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

[A Vestigial Mote]

My type of people? LOL! That's good. No I'm not sensitive to it. I'm amused seeing it. It tells me just how weak the person I'm debating with actually feels about their own arguments that they think that makes them stronger somehow.

sure sure. this is you still being 'nice as a matter of course' is it then? boy - you know, i may be a complete and utter butthole to people on here, but at least i admit to it and know it of myself. at least i am self-aware. you, on the other hand, try to seem 'nice' (and even profess that you are 'as a matter of course') and yet make a statement about how weak i must feel about my own posts. note, you didn't say, 'this often tells me' or 'this usually indicates.' no - you slipped in that this definitively 'tells me just how weak the person I'm debating with actually feels about their own arguments'. you have no idea what you are talking about by the way. also - you are stuck getting nothing but lowercase letters from me - just fyi.

You could just come up with a better presented and reasoned arguments so you feel a need to resort to histrionics in your posts.

you absolutely know you misrepresented me... so you're trying to paint me as hysterical. i get it. just don't think it is going to work on me.

Are you sure? You have this under control now?

as i said... nothing but lowercase.

Oh dear! Resorting to personal attacks too now? Placing yourself in a position for a moderator to see you violating forum rules? You may need to take a break before posting and getting yourself into trouble. I won't report this, but won't promise someone else might not.

i actually fixed it... if you go back to look. because i didn't want it to be deleted before you saw it. i mean... you did exactly what i said you did - entirely misrepresented me and walked on right into what was apparently your 'script' as if i hadn't even completely ripped your premise to shreds and replied in a completely separate way than what you anticipated. it was hilarious, my boy. high comedy. i loved every minute of replying - make no mistake.

Anyway, I've supported my point abundantly clear, and you've made it abundantly clear you don't have a leg to stand on by your shouting and personal attacks. You've lost the debate.

wow... just wow. you completely misrepresent me, and apparently can't bring yourself to reply to my final statement which completely trumps everything you tried to bring to the table. so how about it @Windwalker - care to take a stab? ignore the rest of this post entirely and answer that one, final question:

i don't have to positively claim that 'god does not exist' in order to inform you that i don't believe you, do i?

 

[Sheldon]

There are no gods is a falsifiable claim because all one has to do to falsify it is to present us with a god.

Sorry I'm not sure I understand, but to be clear, just because something is falsifiable does not mean it has been or even can be falsified, only that we can conceive of a way to falsify it were it to be false.

For example, if you claim there are no black swans, this is a falsifiable claim, it can be falsified by demonstrating a black swan exists.

if you claim an invisible swan does not exist, this is unfalsifiable, as there is not enough data to conceive of a way to falsify the claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Finding agreement is always a move forward IMO.

Despite what you may have heard, we atheists are not bad people, we rarely eat babies, and I personally loathe working on a Sunday. Unless it's double time of course...

Anyway I've said too much, nothing to see here, move along....

 

[Valjean]

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.)

But the inclusiveness of "lack of belief" is precisely what allows this definition to speak for all atheists, no matter what propositions or assertions they make about a god. Lack of belief is the only feature I can think of that applies universally to all flavors of atheism.

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.

Yes, there are a lot of different opinions amongst atheists, including some definite, burden attaching claims, but these opinionated atheists also fall under the heading of lack-of-belief.

 

[lukethethird]

Sorry I'm not sure I understand, but to be clear, just because something is falsifiable does not mean it has been or even can be falsified, only that we can conceive of a way to falsify it were it to be false.

For example, if you claim there are no black swans, this is a falsifiable claim, it can be falsified by demonstrating a black swan exists.

if you claim an invisible swan does not exist, this is unfalsifiable, as there is not enough data to conceive of a way to falsify the claim.

True, claims of invisible gods or swans are unfalsifiable.

 

[Windwalker]

Oh I think not, and even were you not misrepresenting not believing (I didn't embolden it you did) with believing, what an individual atheist claims is not what defines atheism.

"I don't believe God exists". "I believe God does not exist". These are both saying exactly the same thing. It's still a belief. "I don't believe in unicorns", is me saying it it my belief that unicorns don't exist. There is no double speak here. It's identical, just using the negative instead of the positive in stating my belief.

Atheism
noun
1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

You treat dictionaries as if they were scripture. Even so, going by what "Thus saith the Lord Webster," saith, disbelief, is still a belief. A "lack of belief" in the existence of God, is an answer to the question about God. It's not just a lack of belief in general, like an infant! It's about a proposition. You cannot simply say it's a "lack of belief" in general, as you and other seem to want to say in order to avoid it sounding as if it is a religious belief.

Sorry, but it still is a religious belief, because it's about the question of God. This is just a fact. It's not "a lack of belief", via ignorance. It's a response to a question about God. It even states that directly in the dictionary you quoted from.

It wouldn't be to distract from the fact you cannot demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity would it?

Why would I need to. This isn't about debating whether God exists or not. You've already decided how you believe about that.

EDIT: Would it cheer theists up if I said I was an agnostic, who does not believe in any deity or deities, or anything supernatural?

Again, I don't self-identify as a theist. I see theism and atheism as the exact same thing, just opposite points of view on the same question. But to answer your question, it would make me feel happier if you were to just acknowledge it's a belief, be happy with it, and own it as such. There's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to be an atheist as a belief. I certainly had no issue with that, or felt ashamed about it when I self-identified as an atheist for those 10 plus years, before I realized the nature of the question itself was made moot to me in where I came to in my views now.

Own your beliefs! Live by them. Be proud of them. Grow by them. But don't deny what they are because it sounds like "religion" to call it a belief. So what if it is? It's how you believe about the nature of ultimate Reality. You choose to see a lack of God in it, and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly valid way to view Reality. Just don't lose sight of finding joy in the mystery of it.

 

[Kenny]

Despite what you may have heard, we atheists are not bad people, we rarely eat babies, and I personally loathe working on a Sunday. Unless it's double time of course...

Anyway I've said too much, nothing to see here, move along....

Quite frankly, I haven't that heard that atheists are "bad people". If you want Sunday off, work for Chick-Fil-A

The only time when I pick some bad atheists (everyone has bad apples) is when people say how horrible Christians are. By and large, we are great people too. IMHO

 

[lukethethird]

"I don't believe God exists". "I believe God does not exist". These are both saying exactly the same thing. It's still a belief. "I don't believe in unicorns", is me saying it it my belief that unicorns don't exist. There is no double speak here. It's identical, just using the negative instead of the positive in stating my belief.


You treat dictionaries as if they were scripture. Even so, going by what "Thus saith the Lord Webster," saith, disbelief, is still a belief. A "lack of belief" in the existence of God, is an answer to the question about God. It's not just a lack of belief in general, like an infant! It's about a proposition. You cannot simply say it's a "lack of belief" in general, as you and other seem to want to say in order to avoid it sounding as if it is a religious belief.

Sorry, but it still is a religious belief, because it's about the question of God. This is just a fact. It's not "a lack of belief", via ignorance. It's a response to a question about God. It even states that directly in the dictionary you quoted from.


Why would I need to. This isn't about debating whether God exists or not. You've already decided how you believe about that.


Again, I don't self-identify as a theist. I see theism and atheism as the exact same thing, just opposite points of view on the same question. But to answer your question, it would make me feel happier if you were to just acknowledge it's a belief, be happy with it, and own it as such. There's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to be an atheist as a belief. I certainly had no issue with that, or felt ashamed about it when I self-identified as an atheist for those 10 plus years, before I realized the nature of the question itself was made moot to me in where I came to in my views now.

Own you beliefs! Live them. Grow by them. But don't deny what they are because it sounds like "religion" to call it a belief. So what if it is? It's how you believe.

I don't know what your god consists of, what it's morals are and so on. I don't even know what it is I am not believing, so no, atheism and theism are not the same thing.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't know what your god consists of, what it's morals are and so on. I don't even know what it is I am not believing, so no, atheism and theism are not the same thing.

Are you an atheist or a theist? Your religion on your profile says Xian. Are you a Christian? I'm confused. Can you help me understand? But if you don't know what I believe, you can ask.

But why I say atheism and theism are arguing about the same thing, that's because they are. It's all about the question of God as defined by a theistic view. They are just flip sides of the same coin. One affirming. One denying. It's the same coin. It's about the exact same view or belief. One believes in the affirmative. One believes in the negative.

 

[Valjean]

Of course there is a difference. An atheist is someone who believe in atheism. Just kidding. I realize a lot of people want to define atheism to suit themselves, such as saying a cat or a cow are atheists because they don't believe in God, or an infant or a child of three is an atheist because that is supposedly the "default position". These are absurd arguments of course. But it makes them feel they are following the natural order in their disbelief in God.

Not absurd arguments. Just definitions. if a cat, cow or infant conforms to the definition of 'atheist' as lack of belief, then they're atheists.
True, this may not be a particularly fruitful designation, but it's technically correct.

In reality, as we have shown, atheism is a general belief in the non-existence of God or gods. If someone chooses to self-identify by that word, they are doing so in response to the question of God's existence, and do so as a matter of stated belief in the non-existence of God.

How about the atheists who were never exposed to the idea of God? Are they not atheists, then?
Belief in non-existence is a subset of lack of belief, and it's the lack of belief feature we're claiming as definitive.
An atheist is an atheist whether he self-identifies as one or not,

Their "atheism" is a tenant of faith for them. It is a religious faith that ultimate Reality has no God, as they imagine God to be in their saying that doesn't exist. A religious faith is what one believes the nature of Ultimate Reality to be, so then it becomes Atheism, at that point, like Theism does for the believer in God for the exact same reason.

As I mentioned, there are non-believers who've never given the idea a thought, and others to whom it arises only when someone else brings it up. In such people I wouldn't think of their atheism either as a tenet or a faith, and certainly not as a religion or ontological credo.

 

[Valjean]

"I don't believe God exists". "I believe God does not exist". These are both saying exactly the same thing. It's still a belief.

Look closely. They're not. Lack of belief does not imply rejection of, or even awareness of a belief.

 

[Sheldon]

But why I say atheism and theism are arguing about the same thing, that's because they are. It's all about the question of God as defined by a theistic view. They are just flip sides of the same coin. One affirming. One denying. It's the same coin. It's about the exact same view or belief. One believes in the affirmative. One believes in the negative.

No, that may apply to some atheists, but not all, and atheism is just the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and that definition (despite what the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy says), would not exclude strong atheists, or any atheists come to that.

 

[Sheldon]

Not absurd arguments. Just definitions. if a cat, cow or infant conforms to the definition of 'atheist' as lack of belief, then they're atheists.
True, this may not be a particularly fruitful designation, but it's technically correct.

It's also universally accurate, as the descriptor lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, would also include atheists who held the belief no deity exists, that's axiomatic.

 

[Windwalker]

Not absurd arguments. Just definitions. if a cat, cow or infant conforms to the definition of 'atheist' as lack of belief, then they're atheists.

If they conform to that definition of atheist, then that definition is insane! That's my point. That mountain range I'm looking at, is an atheist? My clipped toenail is an atheist? This is what I mean by absurd.

Only those who can evaluate a proposition, such as the existence of God, and cognitively decide on that question can be said to not believe it. An infant is not capable of such higher cognitive functions. Neither is a cat, or a cow, or a rock, or a piece of earwax.

Methinks atheists are really hoping to find solace in this notion that theism is a corruption of the natural state of disbelief. It's absurdity.

True, this may not be a particularly fruitful designation, but it's technically correct.

Only if you don't question the absurdity of defining atheism that way and blindly believe it without logic or reason.

How about the atheists who were never exposed to the idea of God? Are they not atheists, then?

No. They are not atheist. They are just humans who are ignorant of it as a question. The only ones I can see someone calling the ignorant as "atheists", is if they are religious bigots who calls everyone outside the ingroup as heathens, infidels, pagans, atheists, unbelievers, the lost, the unsaved, etc. Saying a child is an atheist by default, is the same as a Christian believing an unbaptized child goes to hell, only in reverse! It's absurd.

I would never have accepted being called an atheist when I was a child. I simply was unaware. They are not atheists. They're people. They are neutral. They aren't in that debate. Very simple answer.

 

[lukethethird]

Are you an atheist or a theist? Your religion on your profile says Xian. Are you a Christian? I'm confused. Can you help me understand? But if you don't know what I believe, you can ask.

But why I say atheism and theism are arguing about the same thing, that's because they are. It's all about the question of God as defined by a theistic view. They are just flip sides of the same coin. One affirming. One denying. It's the same coin. It's about the exact same view or belief. One believes in the affirmative. One believes in the negative.

I still don't know what your god consists of so I don't know what makes me an atheist, on the other hand you know what makes you a theist so there is a difference.

 

[Windwalker]

I still don't know what your god consists of so I don't know what makes me an atheist, on the other hand you know what makes you a theist so there is a difference.

That didn't really answer my question. You list your religion as Xian. I assume you're just using the abbreviation for Christian? You believe in God, in some fashion or other? How do you identify yourself? As a theist or an atheist? I know Christians who are atheists. I'm curious if that's how you see yourself.

Don't base your answer on how I see myself. That's irrelevant here.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, Christianity is a huge range of beliefs. There is no "orthodoxy". But that is a view claimed by some extremists. And you should be aware that claims, especially unsubstantiated claims of "disengenuous" or other claims that imply that one is being dishonest do break forum rules. He may not be your type of Christian, but you are not any more qualified to deny that someone is a Christian than I am.

I don't care what christian church you walk into, they all believe in God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You seriously think that all Christians have a single set of beliefs? That's not even true for the theistic Christians.


So you don't think that, say, Mormons are Christians?



Just because you aren't willing to challenge your assumptions doesn't make those assumptions "common knowledge."

As unwilling as you may be to acknowledge it, people like John Shelby Spong exist (or existed - apparently he passed away in September) and are members of their Christian communities.

I think they have core beliefs that they all share, such as there is aGod, Jesus is the messiah, he died for people's sins.

Mormons are an interesting case. There will be those that disagree with me, but I think that because the LDS are henotheistic rather than monotheistic, that this makes them a different religion. I have nothing against Mormons -- I think they are great people. But I don't understand why they want to claim the name christian when the historical christian church is so different. It makes no sense to me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

[QUOTE="Sheldon, post: 7422441, member: 73444"His anti-Semitism of course can only be viewed as a religious persecution, derived from the centuries of anti-Semitism practised and encouraged by European Christian churches.[/QUOTE]
It was racial (ethnic) persecution. Even if a Jew converted to Christianity, he was still arrested and shipped off to a death camp.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, Christianity is a huge range of beliefs. There is no "orthodoxy". But that is a view claimed by some extremists. And you should be aware that claims, especially unsubstantiated claims of "disengenuous" or other claims that imply that one is being dishonest do break forum rules. He may not be your type of Christian, but you are not any more qualified to deny that someone is a Christian than I am.

Oh come come. There are a few core beliefs taht all Christian churches share, such as there is a God, Jesus is the messiah, and that he died for our sins.