Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[TheGunShoj]

But that can't be the methodology for refutation. It makes no sense. It really means, that people aren't ''atheists'', they are agnostic aspirants, at best, labeling themselves as ''atheists'' for whatever reason.

It's a tricky concept. Atheism necessarily has to be dependent on the specific god claim being made. If you had a stapler and you said that the stapler was your god, I could not in good conscience state that I was an atheist in regards to that "god" because I obviously believe that the stapler exists, I just don't think that labeling it a god is a good idea. To me, atheism is more of a general statement about the majority of god claims that I have heard, but when discussing a specific god it can become more refined.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then why are you asking people to convince you that your beliefs are wrong? What other means would they have other than to refute a model that you put forth? Which (and i could be mistaken because I just came into this thread and didn't read all the way through) you haven't provided yet. That's what I found humorous. People were responding saying "Can you prove that this thing with these characteristics doesnt exist?" So the people who were trying to show you how absurd your request was actually provided better models to refute on accident. ha!

no, I believe that you have not examined your own reasoning, here. What 'specific' details concerning religious beliefs, are going to be relevant in the question of theism/atheism. This is the problem with these speciific type arguments in the first place. /Think about it, if that were the way to argue for an atheistic stance, then almost no one would be a theist. We know that this is not a practical method for arguing for atheism.

///which, when the subject is theism/atheism, the OP is necessarily about. (theism)
Hence, the atheism position is trying to make it's problem, that one of the theism stance.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's a tricky concept. Atheism necessarily has to be dependent on the specific god claim being made. If you had a stapler and you said that the stapler was your god, I could not in good conscience state that I was an atheist in regards to that "god" because I obviously believe that the stapler exists, I just don't think that labeling it a god is a good idea. To me, atheism is more of a general statement about the majority of god claims that I have heard, but when discussing a specific god it can become more refined.

Yes, in this thread /I believe/?/ I did state, theism would not refer to ''object'' deity or deities. This also applies to idols which might not be considered sentient.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Because as so many people have already stated it is too broad a subject to try to refute on it's own without knowing specifically what type of deity we are attempting to disprove. They are all different, thus different arguments would be relevant to some discussions but not others depending on the deity. See the problem? Theism is much too vague to even know where to begin building an argument.

 

[Iti oj]

But that can't be the methodology for refutation. It makes no sense. It really means, that people aren't ''atheists'', they are agnostic aspirants, at best, labeling themselves as ''atheists'' for whatever reason.

I've already explained to you that we see no reason for believing in gods and at least I see reasons for disbelieving in ones people make claims for and about.

 

[Desert Snake]

Because as so many people have already stated it is too broad a subject to try to refute on it's own without knowing specifically what type of deity we are attempting to disprove. They are all different, thus different arguments would be relevant to some discussions but not others depending on the deity. See the problem? Theism is much too vague to even know where to begin building an argument.

Ah, then why/how the stance of atheism? Atheism then becomes completely conditional, on arguments, which is not really a stance. It's just a circumstance of the subject. So, likewise, if someone describes their deity or religion, I might agree/disagree, , however my stance would not be ''atheist'', until agreeing with the person, it would be a non-position. Atheism presumes that the person is going to disagree with the theist ,in the first place, hence the unnecessary or actually, redundant, specific, arguments. Where people goof this idea, is equating ''atheism'', with a non-position, which it isn't. Atheism has a quality, a position; someone who simply isn't decided, is not an atheist.
/0>[undecided]<1/ =undecided. It is neither atheistic, or theistic.

 

[Desert Snake]

I've already explained to you that we see no reason for believing in gods and at least I see reasons for disbelieving in ones people make claims for and about.

Great, so why not present arguments in that position. You seem to to want to refute the OP stance, which is not refuting many other stances, what's the point. Most theists disagree with many other theists /other religions/, as well.

 

[dust1n]

What i find amusing is that the folks who are responding to the OP like you did here are actually giving more criteria to refute than the OP did

This thread is still going? Sheesh..

 

[Iti oj]

no, I believe that you have not examined your own reasoning, here. What 'specific' details concerning religious beliefs, are going to be relevant in the question of theism/atheism. T

often religions are the source of belief and claims abut god/s. in those situations thy go hand in hand. if Christianity is false so is the christian god.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Ah, then why/how the stance of atheism? Atheism then becomes completely conditional, on arguments, which is not really a stance. It's just a circumstance of the subject..

That's like stating "you can't say you don't have an orange, if you don't state EVERY POSSIBLE color shade an orange could be painted and state explicitly that the orange you have isn't that color, first!!! So you have an orange!!1!11!"
No, it's not contingent in any way on theism, other that the existence of theism, and the lack of theism.
Atheism in general is simply the lack of having theistic beliefs.
If you want your argument to be anywhere near the realm of non-laughable, please, in return, state every political belief that you don't have, to show us how it's done.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

This thread is still going? Sheesh..

Apparently, a goalpost CAN be moved as far back as one wants to, it seems.

 

[Iti oj]

Great, so why not present arguments in that position. You seem to to want to refute the OP stance, which is not refuting many other stances, what's the point. Most theists disagree with many other theists /other religions/, as well.

.... really... your not understanding ... without a reason to believe in god or gods then there is no reason to believe in them. All reason to believe in gods stem from claims made by my fellow humans, and that is why we need to talk about those specific claims, there reasons and evidence, as well as there refutations.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Ah, then why/how the stance of atheism? Atheism then becomes completely conditional, on arguments, which is not really a stance. It's just a circumstance of the subject. So, likewise, if someone describes their deity or religion, I might agree/disagree, , however my stance would not be ''atheist'', until agreeing with the person, it would be a non-position. Atheism presumes that the person is going to disagree with the theist ,in the first place, hence the unnecessary or actually, redundant, specific, arguments. Where people goof this idea, is equating ''atheism'', with a non-position, which it isn't. Atheism has a quality, a position; someone who simply isn't decided, is not an atheist.
/0>[undecided]<1/ =undecided. It is neither atheistic, or theistic.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
   
   In general, I don't believe in any gods. However I provided an exception where someone stated that their stapler is their god. It may be a semantics game but i would have to say that I believe in their "god" because I recognize that the stapler does in fact exist. However I still do not believe that the stapler is a deity.
   
   Let me put it this way. I have not been provided with any theistic arguments for a god that have convinced me that said god exists. Therefor, yes it is presumed that I will not be convinced by the next one because i've heard A LOT already and have yet to be convinced. But I could be wrong...

 

[TheGunShoj]

I don't have to present anything as way of position on deity or deities, if you already have a stance of atheism. You seem to be stuck on the idea that you have to refute my specific beliefs, as opposed to just explaining your reasoning, for holding the atheistic position ., ie the Thread topic.

You have it backwards. I have the stance of atheism because I have been provided with specific concepts of deities, all of which (so far) I have rejected. Without knowing what your beliefs are I cannot determine whether or not my atheism would persist after I heard them. If you provided some and they convinced me then I would no longer be an atheist, would I?

 

[TheGunShoj]

Great, so your position is that you cannot present an argument for atheism; I don't know why you went through all this argumentation, instead of just stating that.

ie the op asks you to present a position: you don't have that position.

theoretical response to op: I don't hold that position./etc

I can provide an argument for atheism if I know which deity you believe in but you refuse to provide that information. It's already been said countless times in the few pages of the thread that I read that your OP is flawed yet you choose not to correct it.

The position is that I don't believe in any deities. That's for various reasons, depending on the specific deity in question at the time.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Very much like your "present arguments for atheism" thread, I might add. It's almost the exact same debacle.

 

[TheGunShoj]

There is no correction needed, if explicit atheism actually exists. /declarative atheism/

Does explicit atheism exist, in your opinion?

Explicit or declarative atheism would not, //actually it could not/, be conditional on specific deity ideas.

Please define explicit atheism.

 

[TheGunShoj]

That would be declarative, ie ''there are no deities''. This statement cannot be made, if the position of ''atheism'', is conditional. //or is a position in the manner by which you are describing, which actually, is not really a position at all, since it is purely conditional.

Why not? People are free to change their minds. People can be wrong. I could make that statement right now based on all models of deities I have encountered and rejected and then discover a new one tomorrow which changes my mind, and be perfectly honest in the process.

 

[TheGunShoj]

//or is a position in the manner by which you are describing, which actually, is not really a position at all, since it is purely conditional.

So a position that is conditional is not a position? Is your position not dependent on a god existing? Therefor that condition must be met for it to be true. So theism is not a position? Makes sense.

 

[TheGunShoj]

That isn't relevant to what I wrote.

How is it not? I am making the statement "There are no deities" yet i haven't encountered all possible models of deities so I could be wrong, couldn't I? so if I discover a new deity tomorrow and am convinced that it is real, my position was both conditional and I made the statement of disbelief honestly. I was simply incorrect when i made the statement. How is that not relevant?