• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Do you accept atheism is not a belief, or do you lie it is?

  • Yes I accept the fact that atheism is not a belief.

    Votes: 25 80.6%

  • No, I lie that atheism is a belief.

    Votes: 6 19.4%
  • Total voters
    31
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Then your cultural, social, sociological, cognitive and so on standard is not objective nor universal, Nor is mine and there is thus no one: This the best one for us all, because there is no us all. There is one for e.g. gravity, but not this subject.
Click to expand...

I never claimed "my" social, sociological, cognitive and so on standard is objective nor universal. I don't even know what that means. You keep making these straw man claims?

Atheism depends on how you think
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, a newborn baby is atheistic, it cannot be otherwise.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yazata said:
Which raises the question: Why are atheists always such loud (and often abusive) participants in internet religious discussions, if on their own account of themselves, they don't have anything to contribute to those discussions?
Click to expand...
We have ideas. We find ideas interesting.
We're usually the quietest and most circumspect. We have no doctrine; no set of beliefs; nothing to preach. It's only in response to assertions, faulty reasoning, or incorrect facts by the theists that you ever hear from us.

Theists may see dragons, but we're just mice, albeit secure in our logic and free of any burden of proof.

It's usually the theists who are the strident ones. They have a doctrine and often a worldview on which their ego-identity depends. Any threat to ideological orthodoxy is a threat to them. Any criticism is, thus, perceived as an attack by a dangerous enemy.
But theists subconsciously realize they live in straw houses, so their reaction to any perceived threat can be over the top. Their assertion that atheists are loud and abusive is projection.

Atheist ego-identities must be based on factors other than divine cynosure or a strong-father protector in the sky. We're forced to find our own purpose and value in life. Theists often seem bothered by a demographic that lives happily without the theism their own lives depend on.
 
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sheldon said:
I never claimed "my" social, sociological, cognitive and so on standard is objective nor universal. I don't even know what that means. You keep making these straw man claims?



Not necessarily, a newborn baby is atheistic, it cannot be otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, you are an atheist, because you can say that you lack a belief in gods. A baby can't say that, so it is not an atheist nor it is a theist.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sheldon said:
Word definitions are based on common usage not objective evidence? And I don't know what you mean by best here?
Click to expand...

Yes, here are 2 definitions of evidence.
-the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. - Google
-Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea. From here: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/intro_01

So what you will notice if you read the site, is that it has longer entries and explanations than a dictionary.
Just like this one for what religion is:
Philosophy of Religion Online Text Textbook

Now of course, if you want to keep it simple you can use a dictionary for what a car is. But you can't repair a car, using a dictionary nor can you understand what religion is use a single cultural folk understanding of what religion is. The same is the case with science or any other deep enough study. You can start with dictionaries, but you can't rely on only dictionaries.

If dictionaries was enough, we wouldn't have universities or trade crafts.
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
No, you are an atheist, because you can say that you lack a belief in gods. A baby can't say that, so it is not an atheist nor it is a theist.
Click to expand...

A baby can't say that, because it has no concept of a deity, thus it necessarily lacks belief in a deity, thus it is an atheist.
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yes, here are 2 definitions of evidence.
-the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. - Google
-Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea. From here: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/intro_01

So what you will notice if you read the site, is that it has longer entries and explanations than a dictionary.
Just like this one for what religion is:
Philosophy of Religion Online Text Textbook

Now of course, if you want to keep it simple you can use a dictionary for what a car is. But you can't repair a car, using a dictionary nor can you understand what religion is use a single cultural folk understanding of what religion is. The same is the case with science or any other deep enough study. You can start with dictionaries, but you can't rely on only dictionaries.

If dictionaries was enough, we wouldn't have universities or trade crafts.
Click to expand...


I think as usual my point has escaped you, no hard feelings anyway.

1, We were not discussing evidence per se, yet you seem to have leaped to that.
2. You asked which definition of atheism was the best.
3. You asked that evidence be provided with an answer to 2.

I asked you what you meant by best, you haven't answered. i pointed out that word definitions are not based on evidence they are referenced in dictionaries based on common usage. So I have no idea what your post has to do with that, but you do seem to leap all over the place, and lose focus, in some vain attempt to keep every conversation coming back to your agenda that no objective facts exist.

Is it an objective fact that the world is not flat? Or is the shape of the world based on subjective opinion?
 
Last edited:
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
So a rock is an atheist.
Click to expand...
Well one could argue that a rock by virtue it has no mind cannot hold any beliefs, so a somewhat redundant observation. It would certainly be unreasonable to assume a rack didn't lack belief in a deity, but then it lacks beliefs full stop.
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
Valjean said:
But that's not the sine qua non of atheism. "I don't know whether God exists or not" is all we have in common.
Click to expand...

Some atheists claim to know, even here on RF.

Unless you can give me an example of an atheist who holds the belief gods exist to be true, I'll stick with my belief that every atheist who can comprehend the statement believes it is not true.
 
It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sheldon said:
Well one could argue that a rock by virtue it has no mind cannot hold any beliefs
Click to expand...

But for half of the members of this forum, that's a belief. Having no belief is a belief. The rock has no belief, therefore it has a belief. All one need do now to decide if it is an atheist is to ask it if it believes in gods.

"I've got something in my hand, see if you can guess what it is."
"A key?"
Opens an empty hand.
I thought you said you had something in your hand?"
"I do. I have nothing. That's something. Zero is an amount."
"Go away."

This has been a very popular thread you started, but I'm amazed to see so many skeptics still trying to inform others what an atheist believes, and what constitutes a belief. Why bother? The only reason to even try is to inform the others of what one actually believes, but they're not interested. Once that's understood, what is left to say? What difference does it make how they define atheist or belief, or that they aren't interested in anything but trying to impose their definitions on others who reject their thinking? We just tell them what we think, and when it is understood that they aren't interested in anything except arguing over nothing and imposing their definitions on skeptics, you're done.
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Augustus said:
Some atheists claim to know, even here on RF.

Unless you can give me an example of an atheist who holds the belief gods exist to be true, I'll stick with my belief that every atheist who can comprehend the statement believes it is not true.
Click to expand...

Most don't claim any such thing, again see the poll, and your agenda aside most dictionaries seem at odds with your position as well. Obscure philosophical encyclopedias aside.
 
Bird123

Bird123

Well-Known Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
No.


I flip a coin and hide the result.
I claim it is heads and ask if you believe my claim (ie: accept as true / accurate).
You say "no".

Does that mean you believe it's tails?
No.
Click to expand...

If you flip a coin and hide the results, then say it's heads. If I do not believe you then, yes, I believe it's tails. On the other hand, if I value facts over beliefs, I will make it a point to see the coin.

You can't have it both ways. If I do not believe you when you say it's heads, how could I in my right might think it's heads? You do not add up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top