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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Weak atheism is a lack of position.

Agnostic atheism is the only rational possibility.

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

And takes just as long to dismiss. We understand the limits of knowledge.

 

[RedDragon94]

It means a lack of theism, that's something.

How is a lack of something, something?

 

[RedDragon94]

Regardless, the concept exists.

So does the concept of the Loch Ness monster.

 

[RedDragon94]

What do you mean by “relate” to theism? Why would atheism need to “relate” to theism?

In order to disprove it, it has to relate to it. Otherwise you don't know where you stand on the issue.

 

[RedDragon94]

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?

I'm not a cannibal but I know my relationship with cannibalism, we're not talking about dietary practices. We're talking about things we don't have axioms for or against. It's not obvious that there is a God, it's not obvious there isn't. All we know is that there's something instead of nothing.

An important question, what do we even mean by relate?

 

[RedDragon94]

I just show up late I guess.

 

[Terese]

So does the concept of the Loch Ness monster.

Proving the Lochness monster and proving one can be an atheist are two very different things.

 

[Kapalika]

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

Emphasis added.

You know, that's a good point I missed when I read the OP . I guess there is something useful in it after all!

 

[Valjean]

How is a lack of something, something?

It's a concept, like "empty" being lack of content or "colorless" being lack of color.

 

[qaz]

actually, atheism is not a lack of "position", but just a lack of theism. if someone will experimentally demonstrate the existence of god, an atheist will not hesitate to turn theist. it's about methodology, not specific beliefs. if i told you last night i slept with scarlett johansson, you'd ask me for evidence. if you accused me of having killed j. f. kennedy, i'd ask you for evidence. so, how does a theist distinguish true claims from the false ones? if you don't need for evidence to believe something, why wouldn't you believe me if i'd say the nucleus of earth is made of nutella?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm not a cannibal but I know my relationship with cannibalism, we're not talking about dietary practices. We're talking about things we don't have axioms for or against. It's not obvious that there is a God, it's not obvious there isn't. All we know is that there's something instead of nothing.

An important question, what do we even mean by relate?

I'm not a theist but I know my relationship with theism, we're not talking about "practices" of any kind, we were talking about logic - and how the OP's equation supposedly "worked" - but it doesn't. And we're talking about things I would argue that some of us do have axioms for or against. To me, it is pretty obvious that there is no God, it is definitely not obvious that there is. Atheists do not take the position that there is "nothing", obviously, so yeah, we agree that there is "something, not nothing" - and in my relating to theists, I usually simply like to ask "why make up stories about why there is 'something?'"

We're "relating" now, aren't we? I think it is pretty obvious that, regardless one's nuances in defining what it means to "relate", theists and atheists do so on some level quite often. And I would hardly say that the sum of our discourse "means nothing" as the OP seems to be stating. If it truly "meant nothing" then why does either side ever get in such a huff over the statements made by the other side?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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.

You totally missed the point.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

What do you mean by “relate” to theism? Why would atheism need to “relate” to theism?

Atheism certainly doesn’t carry as much meaning as a lot of people (for and against) would like to apply to it but it still has a clear meaning; Not believing in the existence of any god or gods.

But it inserts new gods even if they are not necessarily personified: money, the market, communism. I don't think we can escape theism of some sort, because we always have underlying premises or an ultimate reality that we presuppose. Alfred North Whitehead tried to get around this by proposing that such God took the form of the potentiality represented in the initial creation of the universe (he called it the primordial existence of God), from which all else derived and continues to derive. In the process there is an ongoing realization of potential, i.e., of God, in the constant transaction going on in every moment of everything with everything else in the universe -- my words). Whether that explains everything or nothing is another question, but many Christian theologians and more recently ecologists love it. It does explain many extremely difficult to penetrate volumes of writing that Whitehead invested in the topic. When he first started to present it at Harvard, the first lecture drew hundreds of eager listeners, the subsequent, seven. But subsequently, like the long unfolding of the universe, there has been a growing understanding and application of his ideas.

 

[Ponder This]

Agnostic atheism is the only rational possibility.

Multiple rational possibilities exist. The inclusion or exclusion of the Axiom of Choice doesn't make conclusions drawn more or less rational. It's not irrational to include the Axiom of Choice nor irrational to exclude it.

And takes just as long to dismiss. We understand the limits of knowledge.

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.

 

[HonestJoe]

But it inserts new gods even if they are not necessarily personified: money, the market, communism.

No it doesn't. Atheism only describes the lack of belief in any god or gods. Anything else, even if it is consequential of that, isn't intrinsically part of atheism. Also, the things you list aren't gods by any rational definition, even if you think some people treat them as such and, significantly, they exist entirely independently of any belief or non-belief in gods.

Lots of "bad" things get attributed to atheism and atheists because lots of people still want to present not believing in gods as being a bad thing.

I don't think we can escape theism of some sort, because we always have underlying premises or an ultimate reality that we presuppose.

I don't accept the underlying idea that theism is something "escaped" and I also don't accept that just because lots of things are erroneously attributed the title "God" means there in theism involved.

Like atheism, theism has a very specific and very minimalist (almost meaningless) definition. It is just the state of believing in a god or gods. Anything beyond that simple statement is beyond theism alone. Most of the time, I see little positive from referencing either term to be honest and certainly in places like this, as this thread demonstrates, that's sadly so often intentional.

 

[RedDragon94]

Proving the Lochness monster and proving one can be an atheist are two very different things.

Or maybe the concept is illusory.

 

[RedDragon94]

It's a concept, like "empty" being lack of content or "colorless" being lack of color.

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

 

[RedDragon94]

Atheists do not take the position that there is "nothing", obviously, so yeah, we agree that there is "something, not nothing" - and in my relating to theists, I usually simply like to ask "why make up stories about why there is 'something?'"

Simply because there is something and everything ought to require an explanation in order to be understood. And I think I see what you're saying. Maybe if the theist didn't rely on narrative quite so heavily and thought along the lines of philosophy things would be more understandable. The narrative is only a picture of what may or may not have happened.

 

[RedDragon94]

I think it is pretty obvious that, regardless one's nuances in defining what it means to "relate", theists and atheists do so on some level quite often.

But the question is do you relate properly.

 

[RedDragon94]

And I would hardly say that the sum of our discourse "means nothing" as the OP seems to be stating.

It means nothing because neither side proves a point.