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

[Ben Dhyan]

Now fill in the blank with something that someone wouldn't do unless they believed this:

All is God, therefore, I will ______.

I do not understand what you are asking, can you rephrase it in a simpler form that may better help me understand?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I haven't read every post, but there is a certain amount of silliness in this thread. In sum, many are speaking as if "atheism" is a complete lack of belief -- not just in gods, but beliefs of all kinds. This is obvious rubbish. As an atheist, it is certainly true that I don't believe in magical sky-beings with beards, brass toes or lightning bolts. But I have a great many other beliefs, most of which are about human nature, human rights, how things work (when I can't prove them). Beliefs about what I can learn from others -- both with and without "expertise" or "special revelation." Like everybody else, I'm loaded with beliefs -- you can't be human without them. You can't cross the street without them, or cook your dinner, or read the newspaper, or even relate well to your own family.

So, to @syncretic , your thread is essentially meaningless, because you seem to be trying to assert (with no justification) that only theism can be the source of axioms from which to reason about beliefs. This is obviously nonsense.

 

[metis]

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

Then let me add two somethings that can add something: "infinity" + "change".

 

[Desert Snake]

So, to @syncretic , your thread is essentially meaningless, because you seem to be trying to assert (with no justification) that only theism can be the source of axioms from which to reason about beliefs. This is obviously nonsense.

This would mean that atheism actually means, a belief that there is no deity, or deities; not merely a lack of belief, in deity..So which is it?

They don't have the same meaning, and you can't use one word for both concepts.

 

[Ponder This]

See, I don't follow this at all. Why would an atheist necessarily live any differently from a theist? Save faith in God, they could be identical in every respect, it seems to me.

This takes us full circle back... a person says, "I am a weak atheist, but I live my life as if I were a strong atheist."
So either it's possible to live your life according to your particular set of beliefs or it's not possible. If it's not possible, then the person made a meaningless statement. What does he mean that he lives his life as if he were a strong atheists unless it's possible to live one's life according to a particular set of beliefs? If he can't it's nonsense, and if he can, then he's pretending.

 

[Ponder This]

you can even accept the existence of a god and reject claims that take that god as a given.

I stand corrected. My point is unaffected: the claims are not necessarily rejected.

I don't think any of my arguments have done that, so you're going to have to expand on this if you want me to understand what you're saying.

In that case, I guess we agree.

No, I'm really not. I'm arguing that there's a long logical chain from the premise "god exists" to any real-world implication, and along the way, the chain requires many other premises to work.

If that's your point, then I agree.

Okay - so your example was bad. Do you have any reasonable examples of how the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism should necessarily result in different behaviour?

Therefore, my example was fine.

And here is another example:

Raising your hand is an action.

You might think anyone who raises his hand is acting like anybody else that raises his hand, but... not so.
A crowd of people is sitting in a theater and the person on stage says, "Let's have a show of hands. How many of you are strong atheists?"
Now, what shall we infer from the actions of the people who raised their hands?

We shall infer that they are strong atheists. Maybe there are other factors, but there always are other factors. Living your life according to a particular set of beliefs means living your life according to them. The example I give eliminates a lot of potential factors, but, of course, no matter what particular example I give, I can never eliminate them all. So we infer that they are strong atheists, because that's how we expect that strong atheists would behave, that that's how they would live their life.

If, in this crowd of strong atheists, there is someone who is really a weak atheist, then we have to ask why he raised his hand as a strong atheist. It doesn't make sense. Why is he pretending to be a strong atheist if he is really a weak atheist? Something isn't right.

I don't follow. What does this mean?

Can beliefs determine behavior? Yes.
But we know that no two lives are identical.
Therefore, one's behavior pertains to oneself and this is what I meant what I said, "actions as compared to oneself". This is why a person can live his life according to a set of beliefs without us being able to point to particular examples.
When I talk about people who raise their hands, I could mean anyone. Particular behaviors always breakdown when examined. The same thing happens when we ask moral questions. There can be strong atheists who attend Church and theists who do not attend. This is possible. How do we know they are living according to their beliefs? We have to measure it against themselves. We can't measure it solely against others.

And if you say we can't, then we come right back to earlier in the thread: saying you "live like a strong atheist" is a meaningless statement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And here is another example:

Raising your hand is an action.

You might think anyone who raises his hand is acting like anybody else that raises his hand, but... not so.
A crowd of people is sitting in a theater and the person on stage says, "Let's have a show of hands. How many of you are strong atheists?"
Now, what shall we infer from the actions of the people who raised their hands?

We shall infer that they are strong atheists. Maybe there are other factors, but there always are other factors. Living your life according to a particular set of beliefs means living your life according to them. The example I give eliminates a lot of potential factors, but, of course, no matter what particular example I give, I can never eliminate them all. So we infer that they are strong atheists, because that's how we expect that strong atheists would behave, that that's how they would live their life.

If, in this crowd of strong atheists, there is someone who is really a weak atheist, then we have to ask why he raised his hand as a strong atheist. It doesn't make sense. Why is he pretending to be a strong atheist if he is really a weak atheist? Something isn't right.

Does this scenario happen much to you? I've never seen it, personally.

I'd wager that the vast majority of people go through their entire lives without ever being directly asked if they're strong atheists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let's say a weak atheist (as in someone who lack belief in a god or gods) reads about prayer to gods in a book. He might think: well, I don't really believe in these gods but I also don't disbelieve in them either: how about I try this prayer thing out. Let's compare that to a strong atheist (as in someone who believes a god or gods does not exist). He reads the same book and thinks what's the point of this prayer thing: these gods don't exist.

You seem to be arguing that a weak atheist is being deceptive if he doesn't test prayer. Why would a weak atheist have to keep testing prayer to not be deceptive? He teats it at some point in his life as is the likely the case with the strong atheist on the road to deciding that gods do not exist, and now neither of them tests prayer, yet another example of a weak atheist living life as a strong atheist would.

So in this example, different beliefs lead to different behaviors.

Not necessarily. You haven't made the case that different beliefs must lead to different behaviors, only that different beliefs might lead to different behaviors. Neither type of atheist is praying or doing anything else that allows you to distinguish one type of atheist from the other. Unless they volunteered their thoughts on the matter, you'd pretty much have to ask these two types of atheists what they believe to be able to tell them apart.

Raising your hand is an action.

You might think anyone who raises his hand is acting like anybody else that raises his hand, but... not so.
A crowd of people is sitting in a theater and the person on stage says, "Let's have a show of hands. How many of you are strong atheists?"
Now, what shall we infer from the actions of the people who raised their hands?

We shall infer that they are strong atheists. Maybe there are other factors, but there always are other factors. Living your life according to a particular set of beliefs means living your life according to them. The example I give eliminates a lot of potential factors, but, of course, no matter what particular example I give, I can never eliminate them all. So we infer that they are strong atheists, because that's how we expect that strong atheists would behave, that that's how they would live their life.

If, in this crowd of strong atheists, there is someone who is really a weak atheist, then we have to ask why he raised his hand as a strong atheist. It doesn't make sense. Why is he pretending to be a strong atheist if he is really a weak atheist? Something isn't right.

This would be the only action that could reliably distinguish honest weak and strong atheists, and you might have to cause it yourself by asking the question as your example illustrates. If that's the case, their lives could otherwise be identical before and after answering you question, and there would be no deception nor need there be any lack of authenticity in either life.

 

[Ponder This]

This would be the only action that could reliably distinguish honest weak and strong atheists

Either they are honest or they are lying. They can't claim to be one thing but live their lives as if they were something else. It doesn't make sense unless they are lying.

Does this scenario happen much to you? I've never seen it, personally.

I'd wager that the vast majority of people go through their entire lives without ever being directly asked if they're strong atheists.

their lives could otherwise be identical before and after answering you question, and there would be no deception nor need there be any lack of authenticity in either life.

The claim is that unless they are tested you wouldn't know. But that's just it, if you choose not to look, of course you don't see anything. If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to witness it fall, it doesn't mean the tree didn't fall. Just because we don't test people on their beliefs doesn't mean they are being honest. We assume honesty unless presented with a reason to think otherwise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Either they are honest or they are lying. They can't claim to be one thing but live their lives as if they were something else. It doesn't make sense unless they are lying.




The claim is that unless they are tested you wouldn't know. But that's just it, if you choose not to look, of course you don't see anything. If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to witness it fall, it doesn't mean the tree didn't fall. Just because we don't test people on their beliefs doesn't mean they are being honest. We assume honesty unless presented with a reason to think otherwise.

I think it's safe to say that at this point, we're so far off the rails that we've completely lost sight of your original point.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This would mean that atheism actually means, a belief that there is no deity, or deities; not merely a lack of belief, in deity..So which is it?

They don't have the same meaning, and you can't use one word for both concepts.

I don't for the life of me understand why theists are so bound up in torturing this argument they way they do. It seems, when it comes to God believe, there is only one option for them. For everything else, of course, there are lots of options.

Look, I do not happen to believe there's a Ferrari among the millions of objects in the rings of Saturn. It's actually (barely) possible that one could have been sent there -- we've certainly sent other objects out into our solar system -- by some government under deep secrecy. The thing of it is, though, that I doubt that Ferrari's orbit of Saturn to a sufficient degree that I do not count as anything to which I give further consideration.

Do you see this? Because I don't believe there's a Ferrari orbiting Saturn is NOT the same thing as believing that there is NO Ferrari orbiting Saturn.

We humans do this all the time. There are a million things that we don't give much credit to, and therefore don't pay much attention to, without needing to ascribe some sort of "Negative Belief System" to them. We just don't care, because we judge them so unlikely.

Same thing with deities. I don't happen to think the existence of any deity that I have had described to me is likely. I think that likelihood so doubtful that I no longer pay attention. That does NOT mean I DO NOT BELIEVE there are no "gods." Just that I've never seen anything to suggest there might be such a thing. So I spend no further effort worrying about it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Same thing with deities. I don't happen to think the existence of any deity that I have had described to me is likely.

Ok, I presume you believe the universe is real, as a pantheist, I understand this real universe as being the one God. This cosmic deity is responsible for all that happens, nothing happens ever that does not involve this deity, for there is nothing else in existence other than this deity. All is God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok, I presume you believe the universe is real, as a pantheist, I understand this real universe as being the one God. This cosmic deity is responsible for all that happens, nothing happens ever that does not involve this deity, for there is nothing else in existence other than this deity. All is God.

Fine. But what does that MEAN? If you were, albeit catastrophically, convinced suddenly that your pantheist view were wrong, how would that change you? How would it alter your view of the world, life, money, wife, children, friends, enemies, tomatoes or horticulture?

Don't you see that when you say that "nothing happens ever that does not involve this deity" is 100% meaningless until you specify what exactly that involvement entails? "I ate breakfast this morning -- I couldnt' have done that without a deity?" Okay, why not, and how not?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok, I presume you believe the universe is real, as a pantheist, I understand this real universe as being the one God. This cosmic deity is responsible for all that happens, nothing happens ever that does not involve this deity, for there is nothing else in existence other than this deity. All is God.

Fine. But what does that MEAN? If you were, albeit catastrophically, convinced suddenly that your pantheist view were wrong, how would that change you? How would it alter your view of the world, life, money, wife, children, friends, enemies, tomatoes or horticulture?

Don't you see that when you say that "nothing happens ever that does not involve this deity" is 100% meaningless until you specify what exactly that involvement entails? "I ate breakfast this morning -- I couldnt' have done that without a deity?" Okay, why not, and how not?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Fine. But what does that MEAN? If you were, albeit catastrophically, convinced suddenly that your pantheist view were wrong, how would that change you? How would it alter your view of the world, life, money, wife, children, friends, enemies, tomatoes or horticulture?

Don't you see that when you say that "nothing happens ever that does not involve this deity" is 100% meaningless until you specify what exactly that involvement entails? "I ate breakfast this morning -- I couldnt' have done that without a deity?" Okay, why not, and how not?

I do not do hypothetical 'what ifs', I deal with reality in the here and now, as it is, understand?

There is nothing that happens in, to, or of the universe that is caused by something that does not exist, understand?

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't for the life of me understand why theists are so bound up in torturing this argument they way they do. It seems, when it comes to God believe, there is only one option for them. For everything else, of course, there are lots of options.

Look, I do not happen to believe there's a Ferrari among the millions of objects in the rings of Saturn. It's actually (barely) possible that one could have been sent there -- we've certainly sent other objects out into our solar system -- by some government under deep secrecy. The thing of it is, though, that I doubt that Ferrari's orbit of Saturn to a sufficient degree that I do not count as anything to which I give further consideration.

Do you see this? Because I don't believe there's a Ferrari orbiting Saturn is NOT the same thing as believing that there is NO Ferrari orbiting Saturn.

We humans do this all the time. There are a million things that we don't give much credit to, and therefore don't pay much attention to, without needing to ascribe some sort of "Negative Belief System" to them. We just don't care, because we judge them so unlikely.

Same thing with deities. I don't happen to think the existence of any deity that I have had described to me is likely. I think that likelihood so doubtful that I no longer pay attention. That does NOT mean I DO NOT BELIEVE there are no "gods." Just that I've never seen anything to suggest there might be such a thing. So I spend no further effort worrying about it.

I dont define my beliefs with the word "theism". It is too broad in meaning to have any practical usage or meaning. These words as labels is ultimately your problem.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sadness. Two posts, both essentially saying "I can't think outside of my paradigm."

I do not do hypothetical 'what ifs', I deal with reality in the here and now, as it is, understand?

There is nothing that happens in, to, or of the universe that is caused by something that does not exist, understand?

Yes. The billiard ball doesn't move without the impact of the cue ball. Show me God.

The "here and now" includes cancer, tsunamis, death by a slew of horrible illnesses. Show me God.

I dont define my beliefs with the word "theism". It is too broad in meaning to have any practical usage or meaning. These words as labels is ultimately your problem.

Then stop using the word "atheism" as if it were any less broad. Stop ducking behind sophistries.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sadness. Two posts, both essentially saying "I can't think outside of my paradigm."

Yes. The billiard ball doesn't move without the impact of the cue ball. Show me God.

The "here and now" includes cancer, tsunamis, death by a slew of horrible illnesses. Show me God.

Thought is not involved in apprehending that existence exists, what is there to think about?

Billiard balls are aspects of the one universe, along with the infinite other apparent aspects. The universe is the one that is all.

Haha....the word mortal should tell you something.....all manifested aspects of the one are finite, they have beginnings and endings, that is the real nature of the eternal universe, nothing but God is eternal.

 

[Ponder This]

I think it's safe to say that at this point, we're so far off the rails that we've completely lost sight of your original point.

We actually didn't go that far, IMO.
My original proposal was that "lack of belief" wasn't as interesting as "disbelief".

I did learn some things though.
I refined my understanding of belief into multiple sense of the word.
Conviction: implies a certainty or firmness of belief.
You can surmise or suspect something, which implies an lack of certainty, but not a lack of belief.
You can believe something without knowledge or evidence.
You can lack belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We actually didn't go that far, IMO.
My original proposal was that "lack of belief" wasn't as interesting as "disbelief".

That depends, since the terms overlap. If I disbelieve in the existence of something, I also lack belief in its existence.

I did learn some things though.
I refined my understanding of belief into multiple sense of the word.
Conviction: implies a certainty or firmness of belief.
You can surmise or suspect something, which implies an lack of certainty, but not a lack of belief.

Suspicion does not necessarily imply belief in the thing being suspected.