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

[Sheldon]

I found the OED remarkably easy to use, once I'd mastered the alphabet...

Me too

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

 

[Sheldon]

Sure, of coarse, an atheist just looking for conversation, a place to discuss “ideas” and “current events” happens to join a “Religious Forum.”

It's called general religious debate forum, or is debate another word theists have their own version of? When religions stop peddling ethics and morality from bronze age patriarchal Bedouins, as if they are absolute truth, and trying to distort science and education with superstitious creation myths, then I will ignore them. If someone voices an opinion in public then others have the right to comment, Tedious isn't it, uppity atheists exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Theists in Afghanistan don't put up with this of course, food for thought, the Taliban, and of course the regime in Saud Arabia are also quite strict about atheists submitting religious beliefs to critical scrutiny. Luckily in the free west, we allow people freedom of expression, a lot of countries think this is quite important.

Food for thought here, but good ideas can withstand critical scrutiny, and I would love for someone to explain the rationale that atheists shouldn't have a voice, even a collective voice to challenge the worst excesses of religions.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure, of coarse, an atheist just looking for conversation, a place to discuss “ideas” and “current events” happens to join a “Religious Forum.”

And then turns every discussion into an ill tempered confrontation, apparently...

 

[RestlessSoul]

Me too

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

I have no argument with you there, no skin in this game at all. Atheism is not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Sheldon]

I'll leave it to the Christians to explain Trinitarianism to you.

Unitarian universalism is not a Christian church.

You might want to edit the entry on Wikipedia then.

"Unitarianism (from Latin unitas "unity, oneness", from unus "one") is a nontrinitarian Christian theological movement that believes that the God in Christianity is one singular entity,"

It seems Unitarians think otherwise. As does the Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy that quite a few theists seem keen to derive their definition of atheism from?

I already now what Trinitarianism is, I just find the notion bizarre, but then I am an atheist, who doesn't believe in any deity or deities, including those imagined to be three separate entities, yet one single deity.

 

[Sheldon]

And then turns every discussion into an ill tempered confrontation, apparently...

Am I missing something here, this is a debate forum right? I was under the impression this site has aspects open to various theistic beliefs, and not at all for those not looking for debate?

The idea it's only atheists who are making the exchanges ill tempered is pretty funny though.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Am I missing something here, this is a debate forum right? I was under the impression this site has aspects open to various theistic beliefs, and not at all for those not looking for debate?

The idea it's only atheists who are making the exchanges ill tempered is pretty funny though.

But we are agreed that the exchanges are ill tempered though?

 

[Sheldon]

But we are agreed that the exchanges are ill tempered though?

Not necessarily, they can be of course, debates often become fractious, it's in the nature of debate.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"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 just gave the key here your self windwalker - i changed the color of it to red above. your "belief in unicorns" (a positive belief toward something) doesn't exist. now ask yourself, must then your positive-belief that unicorns "don't exist" exist? does that have to be on the table as soon as you say you don't believe someone's claim about unicorns' existence?

i think a simple, relatable example clears this all up actually. that of a courtroom and juror, or set of jurors. in the deliberation room, if all the other jurors are arguing that the defendant is guilty, but there is one hold out who is not so sure, is it fair for those others (who want to put forward the verdict of 'guilty') to tell that hold-out juror - 'well then you think he's innocent!' is that how you think it works, windwalker? that's exactly what you are doing here. exactly. please realize this, and realize that it destroys the dead horse you keep trying to bring to the table.

you're just plain wrong, and you can't admit it now because you have dug the trench too deep and too wide for yourself. (that goes for you too @Augustus) you know your poor reputation is on the line here, and you know that i don't care about mine. that must be a scary situation to be in for someone who cares about these sorts of things. how are you doing, windwalker? you need some advice? feel free to pm me if so.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But we are agreed that the exchanges are ill tempered though?

Does an "ill temper" make the points made in a post any less cogent, forceful or real?

And in the end, it's really, really funny - because people try to make out that I am hysterical or that I must be "oh so angry" all the time. The reality is I couldn't be more calm in writing any of this stuff. This is the tone I take because I WANT to. Please understand that. It isn't because "my emotions have taken hold" or anything so ridiculous. I want people to see how utterly foolish I see their positions to be - which also helps make sure they don't reply with certain standard starters (or I should say "non-starters") that are just time-wasting shenanigans. That's what I want. If that isn't what you are getting, then please, by all means, tell me what I can do to make sure that this gets relayed more clearly in my posts.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not necessarily, they can be of course, debates often become fractious, it's in the nature of debate.

Doesn’t have to be imo. A little courtesy goes a long way.

Do you not think, given the tone in which you worded your OP, that incivility was inevitable?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Does an "ill temper" make the points made in a post any less cogent, forceful or real?

I would say it pollutes the climate in which conversation is taking place, making honest communication far less likely. Excess of emotion clouds judgement and blinds us to reason, in my experience.

 

[Valjean]

Sure, of coarse, an atheist just looking for conversation, a place to discuss “ideas” and “current events” happens to join a “Religious Forum.”

Have you noticed; there's a lot more discussed here than religion? Look at RF's list of forums.

 

[Valjean]

But we are agreed that the exchanges are ill tempered though?

I think we're generally less threatened by your assertions/ideas than you are of ours. Your blind theism may exasperate us, but our atheism seems to threaten you, and when you can neither reasonably support it nor logically counter our arguments, it's you who are prone to anger.

 

[Augustus]

So, Augustus, regale us with your infinite wisdom on all matters bibliographical - what, pray tell, is the word one could use to describe the state of informing someone that you don't believe them, while simultaneously NOT taking the position that whatever they have presented to you is false?

Elementary my dear Moteykins, one would describe it as a belief of course. It is an attitude held towards a proposition.

It would be quite delusional to consider that by explicitly considering and responding to their statement you are, in fact, expressing a 'lack of belief'.

Just as when you express your disbelief regarding the proposition 'god(s) exist' you are clearly not displaying a 'lack of belief', but a belief. It is the expression of a judgement, not the absence of one.

And this is why atheism is best characterised as a belief.

 

[Valjean]

Elementary my dear Moteykins, one would describe it as a belief of course. It is an attitude held towards a proposition.

It would be quite delusional to consider that by explicitly considering and responding to their statement you are, in fact, expressing a 'lack of belief'.

Just as when you express your disbelief regarding the proposition 'god(s) exist' you are clearly not displaying a 'lack of belief', but a belief. It is the expression of a judgement, not the absence of one.

And this is why atheism is best characterised as a belief.

A belief in what?
And now it's an attitude?

 

[Augustus]

But when the subject does come up, and the grammatical quibbles become important, then the average people are either forced to think or must bow out of the discussion.

The grammatical quibble never becomes important in any practical sense. It's just in parlour game discussions like this that it gets raised.

Almost everyone I knew growing up was an atheist, and never did anyone organically describe atheism as a 'lack of belief'. This is unsurprising as it is a very unusual and unnatural expression.

Moreover, if someone did announce that they were an atheist because they 'lacked belief in god', it would alter my views about them not one bit as it is completely without practical distinction.

Huh?

Not you, but it's very common.

If you are an atheist on RF who thinks it is better to describe atheism as a belief, it is quite common that some lackwit will say you are using the 'theist definition' or that you are a secret theist or are an apologist for religion or some equally vapid nonsense.

 

[Augustus]

A belief in what?
And now it's an attitude?

A belief is an attitude/stance towards a proposition.

Comprehension of a proposition necessitates adopting a belief/attitude/stance towards it.

One is an atheist because of their stance towards god's existence, not an absence of a stance towards god's existence.

'Disbelief in the existence of gods' for example.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would say it pollutes the climate in which conversation is taking place, making honest communication far less likely. Excess of emotion clouds judgement and blinds us to reason, in my experience.

I'm not necessarily looking to "pollute the climate" - but I do have to admit that I am looking to cloud people's judgment and potentially get them to slip. That, I am trying to do sometimes.

And "honest"? Do you think my tone and willingness to state certain things is me making the conversation "less honest?" If anything, people seem to despise the amount of honesty I bring to the conversation.

Besides - I can certainly be seen to have made completely benign and peaceful posts around here. When someone is genuinely questioning a thing, or when I can tell their intentions are pure, there is no reason to "go on the attack." but when they aren't, and especially when they aren't but profess that they are? Well, I can't deny that I have too much fun at that point not to.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think we're generally less threatened by your assertions/ideas than you are of ours. Your blind theism may exasperate us, but our atheism seems to threaten you, and when you can neither reasonably support it nor logically counter our arguments, it's you who are prone to anger.

Thanks for that little demonstration of prejudice. Not sure what you hope to prove by it, but if you can’t make a point without being wilfully insulting, perhaps you simply have no point to make?