atheism is a (religious position)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not collecting stamps is a hobby that is based on the absence of a decision not to collect stamps

By not electing to collect stamps one has taken a stance on stamp collecting

Not collecting stamps is a relationship to stamp collecting

A non-stamp collector has a relationship to stamp collecting: he or she does not collect stamps

If "not collecting stamps" is a hobby, then gardeners, model railroaders, skydivers, and people who cook meth in their basements all have the same hobby.

Do you think this is the case? Think hard for a minute.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Correct. It means they don't BELIEVE.

Belief =/= Knowledge

Nobody has said that atheism means that they don't know. It means that they don't believe.

A person can both NOT BELIEVE something but also NOT CLAIM TO KNOW something, in the exact same way that a person can both BELIEVE something without CLAIMING TO KNOW that thing.

This is not difficult to understand, nor incoherent. Why don't you understand it yet? If your irrational, frothing hatred of atheists drives you to completely ignore definitions and distinctions that people have explained to you countless times, perhaps its time you settled down and carefully reconsidered your position.


This is just a lie at this point, PureX.

The vast majority of atheists on this forum would NEVER say that they assume no God exists.


...

Let us say just for arguments sake that there is at least one atheist that knows that the universe is say physical and there is nothing more than the universe. Then it follows that this person knows there is no God. Yet he/she/they could still claim that they are agnostic, because it is common practice to claim you can't prove a negative, so thus gnostic about the universe and agnostic about God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If "not collecting stamps" is a hobby, then gardeners, model railroaders, skydivers, and people who cook meth in their basements all have the same hobby.

Do you think this is the case? Think hard for a minute.

Years ago, I have a fun debate with a person that claimed the observation that I can't see any airplanes in the sky, means that there are literally for existence as a non-existence no airplanes in the sky.

 

[PureX]

What belief are we talking about?

The belief that no gods exist until proven to exist. The belief that the theist's gods don't exist because the theist's can't prove it. Every atheist believes that. But based on what? Not evidence. Not knowledge. Not faith ... so on what, then?

Also, there is a difference between BASING A BELIEF ON KNOWLEDGE and CLAIMING TO KNOW A BELIEF IS TRUE. These are two different things.

My BELIEF in my mum being at home today can be BASED ON the KNOWLEDGE that she said yesterday that she wanted to stay home today, but I would not claim I KNOW my mum is at home because I haven't spoken to her and cannot verify that it's DEFINITIVELY TRUE.

You're avoiding the question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The belief that no gods exist until proven to exist. The belief that the theist's gods don't exist because the theist's can't prove it. Every atheist believes that. But based on what? Not evidence. Not knowledge. Not faith ... so on what, then?

You're avoiding the question.

You assume that all humans must think like you, because it works for you to think like you do. They don't!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The belief that no gods exist until proven to exist.

That would be a belief. But it's not something many atheists subscribe to, nor is it the definition of what an atheist is.

The belief that the theist's gods don't exist because the theist's can't prove it.

That's would also be a belief. But it's not something many atheists subscribe to, nor is it the definition of what an atheist is.

Every atheist believes that.

That is a lie. Very few believe those things.

But based on what? Not evidence. Not knowledge. Not faith ... so on what, then?

You'd have to ask them. I don't presume to know why a theist believes what they believe, because theists can believe what they believe for a variety of reasons, so I don't make sweeping generalizations about the basis for their belief. Hence, when I use the term "theist" I refer exclusively to the fact that person holds the belief that a God exists, and make no further conclusions attached to that beyond any that require specific distinctions.

When someone is called, or calls themselves, an "atheist", in the same way, the most that can be inferred is that they do not believe a God exists. Their reasons for doing this cannot necessarily be assumed or inferred.

You're avoiding the question.

The question is fundamentally malformed, as I explained. In a "when did you stop beating your wife" kinda way. You equated KNOWING something to BASING A BELIEF IN SOMETHING ON KNOWLEDGE. Those are not the same thing. Do you understand that?

You're avoiding dealing with my actual arguments by asking leading questions that go nowhere.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That would be a belief. But it's not something many atheists subscribe to, nor is it the definition of what an atheist is.


That's would also be a belief. But it's not something many atheists subscribe to, nor is it the definition of what an atheist is.


That is a lie. Very few believe those things.


You'd have to ask them. I don't presume to know why a theist believes what they believe, because theists can believe what they believe for a variety of reasons, so I don't make sweeping generalizations about the basis for their belief. Hence, when I use the term "theist" I refer exclusively to the fact that person holds the belief that a God exists, and make no further conclusions attached to that beyond any that require specific distinctions.

When someone is called, or calls themselves, an "atheist", in the same way, the most that can be inferred is that they do not believe a God exists. Their reasons for doing this cannot necessarily be assumed or inferred.


I fairly explicitly answered the question.

It is in effect the psychological effect of the law of non-contradiction. In short if I am convinced that X is Y, I can't understand how somebody can claim X is not Y and understand that.

 

[Valjean]

Well, all words are that, subjective. It is just that we have the biological effect of shared subjective understanding, but that is not objective. It is shared subjectivity.
The joke is that you can't point to the meaning of a word, because meaning is subjective and requires a brain.
Now look up the languages of Linear A and B and explain how come we can only read one of them, if the meaning of words is objective.

Without an agreed upon definition, words are meaningless.

 

[PureX]

You assume that all humans must think like you, because it works for you to think like you do. They don't!

I'm simply asking for the same justifications that the atheists constantly demand of theist's.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Without an agreed upon definition, words are meaningless.

Or that you can accept that words can have different definitions and hold the fact that some words are like that.
The bold is not complete, as they are meaningless to you. Further you are conflating different meanings with no meaning at all.
In effect I am fine with the fact that some words have different definitions and that is not meaningless to me. Now what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm simply asking for the same justifications that the atheists constantly demand of theist's.

Don't. Just catch them in their positive beliefs. That is far easier. You can't never change their beliefs about atheism, unless they learn they have positive beliefs without evidence.

 

[PureX]

That would be a belief. But it's not something many atheists subscribe to, nor is it the definition of what an atheist is.


That's would also be a belief. But it's not something many atheists subscribe to, nor is it the definition of what an atheist is.


That is a lie. Very few believe those things.


You'd have to ask them. I don't presume to know why a theist believes what they believe, because theists can believe what they believe for a variety of reasons, so I don't make sweeping generalizations about the basis for their belief. Hence, when I use the term "theist" I refer exclusively to the fact that person holds the belief that a God exists, and make no further conclusions attached to that beyond any that require specific distinctions.

When someone is called, or calls themselves, an "atheist", in the same way, the most that can be inferred is that they do not believe a God exists. Their reasons for doing this cannot necessarily be assumed or inferred.


The question is fundamentally malformed, as I explained. In a "when did you stop beating your wife" kinda way. You equating KNOWING something to BASING A BELIEF IN SOMETHING ON KNOWLEDGE. Those are not the same thing. Do you understand that?

You're avoiding dealing with my actual arguments by asking leading questions that go nowhere.

By definition an atheist believes that every god any theist has ever proposed to exist, doesn't. Because by definition, theism is the proposition that God/gods exist. And so by definition, atheism is the negation of that claim.

If you can't even understand or acknowledge this much, then there is no point in even trying to discuss the subject.

So by definition, the atheist is presuming that every god proposed to exist, doesn't. Yet what is that presumption based on? If we ask, they all say it's based on the fact that there is no convincing evidence. But they can't explain or justify what evidence should have been expected that is lacking. And they claim they are agnostic, meaning that they don't or can't know whether gods exist or not. Yet they presume gods do not exist because they don't know if they exist or not.

Do you see the confusion and double-speak, here? If one doesn't know, then why is one presuming to know that the theist's proposed God doesn't exist. And if this is not what they are presuming, why are they calling themselves atheist, and demanding theist's justify their assertions about gods existing?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By definition an atheist believes that every god any theist has ever proposed to exist, doesn't.

That is false.

"someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist"

atheist

1. someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"

Definition of ATHEIST

a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist."

Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By definition, you are wrong.

Because by definition, theism is the proposition that God/gods exist. And so by definition, atheism is the negation of that claim.

Nope, it is NOT ACCEPTING the claim, or REJECTING the claim. You do not need to NEGATE a claim in order to NOT ACCEPT the claim.

"I do not believe the number of jelly beans in the jar is even." does not therefore mean "I believe the number of jelly beans in the jar is odd."

If you can't even understand or acknowledge this much, then there is no point in even trying to discuss the subject.

Do not talk down to me, PureX. You are the one rejecting definitions here.

So by definition, the atheist is presuming that every god proposed to exist, doesn't. Yet what is that presumption based on? If we ask, they all say it's based on the fact that there is no convincing evidence. But they can't explain or justify what evidence should have been expected that is lacking. And they claim they are agnostic, meaning that they don't or can't know whether gods exist or not. Yet they presume gods do not exist because they don't know if they exist or not.

Do you see the confusion and double-speak, here? If one doesn't know, then why is one presuming to know that the theist's proposed God doesn't exist. And if this is not what they are presuming, why are they calling themselves atheist, and demanding theist's justify their assertions about gods existing?

Now you're just rambling based on your initial false claim.

There is no point trying to talk to you about this. You are an intelligent and capable individual, but for some reason any discussion of atheists turns you irrational and filled with venom.

I have no interest in discussing this further with you unless you agree to admit that your understanding of atheism is flawed. If you can now accept that the broad definition of atheism is NOT what you think it is, I can actually start to teach you why your presumptions are based on this misunderstanding. If you're just going to deny the definitions given above exist, then we cannot have this discussion.

 

[Valjean]

Agnostic = I don't know. So the term atheist doesn't also mean I don't know or that term is meaningless. And if I ask any atheist here what atheism means to them, they will say it means that they assume no gods exist unless and until they are convinced otherwise (provided with sufficient knowledge). But that position does not comport with the 'I don't know' of agnosticism. Because it presumes to know that no gods exist unless our knowledge of their existence dictates otherwise. So the two positions are incongruent as they are commonly defined. And just pretending that atheism is simply another word for agnosticism doesn't resolve that incongruity. Because an agnostic doesn't presume upon knowledge, and doesn't make proclamations about the non-existence of gods without it. That bit of arrogance belongs strictly to the atheists. That are therefor not agnostic.

We've explained this a hundred times. "Official" non-colloquial definitions:
Agnosticism is the position that the existence of God is unknowable. It's current meaning doesn't correspond to the morphemic breakdown you correctly pointed out.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. Colloquial definitions may differ, but this is a serious discussion. I'm using the received definition. This is the definition being used here by the RF atheists you're chatting with.

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

www.atheists.org

What is atheism? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheism is very simple, yet widely misunderstood. The word atheism comprises the word theism with the prefix ‘a’. So let’s break it down. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix ‘a’ means; ‘without’ or ‘lack of’. Therefore, atheism means ‘without a belief in a god or gods’ or the ‘lack...

www.atheistalliance.org

Yes, some atheists assert that no gods exist. These are a subset, and take a qualifying adjective to distinguish them from plain atheists, per se.
Unmodified "atheism" is defined by the single feature common to all subsets: lack of belief.

 

[Valjean]

PureX, you know that that's not the definition of atheism. Please stop pretending you don't understand this, it's getting silly.

But without this straw man what argument would he have?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is false.

"someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist"

atheist

1. someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"

Definition of ATHEIST

a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist."

Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By definition, you are wrong.



Nope, it is the rejection of the claim. You do not need to NEGATE a claim in order to NOT ACCEPT the claim.

"I do not believe the number of jelly beans in the jar is even." does not therefore mean "I believe the number of jelly beans in the jar is odd."


Do not talk down to me, PureX. You are the one rejecting definitions here.


Now you're just rambling based on your initial false claim.

There is no point trying to talk to you about this. You are an intelligent and capable individual, but for some reason any discussion of atheists turns you irrational and filled with venom.

I have no interest in discussing this further with you unless you agree to admit that your understanding of atheism is flawed.

There are several definitions there. So they are meaningless.
BTW, what does this mean: By definition, you are wrong. How does that work? Does the definition make me wrong as a fact, that I am wrong?

 

[Valjean]

Except it's the lack of knowledge that is the basis of the atheist's belief. So by his own claim, his belief is unfounded.

Belief? What belief?

But as an agnostic they are claiming they don't know.

An agnostic claims she can't know.

And isn't believing without knowing exactly what they are constantly accusing theist of doing?

We accuse theists of believing without evidence.

 

[Kfox]

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster

I therefore structure my life around that disbelief as much as I do my beliefs -

How about if you lack belief in the Loch ness monster? How about if you never heard of Loch Ness Monster, or just don't address whether it is real or not? Would you structure your live around the fact that you never deal with or even heard of such a thing? I think the way you are defining "disbelief" is not something that applies to atheists concerning God, I think non belief is a better word for you.

 

[PureX]

We've explained this a hundred times. "Official" non-colloquial definitions:
Agnosticism is the position that the existence of God is unknowable. It's current meaning doesn't correspond to the morphemic breakdown you correctly pointed out.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. Colloquial definitions may differ, but this is a serious discussion. I'm using the received definition. This is the definition being used here by the RF atheists you're chatting with.

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

www.atheists.org

What is atheism? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheism is very simple, yet widely misunderstood. The word atheism comprises the word theism with the prefix ‘a’. So let’s break it down. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix ‘a’ means; ‘without’ or ‘lack of’. Therefore, atheism means ‘without a belief in a god or gods’ or the ‘lack...

www.atheistalliance.org

Yes, some atheists assert that no gods exist. These are a subset, and take a qualifying adjective to distinguish them from plain atheists, per se.
Unmodified "atheism" is defined by the single feature common to all subsets: lack of belief.

"Lack of belief" is both dishonest and deliberately convoluted as there is no logical reason for anyone to proclaim a "lack of belief". It's nonsense. What is actually being proclaimed is the antithetical to the theist's claim that God/gods exist. In more honest, forthright terms, what is being proclaimed is that the theist's claim (that God/gods exist) is being rejected.

So the question is why is the theist's claim being rejected? And the most common answer given is lack of sufficient information to enable one to know if the claim is true or not. But that doesn't make sense because the logical result of insufficient information is not to reject the proposal, but to remain undecided about it. But the atheist is rejecting the theist's proposition. Not remaining undecided about it.

So why are they rejecting the proposition instead of simply remaining undecided? Why are they choosing atheism instead of just remaining agnostic? This is my question, but I can't ever seem to get an answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

We accuse theists of believing without evidence.

Yes and it is a fact they can do that. So it is a part of how the universe works.