Atheistic Double Standard?

[Willamena]

That doesn't make any difference. If I wrote down a number on a piece of paper, than number is either even or odd, regardless of whether I show it to you.

Regardless that it refers to something. A sign without a referent is just a word.

"My definition of atheism is x."
"I disagree. The definition of atheism is actually x."
"But, that's the same definition I just gave."
"It can't be the same definition, because I disagreed with you!"

Trust me, we are both implicitly defining atheism with how we use the term.

Else, you would agree with me that whether one is ignorant of gods, denies god-claims, or simply understands the case of "no god," the claim of atheism is that there is no god.

You're not negating someone ELSE'S belief, you're stating a position of your own.

I cannot fail to state a position of my own with the use of words. The point is whether you believe that "beliefs" are things that can be "lacking" from a person's schema. If you do, then is atheism that belief (statement? state?) absent from them, or is it (more meaningfully) about yourself, and not about them?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Remember, you're the one who argued beliefs are claims. If you don't believe in any gods, how could you possibly believe anything other than "there don't seem to be gods?" The only other option is to believe there is one or more god, which is theism.

This argument makes no sense. Are you under the false impression that "there doesn't seem to be Gods" is a claim?

There's been a lot of discussion on this, and really the only remaining questions is whether individuals such as you are being intentionally dishonest, or if you simply blindly belief the vacuous reasoning of modern atheism.

Actually, the real question is why so many people have an objection to a simple matter of definitions when definitions don't really matter more than the concepts they are attached to.

 

[Willamena]

You haven't been paying attention. Some atheists believe there is no God, But atheism's sine qua non is simply lack of belief, as in withholding judgement pending evidence.

If some atheists do not withhold judgement pending evidence, then how can atheism be withholding judgement pending evidence?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Regardless that it refers to something. A sign without a referent is just a word.

But it DOES have a referent - the number of grains of salt in the ocean.

Trust me, we are both implicitly defining atheism with how we use the term.

Else, you would agree with me that whether one is ignorant of gods, denies god-claims, or simply understands the case of "no god," the claim of atheism is that there is no god.

Except a lack of belief isn't a claim. You already agreed that the definition is someone who "doesn't believe in Gods". How does that equal "there is no God"?

I cannot fail to state a position of my own with the use of words. The point is whether you believe that "beliefs" are things that can be "lacking" from a person's schema.

Obviously a person can lack beliefs. I lack a belief that the sun is made of chips, for example.

If you do, then is atheism that belief (statement? state?) absent from them, or is it (more meaningfully) about yourself, and not about them?

Obviously it's about a personal position, not about theists. Where have I said otherwise?

 

[ChristineM]

The fallacy is pretty obvious buddy, how is comparing "I believe in gods" to "I collect stamps" at all related in any slight way?

Both are pastimes of certain humans.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If some atheists do not withhold judgement pending evidence, then how can atheism be withholding judgement pending evidence?

It isn't - it's lacking belief. If x and y are both mutually exclusive positions (like a quantity being odd or even), a person can reject x without necessarily accepting y and still be considered to be in the category "people who reject x". Someone who accepts y, conversely, still fits in that same category, because by accepting y then they also must reject x.

Ergo, a person who says "I am not convinced that there are Gods" is an atheist because they fit the definition of a person "lacking a belief in a God or Gods", and a person who says "I am convinced there are no Gods" is also an atheist because they also fit the definition of a person "lacking belief in a God or Gods". Atheism isn't DEFINED by withholding judgement - it is defined by a rejection of the claim that there is a God. Whether a person rejects that claim because they believe it to be false, or whether they reject that claim merely because they don't believe the claim is true, they both still reject the claim.

 

[Valjean]

If some atheists do not withhold judgement pending evidence, then how can atheism be withholding judgement pending evidence?

What is the one, fundamental, defining feature of atheism?

 

[Willamena]

What is the one, fundamental, defining feature of atheism?

Not believing in god, as ambiguous as that may be.

 

[Willamena]

It isn't - it's lacking belief.

That's a dispute between you and Valjean.

 

[1137]

This argument makes no sense. Are you under the false impression that "there doesn't seem to be Gods is a claim?


Actually, the real question is why so many people have an objection to a simple matter of definitions when definitions don't really matter more than the concepts they are attached to.

No, I'm pointing out the fact that "there doesn't seem to be Gods" is the central belief of atheism. Once again, you're the one who said beliefs are claims. Have you forgotten? Here, I will quote you:

"Actually, belief is a claim. To believe means "To accept a given proposition as true", so to "believe X" is also to necessarily state "X is true"."

Both are pastimes of certain humans.

So you ask me if masturbation is a sin, and I respond, "well I collect stamps so sure!" This is perfectly logical to you huh? Astonishing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I'm pointing out the fact that "there doesn't seem to be Gods" is the central belief of atheism.

How, exactly? And also, how is that a claim?

Once again, you're the one who said beliefs are claims. Have you forgotten? Here, I will quote you:

"Actually, belief is a claim. To believe means "To accept a given proposition as true", so to "believe X" is also to necessarily state "X is true"."

The fact that you can invent claims and attribute them to atheists doesn't mean that atheism in and of itself is a claim.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you ask me if masturbation is a sin, and I respond, "well I collect stamps so sure!" This is perfectly logical to you huh? Astonishing.

Do you understand how logical analogies work? It's quite simple:

Saying "atheism is a belief" is like saying "not collecting stamps is a hobby".

It's a comparison of the logic being employed, not a red herring or change of subject. Do you understand?

 

[Sonofason]

You haven't been paying attention. Some atheists believe there is no God, But atheism's sine qua non is simply lack of belief, as in withholding judgement pending evidence.

Then what is agnostic?

 

[ArtieE]

It isn't - it's lacking belief. If x and y are both mutually exclusive positions (like a quantity being odd or even), a person can reject x without necessarily accepting y and still be considered to be in the category "people who reject x". Someone who accepts y, conversely, still fits in that same category, because by accepting y then they also must reject x.

Ergo, a person who says "I am not convinced that there are Gods" is an atheist because they fit the definition of a person "lacking a belief in a God or Gods", and a person who says "I am convinced there are no Gods" is also an atheist because they also fit the definition of a person "lacking belief in a God or Gods". Atheism isn't DEFINED by withholding judgement - it is defined by a rejection of the claim that there is a God. Whether a person rejects that claim because they believe it to be false, or whether they reject that claim merely because they don't believe the claim is true, they both still reject the claim.

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.

 

[Willamena]

But it DOES have a referent - the number of grains of salt in the ocean.

That it is even or odd is the sign I referred to. That it is even or odd is objective and real.

If we just refer to a number you wrote on a piece of paper regardless of the truth of that number, the referent would always be the real-world thing--it would be that number on a piece of paper, not any actual number of grains of salt in the ocean.

Except a lack of belief isn't a claim. You already agreed that the definition is someone who "doesn't believe in Gods". How does that equal "there is no God"?

It doesn't. It equals, "I believe that there is no God." Atheism is about belief.

A lack refers to something, and something is not nothing. And this "something" that a lack refers to is absent or missing. There is, explicitly in the word "lack" the idea of a thing missing, and implicitly, the idea that that thing should be there but isn't.

If I'm lacking money from my wallet, it's because a wallet is made to contain money. If the Senate is lacking senators it's because the seats are meant to be filled.

There is no such beast as a "lack of belief" that applies to what goes on in people's heads: people hold beliefs, they don't hold lacks. No one is obliged to hold any particular belief.

The figure of speech "to lack belief" is just another way of saying that they "don't believe" in that thing, and claiming that they don't believe in it is no less than saying that they believe it isn't so.

Obviously a person can lack beliefs. I lack a belief that the sun is made of chips, for example.

But try lacking belief in something that isn't a fabrication or fantasy. You cannot. The worldview that is your unique perspective on the world is made up of only things that are essentially true.

Obviously it's about a personal position, not about theists. Where have I said otherwise?

That wasn't my question.

 

[ArtieE]

Then what is agnostic?

A person who doesn't KNOW if gods exist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then what is agnostic?

Agnosticsm is a position of not knowing (or, to some, a position of being unable to know with any degree of certainty). Depending on the definition of knowledge, of course, it can tend to vary. Atheism and theism deal with believe (which is accepting or not accepting a claim as being true - separate from how certain you are with regards to the proposition), while agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge (which can be said to be a sub-section of belief).

The most simple way of explaining it is to imagine it like a scale:

1) Gnostic atheist - someone who doesn't believe that there is a God and claims to know that there is no God.
2) Agnostic atheist - someone who doesn't believe that there is a God but doesn't claim to know that there is no God.
3) Agnostic theist - someone who believes that there is a God but doesn't claim to know that there is a God.
4) Gnostic theist - someone who believes that there is a God and claims to know that there is a God.

Of course, none of these are really set in stone. You'll find these definitions vary between people a lot, and there are a lot of people who use the term agnosticism to a refer to a kind of moderate position "between" atheism and theism, but since I use the broad definition of atheism there is no such position for it to occupy to me.

Personally, I get pretty tired of debates over definitions these days, because words simply shouldn't matter as much as the concepts they're supposed to represent.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Then what is agnostic?

A question of knowledge rather than a question of belief. Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive from atheism, theism, deism et all.
Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia
Agnostic theism - Wikipedia

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That it is even or odd is the sign I referred to. That it is even or odd is objective and real.

If we just refer to a number you wrote on a piece of paper regardless of the truth of that number, the referent would always be the real-world thing--it would be that number on a piece of paper, not any actual number of grains of salt in the ocean.

I think you're just getting confused.

It doesn't. It equals, "I believe that there is no God." Atheism is about belief.

I've already explained how that is wrong.. "I don't believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is even" doesn't equal "I believe the number of grains of salt in the ocean is odd".

A lack refers to something, and something is not nothing. And this "something" that a lack refers to is absent or missing. There is, explicitly in the word "lack," the idea of a thing missing, and implicitly, the idea that that thing should be there but isn't.

You're drawing unnecessary implications from semantics. I lack a helicopter. This does not mean that I SHOULD have a helicopter but don't.

If I'm lacking money from my wallet, it's because a wallet is made to contain money. If the Senate is lacking senators it's because the seats are meant to be filled.

If an octopus is lacking a shopping trolley, it means an octopus doesn't actually have a shopping trolley. You're just getting lost in semantics.

There is no such beast as a "lack of belief" that applies to what goes on in people's heads: people hold beliefs, they don't hold lacks. No one is obliged to hold any particular belief.

You don't "hold" a lack of belief, you just lack a belief. There is no obligation to believe implied or inferred beyond your imagination.

The figure of speech "to lack belief" is just another way of saying that they "don't believe" in that thing, and claiming that they don't believe in it is no less than saying that they believe it isn't so.

False. To state "I don't believe x" is not equal to "I believe y". You're failing to grasp this concept at a basic level and using semantics to dodge around the issue.

But try lacking belief in something that isn't a fabrication or fantasy. You cannot. The worldview that is your unique perspective on the world is made up of only things that are essentially true.

That makes no sense. We can be informed by fiction, and we can have positions on subjects about which we still lack a belief.

That wasn't my question.

You're still confused.

 

[Willamena]

Then what is agnostic?

Knowledge is a belief that just happens to be true, and if some imperative about whether it is to be clung to should arise, it is justified by strict rules of logic; else, it is justified by common sense rules.

The agnostic is the person who can honestly say that that restriction ("knowledge" as it is defined above) cannot apply for whatever reason.