Fundamentalist Atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you don't need any reasons to not be convinced of something?

So, I can reject evolution, and need not justify my position, simply because I have not been convinced?

Personally, I think you need reasons for why you reject evidence presented. Rejection is an action. It's a position. It's taking a stance about something.

Merely failing to accept a position is not the same thing as rejecting it.

Who decides that the burden of proof has or hasn't been met? Who decides that there is an absence of convincing arguments?

There is no impartial moderator.

What is stopping my a-heliocentrist from saying "Heliocentrists have not met their burden of proof, therefore, I need not justify my position."?

First off: is this "a-heliocentrist" a geocentrist?

Seeing how there's an entire branch of philosophy - epistemology - devoted to answering the sorts of questions you're asking, I don't think I'll be able to sum all of it up in a quick answer in one post.

I can give one test of a burden of proof that I do think is reasonable, though: if the bar of acceptance is set so low that mutually exclusive claims all clear it, then the bar is demonstrably too low. In the case of theistic claims, this means that if, for instance, a Christian is trying to convince me that Yahweh exists and Vishnu does not, but the evidence for his case is no stronger than the evidence for the case that Vishnu does exist, then I can be satisfied that the Christian has not met his burden of proof.

 

[Uberpod]

You might not have many friends if you make that assertion haphazardly. It's like the Mormon/JW thing. Are Mormons and JWs Christians or non-Christians? Well it depends on one's point of view. It's political.

That's interesting - because I despise Christians who claim other Christians are not really Christians. I do not claim that self-described agnostics are not agnostics, I just say that they are also atheists for the time being. So, I do not take anything away from them I guess.

Same with agnostics and atheists. The words don't have a set meaning all by themselves. They're just labels. Use them carefully if you want to make friends.

I am not sure that making friends is what I am going for anyway.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's interesting - because I despise Christians who claim other Christians are not really Christians.

Yeah, me too. And I'm the same with those who try to correct atheists or agnostics in their self-labelings.

I am not sure that making friends is what I am going for anyway.

Just giving you a head's-up. Take it or leave it.

 

[Falvlun]

Merely failing to accept a position is not the same thing as rejecting it.

Sure, but what you were describing was not "merely failing to accept a position".

You stated:

All the defense they need is "I have not been convinced by any of the arguments or evidence for theism that I have encountered."

In such a scenario, you are failing to accept a position because you have not been convinced by the arguments.

You yourself used "reject" to describe what was going on, hence why I picked up the word:

An atheist can speak intelligently about why they reject various arguments for theism, but in the absence of convincing arguments for theism, there is absolutely no need for him to justify his atheism in its own right.

First off: is this "a-heliocentrist" a geocentrist?

No. He just doesn't accept the arguments for heliocentrism because they failed to convince him.

Seeing how there's an entire branch of philosophy - epistemology - devoted to answering the sorts of questions you're asking, I don't think I'll be able to sum all of it up in a quick answer in one post.

I can give one test of a burden of proof that I do think is reasonable, though: if the bar of acceptance is set so low that mutually exclusive claims all clear it, then the bar is demonstrably too low. In the case of theistic claims, this means that if, for instance, a Christian is trying to convince me that Yahweh exists and Vishnu does not, but the evidence for his case is no stronger than the evidence for the case that Vishnu does exist, then I can be satisfied that the Christian has not met his burden of proof.

The example you gave me demonstrates that you must have reasons for claiming that burden of proof hasn't been met.

So... you don't need to justify rejection of theist evidence because burden of proof hasn't been met... but you do need to justify the claim that burden of proof hasn't been met. Which, I suspect, boils down to justifying why you reject theistic evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not buying the word games.
To be an atheist...you need the declaration....'no God'.

The reason why there is such a discrepancy between what many atheists feel "atheism" is and what many theist feel "atheism" is may be a difference in values.

I don't mean in morality or anything but this is my current pet theory. An atheist does not put any value on "god" so the "rejection" of god isn't usually a factor in their minds. It is not important to us that we have somehow offended some being of some kind. So we are more preoccupied with what it means to us, which is living our lives in a secular way usually based in logic, reason or whatever floats the boat of any particular atheist.

To us someone who has never even heard of "god" would be much the same. We would both utilize secular morality and have to have real world justifications for our actions and we are interested in looking at natrualistic answers to the world rather than something supernatural or at the very least a non-theistic answer. So to me someone who has rejected the concept of god based on lack of evidence and someone who has never considered the proposition would be very much the same.


However you and many other theists are hung up on this idea that we are "rejecting" god. We have seen your god, who in your mind exists, and we have rejected his existence. We are committing the worst possible sin of blasphemy. Someone who has never heard of the concept is still innocent in your mind. They are just a theist in the waiting.

So to sum it up I and others who view atheism as a "lack of belief" see atheism as living life without a god concept or belief in god concept while you and others who feel differently about the definition of atheist, view it as people who have rejected some universal truth. I am focused on what I am in regards to belief. You are focused on the fact I do not believe as you despite hearing your pleas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, but what you were describing was not "merely failing to accept a position".

You stated:

In such a scenario, you are failing to accept a position because you have not been convinced by the arguments.

You yourself used "reject" to describe what was going on, hence why I picked up the word:


No. He just doesn't accept the arguments for heliocentrism because they failed to convince him.

There's a difference between rejecting an argument for a position and rejecting the position itself.

The example you gave me demonstrates that you must have reasons for claiming that burden of proof hasn't been met.

So... you don't need to justify rejection of theist evidence because burden of proof hasn't been met... but you do need to justify the claim that burden of proof hasn't been met. Which, I suspect, boils down to justifying why you reject theistic evidence.

Sure, and my reasons vary depending on which argument or piece of evidence we're talking about.

I should say, though, that the question of where the bar for the burden of proof should be has its own burden of proof. It can be reasonable not to accept an argument until it's been demonstrated that the person ought to accept it.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Wow, we still debating what the word Atheist means?

I have seen many atheists in my day who believe that Atheism is the default position in life.
Frankly, that is absurd.
Belief in Deities came first, and Atheism followed suit.
There had to be a belief in Deities, before the non belief of such could happen.
Ignorance to the "knowledge" of Deities, is not a lack of belief in them existing.
It is not the same thing. :sarcastic

People are leaving out the word "existing", so that they can have a somewhat strong argument.
However, the argument fails, because it is not a lack of belief in Deities.
It is a lack of belief in Deities existing.

No offence, but why is it no matter where you go on the web, "atheism" is being redefined, just to win arguments?
It is a lack of belief in Deities existing, period.

Redefining Atheism, is the same tactic used to claim that Theists are also Atheist because we don't believe in other Gods such as Thor.
That sort of nonsense was asserted by Richard Dawkins, a man with a relatively high education, trying to dumb down atheism to that level. :clap

Ridiculous waste of human effort by being intellectually dishonest.

The lack of knowledge in anything, is the default position, if anything and it carries no title.
Atheism, is not defined as a lack of knowledge in the word Deity.
Atheism is defined as a lack of believe that Deities exist. :yes:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Wow, we still debating what the word Atheist means?

I have seen many atheists in my day who believe that Atheism is the default position in life.
Frankly, that is absurd.
Belief in Deities came first, and Atheism followed suit.
There had to be a belief in Deities, before the non belief of such could happen.
Ignorance to the "knowledge" of Deities, is not a lack of belief in them existing.
It is not the same thing. :sarcastic

People are leaving out the word "existing", so that they can have a somewhat strong argument.
However, the argument fails, because it is not a lack of belief in Deities.
It is a lack of belief in Deities existing.

No offence, but why is it no matter where you go on the web, "atheism" is being redefined, just to win arguments?
It is a lack of belief in Deities existing, period.

Redefining Atheism, is the same tactic used to claim that Theists are also Atheist because we don't believe in other Gods such as Thor.
That sort of nonsense was asserted by Richard Dawkins, a man with a relatively high education, trying to dumb down atheism to that level. :clap

Ridiculous waste of human effort by being intellectually dishonest.

If anything, the lack of knowledge in anything, is the default position.
Atheism, is not defined as a lack of knowledge in the word Deity.
Atheism is defined as the lack of believe in Deities existing. :yes:

That's pretty funny. You decry all the argument over the definition of 'atheism' and then spend the rest of your message arguing for your favorite definition of 'atheism'.

Pretty curious.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wow, we still debating what the word Atheist means?

I know, I know.



It does frustrate me, to be honest. It really doesn't matter all that much, and yet people get so wound up about something that really shouldn't be that important.

I have seen many atheists in my day who believe that Atheism is the default position in life.
Frankly, that is absurd.
Belief in Deities came first, and Atheism followed suit.
There had to be a belief in Deities, before the non belief of such could happen.
Ignorance to the "knowledge" of Deities, is not a lack of belief in them existing.
It is not the same thing. :sarcastic

Well, firstly, this cannot possibly be true unless you want to assert that people, ever since they developed the capacity to believe in deities, always believed in deities. Surely a lack of belief in a given thing always precedes a belief, and therefore atheism preceded theism.

Secondly, the "default position" argument is really to do with a principle in science called "the null hypothesis" which states that the default position with regards to any claim is not to believe it until it is demonstrated to be true. With regards to the claim of the existence of a God or Gods, then null hypothesis position is "I don't believe there is one". This does not make the null hypothesis or default position correct, it just makes the position that is yet to carry a burden of proof, because it is not making a claim.

People are leaving out the word "existing", so that they can have a somewhat strong argument.
However, the argument fails, because it is not a lack of belief in Deities.
It is a lack of belief in Deities existing.

In common parlance, those two statements mean the exact same thing. When I say "I don't believe in Father Christmas", I am in fact stating "I don't believe Father Christmas exists".

No offence, but why is it no matter where you go on the web, "atheism" is being redefined, just to win arguments?
It is a lack of belief in Deities existing, period.

The first part, I disagree. Atheism isn't being redefined, its definition is actually being used.

The second part, I agree with.

Redefining Atheism, is the same tactic used to claim that Theists are also Atheist because we don't believe in other Gods such as Thor.
That sort of nonsense was asserted by Richard Dawkins, a man with a relatively high education, trying to dumb down atheism to that level. :clap

Ridiculous waste of human effort by being intellectually dishonest.

What is intellectually dishonest about using a word by its actual definition?

If anything, the lack of knowledge in anything, is the default position.
Atheism, is not defined as a lack of knowledge in the word Deity.
Atheism is defined as the lack of believe in Deities existing. :yes:

... Which is the default position.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

The main point is that lack of knowledge in the word "deity" and the non belief them existing is not the same thing and it follows that atheism is not the default position and requires a stance.

As for it being my "favorite" definition, that is ridiculous, it is the position every single atheist possess.
I have never ever heard an Atheist say "Deity" whats that? never heard of such a word.
:yes:


Redefining Atheism, is the same tactic used to claim that Theists are also Atheist because we don't believe in other Gods such as Thor.
That sort of nonsense was asserted by Richard Dawkins, a man with a relatively high education, trying to dumb down atheism to that level.

Ridiculous waste of human effort by being intellectually dishonest.

What is intellectually dishonest about using a word by its actual definition?

Atheism is the lack of belief in ALL Deities, not "one God more"

Using that sort of logic;
Might as well claim all animals including human beings are vegans, if there is even one meat we wont eat, such as I feel eating pets is wrong, so I don't eat cats or dogs.
So by the same logic Dawkins suggests, not eating cats/dogs makes me a Vegan

 

[yoda89]

Wow, we still debating what the word Atheist means?

I have seen many atheists in my day who believe that Atheism is the default position in life.
Frankly, that is absurd.
Belief in Deities came first, and Atheism followed suit.
There had to be a belief in Deities, before the non belief of such could happen.
Ignorance to the "knowledge" of Deities, is not a lack of belief in them existing.
It is not the same thing. :sarcastic

Have we always believed in God/s then? If so what evidence is there? Why must they be taught?

People are leaving out the word "existing", so that they can have a somewhat strong argument.
However, the argument fails, because it is not a lack of belief in Deities.
It is a lack of belief in Deities existing.

You could make the argument that I don't believe in Santa. You could say I am against believing in Santa. But Santa has not be proven. Neither has God/s. So how can you lack belief in something that isn't even proven. You can imagine Santa.

The problem is tangibility. You can say well I believe in Santa. Since I believe in Santa you don't believe in Santa. I never believed in Santa. So how can I disbelieve in Santa.

Redefining Atheism, is the same tactic used to claim that Theists are also Atheist because we don't believe in other Gods such as Thor.
That sort of nonsense was asserted by Richard Dawkins, a man with a relatively high education, trying to dumb down atheism to that level. :clap

You really seem to have a thing for Thor. I like the Stargate Thor the best personally.

Ridiculous waste of human effort by being intellectually dishonest.

The lack of knowledge in anything, is the default position, if anything and it carries no title.
Atheism, is not defined as a lack of knowledge in the word Deity.
Atheism is defined as a lack of believe that Deities exist. :yes:

I lack belief in that Deities exist. That doesn't mean there is not the possibility of them actually existing. I do not however see the need to believe in such religions when I have studied them. Especially when such bold claims are made without any knowledge. Knowledge meaning proof.

There is no knowledge of such God/s. There is belief. Without knowledge how can there possibly be disbelief.

You could also say I don't believe in Aliens because I have not seen one. Which God/s would be if it/she/he/them were not human. You can imagine aliens.

You can define it as you wish. To me meh. But when one says that atheist only exist because of theism its seems a tad backwards. That's what I mean when I say we inherently atheistic. Unless you can prove me wrong. Which you can if you give evidence that we have always know about deities.

 

[yoda89]

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The main point is that lack of knowledge in the word "deity" and the non belief them existing is not the same thing and it follows that atheism is not the default position and requires a stance.

I'm sorry. I really have trouble following your meaning. I don't know what you're saying. Could you rephrase?

As for it being my "favorite" definition, that is ridiculous, it is the position every single atheist possess.
I have never ever heard an Atheist say "Deity" whats that? never heard of such a word.
:yes:

Really I don't know what you're talking about. There is, of course, no such thing as an atheist. Would you like me to explain that to you?

Redefining Atheism, is the same tactic used to claim that Theists are also Atheist because we don't believe in other Gods such as Thor.

Redefining atheism. Goodness. As if there is some definition of atheism somewhere out there and people are trying to pervert it.

You know, sometimes it's a good thing to simply listen to people -- people who label themselves as atheists, for example -- rather than trying to instruct everyone as to the 'real' definition of words.

Atheism is the lack of belief in ALL Deities, not "one God more"

Really? What's a deity? Can you define that term for me?

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Round and round we go, where we stop, no-one knows.

Really? What's a deity? Can you define that term for me?

Ok then, good luck with that

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Wow, we still debating what the word Atheist means?

I have seen many atheists in my day who believe that Atheism is the default position in life.
Frankly, that is absurd.
Belief in Deities came first, and Atheism followed suit.
There had to be a belief in Deities, before the non belief of such could happen.
Ignorance to the "knowledge" of Deities, is not a lack of belief in them existing.
It is not the same thing. :sarcastic

People are leaving out the word "existing", so that they can have a somewhat strong argument.
However, the argument fails, because it is not a lack of belief in Deities.
It is a lack of belief in Deities existing.

No offence, but why is it no matter where you go on the web, "atheism" is being redefined, just to win arguments?
It is a lack of belief in Deities existing, period.

Redefining Atheism, is the same tactic used to claim that Theists are also Atheist because we don't believe in other Gods such as Thor.
That sort of nonsense was asserted by Richard Dawkins, a man with a relatively high education, trying to dumb down atheism to that level. :clap

Ridiculous waste of human effort by being intellectually dishonest.

The lack of knowledge in anything, is the default position, if anything and it carries no title.
Atheism, is not defined as a lack of knowledge in the word Deity.
Atheism is defined as a lack of believe that Deities exist. :yes:

If I did not have a chair. Would I not be lacking a chair? Would it ever matter if I had a chair prior or not? Reguardless of my history with chairs, my knowledge on them, my ownership, usage, ect. If I do not currently have a chair. I am "lacking" a chair.

Now lets replace chair with "belief in god".

 

[IHaveTheGift]

If I did not have a chair. Would I not be lacking a chair? Would it ever matter if I had a chair prior or not? Reguardless of my history with chairs, my knowledge on them, my ownership, usage, ect. If I do not currently have a chair. I am "lacking" a chair.

Now lets replace chair with "belief in god".

So how does "lacking a chair" become "lacking the belief in the existence of chairs"?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So how does "lacking a chair" become "lacking the belief in the existence of chairs"?

Because we are identifying a factor. What do you have vs what you don't have. Obviously a belief does not equate to a physical object but for the purposes of the debate in "lacking belief" it works quite well.

You have boldly stated that I cannot "lack" a belief I never held in the first place. Why? This doesn't make any sense to me. So I created the chair example. If I have never had a chair do I still not lack a chair? Same for beliefs.

 

[Thief]

I agree.

People who have never considered the subject, either out of ignorance or out of apathy, would indicate a passive lack of acceptance.

I don't agree.
Apathy is not a stance.

People that simply don't care simply don't.
They won't get off the fence....they don't even know where the fence is....
and they don't care.

Acceptance would be a line drawn.
Unfair to say they have chosen a side of the fence.

I still contend....the declaration is required.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't agree.
Apathy is not a stance.

People that simply don't care simply don't.
They won't get off the fence....they don't even know where the fence is....
and they don't care.

Acceptance would be a line drawn.
Unfair to say they have chosen a side of the fence.

I still contend....the declaration is required.

Dunno if you saw the reply I made to you in another thread (or was it this one...i'll have to check) about my pet theory as to why we disagree so heavily on this?

You are caught up in the act of rejecting rather than the reality of the position.

 

[Thief]

Dunno if you saw the reply I made to you in another thread (or was it this one...i'll have to check) about my pet theory as to why we disagree so heavily on this?

You are caught up in the act of rejecting rather than the reality of the position.

Maybe that's because I believe in heaven guarded by the angelic.
They've been displayed with sword in hand for centuries.

Sword in hand and lines drawn in the sand.
You know the practice?

If drawn, and they move away.....don't cross the line.

I don't believe apathy is allowed follow.