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

[Valjean]

True, it may be a concept. But it is rather impractical to believe in nothing isn't it?

Who's trying to be practical? It's just a lack of belief. It only comes up when theists start sniping at or misrepresenting atheism.

 

[Milton Platt]

Theism
(Y)=/=( )


Atheism
( )=/=(?)

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

Interesting, since theists are the ones who originally invoked the word.

 

[HonestJoe]

True, it may be a concept. But it is rather impractical to believe in nothing isn't it?

Who said anything bout believing in nothing? Just because I'm not wearing a hat doesn't mean I'm naked.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the agnostic view, it cannot be known. Therefore, it cannot be dismissed. To say it is definitely not the case that there is no god would mean that it can be known that there is a god.

That is pretty much why I don't like using the label agnostic around most people. Of course an agnostic wouldn't entirely dismiss the idea of god, but I wouldn't be too surprised if the bulk of us feel more confident about the existence of intelligent life on other planets than some sort of deity.

 

[Desert Snake]

That is pretty much why I don't like using the label agnostic around most people. Of course an agnostic wouldn't entirely dismiss the idea of god, but I wouldn't be too surprised if the bulk of us feel more confident about the existence of intelligent life on other planets than some sort of deity.

Therefore, you prefer a confusing and innacurate description of your belief/lack thereof?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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?

I think I understand what you mean, but disagree that we attack any gods. We reject all god claims for lack of evidence. We don't generally begin to discuss any particular god until a believer makes some claim such as "God is good" or "God is omniscient but grants free will." Such ideas are easily refuted, but wouldn't be discussed at all were it not for some claim that doesn't bear scrutiny.

Gods like Brahman don't get our attention because adherents believing in such gods aren't trying to impose irrational dicta on others through the government such as trying to criminalize abortion or revoke same sex marriage as an option. Most such adherents seem like decent people searching for answers personally, and their religion seems to be a positive force in their lives.

What does Brahman think about teaching creationism in the public schools?

[answer assumed]

Yeah, me neither.

How about Zeus and Brigit, both of whom still have worshipers? When all religions are as polite neighbors as those, antitheists will cease to have a reason to exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the agnostic view, it cannot be known. Therefore, it cannot be dismissed. To say it is definitely not the case that there is no god would mean that it can be known that there is a god.

I am the commonest kind of atheist - the agnostic atheist. Being a rational skeptic, I need a reason to believe anything. I am an atheist because nobody has provided a reason to believe in gods, and I can't find one myself. I am agnostic for the same reason: I need a reason to believe that there are no gods, something I also lack. As I indicated earlier, I have no test, observation, measurement, argument, or algorithm to rule all gods out. I have no way to rule out the possibility of the existence of a god that cannot be found. I also have no reason to think about it more than that or to life as if gods exist.

So if by saying that gods cannot be dismissed you mean that they can't be ruled out, I agree. But gods have been dismissed from my life. I live as if they don't exist, exactly as somebody who makes the positive claim that gods definitely do not exist. No other position is rational or justifiable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But it is rather impractical to believe in nothing isn't it?

That depends upon what is meant by believing in. I use the phrase for faith based beliefs. When a belief is justified, I say that I believe it, not believe in it. By that reckoning, I have beliefs, but to my knowledge, believe in nothing.

I agree that it is impractical - probably impossible - to believe nothing, but not impractical to believe in nothing.

Is that relevant to your comment and your intended meaning?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

if i told you last night i slept with scarlett johansson, you'd ask me for evidence.

Preferably photographic. Let me know when the zip file is ready and I'll give you my email.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

True, it may be a concept. But it is rather impractical to believe in nothing isn't it?

Atheists believe in lots of things. But they don't believe in theism. Hence, atheist.

 

[Windwalker]

I think I understand what you mean, but disagree that we attack any gods.

Not all atheists do, of course. I'm not sure what I said that gave that impression, but I should correct that if I did.

We reject all god claims for lack of evidence. We don't generally begin to discuss any particular god until a believer makes some claim such as "God is good" or "God is omniscient but grants free will."

On the former claim that "God is good", I'm not sure why that in and of itself would merit a challenge? It's not per se making some sort of truth claim for others, but possibly an expression of personal experience. "Swimming is fun", doesn't warrant a "prove it" challenge. Of course if it did, then the proof would be having the experience yourself. For the latter claim, that is making a statement about how this God "works", which now makes that something objective. Even then, it would depend on what they are trying to prove, if anything, by expressing that way of thinking about it.

Such ideas are easily refuted, but wouldn't be discussed at all were it not for some claim that doesn't bear scrutiny.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying no one would say "God is good" if they weren't intending it to challenge science, or something? There would be no other reasons why they might choose to say that?

Gods like Brahman don't get our attention because adherents believing in such gods aren't trying to impose irrational dicta on others through the government such as trying to criminalize abortion or revoke same sex marriage as an option. Most such adherents seem like decent people searching for answers personally, and their religion seems to be a positive force in their lives.

What does Brahman think about teaching creationism in the public schools?

[answer assumed]

Yeah, me neither.

You assumed answer is correct. Yes, it's when people have some agenda to impose on others that their truth claims they use as justification for their actions, then yes, time for scrutiny! I'm right there with you.

An technically... Brahman doesn't "think" like a Jehova type deity. Brahman isn't a deity. Brahma on the other hand is.. Brahman is technically "Godhead", the divine essence, or being. And being doesn't have to do with being a person, like Jesus or something.

How about Zeus and Brigit, both of whom still have worshipers? When all religions are as polite neighbors as those, antitheists will cease to have a reason to exist.

So then, to my point. Anti-theists aren't technically anti-theism. If they were, they'd hate all god-beliefs no matter what form they'd take. What you described is what I said. They are anti-idiots. It's anti-fundamentalism. Not anti-theism. You see my point? Am I missing something?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Atheists believe in lots of things. But they don't believe in theism. Hence, atheist.

You must though have some idea of what theism stands for in order to reject it as your belief, it makes no sense to disbelieve in in something you haven't a clue what it is, yes?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You must though have some idea of what theism stands for in order to reject it as your belief, it makes no sense to disbelieve in in something you haven't a clue what it is, yes?

For me personally, that is true. I'd tend to think of it (atheism) more as simply the absence of theism, but to be honest the semantics dont interest me too much.

 

[Valjean]

You must though have some idea of what theism stands for in order to reject it as your belief, it makes no sense to disbelieve in in something you haven't a clue what it is, yes?

But that's just the point. Atheism, per se, is not a rejection of anything. Those who were raised entirely innocent of theism are atheists, indeed, we're born atheists and only later, sometimes, acquire a knowledge of theism.
You're thinking of what they call 'strong' atheism, which is a subset of the essential, fundamental atheism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

For me personally, that is true. I'd tend to think of it (atheism) more as simply the absence of theism, but to be honest the semantics dont interest me too much.

Understand, it is the semantics though that creates all the fun..

 

[LuisDantas]

So much attention wasted with such a meaningless thing as theism...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But that's just the point. Atheism, per se, is not a rejection of anything. Those who were raised entirely innocent of theism are atheists, indeed, we're born atheists and only later, sometimes, acquire a knowledge of theism.
You're thinking of what they call 'strong' atheism, which is a subset of the essential, fundamental atheism.

Newly born human beings have no understanding of the conceptual understanding of philosophy or religion, so it is not reasonable to say all babies are born automatically belonging to the particular conceptual subset of human belief systems known as atheism. Imho, we are all born free of the concepts of atheism and theism, and not withstanding the parental and cultural conditioning environment we are raised in, we will ultimately decide for ourselves what our goal is in life is, which goal may transcend all such simplistic dualistic conceptual categories.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So much attention wasted with such a meaningless thing as theism...

...and atheism.

 

[Valjean]

Newly born human beings have no understanding of the conceptual understanding of philosophy or religion, so it is not reasonable to say all babies are born automatically belonging to the particular conceptual subset of human belief systems known as atheism. Imho, we are all born free of the concepts of atheism and theism, and not withstanding the parental and cultural conditioning environment we are raised in, we will ultimately decide for ourselves what our goal is in life is, which goal may transcend all such simplistic dualistic conceptual categories.

Atheism is not a conceptual set. It's an empty set, a set lacking a certain concept.

 

[LuisDantas]

...and atheism.

I long for the day when there is no longer need for a concept of atheism.

It would be so easy, too.