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

[1213]

There are plenty of polytheists who don't believe in God, but do believe in gods. Do you consider them atheists?

In more civilized era atheist actually meant person who denies that any God(s) exists. In that sense, if one denies any god's existence, he could be called an atheist. Many people understand that it is difficult position, because it is impossible to prove the claim correct, at least in the case of Bible God. That is why the meaning of the word seems to have evolved to mean that person just don't have the belief in God. I have understood it means any god or gods. If person beliefs at least to one god, he is not atheist, even if he doesn't believe in all or many gods.

 

[1213]

So what would be the one, unique feature common to every variety of atheist?

In my case, i think atheist is a person who says "God (any god, or gods) does not exist".

 

[PureX]

In my case, i think atheist is a person who says "God (any god, or gods) does not exist".

Thank you for being honest. Around here, though, it seems to be more like; "YOUR God/gods don't exist".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In more civilized era atheist actually meant person who denies that any God(s) exists. In that sense, if one denies any god's existence, he could be called an atheist.

I'm talking about your use of the term in this era.

Many people understand that it is difficult position, because it is impossible to prove the claim correct, at least in the case of Bible God. That is why the meaning of the word seems to have evolved to mean that person just don't have the belief in God.

Someone who "just doesn't have the belief in God" would be someone who lacks belief in God, not necessarily someone who actively rejects "Bible God."

I have understood it means any god or gods. If person beliefs at least to one god, he is not atheist, even if he doesn't believe in all or many gods.

Sounds like you understand "atheist" to mean the same thing that I do: an atheist is anyone who isn't a theist, and a theist is anyone who believes in at least one god.

 

[Windwalker]

Could quote a post where he claimed this please? Also if he is the only one, it's something of a non issue here, since most atheists are not doing this.

The one I was posting to at that moment, of course, was you. It was you I was referring to. I was going to say, look in a mirror, but thought that was a more creative way to say that. Surprised you missed that.

 

[Sheldon]

So what would be the one, unique feature common to every variety of atheist?

In my case, i think atheist is a person who says "God (any god, or gods) does not exist".

Your case? Are you an atheist? I am an atheist, and I can say unequivocally that my atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and not a belief no deity exists. So your generic claim seems to imply I'm lying, is that what you're saying?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In my case, i think atheist is a person who says "God (any god, or gods) does not exist".

Which is it?

- God does not exist
- any god does not exist
- gods do not exist

 

[Sheldon]

I mean seriously, this underscores what I said about treating dictionaries as if they were Holy Scripture.

Yeah, that's just a straw man fallacy you created though, as I haven't seen one single poster do this.

I'm posting to the one right now who has been doing this.

Could quote a post where he claimed this please?

The one I was posting to at that moment, of course, was you. It was you I was referring to.

I have never remotely made any such assertion, so you misrepresented me, as I have not made any such claim, and furthermore you cannot quote any part of any post of mine to support your sophistry here.

QED...and it is you are misrepresenting definitions in an arbitrary and absolute way.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't see atheism as incompatible with theism

Then why are you so angry and annoyed by atheists voicing opinion in a public debate forum?

Do you believe small children are capable of abstract thought, and are able to make choices of belief?

That would depend on their age, but we can all see you have now dishonestly moved the goalposts from newborn babies to "small children", and anyone can go back and see this sophistry in your posts.

 

[Sheldon]

In more civilized era atheist actually meant person who denies that any God(s) exists.

In ancient Rome, before the Christian religion had been created, Roman polytheists referred to early christians as atheists. Words and language evolve of course, but the purpose goes beyond expression and necessitates that language is as clear as possible in our definition. Hence the need for a point of reference, which dictionaries provide. They are not absolutes, but they do reflect current common usage.

 

[Sheldon]

In my case, i think atheist is a person who says "God (any god, or gods) does not exist".

Thank you for being honest. Around here, though, it seems to be more like; "YOUR God/gods don't exist".

An honest definition of atheism, FROM A "DISCIPLE OF JESUS", it's in his profile....

 

[Windwalker]

I don't know how that happened. But if you think that atheists who consider unbelief not a belief liars refusing to own their deceit,

Don't put words into my mouth. I would not say liars. Lying is a conscious deception. I rather would say they are in denial. There's a major difference there. Unlike the OP who would say that I and the many other atheists in this thread are in fact liars for not believing his idea of "facts", I recognize that cognitive dissonance is behind it.

then you are unaware of how most of us think. If you were to say anything that the typical atheist doesn't believe, such as that we all also secretly believe in gods but won't "own it," I'd come to the same conclusion about you - this guy doesn't know what atheists believe, despite claiming to have once been one.

So, your experience is better than my experience, because I see something you aren't?

You're projecting. No critical thinker has an allergy to any word. It's just not how they roll. They reject faith. They reject fallacy. But if you want to couch that in the language allergy and cognitive dissonance, then once again, I would say that you don't understand atheists.

That's not how they're behaving by citing dictionaries as if they were scripture, disparaging philosophy sites which say exactly what I am saying as not being as authoritative as dictionary definitions are, ignoring other dictionary definitions which agree with what I say, and so forth. IT's the same sort of cherry-picking we see debating creationists who deny evolution and the modern tools of higher criticism and research. You wonder why I see things the way I do, that atheism in not merely a lack of belief, but a very invested belief that must be defended through such tortured means? Trying to claim infants as atheists, like Muslims claim them as Muslims, theists as theists, etc?? Seriously? It's all the same religious thinking.

Then you were doing it wrong. I don't have that problem.

I see. Just like the Christian at a faith healing service who doesn't get healed, it's their fault for not having enough faith. I quit being an atheist, because I was doing it wrong. I was never really a true atheist. Like you were never really a true Christian, and so forth.

Hmm... I see a very definite pattern here.

Funny story. A friend of mine who went to Bible college with me told me after he became an atheist, "I'm so glad I have the truth now!" I said in response to him, "I remember both of us saying that exact same thing when we were in Bible college together at that time". He paused for a long moment, then answered, "Yeah, but the difference is, now I really DO have the truth."

Atheism is a mere lack of belief, you say? He is not the only example. Countless examples I could give you. I moderated a predominantly atheist website for over 10 years. The majority of posters there were very much believers in their new found truth of disbelief in God. Again, I don't say that's a bad thing, but I'm not going to try to say it's not just another type of belief. That's not how it was treated by the majority of them.

And yes, everybody who believes by faith is making a logical error. There is no place for faith in logic, just reason.

I've read your ideas of what religious faith is, and how you reject those who are experts in that area of human research, claiming it's all nonsense. That, is an act of bad faith on your part. Faith and reason are not incompatible. If you understood that faith is not cognitively based, but is based on intuition and instinct. It's non-rational in nature, like love, hope, joy, etc. But you conflate it with beliefs. That is error.

If you believe gods exist, you have jumped to an unsupported conclusion.

You jumped to an unsupported conclusion that faith in God based upon logical proposition. So therefore, you conclude with logic, it is not to be believed in. That is of course, your belief making a cognitive decision, not merely an absence of thought on the matter.

If you believe that climate change is a hoax despite the evidence to the contrary, you are indulging in faith again, and you are wrong again. If you think the American presidential election was stolen despite the evidence to the contrary, you are indulging in faith again, and you are wrong again. If you think that the coronavirus is more dangerous than the vaccine despite the evidence to the contrary, you are indulging in faith again, and you are wrong again. If you think that the earth is flat despite the evidence to the contrary, you are indulging in faith again, and you are wrong again. Need I go on?

I accept the facts on all of these. I accept science and reason. As part of that, I also recognize that religious faith falls outside the domain of these, just as the arts and other humanities do. Must all of life be reduced down to math formulas for you to live it?

That's on you. Rebut the point if you can rather than pout. Leave your emotions at the door if you can.

I can recognize an insult without taking it personally. I don't. I just recognize those as a failing of someone's argument when that starts happening. "You were never really an atheist!". You just hate atheists,. etc. No I don't. This is purely your own fiction to make yourself feel better. The emotional response is what is behind such comments in posts, like the other poster with the 72 point fonts in bold letters, and personal insults leveled at me. I didn't take that personally. I took that as their failure to defend their points rationally. I consider that as an admission they have no valid argument.

I've pointed out a few places where you don't seem to understand what atheists are saying. Did I offend you? Apparently. Sorry, but you'll have to deal with that yourself. It's your choice to be offended, and not the responsibility of others to protect you from being offended by simple declarative sentences.

I've countered those points rationally, then you responded that I don't know what atheism is, even though I was one for 10 years, or in this post, that I must not have really understood it. I'm just pointing out your actions. I'm not offended. I know you are blowing smoke because you lack good arguments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe small children are capable of abstract thought, and are able to make choices of belief? For instance, at what age is a child capable of truly being said that they can believe in God? Three years old? Can you answer that?

Call me crazy, but as a lower limit, I'd say that any baby who isn't yet capable of recognizing that their limbs are theirs is not yet capable of theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Likewise, I don't see atheism as incompatible with theism either.

So you think atheists can be theists and theists can be atheists?

If so, then it's safe to say that whatever you understand "atheist" to mean, it doesn't match the common usage.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith and reason are not incompatible.

Disagree. They are incompatible. As soon as you add a drop of faith to any amount of valid reasoning, it ceased to be valid, just like as soon as you add any amount of bacteria to a sterile solution, it is no longer sterile. Here's a statement of faith:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Let's add a column of numbers using reason at every step but one. Let's let 2 + 2 = 5 just once as the good pastor would do if he had faith in the idea. You've gone off the rails, never to return to reason. You now have zero chance of coming to a sound mathematical conclusion unless by coincidence you make another leap of faith in the opposite direction. Maybe one time you decided 5 + 4 should be 8. This second error will get you back on the track, although you likely never knew you went off of it or came back on.

As soon as one makes a leap of faith in any otherwise valid chain of logic, he generates the logical fallacy - non sequitur. Suddenly, an idea has appeared that doesn't follow from what preceded it, and there is no reason to believe it.

You referred to a discussion I had with another poster on another thread in which he claimed that there were experts in faith. I disagreed. This is too simple a concept to develop expertise in. You may also have noticed that although asked to provide an example of what an expert would say on faith that would add anything of value to an understanding of what it is, but I got crickets. And his disapproval, which is what often happens when you extol a logical error as a virtue, and somebody calls it a logical error. People get huffy, but have no rebuttal.

I referred to some glaring examples of the failure of faith, such as denying climate change, believing in election hoax, and believing that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus, and you quickly distanced yourself from those, but didn't explain why you think faith there is not for you, whereas other faith is. What's the logical difference between unsupported belief in one thing than in another? None. The consequences of a faith-based belief may be more or less harmful, but not more or less logical.

Consider somebody who has faith that there are angels in heaven, and somebody who thinks they'll protect him on the road. The first believe probably can't lead to any harm. The second could give somebody permission to drive drunk. The consequences are very different, but the thinking is equally invalid in each case.

Faith cannot be a path to truth. By faith, one can believe either of two mutually exclusive ideas, and at least one is definitely wrong. We need a method that can discern between correct beliefs and erroneous ones, and there is only one way to do that: reason applied properly to relevant evidence.

Even if you happen to guess correctly - suppose you decide to use faith to decide between creationism and evolution and correctly guess the latter - you can't know you have guessed correctly until a reason and evidence based assessment tells you so. Did King David actually live, or was he in the category of Adam or Noah. We can guess. Let's guess yes. Did we guess correctly? Who knows? Archeologists do. They can confirm that you guessed correctly. But suddenly, your belief goes from faith-based to evidence-based. And one needn't guess about creationism versus evolution, either. There's a better to get an answer, and it will be correct if you use that method, and you will know it's correct.

How about addressing the points made here? You say faith and reason are compatible and I showed where faith turns reason into faith, meaning that they are incompatible. If you disagree, please say so and identify the error you think I made.

I said that any leap of faith creates a non sequitur and explained how and why. Do you disagree? If so, please say so explicitly with a rebuttal. Explain how one can add faith to a previously valid argument and it remain valid.

I said that there was no such thing as an expert in faith. Maybe you agree, If so, please agree explicitly. I not show me where I am wrong. Pleas show me the valuable and useful insights of somebody that is thought to be an expert on faith. I expect that all I will see is fluff, theology, exhortations to be faithful, and a lot of words that add nothing substantive to the definition unsupported belief - in other words, preaching, extoling faith without giving a reason to revere it or even indulge in it.

Because if you want to change a mind that does not believe by faith, you'll need to use sound argument. If you think any of those ideas are wrong and have a good reason, please give it. If not, we'll part ways in this discussion as I did in the one with the poster claiming that there are experts in faith, which I rebutted, and which rebuttal was ignored. I guess he expected me to believe him by faith.

 

[Sheldon]

I rather would say they are in denial.

I think you're in denial.

 

[Bird123]

Not so. A question may be an assumption. For example:

"Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

That is a very crude example that shows how a question can be an assumption. It is best not to ask leading questions if one can avoid it in a debate. If the person doing so is caught it does not look good for them.

If one asks: Have you quit beating your wife yet?, One might already have the fact that he is beating his wife. If not, the question is: Are you beating your wife?

The question: Are you beating your wife might step on some toes, however it is a valid question regardless of the reply.

 

[Sheldon]

If one asks: Have you quit beating your wife yet?, One might already have the fact that he is beating his wife. If not, the question is: Are you beating your wife?

The question: Are you beating your wife might step on some toes, however it is a valid question regardless of the reply.

Have you stopped misrepresenting atheism as a belief?

 

[Bird123]

My understanding is that the parameters of the test can sometimes negate the result, but that the effect has been demonstrated to be true. The link I gave explains why there are sometimes variable results.

Those pesky beliefs can lead one down the primrose path. That's why I do not value beliefs over Discovering the real truth. Sure, it takes much more work to Discover, however one acquires so much more than accepting those Beliefs.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

I wasn't referring to people. I was talking about the Qur'an - the book that exists for the sole purpose of defining Islam - that teaches hatred and demands fighting.

Don't you see? Even that book is about people. People created it.

In a multilevel classroom, one sees others learning lessons one has already learned. Is this a reason to hate?? Of course not. For those of us who must watch, it is a reminder of what the best choices really are. On the other hand, one can choose to work on the problem through education and pointing others in the right direction.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!