Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[Eliot Wild]

Now, you view atheism as a lack of belief which in itself is a belief. Had I known that it would take 13 threads and 122 posts to get this point across I wouldn't of even bothered.

I think the reason people are so unwilling to accept your position on this matter is because--no offense--you are simply wrong. That's why you may feel as if you are not getting through. It is like trying to tell people that Michael Jordan is Asian or Tom Cruise is black. You can make such claims in 14 threads and 123 posts, and people will still reject it.

Lack of belief is not belief, at least it doesn't have to be. It is that simple.

Let me try to explain this through example ... If someone were to ask if I believed whether or not you, Orias, are a seriel killer who likes to bite the fuzzy heads off of living kittens, I would be forced to say, I don't know. I hold no belief on that matter because I don't know Orias outside of an internet religious forum where we interact on occassion discussing and debating items of religion and philosophy. I have no idea whether or not you are a serial killer or if you like the taste of raw kitty-cat. Personally, I like cat served well-done with a light lemon-pepper sauce. But hey, that's just me.

But my lack of belief about your criminal tendencies or your taste for cat does NOT equate to a belief. I simply hold no belief on the matter due to lack of convincing proof one way or the other. If you tell me you're not a serial killer who eats kittens, then I will believe you. But until then, I hold no belief on the matter. That is what it means to be an atheist when the issue is gods' existence.

 

[Civil Shephard]

OK so... lets see... If I became an atheist today I'd have to chose from atheist who don't believe in God to athiest who only chose not to believe in God to atheist who don't believe in one god over another god to atheist who don't agree on what atheism is and how it should be defined.

wow... lotta denominations of atheist huh? It's so confusing... it kinda reminds me of being a Christian in a way. Never knowing which kind of Christian Church is right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course disbelief is a belief, you belief that you are right.

Do you believe that I had eggs for breakfast this morning?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

That's because most atheists down right tell me that they believe in nothing, that morals are subjected to one's view points and are highly irrelative to even existence.

Do me a favor, define (in your own words) exactly what "belief in nothing" entails. I have my doubts that any atheist ever actually spoke those words.

It's wrong to say that most atheists agree that a God exists and a God doesn't exists, because the label insists that no God's exist. Unless your telling me that the dictionary doesn't know what atheism is of course.

If that were so much the case then they wouldn't be atheists, merely agnostic or gnostic.

I had to deal with this same misconception earlier.

(regarding the dictionary definition of Atheism as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God")

Nice, except for the fact that most atheists don't define it that way.

In fact, ask any atheist who says that they don't believe in god, "So you're saying that you believe no god exists." and the response you're most likely to get is, "That's not what I said."

Sure, some atheists take the position that a god absolutely does not (and cannot) exist but these "strong atheists" are rare (at least in my experience). Most of the atheists I've encountered are "weak atheists". They don't take the stance that a god absolutely does not exist, but simply that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief in one. The latter happens to be my stance as well.

If you wish to use the narrowest definition, that's your choice. However, you'll basically be using the exception as the rule.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

(And dealing with Agnosticism as opposed to Atheism)

Agnosticism is a position of knowledge. Atheism is a position of belief.

"I don't know for certain whether or not a god exists (Agnostic), however I see no reason to believe in one (Atheist)."

I understand, one can be an atheistic buddhist, whose principals applies not in appealing to a God, but to the self. But the point of the matter is, atheism is a viewpoint that subjects itself to a belief, be it a lack of belief or down right denial, it is still the way one views things, that's the point I have been trying to make this whole time.

If that's what you've been trying to say then why have you been using the word "belief"? "Worldview" would work much better in getting your point across. Your point would still be wrong, mind you, but it would get across easier.

As I said before, Atheism is not a belief and it's not a worldview. Atheism is not how people "view things". Atheism is a singular position on a singular issue. It's about a person's stance on the existence or non-existence of god(s), nothing else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK so... lets see... If I became an atheist today I'd have to chose from atheist who don't believe in God to athiest who only chose not to believe in God to atheist who don't believe in one god over another god to atheist who don't agree on what atheism is and how it should be defined.

wow... lotta denominations of atheist huh? It's so confusing... it kinda reminds me of being a Christian in a way. Never knowing which kind of Christian Church is right.

It's kinda like how each Christian has to decide whether he's the sort of Christian who roots for the Yankees or the Red Sox, or whether he's the sort of Christian who prefers Italian food or sushi... or whether he's the sort of Christian who changes his own oil or brings his car in somewhere.

It's almost like the terms "atheist" and "Christian" describe only a small part of that person and allow all sorts of variation in other respects, isn't it?

 

[Alceste]

To correct you, apatheism is "pragmatic" atheism. So you are a non-theist, as opposed to be a theist.

You don't get to "correct" others on what they are or are not. Sorry. If there's one subject on which I am the world's foremost authority, it is my own beliefs.

But it is nihilistic, because it assumes no God, nothingness, no purpose. Strong, weak, implicit, explicit, they are all words used to describe and sugar up the purpose of nothingness.

You're adding completely unnecessary baggage to the word. Atheism has nothing whatever to do with "purpose". It only has to do with whether or not a belief in god or gods is part of one's world view. When it is not, that person is an atheist.

Nihilism is something else entirely.

Now, you view atheism as a lack of belief which in itself is a belief. Had I known that it would take 13 threads and 122 posts to get this point across I wouldn't of even bothered.

You can spend your entire life trying to get this particular point across, and you still won't succeed. Why? Because it is not rational: just as non-belief in "god" does not equate to belief in "no god", a dislike of black does not equate to a preference for white. Rejection of one silly proposition is not implicit acceptance of it's diametrical opposite. You're not the first theist who has attempted to make that very same point here and failed. This particular "debate" is endless. Theists always come out on your side, and atheists always come out on mine. The question is, which group is more likely to hold valid insights into the beliefs of an average atheist?

 

[Eliot Wild]

OK so... lets see... If I became an atheist today I'd have to chose from atheist who don't believe in God to athiest who only chose not to believe in God to atheist who don't believe in one god over another god to atheist who don't agree on what atheism is and how it should be defined.

wow... lotta denominations of atheist huh? It's so confusing... it kinda reminds me of being a Christian in a way. Never knowing which kind of Christian Church is right.

Yeah, it is amazing isn't it? When we actually take the time to try and understand and deal with each other fairly, rather than automatically and ceremoniously boxing-up one another with neat, albeit ill-defined labels, we come to maybe realize our own preconceived notions should be revisited.

It is no surpise to me when a person claims to be an atheist, that many theists make undue, unfair, erroneous assumptions about them. And vice-versa. It is much easier to place everyone unlike yourself into a handy-dandy little cubby hole. "Oh, those folks are atheists--they're all alike and they're not like us."

"Us and them." It is at the core of many flawed perceptions, observations and thoughts.

It is a bit harder to accept, perhaps even shocking for some people, to admit that not all "labels" can be so neatly attached as they once thought.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't understand the point of nitpicking over semantics and labels when someone is telling you what their actual position is. A label which doesn't accurately describe what it is attempting to, is rather useless.

Unless, of course, your position relies on needing to believe others' positions are what you say they are, despite what the reality is. In that case, why bother going through the motions of discussing it?

 

[cmsweet]

Pascal's Wager anyone?

 

[Thief]

IF there is an afterlife, you're going to be reincarnated as a cockroach living on a garbage heap in a slum in Mumbai due to all the bad karma you've racked up attempting (and failing) to add to the sum total of suffering in the world by threatening people who don't share your rather silly world view. So there.

I don't rule out reincarnation.
It's good for those who need a second chance to come to their senses.
So there.

And I wasn't professing a world view.

Only that moment when you lay down to surrender your last breath.

You will go on...or not.

And it may not be your option.

So there.... again.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Of course disbelief is a belief, you belief that you are right.

Okay, let's say that was true. A belief in whether someone is correct or not has nothing to do with dieties at all. A belief that one is correct is neither atheistic nor theistic.

 

[Alceste]

I don't rule out reincarnation.
It's good for those who need a second chance to come to their senses.
So there.

And I wasn't professing a world view.

Only that moment when you lay down to surrender your last breath.

You will go on...or not.

And it may not be your option.

So there.... again.

I wonder if you realize how silly your threats of disapproving angels and disappointed sky daddies appear to a non-believer. Imagine a child telling you solemnly that if you unlatch your belly button your bum will fall off - I mean really being worried about it - and you will get some glimmer of understanding of how your ramblings sound to me. Amusing, imaginative, perplexing, sort of cute in a way, but worrying? Not at all.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That must be why every atheist I have tried to communicate this point across with assumes that I believe in a diety, an entity or was some part of some propagandistic Christian movement.

You present yourself as a theist. Personally I don't think I've expressed that I thought you were but you do give the impression you are.

For what they were or what they are? Everything is man fabricated in concept.

Considering I am talking about the idol gods of old then I'm saying...we see them for what they were......but if you can agree that "everything" is man fabricated then you can surly understand why some Atheist take the position that gods don't exist.....? This is one of the reasons Atheist challenge these assertion by requiring evidence.

That should be common sense.

It should be and yet.........

But I don't see how this touches down on atheists assume and argue against supernatural theists.

It's because you make the classic mistake in stating we "assume".... We don't make the presumption that a supernatural exist but when we are presented with this assertion we ask for evidence and most point out all that currently exist as their supposed evidence or those that tell you faith is required instead of evidence.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

OK so... lets see... If I became an atheist today I'd have to chose from atheist who don't believe in God to athiest who only chose not to believe in God to atheist who don't believe in one god over another god to atheist who don't agree on what atheism is and how it should be defined.

wow... lotta denominations of atheist huh? It's so confusing... it kinda reminds me of being a Christian in a way. Never knowing which kind of Christian Church is right.

Even "if" true we'd still have less denominations than christians....

 

[McBell]

OK so... lets see... If I became an atheist today I'd have to chose from atheist who don't believe in God to athiest who only chose not to believe in God to atheist who don't believe in one god over another god to atheist who don't agree on what atheism is and how it should be defined.

wow... lotta denominations of atheist huh? It's so confusing... it kinda reminds me of being a Christian in a way. Never knowing which kind of Christian Church is right.

Atheism means simple lack of belief in a god.
Now the label atheist means all manner of different things.

Seems to me you are confusing the two.

 

[Thief]

I wonder if you realize how silly your threats of disapproving angels and disappointed sky daddies appear to a non-believer. Imagine a child telling you solemnly that if you unlatch your belly button your bum will fall off - I mean really being worried about it - and you will get some glimmer of understanding of how your ramblings sound to me. Amusing, imaginative, perplexing, sort of cute in a way, but worrying? Not at all.

Try another topic I have running....

Discipline.

 

[Orias]

You use a dictionary definition for your term. I use the same site to provide a dictionary definition for a word in that term. You then seemingly argue against the dictionary definition - apparently a reluctance or refusal to believe is to believe - and then change the tack from "belief in no gods" to "belief that you are right"

And you accuse atheists of inconsistency?

Yes I do accuse you of inconsistency.

And actually I never argued the denotative definition against you, I used it against you to provide the example that because you belief that atheism is a lack of belief, it is a belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Having a belief about a thing does not mean that the thing is a belief.

BTW - there's still a question waiting for you:

Do you believe that I had eggs for breakfast this morning?

 

[Orias]

You use a dictionary definition for your term. I use the same site to provide a dictionary definition for a word in that term. You then seemingly argue against the dictionary definition - apparently a reluctance or refusal to believe is to believe - and then change the tack from "belief in no gods" to "belief that you are right"

And you accuse atheists of inconsistency?

Actually the definiton you provided was used against you, not disagreed with.

I think the reason people are so unwilling to accept your position on this matter is because--no offense--you are simply wrong. That's why you may feel as if you are not getting through. It is like trying to tell people that Michael Jordan is Asian or Tom Cruise is black. You can make such claims in 14 threads and 123 posts, and people will still reject it.

Lack of belief is not belief, at least it doesn't have to be. It is that simple.

But you believe that it is a lack of belief, therefore it is.

Let me try to explain this through example ... If someone were to ask if I believed whether or not you, Orias, are a seriel killer who likes to bite the fuzzy heads off of living kittens, I would be forced to say, I don't know. I hold no belief on that matter because I don't know Orias outside of an internet religious forum where we interact on occassion discussing and debating items of religion and philosophy. I have no idea whether or not you are a serial killer or if you like the taste of raw kitty-cat. Personally, I like cat served well-done with a light lemon-pepper sauce. But hey, that's just me.

But my lack of belief about your criminal tendencies or your taste for cat does NOT equate to a belief. I simply hold no belief on the matter due to lack of convincing proof one way or the other. If you tell me you're not a serial killer who eats kittens, then I will believe you. But until then, I hold no belief on the matter. That is what it means to be an atheist when the issue is gods' existence.

Do you believe that I had eggs for breakfast this morning?

I don't care.

Do me a favor, define (in your own words) exactly what "belief in nothing" entails. I have my doubts that any atheist ever actually spoke those words.

Literally, nothing. Nothingness awaits us all.

I had to deal with this same misconception earlier.

If that's what you've been trying to say then why have you been using the word "belief"? "Worldview" would work much better in getting your point across. Your point would still be wrong, mind you, but it would get across easier.

I have been saying that, it must of got lost in all of the commotion.

As I said before, Atheism is not a belief and it's not a worldview. Atheism is not how people "view things". Atheism is a singular position on a singular issue. It's about a person's stance on the existence or non-existence of god(s), nothing else.

I agree that atheism is a singular position on a singular issue, but whether one choses to believe in Gods or not is a belief specified to believing in Gods. That's all I was saying.

You don't get to "correct" others on what they are or are not. Sorry. If there's one subject on which I am the world's foremost authority, it is my own beliefs.

You simply provided false information on apatheism, which is atheism in a different form.

Apatheism - encyclopedia article about Apatheism.

You're adding completely unnecessary baggage to the word. Atheism has nothing whatever to do with "purpose". It only has to do with whether or not a belief in god or gods is part of one's world view. When it is not, that person is an atheist.

I never said it did?

This is why I have four atheists trying to prove me wrong because they think I am directing a point that I never made?

I just had a different atheist tell me that atheism isn't a world view, but here you are agreeing with me that it is a world view, that disbelief in Gods is a belief because you believe.

Good one.

Nihilism is something else entirely.

Nihilism literally means nothing.

You can spend your entire life trying to get this particular point across, and you still won't succeed. Why? Because it is not rational: just as non-belief in "god" does not equate to belief in "no god", a dislike of black does not equate to a preference for white. Rejection of one silly proposition is not implicit acceptance of it's diametrical opposite. You're not the first theist who has attempted to make that very same point here and failed. This particular "debate" is endless. Theists always come out on your side, and atheists always come out on mine. The question is, which group is more likely to hold valid insights into the beliefs of an average atheist?

I am being completely rational, it is you who is arguing against points I never made.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you believe that it is a lack of belief, therefore it is.

A belief about atheism is not a belief that's part of atheism. It's the difference between looking in from outside and looking out from inside.

I don't care.

That doesn't answer the question.

Come on - play along. I'll make my point soon.