the majority of the populace

Can you actually tell any of that, or have you just doubled down on the assumption that what you were taught as a child is true?

and thus we enter the existentialist fallacy --- that pointing out failing to prove a negative is an argument for something.

Life is but a dream friend - so row row row your boat merrily down the stream .. because any argument can be won by questioning reality. Can you tell me for sure that the Sun will rise in the East Tomorrow ? No ? Well I guess the Earth doesn't exist then .. and life is but a dream .. and round and round we go .. . sing it with me .. but come in after I have completed the first stanza .. "Row Row Row your boat ...

 

[shunyadragon]

How bizarre to think that there's only one "theist proposition."

I do not believe that the intent of the post is that there is 'only one' Theist proposition.

That depends entirely on the god in question.

Which god is in question does not change the argument as to whether God or Gods exist or not.

...but belief in the unfalsifiable gods (i.e. like you describe) can't be justified rationally. IMO, it's reasonable to just disregard gods like that.

I do not believe that Theists can rationally be justified though many spend make great efforts to do so. Its a 'belief.' and not a rational proposition.

This sounds like a hand-wavy way of saying "theism is irrational." Is this what you meant?

Sounds like . . . does not represent the intent of the statement 'The term "God" refers to an ideal that is beyond human ability to verify.' It simply states that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be verified.

 

[Starise]

And what position would that be?

Hi @SkepticThinker I hope you are well. . Isn't this obvious??? They/you maybe? claim a belief in no god.

ep. The only thing atheists share in common is lack of belief in god(s). That's it.

They often share how they arrived at the conclusions, so I would not agree.

Come at them with what?

Disclaimer- This is my opinion that some atheists don't want to be bothered, so they flash that card to get rid of what they percieve to be riff raff. I guess maybe it was a shallow thought in that they have other deeper reasons, but there is a clear 'hate the opposition' club.

Again, what position?

The obvious. They don't believe there is a god, or at least this is the narrative. I am not convinced they all really believe this but that's me.I think many of them have convinced themselves there is no God in the same way they would accuse us of believing there is one. On both side if this I think this is occasionally true.

Atheists lack belief in god. A/theism speaks to belief.
Agnostics don't know if it's possible that a god exists or whether it can be detected. A\gnostism speaks to knowledge.
By the way, there are agnostic theists. I myself am an agnostic atheist.

Skeptic, this was only one of the reason I posted as what I came up with as generalizations, feel free to correct me. When I see the term gnositc I see a mystical belief system often referred to as secret knowledge. The high level masonics are of that persuasion. How can you be agnostic, as in not sure about god while saying there isn't one? Not being critical here, just looking for an explanation.

Yes I agree, atheism speaks to belief, not unbelief which may be similar to saying is he going or coming.

We get this one all the time from religious-minded folks who seem to be taught this in a lot of their churches.

I'm glad you said 'seem' here because this isn't me.

Atheists believe (and don't believe) in lots of things. We're all different.
The only thing we all share in common is a lack of belief in god(s).

That's what I was attempting to show in my opener.

I grew up in a household of Christians. Surrounded everywhere by friends and family who are Christian. I am an atheist.

Yes and there are plenty who came from atheist households who are not believers. Once again I was avoiding generalization by attempting to compartmentalize. This is only one compartment. Children tend to be influenced by their families. Sometimes toward and sometimes away from all depending on the environment. Imagine the flak a believer would take from an atheist family. Even in Christian circles if a catholic marries a protestant they can be shunned. There is a subset who have no interest and who follow family tradition. If mom was a satanist...........

There is no belief system to atheism. It's just a lack of belief in god(s).

There is no faith required in rejecting a claim that is not supported by good evidence.

There is no such thing as an unthing. I agree maybe in a strict sense it isn't a religion in the same way as the established ones, yet it has it's prophets Dawkins, Marx, Niezche ( probably mispelled that name). If you're an atheist you have to have faith there is no God. Something thaty can't be definitively proven. Sorry man, it is what it is

Huh? Not sure where you came up with this. My system of morality is based in humanism. I do actually care about morality, as do many atheists I know. We just don't ground it in subjective authoritative opinions of unprovable god(s).

Also, you're making a common error that a lot of religious folks often make in conflating evolution with atheism.

Please don't tell me you don't think evolution is one of the primary bedrocks of atheism. I mean in any discussion with an atheist it's about 80% of the discussion.

Show me the metaphysical exists and I'll consider it. So will any atheist (or any person) who cares in believing as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible.
Until then, you're just making stuff up

How did we get here? I see that as metaphysical. There are too many reasons to list for why this is true.Really there is no 'metaphysical' as I think you want it shown. Just working models in different dimensions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not believe that the intent of the post is that there is 'only one' Theist proposition.

Let's let @PureX tell us for himself what he meant.

Which god is in question does not change the argument as to whether God or Gods exist or not.

The arguments a given god vary depending on the god.

I do not believe that Theists can rationally be justified though many spend make great efforts to do so. Its a 'belief.' and not a rational proposition.

Beliefs are propositions that can be rational or irrational.

Sounds like . . . does not represent the intent of the statement 'The term "God" refers to an ideal that is beyond human ability to verify.' It simply states that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be verified.

Again: let's let @PureX tell us for himself what he meant.

That being said, if the existence or non-existence of a thing can't be verified, then disregarding the thing would be entirely reasonable, but building your whole life upon a foundation that relies on the thing existing would be utter foolishness.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's let @PureX tell us for himself what he meant.

This is an open forum

The arguments a given god vary depending on the god.

To circular and meaningless to be real

Beliefs are propositions that can be rational or irrational.

No, they are beliefs.

Again: let's let @PureX tell us for himself what he meant.

Again, again and again this is an open forum.

That being said, if the existence or non-existence of a thing can't be verified, then disregarding the thing would be entirely reasonable, but building your whole life upon a foundation that relies on the thing existing would be utter foolishness.

Form the perspective of an atheist yes.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am one to anaylyze and pick apart things, so if you think my list is incomplete or incorrect I am open to changes.

I look at the thing and then I look at what people are saying about the thing and then I ask why they are saying what they say about the thing , then I examine the thing apart from the static. While I am a believer in God, I haven't adopted a lot of the religious things. In fact I was accused of being molded by my religious surroundings a few posts up. Anyone who knows me will know I look at data and facts and have left groups over inaccuracies. Maybe I still need to work through some of it, but I see a lot of generalizations and stereotypes about believers. I don't believe this is the fault of those holding them necessariy. I think it's more about what they have been exposed to, some of which supports their allegations, but usually it's only a small segment and not a good litmus of the core.

Well one generalisation, and seemingly accurate, is that most people get their views and beliefs as to religion imposed upon them by their early education, even if such might be seen as a right by the parents and/or of their culture. Not much will change until this is overcome and we get true freedoms of choice.

If anything I would think a delving into all religions would serve to encourage a disbelief in God, or a disallusionment. If there is a God as I believe there is, he came before all of the religions which I see as largely man made attempts at a spiritual goal. YEC isn't really a discussion about the existence of god, it's a discussion about timing for most. Another forum I frequented was a daily back and forth among BELIEVERS over it, or so they claimed.

I think the main point about this is that so many seem to delve into their own religion (perhaps to confirm their beliefs) whilst not looking outside, and which to me is a rather unhealthy approach - if one was truly open to different ideas and beliefs.

My 'religion' is plain as a Christian. Love God and love my neighbors as myself. That's it. Nothing to add or take away rule wise. We are not to walk around as mindless dummys and not study and then get caught at a loss when approached by unbelievers. Neither are we to focus on argumentative things because we are supposed to be bearers of peace. Most of the questions atheists ask require long in depth responses but they want a sound byte answer. I suspect some won't take the time to read researched answers if they already have a view they are convinced of.. In any case I'm not out to 'convince' or 'prove' anything. My expectation is that if god doesn't do it, it won't happen, and if you don't believe in god then He needs to show you he is God, but I don't think he will do that for anyone who doesn't want to know.

That's seems to be rather convenient - don't ask, don't get - and which might be applied to any religion. Also, one can love one's neighbour as oneself without a religious belief - as so many before Christianity seemed to prescribe (like Confucius).

Is Atheism a religion? This is why I made up the list to analyze where different people who make this claim come from because this will shape their world view and in my mind will determine if they are riding the atheism horse as a religion . If it takes the place of religion, then it must have religious traits. Do they cling to the most common beliefs as absolute proof for their beliefs, or do they see it as a non belief? If it's a non believe it can't be considered nothing because everything is something. You can describe something as nothing, but it's still telling about something.Analyzing that something takes us to the answer.

That is not how I see atheism - as to 'taking over'. I simply see atheism as a mostly logical conclusion that arrives to those who have had no other especial reason for thinking otherwise - like myself. At least it gives one no reason to form a divide within humanity, as witnessed all around the world today and in history, such that why would we want to add another, especially powerful, division when there are already so many?

In the end though there are eventualities which none of us has any control over like death for instance, sure we can prolong life, but death is an eventuality. We can add religious fluff around all of our eventualities to make ourselves think we have some control, but I think God has that control and the older we get the more we realize we have less and less control. So in some ways religion fights against eventualities if it's just makeup on a pig. For that I admire atheists in that they question everything which is always good, however sometimes I think the question process doesn't get over the hump and instead stays buried never to move ahead. Group think can be harmful both to Christians and to unbelievers if said group think is wrong.

I think we make the best of the information we process. Some will have a religious belief and some will not. I will hardly condemn those who do have such beliefs, but for me, life is better not to have something that stops or deters my thinking - in that I might have to obey rules passed on from who knows where.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is an open forum

And just as you have every right to pretend to mind-read and tell us what you think someone else was thinking, I have every right to tell you that what you're doing is useless.

To circular and meaningless to be real

What?

Some god-concepts have internally contradictory attributes; they can be absolutely disproven by logic.

Some god-concepts imply predictions about reality that are inaccurate; they can be disproven (for all practical purposes) by empirical evidence.

Some gods are crafted to be unfalsifiable; they can be called out as such.

So again: it depends on the god.

No, they are beliefs.

... IOW, propositions.

Again, again and again this is an open forum.

Again: the fact that this is an open forum applies to me, too.

Form the perspective of an atheist yes.

From any perspective.

 

[PureX]

How bizarre to think that there's only one "theist proposition."

How convenient to presume there are many, so you can pit them against each other.

That depends entirely on the god in question.

...but belief in the unfalsifiable gods (i.e. like you describe) can't be justified rationally. IMO, it's reasonable to just disregard gods like that.

Your opinion is noted. Just not shared.

This sounds like a hand-wavy way of saying "theism is irrational." Is this what you meant?

God - the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is … not something a human could possibly grasp or verify.

 

[Starise]

Well one generalisation, and seemingly accurate, is that most people get their views and beliefs as to religion imposed upon them by their early education, even if such might be seen as a right by the parents and/or of their culture. Not much will change until this is overcome and we get true freedoms of choice.

Hi @Mock Turtle nice to meet you.
In some households I believe it's more suggested than imposed. In others, yeah I agree it is imposed, yet not all of it is bad so I think it's a case by case thing. Some of my family are putting a young one into football and he dislikes football. We could argue it teaches them sportsmanship. I was in band but I loved music and I don't think my parebts would have forced me into anything like that. If I had been in a catholic family I'm sure I would no longer be catholic. Parents are responsibe for their children wouldn't you agree? Many are simply trying to helpfully guide them.

I think the main point about this is that so many seem to delve into their own religion (perhaps to confirm their beliefs) whilst not looking outside, and which to me is a rather unhealthy approach - if one was truly open to different ideas and beliefs.

I agree.

That's seems to be rather convenient - don't ask, don't get - and which might be applied to any religion. Also, one can love one's neighbour as oneself without a religious belief - as so many before Christianity seemed to prescribe (like Confucius).

Maybe it's less comlicated than that as I believe god can 'pull' people to himself. Not force. Pull or direct. In our book or books, there are passages that deal with a continued effort to ignore which leads to a kind of spiritual blindless. Not saying you have to believe what I believe but that's what my book says. I will say I think it aligns with the idea that if I ignore anyone they are soon out of my mind. I didn't say anything for convenience sake. That bud that wants to get with you and you keep blowing him off will eventually go away for good.

That is not how I see atheism - as to 'taking over'. I simply see atheism as a mostly logical conclusion that arrives to those who have had no other especial reason for thinking otherwise - like myself. At least it gives one no reason to form a divide within humanity, as witnessed all around the world today and in history, such that why would we want to add another, especially powerful, division when there are already so many?

Fair enough, Yet it has a category. Whether we think that category is a belief or religion or not is another thing. Not sure how disbelief in a god would either make or break peace? If there is no direction we can make our own directions which means there could be atheists who decide that bad things are ok based on their claim to make their own morals. I'm sure you're probably a pretty good atheist but this isn't to say there aren't bad one which makes that generalization seem unworkable to me. Seceral really bad communist dictators were atheists and killed many people.

I think we make the best of the information we process. Some will have a religious belief and some will not. I will hardly condemn those who do have such beliefs, but for me, life is better not to have something that stops or deters my thinking - in that I might have to obey rules passed on from who knows where.

If that bug hasn't bitten noone else will ever make a difference no matter what they do. Nor would I impose it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How convenient to presume there are many, so you can pit them against each other.

This is more of your "my personal opinion is the definitive truth for all of humanity" stuff of yours, isn't it?

You opinion is noted. Just not shared.

If you could provide a rational justification for an unfalsifiable anything, that would be quite a feat.

Go for it. I wait with bated breath.

God - the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is … not something a human could possibly grasp or verify.

Belief is conceiving of a thing as true. That which can't be conceived of by humans can't be believed in by humans.

 

[Copernicus]

@Viola stated - "I personally do not simply lack belief in God. In fact, I claim knowledge that God does not exist, and that is because I do not simply hide behind the "no evidence" thing. So, I know that not because of lack of evidence, but because of the obvious presence of counter-evidence. At least when we restrict ourselves to the Gods we get from mainstream religions."

I don't think I misunderstood. And I will reiterate that debunking religious depictions of God/gods does nothing to negate the actual theist proposition. And there is no knowledge that you, I, or anyone else could possibly possess that could logically do that. The term "God" refers to an ideal that is beyond human ability to verify.

You are right that she used language strong enough to support your idea that she claimed to "know that God does not exist", but I still think that your rewording of her language to "know that God does not exist" tends to mislead. I take roughly the same position that the rest of her post outlined--that there is enough evidence to reject the position that gods exist and that the rejection is strong enough to raise it to the level of a conviction. So "knowledge that God does not exist" is really equivalent to the claim of "knowledge of evidence that God does not exist". Not quite as strong as claiming to know that God does not exist. She is not claiming to have absolute knowledge that God does not exist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hi @Mock Turtle nice to meet you.

Hi

In some households I believe it's more suggested than imposed. In others, yeah I agree it is imposed, yet not all of it is bad so I think it's a case by case thing. Some of my family are putting a young one into football and he dislikes football. We could argue it teaches them sportsmanship. I was in band but I loved music and I don't think my parebts would have forced me into anything like that. If I had been in a catholic family I'm sure I would no longer be catholic. Parents are responsibe for their children wouldn't you agree? Many are simply trying to helpfully guide them.

Well of course it isn't universal, and in many of the more progressive countries there is less emphasis on religion so as it to be more a parental consideration or simply being a nominal education, but worldwide it seems to be very much what happens to the majority - so getting the religion dependent upon where they were born. Parents of course should want the best for their children, and hence no doubt why they want the religion they believe in to be passed on, but given that no religion has proof of its truthfulness - and often might cause an allegiance/conflict issue - I personally would want children to choose a religion based on sufficient knowledge and maturity rather than simply being taught to them because it is 'culture'. I'm grateful that my parents had no insistence as to this, but in my case I doubt it would have made any difference as to my ultimate position.

That's seems to be rather convenient - don't ask, don't get - and which might be applied to any religion. Also, one can love one's neighbour as oneself without a religious belief - as so many before Christianity seemed to prescribe (like Confucius).

Maybe it's less comlicated than that as I believe god can 'pull' people to himself. Not force. Pull or direct. In our book or books, there are passages that deal with a continued effort to ignore which leads to a kind of spiritual blindless. Not saying you have to believe what I believe but that's what my book says. I will say I think it aligns with the idea that if I ignore anyone they are soon out of my mind. I didn't say anything for convenience sake. That bud that wants to get with you and you keep blowing him off will eventually go away for good.

All a bit convenient to me - that whatever one asks of God (of whichever sort) one will be provided as to what is necessary, and where a lot might be down to wishful thinking.

That is not how I see atheism - as to 'taking over'. I simply see atheism as a mostly logical conclusion that arrives to those who have had no other especial reason for thinking otherwise - like myself. At least it gives one no reason to form a divide within humanity, as witnessed all around the world today and in history, such that why would we want to add another, especially powerful, division when there are already so many?

Fair enough, Yet it has a category. Whether we think that category is a belief or religion or not is another thing. Not sure how disbelief in a god would either make or break peace? If there is no direction we can make our own directions which means there could be atheists who decide that bad things are ok based on their claim to make their own morals. I'm sure you're probably a pretty good atheist but this isn't to say there aren't bad one which makes that generalization seem unworkable to me. Seceral really bad communist dictators were atheists and killed many people.

The evidence seems to show that the religious are not necessarily any more moral than the non-religious though, even if so many might live more happily. And I can see at least one reason why this might be - the religious (or leadership of such) causing a lot of the troubles in the world - so why wouldn't the non-religious be less happy, especially when they probably have far less impact on what the religious do.

If that bug hasn't bitten noone else will ever make a difference no matter what they do. Nor would I impose it.

Same here, as I don't see it as my job to convert people.

 

[PureX]

You are right that she used language strong enough to support your idea that she claimed to "know that God does not exist", but I still think that your rewording of her language to "know that God does not exist" tends to mislead. I take roughly the same position that the rest of her post outlined--that there is enough evidence to reject the position that gods exist and that the rejection is strong enough to raise it to the level of a conviction. So "knowledge that God does not exist" is really equivalent to the claim of "knowledge of evidence that God does not exist". Not quite as strong as claiming to know that God does not exist. She is not claiming to have absolute knowledge that God does not exist.

And as with viola, and most other atheists, I will bet a $10 donut that the gods you are do convinced don't exist are just some religious depictions of God. Mythical representations for people to use in much the same way as we use names and titles to refer to a position.

As I have already stated, debunking a representational myth is easy, and a waste of time. As it is just a placeholder, and not the thing it represents. God is just a word we use to refer to the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And no human on Earth can debunk that.

 

[Copernicus]

And as with viola, and most other atheists, I will bet a $10 donut that the gods you are do convinced don't exist are just some religious depictions of God. Mythical representations for people to use in much the same way as we use names and titles to refer to a position.

If I could make sense of what you are claiming here, I would probably accept the cash in lieu of the overpriced donut. But, of course, most gods are purely mythical beings. Those that are made up to fit some individual's quirky notion of a god haven't had enough shelf life to qualify as mythological.

As I have already stated, debunking a representational myth is easy, and a waste of time. As it is just a placeholder, and not the thing it represents. God is just a word we use to refer to the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And no human on Earth can debunk that.

So would you contend that "unicorn" is just a word and not the source, substance, or purpose that it represents? I'm not inclined to debate such sophistry. Unicorns don't exist. Let's leave it at that.

 

[PureX]

If I could make sense of what you are claiming here, ...

The only reason you don't understand is that you don't want to.

But, of course, most gods are purely mythical beings.

Mythical beings are just mythical beings. They aren't gods. They are imaginative representations of 'God', or of any number of other metaphyscal cognitive phenomena.

So would you contend that "unicorn" is just a word and not the source, substance, or purpose that it represents?

Unicorns are not representations of God. Which of course you know. So I can only assume you're deliberately just trying to throw up a smoke screen here.

I'm not inclined to debate such sophistry.

Sure, it's easier just to presume you're right and forget about it.

Unicorns don't exist. Let's leave it at that.

Of course they exist. They just don't exist, so far as we know, as physical life forms. But there's that "sophistry" you're so loathe to engage in.

 

[Copernicus]

Mythical beings are just mythical beings. They aren't gods. They are imaginative representations of 'God', or of any number of other metaphyscal cognitive phenomena.

I can agree that mythical beings are just mythical beings. Mythical gods are mythical beings, and it is appropriate to use the common noun "gods" in such expressions.

...So would you contend that "unicorn" is just a word and not the source, substance, or purpose that it represents?

Unicorns are not representations of God. Which of course you know. So I can only assume you're deliberately just trying to throw up a smoke screen here.

I didn't say that unicorns are representations of gods. I merely applied your reasoning about words to unicorns rather than gods. Apparently, you are engaging in special pleading when you talk about the usage of the word "god". You apply a different standard for the use of other words.

...Unicorns don't exist. Let's leave it at that.

Of course they exist. They just don't exist, so far as we know, as physical life forms. But there's that "sophistry" you're so loathe to engage in.

So, you can't leave it at that and choose the sophistry gambit. If you choose to argue that unicorns exist in some form other than the physical, then you are absolutely correct. I am loathe to engage in such a silly logic-chopping discussion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I can agree that mythical beings are just mythical beings. Mythical gods are mythical beings, and it is appropriate to use the common noun "gods" in such expressions.

I would like to respectfully disagree. I don't think mythical beings such as unicorns or leprechauns are gods.

 

[Copernicus]

I would like to respectfully disagree. I don't think mythical beings such as unicorns or leprechauns are gods.

Who are you disagreeing with? Not me, apparently, because I never said unicorns and leprechauns are gods. I said mythical gods are mythical beings, not mythical beings are mythical gods. Do you understand the difference?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Who are you disagreeing with? Not me, apparently, because I never said unicorns and leprechauns are gods. I said mythical gods are mythical beings, not mythical beings are mythical gods.

Oh okay. I misunderstood you. My bad. I thought you were saying that all mythical beings were gods, but upon reading you again, it is clear that you did not mean that.

 

[PureX]

I can agree that mythical beings are just mythical beings. Mythical gods are mythical beings, and it is appropriate to use the common noun "gods" in such expressions.

The problem is that this has nothing to do with the actual (possible) existence of God. So labeling religious/god myths, mythical, for the people that choose to believe in them is mostly just an arrogant waste of time. Nor does it make anyone an 'atheist'. All it makes them is anti-religious.

I didn't say that unicorns are representations of gods. I merely applied your reasoning about words to unicorns rather than gods.

No, you misapplied it because you could think of a way of countering theism (the God proposition) directly. Atheists LOVE to try and equate God with unicorns and fairies and Sasquatch to create an air of absurdity regarding theism. Mostly because they neither understand theism, nor can they offer any sort of viable intelligent rebuttal to the theist proposition.

Apparently, you are engaging in special pleading when you talk about the usage of the word "god". You apply a different standard for the use of other words.

I use the term they way it most universally applies. Atheists don't like that, though, because they really want to pit all the various god myths against each other to create the illusion that the diversity destroys credibility.

Here is the proper definition of "God": the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. That includes to various degrees nearly all the gods we humans have conceptualized.

And please keep in mind that common usage has very little to do with proper word definition. Gay = homosexual, for example.

So, you can't leave it at that and choose the sophistry gambit.

There is no "sophistry gambit". This is a philosophical subject that involves philosophical debate. If you can't handle that you probably shouldn't be engaging is this discussion. You can just stay home and pretend you have all the answers lready.

If you choose to argue that unicorns exist in some form other than the physical, then you are absolutely correct. I am loathe to engage in such a silly logic-chopping discussion.

Well you were the one that posed the silly proposition that unicorns don't exist. Maybe next time you'll think a little harder and word your propositions more precisely.