Atheistic Double Standard?

[Jeremiahcp]

I'd go so far as to say that I assert that there is no evidence that god(s) exist making it very unlikely, well beyond the probability of a reasonable doubt, that god(s) exist.

How did you calculate the probability of reasonable doubt? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Here's a different way of explaining it. Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods. A person who doesn't believe in the existence of gods and doesn't believe in the non-existence of gods is a (weak) atheist. A person who doesn't believe in the existence of gods and believes in the non-existence of gods is a strong atheist. Strangely enough, some people seem to think that you HAVE TO believe gods exist, or you HAVE TO believe gods don't exist. In the real world of course you can stay neutral until you feel you have been provided with enough evidence to believe one way or the other.

Well said.

I have tried to explain it using trust in place of a god belief.

When we first meet a person, we neither trust nor distrust him. With time, we may come to a position that the person is trustworthy or deem them untrustworthy based on past performance, but initially, we should reserve judgment. This defines the three possible doxastic positions: belief (He is trustworthy), disbelief (He is dishonest), and suspension of judgment (I don't know if he's trustworthy or not).

If you were to ask me if I trust this person when we met, I would answer, "No, I don't know him." If he later cheats me, and you ask me again if I trust him, the answer is still, "No," but it's not the same no.

I really don't see the obstacle to understanding this. Aren't these elementary ideas?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I tend to agree with what Wellamena is saying here. To lack is the state of being without or not having enough of something. To lack is to be without or deficient in. We can discuss hypotheticals that are absurd, and we can create ones that make sense. To say that an octopus lacks a shopping trolley is quite absurd. While you can surely say that an octopus lacks a shopping trolley and consider yourself correct, you would also be incorrect because an octopus has no need of any shopping trolleys. How many shopping trolleys would be enough for an octopus. Well, an octopus requires zero shopping trolleys, therefore if it has no shopping trolleys, it would therefore lack no shopping trolleys. It would have all the shopping trolleys it requires if it had no shopping trolleys at all.

I think that you're confusing two closely related but distinct definitions of "lack," one meaning what you imply (the kidneys failed for lack of an adequate blood supply), and one meaning what ImmortalFlame implies (One difference between monkeys and apes is that apes lack a tail).

As you probably know, the word is commonly used both ways, and the particular meaning is context sensitive. As you can see, only the first example implies a need not met.

 

[Willamena]

I'm an atheist because I have no god belief, yet I do not make that claim. If I did, it would be an unsupportable claim implying knowledge that everybody reading knows that I cannot possibly have.

That position is sometimes called "weak atheism," a term I avoid because frankly, the weaker position is to take the leap of faith and assert that you know that gods cannot or do not exist. "Agnostic atheist" is more descriptive.

It's not a claim that you make, it's a claim that atheism makes regardless of you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose then that you would classify a truly agnostic person quite simply as an agnostic atheist. Since they do not actually believe in a god or gods, they are indeed atheists. Okay...I can appreciate that point of view. thanks.

You shouldn't call an agnostic an "agnostic atheist" unless you know that he is also an atheist. He many be an agnostic theist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Learn how to read.

Adorable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm an atheist because I have no god belief, yet I do not make that claim. If I did, it would be an unsupportable claim implying knowledge that everybody reading knows that I cannot possibly have.

That position is sometimes called "weak atheism," a term I avoid because frankly, the weaker position is to take the leap of faith and assert that you know that gods cannot or do not exist. "Agnostic atheist" is more descriptive.

It's not a claim that you make, it's a claim that atheism makes regardless of you.

Maybe I wasn't clear. It might appear that I claimed to have no god belief, then denied claiming that I had no god belief. The claim I do not make is that there is no god.

Given that position, do you consider me an atheist?

Let me go further: Gods, by which I mean universe-creating conscious agents, may exist and have no interest in communicating with humanity or showing themselves to us. Or they may be unable to. Why would I take a position on any of that given that I have no argument, test, measurement, observation, or algorithm to rule gods out or decide what they would do if they exist?

That is why I can't even call gods unlikely. On what basis? Because I've never encountered one or evidence for one? Perhaps that's just how they like it. How can I judge that or put a likelihood on it?

Given that position, do you consider me an agnostic?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Adorable.

So then you did read the thread?

 

[ChristineM]

>>If you cannot see that a god who is claimed as compassionate could not produce such suffering, leukemia, in an innocent child then there is a problem with your morality<<

I'll let most of it go since we're discussing double standards, but the above statement is typical fault finding or blaming by negative people of God the Creator. Thus, it is evidence for their God is evil or not compassionate in your case. Also, it is evidence that I am not compassionate nor moral for failing to agree with you. Another irrefutable double standard of quick judgment in your mind. It's a double standard for people who are ignorant to say that when they do not accept the circumstances that led to it.

Instead of ascertaining blame, why not explain how this leukemia develops in children and adults and how we can help these people? Since you're a nurse, do you work in this area? I understand and have helped their cause for many years through promoting bone marrow donations.

So he is not the omnipotent creator Christianity claims, thanks for that.

Seems those who say god made it all except the bits they don't like ar the ones with morality problem.

Nope, in my case, it is the ludicrous incredulity of those making cherry picked claims about a bronze age myth

 

[ChristineM]

No, there is not, as I never meant theist as an insult. I do find it odd; however, you took it as an insult and you do seem to be generally wounded by being compared to a theist. Do you really have that much contempt for theists, that it insults you to be called one?

Just as it would insult you to be called a devil worshipper.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It really doesn't matter. If you do not believe in god, then you are an atheist. If there is a god, those who believe go to heaven. Those who dont, well, they don't.

That would depend on the god, wouldn't it?

I would expect a god to be nonjudgmental, generous, and inclusive.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe I wasn't clear. It might appear that I claimed to have no god belief, then denied claiming that I had no god belief. The claim I do not make is that there is no god.

Given that position, do you consider me an atheist?

The claim that "there is no god" is not a knowledge claim, rest assured. It is a claim that garners no greater nature than to be a belief, no more or less than "there is a god" or "there is a large metal tower in Paris that glows at night" is a claim of belief. There are claims. Claims that are made to you that are not personally substantiated, verifiable, verified, or judged by you to be true, are not any sort of knowledge. Everything of that nature is an expression of belief. Knowledge is a belief that just happens to be true, and generally is justified to hold. If you are trying to decide whether a claim expressed to you is knowledge or not, you are well off to emulate the skeptic and take each claim with a grain of salt.

Additionally, the claim of atheism is made regardless of whatever you may personally think or claim. It's not about you. So from your assertion that, "I am an atheist because I have no god belief," I am entirely satisfied that the criteria of atheism has been met.

Let me go further: Gods, by which I mean universe-creating conscious agents, may exist and have no interest in communicating with humanity or showing themselves to us. Or they may be unable to. Why would I take a position on any of that given that I have no argument, test, measurement, observation, or algorithm to rule gods out or decide what they would do if they exist?

That is why I can't even call gods unlikely. On what basis? Because I've never encountered one or evidence for one? Perhaps that's just how they like it. How can I judge that or put a likelihood on it?

Given that position, do you consider me an agnostic?

That you have no argument, test, measurement, observation, or algorithm to rule gods out is the best reason to declare yourself an atheist. We do not believe, and in fact readily dismiss, what is not falsifiable. It is the uninformed position, the position from which the existence of gods cannot be substantiated, verifiable, verified, or judged by you to be true. I consider that position to be implicit atheism, and only loosely agnostic.

The agnostic to me isn't the person who says, "I don't know," out of ignorance, but out of a careful examination of the capacity to know (gnosis).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Great, now a lacking belief in gods is being questioned as a necessary aspect of atheism! Fascinating that any discussion with atheists always ends with the position becoming absurd.

There may be a god, but until we have good reason to believe as much, agnostic atheism is the only rational position.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I quite like the idea of not collecting stamps, and I am going to make that my new hobby. Thanks for the great idea.

Here are some more:

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

Atheism is a religion like health is a disease state.

Atheism is a religion like death is a lifestyle.

Atheism is a religion like nonsmoking is a habit.

Atheism is a religion like fasting is a menu entree.

Atheism is a religion like unemployment is a career choice.

Atheism is a religion like nudity is a fashion style.

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.

Atheism is a religion like off is a radio station and silence a song playing on it.

Atheism is a religion like barefoot is a shoe style.

Atheism is a religion like transparent is a color.

Atheism is a religion like “HTTP 404- File Not Found” is a webesite

 

[McBell]

Here are some more:

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

Atheism is a religion like health is a disease state.

Atheism is a religion like death is a lifestyle.

Atheism is a religion like nonsmoking is a habit.

Atheism is a religion like fasting is a menu entree.

Atheism is a religion like unemployment is a career choice.

Atheism is a religion like nudity is a fashion style.

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.

Atheism is a religion like off is a radio station and silence a song playing on it.

Atheism is a religion like barefoot is a shoe style.

Atheism is a religion like transparent is a color.

Atheism is a religion like “HTTP 404- File Not Found” is a webesite

except that unemployment is a career choice, nudity is a fashion style, and abstinence is a sexual position...

 

[Stevicus]

Maybe I wasn't clear. It might appear that I claimed to have no god belief, then denied claiming that I had no god belief. The claim I do not make is that there is no god.

Given that position, do you consider me an atheist?

Let me go further: Gods, by which I mean universe-creating conscious agents, may exist and have no interest in communicating with humanity or showing themselves to us. Or they may be unable to. Why would I take a position on any of that given that I have no argument, test, measurement, observation, or algorithm to rule gods out or decide what they would do if they exist?

That is why I can't even call gods unlikely. On what basis? Because I've never encountered one or evidence for one? Perhaps that's just how they like it. How can I judge that or put a likelihood on it?

Given that position, do you consider me an agnostic?

I think what happens in these kinds of discussions is that it seems to be boxed in by the concept of "god" as commonly presented by religion and limited by the question of whether or not such a being actually exists. It's like we're faced with the choice to either "believe" or "not believe," as if that's the only choice we have.

I think what a lot of religionists often fail to realize is that many of us have already been raised and inculcated in the dominant religion in our society (or at least in America; can't say for other countries). For a variety of possible reasons, atheists and agnostics have chosen to reject or question such beliefs, but that by itself doesn't necessarily indicate an outright claim that "there is no god."

"God" is just a title for someone or something that is viewed as so powerful and so immense that we can't even properly define its nature or properties - or even be certain that it exists (or doesn't exist). It's a concept that's, by definition, outside of human perception or understanding. Nevertheless, humans continue to try to explain the unexplainable by the use of allegories, fables, and myths - but how can anyone really know something so powerful and infinite as "god" is perceived to be? We can't underestimate human imagination and our propensity to just make stuff up out of the blue when we're operating with a limited set of facts.

So, I don't think atheists, even strong atheists, are making any definitive claims when they say "there is no god," at least not as an overall claim about the nature of the universe. It's more a response to human beings who claim there is a god when they can't possibly know either. Some atheists get a bit silly about it and bring up the possibility that the universe was created by the "Flying Spaghetti Monster," although I've always been partial to the Great Pumpkin myself.

Personally, I don't say whether there is or isn't a "god" or "gods," but when someone tries to sell me on their god (or gods), then my first thought is that their "god" probably doesn't exist. It doesn't negate the possibility of the concept itself, but it might take into consideration the intricate complexities of nature and the immense unending vastness of the universe that we can see. To try to simplify all that and sum it up with a single word, "god," something gets lost.

Even if there is some kind of powerful being that created all this, then so what? It seems that we're stuck here no matter what, so who says that we have to do anything about it? Religion makes it seem like we're all here in one big kindergarten (which may not be far from the truth, judging from world events), with "god" supposedly micromanaging everything as part of his grand plan - whatever that may be.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, but the fact that there are atheists who do have beliefs about the existence of God suggests that the definition of atheism as you see it is flawed, and that atheism can be and often is a belief.

A good definition includes every item within the extension of the definiendum and none that are not. There is only one definition of "atheist" that does that, and it is the one you are rejecting or misunderstanding.

All atheists have tons of beliefs including the two that lead them to atheism - namely, that one shouldn't believe anything without a good reason, and that there is no good reason to accept any god claim or hold any god belief - but none derive from their atheism.

To make this more clear, let me add that besides being an atheist, as I mentioned earlier, I also happen to be an avampirist and an aleprechaunist. You might be as well.

I have absolutely no thoughts that derive from those positions. I have no beliefs about anything because of those unbeliefs. Does your aleprechaunism lead to any other beliefs? Will the Cubs repeat? If leprechauns existed, would there be such things as two that were twins? You may have opinions on these matters, but they don't come from your rejection of the idea of leprechauns.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

except that unemployment is a career choice, nudity is a fashion style, and abstinence is a sexual position...

Maybe I need to reword some of those.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism can also be defined as a belief that no god exists.

You will see both definitions as separate entities in many dictionaries. The word is used both ways. Atheists tend to use it the first way. It is primarily theists that I see using the more restrictive second definition, which I believe excludes most of us that call ourselves atheists.

 

[1137]

Here are some more:

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

Atheism is a religion like health is a disease state.

Atheism is a religion like death is a lifestyle.

Atheism is a religion like nonsmoking is a habit.

Atheism is a religion like fasting is a menu entree.

Atheism is a religion like unemployment is a career choice.

Atheism is a religion like nudity is a fashion style.

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.

Atheism is a religion like off is a radio station and silence a song playing on it.

Atheism is a religion like barefoot is a shoe style.

Atheism is a religion like transparent is a color.

Atheism is a religion like “HTTP 404- File Not Found” is a webesite

Lol damn, I think you just proved yourself wrong.