Atheists questioning their Atheism?

[Willamena]

Nobody asks that theists question "theism", only that people who subscribe to specific unsubstantiated factual claims (i.e. that there is such a thing as a "god" with an alleged set of characteristics and accomplishments) take a close look at whether or not these specific claims are based on reason, evidence and logic. (Hint: They are not.)

(Hint: If they haven't done so, then you can't make that claim.)

 

[Orias]

Huh? Religion is not science, and science is not religion. They are completely separate and distinct concepts.

Well...we do have religion to thank for many of our sciences after all.

They can exist as separate and distinct concepts, but they were originally conceived for the same purpose. Much like semantics, mathematics, philosophy, and schooling.

I'm looking for the reasoning, not where you heard about it.

Man has a will of his own.

But we need not get furthure into it, let's just call it arrogance

I've already done so. An intelligent being that controls the universe, generally anthropomorphic.

Very interesting.

So we were created in "his image".

Funny connections you see?

Man was created in the image of God, in the image that he believes in no other Gods exist but himself, lucidly following the "seven deadly sins" of oppression.

I can't control what you've had atheists tell you, but I have to doubt you've had more than one or two atheists tell you atheism in general has to be the belief that there is no God.

Not has to be the belief that there is no Gods, it is the belief that there is no Gods. If that is not the case then perhaps the atheists should do a better job at educating their atheist instructors.

And regardless, what a few atheists have told you doesn't change the fact that a lack of belief in gods is all that's necessary for the label "atheist".

And I agree, I simply stated that "lack of belief" in essence is a belief, since you believe it to be true.

Huh? Actually, it would be nothing at all like that. Satanism involves beliefs, as does secular humanism, even though they can both be atheistic.

You clearly know nothing of the topic at hand.

That doesn't exactly answer my question. Yes, atheism can be the belief that no gods exist. How exactly can that be "used against atheists"?

All atheists tell me that atheism isn't a belief. Give or take a few in the past couple of days.

I wouldn't be surprised at that. However, that doesn't change the fact that you're misunderstanding. You have an incorrect view of atheism, and it's improbable that you came by that based on what you've heard from most atheists.

If it is as so much as incorrect than you mind as well go to some other threads I've posted on and tell those atheists they have incorrect views as well.

Improbable, most likely not. Just some things I pick up on when people like you are more keen on distinguishing and labeling everything with some heavier baggage.

It is the truth, and it is consistent. It's really very easy to understand. I'm not sure why you refuse to do so. Even your precious dictionary agrees with me, saying that it can be simply a lack of belief in gods or it can also be the belief that gods don't exist.

If it were as consistent as you speak the majority of the world would be in favor of it's imprints.

As naive as they are, they have a fine taste for beneficial hypocrisy.

There you go speaking of truths, yet you clearly blind yourself to your own deceit.

Well, that's cetainly one way to respond to my comment without actually responding to my comment. You are confused based on your comments here. I'm not of the impression you're disagreeing with everything I'm saying. I'm of the impression you're saying some things that aren't true and show a confusion on your part, including your incorrect understanding of what I meant by being created by an intelligent being.

Confused is definitly one thing I am not.

You are merely exchanging words, no empathy.

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this. What does the phrase "irrelevant to description" mean, and how would atheism be irrelevant to anything?

Because God is irrelevant to anything?

OK, cool. So, what you're saying is your previous comment was either badly misworded or just not at all what you believe?

Evidence is evidence to one who see's it as evidence.

That's cool. I never really expected you to do anything other than dodge this part anyway. So, go ahead and dodge away.

One thing I learned to do before pointing out others inconsistencies was to learn my own.

You get a far better understanding of hypocritic battles when you realize you are one yourself.

Ugh. First, it's "ditto". Second, no. My comment cannot be used to accurately describe what I've been saying. It only applies to you here. Try again.

Actually it can, your clearly trying to accuse me of having an education.

Sure I use things I hear from my teacher, but not because they sound cool or have a "deep" meaning, rather because these meanings come from an intelligent voice that gets paid to sit around and think about it, and then educate others on it.

Not only that, I use what I learn from here on these forums.


And I wouldn't bother to adopt a different person's argument to defend myself from you, I understand my own more, and am clearly able to sidetract you from more important matters

My forehead's starting to hurt from all of the facepalms. You made arguments, whether or not you want to admit to them. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing. See how that works? It's not I who needs better understanding here, as you're making painfully clear.

I argued one point, you brought the burden of an army to fight something that doesn't exist.

Clearly, you do not understand.

Yes, that's it. I'm sure that makes you feel better, but it's not the case.

Clearly, how do you expect to debate against something you do not know?

I don't suppose Sun Tsu's Art of War would apply here at all.

The problem is you think those things sound cool, and therefore mean something. Even if they're profound statements with a lot to say, they're still irrelevant to what I said.

You know nothing.

It is all complete relevance, thus wise it wouldn't of been brought up.

It's not an uncommon attempt to dodge actual conversation, but it's an unwelcome one.

Your right,I merely stated that atheism is a belief, even if it leads those who belief it to blind themselves with hypocritical self deceit.

All possible conversation escaped when you tried.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Starsoul,

Thanks for your response. Okay, so I guess you were just sharing your personal impressions/experiences, and your reaction to what you feel is an inappropriate attitude on the part of many atheists.

I did find this part interesting:

People generally do not even want to engage in argument about God with athiests, they wouldn't be athiests if they wanted to believe ...

This is interesting because you seem to be suggesting that in order to believe in God (or perhaps Islam) it is necessary to *want* to believe. That's very curious, because most people, including atheists, are clearly capable of accepting sound evidence and logic, even when they don't *want* to accept it. E.g. I accept the undeniable evidence that someday I will die, and everyone I know will die. It is not necessary for me to *want* to believe this, in order for me to believe it, because the evidence and logic is so undeniable. Your comment also seems to imply a double-standard: that is, you seem to imply atheists are arrogant and discussion with them is pointless because atheists don't want to believe; but you neglect to comment on whether or not theists want to disbelieve, and whether or not their lack of wanting to disbelieve makes theists arrogant, and discussions with theists pointless.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sure many do question the core of their atheism, but many probably don't, and many probably don't seriously question it.

 

[Alceste]

(Hint: If they haven't done so, then you can't make that claim.)

Actually, the vast majority of theists will tell you themselves their claims are based on faith, not evidence, reason or logic. Only a pretty insignificant minority of believers reject faith by attempting to argue that reason, logic and evidence rather than faith led them to believe.

 

[Magic Man]

They are treading on thin ice. They have set themselves up to be listened to instead of listening. Let the Leprechaunist give their evidence first and provide the reasons why not as a rebuttal. Then it's a debate rather than a lecture. I feel that Dawkins lectures rather than debating.

An aleprechaunist has to let the leprechaunist give their "evidence" first. Dawkins and atheists have already let the theists give their "evidence" for God. It's exactly that that atheists argue against, and it is those claims by theists that Dawkins rebuts. I understand that you have a bad impression of Dawkins, as do many other people, but I think that comes more from the bad press he gets from religious people who vilify him without taking the time to listen to him.

But this still doesn't answer the question. Is claiming that leprechauns don't exist closed-minded?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I understand that you have a bad impression of Dawkins, as do many other people, but I think that comes more from the bad press he gets from religious people who vilify him without taking the time to listen to him.

Anyone that actively and publicly speaks out against religion is villainized (is that a word?). Bill maher is a big one.

 

[Magic Man]

It's not "just nitpicking" if you, like me, suspect that gods of all kinds are anthropomorphic projections of facets of our own psyche. While there are some common features in every human psyche, each of us is also unique to some extent. Therefore the gods we come up with are unique. Unless you probe quite deeply to get past the rote phrases religious people tend to regurgitate when they discuss their gods, you may never realize how radically different one god-concept is from another, even within the same sect.

As an example, I spent an entire evening discussing a devout friend's idea of her god. As it turned out, I was very wrong to assume I knew what "god" meant to her just because of her "Christian" label. Her god was genderless, ineffable and non-corporeal. He speaks to her through her heart rather than through scripture. She doesn't believe her god has a particular preference for a particular religion. Anyway, suffice it to say she was full of surprises. The one thing that was not surprising (considering my above-mentioned suspicions) was that her god was very much like her, and she is incredibly unique.

Anyway, I think you are thinking of church dogma and doctrine and I am thinking of what people really mean when they use the word god. For folks like you and I who don't have our own god-concepts, it's easy to get duped into assuming that the "god" religious people feel they have a relationship with is best described by the dogma of the faith with which they label themselves. It seems this is not the case, except for the most uninteresting, immature and unimaginative theists.

Sure, every one is unique like apples are unique. No apple is exactly like other apples, but when I say apple, you get a good idea of what I'm thinking of. The same goes for theistic gods. Each person's version of God is going to be a bit different, but it will share the main qualities.

And your friend's god fits the theistic god-concept very well. Sure, instead of thinking of it as male, she thinks of it as genderless, and she believes it speaks to her directly rather than in the Bible, but it's still the same intelligent being controlling the universe and even communicating with her. Also, it's not ineffable if she was able to describe it.

My point is, while it's always good to listen to people about their ideas, there is a theistic god-concept. The small details of it can vary from person to person, but the general concept is the same. Just as an apple can be red, green, somewhere in the middle, short, tall, round, etc., but it's still an apple.

I also don't think any of them are reasonable either. I'm just saying one man's god is not the same concept as another's, and if we atheists don't want to become Don Quixotes tilting at windmills, it is useful to establish what is meant by "god" before engaging a theist in a debate about the existence of her god.

Yes, it's good to get someone's idea of the word before debating them, but I'm talking in general terms here. We're atheists because we don't believe in God, and by "God" we mean a theistic god, in other words an intelligent being that controls the universe.

 

[Magic Man]

Okay so upon examination of responses from Atheists in this thread, my question now is, why should Atheists accuse Theists of not questioning Theism if the majority of them won't question Atheism?

If you had actually examined the responses from atheists in this thread, you wouldn't be asking that question. Why ask a question, if you're not going to listen to the responses anyway, and just plow along with your preconceived ideas?

Most atheists here have said in some way shape or form they do or have questioned their atheism.

Atheists suggest that theists question their theism because when asked to support their theism, many times theists give out reasons that don't stand up to logic or reason. If those claims were subjected to questioning through logic and reason, they would be discarded, as they have been by atheists who were once theists.

 

[Magic Man]

Well...we do have religion to thank for many of our sciences after all.

They can exist as separate and distinct concepts, but they were originally conceived for the same purpose. Much like semantics, mathematics, philosophy, and schooling.

No, we don't have religion to thank for science. And whether or not they have been used for the same purpose is irrelevant. I can use a pen and a sword to stab someone to death. They are both achieving the same goal, but those two objects are vastly different.

Man has a will of his own.

But we need not get furthure into it, let's just call it arrogance

OK, it would be quicker to just say "I'd rather not respond to your question".

Not has to be the belief that there is no Gods, it is the belief that there is no Gods. If that is not the case then perhaps the atheists should do a better job at educating their atheist instructors.

I probably shouldn't waste my time anymore with someone who is clearly refusing to listen, but I'll go on. No, atheism is not the belief that there are no gods. It is the lack of belief in gods. Let me try it this way:

Atheism: Lack of belief in God or the rejection of belief in God

Did that get through? And it is you who needs the better education, since you're the one not understanding it.

And I agree, I simply stated that "lack of belief" in essence is a belief, since you believe it to be true.

It's usually best not to change the meanings of words to what you want them to be, but rather to use them as they're meant to be used. A lack of belief is not a belief, hence why it's called a lack of belief.

You clearly know nothing of the topic at hand.

Yes, clearly it is I who doesn't understand the difference between a belief set and one single belief or the lack thereof. As I stated, Satanism, like secular humanism, is a belief set. They can both be atheistic in that they don't include a belief in God, but they both necessarily involve beliefs. What you don't seem to be understanding is that atheism and theism are basically answers to one question: do you believe in God. After answering that question, you can build a worldview on top of that.

Your original comment was:

That would be much like saying Modern Satanism isn't a belief, only Theistic Satanism is.

Satanism is not a belief; it's a set of beliefs. The set of beliefs can either include a belief in God or exclude it. Either way, though, it's still a set of beliefs.

All atheists tell me that atheism isn't a belief. Give or take a few in the past couple of days.

Right, so what you're saying is that by "using the definition of atheism against atheists" you mean "using one part of the definition of atheism that fits your needs, acting as if that is the whole definition". In fact, as I said and other atheists will agree, belief that God doesn't exist is part of the definition. Atheism can be that. Atheism can also be simply the lack of belief that God exists. A person who has never heard of God and holds no belief in God would be an atheist. They hold no belief that God doesn't exist; they simply lack the belief that God exists.

It would be better if you would be honest here and let yourself understand what atheism actually is.

If it is as so much as incorrect than you mind as well go to some other threads I've posted on and tell those atheists they have incorrect views as well.

Improbable, most likely not. Just some things I pick up on when people like you are more keen on distinguishing and labeling everything with some heavier baggage.

As I said, and you've now confirmed, you didn't come by your misconceptions about atheism from atheists. You hold them despite what you hear from atheists, so it seems there's no need for me to correct atheists, but only to correct you.

If it were as consistent as you speak the majority of the world would be in favor of it's imprints.

As naive as they are, they have a fine taste for beneficial hypocrisy.

There you go speaking of truths, yet you clearly blind yourself to your own deceit.

Um....what? The fact is you use only part of the definition of atheism because the other part doesn't suit your needs. Atheism at its core is the lack of belief in God. It can also be accompanied by a belief that God doesn't exist. I'm not the one blinding myself here, considering you're the one refusing to let yourself grasp this simple concept.

Confused is definitly one thing I am not.

You are merely exchanging words, no empathy.

Again, it would be easier to just ignore my comment, rather than respond with irrelevant, meaningless nonsense like this.

Because God is irrelevant to anything?

OK, now you're not even trying to communicate effectively. Why even bother writing anything?

Evidence is evidence to one who see's it as evidence.

Yes, this was your original claim that I contradicted, and you agreed with the contradiction. So, which is it? Do you again make the above claim or do you agree that it's not true? (Hint: it's not true, whether or not you think it is) As I said, evidence is evidence, regardless of what someone believes.

One thing I learned to do before pointing out others inconsistencies was to learn my own.

You get a far better understanding of hypocritic battles when you realize you are one yourself.

As I said, I guess I never really expected anything other than a dodge. I hope your comment impresses someone who reads it, or else it'll be completely useless.

Actually it can, your clearly trying to accuse me of having an education.

Sure I use things I hear from my teacher, but not because they sound cool or have a "deep" meaning, rather because these meanings come from an intelligent voice that gets paid to sit around and think about it, and then educate others on it.

Not only that, I use what I learn from here on these forums.

Look, the argument "I know you are, but what am I" wasn't very effective in 3rd grade, and it's even less so here. That fact is you're the one using deepities to avoid actually responding to comments.

I argued one point, you brought the burden of an army to fight something that doesn't exist.

Clearly, you do not understand.

Saying I don't understand only makes you feel better, or at least I hope it does. If you want to make a claim, it's best to support it. You're not supporting this claim or any of your others. You have made arguments, and I have refuted them. I'm not the one misunderstanding anything.

Clearly, how do you expect to debate against something you do not know?

It would be best for you to ask yourself that question. I wouldn't know the answer, since I'm not doing that. You have made it clear you don't know about atheism and yet you're trying to debate it.

You know nothing.

It is all complete relevance, thus wise it wouldn't of been brought up.

So, now we've gone from "I know you are, but what am I" to "Nuh uh!". The comments you made are meaningless and irrelevant. You brought them up either to avoid actually responding to my comments or because you mistakenly thought that what you were saying was somehow relevant and meaningful.

Your right,I merely stated that atheism is a belief, even if it leads those who belief it to blind themselves with hypocritical self deceit.

All possible conversation escaped when you tried.

Yes, you stated that atheism is a belief, and then I explained to you the fact that it is not simply a belief, that it can include a belief, but at its core, it's just a lack of belief.

Look, the fact is you have some kind of bias against atheism, and you have misconceptions about it. I'm trying to clear up those misconceptions and dispel that bias (including this notion that atheism leads people to blind themselves with hypocritical self-deceit), but you're being uncooperative. So, you might want to look to yourself when talking about "blinding oneself".

 

[Alceste]

OK, mball. You're pretty much right, but I suppose I can swing from pantheism to atheism when it suits me, at least in a philosophical sense. Therefore I'm not going to bother arguing that the universe is not god. I am a pragmatist. . Also, there is a kind of non-dualistic POV that emerges from certain meditation and being a psychonaut. "True" and "False" begins to feel like the least useful of distinctions.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, mball. You're pretty much right, but I suppose I can swing from pantheism to atheism when it suits me, at least in a philosophical sense. Therefore I'm not going to bother arguing that the universe is not god. I am a pragmatist. . Also, there is a kind of non-dualistic POV that emerges from certain meditation and being a psychonaut. "True" and "False" begins to feel like the least useful of distinctions.

Well, as Dawkins says, pantheism is just sexed-up atheism. :flirt: