Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?

[Yazata]

What's amazing is you keep asserting straw man fallacies, but do show a post where atheists have claimed words are prescriptive and not descriptive.

You seem to have been arguing that way when you started this thread.

These quotes are just from the first three pages of this rather inane troll-thread of yours.

Clearly atheism is not a belief, one has only to look it up in any dictionary to see this. So lets see if anyone wants to misrepresent it as a belief in this poll.

I disagree, as does the dictionary, but please cast your vote then.

Which dictionary defines atheism as a belief? Could you quote and link one please.

No, to be clear this is about atheism as defined in the dictionary, and I limited that way quite deliberately for a reason. I accept that there are atheists who make the claim no deity exists, but that is not what I am asking. With just the knowledge that someone is an atheist the commonly understood definition does not support the claim it is a belief.

OK interesting, but this poll is about the definition of atheism rather than what an individual atheists claims or believes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is disengenuous.

You keep making claims and never support them. How do? Why could he not be a Christian? I did ask you first. I can explain to you how he could be. But since I demanded evidence or a reason first I will wait until you support your claims or admit that you cannot do so.

 

[Sheldon]

The post that he responded to states my position.

Yes I think we got that, how so though?

 

[Sheldon]

This is disengenuous.

Was Hitler a Christian? He claimed he was a catholic throughout his life, even at the end when one assumes any political mileage from the claim was long lost. When assessing a claim a person makes to be a Christian, and from outside of that belief so to speak, I try not to invoke a no true Scotsman fallacy. So I'd be genuinely interested to here an argument as to why he was not, if indeed you think that is the case. Only I hear a lot of theists try to not just deny his claim, but to falsely assert he was an atheist even though he made no such assertion. I mean I can see why they'd be keen to do that, but maybe offer something tangible to support it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The post that he responded to states my position.

Yes I think we got that, how so though?

I'm actually interested to know as well, Steve. You made what I thought was the brilliant post #500 in this thread, and now seem to be willing to accept what I view as nothing more than a demeaning caricature of stereotyped atheism as your personal modus operandi. It's just interesting is all.

 

[Yazata]

Part of the problem is that a certain group of atheists, who seem to me to have first appeared on the internet in the 1990's (that's when I first encountered them), are purporting to speak for all atheists, when they attempt to redefine the meaning of 'atheism' as the absence of belief, so that atheists no longer have any burden to produce any evidence or argument for any of the propositions that they assert about 'God' and 'religion'. (While continuing to denounce their opponents for failure to produce sound justification for their propositional assertions.)

I think that there's a huge psychological and epistemological difference between 'God is an imaginary phantasm like a pink unicorn' and 'I've never thought about the existence of God and have no views on the subject'. It does no good to confuse those two and to smear them together. Put another way, when Christians preach to atheists, why don't the atheists just say "Wow, I had no idea!" and then fall on their knees and worship? Presumably there's some reason why they reject the evangelism. An intelligent examination of atheism would need to inquire into what that "some reason" is and whether it is consistent with the 'absence of belief' position.

The claim that atheists make no claims that require justification is risably false. The list of propositions that atheists assert is seemingly endless. Each of them presumably has a truth value. I think that all of them require argument and justification.

God does not exist. (Or alternatively, God probably doesn't exist.) God is an imaginary being, analogous to a pink unicorn or Russell's teapot. Religious belief and practice are superstitious by their nature. There is no credible and sound intellectual justification for believing in God or for being religious. Science and religion are historical and philosophical adversaries. Atheists practice 'reason' while religious people don't. Religion's historical influence has been largely or even totally bad. A desirable progressive future will be a future in which religion has been swept away and no longer exists.

Moving on...

"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist." Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64

Western atheists obviously exist in a cultural context and they are responding to that context. Though I am often struck by how often contemporary internet-atheists conceptualize the 'religion' they oppose in Protestant fundamentalist terms. They are always quoting from the Bible and producing proof-texts (or perhaps more accurately disproof-texts.). They always seem to insist on extremely literal readings of those Bible texts and vigorously fight any kind of allegorical interpretation. It's striking how many points of agreement there are between these kind of atheists and the fundamentalists on how religious texts should be read and understood.

Regarding religion, I distinguish between the big metaphysical questions (why is there something rather than nothing, what accounts for logic, mathematics and the 'laws of physics', first-cause and so on.) and what I consider religious mythology (the contents of the Bible, the Quran, the Gita etc.) Regarding the former, the big metaphysical questions, I'm a solid agnostic. I don't have a clue what the answers are. I don't believe that any human being does. What's more, I don't even know how we should go about seeking an answer. Regarding the latter, the traditional religious accounts, I'm basically an atheist. I just think that it's exceedingly unlikely that the ultimate cosmic principle is anything that resembles the highly anthropomorphic divinities pictured in these religious books. I can't prove with absolute certainty that any of these religious texts are false, but I personally assign a fairly high informal probability to their falsehood. Certainly high enough that I'm willing to live my own life as if they are false. I seek my answers elsewhere.

"Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied." The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76

I think that the subtlety of this highlighted definition is found in the phrase "denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity". I'm still not clear on what it is that supposedly makes something a suitable object of our religious passions. What is it that distinguishes proper religious objects from hypothetical super-powered space aliens? What justifies our falling on our knees and worshipping the former and not the latter? A spectacular light show in the sky or lightening on a cloud-enshrouded mountaintop in Sinai shouldn't be enough.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You cannot be both a christian and an atheist. so which is it?

Sure you can be. People do it.

A Christian is just someone who:

- self-identifies as a Christian
- "follows Christ" in some way
- is recognized as a member of the community by other Christians

None of those criteria absolutely require theism. They can satisfy the second criterion by following Christ in a metaphorical way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Part of the problem is that a certain group of atheists, who seem to me to have first appeared on the internet in the 1990's (that's when I first encountered them), are purporting to speak for all atheists, when they attempt to redefine the meaning of 'atheism' as the absence of belief, so that atheists no longer have any burden to produce any evidence or argument for any of the propositions that they assert about 'God' and 'religion'. (While continuing to denounce their opponents for failure to produce sound justification for their propositional assertions.)

I think that there's a huge psychological and epistemological difference between 'God is an imaginary phantasm like a pink unicorn' and 'I've never thought about the existence of God and have no views on the subject'. It does no good to confuse those two and to smear them together. Put another way, when Christians preach to atheists, why don't the atheists just say "Wow, I had no idea!" and then fall on their knees and worship? Presumably there's some reason why they reject the evangelism. An intelligent examination of atheism would need to inquire into what that "some reason" is and whether it is consistent with the 'absence of belief' position.

The claim that atheists make no claims that require justification is risably false. The list of propositions that atheists assert is seemingly endless. Each of them presumably has a truth value. I think that all of them require argument and justification.

God does not exist. (Or alternatively, God probably doesn't exist.) God is an imaginary being, analogous to a pink unicorn or Russell's teapot. Religious belief and practice are superstitious by their nature. There is no credible and sound intellectual justification for believing in God or for being religious. Science and religion are historical and philosophical adversaries. Atheists practice 'reason' while religious people don't. Religion's historical influence has been largely or even totally bad. A desirable progressive future will be a future in which religion has been swept away and no longer exists.

Moving on...

"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist." Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64

Western atheists obviously exist in a cultural context and they are responding to that context. Though I am often struck by how often contemporary internet-atheists conceptualize the 'religion' they oppose in Protestant fundamentalist terms. They are always quoting from the Bible and producing proof-texts (or perhaps more accurately disproof-texts.). They always seem to insist on extremely literal readings of those Bible texts and vigorously fight any kind of allegorical interpretation. It's striking how many points of agreement there are between these kind of atheists and the fundamentalists on how religious texts should be read and understood.

Regarding religion, I distinguish between the big metaphysical questions (why is there something rather than nothing, what accounts for logic, mathematics and the 'laws of physics', first-cause and so on.) and what I consider religious mythology (the contents of the Bible, the Quran, the Gita etc.) Regarding the former, the big metaphysical questions, I'm a solid agnostic. I don't have a clue what the answers are. I don't believe that any human being does. What's more, I don't even know how we should go about seeking an answer. Regarding the latter, the traditional religious accounts, I'm basically an atheist. I just think that it's exceedingly unlikely that the ultimate cosmic principle is anything that resembles the highly anthropomorphic divinities pictured in these religious books. I can't prove with absolute certainty that any of these religious texts are false, but I personally assign a fairly high probability to their falsehood. Certainly high enough that I'm willing to live my own life as if they are false. I seek my answers elsewhere.

"Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied." The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76

I think that the subtlety of this highlighted definition is found in the phrase "denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity". I'm still not clear on what it is that supposedly makes something a suitable object of our religious passions. What is it that distinguishes proper religious objects from hypothetical super-powered space aliens? What justifies our falling on our knees and worshipping the former and not the latter? A spectacular light show in the sky or lightening on a cloud-enshrouded mountaintop in Sinai shouldn't be enough.

In the past I found articles of atheist of over 100 years ago that made it clear that their position was one of a lack of belief due to a the inability of god believers to support their claims. Now the "invisible pink unicorn" arguments may be a bit excessive for all god claims, but it clearly does apply to various human made gods such as the Abrahamic ones. There own sources tend to depict a self contradicting God that is all too human. As an atheist I will point out that certain versions of God can be refuted but the general concept of a god cannot be.

But the claim that this is a new atheism from the 1990's is simply incorrect. Atheists have been coming out of the closets more and more since the 1990's. That is all that you are seeing, not a new version of atheism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When I became skeptical of my religious beliefs I became an atheist through that process, but I still identify as a skeptic, rather than as an atheist.

Well, if you also don't believe in god(s), then you're also an atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure you can be. People do it.

A Christian is just someone who:

- self-identifies as a Christian
- "follows Christ" in some way
- is recognized as a member of the community by other Christians

None of those criteria absolutely require theism. They can satisfy the second criterion by following Christ in a metaphorical way.

Spoil sport. But I guess that you were right. He was not every going to support his claim.

But to add my version: One could believe that Jesus was a real person. A person that did teach a better lesson at is time than the local religion did. All that one has to do to be a Christian in the truest sense is to follow his teachings. One does not have to believe in magical Jesus to be a Christian.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the past I found articles of atheist of over 100 years ago that made it clear that their position was one of a lack of belief due to a the inability of god believers to support their claims. Now the "invisible pink unicorn" arguments may be a bit excessive for all god claims, but it clearly does apply to various human made gods such as the Abrahamic ones. There own sources tend to depict a self contradicting God that is all too human. As an atheist I will point out that certain versions of God can be refuted but the general concept of a god cannot be.

But the claim that this is a new atheism from the 1990's is simply incorrect. Atheists have been coming out of the closets more and more since the 1990's. That is all that you are seeing, not a new version of atheism.

Yeah... anyone who thinks "new atheism" is too strident really ought to read some Ingersoll to see what agnosticism was like a century ago.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Part of the problem is that a certain group of atheists, who seem to me to have first appeared on the internet in the 1990's (that's when I first encountered them), are purporting to speak for all atheists, when they attempt to redefine the meaning of 'atheism' as the absence of belief, so that atheists no longer have any burden to produce any evidence or argument for any of the propositions that they assert about 'God' and 'religion'. (While continuing to denounce their opponents for failure to produce sound justification for their propositional assertions.)

I think that there's a huge psychological and epistemological difference between 'God is an imaginary phantasm like a pink unicorn' and 'I've never thought about the existence of God and have no views on the subject'. It does no good to confuse those two and to smear them together. Put another way, when Christians preach to atheists, why don't the atheists just say "Wow, I had no idea!" and then fall on their knees and worship? Presumably there's some reason why they reject the evangelism. An intelligent examination of atheism would need to inquire into what that "some reason" is and whether it is consistent with the 'absence of belief' position.

The claim that atheists make no claims that require justification is risably false. The list of propositions that atheists assert is seemingly endless. Each of them presumably has a truth value. I think that all of them require argument and justification.

God does not exist. (Or alternatively, God probably doesn't exist.) God is an imaginary being, analogous to a pink unicorn or Russell's teapot. Religious belief and practice are superstitious by their nature. There is no credible and sound intellectual justification for believing in God or for being religious. Science and religion are historical and philosophical adversaries. Atheists practice 'reason' while religious people don't. Religion's historical influence has been largely or even totally bad. A desirable progressive future will be a future in which religion has been swept away and no longer exists.

Moving on...

"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist." Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64

Western atheists obviously exist in a cultural context and they are responding to that context. Though I am often struck by how often contemporary internet-atheists conceptualize the 'religion' they oppose in Protestant fundamentalist terms. They are always quoting from the Bible and producing proof-texts (or perhaps more accurately disproof-texts.). They always seem to insist on extremely literal readings of those Bible texts and vigorously fight any kind of allegorical interpretation. It's striking how many points of agreement there are between these kind of atheists and the fundamentalists on how religious texts should be read and understood.

Regarding religion, I distinguish between the big metaphysical questions (why is there something rather than nothing, what accounts for logic, mathematics and the 'laws of physics', first-cause and so on.) and what I consider religious mythology (the contents of the Bible, the Quran, the Gita etc.) Regarding the former, the big metaphysical questions, I'm a solid agnostic. I don't have a clue what the answers are. I don't believe that any human being does. What's more, I don't even know how we should go about seeking an answer. Regarding the latter, the traditional religious accounts, I'm basically an atheist. I just think that it's exceedingly unlikely that the ultimate cosmic principle is anything that resembles the highly anthropomorphic divinities pictured in these religious books. I can't prove with absolute certainty that any of these religious texts are false, but I personally assign a fairly high informal probability to their falsehood. Certainly high enough that I'm willing to live my own life as if they are false. I seek my answers elsewhere.

"Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied." The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76

I think that the subtlety of this highlighted definition is found in the phrase "denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity". I'm still not clear on what it is that supposedly makes something a suitable object of our religious passions. What is it that distinguishes proper religious objects from hypothetical super-powered space aliens? What justifies our falling on our knees and worshipping the former and not the latter? A spectacular light show in the sky or lightening on a cloud-enshrouded mountaintop in Sinai shouldn't be enough.

Do you believe in any type of god Yazata? Do you claim that any sort of god exists? Can I get from you a list/view/demonstration/description-of-justification from you if you do?

If you do not believe in any type of god, then why is this? If I describe a god to you, why do you not just say "Wow, I had no idea!" and then immediately begin worshipping? You must have "some reason" - and so, by your own pronouncement, don't we then need to inquire into what that "some reason" is and whether it is consistent with the '[insert any position one would like to try and claim they hold]' position?

And even if you do believe in a particular god, and not some others, then for those others, when informed, shouldn't you just say "Wow, I had no idea!" and then immediately begin worshipping? If you do not, then you must have "some reason" - and so, by your own pronouncement, don't we then need to inquire into what that "some reason" is and whether it is consistent with the '[insert any position one would like to try and claim they hold]' position?

And, if I claim that Bigfoot exists, then, when informed, shouldn't you just say "Wow, I had no idea!", immediately go and grab your camera, and run out into the woods with me so that we can frolic and make merry as we search? If you do not, then you must have "some reason" - and so, by your own pronouncement, don't we then need to inquire into what that "some reason" is and whether it is consistent with the '[insert any position one would like to try and claim they hold on Bigfoot]' position?

And if I claim that the Loch Ness monster exists then, when informed.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if you also don't believe in god(s), then you're also an atheist.

Due to the strong prejudice against atheisms over most of human history I do not mind if a person prefers a different term. Not all atheists are ever going to agree with either the atheism of others or their actions. If I saw the equivalent of an evangelist preaching Christianity in the middle of a busy sidewalk getting in other people's faces trying to spread atheism I would want to distance myself from that individual just as many Christian distance themselves from Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and the like.

 

[PureX]

For the big/serious stuff I accept the reality that can be shared and corroborated with others.

Go into any church and you will find a reality shared and corroborated by nearly everyone there. That's a pretty good definition of a religion, in fact. And if numbers are your determinant, the theists have it hands down. So as right as you think that reality paradigm of yours is, it doesn't stand on the merits that you, yourself, just ascribed to it.

Man... do you not get that these "problems" literally do not need solving?

Clearly they do, as you are here and expending so much energy on it. And as you are clearly bothered by the fact that the majority of your fellow humans are perceiving reality differently than you are. This bothers you. Angers you, even, judging by your posts. You don't understand it and you won't understand it as long as you keep condemning it in advance of that understanding.

I'm not a 'believer'. And I'm not religious. But I do at least understand how and why so many people are. And I can appreciate it to the extend that it deserved to be appreciated. It took me a while to let go of my bias against religion and to figure it out. But I got there, eventually, and I'm glad I did.

Of course I hold beliefs... but I attempt to make sure that ALL of them are built on the reality we experience as a shared thing

No, actually you don't, as I pointed out, above. You just 'believe' you do, and refuse to doubt this belief. Churches are full of people who have built their reality on their shared experiences. And their experience of reality then confirms their conceptualizations of it just as yours do. Because that's how it is for we humans. We live in the world that we think is the world; however we understand it.

What I CAN detect, witness, rationalize to be as true as I can muster, etc. That's one of my core principals.

That's everyone's core principal. The problem is that what you detect, witness, and how you rationalize it is all based on the reality paradigm that you already hold to be sacrosanct. And you're angrily dismissing as "crap" anything that doesn't comply with that paradigm. So you're stuck there, imprisoned by your own unrelenting bias. You don't have to agree with theism or religion to understand them, and make peace with them. But you do have to understand them.And yoy can't do that from behind that wall of self-righteousness.

I also told you EXACTLY why I go after everyone who instead relies on whatever makes them feel warm a fuzzy to go on about things... because many of them try their hardest to make sure I do the same, or am shamed or ostracized as a result of refusing.

It sounds a lot like YOUR methodology, though, doesn't it.

The thing is this is how we humans tend to respond to each other. We all want to be in control of everything. To "know what's really going on". It's not a particularly religious, political, economic, philosophical, or social condition; it's just the human condition. And as a human, you are subject to it as well. But you can rise above it ... by understanding the human condition better, and by understanding why we are the way we are. Religion comes as naturally to we humans as sex and warfare does. And we need to understand these things if we ever hope to gain any real control over them. Calling them "crap" isn't understanding, and isn't going to lead to an understanding.

And what I do, specifically, is try to make them understand why it is that they have no valid basis for believing as they do.

Well that's sure a fool's errand! You can't make anyone understand anything. You can't even make yourself understand. Force is useless in the face of ignorance. The only thing that works is honesty, humility, and curiosity. And you can only develop these within yourself. No one else.

I try to make them see that every belief they hold onto that contains elements of completely dubious or unknowable nature is part of a double-standard they are employing that does not get used in any other avenue of their lives

My! Now if you only had a mirror! Welcome to the human condition!

 

[RestlessSoul]

Part of the problem is that a certain group of atheists, who seem to me to have first appeared on the internet in the 1990's (that's when I first encountered them), are purporting to speak for all atheists, when they attempt to redefine the meaning of 'atheism' as the absence of belief, so that atheists no longer have any burden to produce any evidence or argument for any of the propositions that they assert about 'God' and 'religion'. (While continuing to denounce their opponents for failure to produce sound justification for their propositional assertions.)

I think that there's a huge psychological and epistemological difference between 'God is an imaginary phantasm like a pink unicorn' and 'I've never thought about the existence of God and have no views on the subject'. It does no good to confuse those two and to smear them together. Put another way, when Christians preach to atheists, why don't the atheists just say "Wow, I had no idea!" and then fall on their knees and worship? Presumably there's some reason why they reject the evangelism. An intelligent examination of atheism would need to inquire into what that "some reason" is and whether it is consistent with the 'absence of belief' position.

The claim that atheists make no claims that require justification is risably false. The list of propositions that atheists assert is seemingly endless. Each of them presumably has a truth value. I think that all of them require argument and justification.

God does not exist. (Or alternatively, God probably doesn't exist.) God is an imaginary being, analogous to a pink unicorn or Russell's teapot. Religious belief and practice are superstitious by their nature. There is no credible and sound intellectual justification for believing in God or for being religious. Science and religion are historical and philosophical adversaries. Atheists practice 'reason' while religious people don't. Religion's historical influence has been largely or even totally bad. A desirable progressive future will be a future in which religion has been swept away and no longer exists.

Moving on...

"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist." Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64

Western atheists obviously exist in a cultural context and they are responding to that context. Though I am often struck by how often contemporary internet-atheists conceptualize the 'religion' they oppose in Protestant fundamentalist terms. They are always quoting from the Bible and producing proof-texts (or perhaps more accurately disproof-texts.). They always seem to insist on extremely literal readings of those Bible texts and vigorously fight any kind of allegorical interpretation. It's striking how many points of agreement there are between these kind of atheists and the fundamentalists on how religious texts should be read and understood.

Regarding religion, I distinguish between the big metaphysical questions (why is there something rather than nothing, what accounts for logic, mathematics and the 'laws of physics', first-cause and so on.) and what I consider religious mythology (the contents of the Bible, the Quran, the Gita etc.) Regarding the former, the big metaphysical questions, I'm a solid agnostic. I don't have a clue what the answers are. I don't believe that any human being does. What's more, I don't even know how we should go about seeking an answer. Regarding the latter, the traditional religious accounts, I'm basically an atheist. I just think that it's exceedingly unlikely that the ultimate cosmic principle is anything that resembles the highly anthropomorphic divinities pictured in these religious books. I can't prove with absolute certainty that any of these religious texts are false, but I personally assign a fairly high informal probability to their falsehood. Certainly high enough that I'm willing to live my own life as if they are false. I seek my answers elsewhere.

"Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied." The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76

I think that the subtlety of this highlighted definition is found in the phrase "denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity". I'm still not clear on what it is that supposedly makes something a suitable object of our religious passions. What is it that distinguishes proper religious objects from hypothetical super-powered space aliens? What justifies our falling on our knees and worshipping the former and not the latter? A spectacular light show in the sky or lightening on a cloud-enshrouded mountaintop in Sinai shouldn't be enough.

Well I disagree with many of your conclusions, but this is a very thoughtful and well articulated post, so thank you.

And whilst I've never been to Sinai, clouds on a mountain top inspire the kind of wonder that bring ne to my knees. Whether that's worship or not, I don't know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheism is belief, a way of life when you join religious forums to promote it. The real neutral, I don care, just stay off my lawn-Atheists, aren't here. So when Atheist put forth this "we are a special class of non-conformist who require delicate consideration because we are so insightful and unique" on a religious forum, some find that laughable! So you get called out for declaring the special case-ness of your non-belief, belief.

I've never seen any atheist say that, on this forum or elsewhere. Where did you come up with that?

And not, atheism is not a "way of life." It's the response to a single question. It's the lack of belief in regards to a god claim. That's it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Spoil sport. But I guess that you were right. He was not every going to support his claim.

But to add my version: One could believe that Jesus was a real person. A person that did teach a better lesson at is time than the local religion did. All that one has to do to be a Christian in the truest sense is to follow his teachings. One does not have to believe in magical Jesus to be a Christian.

You are aware, presumably, that the Greek Christos means "the anointed one", and was most likely applied to Jesus because it was the nearest word in Greek, to the Hebrew "Messiah"?

So an atheist who considers himself a follower of the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, probably wouldn't describe himself as a Christian, no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are aware, presumably, that the Greek Christos means "the anointed one", and was most likely applied to Jesus because it was the nearest word in Greek, to the Hebrew "Messiah"?

So an atheist who considers himself a follower of the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, probably wouldn't describe himself as a Christian, no.

No, that is assuming that the meanings of words does not change over times. Sometimes etymology is a useful tool for understanding a word. Sometimes it is not. The meaning of the word "homely" is nothing like its original. It used to be a compliment, now it is an insult.

 

[stevecanuck]

Yes I think we got that, how so though?

I'm talking about post #500. He did exactly this:

My theory: Religious people have one thing in common, which is a belief in a higher creative and/or responsible power. They're happy to argue about whose concept of said higher power is correct, but never do they dispute with each other that one exists. In terms of a deific entity, there is no question of 'if' with them, only of 'which'.

That's where atheists throw a spanner in the works. We bring up the 'if' question. By every logical definition known to Man, atheism is the absence of religious belief, but theists can't accept that without veering out of their lane. They counter by trying to pretend that lack of belief is somehow simply a different brand of belief despite the obvious fact that no spiritual/religious/superstitious claims are involved. Having squared that circle, they can then happily shoehorn us into the 'which' argument. They already have 1,000 other religions to argue with, so what's the difference if there's now 1,001?

In short, it conveniently takes the 'if' question off the table and puts them back into their 'which' comfort zone.

 

[Sheldon]

Part of the problem is that a certain group of atheists, who seem to me to have first appeared on the internet in the 1990's (that's when I first encountered them), are purporting to speak for all atheists,

What has imaginary nefarious group you've created in your head, and assert exist with any evidence (like your deity) to do with how dictionaries define words by reflecting common usage from the largest demographics?

when they attempt to redefine the meaning of 'atheism' as the absence of belief,

How do they do that exactly when definitions reflect the largest number of people who understand a word to be defined that way?

atheists no longer have any burden to produce any evidence or argument for any of the propositions that they assert about 'God' and 'religion'.

Not even remotely true, even if your hilarious sophistry about this "group of atheists" your paranoia ahs imagined, could influence the Oxford English dictionary and Meriam Webster's , lack of belief would sill not carry a burden of proof, do you have evidence that invisible mermaids don't exist?

(While continuing to denounce their opponents for failure to produce sound justification for their propositional assertions.)

Straw man, only the unevidenced belief is being held up to scrutiny, and I save denouncement for actions and behaviours, not beliefs per se. Though racism and homophobia are beliefs of course, so on occasion yes I denounce the belief itself if it is worthy of condemnation.

I think that there's a huge psychological and epistemological difference between 'God is an imaginary phantasm like a pink unicorn' and 'I've never thought about the existence of God and have no views on the subject'.

In other news the sky is blue and water is wet.

It does no good to confuse those two and to smear them together.

As you just did in that ludicrous straw man misrepresentation of atheism you mean, hilarious.

Put another way, when Christians preach to atheists, why don't the atheists just say "Wow, I had no idea!" and then fall on their knees and worship? Presumably there's some reason why they reject the evangelism.

Well I can't speak for other atheists of course, I shall leave sweeping unevidenced claims to other posters who seem to have a penchant for that. However the complete dearth of any objective evidence is my reason for not believing them. I don't find unevidenced anecdotal claims very compelling, whether it is invisible mermaids or deities that are being imagined.

An intelligent examination of atheism would need to inquire into what that "some reason" is and whether it is consistent with the 'absence of belief' position.

What reasons does your intelligent examination of your lack of belief in invisible pink floogalooks provide to support that "position"? Sorry but it is for you to examine what they really are and mean to you, and what evidence you will accept for them.

The claim that atheists make no claims that require justification is

...a straw man fallacy you have just created. Oh and that is a claim i just made, and I am an atheist, QED....

The list of propositions that atheists assert is seemingly endless. Each of them presumably has a truth value. I think that all of them require argument and justification.

I agree, but can't comment any further as you don't offer even one to examine, and of course what an atheist claims doe s not mean atheism need involve that or any claim.

God does not exist. (Or alternatively, God probably doesn't exist.) God is an imaginary being, analogous to a pink unicorn or Russell's teapot. Religious belief and practice are superstitious by their nature.

Really? I think you should look superstitious up in a dictionary, as I don't see how any of those claims need involve an overly credulous belief in or reverence for anything supernatural. And of course it goes without saying one can be an atheist and not make any of those claims.

There is no credible and sound intellectual justification for believing in God or for being religious.

I'm inclined to agree.

Science and religion are historical and philosophical adversaries.

I don't see what the scientific method has to do with philosophy beyond philosophy being a precursor to it, but nothing science has established about our understanding of reality evidences or needs an extant deity or anything supernatural, that is a simple fact. In fact supernatural claims are unscientific by definition, and it's theists who are forever pointing this out.

Atheists practice 'reason' while religious people don't.

Straw man fallacy, and I stopped counting them at this point..

Religion's historical influence has been largely or even totally bad. A desirable progressive future will be a future in which religion has been swept away and no longer exists.

Moving on...

Thank your god for that....

"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist." Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64

ostensibly
adverb

1. as appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so

It's striking how many points of agreement there are between these kind of atheists and the fundamentalists on how religious texts should be read and understood.

As opposed to wishy washy vapid and desperate rationalisations, that demonstrably ignore what the text actually says.

The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76

Oh are dictionaries a valid reference now again?

So the largest English US dictionary Meriam Webster's defines it as a lack of belief, as does the largest and oldest UK dictionary the Oxford English, why are these reference tools less valid than a dictionary of fnarr world religions, in defining the lack of a religious belief?

My atheism involves not believing in any deity or deities, and does not involve a belief that a deity does not exists which is an unfalsifiable premise in its broadest sense. Exactly as invisible mermaids would be. I disbelieve both claims, and all unfalsifiable claims, and remain agnostic about them as well, as of course I must.