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

[PureX]

They proclaim the theist's claim of God is insufficiently evidenced. Logic, not the atheist, holds that unevidenced things are assumed not to exist.

Actually, logic holds no such mandate.

We make this claim repeatedly because it seems to go in one ear and out the other. The theists seem unable to understand this.

Well, everyone but the atheist know it's BS. I guess that's why. Lack of evidence does not magically become evidence of lack just because you want it to.

My apologies if this nauseates you, but what are we to do, come over and hit you over the head? No, we just patiently keep trying to explain it to you.

And we just won't buy into the BS. I guess we're stubborn that way.

Perhaps you're annoyed because we don't step down or revise our opinions. But why should we?

I guess we just get tired of being lied to over and over and over again by people who are being completely illogical yet proclaiming themselves to be the epitome of logic.

 

[Sheldon]

Well, everyone but the atheist know it's BS. I guess that's why. Lack of evidence does not magically become evidence of lack just because you want it to.

Still trying to tell others what they think, and it's still nonsense.

And we just won't buy into the BS. I guess we're stubborn that way.

Now that is hilarious, irony?

I am an agnostic and an atheist, I don't believe any deity or deities exist, my atheism is not a belief, nor is it a worldview, and it certainly isn't a religion.

 

[Sheldon]

It is hard to imagine how one can have any evidence in support of a belief they do not have.

If there is no evidence to examine then I disbelieve the claim, it would however be illogical to claim or believe that something were untrue just because there were not contrary evidence.

Do you have evidence that disproves invisible unicorns? Yet one assumes you lack any belief in invisible unicorns, so without making an irrational bare appeal to numbers, what's the objective difference between atheism and ainvisibleunicornism? The only reason atheism has a word to describe it at all, is because of the all pervasive nature of religions.

Putting the same sort of issue differently, if one defines atheism in this manner (as a lack of a belief), then it follows that there exists no beliefs that atheists have which can distinguish them from theists.

No, not necessarily, as atheists can and do hold a belief no deity exists, defining atheism as the lack or absence of belief would include all atheists, even those who also hold a belief no deity exists. Defining atheism as a belief would exclude many atheists who hold no such belief.

Atheists and theists have compatible belief systems, because what would be the crucial distinguishing set of beliefs (namely, that atheists don't believe in god but theists do) is for atheists the empty set (they have no beliefs concerning god or "lack" any beliefs in/concerning/about god, and therefore have no beliefs about god that differentiate them from theists).

Well I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any deity or deities, but I don't hold a belief no deity exists, as in it's broadest sense such a god claim is unfalsifiable. I would be agnostic about unfalsifiable claims, but also disbelieve them, as I must.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is hard to imagine how one can have any evidence in support of a belief they do not have.

Agreed, just as it's hard to imagine how one can have a belief if they do not have supporting evidence. The proper correlation is, sufficient evidence leads to belief, insufficient evidence leads to the withholding of belief. The other two logical possibilities don't work - not believing in the face of sufficient evidence, and believing without it.

if one defines atheism in this manner (as a lack of a belief), then it follows that there exists no beliefs that atheists have which can distinguish them from theists.

Correct. The atheist is identified by one particular lack of belief, If you want to know if somebody is an atheist, ask him if he believes a god or gods exists. When he says "No," there's the lack of belief that is the sine qua non of atheism.

I guess we just get tired of being lied to over and over and over again by people who are being completely illogical yet proclaiming themselves to be the epitome of logic.

I feel your pain.

So your goal is to teach critical thinking to those who solely rely upon beliefs.

No, I'm not trying to teach critical thinking. I try to use it and only it when deciding what is true about the world, but it is learned not in Internet discussions, but through years of high level academic pursuit. You learn it in your first evolution class, when your professor lays out the evidence Darwin had and gives his conclusions and the reasoning leading to them. That's how it's learned.

And I rely solely on beliefs, as does everybody else. Some of those beliefs are held so strongly that I call them facts. To my knowledge, none are based in faith.

having religion is the best way for all the kiddies of this world to learn and grow. How many problems would never come out without religion? If the problems do not come out, they are very hard to solve.

I disagree with the first sentence. What kind of problems come out with religion, and how does religion help solve them? I just listed some problems caused by it:

"In the case of Christianity, it's pretty clear that they neither understand nor respect human beings, and create a ton of problems because of it. They tell people to not be gay. Not helpful. Generates self-loathing and homophobia. They tell priests to be celibate. That was a disaster. They recommend abstinence only. What'll we name the baby? They try to criminalize abortion, and where successful, unwanted baby's are born to those that don't hemorrhage to death in an alley or filthy clinic first. They describe humanity as weak and dependent on a god. They do violence to reason by praising faith as a higher virtue. Not helpful. It's practice for later in life when they believe other things by faith, such as that climate change is a hoax, or the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus, or that an American presidential election was stolen. That kind of thinking is the legacy of Sunday school."

What benefit can you show to offset all of that, and I mean a benefit that we need religion for? Universities, hospitals and food kitchens don't require religions. What does religion give us that we get nowhere else that is of sufficient value to offset all of that harm I described? Nowhere, which is why its disappearance is a net positive.

That's my argument. Here's a pile of harm from Christianity, the dominant religion in the West, and insufficient good to offset it. You can rebut it by showing me the good religion and only religion can provide, and explain why the negatives I described above aren't really negatives or are more than worth absorbing if you believe that. You can talk a critical thinker out of his antitheism if you can demonstrate that it is unjustified.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, everyone but the atheist know it's BS. I guess that's why. Lack of evidence does not magically become evidence of lack just because you want it to.

Not a fan of inductive reasoning, eh?

If you believe this, I trust that you're still keeping an eye on your birdfeeder for passenger pigeons, right? After all, they were only ever declared extinct because of a lack of evidence that there were any left alive.

 

[1213]

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....

Sorry, it was not very clearly said. I meant, by what I see, an atheist is in practice a person who says "any god does not exist".

 

[1213]

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.

Any source for that?

 

[1213]

Which is it?
...
- any god does not exist
...

It's that.

 

[1213]

...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 think agnostic is a person who does not believe either way, atheist is a person who actively denies it. With the current popular definition, I think atheist and agnostic are really the same thing.

 

[Sheldon]

an atheist is in practice a person who says "any god does not exist".

Not true, and I am an atheist, and have never made and do not make any such claim. There are many other atheists in this thread who share that position. Some people are inexplicably annoyed at that news, but I don't care. I get to decide what I do and do not believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's that.

So for someone to be an atheist, they would have to reject every god?

How would that work, exactly? Is it even humanly possible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any source for that?

You really should do some of your own homework. You could have easily Google searched this topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So for someone to be an atheist, they would have to reject every god?

How would that work, exactly? Is it even humanly possible?

It's a full time job, but someone has to do it.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Exactly. They aren't capable of atheism either. This is my point. They are no more atheists than a turnip is one.

 

[John53]

All hail the one true turnip.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

I don't believe that that particular duality, reflects all of reality. I believe there is a way to see them both as mirror reflections of each other, and that there is a way to see reality beyond those two points of view, a way that can see both as equally valid. Think roughly in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. They aren't capable of atheism either.

Nonsense.

This is my point. They are no more atheists than a turnip is one.

A baby is capable of being an atheist (i.e. someone who isn't a theist) as much as they're capable of being a civilian (i.e. someone who isn't in the military).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe that that particular duality, reflects all of reality. I believe there is a way to see them both as mirror reflections of each other, and that there is a way to see reality beyond those two points of view, a way that can see both as equally valid. Think roughly in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Care to rephrase in a way that actually answers the question?

 

[Sheldon]

Exactly. They aren't capable of atheism either. This is my point. They are no more atheists than a turnip is one.

One doesn't have to be capable of anything in order to lack a belief. Atheism encompasses all atheists and there are different types.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps the problem with many theists is jealousy. One does not have to do anything to be an atheist. The requirements are extremely low to be one. Where on does at least have to have an active belief to be a theist.