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

[Sheldon]

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.

I don't think you know what a straw man is, but those quotes are claims I made, not claims I falsely assigned to others.

dear oh dear...

I note you evaded addressing the straw man fallacies you made that I quoted, quelle surprise.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

That's just a bare appeal to numbers though, an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm not a 'believer'. And I'm not religious.

"Religion: Philosophical Taoist/Christian"

That's what you claimed in your profile...

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

 

[Sheldon]

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

Or it was another poorly reasoned angry and disjointed rant, filled with sophistry and aimed at atheists, for not believing in any deity, and for having the temerity to say so publicly.

 

[Yazata]

Do you believe in any type of god Yazata?

Not really. I stated my own personal position in my last post. My intellectual trajectory through life, as I thought about the philosophy of religion, has been from strong-atheism towards agnosticism.

In a way, my trajectory isn't unlike that of Anthony Flew. He was once the doyen of intellectual atheists, the atheist's atheist. I was strongly influenced by Flew in my younger years. In 1976 he originally proposed the new 'lack of belief' definition of atheism that Sheldon is so passionate about, in his book The Presumption of Atheism. That new definition didn't catch on in wider usage for maybe 25 years after that, around 2000 I guess, more or less.

But Flew was meanwhile becoming very controversial among his erstwhile atheist followers when he publicly emerged from the closet in his later years as what he called a "Deist".

Antony Flew - Wikipedia

My own path has followed Flew somewhat, but not entirely. Unlike most of our RF atheists I'd wager, I take the traditional "theistic proofs" very seriously. Where I differ from the theists is that I don't see them as "proving" the existence of a theistic god. Instead, what they seem to me to do is point towards fundamental unsolved metaphysical questions. Why is there something rather than nothing? What explains the order that we perceive in reality? What explains mathematics, logic and the laws of physics?

So I'm inclined to think that something very profound is happening all around me, and in me since I'm part of it, and I have no idea what it is or even how to begin explaining it. But, I most emphatically don't think of it as a cosmic person who communicates through the pages of religious scriptures. Nor am I sure why I should worship it. (That's what motivated my question about what divinity is and how humans should recognize it.)

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?

No. But I'm not the one who pretends to be without beliefs. I have lots of beliefs. For one, I believe that all of the personalized deities of traditional theistic lore probably don't exist. Why? Because I can't believe that the ultimate ontological principle of reality itself would behave like that. I am more interested in the impersonal concepts of Hindu Brahman or the Neoplatonic One. The cosmic Source that arguably lies beyond all human knowldge and conceptualization. That better accords with my own metaphysical intuitions. But obviously I can't be said to know any of that. They are just ideas that I kind of like and feel some affinity for. But I wouldn't go so far as to assert that they are true.

 

[PureX]

That's just a bare appeal to numbers though, an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

To match the one I was being given.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.)

Even if your assumptions were true, what would be wrong with this approach? Do you have any other workable approach that reflects usage?

Definitions of "atheism" that hinged on rejection of God were workable enough in an era that disregarded non-Christian religions... but we aren't in that era any more.

It's certainly a step down for Christians to go from seeing themselves as the "standard" religion of their societies - and sometimes the full-blown official state church - to being just one religion out of many... but in many respects, Christians are coming to terms with this. This is why, for instance, you've seen increased use of terms like "Judeo-Christian values" over the same period you describe: even Christians acknowledge that merely appealing to Christians isn't enough, and they have to at least pay lip-service to the idea that the things they're promoting have wider appeal beyond just their religion.

... but there are still holdovers, like how many Christians approach the term "atheist": with a two-tier approach:

- their deity (God-with-a-capital-G) needs to be explicitly rejected.
- the deities of "lesser" cultures don't need to be rejected - or even considered at all.

This chauvinistic (bigoted?) approach is baked into the approach you're advocating.

OTOH, the approach you're criticizing is the approach that was always applied to non-Abrahamic gods... just with the modification that it applies the same standard to the Abrahamic god.

... so unless you're prepared to argue why the Abrahamic god deserves special status not afforded to the gods of other religions, I'm not sure why you would object to the "lack of belief in gods" definition of atheism.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Thank you, a well reasoned response, your rationale certainly seems reasonable to me.

 

[PureX]

"Religion: Philosophical Taoist/Christian"

That's what you claimed in your profile...

Oh what a tangled web we weave....

Oh, what a limited set of choices offered by the site administrators. But you knew that, of course. You just couldn't resist a chance for a cheap shot. Even if it is meaningless. Tells us way more about you than it does, me.

 

[Sheldon]

That's just a bare appeal to numbers though, an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

To match the one I was being given.

For the big/serious stuff I accept the reality that can be shared and corroborated with others. Which one are YOU talking about now? The one where you just get to make up whatever you want

Well of course I don't see a compelling argument in presenting a logical fallacy in response to another one, but that aside I suspect when he () said "corroborate" he meant with objective evidence, as that is consistently his position, but after a while it becomes tiresome to keep typing it out.

If I am wrong here I'm sure he (A Vestigial Mote)
will correct me, and I will therefore offer tender ante facto apology. in lieu of that possibility.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No. But I'm not the one who pretends to be without beliefs.

And who is the one who pretends to be without beliefs? Is that supposed to be me? Because, to be sure, I have admitted to holding many positively-assigned beliefs. That has never been in dispute.

What I have stated (and will do so as many times as you like), is that one DOES NOT have to state that what the claimant presents is patently "not true" in order to state that they do not believe the claimant, and to ask for justification and evidence.

Please refute that (the part in blue) as you are able.

 

[PureX]

Well of course I don't see a compelling argument in presenting a logical fallacy in response to another one, but that aside I suspect when he () said "corroborate" he meant with objective evidence, as that is consistently his position, but after a while it becomes tiresome to keep typing it out.

If I am wrong here I'm sure he (A Vestigial Mote)
will correct me, and I will therefore offer tender ante facto apology. in lieu of that possibility.

It doesn't matter what he "meant", because all he was asserting was that he determines reality based on 'like minds'.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy, meaning you have to have the right beliefs. At the top of the list is belief in One God. It extends from there. And again, your reply is disengenuous, as you already know this.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well of course I don't see a compelling argument in presenting a logical fallacy in response to another one, but that aside I suspect when he () said "corroborate" he meant with objective evidence, as that is consistently his position, but after a while it becomes tiresome to keep typing it out.

If I am wrong here I'm sure he (A Vestigial Mote)
will correct me, and I will therefore offer tender ante facto apology. in lieu of that possibility.

Yes - I meant the stuff that we can point to as being as objective as we are able to muster, given our entirely subjective ability to perceive almost anything. What is present for any/all of us, cannot be denied without specifically rejecting realities that can literally be presented to the observer, etc. As stated before, if I and bunch of friends are in talks about a rock in the middle of the floor, and one of our group states that they do not see or believe that the rock exists, a quick toss of the rock at his knee-cap to get a reaction (or not!) may very well decide the matter. That's the kind of "corroboration" I mean. Not anything like "Well... but... everyone was jumping off the bridge! What was I supposed to do?!"

 

[Sheldon]

Oh, what a limited set of choices offered by the site administrators. But you knew that, of course. You just couldn't resist a chance for a cheap shot. Even if it is meaningless. Tells us way more about you than it does, me.

I got to type mine in, where it said "religion", it wasn't very taxing to say none.

I'm not a 'believer'. And I'm not religious.

If you're not a believer, and are not religious how can you be a Christian - philosophical or otherwise?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

No, Hitler did NOT claim to be catholic throughout his life. He was baptised catholic, but never practiced it as an adult. The only religious affiliation he had as an adult was with the Thule Society (a pagan group), and even then it can be argued that he was only using them for his own purposes, but never subscribed to their religious beliefs. He was basically a non-religious person.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It doesn't matter what he "meant", because all he was asserting was that he determines reality based on 'like minds'.

No... based on the ability to express the reality to anyone/everyone in at least some fashion. There is a huge difference.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy, meaning that you are Christian if you have the right set of beliefs. At the top of this list is the belief in One God.

I believe your remark to be entirely disenguous. What I stated above is common knowledge.

 

[Sheldon]

Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy, meaning you have to have the right beliefs.

"Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity."

Not so easy as it sounds, apparently.

At the top of the list is belief in One God.

Isn't it three equal parts, a trinity, otherwise what is Unitarianism?

As I said not so simple as it seems.

 

[Sheldon]

It doesn't matter what he "meant",

I beg to differ, it might matter how he expressed it, but what we mean is paramount surely. Or can I just assume you don't care what anyone thinks based on the snippet, and ignore you if you offer context?