Atheism refutes itself by definition. (Y)=/=( ), ( )=/=(?)

[lewisnotmiller]

Now you are getting it. This is why it's silly when theists say 'atheists believe this or that'. Atheism is a null set.

Yup, agreed. For some reason it irritates me even more when atheists say it. Like we/they should know better.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Atheism cannot relate to theism if it simply means a lack of theism. With no qualifier, it means nothing.

Just replace "atheism" with "non-cannibals" and "theism" with "cannibals" in your pair of sentences above:

"Non-cannibals cannot relate to cannibals if it simply means a lack of cannibalism. With no qualifier, it means nothing."

Does that sound right to you?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Theism
(Y)=/=( )


Atheism
( )=/=(?)

Heat (T)=/=(_)
Cold (_)=/=(?)

Good news everyone! Turns out you're not actually cold, you're just in denial of heat!

 

[Nakosis]

Theism
(Y)=/=( )


Atheism
( )=/=(?)

Atheism cannot relate to theism if it simply means a lack of theism. With no qualifier, it means nothing.

I think the proper equation would be

( )=/=(Y)

 

[viole]

Theism
(Y)=/=( )


Atheism
( )=/=(?)

Atheism cannot relate to theism if it simply means a lack of theism. With no qualifier, it means nothing.

Is the relation =/= symmetrical?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ponder This]

Weak atheism is a lack of position. It says nothing about the existence or lack of existence of gods. It is almost not worth discussing because it offers so very little to discuss. It neither agrees nor disagrees with theism or strong atheism. It probably shouldn't even fall under the term atheism because it implies an opposition that does not exist.

Strong atheism (like theism) offers a clear statement to discuss.

 

[leibowde84]

Theism
(Y)=/=( )


Atheism
( )=/=(?)

Atheism cannot relate to theism if it simply means a lack of theism. With no qualifier, it means nothing.

There is no reason why it would have to "relate to theism" in the way you describe. It merely means "without a belief in God or gods". What's the problem with that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheism cannot relate to theism if it simply means a lack of theism.

You're doing language wrong, let alone logic.

 

[suncowiam]

I think the following equation sums it up better.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think 'nontheistic' is a more apt way to describe it than something which actively rejects theism.

By actively rejecting theism, you probably mean asserting that gods cannot or do not exist. Very few atheists do that. We understand that we have no test, observation, measurement, argument, or algorithm to rule all gods out, although we can rule specific gods out of they are logically impossible like married bachelors.

That should be called something else, such as anti-theist.

An antitheist is somebody that considers some aspect of religion harmful and prefers that there be less of it in the world. It's not a good word for that purpose since it's too broad, but it's the one that people use. I think that most antitheists are anti-Abrahamists - we don't have much problem with the dharmic religions - and our objection is not to personal religion, but to organized, politicized religion.

Even anti-Abrahamist may be a little too broad inasmuch as the Jews don't seem to be a problem to many anti-theists. It's really an objection to the Christians and Muslims trying to run the lives of non-Christians and non-Muslims based on their religious dogma.

Penguin posted this link on another thread: Religion increasingly seen as doing more harm than good in Canada: Ipsos poll : "Just over half of Canadian respondents say they believe religion does more harm than good in the world, according to a new survey."

Canada is now officially mostly antitheistic.

Incidentally, if anybody is interested: ≠

 

[Shadow Wolf]

it means nothing.

Your equation means nothing, as you can fill it with any binary or non-similar variables. If anything, with a bit of a adjusting it would be a nerdy way of creating an "anti-binary/duality" symbol.

More important to this conversation is the fact that you've not supplied us with an equation for how you determined the existence of (Y).

YAY MATH (and me not have to explain it )!

Yup, agreed. For some reason it irritates me even more when atheists say it. Like we/they should know better.

I suspect when an atheist says it, is a reflection of the privileged position of theists in general, specifically Christians (hearing "at you believe in something" makes me cringe, and why IRL I avoid using labels to describe myself like the plague because people automatically assume too much and get the wrong idea). Grammatically it does suggest atheism in an active believe, in the sense that a theist active believes in their religion, but socially/culturally the default is assumed that people are theist. It's heard common enough that you believe, that suddenly in speech an atheist "believes."
I hate bringing up the word "privilege" in here, but I've seen Christian privilege effect people in other ways.

 

[Segev Moran]

Theism
(Y)=/=( )


Atheism
( )=/=(?)

Atheism cannot relate to theism if it simply means a lack of theism. With no qualifier, it means nothing.

Your equations are all wrong

it should be:

Theism:

X + Y + X +A + B + T + I + H + G = GOD

Atheism (usually)

X + Y + X +A + B + T + I + H + G = ?

 

[Underhill]

Now you are getting it. This is why it's silly when theists say 'atheists believe this or that'. Atheism is a null set.

Atheism doesn't mean we don't believe in anything, only that we don't believe in a deity.

Everyone believes in stuff. Some of us simply prefer those beliefs to be based in science and reasoning as much as possible.

The problem with religion (or at least the christian version, although I think they are all similar) is that faith is the evidence for belief.

 

[ChristineM]

Not spotting trains is not a hobby

 

[Desert Snake]

I think the proper equation would be

( )=/=(Y)

Yes, for what atheism actually is. A belief that there is no deity(ies).

 

[Valjean]

Yes, for what atheism actually is. A belief that there is no deity(ies).

Are you not reading the posts, or just not understanding them?

 

[Desert Snake]

Heck by definition anyone who doesn't know about the concept of a god is automatically an atheist by definition. So that defeats your argument anyway.

That would actually be: (0)==(0), which isn't atheism, as atheism presupposes you already know what you have disbelief about.


The problem is the word, (atheism), which is why it is contradicting descriptors etc.

 

[ChristineM]

Incidentally, if anybody is interested: ≠

See also

!=

 

[YmirGF]

Then it seems to me that you should point out how shallow the idea of theism is, instead.

Oh, @LuisDantas I think he has proven how shallow theists can be already with the OP. And they wonder why we point and laugh at them.

 

[Windwalker]

An antitheist is somebody that considers some aspect of religion harmful and prefers that there be less of it in the world. It's not a good word for that purpose since it's too broad, but it's the one that people use. I think that most antitheists are anti-Abrahamists - we don't have much problem with the dharmic religions - and our objection is not to personal religion, but to organized, politicized religion.

Even anti-Abrahamist may be a little too broad inasmuch as the Jews don't seem to be a problem to many anti-theists. It's really an objection to the Christians and Muslims trying to run the lives of non-Christians and non-Muslims based on their religious dogma.

I was thinking anti-religionist, but that would target the dharmic religions too. What you are really describing here is what I would say as an overall accurate description, is anti-fundamentalism. By fundamentalism I'm targeting anti-rational, anti-intellectual forms of specific America Protestant Christianity and its various exports to other countries, or right-wing Evangelicals as a bucket term.

In all honesty, I see "atheism" as specifically saying "not that God". When people think atheism, they normally take that as a rejection of the literal anthropomorphic deity of fundamentalist Christianity, or more generally mythic-Christianity. You don't typically hear atheists attacking Brahman, for instance. Or Buddha-Mind, or the like. I prefer the term anti-fundamentalist, personally. It leaves questions of "God" off the table, since what's wrong with Brahman, really? It targets instead idiocy, and "God" in that context symbolizes that.

Make sense?